11-26-2011, 07:18 AM
Renatus wrote: But Vegetius' legion comprises 6,826 men - 6,100 infantry and 726 cavalry (Veg.2.6.9).
Are you implying Vegetius is a trustworthy source?
Mr Campbell wrote: I can't see where you've proved Isidore's figures. Please enlighten me.
6000 men can be divided into 12 to produce 12 cohorts of 500 men, 6000 men divided by 60 centuries produces 60 centuries of 100 men and 6000 men divided by 30 maniples produces 30 maniples of 200 men. All these numbers comply with Isidore. Add to this if you spilt the 6000 men into two units of 3000 men, the 3000 men can be horizontally organised into six vexillations of 500 men or three vexillations of 1000 men and 10 cohorts of 300 men. These later numbers (500 and 300) comply with Ammianus and Lydus. Therefore, Isidore’s mathematics is trustworthy. Maybe we need a maths teacher as an independent arbitrator.
Mr Campbell wrote: There is no indication of a mistake here in the textual tradition. There are no manuscript variations. In any case, why would a copyist write ducentas when he meant viginti? Renatus has given a far more plausible explanation (that 200 x 30 = 6,000).
200 x 30 does equal 6000. So are you now advocating maniples of 200 men?
Mr Campbell wrote: Are you aware of the problems of using the Theban legion to support your argument? (i.e. the source is even less trustworthy than Isidore.)
Ok, why are the sources for the Theban legion less trustworthy than Isidore?
Robert wrote: Which Theban legion? The hagiographic unit of Christian martyrs? That’s no information about a real legion but a Christian fairy-tale – besides, the number of that unit is far more often given as 6666, not 6600.
I am not concerned as to whether the Theban legion is a fairytale. I am interested in the numbers given for the Theban legion. They seemed to be pulled from a historical organisation. The number 6666 men as given for the Theban legion is an even better source than the 6600 men as I have found the 6666 includes the officers. However, the Theban legion numbering 6585 men is problematic and I have given up trying to understand how the source arrived at 6585 men.
Robert wrote: That 5600 of Suetonius is a typo? If not 5600 is not a denominator of 600.
Can you tell me more about the 5600 being a typo? Roth did not mention this in his paper. I will also contact him to obtain his point of view. My point about the number 600 is I meant all references end in 600, not that they are divisible by 600.
Robert wrote: But you have not.
So where mathematically have I gone wrong. I have used only those numbers supplied by Isidore 6000, 12 x 500, 200 x 30, 100 x 60.
Robert wrote: It’s already been mentioned here that Isidore used more than one source, with conflicting information.
Where does the maths conflict?
Robert wrote: Seniores and iuniores did not serve in one unit, as I told they didn’t. You made that up.
You have misunderstood me. I presented a theory that originally the men from one age division could be separated into iuniores and seniores. For example when levying the troops, the men are put into six age divisions. If one age division (the youngest) was aged 16 to 20, those aged 16 to 18 could be put into units of iuniores and those aged 18 to 20 could be placed in units of seniores. This could be done for all men of military age. I based this on information found by Tromlin I think claiming evidence of seniores aged from 25 to 60 years.
Robert wrote: Concluding: you did not prove that Isidore was right, and you are making up what the Late Roman Army organisation looked like. It’s OK to ask for information here on this forum, but if you consistently ignore all the information that you receive, why would you or anyone of us bother?
Where are Isidore’s numbers incompatible? Asking for information does not mean I have to conform to the information given. I am also allowed to question the information. I have outlined a proposal of 6000 men broken into 3000 man bodies organised into 10 cohorts of 300 men and six units of 500 men; numbers reported by Ammianus and Lydus. I have asked before what is wrong with this proposal and so far not one reply. So what am I making up?
Are you implying Vegetius is a trustworthy source?
Mr Campbell wrote: I can't see where you've proved Isidore's figures. Please enlighten me.
6000 men can be divided into 12 to produce 12 cohorts of 500 men, 6000 men divided by 60 centuries produces 60 centuries of 100 men and 6000 men divided by 30 maniples produces 30 maniples of 200 men. All these numbers comply with Isidore. Add to this if you spilt the 6000 men into two units of 3000 men, the 3000 men can be horizontally organised into six vexillations of 500 men or three vexillations of 1000 men and 10 cohorts of 300 men. These later numbers (500 and 300) comply with Ammianus and Lydus. Therefore, Isidore’s mathematics is trustworthy. Maybe we need a maths teacher as an independent arbitrator.
Mr Campbell wrote: There is no indication of a mistake here in the textual tradition. There are no manuscript variations. In any case, why would a copyist write ducentas when he meant viginti? Renatus has given a far more plausible explanation (that 200 x 30 = 6,000).
200 x 30 does equal 6000. So are you now advocating maniples of 200 men?
Mr Campbell wrote: Are you aware of the problems of using the Theban legion to support your argument? (i.e. the source is even less trustworthy than Isidore.)
Ok, why are the sources for the Theban legion less trustworthy than Isidore?
Robert wrote: Which Theban legion? The hagiographic unit of Christian martyrs? That’s no information about a real legion but a Christian fairy-tale – besides, the number of that unit is far more often given as 6666, not 6600.
I am not concerned as to whether the Theban legion is a fairytale. I am interested in the numbers given for the Theban legion. They seemed to be pulled from a historical organisation. The number 6666 men as given for the Theban legion is an even better source than the 6600 men as I have found the 6666 includes the officers. However, the Theban legion numbering 6585 men is problematic and I have given up trying to understand how the source arrived at 6585 men.
Robert wrote: That 5600 of Suetonius is a typo? If not 5600 is not a denominator of 600.
Can you tell me more about the 5600 being a typo? Roth did not mention this in his paper. I will also contact him to obtain his point of view. My point about the number 600 is I meant all references end in 600, not that they are divisible by 600.
Robert wrote: But you have not.
So where mathematically have I gone wrong. I have used only those numbers supplied by Isidore 6000, 12 x 500, 200 x 30, 100 x 60.
Robert wrote: It’s already been mentioned here that Isidore used more than one source, with conflicting information.
Where does the maths conflict?
Robert wrote: Seniores and iuniores did not serve in one unit, as I told they didn’t. You made that up.
You have misunderstood me. I presented a theory that originally the men from one age division could be separated into iuniores and seniores. For example when levying the troops, the men are put into six age divisions. If one age division (the youngest) was aged 16 to 20, those aged 16 to 18 could be put into units of iuniores and those aged 18 to 20 could be placed in units of seniores. This could be done for all men of military age. I based this on information found by Tromlin I think claiming evidence of seniores aged from 25 to 60 years.
Robert wrote: Concluding: you did not prove that Isidore was right, and you are making up what the Late Roman Army organisation looked like. It’s OK to ask for information here on this forum, but if you consistently ignore all the information that you receive, why would you or anyone of us bother?
Where are Isidore’s numbers incompatible? Asking for information does not mean I have to conform to the information given. I am also allowed to question the information. I have outlined a proposal of 6000 men broken into 3000 man bodies organised into 10 cohorts of 300 men and six units of 500 men; numbers reported by Ammianus and Lydus. I have asked before what is wrong with this proposal and so far not one reply. So what am I making up?
