Zodiac and Roman Army Camp construction

[mcbishop]

BTW - Is this the room for the five minute argument or the full half hour?

Neither. The clue is in the sign on the door: Don't Feed the Trolls...

Mike Bishop

[Macedon]

Now you’re being silly. You perfectly well known that two squares make a rectangle. See my notes further on.

Of course sometimes they do, but more often than not they do not... this is why you have to be more precise with your definitions. Yet, it really looks in your posts like you advocate a certain symmetry found in a square and not in another rectangle.

I assign camps to “ages” as in Virgil’s the roll call of the centuries. The pattern is the tribes, the legion and therefore the camp will change with the beginning of a new age. The camp of Augustus, Hyginus, Domitian and Marcus belong to the same age.

And thus, they should obey to the same pattern, right? I am no expert on the layout of camps, but I guess that there are many members who could give an opinion on whether they do. That would be a good point to check in order to see if your theory rests on firm ground. The more testable assumptions/principals/proposals you can provide, the better one could at least check whether your work does not conflict with given historical/archaeological principals.

The age is doubled to get the depth. It’s so the legion conforms to the whole system (cosmos, legion, camp). However, let’s not forget Vegetius does say 10 ranks “or more.” Now this is one of the anomalies of the legion organisation. It concerns whether the pilus posterior are deployed with the legion or omitted.

Which would mean that the Romans of the first era deployed 2 deep and those of the second 4 deep? I guess you are talking of "regular" depths since it is common belief, as is suggested by the sources that depth would also vary according to circumstances and necessities.

and the 600 men only refers to the fighting component of the legion. This is important to understand as some sources give the numbers for the fighting component and other include the support elements.

I always thought that the Roman (or Greek for that matter) units' nominal strength did not include support personnel like servants for example. Do your calculations presented for all Roman units include them?

10 legions of 60 centuries
12 legions of 50 centuries
15 legions of 40 centuries
20 legions of 30 centuries

Would that apply only in a full levy situation? What if only half the available levies were demanded? What would happen to legions already serving? Don't you think that such a huge fact would have been mentioned and commented on in the sources, being a conscious decision that would have been debated on in the senate no matter the era? Can you give an example when you think that such a decision was taken?

294,000 divided by 35 = 8400 men divided by 2 = 4200 men = Polybian legion. If you have the wrong premise you get the wrong answer. You have the wrong answer because as shown in the book by the numerous legions numbers found in the primary sources and their association with their age of time, the Polybian legion of 4200 men is incorrect. Polybius has used the levy system and miscalculated the numbers. His legion is a combination of the legion (post velites) of his time mixed with an earlier pre-velite legion, all jumbled with the levy system. Polybius, unaware of his mistake has then applied it throughout his writings. This all becomes self explanatory as you read through the history of the maniple legion, long before you reach the page explaining the Polybian legion. One thing I have become aware of is the sources used by the ancients must list all the men by category and it seems the ancient author had to add these to get the size of the legion. So that would be why some include various troop types while other omit some, thereby producing differing numbers.

Now, this is a very bold claim. I also find that Polybius may be wrong in a number of his suggestions regarding military matters but suggesting that the Polybian division of the Roman army is plainly wrong had better be very well backed and not with a view to fit your system. That claim alone could look like you are trying to fit reality to your theory rather than your theory to reality but I guess you know that, so I expect you have many substantial arguments to support your view.

Geminos and Strabo following Eratosthenes, give the circumference of the Earth at 252,000 stadia, and the diameter; 84,000 stades, bound by two meridian points 180 degrees apart. Because the meridian circle is divided into 60 parts, one part is called a sixtieth, which is 4200 stades. The Earth is divided into five zones (two frigid zones, two temperate zones and one torrid zone). Theon of Smyrna also gives the Earth’s circumference at 252,000 stades. Pliny details the circumference of the world at 252,000 stades, with the Earth made up of six zones each of 21,000 stades. Cleomedes gives 240,000 stades as Posidonius' estimate of the earth's circumference. Aristotle adds that the mathematicians of his day calculate the circumference of the earth at 400,000 stades. Archimedes has it at 300,000 stades.

But if the sphere that encompasses the universe, beyond the stars and planets, has a circumference of 252,000 stadia, then the sphere that encompasses the earth should be much smaller, since it is contained within the former, shouldn't it? I guess that if not given, it could be calculated by the proposed distance of the "sphere of the zodiac" to the earth? I just expected a much smaller number.

Some years back I got so involved in researching the voting system of the Romans and how it could work based on the tribal system. I’ve since pulled that section from the book as it will take more research and it is not the focus of the book. The Tabula Hebana describes a voting procedure done by lot, with 33 tribes from the 35 tribes having the right to cast their votes into 15 vases. I recommend reading this.

So, according to your knowledge, was this the political system of the Romans through the eras your system is applied to? I guess it has to since the population of the tribes predicted by it is directly connected with it? Do you also have references that the voters or population of the tribes were the same? I guess that this also is a prerequisite for your system? I read from JSTOR :

Text of the Tabula Hebana
Author(s): James H. Oliver and Robert E. A. Palmer
Source: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 75, No. 3 (1954), pp. 225-249Published

, but I cannot say that I found in it the intricate details of the system as you presented it but it may be so, because there is no full translation provided in this paper. Was what you described your own reconstruction, another scholar's or did you someplace find more details?

I also found this interesting book :

Roman voting assemblies from the Hannibalic War to the dictatorship of Caesar, by Lily Ross Taylor

I admit only superficially taking a look, in which I could not find references to the numbers you have suggested.

[Ghostmojo]

BTW - Is this the room for the five minute argument or the full half hour?

Neither. The clue is in the sign on the door: Don't Feed the Trolls...

Mike Bishop

Sense of humour bypass? :?

[Ghostmojo]

... or 'tetragonal' (I made that one up).

Maybe you thought you'd made it up. :wink:
[attachment=2744]Tetragonal.jpg[/attachment]

I have to admit you have me fairly, and firmly, by the tetragonals there :wink:

Pipped at the post! hock: Again!!! :evil: :twisted: :lol:

Just like when I got to the Antarctic and found all those flags there ...

[mcbishop]

Sense of humour bypass? :?

Clearly... and whilst quoting Python too... :roll:

Mike Bishop

[Robert Vermaat]

In an attempt to keep this discussion as simple as possibl;e, I've pasted the most recent postings back on the original thread about Late Roman army numbers & the Zodiac.

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?fu...&id=300015