01-01-2013, 03:11 PM
Pushing on with my exploration of Rome’s founding dates; the most common interval of time mentioned by the Romans is 110 years or 100 years. If you take Cicero’s date of 754 BC (via Solinus) and subtract two ages of 110 years you get the following:
754 BC to 644 BC
644 BC to 534 BC
Here the beginning of the reign of Tarquinius Superbus comes into the equation. So by adding one 110 year age to the above the first age should begin in 864 BC and the fourth age in 424 BC:
864 BC to 754BC
754 BC to 644 BC
644 BC to 534 BC
534 BC to 424 BC
Besides the example, I’ve managed to find two more that align with the reign of Tarquin Superbus. This is because besides his tyranny many Roman historians knew about the other accomplishments of Tarquinius Superbus…one being the establishment of the calendar. At first I thought it was some state organised conspiracy to destroy the truth about Tarquinius Superbus but as records survive that contradict the traditional view of Servius Tullius and Numa introducing intercalation I have come to the conclusion there was no conspiracy by the Roman state but it is the work of one man. As Fabius Pictor is mentioned as being the oldest source, my conclusion is it Fabius Pictor who is the principal author who doctored and fabricated much of Rome’s history concerning the kings and took all the accomplishments of Tarquinius Superbus and accredited them to Servius Tullius.
Now taking Alimentus’ date of 728 BC for Rome’s founding and adding one age of 110 years above 728 BC and in order to produce four ages gives the following:
838 BC to 728 BC
728 BC to 618 BC
618 BC to 508 BC
508 BC to 398 BC
The year 508/509 BC has also been credited for the year when the monarchy was overthrown. It appears the first age is determined by the end of the Trojan War. The problem is some sources mention there are so many varying dates for the end of the Trojan War and many are not listed. It is possible Alimentus has used the overthrow of the monarch as his calibration point in calculating Rome’s founding date. Cicero writes that the reign of the kings lasted “over 240 years” and if we subtract 508 BC from 753 BC the result is 245 years, or seven ages of 35 years. Now this is where Fabius Pictor’s increments of 70 years comes into play. Dionysius claims Fabius dates for the founding of Rome to the first year of the eight Olympiad (747 BC) and by using increments of 70 years (35 x 2) produces the following:
817 BC to 747 BC
747 BC to 677 BC
677 BC to 607 BC
607 BC to 537 BC
Timeaus who dates Rome’s founding to 814 BC appears to have rounded it to the end of the eight Olympiad (744 BC) which results in a difference of 3 years. By using increments of 70 years we get the following:
814 BC to 744 BC
744 BC to 674 BC
674 BC to 604 BC
604 BC to 534 BC
It would seem that Timeaus has incorrectly concluded that the beginning of the first age is associated with Rome’s founding date. From the above the beginning of the reign of Tarquinius Superbus again comes into the equation but this time in the fifth age (534 BC to 464 BC). When the Romans altered their cosmos system, these changes transformed the movement rate of the cosmos to intervals of 70 years so I cannot easily ignore this as coincidence. Therefore, my conclusion is Timeaus and Fabius Pictor have used the new cosmos (around in their days) in order to calculate Rome’s founding date. Unfortunately this is incorrect as the time intervals of the cosmos have a completely different time function, but the time intervals of the cosmos and the saeculum calendar do converge at varying points, one of them being 102 BC.
Now we come to something very interesting regarding cycles of time and the Roman legion. Taking the year 102 BC as the calibration point, which is very significant in the system, by working backwards in increments of 110 years (an age) the result is the year 212 BC which is one year before the introduction of the velites. However, as the Romans are not sure about what the time cycle should be (100 or 110 years), by then adding a cycle of time based on 100 years to 212 BC, the result is the year 312 BC and it is around the year 311 BC that Livy discusses the number of military tribunes assigned to the legions. Again I have gathered enough research to show that this signifies a reform of the legion did occur and remained in use until 211 BC. Beyond 312 BC the old cosmos system of time must be employed. The introduction of the maniple legion is a result of the introduction of the old cosmos time system and the new cosmos time system (70 year intervals). The Romans subtracted the time difference (in years) of when the tribes should be reformed in the old system and when they should be reformed in the new system and simply split the difference. So in the new system, the maniple legion is introduced late, but much earlier in the old system.
As a saeculum whether it be 110 years or 100 years represents the end of the old and the beginning of the new (birth and death), signifies the old can be replaced by the new. Therefore, changes made to the system at the end of a saeculum or near that particular date would on religious grounds be sanctified. This then lends itself to whether the events surrounding some of these legion reforms could be nothing more than just anecdotal smoke screens to disguise the procedure of the system. This also applies to the introduction of the velites in 211 BC which is accredited to the centurion Quintus Navius. As the third legion reform of 102 BC also coincidences with the consulship of Marius (106 BC to 102 BC), here again it becomes convenient to assign the legion’s reform to an individual person rather than make it knows the state is making such changes in responds to a sacred religious time frame.
Steven
754 BC to 644 BC
644 BC to 534 BC
Here the beginning of the reign of Tarquinius Superbus comes into the equation. So by adding one 110 year age to the above the first age should begin in 864 BC and the fourth age in 424 BC:
864 BC to 754BC
754 BC to 644 BC
644 BC to 534 BC
534 BC to 424 BC
Besides the example, I’ve managed to find two more that align with the reign of Tarquin Superbus. This is because besides his tyranny many Roman historians knew about the other accomplishments of Tarquinius Superbus…one being the establishment of the calendar. At first I thought it was some state organised conspiracy to destroy the truth about Tarquinius Superbus but as records survive that contradict the traditional view of Servius Tullius and Numa introducing intercalation I have come to the conclusion there was no conspiracy by the Roman state but it is the work of one man. As Fabius Pictor is mentioned as being the oldest source, my conclusion is it Fabius Pictor who is the principal author who doctored and fabricated much of Rome’s history concerning the kings and took all the accomplishments of Tarquinius Superbus and accredited them to Servius Tullius.
Now taking Alimentus’ date of 728 BC for Rome’s founding and adding one age of 110 years above 728 BC and in order to produce four ages gives the following:
838 BC to 728 BC
728 BC to 618 BC
618 BC to 508 BC
508 BC to 398 BC
The year 508/509 BC has also been credited for the year when the monarchy was overthrown. It appears the first age is determined by the end of the Trojan War. The problem is some sources mention there are so many varying dates for the end of the Trojan War and many are not listed. It is possible Alimentus has used the overthrow of the monarch as his calibration point in calculating Rome’s founding date. Cicero writes that the reign of the kings lasted “over 240 years” and if we subtract 508 BC from 753 BC the result is 245 years, or seven ages of 35 years. Now this is where Fabius Pictor’s increments of 70 years comes into play. Dionysius claims Fabius dates for the founding of Rome to the first year of the eight Olympiad (747 BC) and by using increments of 70 years (35 x 2) produces the following:
817 BC to 747 BC
747 BC to 677 BC
677 BC to 607 BC
607 BC to 537 BC
Timeaus who dates Rome’s founding to 814 BC appears to have rounded it to the end of the eight Olympiad (744 BC) which results in a difference of 3 years. By using increments of 70 years we get the following:
814 BC to 744 BC
744 BC to 674 BC
674 BC to 604 BC
604 BC to 534 BC
It would seem that Timeaus has incorrectly concluded that the beginning of the first age is associated with Rome’s founding date. From the above the beginning of the reign of Tarquinius Superbus again comes into the equation but this time in the fifth age (534 BC to 464 BC). When the Romans altered their cosmos system, these changes transformed the movement rate of the cosmos to intervals of 70 years so I cannot easily ignore this as coincidence. Therefore, my conclusion is Timeaus and Fabius Pictor have used the new cosmos (around in their days) in order to calculate Rome’s founding date. Unfortunately this is incorrect as the time intervals of the cosmos have a completely different time function, but the time intervals of the cosmos and the saeculum calendar do converge at varying points, one of them being 102 BC.
Now we come to something very interesting regarding cycles of time and the Roman legion. Taking the year 102 BC as the calibration point, which is very significant in the system, by working backwards in increments of 110 years (an age) the result is the year 212 BC which is one year before the introduction of the velites. However, as the Romans are not sure about what the time cycle should be (100 or 110 years), by then adding a cycle of time based on 100 years to 212 BC, the result is the year 312 BC and it is around the year 311 BC that Livy discusses the number of military tribunes assigned to the legions. Again I have gathered enough research to show that this signifies a reform of the legion did occur and remained in use until 211 BC. Beyond 312 BC the old cosmos system of time must be employed. The introduction of the maniple legion is a result of the introduction of the old cosmos time system and the new cosmos time system (70 year intervals). The Romans subtracted the time difference (in years) of when the tribes should be reformed in the old system and when they should be reformed in the new system and simply split the difference. So in the new system, the maniple legion is introduced late, but much earlier in the old system.
As a saeculum whether it be 110 years or 100 years represents the end of the old and the beginning of the new (birth and death), signifies the old can be replaced by the new. Therefore, changes made to the system at the end of a saeculum or near that particular date would on religious grounds be sanctified. This then lends itself to whether the events surrounding some of these legion reforms could be nothing more than just anecdotal smoke screens to disguise the procedure of the system. This also applies to the introduction of the velites in 211 BC which is accredited to the centurion Quintus Navius. As the third legion reform of 102 BC also coincidences with the consulship of Marius (106 BC to 102 BC), here again it becomes convenient to assign the legion’s reform to an individual person rather than make it knows the state is making such changes in responds to a sacred religious time frame.
Steven
