EUREKA - Roman army troops

[antiochus]

David wrote: Josephus said quite a few things about the Roman army...to which statement do you refer?

Josephus II 20 578

Claire wrote:
I'm interested in hearing more about this venture - I am however, always a little dubious when I hear that someone has ascertained a mathematical equation that claims to solve specific questions about what is essentially, an ecologically emergent and culturally contingent issue.

Not sure I’m with you about a mathematical equation. :?: :?: The Romans have more than one.

“Hence all the other things too are held together by number, loans, testimonies, votes, contracts, times, periods. And in general it is feasible to find anything about life that does not participate in numbers.” Sextus Empiricus

The three Romulean tribes use a simple decimal system of dividing the centuries into ten parts. Romulus had three tribes each of 1000 men, therefore the Roman army numbered 3000 men, it is that simple. Even Cicero writes

“with the Greeks geometry was regarded with the utmost respect, and consequently none were held in greater honour than mathematicians, but we Romans have delimited the size of this art to the practical purpose of measuring and calculating.”

The Roman method is to keep it simple and practical; whereas the Greeks had a tendency to lean towards what the Romans believed was non-practical mathematics.

Claire wrote:
Systems & middle range theory (which, if I am not mistaken - you are using to answer some of these questions) has its limitations when dealing with indeterminacy in human aspects of the socially constructed environment.

I have no idea of what a middle range theory is, and in all honesty, sounds like one of those theories of the month that promise to answer everything but deliver nothing. :?

Claire wrote:
Are we to assume that the ways in which these legions were organised for over 400 years were a rigid as you suggest?

All legions adhere to the Servian constitution; therefore they are based on the same model. When it changes the legion changes. I have three changes to the system, one with the introduction of the maniple legion, the second change complies with Hyginus and Arrian’s legion description under the emperors, while the third produces the Vegetius model. Three changes since 530 BC to Vegetius isn’t that great. These changes are slight and are driven by the increase in the number of centuries in a tribe. Even Livy tells us this. In his summary of the Servian constitution, Livy (I 43) states “the fact the present organisation, as it exists since the increase in the number of tribes to thirty-five and the doubling of their members of iuniores and seniores, does not correspond to the total established by Servius Tullius need cause no surprise.”

There is a paper written in one of the journals about how strict the Romans were to protocol. If something was not done the way it should, the whole process had to be done again. This happened to a consul, his consulship was cancelled because the Romans realised after the ceremony, a special chair was not in the correct position. This paper list such incidents that they seem absurd by our standards, yet these were vitally important to the Romans. One historian who reviews everything I write stated “one gets the impression the Romans kept this system (Servian) because they knew it worked for their forefathers, so felt assured it would work for them.”

The internal structure of the legion is where the flexibility is created. In summary, the tribe dictates the organisation of the legion as it did in the time of Romulus. However, other outside influences have an effect, like devaluation in their monetary system can and does alter the number of men registered in each property class. There is a shift, and overtime, some of the infra classem are now in the same battle line as the classis, until eventually, the class system had an entirely new meaning, but was not abandoned.

Claire wrote:
I'm not saying that such an endeavor would be met with hostility, but drawing on maths and maths alone to explain an issue which is considered through complexity of cultural frameworks

If you do not know what the Roman system is, how can you believe it would be complex?

Claire wrote:
I'm still interested in how you would overcome variations in regional and local attitudes and how you would account for risk analysis in historically contingent conditions

I’m writing about Roman military organisation. Sorry, but...you’re completely lost me. Don’t take it personally... I’m a blonde... a bit slow on the uptake.

Claire wrote:
I hope this doesn't sound too negative - I'm just considering the theoretical and philosophical implications of what you are trying to achieve.

Well that’s simple...exposing Roman military organizational methodology, which when published you will realize I have achieved. This has all transpired because I research both Roman mathematics and religion and found how they all go hand in hand with the military system. By trying to understand their methodology, I found their laws on prior numbers and posterior numbers and most importantly how prior numbers and posterior numbers interact with each other due to prior numbers being based on station and posterior numbers centred on motion, both being related to the (universal) cycle they refer to. When applied to the military, the posterior centurion is always senior to the prior centurion. This is contrary to the traditional view, but the traditional view is just guesses based on guesses. Further on I came to learn a military century consists of monads (the Roman’s ultimate unit of being), all having their roots in their religion. It is this monad system that defines why a double cohort came into being when in camp, and why it is not utilised all the time. Because of these monads, I found the how and why behind the changes, all through the language of mathematics.