Zodiac and Roman Army Camp construction

[antiochus]

Mr Campbell wrote: Can you explain what you mean by "the camp organisation", please?

Answer is 16[sup]2[/sup] minus 14[sup]2[/sup]

[D B Campbell]

Can you explain what you mean by "the camp organisation", please?

Answer is 16[sup]2[/sup] minus 14[sup]2[/sup]

That sounds terribly un-Roman. May I ask who is your authority for this? What is your source?

[antiochus]

Mr Campbell wrote: That sounds terribly un-Roman.

Can you please be more explicit and explain what you mean by un-Roman?

[D B Campbell]

Can you please be more explicit and explain what you mean by un-Roman?

This is getting silly. :roll: How (indeed, why) would a Roman calculate 16-squared minus 14-squared?! :?

[antiochus]

Mr Campbell wrote: This is getting silly. How (indeed, why) would a Roman calculate 16-squared minus 14-squared?!

No…don’t make me out to be the problem. I only wanted clarification on your previously vague question.

When describing the Roman camp, Polybius states “one simple formula for a camp is employed which is adopted at all times and in all places.” So from this we know there is a formula. If you remember, I stated the 480 man cohort amounted to 16 zodiacs, and that the Etruscan heavens were divided into 16 parts. Well the first part of the formula numbers 16. Is this a coincidence? Polybius divides the Roman camp into four parts, but being a macro micro system, one part can again be subdivided into four therefore producing 4 x 4 = 16. The number 16 when doubled makes 32 which is the size of a cavalry squadron for this time period. The number 14 is very significant to the Romans because it represents their infancy and when doubled it makes 28, which represents manhood. The number 28 is intertwined with other practices and explains why Augustus set the number of legions and 28 and why he established 28 new military colonies.

I notice you mention in your Osprey on the Roman camp that the praetentura for the El-Lejjun camp numbered 16 barracks, and you dabble with the number 14 on one occasion. However, in your Osprey on the Roman camp you neglected to explain the reasons as to why the Romans layout the camp in their chosen manner. Foundation treatises specify that the outer boundaries were drawn with reference to the order of the heavens with the axial streets “in line with the course of the sun...and the axis of the sky, fixed that is by the crisscross of sun line and sky-axis…immovable in and at harmony with the universe at whose centre it was placed.”

Polybius has the consul placed in the middle of the camp. I guess without making a proper investigation some would say it is nothing more than geographical coincidence. Some years back I found this interesting quote:

“they do not think it right to call tactics one of the parts of mathematics, as others do. Rather, they hold that it uses sometimes logistics, as in the tallying of companies, and sometimes geodesy, as in the division and measurements of camps.”

The referenced then goes on to name the shapes within the camps. The Romans are associated with the use of square numbers as opposed to the Greeks use of triangular numbers. The formula 16 squared minus 14 squared results in 60. Returning to the formula, the number 16 could represent poson (quantity) and the number 14 pelikon (magnitude). Poson relates to another quantity and pelikon is either stationary or in motion. In regard to the camp, being either stationary or in motion, means the magnitude can be increased or decreased. It is also helpful to understand the Roman cosmology is based on one of the following:

Even times Even
Even times Odd
Odd times Even

You will also find the Roma Quadrata is helpful in understanding the layout of the camp. The tribes are interconnected with the Roma Quadrata. From memory I think Plutarch calls the Roma Quadrata a square while Varro defines it as a name for the city in augural theory. Fortunately there are better sources defining the Roma Quadrata. However, there are two types of Roma Quadrata, and I believe the earlier one is more appropriate to the structure of the camp. No matter how hard you try to resist it, whether you like it or not, everything bounces back to the cosmos.

[Macedon]

What question exactly does the formula 16[sup]2[/sup] - 14[sup]2[/sup] answer? I kind of fail to see any crucial connection of the number 60 with Polybius' description of the Roman camp... As for the cohorts of the Polybian Romans, aren't they normally 160 (dividable by 16 and not by 60) and 100 (not dividable by 60 or 16) man strong, when necessary reinforced to 200 and 110 respectively (both numbers not dividable by either 16 or 60)? And why are the Polybian turmae 32 and not 30 man strong? I would suggest that it was the Greeks who liked to use powers of 2 (at least at an ideal level) and not the Romans. Where in their tactics do they use triangular numbers (apart from wedges and rhombuses obviously and then again not in all forms of arrangement)? And since when is the Polybian camp a square itself divided in four equal squares or the consul quartered in its middle? I admit I have never sat down to draw one myself but the drawings I have seen and the reading I have done do not seem to shape such a pattern...

As for Proclus' comments, of course mathematics are used in tactics as well as in Roman camp building, I guess it is with astronomy/astrology that you want to make a connection?

And one more question, does your theory try to explain or also predict tactical numbers and patterns used by the Romans?

[D B Campbell]

I only wanted clarification on your previously vague question.

Likewise, I was -- still am -- seeking clarification of your own puzzling remark. I think Macedon/George is, too. (See previous post.)

When describing the Roman camp, Polybius states “one simple formula for a camp is employed which is adopted at all times and in all places.”

You are putting words in Polybius' mouth! At Hist. 6.26.10, he actually refers to a theôrêma ("theory / scheme / plan") not specifically a formula, like your puzzling 16[sup]2[/sup] - 14[sup]2[/sup].

So from this we know there is a formula.

I don't think so. See above.

If you remember, I stated the 480 man cohort amounted to 16 zodiacs, and that the Etruscan heavens were divided into 16 parts.

Both of these assertions continue to baffle me, but I'm hoping that you will eventually favour us with an explanation.

Well the first part of the formula numbers 16. Is this a coincidence? Polybius divides the Roman camp into four parts, but being a macro micro system, one part can again be subdivided into four therefore producing 4 x 4 = 16. The number 16 when doubled makes 32 which is the size of a cavalry squadron for this time period.

Fours and eights seem to recur in Hyginus' Roman army, but not in Polybius'. He seems keener on threes. Sometimes he assigns 300 cavalry to each legion, sometimes 200. He says that the cavalry should be divided into ten squadrons, and "from each they select three officers" (6.25.1). That doesn't sound like a squadron of 32 men to me.

The number 14 is very significant to the Romans because it represents their infancy and when doubled it makes 28, which represents manhood.

Is this actually substantiated anywhere, or have you just made it up?

The number 28 is intertwined with other practices and explains why Augustus set the number of legions and 28 ...

Did he? Are you sure?

I notice you mention in your Osprey on the Roman camp that the praetentura for the El-Lejjun camp numbered 16 barracks, and you dabble with the number 14 on one occasion.

El-Lejjun is a Late Roman permanent fortress. Nothing to do with Polybius or camps. If you can give me a page reference for my "dabbling", I might be able to explain it to you.

However, in your Osprey on the Roman camp you neglected to explain the reasons as to why the Romans layout the camp in their chosen manner. Foundation treatises specify that the outer boundaries were drawn with reference to the order of the heavens with the axial streets “in line with the course of the sun...and the axis of the sky, fixed that is by the crisscross of sun line and sky-axis…immovable in and at harmony with the universe at whose centre it was placed.”

Your "foundation treatises" (reference please?) presumably deal with laying out a town. This may seem to have some relevance to camp layout, but you'd need to demonstrate the link: it is not self-evident. (For example, the boundary of a camp was not ploughed in the same way as the boundary of a town.)

Polybius has the consul placed in the middle of the camp. I guess without making a proper investigation some would say it is nothing more than geographical coincidence.

Would they? How would they define a "geographical coincidence"? Do you mean that, as Polybius explains, "the tent of the general occupies the position which is most suitable for seeing everything while issuing orders" (6.27.1). The rest of the camp is laid out around this ideal spot. Is this your "geographical coincidence"?

Some years back I found this interesting quote: “they do not think it right to call tactics one of the parts of mathematics, as others do. Rather, they hold that it uses sometimes logistics, as in the tallying of companies, and sometimes geodesy, as in the division and measurements of camps.”

It's helpful to cite references for this kind of thing. Luckily, as Macedon/George realised (thanks, George!), this is Proclus, a 5th century AD philosopher (with no military experience, unless you know differently?) -- you really like your obscure late sources, don't you?

The referenced then goes on to name the shapes within the camps. The Romans are associated with the use of square numbers as opposed to the Greeks use of triangular numbers.

The Proclus reference? Does it? Maybe you need to quote your source here. As far as I can see, Proclus simply records the use of a circular camp to make an army look small, or a rectangle to make an army look big. I can't see anything about square vs "triangular" numbers. Is this important for your theory?

The formula 16 squared minus 14 squared results in 60. Returning to the formula, the number 16 could represent poson (quantity) and the number 14 pelikon (magnitude). Poson relates to another quantity and pelikon is either stationary or in motion. In regard to the camp, being either stationary or in motion, means the magnitude can be increased or decreased. It is also helpful to understand the Roman cosmology is based on one of the following: Even times Even / Even times Odd / Odd times Even

You lost me back at the pelican. :?

No matter how hard you try to resist it, whether you like it or not, everything bounces back to the cosmos.

How very mystical. And puzzling.

[Robert Vermaat]

No matter how hard you try to resist it, whether you like it or not, everything bounces back to the cosmos.

Resistance IS futile. You will be assimilated. :wink:
But as this discussion is moving firmly away from the original question (Late Roman army) I have split it off to form a new topic.

[D B Campbell]

But as this discussion is moving firmly away from the original question (Late Roman army) I have split it off to form a new topic.

I think it was sensible to split the thread, Robert. It had certainly become unwieldy.

But I'm not sure that we had moved away from Antiochus/Steven's original thinking. The zodiac made a pretty early entrance in his original thread:

Actually there is evidence of the existence of a grand mathematical plan and it is discussed in snippets by the Romans in various primary sources. Some say things like the changing of the intervals, or if the republic doesn’t change. There is also one reference explaining why the Romans do not talk about the system. They are embarrassed it does not belong to them and it should. To understand the grand mathematical plan as you call it requires the reader to investigate more disciplines than just the military. The size of a cohort can tell a lot if you know how to use the information. Many ancient authorities tell us a zodiac amounts to 30 degrees and Strabo remarks that one degree equals 700 stadia. Therefore, one zodiac equals 21,000 stadia. By taking the 480 man cohort as our example, when divided by 30 degrees the result is 16 zodiacs. In this manner one man in a cohort equals one degree, so a 480 man cohort when multiplied by 700 stadia per degree equals 336,000 stadia. This number means nothing to most readers at this point, but it is the number of men in the 35 tribes. So 336,000 men divided by 35 tribes equals 9600 men per tribe. Now by following Livy claiming the number of iuniores to seniores is 50/50, the 9600 men divides into 4800 iuniores and 4800 seniores. In short, the tribe dictates the size of the legion! Next rule is the number of cavalry squadrons must represent the number of zodiacs for that time period, so an alae of 512 men divided by 16 zodiacs equals 32 men. Therefore, a 512 alae contains 16 squadrons. The number 16 represents the Etruscan system of dividing the heavens into 16 parts.

Hopefully, all will be revealed, in the fullness of time. :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

I'm not sure that we had moved away from Antiochus/Steven's original thinking. The zodiac made a pretty early entrance in his original thread

True, but his original question seemed to be about the Late Roman army, as was the thread title. As for the zodiac, well...

[jvrjenivs]

What question exactly does the formula 16[sup]2[/sup] - 14[sup]2[/sup] answer?

Well, when you take this holy formula and multiply the answer (60) by yet another mythical number (5)* you get the number of warriors (300) that King Leonidas took to fight the Persians at Thermopylae in 480 B.C.
So, it seems that King Leonidas himself even know about Roman cosmology (or should we better call it Ancient cosmology?), although he fails to understand that 5 doesn't reflect a Roma Quadrata#, the reason why his last stand finally failed?

* That indeed 5 was seen as a holy number, we can find in ancient sources like the Greek philosophers such as Aristotle, where it is the number of classical elements the universe is built upon: water, earth, air, fire, and ether.
# Indeed five isn't a Roma quadrata, it's a Prime number. He could have noted this already, as we know about mathematical treatise tackling prime numbers by Euclid and of course the Sieve of Eratosthenes, attributed to Eratosthenes.

[nikgaukroger]

One wonders how the milliary cohortes and alae fit into this.

When is the book out Steven?

[mcbishop]

Hopefully, all will be revealed, in the fullness of time. :wink:

I'm not sure whether we are about to break out in Les Crane's Desiderata or The Age of Aquarius. All I know is this sort of theoretical approach (like the old pes Drusianus/Monetalis chestnut) has little meaning beyond broad-brush principles when it comes to the archaeology of forts, fortresses, and camps once the realities of terrain are confronted. Fun to play around with, though ;-)

Come to think of it, there was a theory some years ago that Glastonbury was surrounded by a giant zodiac.

Mike Bishop

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Surely, this all leads to the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail????

[Longovicium]

I was thinking more along the lines of Umberto Eco's 'Foucault's Pendulum' myself!