Zodiac and Roman Army Camp construction

[Macedon]

Seems for some if they can’t debunk me they ignore it, and then transfer their focus to something they believe they can debunk.

Isn't this the point of the discussion? To ask for clarifications when we do not understand things or when we detect a possible fallacy? I already wrote that if you are unwilling to share information that would make your research understandable to us you should just say so. It is not strange to want to keep things secret till your book is out. Maybe you should clearly set the purpose of this thread so that we know how to respond. I guess that till now, everyone thought that we were helpful by asking questions about details we think relevant and how they conform to your system and by trying to check your various facts as they were presented. If such an approach does not help you, then you should tell us what would, so that we can act accordingly.

I choose not to, especially your question about the sources to the 32 man squadron question. You’ve read Arrian and Vegetius, why are you asking me. In the past you have ignored my questions, so I am reciprocating in kind. If you think it is because I cannot answer them, be my guest. I have no interest in passing on my research on the Roman army camp to you. If you haven’t in your career come across references to the division of buildings into four then that is not my problem?

In my opinion, answering to ALL relevant points, however silly, elementary or aggressive you might think they were would be important, even if that answer consisted of a simple "There is an answer there but unfortunately I cannot discuss it at the time. It will be clear in my book however, thanks for asking." Your application of your system depends on having correct data to apply it to. Your system is supposed to explain the military system of the Polybian Romans among others and so your presenting the facts of a Polybian army "correctly" is as important as explaining its several numbers through your system. Polybius describes the Roman camp as he knows it quite analytically. Asking how you interpret his account is only understandable.

In all honesty if I replied as a general comment that my numbers do or do not agree with your question, then what. You will be asking for more answers.

Of course! I honestly thought I was being helpful in making basic questions that you have obviously answered in your book. As I understand thus far, your system is trying to explain almost all aspects of the Roman military system simultaneously. Until now, you have talked about the numbers of legions drafted, the numbers of "generals", officers, divisions, subdivisions, numbers contained in each and every one of them (in the legions, the cohorts, the maniples, the alae...), the Roman camp etc and you claim that every known change is explained by the change of the variables that govern your and thus the Roman military system for a timespan of maybe a thousand years. If so many aspects are explained, then the rules/variables should be many too at any given period. There are so many relations here between these facts that I was only feeling obliged to mention some.

I explained the size of the cohort multiplied by the 700 stadia to the degree equals 336,000 stadia which is transferred to 336,000 men, and when divided by 35 tribes each tribe numbers 9600 men and following Livy and Dionysius the ratio of iuniores to seniores is 50/50 you get 4800 iuniores and 4800 seniores. Breaking this down, from a 480 man cohort we get the tribe size and the size of the legion. Yet you still claim there “is no set way of relating the system to the army.” No wait, you are right; there is no way of relating the system to the army.

You said that your system does not predict but only explains. I do not know your system, so I have to take your word for it. A system that predicts has set mathematical rules and variables that are dependent on known and available data and so it is easy to check. Since it only explains, by definition it means that these conditions are not fulfilled, that there are no set rules and/or not available data. Such a system is not related to the army in a set sense If there were set mathematical formulas, you could say that "under such and such circumstances, the number of legions on the field/drafted in a year/in Rome etc would be equal to a certain set formula." But if you have such rules, then we/you can easily check its validity wherever there is enough evidence and then the system would predict and not only explain. And if it indeed then correctly predict a good number of cases, we would have something. By developing a system that just explains, you add symbolism to existing numbers and claim certain relationships that seem to change in a semi-chaotic way that cannot be used to predict and so are untestable.

Let me take your example :

"I explained the size of the cohort multiplied by the 700 stadia to the degree equals 336,000 stadia which is transferred to 336,000 men, and when divided by 35 tribes each tribe numbers 9600 men and following Livy and Dionysius the ratio of iuniores to seniores is 50/50 you get 4800 iuniores and 4800 seniores. Breaking this down, from a 480 man cohort we get the tribe size and the size of the legion."

Data : cohort = 480 men (variable)
stadia to a degree = 700 (constant)
number of men of military age in a tribe = 336.000 (constant?)
number of tribes = 35 (constant?)
ratio of iuniores to seniores = 50/50 (constant?)

Some of this data is not always the same. The tribes were not always 35, the number of men of military age was not, I guess, although as I understood you think it was (not impossible if the Romans wanted to)? The ratio of iuniores and seniores was also constant? I honestly have not occupied with such aspects of the Roman society, so if you say that the Romans maintained the population of their tribes constant by expelling and accepting citizens into their numbers to do so, I will just get your word for it. If the formula changes for times when the tribes were not 35, it is also OK.

So.. the only true variable here is the manpower of the cohort. If I use this formula for the Polybian Romans I would have :

cohort = 420 men (maniple of hastati = 120 hastati + 40 grosphomachoi, maniple of principes = 120 principes + 40 grosphomachoi, maniple of triarii = 60 triarii + 40 grosphomachoi = 160+160+100=420)

So, 420 x 700 stadia = 294,000 stadia. Does it mean that now we have to have 294,000 Romans in the tribes? This would be a prediction. Now,the rest has to do with the number 10, which would be the 700 stadia divided by 35 tribes and then again divided by 2 (i/s). When the tribes were just 3, this would instead be calculated as 700/(3x2)=116.66. Since it obviously cannot stand to calculate the size of a legion (assuming a constant of 336,000 men / 3 = 112,000 / 2 (i/s) = 56,000 men in a legion), I expect that there would be another formula addressing the same issue.

So, in effect, this formula is supposed to calculate the number of available Roman citizen manpower by using the size of cohorts and then the size of the legion by dividing it with 70, that is claiming that each tribe, after their number became 35, kept its population steady as to provide 2 full legions.

Isn't that what this specific formula predicts (not explains)? If we have testaments as to the Roman population in abundance, then we can check it. If you instead support that this formula only applied during a specific short period, then it cannot be used to predict other periods and thus you of course will have developed other formulas each one explaining a very specific fact in a very specific era. That would mean that you have developed dozens of formulas that are not interdependent in a manner we can check.

I have in previous postings before stated that one degree equals 700 stadia when discussing the zodiac. The zodiac being a circle is divided into degrees. The cosmos, being a straight line is not divided into degrees.

Yes, but 700 stadia of what? of the circumference of the zodiac sphere, that of earth or something else? In order for a degree of a circle to be 700 stadia, there has to be a circle of 360 degrees with a circumference of 252,000 stadia. What is this circle? I think you said it was not earth?

Florus Introduction: “If anyone were to contemplate the Roman people as he would a single individual and review its whole life, how it began, how it grew up, how it arrived at what may be called the maturity of its manhood, and how it subsequently as it were reached old age, he will find that it went through four stages of progress. The first period, when it was under the rule of kings, lasted for nearly 400 years, during which it struggled against its neighbours in the immediate vicinity of the capital. This period will be its infancy. Its next period extends from the consulship of Brutus and Collatinus to that of Appius Claudius and Quintus Fulvius, a space of 150 years, during which the Roman people subjugated Italy. It was an age of extreme activities for its soldiers and their arms, and may therefore be called its youth. The next period is the 150 years down to the time of Augustus Caesar, during which it spread peace throughout the world. This was the manhood and, as it were, the robust maturity of the empire. From the time of Caesar Augustus down to our own age there has been a period of not much less than 200 years, during which, owing to the inactivity of the emperors, the Roman people, as it were, grew old and lost its potency, save that under the rule of Trajan it again stirred its arms and, contrary to general expectation, again renewed its vigour with youth as it were restored.”

In 44 BC, as preserved by Cassius Dio (45, 18, 3), (47, 7, 1), during the funeral games of Julius Caesar a comet was visible for seven days in the northern part of the sky. The common people believed that this star signified the soul of Caesar received among the spirits of the immortal gods (Pliny Natural History 2 23, 93-94), Plutarch (Caesar 63 1), Suetonius (Caesar 88) According to Servius, (ad Verg ecl 9 47f) a haruspex by the name of Vulcatius went before a popular assembly proclaiming the new comet indicated the end of the age. This was a major event, but especially in this case, because according to official reckoning the age, now pronounced ended, had been the ninth, and many looked forward with superstitious dread to the tenth.

The above is intertwined with Florus. With regard to the ages, Virgil (Eclogue IV: The Golden Age) writes that the golden age begins with the consulship of Pollio (For, Pollio, in your consulship, this noble age begins”). Pollio’s consulship began in January 40 BC (Dio 48 15), some four years after the comet of 44 BC. The reference of Florus, Servius and Virgil I would rate as “research without depth” because it can be argued that Virgil has associated the beginning of the golden age with the signing of the treaty of Brundisium in October 40 BC, reconciling Antony with Octavian.

I do not doubt you, I have never occupied myself with the ages question. What initiates these ages? Is there some astrological or religious factor that determines that or are they just about historical cornerstones and nothing more?

I have a signa originally numbering 30 men, which would equate to the 30 degrees of a zodiac. However, it seems at the present to only mathematically relate to a specific time period. I haven’t come to a firm conclusion as this is on my “to do list.”

Is this a prediction that there was a unit called signa numbering 30 men? Do you support that all Roman subunits obey to such analogies?

I have found a distinct pattern that the Romans never raise more legions than the tribal formula dictates.

I guess that this is another formula that could be used to predict. Can you reveal it? I guess it depends on the men of the tribes, so I really would expect you to have gathered a lot of information on Roman population statistics. How many references are there on this issue? I know Polybius does give some clues although he is not clear.

Hang on, let me give you an answer that will be more satisfying. The one you really want and believe it to be. It will never be published. I’ve made it all up. I’ve been trying to string you along for years. But alas, it hasn’t worked, you are all too smart for me.

Don't be that defensive. Nic asked many times without any offensive remarks and so I guess he was frustrated for getting no answer to a question that only showed interest. There is no problem with advocating any non-standard position, most of us do in a variety of issues. On the other hand, having such positions draws doubt, especially when you, and understandably so, do not open your cards. People pose questions that are not answered to their satisfaction, since you are protective of your data, and this only reinforces doubt, you should have expected that. What I would only advise is answering to the best of your ability questions that do not have to actually do with your system but with the data you accepted as fact (sizes of units, layout of camps etc)