11-05-2020, 04:55 AM
Mark wrote:
The overall result is that, like with this Polybius issue over the number of Velites, I found what seem to be a number of anomalies and, particularly with this one issue, an organisational issue that some or many past authors seem, to me (and I am quite aware how arrogant that might seem) have made a primary mistake.
Well I don’t find it arrogant. Not enough scholars are questioning traditional views. However, all research has to be grounded and supported by mass of evidence.
Mark wrote:
In taking that leap, and then linking it to the other primary information we have; my own 'eureka' moment resulted in a belief that the Roman Army structure was simple, homogeneous, contiguos and long lasting. Fundamentally I don't think the structure changed very much (there are some tweaks) between the structure that Polybius describes that is possibly from 400BC, or earlier, and still existed 8-900 years later.
That is exactly my conclusion. Centuries, maniples, cohorts were part of the structure, from the beginning of the republic to the sack of Rome. However, to prove that, you, like myself, will have to then cover those periods to prove your point. That is the hard lesson I have learnt.
Mark wrote:
No, I believe the Romans had one standard doctrine (with the Polybian-style armies) and therefore often won regardless of whom the Consul was because it was so good and it was a rare General who 'tweaked' things to do something clever.
Well, that ignores many of the doctrines found in the primary sources. Does that mean its goodbye to the doctrine of the extraordinarii? What about the doctrine of picked troops? Why did Scipio in 209 BC leave Silanus with 3,000 infantry and 500 cavalry, while Scipio moved south and attacked Cartagena? If I had the time and inclination, I could post more.
Mark wrote:
I could try and reply to what you have written about the battle of Utica.
It shows how Polybius arrived at his numbers for the Carthaginian army. For me, it has shown one should show caution when employing Polybius. Also is numbers for the Telamon campaign are flawed as well, plus many other campaigns.
Mark wrote:
I am late to this thread and haven't read it. However, I strongly suspect that I would only be trying to find 'excuses' for the numbers whilst trying to fit my model.
Which is saying you will not have an open mind. Well I respect your honesty. However, too many academics have the same approach, ignoring evidence that contravenes their theory. That is the problem, they have a theory first and then look for evidence to support it. A good historian should let the primary sources tell the story.
Mark wrote:
The issue is that our separate 'eureka' moments are just poles apart. I just see something so simple and easier for me to understand, which fights against a numeric-mystical linkage I would find hard to accept.
I am use to derogative comments about the Pythagorean system from this forum. No one can find the decency to call it “Pythagorean.” Belittling is the only standard. Well Mark, without that “numerical-mystical linkage,”
Can you explain why there were only 35 Roman tribes?
Can you explain why four tribes how and the reason why four tribes were added in 387 BC?
Can you explain why two additional tribes were added in 299 BC?
Can you explain why the Romans describe their history in relation to the growth of a man?
Can you give a step by step account of how a Roman levy is conducted?
Can you give me the exact age bracket of the velites?
Can you give me the exact age bracket of the hastati?
Can you give me the exact age bracket of the princeps?
Can you give me the exact age bracket of the triarii?
Can you give me the exact age bracket of the Roman cavalry?
Livy states that those men from the city legions under 35 years of age were to man the ships. Can you tell me who they were?
Marcus Regulus was left in Africa in 256 BC with 40 ships. Do you know why he was left with 40 ships?
Livy states that a Latin cohort acting as a garrison force had 460 men. Oh wait, he later claims 470 men. Did Livy arrive at that figure or was it his source? If he was using a source, can you name that source?
Why does Polybius’ figure for the Roman army at the Trebbia differ from Livy’s figure?
For the campaign of 193 BC, the figures provided by Livy amount to 32,100 men (31,000 infantry and 1,100 cavalry):
Thermus 15000 allied infantry 500 allied cavalry
Flaminius 3000 Roman infantry 100 Roman cavalry
5000 allied infantry 200 allied cavalry
Fulvius 3000 Roman infantry 100 Roman cavalry
5000 allied infantry 200 allied cavalry
Total 31000 infantry 1100 cavalry
Can you determine which numbers are rounded and the method (if any) Livy or his source has employed to arrive at such numbers?
Believe it or not, the Pythagorean system makes it possible to answer every question.
Mark wrote:
PS - I certainly wouldn't wish to be "defeatist". That research I did and still try and add to here and elsewhere has established that all we have are a series of ancient writings and archeological evidence that appears simply as a non-linear set of 'dots' which we try and connect. I've now charted my 'best fit line' and have dealt with all but one of the deviations except the one true outlier.....my near namesake!
Sometimes the best fit is not the correct fit. I have found that out from personal experience. That is why I invest so much time in revision. And that is why this project is in its 15th year. In the end Mark, I believe you will write a paper based on cherry picking the evidence to conform to your theory. When you do, you will have graduated from being an amateur historian to becoming an true academic.
