07-19-2009, 06:02 AM
Sorry about not replying earlier, working plus Ancient Warfare arrived, with the Varus special supplement and the binder. Lovely goodies to read on cold winter nights.
I disagree heartedly with your premise Mr Campbell. Without stringent standards we fail to progress from a position of comfort or laxity to one of achievement and understanding. The standard we should be working with is the primary sources are correct until categorically proven they are not. With the implementation of this standard, it raises the bar and because of this hopefully more diligence, exploration and new methodologies will be applied to the challenge. However, if the standard is to dismiss textual and empirical data in the primary sources on the basis the ancient author is the culprit (which is a shortfall for the academic not being able to understand the sources), then yes, we continue to have likelihoods but no consensus. So far the traditional methodologies have only created a merry go round. Anyone who has followed the historiography on the Roman army since Lipsus in 1510 will quickly realise this.
I have posted on this forum twice my research and evidence for the ages of the hastati, principes and triarii. So far no one has commented either way. If my premise is wrong, I’m sure Mr Campbell you would have amassed your scorpions and ballistae to give me an artillery barrage greater than that inflicted by the Russians on the Germans during the opening of operation Bagration in 1944. So far you have not. Is there a reason for this?
Well I do get the distinct impression you like to redefine what I am saying. There are many academics I do admire and respect. However, I have no respect for academics writing on the Roman army who cannot or have not been able to successfully interpret the empirical data in the primary sources, but have the audacity to state an ancient author’s numbers and reliability is worthless. I have stated my position on this numerous times- if you make an claim in print in an authoritative manner then prove it. Without evidence, an academic carries the same weight professionally as the opinion of my Aunty Marge.
“Isn’t it astonishing that all these secrets have been preserved for so many years just so that we can discover them!” Orville Wright, 7th June 1903.
The mathematics it the primary sources are available to everyone, so it is a level playing field. Although legions numbers differ they are not ad hoc organisation as they strictly follow a system, and this what Livy’s is referring to in 171 BC when he says “in accordance with the long established practice; for Macedonia it was ordered that 6000 infantry should be enrolled.” The key words here is “the long established practice” which means the Romans are returning to an older but established organisation for the legions being sent to Macedonia.
Quote:D B Campbell wrote:
You may say that, "without conclusive evidence, we should not pass judgement on any ancient author", but we would then be so firmly gagged that nobody would ever say anything. Conclusive evidence is hard to come by. I am generally satisifed with likelihoods that can be drawn from an accumulation of evidence.
I disagree heartedly with your premise Mr Campbell. Without stringent standards we fail to progress from a position of comfort or laxity to one of achievement and understanding. The standard we should be working with is the primary sources are correct until categorically proven they are not. With the implementation of this standard, it raises the bar and because of this hopefully more diligence, exploration and new methodologies will be applied to the challenge. However, if the standard is to dismiss textual and empirical data in the primary sources on the basis the ancient author is the culprit (which is a shortfall for the academic not being able to understand the sources), then yes, we continue to have likelihoods but no consensus. So far the traditional methodologies have only created a merry go round. Anyone who has followed the historiography on the Roman army since Lipsus in 1510 will quickly realise this.
I have posted on this forum twice my research and evidence for the ages of the hastati, principes and triarii. So far no one has commented either way. If my premise is wrong, I’m sure Mr Campbell you would have amassed your scorpions and ballistae to give me an artillery barrage greater than that inflicted by the Russians on the Germans during the opening of operation Bagration in 1944. So far you have not. Is there a reason for this?
Quote:D B Campbell wrote:
Incidentally, I think you are being disingenuous when you say that you "rely on the expertise of those who are interested in this subject", given your obvious contempt for fellow academics. Maybe I just picked you up wrong.
Well I do get the distinct impression you like to redefine what I am saying. There are many academics I do admire and respect. However, I have no respect for academics writing on the Roman army who cannot or have not been able to successfully interpret the empirical data in the primary sources, but have the audacity to state an ancient author’s numbers and reliability is worthless. I have stated my position on this numerous times- if you make an claim in print in an authoritative manner then prove it. Without evidence, an academic carries the same weight professionally as the opinion of my Aunty Marge.
Quote:D B Campbell wrote:
That sounds fantastic. I'm sure I speak for everyone on RAT when I say that we cannot wait to see your exposition.
“Isn’t it astonishing that all these secrets have been preserved for so many years just so that we can discover them!” Orville Wright, 7th June 1903.
The mathematics it the primary sources are available to everyone, so it is a level playing field. Although legions numbers differ they are not ad hoc organisation as they strictly follow a system, and this what Livy’s is referring to in 171 BC when he says “in accordance with the long established practice; for Macedonia it was ordered that 6000 infantry should be enrolled.” The key words here is “the long established practice” which means the Romans are returning to an older but established organisation for the legions being sent to Macedonia.
