+- 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 - 01-29-2009
Quote:antiochus:1wmnn51n Wrote:... 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:
You only have to read the many academic journals available to get a good grounding of how academia works. In regard to ancient military warfare, especially the Romans, proof is no longer required to support a given theory. By merely stating such and such an ancient writer is anachronistic is all that is necessary. That Appian has incorrectly used the term cohort when he meant maniple, guarantees your latest theory is not sabotaged by the contents of the primary sources.
Most academic papers published on the Roman army lay the blame at the feet of the ancient writer. Not one ancient writer escapes this treatment. Now when you add up all this negative criticism, published since the advent of the printing press, escalating into a fine art form by the turn of the 20th century, any reader will have no faith or confidence in any ancient writer. So what you get is an audience putting more trust in academics than in the primary sources. This is a tragedy in the making.
A catchcry of so many academics is that the ancient writers have corrupted the sources. I beg to differ on this and will state it is the academic that has corrupted the sources. Let’s take Delbruck for example. He put forward that in regard to the Servian constitution; by splitting the 85 centuries of iuniores you get two legions of 4200 men. Here Delbruck is trying to match the Servian constitution with Polybius. But in order to do this, the surplus one century is dismissed as an error caused by some ancient scribe. This theory is now commonly accepted (without acknowledging Delbruck). Now if Delbruck sincerely believed in his theory, then he would know he has the key to the door. So with his key that a legion consisted of 4200 men, he could now lay open the primary sources. His numbers will tell us how many men were really at Lake Regillus in 496 BC, or how many were at Veii in 480 BC. But Delbruck doesn’t do this. Not once does he test his theory against the empirical data in the primary sources. Selective use of the primary sources is not in my book, correct methodology.
Another negative trait about academics is they are always complaining about the paucity of information in the primary sources. But when you read these countless papers they churn out, you always find them rejecting much of what is written in the primary sources. They do like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
In summary, most books published on the Roman army say the same old thing over and over again. This is because most academics have a herd mentality. What’s in vogue is what they write about. The latest is planting of the Hyginus legion organisation into the time frame of Julius Caesar. This wasn’t always the case. Caesar’s statement a century consisted of 120 men has been rejected, with Goldsworthy claiming Caesar must be referring to the first cohort of the legion. Does Goldsworthy prove this? No, a blanket statement is sufficient. So today the herd have jumped on this bandwagon and we now must believe a century in the legion of Caesar contained 80 men, not 120 men. The question is if most academics cannot prove it to themselves, then why try and convince the public?
Statements made by academics leave me guessing as to where did they get that information from? It isn’t the primary sources. So much fiction written over the last 30 years is now becoming fact. And much of it is sensationalism.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - SigniferOne - 02-02-2009
Kudos Steven, I just want to say that. What the nature of your argument is we'll see from the book, but it's the attitude that I celebrate. Academics have found a way to remove the ancient authors, and replace them with themselves. It's one of the primary reasons why Classics and History is a dead or dying field, in my opinion. Why should anyone learn Latin to read Livy, when he can just read the latest academic in his own native language? An academic who is demanded to publish academically just to keep his job, and tears down Livy for personal self-promotion? Over the last 200 years Livy-bashing has turned into a veritable goldmine, beginning with Niebuhr and Mommsen who are today the heroes in Classical studies.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - antiochus - 02-06-2009
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.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - M. Demetrius - 02-06-2009
Quote:Here we have two academics who both cannot prove that they are right, telling the other they are wrong.
Of course, that would :roll: NEVER happen here on RAT, eh?
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - Gaius Julius Caesar - 02-06-2009
Never ever.... :|
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - D B Campbell - 02-06-2009
Quote:In summary, most books published on the Roman army say the same old thing over and over again. This is because most academics have a herd mentality.Hmmm ... maybe a bit of a sweeping statement?
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - M. Demetrius - 02-06-2009
Hmph. Everybody knows that all generalities are always wrong.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - SigniferOne - 02-06-2009
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.
Sorry, not to belabor this for too long, but I'd beg to disagree. As late as the 18th century the scholarly community took the early kings for granted. Completely, without reservations. Basil Kennett might reference Servius Tullus here, Gibbon might invoke another king there. He also repeatedly makes references to Livy with unmixed admiration. In the 19th century, after 500 years, we see the ugly turn of events with Niebuhr: the first 5 books are mythological, and Livy is simply a liar. Mommsen then takes this and maximizes it to its maximum proportions. He writes that by his time "nobody" trusts Livy as an author and a historian.
Now that's very different from a Renaissance scholar who might nitpick a particular Livian point, yet study Latin feverishly, and enjoin on his children to know Latin by heart so that they'll be able to read Livy too. Montaigne was locked in a castle by his father until he was 7 years old, surrounded by Latin speaking servants and forbidden to know French until his adolescence, to be able to read Livy and Virgil fluently.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - antiochus - 02-06-2009
He is two examples preceeding Mommsen.
Military Essays of the Ancient Grecian, Roman and Modern Art of War, James Turner. (written in 1670 and 1671), page 84. “Titus Livius, that famous historian, in his eighth book giving a particular account of the great battle fought between the Romans, and their allies the Latines, marshals the Roman legion in such a confused way, that he is not at all intelligible, and hath given just a reason to both the learned and military men, to think that place is corrupt, and a sense made of it, never intended by the author.”
A Critical Inquiry into the Constitution of the Roman Legion; Robert Melville (1703), The passage of Titus Livius (Book VIII. eight), relating to the legion, is declared, by all the commentators, to be corrupted almost in every sentence, insomuch as scarcely to admit of correction; besides, though the legion underwent different changes in different periods of the state, neither he nor Vegetius mention particularly to what period they refer.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - SigniferOne - 02-06-2009
Right, that's exactly what I refer to as a Renaissance scholar nitpicking some particular Livian point. Notice how they describe him in positive terms. If they find a fault with a passage, it isn't because Livy was a liar but because the passage is corrupt. Etc. Now I know that a skepticism of the Camillan legion doesn't sit well with you, but it nevertheless supports my overall point about pre-Neibuhr criticism, in which the ideal, unmixed Livy is a very good author, worth studying.
As for the Camillan legion itself, it's been giving trouble to people for quite a long time. People have found problems with it for centuries. What I'm drawing the attention to is the contrast between a modern Roman scholar who looks at book VIII and calls Livy a contemptible and sloppy historian, and a Lipsius, or a James Turner, who couldn't agree that Livy was intrinsically flawed, and just called the passage itself corrupt.
Let me draw this parallel further. Let's say you do find a strong corroboration for the Camillan and Servian legions, and you do this while living during James Turner's time: that wouldn't have overturned any opinions he had about Livy's personal character and as a historian (it would've actually confirmed them). If you find this corroboration now, in the modern day, the scholars' reaction will be, "Really? Livy wasn't a liar after all? Why... I'll be..."
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - D B Campbell - 02-06-2009
Quote:Sorry, not to belabor this for too long, but I'd beg to disagree.Me, too. I'd be surprised if the great Livian scholars of Glasgow -- R.M. Ogilvie and P.G. Walsh -- simply write Livy off like this. I haven't read their work for many years, but I don't recall any radical pessimism. Sure, Livy sometimes makes mistakes, but who doesn't?
Edit: Oops -- inadvertently adopted Ogilvie for Glasgow; I wouldn't want to insult any readers from St Andrews. :wink:
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - antiochus - 02-07-2009
Whether it be nitpicking or criticising, the point is it sows the seeds of distrust and is like the dripping tap technique, eventually everyone becomes annoyed with it, in this case annoyed with Livy. But putting that aside, I was going over my book today and I noticed something I have overlooked. All the mathematics in the tables I have done for the levy system for 700 years, which adheres to the Servian constitutions shows the artificers and musicians belong to the proletarii and capite censi. Now Dionysius and Livy cannot be reconciled on this matter, with each attaching them to different classes. For example when the number of registered proletarii and capite censi is 182 men, there are 8 artificers and 8 musicians. Now by attaching the eight to each class, results in 190 men per class. By ending in a zero, this brings the numbers in line with every other class which also ends in a zero. Roman maths must end in a zero, I have learnt this over the last three years.
I have found through the mathematics the velites come from the proletarii and the capite censi, but now I am a little confused about some aspects of Roman vocabulary. I am starting to think that the name for mixing the proletarii and capite censi together could be accensi. Can anyone straighten me out on this?
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - M. Demetrius - 02-13-2009
What do you call a professor who is utterly crazy about Alexander the Great era trivia?
A Macademia nut.
(don't kill me)
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - antiochus - 02-14-2009
Well I enjoyed the joke, and it tops off a very good week. I have been able to understand some sections in Vegetius and what it is he is saying. This is in regard to Vegetius’ comment the hastati formed the second line. Added to that I met a mathematician who has an interest in Roman military history. After examining my work, his analysts was you definitely cannot make up your own legion or political organisation to suit yourself as the foundations, which is the Servian constitution, determines every facet. So by following these important mathematical foundations, he found it easy to calculate the organisation of the various legion sizes found in the primary sources.
But putting this aside, the maths show the artificers and musicians come from the prolatarii and the capite censi. So in regard to the Servian constitution, I have discovered the 18 centuries of cavalry is wrong (someone added the total number of iuniores and seniores to the iuniores), as is the classes the artificers and musicians belong to. That is all.
Also the Military Press have examined the first book and are very interested in proceeding with negotiations. But since then more publishers have come onboard, including some who originally rejected the proposal.
Re: EUREKA - Roman army troops - Gaius Julius Caesar - 02-14-2009
Good luck Steve! I look forward to seeing this in print oneday!
