07-20-2009, 11:09 AM
Hello to all,
I think one of the major problems is that in any definition of 'empirical data', ancient sources would be very unlikely to make the list. The problems of numbers in ancient sources will never be reconciled even if they can be made to fit a particular theory or if they seem right or whatever.
Attempting to make ancient numbers fit is fascinating (and has dominated the modern history of the Roman Legion) but to expect all numbers to fit that theory or else be explained away is dangerously thin ice. The idea of a mathematically divisible army which does not account for sickness, casualties or any other form of attrition is flawed (and yet such numbers seemingly occur again and again in our sources). For instance, breaking your toe on the march would leave you incapacitated and unable to participate in battle but no source that I know of mentions such an accident and there cannot have been no such mishaps, especailly with several thousand men carrying multiple pointy sharp things close to one another).
Many of the didactic manuals which I have had the pleasure to research divide armies mathematically (and get abused for being armchair texts). And, as with the castrametation texts, not a single 'real' camp has been found to conform with the theory of that text. It is interesting that Maurice stresses that unit sizes should be non-uniform so that an enemy cannot guess your army's size.
More than that, any writer from any later age will apply their understanding to what they write about - it is, like Duncan said, 'the cut and thrust' of academic debate. This has been true of any age. However, in the past (when there were not rigorous rules to apply or when they were not applied rigourously (and this, unfortunately, will continue as long as there are historians) what has been analysed and argued has been at best anachronistic and at worst deliberately misleading.
In the case of all our sources for early Roman history we must be almost as concerned with the time at which the sources wrote and what might colour their perception and thus their presentation of anything we might like to call 'facts' or indeed 'empirical data'.
The discrepancies in numbers in cohorts etc show this immediately. The understanding of our sources, for whatever reason, caused them to represent the strength of the legion etc in a particular way. This may or may not represent the wider reality of the 'real' legion at that or any other time. Unfortunately we cannot, in the majority of cases, read up alternatives and so we cannot put our evidence to a rigorous corroborative test (and even when we can that doesn't help - just look at the sources for Marius - if we were to trust our sources we would give credit for his victories to everyone else just on the weight of the number of sources who take credit away from him)
Just because a source says something does not make it true regardless of whether anyone has read that source before or if they have all misunderstood it or misinterpreted it until you read it in a particular way (It is, lets face it, a wonderful feeling to read a source and understand it for the first time - and is why many of us (I assume) research and publish our understandings. Our ability to convice others of the validity of our arguments is what makes academic publishing so rewarding, because it is so challenging and so difficult. I published an article which was read by 20 different editorial readers and all suggested changes and any one of them could have pulled the plug on that article. If we are not convinced by your arguments the problem does not, necessarily, lie with us.
Even if the numbers fit a theory the source that provides that number should be put through a rigorous testing procedure. I have not, and please forgive me if I have missed it, read a defence of Livy or Dionysius or the other sources, in regard to why they should be trusted as sources for numbers in legions in early Roman history or indeed for whether the state provided arms (which they did at the time the authors wrote). Yes we don't have (many) alternatives but that does not mean that the sources we do have are right.
This is not meant to present a bleak picture akin to 'whats the point' but if you state a case and do not sway your reader with your arguments for that case that does not necessarily make us flawed. History is not a case of the emperor's new clothes.
All we can do is argue a case and try to be as rigorous as possible (and regardless of your efforts someone will always point out your failings) in order to add to the wider understanding of any particular academic field. How a researcher does that, whether polite and deferent or collaborative or obstinate, is up to them. No one can claim infallability whether it be in methodology or interpretation and a disrespect of the scholars of the past (and indeed the present) is, in a discipline such as this, extremely foolish.
Hold to your arguments and interpretations by all means but do not expect to sway anyone with 'I am right you are not' type statements. Keep in mind that all we do is offer interpretations of evidence, we do not deal with incontrovertable truth
Cheers
Murray
I think one of the major problems is that in any definition of 'empirical data', ancient sources would be very unlikely to make the list. The problems of numbers in ancient sources will never be reconciled even if they can be made to fit a particular theory or if they seem right or whatever.
Attempting to make ancient numbers fit is fascinating (and has dominated the modern history of the Roman Legion) but to expect all numbers to fit that theory or else be explained away is dangerously thin ice. The idea of a mathematically divisible army which does not account for sickness, casualties or any other form of attrition is flawed (and yet such numbers seemingly occur again and again in our sources). For instance, breaking your toe on the march would leave you incapacitated and unable to participate in battle but no source that I know of mentions such an accident and there cannot have been no such mishaps, especailly with several thousand men carrying multiple pointy sharp things close to one another).
Many of the didactic manuals which I have had the pleasure to research divide armies mathematically (and get abused for being armchair texts). And, as with the castrametation texts, not a single 'real' camp has been found to conform with the theory of that text. It is interesting that Maurice stresses that unit sizes should be non-uniform so that an enemy cannot guess your army's size.
More than that, any writer from any later age will apply their understanding to what they write about - it is, like Duncan said, 'the cut and thrust' of academic debate. This has been true of any age. However, in the past (when there were not rigorous rules to apply or when they were not applied rigourously (and this, unfortunately, will continue as long as there are historians) what has been analysed and argued has been at best anachronistic and at worst deliberately misleading.
In the case of all our sources for early Roman history we must be almost as concerned with the time at which the sources wrote and what might colour their perception and thus their presentation of anything we might like to call 'facts' or indeed 'empirical data'.
The discrepancies in numbers in cohorts etc show this immediately. The understanding of our sources, for whatever reason, caused them to represent the strength of the legion etc in a particular way. This may or may not represent the wider reality of the 'real' legion at that or any other time. Unfortunately we cannot, in the majority of cases, read up alternatives and so we cannot put our evidence to a rigorous corroborative test (and even when we can that doesn't help - just look at the sources for Marius - if we were to trust our sources we would give credit for his victories to everyone else just on the weight of the number of sources who take credit away from him)
Just because a source says something does not make it true regardless of whether anyone has read that source before or if they have all misunderstood it or misinterpreted it until you read it in a particular way (It is, lets face it, a wonderful feeling to read a source and understand it for the first time - and is why many of us (I assume) research and publish our understandings. Our ability to convice others of the validity of our arguments is what makes academic publishing so rewarding, because it is so challenging and so difficult. I published an article which was read by 20 different editorial readers and all suggested changes and any one of them could have pulled the plug on that article. If we are not convinced by your arguments the problem does not, necessarily, lie with us.
Even if the numbers fit a theory the source that provides that number should be put through a rigorous testing procedure. I have not, and please forgive me if I have missed it, read a defence of Livy or Dionysius or the other sources, in regard to why they should be trusted as sources for numbers in legions in early Roman history or indeed for whether the state provided arms (which they did at the time the authors wrote). Yes we don't have (many) alternatives but that does not mean that the sources we do have are right.
This is not meant to present a bleak picture akin to 'whats the point' but if you state a case and do not sway your reader with your arguments for that case that does not necessarily make us flawed. History is not a case of the emperor's new clothes.
All we can do is argue a case and try to be as rigorous as possible (and regardless of your efforts someone will always point out your failings) in order to add to the wider understanding of any particular academic field. How a researcher does that, whether polite and deferent or collaborative or obstinate, is up to them. No one can claim infallability whether it be in methodology or interpretation and a disrespect of the scholars of the past (and indeed the present) is, in a discipline such as this, extremely foolish.
Hold to your arguments and interpretations by all means but do not expect to sway anyone with 'I am right you are not' type statements. Keep in mind that all we do is offer interpretations of evidence, we do not deal with incontrovertable truth
Cheers
Murray
Murray K Dahm
Moderator
\'\'\'\'No matter how many you kill, you cannot kill your successor\'\'\'\' - Seneca to Nero - Dio 62
\'\'\'\'There is no way of correcting wrongdoing in those who think that the height of virtue consists in the execution of their will\'\'\'\' - Ammianus Marcellinus 27.7.9
Moderator
\'\'\'\'No matter how many you kill, you cannot kill your successor\'\'\'\' - Seneca to Nero - Dio 62
\'\'\'\'There is no way of correcting wrongdoing in those who think that the height of virtue consists in the execution of their will\'\'\'\' - Ammianus Marcellinus 27.7.9
