Rome versus Pyrrhus

[antiochus]

D Campbell wrote:
As positive as any of us can ever be in ancient history.

Then what is your explanation to such devices used in siege warfare in Livy’s early books on the republic and Dionysius up to 449 BC?

D Campbell wrote:
Your original criticism was of scholars who bend the sources to support their own theories. I don't see any of that in the snippets you quoted. Just the usual cut and thrust of debate. Bending evidence is quite a different thing, implying dishonesty: I just wondered if you could actually support such a serious allegation.

It would seem whatever I present is not going to be adequate. Bell’s paper is a strong example of poor academic practice, or selective use of the sources to reinforce an erroneous theory. I have given examples of a variety of poor academic practices. As I come across more I will post them, but no matter what I present I believe it will be futile in your eyes.

D Campbell wrote:
I might equally ask how you reconcile Caesar's 120-man century with Plutarch's 5000-man legion. They can't both be right. (Or can they?)

Mr Campbell, I do not need to reconcile Caesar and Plutarch as I am not the one claiming a century contained 80 men and a legion numbered 4800 men during the time of Caesar. If I published such a claim then I would give proof to support it. However, proof is the casualty in all of this. It is no longer required. The standard now is to make statements without evidence.

So the question is: how does Ross Cowan reconcile Caesar's 120-man century with his 80-man century and his 4800 man legion with Plutarch's 5000-man legion? Mr Cowan must have his reasons for doing this. I am interested in those reasons, as I imagine he was not given the space by Osprey to include them. Has Plutarch rounded his legion from 4800 men to 5000 men? If so how can it be confirmed Plutarch has rounded his number. If Plutarch has not rounded, who are the missing 200 men? Either way Mr Cowan should be able to answer this question as he specifically informs us a legion numbered 4800 men. In addition, what about Caesar’s 120 man century and Cowan’s 80 man century. Does Caesar have it wrong?

How does Mr Cowan reconcile Festus (453L) that after Marius a legion was 6200 men? Cicero (Letter to Atticus IX 6) writes that Pompey crossed to Greece with 30,000 infantry, while Caesar (BC III 4) claims Pompey crossed with five legions. If so, a Pompeian legion numbers 6000 men.

Also Mr Cowan in his other Osprey “Imperial Roman Legionary AD 161 – 284 BC, Warrior series number 72, page 11 writes “throughout our period the legion composed of 10 cohorts. Cohorts II to X were built around six centuries each containing 80 men, making a cohort 480 men strong. Cohort I had only five centuries but these were double in size, making a complement of 800 legionaries. Uniquely, legio II Parthica had six centuries in its first cohort but it is uncertain if these were of double size. With the additional 120 cavalry the legion numbered 5240 at maximum strength.”

How does Mr Cowan reconcile Hyginus (I 4) remark a century contained 80 men (which implies a legion of 4800 men) with Hyginus’ comment a cohort numbered 600 men, which implies a legion of 6000 men. The problem is a cohort of 600 men is not divisible by centuries numbering 80 men.