08-12-2016, 01:07 AM
Bryan wrote:
At this point I have no desire to debate Pythagorean mathematics with you Steve. RAT has played this game with you before, many others far more educated than myself have poked holes in your theories which destroys your math formulas. and instead of altering your formulas you simply discounted the specific accounts from the primary sources, saying the ancient accounts made the mistake, not you. I'm not about to start it all up again 3-4 years later. Good day mate!
Good attempt to get out of the kitchen when it gets too hot for you. And get your facts right Bryan, those so called RAT member better educated than you just put up pictures of macabre comical human sacrifices. You have used this rubbish about my theories being disproven and all you related to it that one f*$#ing post that proved nothing. Remember you are the person who told me you look forward to every bad review that my book gets, so you will immediately gravitate to anything disparaging against me, even if it is unsubstantiated.
I’ll soon be posting on academia.edu on how the Roman tribes and the army for the battle of Lake Regillus to show how they interrelate. Looking forward to see how the better educated on this forum and yourself dismiss why the Roman army numbers given by Dionysius and the Roman tribal system are in complete agreement with each other.
Jaroslav wrote:
then why Polybius and Livy both state that Proletarii were not allowed into Legion?
There is confusion among some ancient historians between the proletarii and the capite censi. Some historians (ancient and modern) believe the capite censi are part of the proletarii, that is Class V, and others, they are separate. Dionysius gives six property classes for the Servian constitution, Livy gives five property classes. It is the capite censi which were no levied into the legions, and this is mentioned by Julius Exsuperantius (9) “When he conscripted new soldiers, he was the first general to take into war the "capite censi" ("counted by head"), who were useless and untrustworthy citizens. This was his way of showing his gratitude to the people, who had granted him the honours which he longed for, but it was harmful to the state.”
Jaroslav wrote:
And of course, what i wrote before, wealth and age don't necessarily mix up, just because you are poor, it doesn't automatically mean you are young, and vice versa. You could be a young (18-19) member of a wealthy family (Class I), while you could as well have 40-45 years old poor farmers that would also fit the census.
My research confirms that certain property classes were selected by age. Polybius (6 24) mentions that each of the classes (helokias or class by age) was divided into ten deka. In relation to the proletarii, I know that when they want light infantry, they selected those of a young age, and when they want additional triarii they selected them from the older men among the proletarii. Livy labels the additional triarii as accensi, which I interpret not to mean attendants or servants, but as supports, that is to support the regular triarii.
The paper I will post on academia.edu concerning the tribes and the Roman army of 499 BC in relation to Dionysius’ numbers, clearly shows the Romans levied the proletarii. This is one of many dozen of examples I have. Also the tribal system and the numbers given for the Roman army at Cannae match up, and again the proletarii are levied. Not the same case for the capite censi.
At this point I have no desire to debate Pythagorean mathematics with you Steve. RAT has played this game with you before, many others far more educated than myself have poked holes in your theories which destroys your math formulas. and instead of altering your formulas you simply discounted the specific accounts from the primary sources, saying the ancient accounts made the mistake, not you. I'm not about to start it all up again 3-4 years later. Good day mate!
Good attempt to get out of the kitchen when it gets too hot for you. And get your facts right Bryan, those so called RAT member better educated than you just put up pictures of macabre comical human sacrifices. You have used this rubbish about my theories being disproven and all you related to it that one f*$#ing post that proved nothing. Remember you are the person who told me you look forward to every bad review that my book gets, so you will immediately gravitate to anything disparaging against me, even if it is unsubstantiated.
I’ll soon be posting on academia.edu on how the Roman tribes and the army for the battle of Lake Regillus to show how they interrelate. Looking forward to see how the better educated on this forum and yourself dismiss why the Roman army numbers given by Dionysius and the Roman tribal system are in complete agreement with each other.
Jaroslav wrote:
then why Polybius and Livy both state that Proletarii were not allowed into Legion?
There is confusion among some ancient historians between the proletarii and the capite censi. Some historians (ancient and modern) believe the capite censi are part of the proletarii, that is Class V, and others, they are separate. Dionysius gives six property classes for the Servian constitution, Livy gives five property classes. It is the capite censi which were no levied into the legions, and this is mentioned by Julius Exsuperantius (9) “When he conscripted new soldiers, he was the first general to take into war the "capite censi" ("counted by head"), who were useless and untrustworthy citizens. This was his way of showing his gratitude to the people, who had granted him the honours which he longed for, but it was harmful to the state.”
Jaroslav wrote:
And of course, what i wrote before, wealth and age don't necessarily mix up, just because you are poor, it doesn't automatically mean you are young, and vice versa. You could be a young (18-19) member of a wealthy family (Class I), while you could as well have 40-45 years old poor farmers that would also fit the census.
My research confirms that certain property classes were selected by age. Polybius (6 24) mentions that each of the classes (helokias or class by age) was divided into ten deka. In relation to the proletarii, I know that when they want light infantry, they selected those of a young age, and when they want additional triarii they selected them from the older men among the proletarii. Livy labels the additional triarii as accensi, which I interpret not to mean attendants or servants, but as supports, that is to support the regular triarii.
The paper I will post on academia.edu concerning the tribes and the Roman army of 499 BC in relation to Dionysius’ numbers, clearly shows the Romans levied the proletarii. This is one of many dozen of examples I have. Also the tribal system and the numbers given for the Roman army at Cannae match up, and again the proletarii are levied. Not the same case for the capite censi.
