02-11-2013, 07:39 AM
Crastinus wrote:
Cornell has provided a good summary of the various theories regarding the formation of the Roman tribal system. (Cornell 1995, pp. 173-9) That there were 21 tribes by the year 495 BC is fairly certain, but prior to that time, nothing much can be said with any confidence.
I do not share Cornell’s opinion as he has not conducted a serious analyst of the empirical data.
Crastinus wrote:
You stated earlier that you've never seen an explanation as to why the Romans only had 35 tribes, Antiochus, and I have to say that I never have either.
That is one of the short comings of academia…they have ignored so much source material.
Crastinus wrote:
The Italians were finally enrolled in the 35 tribes after Marius and Cinna defeated Octavius and reenacted Sulpicius' legislation. So, if Appian is to be trusted, the number of tribes was very briefly increased to 45, but never really put into effect.
I’ve done an investigation into this to see if it had any bearing on the tribal system and found it did not. Adding more tribes would violate the principles of the Pythagorean 6:8:9:12 tetrachord and its sacred ratios. In the 225 BC I gave an example of the zodiac and the cohort, and showed a tribe amounts to 6000 men. This is the number of citizens in that tribe that are permitted to vote (by lot) and the number of men that can be levied. However, there could be more citizens registered in a tribe but only 6000 got to vote. So even though the Latins could be distributed among the tribes, the Roman can make sure their names are never entered in the voting procedure. Same is they had been formed into tribes, the Roman tribes would vote first and will determine the outcome thereby not needing to call on the 10 Latin tribes to vote as there vote would make no difference. It’s treating the Latins in the same manner as the poorer classes are treated in the Servian constitution. If I remember correctly the Latins realised they had been duped.
Crastinus wrote:
Regarding your comparison of the degrees of the five elements with the five classes of the Comitia Centuriata, I really don't know enough to have an opinion. I can see the point you've made about Classes I and V, but what about the other three classes?
Your arithmetic adds up to eight classes and is in violation of Dionysius description of six classes or Livy’s five classes.
Crastinus wrote:
Are you only talking about their (Sex Suffragia) disappearance from the actual army?
Yes, at Veii in 480 BC Dionysius lists six legions and 1200 cavalry. So 1200 cavalry divided by five cavalry per century equals 240 centuries and 240 centuries divided by six legions means each legion amounts to 40 centuries.
Crastinus wrote:
You may very well be right about Pythagorean teachings playing a role here, but I don't think it can be proven.
The new forms of Pythagorean religion and government were forced on the Roman people by religious fear. This is what Plutarch tells us about king Numa who was a close friend of Pythagoras. Change Numa to Tarquinius Superbus and things start to make sense. Also look at Plutarch’s description of the character of Numa. It’s the same characterisation given by other ancient historians for Pythagoras. But putting this aside, my primary focus is on the Pythagorean formulas.
Crastinus wrote:
I fear I could never be a true Pythagorean, since that would entail giving up baked beans at summer picnics. And no more burritos?
Romanian horse meat burritos perhaps.
Cornell has provided a good summary of the various theories regarding the formation of the Roman tribal system. (Cornell 1995, pp. 173-9) That there were 21 tribes by the year 495 BC is fairly certain, but prior to that time, nothing much can be said with any confidence.
I do not share Cornell’s opinion as he has not conducted a serious analyst of the empirical data.
Crastinus wrote:
You stated earlier that you've never seen an explanation as to why the Romans only had 35 tribes, Antiochus, and I have to say that I never have either.
That is one of the short comings of academia…they have ignored so much source material.
Crastinus wrote:
The Italians were finally enrolled in the 35 tribes after Marius and Cinna defeated Octavius and reenacted Sulpicius' legislation. So, if Appian is to be trusted, the number of tribes was very briefly increased to 45, but never really put into effect.
I’ve done an investigation into this to see if it had any bearing on the tribal system and found it did not. Adding more tribes would violate the principles of the Pythagorean 6:8:9:12 tetrachord and its sacred ratios. In the 225 BC I gave an example of the zodiac and the cohort, and showed a tribe amounts to 6000 men. This is the number of citizens in that tribe that are permitted to vote (by lot) and the number of men that can be levied. However, there could be more citizens registered in a tribe but only 6000 got to vote. So even though the Latins could be distributed among the tribes, the Roman can make sure their names are never entered in the voting procedure. Same is they had been formed into tribes, the Roman tribes would vote first and will determine the outcome thereby not needing to call on the 10 Latin tribes to vote as there vote would make no difference. It’s treating the Latins in the same manner as the poorer classes are treated in the Servian constitution. If I remember correctly the Latins realised they had been duped.
Crastinus wrote:
Regarding your comparison of the degrees of the five elements with the five classes of the Comitia Centuriata, I really don't know enough to have an opinion. I can see the point you've made about Classes I and V, but what about the other three classes?
Your arithmetic adds up to eight classes and is in violation of Dionysius description of six classes or Livy’s five classes.
Crastinus wrote:
Are you only talking about their (Sex Suffragia) disappearance from the actual army?
Yes, at Veii in 480 BC Dionysius lists six legions and 1200 cavalry. So 1200 cavalry divided by five cavalry per century equals 240 centuries and 240 centuries divided by six legions means each legion amounts to 40 centuries.
Crastinus wrote:
You may very well be right about Pythagorean teachings playing a role here, but I don't think it can be proven.
The new forms of Pythagorean religion and government were forced on the Roman people by religious fear. This is what Plutarch tells us about king Numa who was a close friend of Pythagoras. Change Numa to Tarquinius Superbus and things start to make sense. Also look at Plutarch’s description of the character of Numa. It’s the same characterisation given by other ancient historians for Pythagoras. But putting this aside, my primary focus is on the Pythagorean formulas.
Crastinus wrote:
I fear I could never be a true Pythagorean, since that would entail giving up baked beans at summer picnics. And no more burritos?
Romanian horse meat burritos perhaps.
