The Roman Army of Diocletian

[ValentinianVictrix]

Steven, have you taken note within Ammianus that the Emperor's personal guard cavalry unit was 200 men strong? There is also a reference to a catafract unit being 600 men strong.

I'm interested in your calculations as this may explain several passages within Ammianus where specific numbers of men were taken from each unit for special operations/duties. I've given the example already where either 750 or 1500 men were taken from a legion for special duties, here are several other examples-

'There, taking their place round about on the sheer rocks, they tried to defend their possessions and their dear wives and children, whom they had brought with them, with all the strength that they possessed. After consideration of the difficult situation, five hundred soldiers who were approved by experience as prudent in battle were selected from each legion, to be opposed to obstacles like those of city walls. Their confident spirit was all the greater because the emperor was seen actively engaged in the foremost ranks, and they strove to scale the mountains, expecting that if they should set foot on the higher places, they would at once and without a struggle carry them off, as if they were booty taken in the chase.' Amm XXXI, 10, 12-13.

'At once, as timeliness of the offered opportunity demanded, Sebastianus had been directed to choose three hundred soldiers from each legion and hasten to the spot, to do, as he promised, something advantageous to the state.' Amm XXXI, 11, 2-3.

These figures are not incompatible with the 500 man cohort or even the 600 man cohort.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Great quotes.

And I thought the Candidati were 40 strong?

[Robert Vermaat]

Robert wrote:
I recommend: Nicasie, Martijn (1997): Twilight of Empire, the Roman Army from the Reign of Diocletian until the Battle of Adrianople, (Thesis Publishers Amsterdam). Well you know this because you sent me a question about it already.
Until now I didn’t know about this. And thank you for giving the dates of those references.

I know, it was meant a bit tongue in cheek.
And my pleasure of course.

[Robert Vermaat]

I’ve been compiling the cavalry numbers in Ammianus and Zosimus and this is convincing me that the organisation of the units throughout Ammianus and Zosimus is derived from the organisation of the cavalry as given by Vegetius in regard to the 6000 man legion. Ammianus (24 5 10) has the emperor reduce the surviving members of the cohort, to the infantry service with loss of rank. Here, like the Vegetius legion, each infantry cohort is assigned a body of cavalry. Zosimus mentions a figure of “about 360 men,” which could be rounded from 330 men and is half the number of cavalry taken from Vegetius if you take away the cavalry assigned to the double cohort.

By following, Ammianus, with the army consisting of cohorts, maniples and centuries, I believe this is derived from the 10 cohort organisation and not the 12 cohort organisation.

Am I right that you say that the strength of each cavalry unit during the time of Ammianus is similar as the number of cavalry attached to a legion during the time of Diocletian? And why 'round off' 360 to 330?

And are you referring to the new style turmae or the old style alae which still existed?

The old style alae numbered 500 and seem to have remained that way. On paper at least. On the basis on the Beatty papyri, Duncan Jones calculated that around 300 AD in the Thebaid (Egypt), a unit of equites was 121 strong, an ala 116 and a cohors 164. These may not have been complete units, or else very much understrength.
Nothing much else is known about cavalry unit strengths. The ala III Assyriorum was organized in old-style 11 turmae, giving it a possible strength of 350 (ChLA XVIII 660). Ammianus mentions that the cataphracti defeated at Strasbourg were 600 strong, which is echoed by Johannes Lydus who says that alae were that number, and turmae 300 but also 500 (De Mag. I.46). Ammianus also mentions two turmae at Amida numbering 700 together (XVIII.8.2). Procopius has various sizes, between 200 and 800 strong (800: Bella VI.5.1, VI.7.25-6). Some units are larger, between 1000 and 1500, but it is unclear if these are units grouped together, or maybe allied forces (1500: Bella V.27.22-3 and VII.34.42). Maurikios mentions cavalry units should be between 300 and 400, but in any case not less than 200 and not above 400; if understrength, they should be combined.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

What about the Beatty Papyri? they give figures for II Traiana in Egypt during the reign of Diocletian don't they?

[Nathan Ross]

What about the Beatty Papyri? they give figures for II Traiana in Egypt during the reign of Diocletian don't they?

They do. We discussed this before in this thread, from which I've excerpted the following scraps:

(*edit - just noticed that Robert has already mentioned much of this just above!)

The lanciarii (light infantry) detachment of Legio II Traiana c.AD300 numbers 439 men; there's another vexillation elsewhere of 554 men and a detachment of equites promoti (legion cavalry) of 77 men.

A detachment of legionaries from the new III Diocletiana serving with the governor of the Thebaid numbers 572.

Ala I Hiberorum based at Thmou has only 118 men (or alternatively 439!).

An auxiliary cohort apparently has only 164 men, while a unit of equites sagittarii numbers 121.

(this is all from Richard Duncan-Jones, Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy)

Karl Strobel (in Erdkamp's Companion to the Roman Army) suggests that the home base of II Traiana was probably still Nicopolis. The numbers of the detachments in the Thebaid would therefore be in addition to the remaining force of the legion at base, and since the detachments number over 1000 men the entire legion must have been larger - perhaps 3000 or more.

Another papyrus (Columbia 7.188) dated AD320 has a vexillatio of equites promoti of II Traiana numbering 264 men. Strobel suggests this was around half the cavalry force of the legion, which might therefore have made up a full quingenary ala (which he numbers as 512 horsemen).

[antiochus]

Adrian wrote:
These figures are not incompatible with the 500 man cohort or even the 600 man cohort.

I’ve gone over Ammianus and Zosimus and made a list of all the unit sizes (infantry and cavalry) plus who was in command. The numbers still can be traced back to the organisation of the Vegetius legion. At present I cannot shake it.

Robert wrote:
Am I right that you say that the strength of each cavalry unit during the time of Ammianus is similar as the number of cavalry attached to a legion during the time of Diocletian?

Firstly, I want to state that I am and have been experimenting with the numbers as found in the primary sources. I am not stating my findings are correct or written in stone. I am exploring the possibility of a link between the legion of Vegetius and the numbers found in Ammianus and Zosimus.

Robert wrote:
And why 'round off' 360 to 330?

Zosimus says about 360, so it is short of 360 men. If you remove the double cohort of Vegetius, the number of cavalry left is 660 cavalry, which allocates each infantry cohort 66 cavalry. Vegetius gives a squadron at 33 men, which includes the officers. The figure of about 360 men could equate to 10 squadrons each of 33 men, numbering 330 men, which could be what Zosimus means when he writes about 360. One of the figures for the Theban legion is given at 6660 men, which equates to 6000 infantry and 660 cavalry. I know I have been attacked for using the Theban legion before, but when a source backs up my Pythagorean research, it would be folly of me to waste that source.

Robert wrote:
And are you referring to the new style turmae or the old style alae which still existed? The old style alae numbered 500 and seem to have remained that way.

The Vegetius legion should be accompanied by 660 men organised into 20 squadrons of 33 men. That is the new style. Isidore has 200 squadrons which is a corruption. Figures of 500 cavalry belong to the principate.

Robert wrote:
On the basis on the Beatty papyri, Duncan Jones calculated that around 300 AD in the Thebaid (Egypt), a unit of equites was 121 strong, an ala 116 and a cohors 164. These may not have been complete units, or else very much under strength.

Taking my premise a legion numbers 1200 men organised into 2 cohorts of 600 men, six maniples each of 200 men, and 12 centuries each of 100 men. Also Isidore does state a maniple numbered 200 men. The legion should be accompanied by 132 cavalry organised into 4 squadrons of 33 men.

Robert wrote:
The ala III Assyriorum was organized in old-style 11 turmae, giving it a possible strength of 350 (ChLA XVIII 660).

How about 363 men organised into 11 squadrons?

Robert wrote:
Ammianus mentions that the cataphracti defeated at Strasbourg were 600 strong, which is echoed by Johannes Lydus who says that alae were that number, and turmae 300 but also 500 (De Mag. I.46).

First I believe the 600 cavalry has been rounded down from 660 men (20 squadrons) by omitting the 60 cavalry officers (3 officers per squadron).I believe Johannes Lydus figure of 300 cavalry belongs to the republic, the 500 cavalry to the principate.

Robert wrote:
Ammianus also mentions two turmae at Amida numbering 700 together (XVIII.8.2).

Somewhere I always find a reference in the primary sources that is the icing on the cake. Ammianus says about 700,” so its not quite 700 men, and I believe it is the correct figure of 660 men. Ammianus says two turmae but I am becoming more and more confident the 2 squadrons has been corrupted from 20 squadrons

Robert wrote:
Procopius has various sizes, between 200 and 800 strong (800: Bella VI.5.1, VI.7.25-6). Some units are larger, between 1000 and 1500, but it is unclear if these are units grouped together, or maybe allied forces (1500: Bella V.27.22-3 and VII.34.42).

Can you help me here Robert and give me a time frame? At present I am only working on the time frame of Ammianus and Zosimus. Sorry but that is how I work, small intervals of time. I like to crawl first before I can walk.

Robert wrote:
Maurikios mentions cavalry units should be between 300 and 400, but in any case not less than 200 and not above 400; if understrength, they should be combined.

Maurice is too late for my time frame.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Steven,

First of all I am a bit unsure about how you use the sources. Ammianus is of course a contemporary and even a military man. Zosimus is already writing a good deal later (presumably by the end of the 5th century). Vegetius is used quite indiscriminately even though we know that some of his sources are by no means to be trusted (or else what Vegetius does with them). You say Maurice is too late for you, yet we know that much of what he uses is going back to at least the 4th century or even earlier. Instead you accept the numbers given by Johanes Lydus, even when he supposedly mentions numbers of the Republican army (which is a gap much larger than that between the late Roman army and Maurice). You even use Isidore, who wrote close to Maurice in time, but far removed from the 4th century – even long after the Roman Empire ceased in Spain to exist and totally without any military experience!

Steven, first of all the ‘Vegetian legion’ is still a mirage, nobody knows for sure when it existed or even IF it existed. It may be theoretical, it may be Republican, it may be pre-Diocletianic.. we don’t know. Using it as a solid base for the Late Roman army however in my opinion is incorrect, for we can be fairly surly that this ‘Vegetian legion’ is not the model for Diocletianic or Constantinian legions, neither comitatensan nor limitanei. The Vegetian model is NOT the new style, as is evidenced by plenty of sources. The cavalry was removed from the infantry into independent units. They no longer accompanied the legion’. Nor did maniples exist at least after Constantine as far as I’m aware, at least as the basic organization of the legion, old or new.

Procopius (who accompanied Belisarius on many campaigns) wrote during the mid-6th century, so I’m curious what you make of him.
Frankly, I’m beginning to wonder if you are more interested in sources who happen to name the right number instead of sources who are the most trustworthy. Of course numbers are not written in stone and unfortunately a lot depends on the interpretation of evidence. I read that you prefer “when a source backs up my Pythagorean research, it would be folly of me to waste that source.” Alternatively, there seem to be many sources that do not do so, and these you seem to put less weight on.

Also you take one source (e.g. Isidore) and accept one figure (a maniple with 200 men) but reject another (200 squadrons ‘which is a corruption’) without telling us why one figure is to be trusted and another isn’t. When one is higher you say there are extra officers, when one is lower you as eagerly add them. And when an absolute primary source tells us 2 turmae, you as eagerly throw in a ‘corruption’ saying he really just meant 2.
Likewise, when a number fits your theory you accept it, but when it’s too high you say there are extra officers which should be rounded off. Yet no source actually mentions whether this is the case, making your acceptance/rejection rather arbitrarily, isn’t it? Or guesswork at best?


I fear you are being rather selective but not on any systematic grounds. But that’s your choice of course.

[ValentinianVictrix]

It may just be possible that the old style Legiones were still in existance during Diocletian's reign and that when he started his reforms, completed by Constantine, the legion strength may have been 6000 strong, on paper at least.

I would not dismiss out of hand the Legions no longer having maniples etc during the time Ammianus served with the Roman army, he does mention maniples, centuries, cohorts etc a number of times in his history as this famous passage notes-

'After such a series of successes Constantius, now raised above any fear, by the unanimous voice of the soldiers was hailed a second time as Sarmaticus, after the name of the conquered people; and now, on the point of departure, he called together all the cohorts, centuries, and maniples, and standing on a tribunal, surrounded by standards, eagles and a throng of many officers of high rank, he addressed the army with these words, being greeted (as usual) with the acclaim of all...' Amm XVII, 13, 24-25

[Renatus]

I would not dismiss out of hand the Legions no longer having maniples etc during the time Ammianus served with the Roman army, he does mention maniples, centuries, cohorts etc a number of times in his history

It has occurred to me that, when Ammianus does this, he is using a military colloquialism for a complete force in all its elements, without implying that the individual terms were actually relevant to the army of his day, much as we say "lock, stock and barrel", although that has little relationship to modern firearms.

[Nathan Ross]

Ammianus... is using a military colloquialism for a complete force in all its elements.

Could be. Or perhaps he's quoting an earlier historian, and his learned reader is supposed to recognise the allusion?

He does use a similar phrase several times, almost always when the army is drawn up before the emperor:

XXI, 13, 9: omnes centurias et manipulos et cohortes in contionem vocavit (he summoned all the centuries, maniples, and cohorts to an assembly)

XVII,13,24: convocatis cohortibus et centuriis et manipulis omnibus (he called together all the cohorts, centuries, and maniples)

XXIII,5,15: centuriae omnes et cohortes et manipuli convenissent (all the centuries, cohorts and maniples had come together)

XXVI,2,3: centuriis et manipulis cohortiumque omnium (all the centuries and maniples and cohorts)

XXVII,10,10: tutus centurias et manipulos (Valentinian... surveyed the centuries and maniples)

The similarity of the phrase might indicate that, as you suggest, this is a common shorthand way of saying 'the whole army'.

Or, of course, it could indicate that the Roman army of the day included a unit called a maniple... :-|

[antiochus]

Robert wrote:
First of all I am a bit unsure about how you use the sources. Ammianus is of course a contemporary and even a military man. Zosimus is already writing a good deal later (presumably by the end of the 5th century). Vegetius is used quite indiscriminately even though we know that some of his sources are by no means to be trusted (or else what Vegetius does with them). You say Maurice is too late for you, yet we know that much of what he uses is going back to at least the 4th century or even earlier.

If an ancient historian, regardless of when he wrote the work, is writing about a particular period of time, say about Julian’s expedition, then that ancient historian and the numbers he provides is a valid source. Everyone uses Dionysius and Livy’s description of the Servian constitution regardless of the fact they were not contemporary of the time.

Robert wrote:
Instead you accept the numbers given by Johanes Lydus, even when he supposedly mentions numbers of the Republican army (which is a gap much larger than that between the late Roman army and Maurice).

That is because I can place those numbers, determined by my research as belonging to the Republic, and the principate.

Robert wrote:
You even use Isidore, who wrote close to Maurice in time, but far removed from the 4th century – even long after the Roman Empire ceased in Spain to exist and totally without any military experience!

As I have already stated, if an ancient historian, regardless of when he wrote the work, is writing about a particular time, then I will use him. For the record everyone else is doing exactly what I am doing.

Robert wrote:
Steven, first of all the ‘Vegetian legion’ is still a mirage, nobody knows for sure when it existed or even IF it existed. It may be theoretical, it may be Republican, it may be pre-Diocletianic.. we don’t know.

I understand your points Robert, but I have found the Vegetius legion to be valid. This experiment is about testing whether the numbers in Ammianus and Zosimus can be found to have a link to the legion of Vegetius. It is simply about numbers.

Robert wrote:
Using it as a solid base for the Late Roman army however in my opinion is incorrect,

I don’t know if it is incorrect. I am still exploring the issue. I cannot explore the issue by doing nothing and simply reject Vegetius because of public opinion.

Robert wrote:
The cavalry was removed from the infantry into independent units. They no longer accompanied the legion’.

That is possibly true. However, this does not stop the cavalry numbers being model on the old premise of them accompanying the legion as was as past practice.

Robert wrote:
Nor did maniples exist at least after Constantine as far as I’m aware, at least as the basic organization of the legion, old or new.

Besides the five references given by Ammianus, there are other sources saying the same thing. Doing this book has taught me to challenge my own preconceptions. Modern thinking also rules out the cohort not existing before 102 BC, oops sorry, the latest in modern thinking is now 210 BC. A lot of people are adamant the cohort did not exist before 210 BC, but not one can prove it…and no one demands they do.

Robert wrote:
Procopius (who accompanied Belisarius on many campaigns) wrote during the mid-6th century, so I’m curious what you make of him.

I’ve been working on Ammianus, Zosimus, Orosius and some other fragments first. Once this is complete I going to reread Procopius. However, if Procopius is going beyond 420 AD then that is my cut off point.

Robert wrote:
Frankly, I’m beginning to wonder if you are more interested in sources who happen to name the right number instead of sources who are the most trustworthy.

No that is not the case! You do not fully understand how I work. I am showing which numbers could be linked to the Vegetius legion, and then the rest will be introduced into the scheme to see what happens. If it collapses I do not care. I do not and have not selectively used numbers from the primary sources. I make a case study of all of them. I am not trying to make the numbers work in accordance with my whims. I have no opinion about what and how this period should be. I don’t even like the Romans; to me they are all dirty Nazis, because of their born to rule mentality.

Here’s what I found and no one has disputed this ugly fact. When Ammianus and Florus speak of the Romans fighting their neighbours in their infancy, then conquering Italy in their youth, then conquering the world in their period of manhood, and finally enjoying their conquest in their old age, this information has been found by academics to be too cryptic. However, all these periods of growth conform to the Pythagorean time frame (in centuries) and the maths that go with it. It shows those Roman sickos were adhering to a time table for conquering the world. The dates when the Roman change from infantry, youth and manhood and what they do on those dates as found in the primary sources are not mere coincidences. Many have found this to be disturbing. However, there are exceptions, one socialist found it more fascinating than disturbing.

I purposely work on small periods of time Robert so I am not left overwhelmed or confused by introducing everything at once. One thing I have notice with academics and RAT members is they use data from a broad period of time in their studies. I have found this method will not expose any subtle changes that could occur. Slow and steady does the job.

Robert wrote:
Of course numbers are not written in stone and unfortunately a lot depends on the interpretation of evidence.

The main problem with the numbers is the rounding of the numbers in the primary sources. I have found cross referencing another numbers for the same time frame does help.

Robert wrote:
I read that you prefer “when a source backs up my Pythagorean research, it would be folly of me to waste that source.” Alternatively, there seem to be many sources that do not do so, and these you seem to put less weight on.

I’m curious to know what are these sources you believe I put less weight on?

Robert wrote:
Also you take one source (e.g. Isidore) and accept one figure (a maniple with 200 men) but reject another (200 squadrons ‘which is a corruption’) without telling us why one figure is to be trusted and another isn’t.

The maniple of 200 men conforms to Isidore’s statement a legion had 30 maniples, and a maniple numbered 200 men. In relation to the 6000 man legion this amounts to 30 maniples each of 200 men. From that I believe Isidore is referring to the 6000 man legion.

Robert wrote:
When one is higher you say there are extra officers, when one is lower you as eagerly add them.

That comes from experience with the primary sources. I have found some sources include officer others omit them. Legions in the republic varying from 5000 men, 5200 men or 5400 men and are including or omitting troops that would be regarded as not belonging to the organisation of the fighting units.

Robert wrote:
And when an absolute primary source tells us 2 turmae, you as eagerly throw in a ‘corruption’ saying he really just meant 2.

That is my conclusion Robert, of which every researcher is permitted to do. It doesn’t make me wrong. It could be it was originally 20 squadrons not 2 squadrons. Also, I took all the reference to squadrons from Ammianus and found by following Ammianus that if each squadron numbers 350 men, then the Romans are sending a large number of cavalry for some small missions. How is it a squadron in the republic numbering 30 men can by Ammianus’ time now be enlarged to 350 men a squadron? It wouldn’t be very hard to manoeuvre. Somewhere along the lines, some common sense has to put into the equation.

Robert wrote:
Likewise, when a number fits your theory you accept it, but when it’s too high you say there are extra officers which should be rounded off.

As I’ve stated, from experience. The numbers for the Roman cavalry are not as straight forward as people think. There are differing numbers in the Republic that has drawn very if any scrutiny.

Robert wrote:
Yet no source actually mentions whether this is the case, making your acceptance/rejection rather arbitrarily, isn’t it? Or guesswork at best? I fear you are being rather selective but not on any systematic grounds. But that’s your choice of course.

Far from it Robert. I’m introducing new mathematical evidence never before presented and that is Pythagoras. If you bear with me let me explain some old concepts and some new ones to this forum.

I have already stated that a cohort represents a specific number of zodiacs for a particular period of time. The 480 man cohort of the principate equates to 16 zodiacs (16 zodiacs x 30 degrees per zodiac = 480). With a degree representing 700 stadia as given by Strabo, 480 multiplied by 700 = 336,000. Then by dividing this figure by 35 tribes each tribe equates to 9600 men. By following Dionysius and Livy the iuniores and seniores equate to a 1:1 ratio, the 9600 men is split in half to show 4800 iuniores and 4800 seniores. Here is the size of the legion. The cavalry for this period represent one tenth of the infantry, so the cavalry number 480 cavalry, which also represents 16 zodiacs. Therefore, the cavalry equate to 16 squadrons. However, the officers must be included and by following Arrian and Vegetius and other records and fragments, 32 officers must be added to the total of 480 cavalry to bring it up to 512 cavalry (one ala). Therefore, the size of the cavalry is determined by the size of the legion.

In the Pythagorean system, after four zodiacs have past the apex (takes centuries to do this), the Romans will increase the tribes. By adding four zodiacs to the already established 16 zodiacs, the total is 20 zodiacs, which multiplied by 30 degrees equates to 600. The 600 is multiplied by 700 stadia per degree giving a total of 420,000 men for the 35 tribes. The 420,000 divided by the 35 tribes results in each tribe numbering 12,000 men. Again by dividing into iuniores and seniores, the iuniores and seniores each number 6000 men. With the cavalry being one tenth of the legion of 6000 men, the cavalry without officers numbers 600 men representing 20 zodiacs or 20 squadrons. As in the case of the 480 cavalry in the principate, and following Vegetius that a squadron numbers 33 men, by adding 60 officers, the cavalry should number 660 men.

The movement of the zodiac also indicates when the tribes are increased, so I know the year the 6000 man legion should be introduced and its pre-Diocletianic. I call it the “last Pythagorean legion.”

[Renatus]

In the Pythagorean system, after four zodiacs have past the apex (takes centuries to do this), the Romans will increase the tribes. By adding four zodiacs to the already established 16 zodiacs, the total is 20 zodiacs, which multiplied by 30 degrees equates to 600. The 600 is multiplied by 700 stadia per degree giving a total of 420,000 men for the 35 tribes. The 420,000 divided by the 35 tribes results in each tribe numbering 12,000 men. Again by dividing into iuniores and seniores, the iuniores and seniores each number 6000 men. With the cavalry being one tenth of the legion of 6000 men, the cavalry without officers numbers 600 men representing 20 zodiacs or 20 squadrons. As in the case of the 480 cavalry in the principate, and following Vegetius that a squadron numbers 33 men, by adding 60 officers, the cavalry should number 660 men.

The movement of the zodiac also indicates when the tribes are increased, so I know the year the 6000 man legion should be introduced and its pre-Diocletianic. I call it the “last Pythagorean legion.”

I have two questions arising from these paragraphs. I hope that they are not too basic.

1. If four zodiacs have passed, allowing you to speak of a 6000-man legion, rather than one of 4800 men, should the number of tribes not have increased, thus giving a differently-sized legion?

2. Do we know that the Romans actually did increase the number of tribes and, if so, when and by how many?

[antiochus]

Renatus wrote:
If four zodiacs have passed, allowing you to speak of a 6000-man legion, rather than one of 4800 men, should the number of tribes not have increased, thus giving a differently-sized legion?

The answer is the size of the tribe increases but the number of tribes remains at 35 tribes. The structure of the tribes is based on the Servian constitution, so it is almost like adding the what we know of the Servian constitution.

Renatus wrote:
Do we know that the Romans actually did increase the number of tribes and, if so, when and by how many?

If you mean did the tribes exceed 35 tribes, mathematically the whole system is based on 35 tribes. The completion of the 35 tribes was conducted in 241 BC, and slightly ahead of schedule. I think it’s Appian who mentions adding 10 more tribes but I can’t get the maths to work with 45 tribes and going beyond 35 tribes breaks the principle of harmonic 35, which equates to a body cannot be more stronger than it is, and also the 6:8:9:10 tetrachord amounts to 35.

I’m trying to write this while about 15 kookaburras (an Australian bird) are screeching their heads off outside my window. It’s deafening.

[Renatus]

Thank you, Steven; that's helpful. Now two supplementary questions:

1. If the size of the tribes increases, is this an actual or theoretical increase and, if actual, where do the extra citizens/voters come from? Do we know the actual numbers in a tribe?

2. If Appian's (or whoever's) 45 tribes creates a problem, has he made a mistake and, if so, can we explain it or does it actually do violence to your theory?

Sorry you are having trouble with laughing jackasses. Fortunately, the birds here are comparatively quiet.