08-06-2013, 04:52 PM
Thanks Macedon, I was hoping that your Greek-ability might appear. 
Whilst I'm more than content Polybius is 'clear' I'm sure there's room for 'interpretation'. :wink:
The translation I would like to ask you about, therefore, is the one I have translated as: "The appropriate numbers of velites are then distributed equally among the sections."
For it's when I interpreted Polybius' very careful description in not actually enumerating the numbers of velites ,that I then suspected that there were 1,000 and not 1,200 as is commonly shown by more recent writers. For thus I am theorizing that what he in fact means is that the 'appropriate.....equally....' is 'in proportion'. For that would assign 40 velites to each 120 hastati/principes and 20 to each 60 triarii. Thus the maniples would indeed be 160 and 80 respectfully - and thus I see the proto-century of Polybius as 80 (plus the 'officers'), even if he doesn't use that delineation at that point himself - all the elements are there.
And that then connects to the new thread I started - and I don't mind which, except the title of this one is a bit odd.
Do you disagree with that interpretation from your own translation?
Whilst I'm more than content Polybius is 'clear' I'm sure there's room for 'interpretation'. :wink:
The translation I would like to ask you about, therefore, is the one I have translated as: "The appropriate numbers of velites are then distributed equally among the sections."
For it's when I interpreted Polybius' very careful description in not actually enumerating the numbers of velites ,that I then suspected that there were 1,000 and not 1,200 as is commonly shown by more recent writers. For thus I am theorizing that what he in fact means is that the 'appropriate.....equally....' is 'in proportion'. For that would assign 40 velites to each 120 hastati/principes and 20 to each 60 triarii. Thus the maniples would indeed be 160 and 80 respectfully - and thus I see the proto-century of Polybius as 80 (plus the 'officers'), even if he doesn't use that delineation at that point himself - all the elements are there.
And that then connects to the new thread I started - and I don't mind which, except the title of this one is a bit odd.
Do you disagree with that interpretation from your own translation?
