10-03-2014, 03:15 PM
Steven wrote:
As to the monetary issue, as I stated it is too contentious and no academic has gotten to the bottom of it to fully understand it. The Romans could have had a system of credit money
Notice I never wrote earlier that Romans didn't have currencies or a method of tallying wealth. But aes rude aren't coins, they are ingots or just chunks of bronze with no standard measurement. They sure aren't the as coins. Like I wrote in my earlier post, the manner in which Livy and Dionysius both describe the currency used in the Servian Constitution is WRONG. The currency types used then were not asses, minae, or drachma, those are anachronistic terms.
Steven wrote:
As to the sword, it is flippant what he calls it. All I know is he is talking about a sword and that is fine by me.
As for the Spanish Sword, while some might not care a fig over the anachronistic use of such a description, I find it pretty good evidence of another quick and easy demonstration that Livy uses anachronistic concepts. While a sword might just be a sword to some people, regardless of the historical meaning of it, then a legion might just be a legion, a cohort a cohort, and other fine details can likewise be ignored. I guess its totally cool to describe Napoleon's infantry carrying AK-47s, because its flippant what to call those things that go bang.
Let's think this through logically; if the initial claim is that Livy never uses anachronistic concepts, and then he is proven to have used them, doesn't that mean Livy's writing is anachronistic? If 2+2=5, then I guess Steven is right.
Stevne wrote:
No, it doesn’t prove anything, well to me nothing. It can also be interpreted that the soldiers are dismissed, and then they go to the state armoury, are issued their kit according to the wealth and age, then on the report date turn up.
For that to be possible, it first would mean completely ignoring the previous line that deals with Polybius stating that after the first day of the Dilectus, the men are dismissed and told specifically NOT to bring arms for the next day. Now take note, this is before they are even put into their classes, so a man wouldn't 100% know what class type he would fall into. Would he serve with the Principe? The Triari? As a cavalryman? Makes sense not to bring arms in that case. But to bring them, they must have already possessed them, meaning the state hadn't issued them.
Next, you are describing something that would never be quick and easy. First, this is supposed to have happened all in one day (in the winter, meaning shorter daylight hours), after the time necessary to take nearly 5,000 men, organize them individually into infantry/cavalry classes and then put them into organized subunits under actual leaders. What you're describing is an extremely complex procedure. If you've ever worked with large groups of people, you'd know this is NOT an easy task. Let's do the math on this:
Let's say it only took 30 seconds for one individual to be issued his equipment (which is EXTREMELY conservative, if not impossible). If one line existed to issue equipment, it would mean 5,000 men would take 150,000 seconds, or 2,500 minutes, or 41.6 hours to get issued equipment. So if ten lines were made, which would require a massive structure and logistical support in the form of slaves, that would mean it could be done in a little over 4 hours. And this is after spending the whole day herding 5,000 men into soldier classes and into maniples/turma. All during the winter season, where daylight is 9-10 modern hours long, in a time where all public functions cease after dark. Now make believe that each individual takes one whole minute to gather their equipment. That means a single line will take 81 hours and ten lines would take 8 hours. If legions were armed by the state, it wasn't happening in one day.
Further, the quick mass issuing of equipment like you describe would entail huge warehouse somewhere in a secured area, which from what I know, didn't exist at this time. It would have to be absolutely massive to contain the arms necessary to equip the 8-10 legions that were on average fielded yearly during much of the Middle Republic (P. Brunt). That means large enough facilities or multiple separate armories to contain the panoply necessary for 40,000-125,000 soldiers in any given year. We know certain temples in Rome had collections of captured arms taken as spoils in previous wars and that these were sometimes used to arm scratch forces during emergencies but enough to equip every Roman? Not in this time period, that capacity didn't exist. And what about the hundreds, if not thousands of state owned slaves or bureaucrats, that would be necessary to run these warehouses and to assist the minimum 20,000 men in the consular legions (not counting the praetorian armies also raised) that would need arms issued yearly? Did Rome possess the bureaucratic structure that would be necessary to care for, account for, and issue this large amount of equipment? Nope.
In sum, your assertions have a few obvious problems. One is that you completely ignored the first piece of evidence from Polybius that stated the men were told to report and NOT bring arms, meaning they already possessed them at a time when their military class distinction hadn't been confirmed. That alone is evidence that your theory has holes in it. Second is that it appears you were never in any situation in real life to experience the complexities of large groups of people getting issued equipment of any kind or being organized into a cohesive force, because if you had you would know its not something you can do quickly or easily, and would thus alter your theory. Third, I already know that these few measly points aren't enough evidence to change your mind, as enough evidence doesn't exist to ever do that. Got to give it the ol' college try though.
As to the monetary issue, as I stated it is too contentious and no academic has gotten to the bottom of it to fully understand it. The Romans could have had a system of credit money
Notice I never wrote earlier that Romans didn't have currencies or a method of tallying wealth. But aes rude aren't coins, they are ingots or just chunks of bronze with no standard measurement. They sure aren't the as coins. Like I wrote in my earlier post, the manner in which Livy and Dionysius both describe the currency used in the Servian Constitution is WRONG. The currency types used then were not asses, minae, or drachma, those are anachronistic terms.
Steven wrote:
As to the sword, it is flippant what he calls it. All I know is he is talking about a sword and that is fine by me.
As for the Spanish Sword, while some might not care a fig over the anachronistic use of such a description, I find it pretty good evidence of another quick and easy demonstration that Livy uses anachronistic concepts. While a sword might just be a sword to some people, regardless of the historical meaning of it, then a legion might just be a legion, a cohort a cohort, and other fine details can likewise be ignored. I guess its totally cool to describe Napoleon's infantry carrying AK-47s, because its flippant what to call those things that go bang.
Let's think this through logically; if the initial claim is that Livy never uses anachronistic concepts, and then he is proven to have used them, doesn't that mean Livy's writing is anachronistic? If 2+2=5, then I guess Steven is right.
Stevne wrote:
No, it doesn’t prove anything, well to me nothing. It can also be interpreted that the soldiers are dismissed, and then they go to the state armoury, are issued their kit according to the wealth and age, then on the report date turn up.
For that to be possible, it first would mean completely ignoring the previous line that deals with Polybius stating that after the first day of the Dilectus, the men are dismissed and told specifically NOT to bring arms for the next day. Now take note, this is before they are even put into their classes, so a man wouldn't 100% know what class type he would fall into. Would he serve with the Principe? The Triari? As a cavalryman? Makes sense not to bring arms in that case. But to bring them, they must have already possessed them, meaning the state hadn't issued them.
Next, you are describing something that would never be quick and easy. First, this is supposed to have happened all in one day (in the winter, meaning shorter daylight hours), after the time necessary to take nearly 5,000 men, organize them individually into infantry/cavalry classes and then put them into organized subunits under actual leaders. What you're describing is an extremely complex procedure. If you've ever worked with large groups of people, you'd know this is NOT an easy task. Let's do the math on this:
Let's say it only took 30 seconds for one individual to be issued his equipment (which is EXTREMELY conservative, if not impossible). If one line existed to issue equipment, it would mean 5,000 men would take 150,000 seconds, or 2,500 minutes, or 41.6 hours to get issued equipment. So if ten lines were made, which would require a massive structure and logistical support in the form of slaves, that would mean it could be done in a little over 4 hours. And this is after spending the whole day herding 5,000 men into soldier classes and into maniples/turma. All during the winter season, where daylight is 9-10 modern hours long, in a time where all public functions cease after dark. Now make believe that each individual takes one whole minute to gather their equipment. That means a single line will take 81 hours and ten lines would take 8 hours. If legions were armed by the state, it wasn't happening in one day.
Further, the quick mass issuing of equipment like you describe would entail huge warehouse somewhere in a secured area, which from what I know, didn't exist at this time. It would have to be absolutely massive to contain the arms necessary to equip the 8-10 legions that were on average fielded yearly during much of the Middle Republic (P. Brunt). That means large enough facilities or multiple separate armories to contain the panoply necessary for 40,000-125,000 soldiers in any given year. We know certain temples in Rome had collections of captured arms taken as spoils in previous wars and that these were sometimes used to arm scratch forces during emergencies but enough to equip every Roman? Not in this time period, that capacity didn't exist. And what about the hundreds, if not thousands of state owned slaves or bureaucrats, that would be necessary to run these warehouses and to assist the minimum 20,000 men in the consular legions (not counting the praetorian armies also raised) that would need arms issued yearly? Did Rome possess the bureaucratic structure that would be necessary to care for, account for, and issue this large amount of equipment? Nope.
In sum, your assertions have a few obvious problems. One is that you completely ignored the first piece of evidence from Polybius that stated the men were told to report and NOT bring arms, meaning they already possessed them at a time when their military class distinction hadn't been confirmed. That alone is evidence that your theory has holes in it. Second is that it appears you were never in any situation in real life to experience the complexities of large groups of people getting issued equipment of any kind or being organized into a cohesive force, because if you had you would know its not something you can do quickly or easily, and would thus alter your theory. Third, I already know that these few measly points aren't enough evidence to change your mind, as enough evidence doesn't exist to ever do that. Got to give it the ol' college try though.
