EUREKA - Roman army troops

[Matthew Amt]

Matthew wrote:
You can tie troop numbers or unit sizes to all sorts of other things, but it does NOT mean that those troop numbers were fixed BECAUSE of those other things UNLESS an ancient author tells us so.

I refer to Geminos’ Introduction to the Phenomena. The whole book is explosive, especially the section “Concerning the Zones on Earth,” Chapter XV 1-4, followed by Chapter XVI 6-8, Dimensions of the Terrestrial Zones.” Following this is Chapter XVI 10-12, “Division of the Celestial Sphere.” The whole Roman tribal system is based on the information in these chapters given by Geminos. However, if the reader has no grasp of ancient mathematical methodology and astronomy, then the information remains meaningless.

That's not an answer. If Geminos does not say that tribal or army organization is based on his zones or spheres, then you do not have a causal link.

Every time the zodiac covered this distance, the tribes increase, but it takes centuries to happen.

Frankly, it's been a while since I did any study of the growth of the political system, but I seem to recall all manner of social upheaval prior to alteration of the tribal numbers or sizes. Thousands of people clamoring for rights, politicians crying their cause and being assassinated for it, riots, wars, etc. If it was a simple matter of "Well, the cycle's come around, time to increase the tribes!", you'd think that would have come up in the debates, and everyone would have said, "Oh, yeah, better do that"...

...Ptolemy’s 120/90 ratio is found in the two systems relating to the Earth being divided into three parts of 120 degrees, and the second system of dividing the Earth into four parts of 90 degrees. A century of 100 men is broken into two parts 60 men plus 40 men, which produces the ratio 3/2. What we basically have is two mathematical systems in play.

Sorry, this just sounds like you can get any numbers you need, and then you again *assume* a causal link rather than a simple correlation.

Matthew wrote:
Organizing a military unit in strict accordance with astronomical observation seems like an invitation to disaster!

How is this so? Can you elaborate?

I mean that a military force must ultimately be based on its mission. Letting priests tell generals how many men they can have, or how to organize them, is a good way to get defeated. Sure, it's possible that back in the 8th century BC when Romulus was first lining his guys up, and was thinking that each little group should be somewhere between 50 and 100, some priest told him that 60 was a number which would please the gods. "Oh, yeah? Huh, okay, 60 it is. (Thinking: Don't want any grief from *that* whiner, plus I can blame it on him if we lose, ha!)"

The Roman system is not based on observation on a weekly or monthly basis; it is permanently modelled on the cosmos system. Although the ancients calculate the upper heavens as moving, it is a theoretical system, and does not correspond to the observation of the planets or fixed stars from Earth. The mathematical system informs the Romans which part of the upper heavens rules them and for how long

In other words, it COULD be that all of their cosmology was based on their numbering system, right?? "Gosh, we got these 11 zodiac symbols, but if we have 12 or 16 it'll make better round numbers!"

And how do you shrug off Boethius?

Gosh, you got me there, I was hoping you wouldn't mention him and shoot down my whole argument! Actually, I was more thinking, "Who's Boethius?" Call me a Philistine...

In his De Institutione Arithmetica, Boethius, compares the arithmetical proportion to the state, which is ruled by a few (oligarchy) because “the greater ratio is with the smaller numbers.” Boethius writes that “a state of the very best is a musical proportion.” Boethius lists five classes of inequality; the first class is called “multiple;” the second class the superparticular ratio, consisting of either the “sesquialter” or the “sesquitertian” ratio. The third class contains two parts the “superbipartient” and the “supertripartient” ratio. The fourth class contains the “duple-sesquialter” or “duple-sesquitertian” ratio, the fifth class is termed the “multiple superpartient” and contains the “duple-superbipartient” and the “triple-superbipartient” ratios.

So a mathematical philosopher looks at his philosophical idea of the math of a socio-political system. So what? That goes on all the time! That's not proof that any system was consciously organized in a particular way for that reason!

Matthew wrote:
So, IS there an ancient source that says something to the effect of, "Oh, no, we CAN'T have more than 60 centuries in a legion, because of the orbit of Venus!" Even a hint of such thinking? If not, you're way out on a limb.

First, I did not say the orbit of Venus restricted the number of centuries to 60. I stated the five known planets visible to the naked eye multiplied by the 12 signs of the zodiac produce the number 60.

Yeah, which is why I said "something to the effect of". Sheesh...

This is common knowledge in astronomic circles. Also it is common knowledge the Romans, like the Babylonians, used the sexagesimal place value system, (based on five planets and the zodiac), not the decimal; that is the numbers are based on sixes, not tens.

I, II, III, IV (or IIII), V, VI, VII, VIII, IX/VIIII, X, XV, XX, XXV, XXX, XL/XXXX, L, LX, XC, C, CD, D... I'm not a math guy, but it's looking like 5s and 10s to me. I don't have any problem with people doing things in 6s or 12s or 4s or anything else, mind you! Like you say, 12 hours in a day, 60 minutes in an hour, a dozen eggs, 16 ounces in a pound, 14 pounds in a stone (perfectly logical!), etc. But it just looks like you have so many significant numbers and fractions, that you can add or multiply them in some way to get ANY number you need.

But have modern writers’ explored ancient mathematics, which is intertwined with geometry and astronomy? To answer this question, simply look up the bibliographies of every book you have on the Roman legion. If the author hasn’t, then this is akin to buying a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle, and throwing out two thirds of the pieces. This methodology will always result in never seeing the complete picture, therefore no consensus of opinion, and this has been going on for hundreds of years.

Question: if the Roman system does not reflect their cosmos system, then why do the Romans then assigned gods to hours of the day as described by Cassius Dio (History of Rome, XXXVII, 19.1-3):

Wait, what? Did I ever try to say that gods and planets are not part of a cosmological system?? What the heck does that have to do with the number of men in a cohort??

Interestingly, the ancients call the tetrad, the shield bearer of the hebdomad.

So you've proved their cosmology is based on their military system.

The ancient cosmos is a sexagesimal place value system; the Roman legion is a sexagesimal place value system. There’s your first link.

That's not a link, that's a simple correlation. If they counted EVERYthing in sixes, that does not mean cosmology causes military organization.

The Romans have to base their system on something, so why not the cosmos.

In other words, you're making a huge assumption, without any Roman writer actually backing it up.

The cosmos represent divinity and as Aristotle states the system is perfect without disorder. Geminos writes “the motion of the stars is simple, uniform and orderly.” The Romans organised their military camps so every man knew his place, thereby eliminating disorder. Are we to accept the Romans only did this in their military camps and the rest of their systems, be it social or military, allowed for degrees of disorder?

Huh? They were a people who appreciated order and discipline, and they knew that disorganized armies got slaughtered. They applied that love of order to their philosophical view of the cosmos. AND they knew that armies without order and discipline were more easily defeated! But other cultures have been different: Look at US and western culture in the 1960s and 1970s, for instance! "Do your own thing" was the word of the day, chaos theory, counter-culture, protest and anti-establishmentism--AND astronomers gleefully pointed out that the earth was not a perfect sphere but slightly pear-shaped and wobbled on its axis, that the sun fluctuated in strength, that the cosmos in general was a mess. Obviously you can tie American defeat in Vietnam into this, but basing a theory on US army company strength on a pear-shaped Earth just isn't gonna go far...

Well, I probably should have just taken my lovely wife's advice and just ignored you, but your nearly random dropping of quotes from my post through your response seemed to need another answer...

Matthew