Rome versus Pyrrhus

[antiochus]

D B Campbell wrote:
I've noticed this frequent complaint in your posts, Steven, without citing any examples. I hope you'll eventually name your bugbears. (They do exist, ... don't they?)

I must declare I am very surprised by this response. You are an academic as should be like myself aware of the criticism that exist given by modern historians regarding the validity of ancient writers. The academic journals are full of such criticism, and as an academic, you know of their existence, as you would have read many of them. I do not name names as I see no point to it, as I find it unfair to list a few names from a multitude of names. But if you are wanting of examples, here a but are a few from hundreds:

Military Essays of the Ancient Grecian, Roman and Modern Art of War, James Turner. (written in 1670 and 1671), page 84. “Titus Livius, that famous historian, in his eighth book giving a particular account of the great battle fought between the Romans, and their allies the Latines, marshals the Roman legion in such a confused way, that he is not at all intelligible.”

A Critical Inquiry into the Constitution of the Roman Legion; Robert Melville (1703), page 1-2
The passage of Titus Livius (Book VIII. 8) , relating to the legion, is declared, by all the commentators, to be corrupted almost in every sentence, insomuch as scarcely to admit of correction; besides, though the legion underwent different changes in different periods of the state, neither he nor Vegetius mention particularly to what period they refer.

A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D. (1875) page 495
In deference to a great name, we ought not to omit mentioning that Niebuhr (Hist. of Rome, vol. III p97) while he admits that the text of Livy is sound and consistent with itself, argues, we venture to think, somewhat unreasonably, that he did not understand his excellent materials, and although clear at first, became eventually completely bewildered and wrote nonsense.

Livy: His Historical Aims and Methods, P. G. Walsh (1961) page 157 “Livy’s geographical vagueness is a weakness; still more crippling is his ignorance of military matters. The parts of his history left to us are in large measure concerned with commanders and their armies; how unfortunate therefore that he had not the mind of a Xenophon, which readily apprehended the use of weapons and mechanical devices. Equally unfortunate was his lack of military experience which made him ignorant of battle tactics.”

The Legion and the Centuriate Organisation, G. V. Sumner, The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 60. (1970), page 69. “In short, Livy's account should not be treated as a valid description of any form of the manipular legion. Only the details confirmed by other sources have any claim to credence.”

Early Roman Armies, Nick Sekunda and Simon Northwood, Osprey Men-At-Arms Series 283, (1995), Page 41 “As he is making the accensi combatants, Livy has to invent weapons for them to carry and consequently he has created an entirely spurious five-line formation with three rear lines.”

A Commentary on Livy Books VI-X, Volume II, S. P. Oakley, Clarendon Press, Oxford, (1998) page 457, “Interpretation of the main body of Livy’s description of the manipular legion is unfortunately impeded by the author’s own mistakes and by subsequent textual corruption. Hence it is approached most easily via the rather more detailed and lucid account of the manipular legion which Polybius provides at VI 21 6-24, which may serve as a point of reference against which to judge the eccentricities of the Livian account.”

Cannae, the Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War, Gregory Daly, Published in 2002. page 30 “It would have been natural for roman writers to exaggerate the size of Hannibal’s army in order to explain their own defeats.” Can Daly prove this?

Holmes, Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, Page 560 “Plutarch is not a trustworthy authority, least of all about numbers (legion numbers).” But can Holmes prove Plutarch is untrustworthy?

Bell, Tactical Reform in the Roman Republican Army, Historia 14 (1965) pg 404-422 “Despite his military reputation, Frontinus must be treated with great caution. In the first place, he was a careless historian, probably never bothering to check his references very accurately, which made him liable to commit such gaffes as describing a stratagem by which Alcibiades took Syracuse. As a result he commits at least three certain anachronisms, using cohort in incidents involving Titus Quinctius in 468 BC, Fulvius Nobilior in 298 BC and Atilius Regulus in 295 BC. This last is an interesting example of the sort of carelessness to which Frontinus was liable, for it is in one passage which is repeated. Here Regulus is reported to have blocked the retreat of his troops with a cohort, and in the same story as told by Livy (X 36 6) with cavalry. A more serious fault is that he did not seem to understand the manipular system at all.

Now Bell has no problem accepting Livy’s 17 references to the cohort in Spain. However, he remains silent on the fact that Livy first employs the term cohort in Book II 11, for the year 508 BC, and there are over 15 more examples given by Livy between Book II to V. Dionysius’ first use of ‘cohort’ occurs in Book VIII 65 for the year 488 BC, with a further 10 examples specified in Books VIII to XI.

Yet Frontinus is accused of anachronism but Livy, who Bell is dependent on the forward his case, does not received the same treatment. Dionysius also mentions cavalry cohorts and as shocking as it may seem to some, they do exist. It is Bell who does not understand the manipular system and is prepared to ridicule a source that gets in the way of his rather pathetic theory the cohort was invented by the Scipio brothers in Spain.

Brunt, Roman Manpower, page 647 “Appian, who wrongly thought at this time the legion consists of 5000 foot and 300 horse gives Flaminus an army of 30,000 foot and 3000 horse. Pg 648 “The numerical strength of Flaminus’ army is exaggerated by Polybius, drawing on a Greek source which represented the Punic standpoint and inflated the numbers of the enemy in the usual way.” Age 674 “ In general his (Appian) estimates are worthless for the Hannabalic war.”

The problem here Mr Campbell is none of the above historians can or have successfully been able to define the organisation of a legion for any given period yet for reasons beyond me, can inform us about the reliability and validity of the ancient sources. This is quite a remarkable achievement.

For example, and as you are insistent on me providing names, take Roman Legionary 58 BC – AD 69, by Ross Cowan, published by Osprey Warrior Series Number 17 page 7 “A legion was composed of 60 centuries. Each century contained 80 soldiers…Six centuries formed a cohort. There was ten cohorts per legion, 480 men strong, making the legion 4800 infantry at optimum strength.”

However, Caesar (Civil War III 91) claims a century consisted of 120 men and at the outbreak of the civil war, when Caesar crossed the Rubicon with the 13th legion, Plutarch (Caesar 32) claims Caesars only had 5000 men. So how does Ross Cowan reconcile his legion of 80 men per century with Caesar’s 120 men per century, and Plutarch’s 5000 man legion with Cowan’s 4800 man legion? We are missing 200 men.

D B Campbell wrote:
Your casual methodology doesn't inspire confidence. But maybe this was just a flippant remark.

I believe Plutarch trusted his source, even if they were archaic. For me his numbers are excellent or more accurate than some.

D B Campbell wrote:
Thank goodness a Napoleonic historian appreciates your research, when Classicists have (according to your own testimony) been less than thrilled.

The historian I mentioned is a brilliant and hard working researcher, and that is why I admire him. He is not cut and paste academic. Not sure about the Classicist “being less than thrilled.” My research is highly regarded among those professors I liaison and share my work with. I did mention rejection with publishing houses but that was from ones who never got past reading the book proposal.

D B Campbell wrote:
I'd've thought that, provided you employ a solid methodology, no-one should have any problems.

I’m very proud of my methodology. I confront every piece of empirical data I can find. This data interlocks with all other data for a given period. For example, Livy (VI 4) for the year 388 BC states that to capture Contenebra, the Roman army divided into six sections, with each section fighting for six hours until relieved. The figure of six sections corresponds to the Roman army for this time and from this the size of the army is easily determined. Livy is referring to the higher command structure. It is such empirical data as this I can work with, which I will add, no one else is even trying to explain what the army numbers or organisation at Contenebra is.

D B Campbell wrote:
Ovid?! I hope you are just being flippant again. If you're planning to turn the establishment upside-down, you better be sure of your sources (and the accuracy of their sources).

Do not worry Mr Campbell, I take more care and time with the book than internet emails. I did a cut and copy paste of a list of writers and deleted Fasti but not Ovid. Such mistakes do not happen in the book as I am aware of the nit picking nature of some academics.

D B Campbell wrote:
I think you're mistaken. Livy mentions equites serving equo publico during the Hannibalic War (Livy 27.11). But maybe you have another explanation?

Well yes I do have “another explanation.” The 403 BC equo public and the 209 BC equo publico are two different things. Both are not an official cavalry unit. The 209 BC equo publico, as Livy states are being punished for their performance at Cannae. The punishment as he states is to pay for their own horses, and all campaigns undertaken on state payed horses are cancelled from their tally. The 403 BC equo publico, which Livy mentions registered as knights are SENIORES. Being seniores they are not supplied state horses, and being seniores, who are recorded as manning the walls of Rome as a home garrison force, they would look pretty stupid trying to sit on a horse while on the ramparts. As seniores of the equestrian order they act as infantry officers.

So taking Livy’s account of the equo publico of 209 BC, being punished by providing their own horses does not indicate the Roman army had a unit or units of equo publico. But if you believe they did, I would be interested to see the evidence. Maybe the equo publico of 209 BC is a punishment unit and in 403 BC the men volunteered to serve in the punishment unit. Just kidding, but it must be remembered the army of 403 BC is described as a volunteer army.

D B Campbell wrote:
Of course, as you well know, it would be foolish to use Nazi policy to support a Republican Roman theory. (Just being flippant again?)

I gave an example and state the Germans did it out of necessity. If the Romans had slaves making the armour, it would have been out of necessity as well. And by the way, it was the Germans, not the Nazis. Is “flippant” your favourite word?

D B Campbell wrote:
Thank goodness your early Roman armies didn't field catapults.

Are you positive they didn’t?