06-30-2017, 07:08 AM
Nathan wrote:
And yet this unit is clearly identified as both a legion and a numerus.
And both are separate units. A legion cannot be synonymous with a numerus. Why would the Romans want to create confusion in matters relating to military organisation? The Romans are pragmatic and have since the beginning of the Republic adhered to a very formularize military organisational system. Now I am lead to believe the Romans have abandoned that for a Abbot and Costello organisation of who’s on first and what’s on second.
Nathan wrote:
However do you know this? Only the clerici et deputati would seem plausibly to be supernumeraries - we have to assume that the others fit into the organisation somewhow.
Yes, assume is the correct word, or lets bash squares into round holes. The names (Slab C) are such unlegionary names, it cannot be a legion with cavalry. A numerus of auxiliaries infantry and a numerus of cavalry, yes I can buy that.
Nathan wrote:
Yep. That's been my working theory for some time now.
Except the 50 Veredarii and the 225 Veredarii are not playing ball. I have found that Roman military mathematics should be continuously divided by 2 to arrive at the smallest subdivisions of the unit. So the 32 men I have in my last post when divisible by 2, results in 16, then 8 then 4. The 225 Veradarii cannot do this, and it tells me that even with the other 50 veredarii, because there number ends in a 5, its proper strength has not been recorded.
Nathan wrote:
Or maybe the numbers work some other way (my suggestion above somewhere does this, but it's far from perfect as there are no file closers).
My whole research has the Romans as having no file closers as there organisation was linear. However, that does not mean this did not occur by the Perge timeframe, but I still doubt they had file closers.
Nathan wrote:
But clearly the different grades are articulated in some way within the ordo. The semissales and duplares are another matter - although their collected totals break down by 4, 8 and 16...
The 256 Brachiati semissales are divisible by 4, 8 and 16, but not the 136 Torquati semissales. My estimate of the size of a legion is 1,600 men which is divisible by 4, 8 and 16.
Nathan wrote:
I wouldn't be too hasty! The document you quoted appears to be addressing a problem with higher-grade soldiers lingering in the army beyond their enlistment time in order to claim pay - it surely doesn't mean that anyone earning 5 annonae or more should be immediately discharged. That way there would be no Ordinarii, or senior ranking soldiers at all.
Mate, I put the emotion thingy at the end to show it was a joke, like nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.
Nathan wrote:
This is Onur's conclusion, as stated in his paper. Although I think it's more probably just a fault in expression.
In that case I will disregard it.
And yet this unit is clearly identified as both a legion and a numerus.
And both are separate units. A legion cannot be synonymous with a numerus. Why would the Romans want to create confusion in matters relating to military organisation? The Romans are pragmatic and have since the beginning of the Republic adhered to a very formularize military organisational system. Now I am lead to believe the Romans have abandoned that for a Abbot and Costello organisation of who’s on first and what’s on second.
Nathan wrote:
However do you know this? Only the clerici et deputati would seem plausibly to be supernumeraries - we have to assume that the others fit into the organisation somewhow.
Yes, assume is the correct word, or lets bash squares into round holes. The names (Slab C) are such unlegionary names, it cannot be a legion with cavalry. A numerus of auxiliaries infantry and a numerus of cavalry, yes I can buy that.
Nathan wrote:
Yep. That's been my working theory for some time now.
Except the 50 Veredarii and the 225 Veredarii are not playing ball. I have found that Roman military mathematics should be continuously divided by 2 to arrive at the smallest subdivisions of the unit. So the 32 men I have in my last post when divisible by 2, results in 16, then 8 then 4. The 225 Veradarii cannot do this, and it tells me that even with the other 50 veredarii, because there number ends in a 5, its proper strength has not been recorded.
Nathan wrote:
Or maybe the numbers work some other way (my suggestion above somewhere does this, but it's far from perfect as there are no file closers).
My whole research has the Romans as having no file closers as there organisation was linear. However, that does not mean this did not occur by the Perge timeframe, but I still doubt they had file closers.
Nathan wrote:
But clearly the different grades are articulated in some way within the ordo. The semissales and duplares are another matter - although their collected totals break down by 4, 8 and 16...
The 256 Brachiati semissales are divisible by 4, 8 and 16, but not the 136 Torquati semissales. My estimate of the size of a legion is 1,600 men which is divisible by 4, 8 and 16.
Nathan wrote:
I wouldn't be too hasty! The document you quoted appears to be addressing a problem with higher-grade soldiers lingering in the army beyond their enlistment time in order to claim pay - it surely doesn't mean that anyone earning 5 annonae or more should be immediately discharged. That way there would be no Ordinarii, or senior ranking soldiers at all.
Mate, I put the emotion thingy at the end to show it was a joke, like nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.
Nathan wrote:
This is Onur's conclusion, as stated in his paper. Although I think it's more probably just a fault in expression.
In that case I will disregard it.
