08-14-2013, 06:50 AM
Macedon wrote:
So, please, stop taunting me or trying to force me into a discussion I do not want to get involved.
Could you please stop dictating what my motives are! I am not trying to force or taunt you to do anything.
Macedon wrote:
If you disagree with my understanding of Polybius because evidently the translations you have read seem to agree with you, feel also free to do so.
That’s all well and fine. But it was you who told me on two occasions I was confused.
Macedon wrote:
I would advise that you start another thread if you want to discuss something different to the OP.
With all due respect Macedon, I started this thread about interpreting Polybius. I did it because I didn’t want to divert from the original thread which was about the late roman legion. Anyway let’s drop the subject.
Mark wrote:
Livy (and the thread, as started by you) I thought was about Polybius.....as does Macedon it seems.
Livy leads to Polybius and Polybius to Livy. A thread like this could also lead to Vegetius.
Mark wrote:
Livy I.43 - that whilst the 2 army idea links to the 2 Consular Army construct of Polybius, the 40 centuries + 1(Engineers) + 10 + 10 + 10 + 15 + 1½ does not......and nor does....
It is very simple t reconcile Livy’s outline of the century assembly with Dionysius. Dionysius gives the fiscal value of Class V at 12,500 asses (originally given as minae), while Livy has 11,000 asses. Livy is 1500 asses short of Dionysius. Cicero gives the fiscal value for the proletarii at 1500 asses. The mistake by Livy is he has subtracted the proletarii from Class V, when the proletarii along with the capite censi belong to Class VI.
Mark wrote:
Livy VIII.8 - which has the classic hastati-principes-triarii, but also the rorarii and accensi, however they are in 15 maniples + 15 + 15 (the last in 3 sections)....
My research shows there are six organisational levels in the Roman legion of which four of them overlap. As an experiment, if I added up the size of each of the four overlapping organisations, Livy’s legion would amount to well over 10,000 men. Approaching Livy by adding the parts to try and get the whole is the wrong methodology. I’m saying that from experience.
Mark wrote:
Livy often otherwise seems to have 4-5,000 infantry and 300 cavalry legions all over his text, that do fit with Polybius - so I am quite content that something is awry!
I’ve found each writer has committed one mistake in their description. However, if people elect to believe Polybius’ 1200 hastati and 1200 principes are organised into 10 maniples, then they will experience difficulties….a road I have been down.
Mark wrote:
Could my theory be wrong - of course it can - that's why it's a theory! But I will put it up against a equal theory that suggests that the Roman army was organised on the ever moving lines of Tribal organisations or links to the Cosmos, for that makes almost no military sense to me at all.
That’s what separates the Romans from the modern military. And I can’t remember Rommel or Patton sacrificing animals to read if the entrails will show a favourable sign for giving battle. I’d like to introduce a reference you Mark that is taken from Manilius Astronimica:
“And as in great cities the inhabitants are divided into classes, whereof the senate enjoys primacy and the equestrian order importance next to this, and one may see the knights followed by the commons, the commons by the idle proletariats, and finally the innominate throng, so too in the mighty heavens there exists a commonwealth wrought by nature, which founded a city in the sky. There are luminaries of princely rank and stars which come close to the highest eminence, there are all the grades and privileges of superior orders. But outnumbering all these is the populace, which revolves about heaven’s dome: had nature given it powers consonant with its legions.”
The reference to heaven’s dome is the zodiac, and the legion is based on the zodiac.
Mark wrote:
Both of us can be wrong, but I'll apply Occam's razor and perhaps choose mine first - we will see.
Yes, the proof is in the pudding. But I believe in the coming years, those who do not accept or ignore the Pythagorean aspect will be the minority, and ignored.
So, please, stop taunting me or trying to force me into a discussion I do not want to get involved.
Could you please stop dictating what my motives are! I am not trying to force or taunt you to do anything.
Macedon wrote:
If you disagree with my understanding of Polybius because evidently the translations you have read seem to agree with you, feel also free to do so.
That’s all well and fine. But it was you who told me on two occasions I was confused.
Macedon wrote:
I would advise that you start another thread if you want to discuss something different to the OP.
With all due respect Macedon, I started this thread about interpreting Polybius. I did it because I didn’t want to divert from the original thread which was about the late roman legion. Anyway let’s drop the subject.
Mark wrote:
Livy (and the thread, as started by you) I thought was about Polybius.....as does Macedon it seems.
Livy leads to Polybius and Polybius to Livy. A thread like this could also lead to Vegetius.
Mark wrote:
Livy I.43 - that whilst the 2 army idea links to the 2 Consular Army construct of Polybius, the 40 centuries + 1(Engineers) + 10 + 10 + 10 + 15 + 1½ does not......and nor does....
It is very simple t reconcile Livy’s outline of the century assembly with Dionysius. Dionysius gives the fiscal value of Class V at 12,500 asses (originally given as minae), while Livy has 11,000 asses. Livy is 1500 asses short of Dionysius. Cicero gives the fiscal value for the proletarii at 1500 asses. The mistake by Livy is he has subtracted the proletarii from Class V, when the proletarii along with the capite censi belong to Class VI.
Mark wrote:
Livy VIII.8 - which has the classic hastati-principes-triarii, but also the rorarii and accensi, however they are in 15 maniples + 15 + 15 (the last in 3 sections)....
My research shows there are six organisational levels in the Roman legion of which four of them overlap. As an experiment, if I added up the size of each of the four overlapping organisations, Livy’s legion would amount to well over 10,000 men. Approaching Livy by adding the parts to try and get the whole is the wrong methodology. I’m saying that from experience.
Mark wrote:
Livy often otherwise seems to have 4-5,000 infantry and 300 cavalry legions all over his text, that do fit with Polybius - so I am quite content that something is awry!
I’ve found each writer has committed one mistake in their description. However, if people elect to believe Polybius’ 1200 hastati and 1200 principes are organised into 10 maniples, then they will experience difficulties….a road I have been down.
Mark wrote:
Could my theory be wrong - of course it can - that's why it's a theory! But I will put it up against a equal theory that suggests that the Roman army was organised on the ever moving lines of Tribal organisations or links to the Cosmos, for that makes almost no military sense to me at all.
That’s what separates the Romans from the modern military. And I can’t remember Rommel or Patton sacrificing animals to read if the entrails will show a favourable sign for giving battle. I’d like to introduce a reference you Mark that is taken from Manilius Astronimica:
“And as in great cities the inhabitants are divided into classes, whereof the senate enjoys primacy and the equestrian order importance next to this, and one may see the knights followed by the commons, the commons by the idle proletariats, and finally the innominate throng, so too in the mighty heavens there exists a commonwealth wrought by nature, which founded a city in the sky. There are luminaries of princely rank and stars which come close to the highest eminence, there are all the grades and privileges of superior orders. But outnumbering all these is the populace, which revolves about heaven’s dome: had nature given it powers consonant with its legions.”
The reference to heaven’s dome is the zodiac, and the legion is based on the zodiac.
Mark wrote:
Both of us can be wrong, but I'll apply Occam's razor and perhaps choose mine first - we will see.
Yes, the proof is in the pudding. But I believe in the coming years, those who do not accept or ignore the Pythagorean aspect will be the minority, and ignored.
