05-27-2017, 01:26 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-27-2017, 01:42 AM by Steven James.)
Marcel wrote:
Concerning the Ten-century-cohort I agree with you that it needs more clarification (some other comments above are difficult to understand).
Let me know which ones and I will clarify.
Marcel wrote:
I stood under the impression that Stefan refers to the 1st cohort only.
That needs to be clarified by Stefan.
Marcel wrote:
and about the old manipulus: yes, I agree that the system has probably (!) longer survived than believed.
I have followed the primary sources on the maniple and have it as an integral part of the organisation right up and including the late Roman legion as well.
Marcel wrote:
Hyginus' camp-order is completely based upon the manipulus.
I’m going in the opposite direction and say it is based on the century and contubernium.
Marcel wrote:
Against this theory is speaking that all new auxilaries are always organized in cohorts, and not in manipulae.
That was a subject that was a thorn in my side for some years. I had to step back from my research and find something that would give the answer. And it took some years to find the answer, which again was staring me in the face. The praetorians are reported by Tacitus as being organised into maniples, so why them and not the auxiliaries. The mention of praetorian maniples on rafts so as to prevent any criminals from escaping from the lake provided an answer. Maniples belong to one of the legion’s two organisation structures, and that was another eureka moment. When a certain number of the same infantry units is deployed in a particular manner, that determines when the maniple system is employed. It’s all about deployment, and by choosing system A, the primi ordines command structure takes over, choose system B and the centurion ordinarius command structure takes over.
And that is the confusion relating to the centurion command structure, and I can almost feel Stefan’s pain and confusion in his paper. The confusion wants to pull you in two directions, and looking back, I should have seen that as a hint during my own investigation.
So basically, all centurions are either hastati prior, hastati posterior, princeps prior, princeps posterior, pilus prior or pilus posterior, which I believe is the ranking system. However, it is their job function that changes some of them to the title of primi ordines or centurion ordinarius.
Stefan’s view that “there were 54 potential primi ordines in every legion,” which I am in complete disagreement with. It is much less in number, and it changes depending on whether a full strength legion is deployed. I have not yet seen a comprehensive study of the legion’s geometry, and that is where I have found many answers. The legion is built on the ratio 3:2, it is based on triangular numbers, which produce rectangles and squares.
Michael wrote:
Pull in your horns, Steven. You are constantly enjoining us to trust the primary sources so, if you have a primary source (Hyginus) that unequivocally speaks of eight tents being pitched but you choose to read it as nine, you can expect to be challenged.
Let us not forget there is a lot of corruption in Hyginus as you and many others have pointed out, and from what I have read over time, that passage is no exception, and there is nothing wrong with putting it to the test, and that is why in my notes I have also experimented with 8 tents, 9 tents, and 10 tents. When an ancient historian has varying numbers and sometimes contradictory numbers, then I like to experiment and see if I can find his mathematical mean. Once that can be found, then it can be determined whether he deviated from that mean, and he does. Therefore, I find it important then to subject every piece of his data to his mathematical mean to determine what could be or what could not be corrupt or incorrect.
There are incidents when Hyginus is halving his mathematical mean and this tells me he is now working on 6 legions and not 3 legions, and others on 5 legions.
Concerning the Ten-century-cohort I agree with you that it needs more clarification (some other comments above are difficult to understand).
Let me know which ones and I will clarify.
Marcel wrote:
I stood under the impression that Stefan refers to the 1st cohort only.
That needs to be clarified by Stefan.
Marcel wrote:
and about the old manipulus: yes, I agree that the system has probably (!) longer survived than believed.
I have followed the primary sources on the maniple and have it as an integral part of the organisation right up and including the late Roman legion as well.
Marcel wrote:
Hyginus' camp-order is completely based upon the manipulus.
I’m going in the opposite direction and say it is based on the century and contubernium.
Marcel wrote:
Against this theory is speaking that all new auxilaries are always organized in cohorts, and not in manipulae.
That was a subject that was a thorn in my side for some years. I had to step back from my research and find something that would give the answer. And it took some years to find the answer, which again was staring me in the face. The praetorians are reported by Tacitus as being organised into maniples, so why them and not the auxiliaries. The mention of praetorian maniples on rafts so as to prevent any criminals from escaping from the lake provided an answer. Maniples belong to one of the legion’s two organisation structures, and that was another eureka moment. When a certain number of the same infantry units is deployed in a particular manner, that determines when the maniple system is employed. It’s all about deployment, and by choosing system A, the primi ordines command structure takes over, choose system B and the centurion ordinarius command structure takes over.
And that is the confusion relating to the centurion command structure, and I can almost feel Stefan’s pain and confusion in his paper. The confusion wants to pull you in two directions, and looking back, I should have seen that as a hint during my own investigation.
So basically, all centurions are either hastati prior, hastati posterior, princeps prior, princeps posterior, pilus prior or pilus posterior, which I believe is the ranking system. However, it is their job function that changes some of them to the title of primi ordines or centurion ordinarius.
Stefan’s view that “there were 54 potential primi ordines in every legion,” which I am in complete disagreement with. It is much less in number, and it changes depending on whether a full strength legion is deployed. I have not yet seen a comprehensive study of the legion’s geometry, and that is where I have found many answers. The legion is built on the ratio 3:2, it is based on triangular numbers, which produce rectangles and squares.
Michael wrote:
Pull in your horns, Steven. You are constantly enjoining us to trust the primary sources so, if you have a primary source (Hyginus) that unequivocally speaks of eight tents being pitched but you choose to read it as nine, you can expect to be challenged.
Let us not forget there is a lot of corruption in Hyginus as you and many others have pointed out, and from what I have read over time, that passage is no exception, and there is nothing wrong with putting it to the test, and that is why in my notes I have also experimented with 8 tents, 9 tents, and 10 tents. When an ancient historian has varying numbers and sometimes contradictory numbers, then I like to experiment and see if I can find his mathematical mean. Once that can be found, then it can be determined whether he deviated from that mean, and he does. Therefore, I find it important then to subject every piece of his data to his mathematical mean to determine what could be or what could not be corrupt or incorrect.
There are incidents when Hyginus is halving his mathematical mean and this tells me he is now working on 6 legions and not 3 legions, and others on 5 legions.
