+- 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 - 11-29-2008
Quote:That is disappointing! We all want to read your work and see your full argument. Then we can get down to debating it in earnest
The idea that Livy means that the old phalanx was organized similarly to the Macedonian phalanx, not just that it fought in a phalanx, is one I haven't heard before.
Everything indicates Livy is comparing the Roman army organisation from 508 BC to 406 BC with the Macedonian organisation. It should not be interpreted as detailing a fighting style as this goes against the primary sources. Dionysius makes it clear in 508 BC; the Romans conducted a census after the practice had been abandoned by Superbus. Plutarch supports this claim. The following maths in the primary source shows this included a reform of the army. In 494 BC another reform occurred as both Dionysius and Livy tell how the Romans had to fight a war on three fronts. Both give the Roman army at 10 legions.
Now what the Romans did here was take their available manpower and in order to fight on three fronts they decreased the size of the centuries for each army. So originally, the century contained 100 men, but they introduced the 80 man century and the 60 man century (20% increments). This way they could have three armies and the larger army commanded by the dictator (given as four legions) was assigned to the campaign that was considered the greater threat. This explains why in Dionysius you have references to cohorts of 600 or 800 men.
But above the cohort, the Romans have another military organisation which is larger, and to make matters confusing, they also call it a cohort. A clear example of this is Livy and Polybius’ account of the battle of Illipa. Livy has three cohorts in the outflanking manoeuvre while Polybius has one. Both are correct as both are using different organisations of the legion, with Polybius using the army organisation while Livy is using the political organisation.
The data before me shows in book VIII eight, Livy’s is making a comparison between the Macedonian organisation and the Roman centuriate army organisation of 508 BC to 406 BC. Both are nearly similar and the difference is between 1 and 20 men, with the Roman army having the slightly larger number of men.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - Robert Vermaat - 11-29-2008
Quote:Other publishers have been sent a book proposal.Have you asked Tempus? They publish a lot of Roman stufff.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - antiochus - 12-01-2008
Quote:antiochus:2zbozrwl Wrote:Other publishers have been sent a book proposal.Have you asked Tempus? They publish a lot of Roman stufff.
Have not been able to send an email to Tempus as their internet site is not functioning. Tried email addresses as give by The History Press website and they all bounce. Not impressed.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - Robert Vermaat - 12-01-2008
All? strange.
![[Image: LeftPane_Email.gif]](https://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/Portals/284/LeftPane_Email.gif)
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - Praefectusclassis - 12-01-2008
If you think it's academic quality, did you try Brill?
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - antiochus - 12-02-2008
Quote:All? strange.
All bounced. I'll try agian in a few days.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - antiochus - 12-02-2008
Quote:If you think it's academic quality, did you try Brill?
I've been rejected by Brill. Something to do with being a small publishing company and my book would be better suited to a larger publishing company. Have a feeling I will end up self publishing. The three volumes I envisage will be in A4 format, 80 gsm gloss paper, and with plenty of colour illustrations and maps. Like Connolly's book or Warry in style.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - Praefectusclassis - 12-02-2008
Quote:Something to do with being a small publishing companyIf they told you that, it's BS. Brill is a stock exchange listed publishing company.
Quote:The three volumes I envisage will be in A4 format, 80 gsm gloss paper, and with plenty of colour illustrations and maps. Like Connolly's book or Warry in style.There may be your problem. Your aiming for a very narrow market which is interested in the nuts and bolts of the Roman army. Yes, they're here, but even here, there won't be that many people willing to shell out for a three volume book which with such productions standards is inevitably going to be expensive. That's not a prospect too many publishers jump at.
And self-publishing? FYI with the production values you mentioned, you're looking at just print costs for a small run reaching five digits (in euros) easily.
You don't need those production values anyway. If your book is as good as you say it is, it needs to be read by those evil academics you've been raging at. They don't need pretty pictures.
If you want it to be read, reduce your core argument to a book of 300 pages with all the references it needs. Pitch it to a specialist prof or two, get a glowing review & then go back to Brill. That'll get it on academic library bookshelves, which is where it needs to be. Maybe get your PhD as well.
If you then get good reviews, spice it up, add lots of anecdotes and get any illustrations you can get for free and offer it as a popular version to Phil Sidnell of Pen & Sword.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - antiochus - 12-02-2008
[Jasper Oorthuys wrote:
Quote:If they told you that, it's BS. Brill is a stock exchange listed publishing company.
That doesn't surprise me. My personal belief is no one really believes what I have written in the book proposal to be true.
Quote:There may be your problem.
No. I haven't stipulated any format or conditions. What I wrote in my previous posting was my dream format.
Quote:And self-publishing? FYI with the production values you mentioned, you're looking at just print costs for a small run reaching five digits (in euros) easily.
I've studied electronic pre-press for two years, and as to the financial side of self publishing, I have money to burn.
Quote:If your book is as good as you say it is, it needs to be read by those evil academics you've been raging at.
My definition of an evil academic is one who is always demonising the ancient writers in order to support their theory which is only based on conjecture. There's plenty of them about.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - Praefectusclassis - 12-02-2008
Quote:I have money to burn.Then by all means, consider self-publishing, but don't forget a marketing plan. Whatever the final verdict of your book, it does sound as if it deserves a place in the debate, so make sure it gets bought & read.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - Sean Manning - 12-02-2008
Quote:I've studied electronic pre-press for two years, and as to the financial side of self publishing, I have money to burn.That's good to know, but I think Jasper has a point about marketing. One affordable volume with the core argument might be easier to get people to read; if that convinces them, you can sell other books with the rest of the details.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - Tiberius Clodius Corvinus - 12-02-2008
Quote:"My research has been hailed as the most monumental work on the Roman army in the last 500 years [...]"One should really expect the most monumental work on the Roman army in the last 500 years to find a publisher.
... just out of interest I'd really like to know who made this statement?
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - antiochus - 12-07-2008
Sorry about the delay in replying, I have been in Laos since Wednesday and have only just returned.
Quote:One should really expect the most monumental work on the Roman army in the last 500 years to find a publisher.
Well in the perfect world it should, but if there is a strong belief there is not enough information in the primary sources to make a conclusive answer then who will believe someone who has just done that.
Quote:... just out of interest I'd really like to know who made this statement?
In answer to your question many people including academics at Melbourne University and historians have made the claim it is a monumental and iconoclastic book. I am also 100% positive you will agree when it is released. Yes, I am that confident.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - antiochus - 01-28-2009
For the year 482 BC, Dionysius (VIII 84) writes:
“Before they engaged, he exhorted and encouraged his troops at length, and then ordered the trumpets to sound the charge; and the soldiers, raising their usual battle-cry, attacked in close array both by cohorts and by centuries. After they had used up all their spears and javelins with the rest of their missile weapons, they drew their swords and rushed upon each other, both sides showing equal intrepidity and eagerness for the struggle.”
Dionysius’ reference to cohorts and centuries is not anachronistic as many academics would have us believe. The above reference to the use of missile weapons for this period is but one of many and when all such references are compiled between Dionysius and Livy the theory the Romans adopted the hoplite phalanx from the Etruscans falls into utter disarray. 8) Italian warfare is very heavily missile based.
In book VIII 85, Dionysius states “the (Roman) centuries which were last and guarded the rear fell to stripping the dead.” Here Dionysius is referring to the political organisation of the army and not its military organisation. But his reference to the last line of centuries guarding the rear is the same tactical doctrine as for the 600 triarii. But in this example, the number of men is 720 men. So far I have found little difference in the tactical doctrine of the Roman legion from Servius Tullius to Caesar. The reason why no ancient writer wrote about the men requiring time to train from the centuriate legion to the maniple legion is no such training was necessary. The Romans are following the same fighting doctrine. Caesar’s reference (BG 2. 25) to manipulos laxare has its origins in Livy Book 8. 8, so it is part of their repertoire.
How is anyone expected to understand how the Romans fought if no one is interested in carefully studying Livy’s books I to V and all of Dionysius. But this is what has been going on in academia for far too long. Livy’s first five books are dismissed as legends.
But I have found a continuous pattern in the fighting methodology of the Romans from 530 BC to 200 AD. And the evidence keeps mounting. One major difference is the role of the cavalry has a dramatic change, but as for the infantry, even Caesar’s army is employing fighting tactics similar to the centuriate legion.So far I am now in correspondence with three publishers for the book.
On another note does anyone know the term for when farmers only plow part of their fields and leave some out. Sort of like crop rotation, or someone thought it was called the fallow field technique. The reason why I am asking is the Romans do not levy from all their tribes. This way they guarantee growth of the male population. Livy’s reference to only 10 tribes being levied for a given campaign is correct, but again, and without any evidence to back them up, dismissed by academics.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - Vincula - 01-28-2009
Quote:... but again, and without any evidence to back them up, dismissed by academics.Who are these evil acedemics? They must be named and shamed! :twisted: