05-26-2017, 05:10 AM
Marcel wrote:
There ist also another very good conclusion of Stefan Zehetner about the inscription CIL VIII 18065,
Unfortunately Marcel I do not hold to your views of Stefan’s conclusions.
Stefan Zehetner wrote:
As the first cohort had no pilus posterior it has to have another centurion filling his position.
A conclusion obviously reached because Vegetius does not list the triarius posterior in his first cohort.
Stefan Zehetner wrote:
He was selected as centurion in the grade of tenth hastatus.
Spurnius Lingustinus was selected as centurion of the tenth hastatus ordo. That is important and should not be left out.
Stefan Zehetner wrote:
As Livy mentioned Spurnius Lingustinus was promoted from the tenth maniple.
No it is not the tenth maniple, Livy states the 10th ordo, and had Spurnius Lingustinus been in charge of the 10th ordo during the principate he would have had the title of centurion ordinarius.
Stefan Zehetner wrote:
Remember there is no real rank and level grading now, because the situation is set in republican times, when there were no cohorts.
But later Stefan mentions that at Zama, Scipio Africanus grouped his legions in cohorts.
Stefan Zehetner wrote:
A full cohort could consist of five to ten centuries. Six were only standard.
10 full cohorts each of 10 centuries will equal 100 centuries to a legion. I have to question his knowledge on the Roman legion.
Stefan Zehetner wrote:
I agree with Domaszewski that there were two primi pilus in every legion, but I think they were equal in rank and function...But in CIL VIII 18072 there is only one primus pilus mentioned. How does this correlate? Well of course at sometimes there could have been only one primus pilus, because the second not yet was promoted. But CIL VIII 18072 is a special case.
And here we have the old chestnut of just calling it a special case when it does not fit the theory. How about more investigation? How about throwing out the theory? How about if the primary sources are at conflict with your theory, you go back and re-evaluating everything you believe about the Roman legion? How about you follow the primary sources instead of just conforming to academia’s mind think? How about instead of claiming the maniple was abolished by Marius, you work with the primary sources, and when they say maniple after the time of Marius, you go with it.
If Stefan did this and truly had an open mind, he might come to the understanding that the Roman legion had two different organisations, one vertical and one horizontal. The vertical is used in camp, or when it is safe to have units undertake missions away from the legion, whereas the horizontal is used on the battlefield, and no commander would detach units from the vertical before going into battle as it affects the legion’s frontage. Cato at the battle of Emporia in 195 BC, used the legions’ horizontal organisation to defeat the enemy, which involved an outflanking movement.
Stefan’s paper reminds me of the scriptwriter, who keeps continually writing hoping to find out what the story is about. The primary sources do not make the claim that Marius abolished the maniple, but Stefan believes it to be so. This is the problem with so many academic papers relating to the Roman legion; they just conform to the theories of the day. When do we get an academic that has the balls to break the mould?
There ist also another very good conclusion of Stefan Zehetner about the inscription CIL VIII 18065,
Unfortunately Marcel I do not hold to your views of Stefan’s conclusions.
Stefan Zehetner wrote:
As the first cohort had no pilus posterior it has to have another centurion filling his position.
A conclusion obviously reached because Vegetius does not list the triarius posterior in his first cohort.
Stefan Zehetner wrote:
He was selected as centurion in the grade of tenth hastatus.
Spurnius Lingustinus was selected as centurion of the tenth hastatus ordo. That is important and should not be left out.
Stefan Zehetner wrote:
As Livy mentioned Spurnius Lingustinus was promoted from the tenth maniple.
No it is not the tenth maniple, Livy states the 10th ordo, and had Spurnius Lingustinus been in charge of the 10th ordo during the principate he would have had the title of centurion ordinarius.
Stefan Zehetner wrote:
Remember there is no real rank and level grading now, because the situation is set in republican times, when there were no cohorts.
But later Stefan mentions that at Zama, Scipio Africanus grouped his legions in cohorts.
Stefan Zehetner wrote:
A full cohort could consist of five to ten centuries. Six were only standard.
10 full cohorts each of 10 centuries will equal 100 centuries to a legion. I have to question his knowledge on the Roman legion.
Stefan Zehetner wrote:
I agree with Domaszewski that there were two primi pilus in every legion, but I think they were equal in rank and function...But in CIL VIII 18072 there is only one primus pilus mentioned. How does this correlate? Well of course at sometimes there could have been only one primus pilus, because the second not yet was promoted. But CIL VIII 18072 is a special case.
And here we have the old chestnut of just calling it a special case when it does not fit the theory. How about more investigation? How about throwing out the theory? How about if the primary sources are at conflict with your theory, you go back and re-evaluating everything you believe about the Roman legion? How about you follow the primary sources instead of just conforming to academia’s mind think? How about instead of claiming the maniple was abolished by Marius, you work with the primary sources, and when they say maniple after the time of Marius, you go with it.
If Stefan did this and truly had an open mind, he might come to the understanding that the Roman legion had two different organisations, one vertical and one horizontal. The vertical is used in camp, or when it is safe to have units undertake missions away from the legion, whereas the horizontal is used on the battlefield, and no commander would detach units from the vertical before going into battle as it affects the legion’s frontage. Cato at the battle of Emporia in 195 BC, used the legions’ horizontal organisation to defeat the enemy, which involved an outflanking movement.
Stefan’s paper reminds me of the scriptwriter, who keeps continually writing hoping to find out what the story is about. The primary sources do not make the claim that Marius abolished the maniple, but Stefan believes it to be so. This is the problem with so many academic papers relating to the Roman legion; they just conform to the theories of the day. When do we get an academic that has the balls to break the mould?
