12-16-2019, 01:58 PM
I have recently discovered in this article (see below) an early(?) obscure military text called the Lexicon militare. This source was completely unknown to me, prior to this article:
https://www.academia.edu/39251194/The_Ne...rum_AD_904
"The first treatise (that I know of but there may be others) that may specifically mention numbers for the massive cavalry wedge is the so-called Coisliniana Manuscript which contains a military treatise called Definitiones which dates from the period ca. 120-240 AD according to Dain (1967, 332, 338). This text is also known as Lexicon militare, and which is the same text as the later Hermeneia dating from the period before the sixth century. The Coisliniana text includes confused referrals to the combat units of elephants, other military units and chilia and delta (p.513) after the text which is accepted as the Definitiones (pp.505-513) and just before a list of military instruments/weapons/equipment (pp.513-4). I leave out the units of elephants and the list of military instruments and include only the rest. After the units of elephants, the text lists the military units which are:
oulamos (400 men),lochos (500 men), falags/ phalanx (120), six/stix (140), pyrgus (360),nekas (1,200), and moira (2,400). After this, follows the chilia and delta which are confused with the inclusion of mathematical formulae including the figure pi in these. However, these still appear to have meant actual combat formations (probably cavalry ones at that) in which the 1,000 menchilia was actually an oblong array 100 men wide and ten deep, while the delta was the wedge array which had 1666 men if my assumptions regarding it are correct. "
These numbers, are they for the Greek type armies or Macedonian type armies or perhaps Roman in origin?
Do these numbers ring any bell to anyone?
Whatever the case, better study this rather sooner then later because Roger Pearse says: While going through the Academia page, I noticed increased signs that the owners intend to monetise the site – containing content, remember, that they did not create. I fear that the greed of the Academia.edu owners will kill the site. But I imagine that people will just migrate to another.
https://www.academia.edu/39251194/The_Ne...rum_AD_904
"The first treatise (that I know of but there may be others) that may specifically mention numbers for the massive cavalry wedge is the so-called Coisliniana Manuscript which contains a military treatise called Definitiones which dates from the period ca. 120-240 AD according to Dain (1967, 332, 338). This text is also known as Lexicon militare, and which is the same text as the later Hermeneia dating from the period before the sixth century. The Coisliniana text includes confused referrals to the combat units of elephants, other military units and chilia and delta (p.513) after the text which is accepted as the Definitiones (pp.505-513) and just before a list of military instruments/weapons/equipment (pp.513-4). I leave out the units of elephants and the list of military instruments and include only the rest. After the units of elephants, the text lists the military units which are:
oulamos (400 men),lochos (500 men), falags/ phalanx (120), six/stix (140), pyrgus (360),nekas (1,200), and moira (2,400). After this, follows the chilia and delta which are confused with the inclusion of mathematical formulae including the figure pi in these. However, these still appear to have meant actual combat formations (probably cavalry ones at that) in which the 1,000 menchilia was actually an oblong array 100 men wide and ten deep, while the delta was the wedge array which had 1666 men if my assumptions regarding it are correct. "
These numbers, are they for the Greek type armies or Macedonian type armies or perhaps Roman in origin?
Do these numbers ring any bell to anyone?
Whatever the case, better study this rather sooner then later because Roger Pearse says: While going through the Academia page, I noticed increased signs that the owners intend to monetise the site – containing content, remember, that they did not create. I fear that the greed of the Academia.edu owners will kill the site. But I imagine that people will just migrate to another.
