+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: EUREKA - Roman army troops (/showthread.php?tid=10155)
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - antiochus - 02-14-2009
I truly look forward to you reading it. I also look forward to knowing the mathematics is foolproof and complies with everything in the primary sources and you will only beat your head to a pulp against a brick wall trying to disprove anything.
You may debate about my presentation of how the maniple legion fought, that is the reformed maniple legions (there are two). But I still am confident you will find it hard to disprove the machinations of the maniple legion as I stick with the primary sources like superglue. Knowing the correct organisation of the maniple legion for the correct time frame makes it easy to understand the primary sources. All the battle descriptions take on a new life.
There is not one battle I can say is my very favourite but with the correct maniple legion organisation, the battle of Cannae really has a life of its own. First of all, the 5000 man legion has been rounded up, so this makes a difference to the totals (ok the figure is between 1000 and 2000). Livy’s reference to Paullus at Cannae trying to find Hannibal and kill him becomes very plausible. At this stage of the battle, Hannibal needed to win this phase of the battle, and he does as the Roman light armed are mentioned retiring, followed by the advance of the heavy infantry. This is a brilliant accomplishment as you will discover when you read the number of light infantry the Carthaginians were up against. By winning this phase, the Carthaginians have improved their chances of nullifying a major tactic of the maniple legion. And this really explains why Hannibal was in the thick of it during this phase. Hannibal’s use of Mago’s ambush force of 1000 men at the Trebbia is also designed to nullify this Roman tactic. Hannibal had done his research on the Roman legion and knew its key weakness. This is why I find the reform of the legion conducted in 204 BC obviously by Scipio so interesting, as the legion has been reformed to eliminate this key weakness. So in response, Hannibal at Zama deploys in three lines. Different beast means different response.
Now this tactic of the maniple legion can be found in the primary sources, as is another major tactic, but so far no one bothered to refer to them or discuss them. Don’t ask me why, I have no answer.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - Matthew - 02-15-2009
I am also still looking forward to this book, and am sorry to hear about your publishing woes, Steven. I was reading back over this thread to remind myself of its course and noticed that you edited out the answers to two questions I asked about your ideas back in December 2007 (page 5). Was this a change of heart or the deletion of secret information that might have enabled somebody to beat you to the punch?
Matthew James Stanham
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - antiochus - 02-16-2009
Mathew wrote: I am also still looking forward to this book, and am sorry to hear about your publishing woes, Steven.
Whether I go with a publishing house of self publish, it will happen. Truly, I want to get it out there and out of my life. Writing this opus is consuming so much of my time, and it never seems to end. Only now after compiling all the bits and pieces from the primary sources I discover how the Romans use light infantry. This applies to most Italiote peoples, and to introduce Greek light infantry practices into the study is complete folly. So passages in the primary sources just keep becoming clearer and clearer, which means more writing. Originally it was to be one book now it’s turned into three books. But my premise is if I don’t cover them, when released someone else will, so it might as well be me.
Mathew wrote: I was reading back over this thread to remind myself of its course and noticed that you edited out the answers to two questions I asked about your ideas back in December 2007 (page 5). Was this a change of heart or the deletion of secret information that might have enabled somebody to beat you to the punch?
Well I’m not worried about being beaten to the punch. What I have talked about on this list is minor in comparison to some of the discoveries. There are numerous minor discoveries but there are two major ones I have not discussed on this list, nor hinted at. Some of the numerous minor discoveries include the true number of military tribunes per legion, which has been interpreted wrongly. Other factors are when consuls commanded two legions, again wrongly deducted by every known academic. And the so called century is also misunderstood, which has really put a spanner in the works of everyone. There is so much information in the primary sources that is overlooked. Here’s one example, when the enlistment age was from 18 to 45, before it was dropped to 17 years, when you subtract 18 from 45 you get 27. By dividing 27 by 3 (the three age divisions of the maniple legion), the result is 9 (27 divided by 3 = 9). Therefore the hastati are aged from 18 to 27, the principes from 28 up to 36 years, and the triarii from 37 to 45 years old.
I edited the Eureka posting after receiving an email, which at the time I believed was sent from the administrators of RAT, requesting I delete all my posts. The reason given was it was believed I was using the RAT forum to perpetrate a hoax. So when I did this I found I could not delete the posts only edit them. At the time I thought it strange why didn’t the administrators delete the posts as they have the ability to do so. Turns out it was not sent by the RAT administrators.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - D B Campbell - 02-16-2009
Quote:Whether I go with a publishing house of self publish, it will happen. Truly, I want to get it out there and out of my life ...As a last resort, you might try Archaeopress or B.A.R., which people often use to publish theses quickly.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - antiochus - 02-22-2009
Thank you for the infomation Duncan. Everything helps.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - Cave Equum - 03-04-2009
Quote:Livy bashing goes back to the introduction of the printing press. To my knowledge the first book published on the Roman army was by Lipsius (spelling) in 1510 AD. So Livy bashing is now close to its 500th year anniversary. One facet of academia that fascinates me is when an academic attacks another academic’s conjecture with his own conjecture. Here we have two academics who both cannot prove that they are right, telling the other they are wrong.
I agree with you up to a point, but in the late 19th century Schliemann went out to look for Troy with the Iliad in his hand and I think archeology has come a long way since then.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - Gorgon - 04-08-2009
Any news?
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - antiochus - 04-13-2009
Well after sending Cambridge a book proposal in August 2008, last week I finally received a reply from them rejecting the offer. But The Military Press asked for a sample of the work via email. Within three hours they replied they were very interested. It is more than likely the other publishing houses haven’t taken me seriously. But once anyone sees the material, it is a different story. At present due to the research material needed to finish the book, of which is not available in Thailand, I have (reluctantly) returned to Australia for three to four months. And I am counting of the days to when I can return. Landed on a Sunday and was back in Melbourne University on Monday. While there Professor Ronald Ridley was against my concept of three volumes. Since then The Military Press have been asking me to present my case for three books. The problem with the book has mainly been me. I keep getting insights into the Roman legion that I feel I have to cover. Example being, when I did the frontages for the battle of Pharsalus, with Pompey’s troops ten deep and Caesar’s at standard deployment, when comparing to two armies, you start to get a good idea of the order they must have left the camps to deploy. This means more to write about. And this is where the camel’s back broke. It was getting too much.
But now happily I have abandoned that attitude and have decided at a later date to write an in-depth book about ancient battles. This way I am back to focusing on organisation and tactics. So now instead of three, it will be one book. Military Press are happy, as is Professor Ronald Ridley.
They say “the real history is secret history” and this cannot be further from the truth, as a piece of secret history has emerged. Originally, as the population grew, the Romans increased the size of the tribes. Call this system A. Then they increased the number of tribes (system B), but sometime way before the Second Punic War, they reintroduced system A. Now logically, you would think system A came back into fashion after 241 BC, when the tribes were halted at 35. But this is not so. The Romans have reintroduced system A before this while at the same time increasing the tribes. This has been difficult process to ascertain when, so I have left it and concentrated on other time frames before and after this period. The uncovered area of time I have nicknamed the Stalingrad pocket. Overtime I go back and slowly and methodically scratch away at the pocket, slowly reducing it size (time frame). Now when system A re-enters the equation, the tribes will increase fourfold. Without the fourfold increase, the Romans cannot have the manpower for the First Punic war and Polybius’ levy figures of 225 BC cannot be reconciled. Whether this fourfold increase happened in one hit or in phases was the six million dollar collection.
Livy gives some clues that have helped me eliminate some time frames. By comparing the levy system to Livy’s statement of “all the iuniores were called up,” or “all the classes” were call up, even a reference to the levying of the proletarii and capti censi, showed no doubling of the tribes has occurred as the Romans are struggling to meet the large levies demanded by the military situation there were in at the time. The year 360 BC is a good indicator of how many legions were levied as Livy records two consuls are on campaign as is a dictator. The last time this occurred was in 494 BC. Unfortunately these two incidents have not drawn any attention from academics. Next method I tried was the census figures. Now generally new tribes are added after there is an announcement of peoples being made citizens, so I then combed through the primary sources looking for incidents of new citizenship but without the forming of tribes following it. No clues here. So in this section of the book, like the panzers, I was bogged in the mud in front of Moscow. I then went back to a legion reform, and realised the number in the levy formulae must have changed to coincide with the legion reform. When I applied this, it showed a doubling of the number which results in a doubling of the tribes. So now I had the doubling and the fourfold, it now need to prove if there was a threefold incidences. With the doubling, because of the change in the numbers of men in a tribe, mathematically the levy system or those tribes exempt from the levy had returned to the original Servian methodology of 530 BC. Knowing this, it was easy to find the threefold increase. So after being a thorn in my side for over a year, the Stalingrad pocket has been eliminated. My mistake was in believing the growth in the tribes was due to an increase in population. This is why using the census figures did not work. I am now convinced each tribal increase was due to “economic prosperity.” As more people gained wealth, they qualified to be registered in the tribes. The first doubling, which occurred with a reform of the legion, simplified all systems (tribal, military and political).
Now this whole exercise has thrown light on the census figures. There are three definitions in the primary sources to the role of the census. Because they contradict, academics automatically theorise on which is correct, but I’m starting to find out they are all correct and one and the same. So now, because of the insights gained from the fourfold increase in the tribe, and armed with 500 years of tribal data, I feel confident to write in the book who the census figures represent. Now if Mommsen was alive today, he would be very happy with my conclusion.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - Gorgon - 04-13-2009
Steven, I have to agree with Professor Ronald Ridley and what some posters in this thread already said: you should concentrate in the nolts n' bolts of your theory and show the main impact they have on roman studies. Maybe aim for a 300-500 pages book. That is the best way to ensure academics will actually read it. Going for 3 huge volumes trying to put everything you find is probably not the best idead. You just have to hint at the consequences and provide a few examples (e.g. of battles) and other conclusions, and maybe even state that you're working on applying your discoveries to further studies (and further books). But the main thing is to get a solid, clearly defined and presented book containing the core of your theories and application examples and main consequences.
Plus, if academics get to pick up on this and discuss it (even flamming it; there's nos such thing as bad publicity 8) ) than you'll get more opportunities for further books, and that's the opportunity to get all those studies on battles, etc you want to publish. Just make sure you get a well organized, clearly presented thesis, with good examples for insight into the consequences of theory, maybe in 300-400 pages.
At least that's my opinion, for what it's worth. Thanks for sharing and good luck. Do keep us informed, please.
Cheers!
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - antiochus - 04-28-2009
Quote: Steven, I have to agree with Professor Ronald Ridley and what some posters in this thread already said: you should concentrate in the nuts n' bolts of your theory and show the main impact they have on roman studies…But the main thing is to get a solid, clearly defined and presented book containing the core of your theories and application examples and main consequences.
And that is exactly what has been happening. I am now close to finishing. Plus with a lack of information in the primary sources regarding the levy it becomes difficult to track it, so with no levy system to worry about, things are moving fast. Other minor finds to date is Plutarch’s figure of 6000 Aetolian infantry for the battle of Cynoscephalae in 197 BC is incorrect. Livy’s figure of 600 Aetolian infantry is correct. Livy has confused the campaign of 349 BC against the Gauls with the 329 BC campaign against the Gauls.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - Gorgon - 04-28-2009
Glad to hear that, Steven. And interesting information you provide there, also.
Please do keep us informed on the progress of your book.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - antiochus - 05-02-2009
My reference to a previous post about the four fold increase in the tribes, well I recently found this:
Varro (On The Latin Language V 35) writes “A centuria, century was named originally from cenum one hundred iugera, and later, when doubled, kept its name, just as the tribus tribes, which got their name from the three parts into which people divided, still keep the same name though their number has been multiplied.”
It is quite exhilarating to find textual evidence to back the empirical data. Livy in his summary (I 44) of the Servian constitution also refers to the doubling of the iuniores and seniores.
I now have a 6 year period for when Polybius’ legion was introduced. It is a result of the last reform of the century and tribes mentioned above. It’s good to have Livy and Polybius locked in. But Polybius’ levy system belongs to an earlier time (before Pyrrhus). This is where he gets sloppy, and his reference at the battle of Iipa to three maniples making a cohort is anachronistic, therefore misleading. Most of his levy description is wrong and the legion having four classes which in his legion includes the velites is wrong, wrong, wrong wrong. Varro states only the first four classes are property holders, velites are not property holders, as they are drawn from the Vth class and the proletarii (one third). Again, Polybius has used information that predates the introduction of the velites. Now the hastati due to their young age, the majority are not property holders either, but they are the sons of property holders. Polybius has also made glaring mistakes with his 225 BC levy details and his 5200 man legion does not exist for this time frame.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - philsidnell - 12-01-2009
Did you get a definite offer from Military Press? Looking back over this thread you'll see I did actually offer to take a look at it back on 13th September 2007, but I think at that stage you were still hopeful of an academic press taking it. If for some reason you have still had no luck, the offer still stands. And it isn't the case, despite Jasper's mischievous comment, that you would be asked to 'spice it' up with anecdotes.
Regards
Phil Sidnell
Commissioning Editor (Ancient Warfare)
Pen & Sword Books Ltd.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - D B Campbell - 12-01-2009
Quote:... And it isn't the case, despite Jasper's mischievous comment, that you would be asked to 'spice it' up with anecdotes.Although that might liven things up! :wink:
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - Epictetus - 12-01-2009
Well Steven, you have one publisher wiling to take a look. But if you find yourself getting nowhere doing it directly, maybe you should get an agent and let him / her do it for you.
Edit: Are there agents in this realm of publishing? I assume there are. Duncan?