03-10-2016, 03:51 PM
[quote pid='334258' dateline='1457593182']
Nathan Ross
I still don't understand what you mean, I'm afraid. Are these references to vexillations (plural) being termed a cohort (singular)? If a single vexillation is also referred to as a cohort then, as I say above, it would suggest that it was cohort sized...
Perhaps you give a couple of examples of these references?
[/quote]
Livy (40 27 3) mentions four cohorts of extraordinarii (extraordinariis cohortibus) assembled at the praetorian gate.
There is an earlier reference mentioning two cohorts and the total number of men, which I know works out to be two vexillations. If I provide the references, then I would be asked to explain more. This would mean I would have to provide the legion size, which the primary sources provide, and then how it all works. Basically all I do is give more of my hard achieved research away, and for what? When I provide numbers and how they work they are ignored. Everyone moves around then like they don’t exist. I believe I have provided sufficient examples of legions being organised into five vexillations, also breakdown examples of the 1,600 vexellarii of Hyginus and the references to 3,000 and 4,000 man legions. Returning to the extraodinarii being as Polybius claims one fifth of the allied infantry, as two allied legions in a consular army amount to twenty cohorts, one fifth would amount to four cohorts, and this leaves us with Livy telling us that four cohorts of extraodinarii protected the praetorian gate. And let’s not forget in this posting I mentioned the five legion standards as mentioned by Pliny. Using basic arithmetic, when 10 cohorts are divided by 5 standards each standard is allocated two cohorts. When does it stop being coincidence? Would someone like to answer that question?
I don’t pull rabbits out of my hat lightly. I sat on the possibility of a legion having five vexillations for years. However, from every period of the legion’s history there was enough data confirming that five vexillations to a legion was standard practice for 1,000 years, like there are cohorts, maniples and centuries.
One response I always receive from those who have read all my research, and it comes as a surprise to them was how formulaic the Romans were. In his paper “The Order of Battle in the Roman Army: The Marching Camps,” Richard Anderson wrote: “The ratio 2/3 occurs in many aspects of Roman military organisation and was probably due to Pythagorean influences.”
Anderson is right about the Pythagorean influence and I take my hat off to him, but the ratio for the military organisation is not 2/3 but 3/2 (the Pythagorean perfect fifth), and that is why there are five vexillations. Anderson is using the Pythagorean ratio in its descending order. The Romans created 21 tribes, waited for over 100 years then began the process of creating the remaining 14 tribes. Now when the 21 tribes and the 14 tribes are appropriated to the hebdomad system (divisions of seven) the 21 tribes = 3 and the 14 tribes equal 2, therefore the ratio 3/2. The whole Roman system, both social and military is strictly formulated on the 3/2 ratio. Roman time is based on the other Pythagorean ratio 4/3 (the perfect fourth). And why are there two cohorts to a vexillation? According to Varro the Pythagoreans upheld the principal of “all things being in pairs.” Maybe that could explain why the remaining 14 tribes were created in pairs. Who would be brave to call it coincidence?
Nathan Ross
I still don't understand what you mean, I'm afraid. Are these references to vexillations (plural) being termed a cohort (singular)? If a single vexillation is also referred to as a cohort then, as I say above, it would suggest that it was cohort sized...
Perhaps you give a couple of examples of these references?
[/quote]
Livy (40 27 3) mentions four cohorts of extraordinarii (extraordinariis cohortibus) assembled at the praetorian gate.
There is an earlier reference mentioning two cohorts and the total number of men, which I know works out to be two vexillations. If I provide the references, then I would be asked to explain more. This would mean I would have to provide the legion size, which the primary sources provide, and then how it all works. Basically all I do is give more of my hard achieved research away, and for what? When I provide numbers and how they work they are ignored. Everyone moves around then like they don’t exist. I believe I have provided sufficient examples of legions being organised into five vexillations, also breakdown examples of the 1,600 vexellarii of Hyginus and the references to 3,000 and 4,000 man legions. Returning to the extraodinarii being as Polybius claims one fifth of the allied infantry, as two allied legions in a consular army amount to twenty cohorts, one fifth would amount to four cohorts, and this leaves us with Livy telling us that four cohorts of extraodinarii protected the praetorian gate. And let’s not forget in this posting I mentioned the five legion standards as mentioned by Pliny. Using basic arithmetic, when 10 cohorts are divided by 5 standards each standard is allocated two cohorts. When does it stop being coincidence? Would someone like to answer that question?
I don’t pull rabbits out of my hat lightly. I sat on the possibility of a legion having five vexillations for years. However, from every period of the legion’s history there was enough data confirming that five vexillations to a legion was standard practice for 1,000 years, like there are cohorts, maniples and centuries.
One response I always receive from those who have read all my research, and it comes as a surprise to them was how formulaic the Romans were. In his paper “The Order of Battle in the Roman Army: The Marching Camps,” Richard Anderson wrote: “The ratio 2/3 occurs in many aspects of Roman military organisation and was probably due to Pythagorean influences.”
Anderson is right about the Pythagorean influence and I take my hat off to him, but the ratio for the military organisation is not 2/3 but 3/2 (the Pythagorean perfect fifth), and that is why there are five vexillations. Anderson is using the Pythagorean ratio in its descending order. The Romans created 21 tribes, waited for over 100 years then began the process of creating the remaining 14 tribes. Now when the 21 tribes and the 14 tribes are appropriated to the hebdomad system (divisions of seven) the 21 tribes = 3 and the 14 tribes equal 2, therefore the ratio 3/2. The whole Roman system, both social and military is strictly formulated on the 3/2 ratio. Roman time is based on the other Pythagorean ratio 4/3 (the perfect fourth). And why are there two cohorts to a vexillation? According to Varro the Pythagoreans upheld the principal of “all things being in pairs.” Maybe that could explain why the remaining 14 tribes were created in pairs. Who would be brave to call it coincidence?
