06-30-2017, 02:01 PM
Nathan wrote:
I refer you (again) to Sozomen Ecclesiastical History I.8: "From that period [i.e of Constantine] the Roman Legions, which now were called numeri..."
I refer you to a common translation (one of many) that states: “From that period the Roman legions, which now were called by their number.” In Latin numerus can also mean “number.” Also Sozomen wrote in Greek, no Latin, so Sozomen is not specifically stating numeri. We need to check the original text. It would be interesting if the text had the word arithmoi, but I think it would be the Greek word for number.
Nathan wrote:
Also (again) to the Notitia Dignitatum, which lists legions (and all other units) under the heading numeri.
And they could well mean numerii of the legion, with a legion being made up of a number of numeri. There are records of vexillations belonging to a specific legion so it could be the same thing.
Nathan wrote:
Also (again) to CIL 03, 10232, which refers to the palatine legion of the Ioviani as the numero Iovianorum.
So now CIL 03, 10232 has definitely become a legion, yet in another posting you yourself state that it could also refer to the auxilia unit of the Iovii. What is it to be?
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/thread-30407-post-344681.html#pid344681
Nathan wrote:
Not to mention the very document under discussion, which refers to a unit commanded by a tribunis numeri as a legion.
As I understand it, legion in Slab A and B, numeri in Slab C.
Nathan wrote:
The 'military organisational system' at work 'since the beginning of the Republic' is your own theory, and if the evidence does not support it then the theory should be revised, not the evidence.
The evidence shows that during the republic, a legion was called a legion, and not something else. A century was called a century, a maniple a maniple, an ordo an ordo and a cohort a cohort. That is not a theory of mine, it is known to all and sundry, so there is no need for me to do any revision.
Nathan wrote:
They appear to be very 'legionary names'. Ordinarii, signiferi, optiones, and so on.
You cannot hide a dead elephant with a grasshopper. Why no mention of troop types like lanceraii or following Theodoret (3 12) that Valentinian was a Tribune and commanded the hastati. Any reason why the Perge is absent of familiar names?
Nathan wrote:
So nothing unusual about a legion with cavalry.
Well how the times have changed. And to think of the countless debates I had stressing this point and you lot dismissing it all.
Nathan wrote:
Whatever happened to "I let the primary sources guide me, always have and always will"?
Alas I do, and I don’t slightly alter their meanings with every change of the wind.
Nathan wrote:
225 is an odd number - but we should almost certainly add the two bucinators and quite possibly the three mensores (as I suggested above). The result is still baffling, but we need to work with what we have.
Which shows the Perge document produces more questions than answers.
Nathan wrote:
The legion could be around 1600, but it cannot be exactly this number. The closest would be 1572 or 1672. We are working with exact figures here, not rough estimates.
My 1600 does not include officers and supernumeraries, nor have I shown how it is broken into subunits, or what it could be with the removal of the seniores.
I refer you (again) to Sozomen Ecclesiastical History I.8: "From that period [i.e of Constantine] the Roman Legions, which now were called numeri..."
I refer you to a common translation (one of many) that states: “From that period the Roman legions, which now were called by their number.” In Latin numerus can also mean “number.” Also Sozomen wrote in Greek, no Latin, so Sozomen is not specifically stating numeri. We need to check the original text. It would be interesting if the text had the word arithmoi, but I think it would be the Greek word for number.
Nathan wrote:
Also (again) to the Notitia Dignitatum, which lists legions (and all other units) under the heading numeri.
And they could well mean numerii of the legion, with a legion being made up of a number of numeri. There are records of vexillations belonging to a specific legion so it could be the same thing.
Nathan wrote:
Also (again) to CIL 03, 10232, which refers to the palatine legion of the Ioviani as the numero Iovianorum.
So now CIL 03, 10232 has definitely become a legion, yet in another posting you yourself state that it could also refer to the auxilia unit of the Iovii. What is it to be?
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/thread-30407-post-344681.html#pid344681
Nathan wrote:
Not to mention the very document under discussion, which refers to a unit commanded by a tribunis numeri as a legion.
As I understand it, legion in Slab A and B, numeri in Slab C.
Nathan wrote:
The 'military organisational system' at work 'since the beginning of the Republic' is your own theory, and if the evidence does not support it then the theory should be revised, not the evidence.
The evidence shows that during the republic, a legion was called a legion, and not something else. A century was called a century, a maniple a maniple, an ordo an ordo and a cohort a cohort. That is not a theory of mine, it is known to all and sundry, so there is no need for me to do any revision.
Nathan wrote:
They appear to be very 'legionary names'. Ordinarii, signiferi, optiones, and so on.
You cannot hide a dead elephant with a grasshopper. Why no mention of troop types like lanceraii or following Theodoret (3 12) that Valentinian was a Tribune and commanded the hastati. Any reason why the Perge is absent of familiar names?
Nathan wrote:
So nothing unusual about a legion with cavalry.
Well how the times have changed. And to think of the countless debates I had stressing this point and you lot dismissing it all.
Nathan wrote:
Whatever happened to "I let the primary sources guide me, always have and always will"?
Alas I do, and I don’t slightly alter their meanings with every change of the wind.
Nathan wrote:
225 is an odd number - but we should almost certainly add the two bucinators and quite possibly the three mensores (as I suggested above). The result is still baffling, but we need to work with what we have.
Which shows the Perge document produces more questions than answers.
Nathan wrote:
The legion could be around 1600, but it cannot be exactly this number. The closest would be 1572 or 1672. We are working with exact figures here, not rough estimates.
My 1600 does not include officers and supernumeraries, nor have I shown how it is broken into subunits, or what it could be with the removal of the seniores.
