07-01-2017, 02:52 AM
Francis wrote:
However, if we play a game here and use the 50 veredarii as a separate cavalry type (following Pavkovic - perhaps armoured horse-archers?) and attach it to the first century we have 225 veredarii troopers remaining which splits nicely into 9 cavalry turma of 25 troopers.
A squadron of 25 troopers has extremely limited deployment arrangements, like 5 horses wide by 5 horses deep. How does it extend its frontage and depth evenly if required? What is its frontage in column of march?
Francis wrote:
Now my head hurts . . .
Welcome to my world for the past 12 years.
Nathan wrote:
Yes, Sozomen says arithmoi, and calls the units tagmata, but the meaning is clear. Arithmos (Greek) and Numerus (Latin) are the same.
So how is it clear that an arithmoi is equivalent to a numerus? I want proof, rather than just follow the latest group think. What if an arithmoi was equivalent to two numerii?
Nathan wrote:
It could, although that would be numerus Ioviorum, not Iovianorum. The balance of probability is that this refers to the Iovianii.
The balance of probability still means uncertainty, so no clear conclusion can be arrived at.
Nathan wrote:
It seems to me patently obvious that the text on Slab B refers to the list on Slab C. If you wish to believe otherwise, we would have to ask what the purpose of this inscription might be.
There is nothing wrong with questioning. Sometimes the obvious can turn out to be different to perceived notions. It can also be a trap wanting to believe it is about a legion. I am keeping an open mind and playing the devil’s advocate. For some the Perge document has become the new Holy Grail that will answer all answers. Old Buddhist saying “expectations can lead to disappointment.”
Nathan wrote:
No idea. We're missing the tesserarii too.
The question is why they are missing. Doesn’t that deserve some attention?
Nathan wrote:
What figure do you get when you add the 'officers and supernumeraries'?
My research ends at 410 AD. The Perge document has reinforced for me that between 410 AD and the Perge document, there has been a military reform. The important question is, is an arithmoi equivalent in size to a numerus? Up to 410 AD, I am following the premise that a legion was organised into numerii, and two numerii was equivalent to one arithmoi. If there is proof that this is wrong, then I am happy to change it to a numerus equals an arithmoi, it is only a matter of changing some words. I am also following the premise that a numerus was two thirds in size of a legion vexillation, with a numerus representing specific troop types of the legion, whereas a legion vexillation included all troop types of a legion. This appears to have its roots in the principate.
However, if we play a game here and use the 50 veredarii as a separate cavalry type (following Pavkovic - perhaps armoured horse-archers?) and attach it to the first century we have 225 veredarii troopers remaining which splits nicely into 9 cavalry turma of 25 troopers.
A squadron of 25 troopers has extremely limited deployment arrangements, like 5 horses wide by 5 horses deep. How does it extend its frontage and depth evenly if required? What is its frontage in column of march?
Francis wrote:
Now my head hurts . . .
Welcome to my world for the past 12 years.
Nathan wrote:
Yes, Sozomen says arithmoi, and calls the units tagmata, but the meaning is clear. Arithmos (Greek) and Numerus (Latin) are the same.
So how is it clear that an arithmoi is equivalent to a numerus? I want proof, rather than just follow the latest group think. What if an arithmoi was equivalent to two numerii?
Nathan wrote:
It could, although that would be numerus Ioviorum, not Iovianorum. The balance of probability is that this refers to the Iovianii.
The balance of probability still means uncertainty, so no clear conclusion can be arrived at.
Nathan wrote:
It seems to me patently obvious that the text on Slab B refers to the list on Slab C. If you wish to believe otherwise, we would have to ask what the purpose of this inscription might be.
There is nothing wrong with questioning. Sometimes the obvious can turn out to be different to perceived notions. It can also be a trap wanting to believe it is about a legion. I am keeping an open mind and playing the devil’s advocate. For some the Perge document has become the new Holy Grail that will answer all answers. Old Buddhist saying “expectations can lead to disappointment.”
Nathan wrote:
No idea. We're missing the tesserarii too.
The question is why they are missing. Doesn’t that deserve some attention?
Nathan wrote:
What figure do you get when you add the 'officers and supernumeraries'?
My research ends at 410 AD. The Perge document has reinforced for me that between 410 AD and the Perge document, there has been a military reform. The important question is, is an arithmoi equivalent in size to a numerus? Up to 410 AD, I am following the premise that a legion was organised into numerii, and two numerii was equivalent to one arithmoi. If there is proof that this is wrong, then I am happy to change it to a numerus equals an arithmoi, it is only a matter of changing some words. I am also following the premise that a numerus was two thirds in size of a legion vexillation, with a numerus representing specific troop types of the legion, whereas a legion vexillation included all troop types of a legion. This appears to have its roots in the principate.
