09-04-2018, 02:56 PM
Nathan wrote:
So Pompeius's total legionary infantry in the acies appear to number 'about' 47,000, according to Caesar.
You’re adding the 2,000 reservist to the 45,000 men. How can you be sure they are not part of the 45,000 men and should be subtracted?
Nathan wrote:
I still do not agree with your conclusions though.
We are in agreement then. We both don’t agree with each other’s conclusions. Some time back on the Zama thread (the battle that never was), I showed how Polybius arrived at the Carthaginian army of 93,000 men. Strange isn’t that no other modern scholar picked up on that.
Nathan wrote:
Many of your ideas appear to rely on the notion that ancient writers, or military commanders, were using exact figures for troop numbers, drawn from some sort of chart or list, down to numbers of men in particular ranks, horses, artificers, etc, and/or that they were drawing these numbers from a fixed mathematical formula.
Nathan, you have surprised me. You have fully understood what I have been discussing for some years. That chart of list as you describe it is the Servian constitution. Musicians and artificers are also an integral part of the Servian constitution. The voting procedure of the Servian constitution is conducted by the men arrayed in ranks. This has been discussed by Dionysius and Livy. Unfortunately, the Servian constitution and its relationship to the legion has not been studied in any great depth, which is a shame as it provides the greatest insights in the history of the Roman legion.
Nathan wrote:
I prefer to believe that both commanders and historians relied (as they do to this day) on approximate figures - perhaps based on eyewitnesses just counting up subunits or standards and making on the spot calculations, as we know soldiers were trained to do - with exact figures only when available and guesswork when not, rounding up or down as they saw fit.
If you mean approximate figures equate to paper strength figures for ancient armies, then we are in agreement. As for making up numbers, I have many accounts of the size of the Roman army being used for the size of the enemy.
Funny how you question me about why would Frontinus round Pompey’s depth, when here you mention “rounding up or down as they saw fit.” I love your style.
Nathan wrote:
What does seem anachronistic is the idea that because they did this in the republican era the practice must have continued throughout Roman history in some way, or that it was enshrined in a 'doctrine' followed religiously by Roman commanders - something for which we have no evidence at all and which no source mentions.
Sorry, there is no 12 step program provided by the ancient sources. To find the evidence, try and understand the various legion numbers found throughout the primary sources, and why they are at variance. I work in chronological order, so when I cover the principate, I only use sources of that period. Tacitus is a gold mine of information.
Nathan wrote:
I still don't see how that follows. Armies were arrayed with differing depths, depending on terrain, opponents etc. Our sources suggest this, and I see no reason to assume otherwise.
Standard deployment. There are variations due to tactics and terrain. Such deviations from the standard are well and truly covered in the book, which at the moment could be separated into two or three volumes. At present I am polishing volume one.
So Pompeius's total legionary infantry in the acies appear to number 'about' 47,000, according to Caesar.
You’re adding the 2,000 reservist to the 45,000 men. How can you be sure they are not part of the 45,000 men and should be subtracted?
Nathan wrote:
I still do not agree with your conclusions though.
We are in agreement then. We both don’t agree with each other’s conclusions. Some time back on the Zama thread (the battle that never was), I showed how Polybius arrived at the Carthaginian army of 93,000 men. Strange isn’t that no other modern scholar picked up on that.
Nathan wrote:
Many of your ideas appear to rely on the notion that ancient writers, or military commanders, were using exact figures for troop numbers, drawn from some sort of chart or list, down to numbers of men in particular ranks, horses, artificers, etc, and/or that they were drawing these numbers from a fixed mathematical formula.
Nathan, you have surprised me. You have fully understood what I have been discussing for some years. That chart of list as you describe it is the Servian constitution. Musicians and artificers are also an integral part of the Servian constitution. The voting procedure of the Servian constitution is conducted by the men arrayed in ranks. This has been discussed by Dionysius and Livy. Unfortunately, the Servian constitution and its relationship to the legion has not been studied in any great depth, which is a shame as it provides the greatest insights in the history of the Roman legion.
Nathan wrote:
I prefer to believe that both commanders and historians relied (as they do to this day) on approximate figures - perhaps based on eyewitnesses just counting up subunits or standards and making on the spot calculations, as we know soldiers were trained to do - with exact figures only when available and guesswork when not, rounding up or down as they saw fit.
If you mean approximate figures equate to paper strength figures for ancient armies, then we are in agreement. As for making up numbers, I have many accounts of the size of the Roman army being used for the size of the enemy.
Funny how you question me about why would Frontinus round Pompey’s depth, when here you mention “rounding up or down as they saw fit.” I love your style.
Nathan wrote:
What does seem anachronistic is the idea that because they did this in the republican era the practice must have continued throughout Roman history in some way, or that it was enshrined in a 'doctrine' followed religiously by Roman commanders - something for which we have no evidence at all and which no source mentions.
Sorry, there is no 12 step program provided by the ancient sources. To find the evidence, try and understand the various legion numbers found throughout the primary sources, and why they are at variance. I work in chronological order, so when I cover the principate, I only use sources of that period. Tacitus is a gold mine of information.
Nathan wrote:
I still don't see how that follows. Armies were arrayed with differing depths, depending on terrain, opponents etc. Our sources suggest this, and I see no reason to assume otherwise.
Standard deployment. There are variations due to tactics and terrain. Such deviations from the standard are well and truly covered in the book, which at the moment could be separated into two or three volumes. At present I am polishing volume one.
