Rome versus Pyrrhus

[D B Campbell]

So if Cicero's letter said Pompey had 30,000 men, and Caesar said that was five legions (6,000 per legion), that means we have three possibilities:
1- Plutarch's 5,000-man figure is incorrect; ...
2- Plutarch's 5,000-man figure was correct; ...
3- Cicero's 30,000-man figure was incorrect. ...

How about a fourth possibility.... they are all correct.

Sounds like special pleading. I understood your thesis to state that legions had to be a specific size.

Isidore (Isid. Etym. IX, 3. 51) states a legion consisted of 60 centuries, 30 maniples and 12 cohorts. Isidore gives the size of a cohort as 500 men. Therefore, 12 cohorts of 500 men amount to 6000 men.

I think you have another incorrect ref. In my copy, it's Isid., Etym. IX.3.47 (for the legion) and IX.3.52 (for the cohort).

By the way, Isidorus is quite a late source to be pinning so much hope on. (Vegetius, too.)

Taking Isidore and applying it to Pompey’s 30,000 men, ... this equates to five legions at 6000 men or six legions at 5000 men. However, the primary sources tell us Pompey elected for five legions, but is it five legions of 6000 men organised into 12 cohorts of 500 men. Maybe Caesar did not have that luxury (enough men to form a legion of 6000 men) and settled for a legion of 5000 men.

Correct me if I'm wrong (... I'm sure you will), but isn't your entire thesis predicated on the fact that the size of a legion can be exactly predicted and stated?

Maybe Plutarch's 5,000-man legion was the gold standard that all legions tried to replicate, but if tribes were on the march and only 4,800 men were ready to fight, one might have to make due with a 4,800 man legion.

If this were correct, then Plutarch or any ancient historian would have no problem stating a legion was 4800 men. ...

Again, you seem to be arguing that there were set sizes that must be adhered to. But you yourself have just suggested that Caesar may not have had enough men to form what you would consider to be "the correct size" of legion, so he "settled for a legion of 5000 men". Is there some reason why Justin can't settle for his legion of 4,800 men?

My observation of the postings on this group and many other discussion groups, plus in the many academic journals and books I have read on the Roman army, is the author’s own prejudices block him/her from further their understanding of the Roman army. It is these beliefs, formulated by what you have read that lead one to a dead end. If you wear red glasses, you will see everything as red. To change your perception you will have to remove the glasses.

Prejudice is such a nasty word. People all have their own views, and it is your job to persuade them otherwise. It's as simple as that. (And my glasses are clear glass; if I take them off, it certainly will change my perception -- I won't be able to see a d*mn thing. :wink: )

Now Mr Campbell, I made gave a general outline of a system of contracting and expanding. I never mentioned Ovid’s ten men. But alas, you do like to redesign what I say.

Not so. The entire poem is about 10s, ergo your theory must depend on 10s if it is to seek support from Ovid.

In case you are not aware of a system of expansion and contraction, compare Hyginus’ century of 80 men with Vegetius’ centuries of 110 men. Vegetius legion is 50 or 55 centuries, and earlier legions are 60 centuries. Therefore, early legions have more centuries and a smaller number of men per century, while Vegetius’ legion has fewer centuries and more men per century.

That seems counter-intuitive. So you propose a system where a "century" starts off as not being 100 men and gradually works its up, through the years, until by the time of Isidorus it actually has 100 men? I'd love to see the evidence for that.