Zodiac and Roman Army Camp construction

[Robert Vermaat]

As to the 28 legions, now if I went through books and papers, I could list a good number of academics that credit Augustus with creating 28 legions. Are they all wrong? Here’s one from the maestro himself - Duncan Campbell, taken from his Osprey Roman Legionary Fortress 27 BC – 378 AD Number 43, page 5. This is the same Duncan Campbell who on this thread commented “So it is rather unwise of Steven to build such a radical theory (the supposed Roman veneration of the number 28) on another theory.”

As you may be beginning to realise, theories evolve over time. You are correct to say that many scholars have accepted that Augustus retained 28 legions. In 2005, when I wrote that book, I agreed with them. Now, I'm not so sure. So, if your theory absolutely requires Augustus to have chosen 28 legions, I am warning you that this might not be a secure assumption. Pardon me for trying to help.

Adding to that, it's worthwhile not only reading your primary sources, but also your secondary sources well. I'm sure Duncan never mentioned in his 2005 book that Augustus created 28 legions.

[ValentinianVictrix]

In some small defence of Steven, Vegetius' Epitome was culled from several other works, most sadly lost. They were written at a much earlier date than he was writing.

I would heartily agree with Duncan in that you need to consult the original language the translation was written in and then get several people who are knowledgeable in that language to translate the relevant sections you are interested in. I have myself done this only recently when querying several sections in Zosimus and finding that some English translations come from a Latin version that itself was translated from the Original Greek. I managed, with the kind assistance of several people on this and other sites, to obtain a copy of the Greek and then found some willing people to translate the sections I was interested in that now largely clears up my query of the sections.

You would be surprised in what translators leave out when translating from the original language, and what they also mistranslate i.e. Rolfe does not always translate some sentences in Ammianus fully, and some translators call pilum 'pikes' in other translations for example.

[Macedon]

Seems for some if they can’t debunk me they ignore it, and then transfer their focus to something they believe they can debunk.

Isn't this the point of the discussion? To ask for clarifications when we do not understand things or when we detect a possible fallacy? I already wrote that if you are unwilling to share information that would make your research understandable to us you should just say so. It is not strange to want to keep things secret till your book is out. Maybe you should clearly set the purpose of this thread so that we know how to respond. I guess that till now, everyone thought that we were helpful by asking questions about details we think relevant and how they conform to your system and by trying to check your various facts as they were presented. If such an approach does not help you, then you should tell us what would, so that we can act accordingly.

I choose not to, especially your question about the sources to the 32 man squadron question. You’ve read Arrian and Vegetius, why are you asking me. In the past you have ignored my questions, so I am reciprocating in kind. If you think it is because I cannot answer them, be my guest. I have no interest in passing on my research on the Roman army camp to you. If you haven’t in your career come across references to the division of buildings into four then that is not my problem?

In my opinion, answering to ALL relevant points, however silly, elementary or aggressive you might think they were would be important, even if that answer consisted of a simple "There is an answer there but unfortunately I cannot discuss it at the time. It will be clear in my book however, thanks for asking." Your application of your system depends on having correct data to apply it to. Your system is supposed to explain the military system of the Polybian Romans among others and so your presenting the facts of a Polybian army "correctly" is as important as explaining its several numbers through your system. Polybius describes the Roman camp as he knows it quite analytically. Asking how you interpret his account is only understandable.

In all honesty if I replied as a general comment that my numbers do or do not agree with your question, then what. You will be asking for more answers.

Of course! I honestly thought I was being helpful in making basic questions that you have obviously answered in your book. As I understand thus far, your system is trying to explain almost all aspects of the Roman military system simultaneously. Until now, you have talked about the numbers of legions drafted, the numbers of "generals", officers, divisions, subdivisions, numbers contained in each and every one of them (in the legions, the cohorts, the maniples, the alae...), the Roman camp etc and you claim that every known change is explained by the change of the variables that govern your and thus the Roman military system for a timespan of maybe a thousand years. If so many aspects are explained, then the rules/variables should be many too at any given period. There are so many relations here between these facts that I was only feeling obliged to mention some.

I explained the size of the cohort multiplied by the 700 stadia to the degree equals 336,000 stadia which is transferred to 336,000 men, and when divided by 35 tribes each tribe numbers 9600 men and following Livy and Dionysius the ratio of iuniores to seniores is 50/50 you get 4800 iuniores and 4800 seniores. Breaking this down, from a 480 man cohort we get the tribe size and the size of the legion. Yet you still claim there “is no set way of relating the system to the army.” No wait, you are right; there is no way of relating the system to the army.

You said that your system does not predict but only explains. I do not know your system, so I have to take your word for it. A system that predicts has set mathematical rules and variables that are dependent on known and available data and so it is easy to check. Since it only explains, by definition it means that these conditions are not fulfilled, that there are no set rules and/or not available data. Such a system is not related to the army in a set sense If there were set mathematical formulas, you could say that "under such and such circumstances, the number of legions on the field/drafted in a year/in Rome etc would be equal to a certain set formula." But if you have such rules, then we/you can easily check its validity wherever there is enough evidence and then the system would predict and not only explain. And if it indeed then correctly predict a good number of cases, we would have something. By developing a system that just explains, you add symbolism to existing numbers and claim certain relationships that seem to change in a semi-chaotic way that cannot be used to predict and so are untestable.

Let me take your example :

"I explained the size of the cohort multiplied by the 700 stadia to the degree equals 336,000 stadia which is transferred to 336,000 men, and when divided by 35 tribes each tribe numbers 9600 men and following Livy and Dionysius the ratio of iuniores to seniores is 50/50 you get 4800 iuniores and 4800 seniores. Breaking this down, from a 480 man cohort we get the tribe size and the size of the legion."

Data : cohort = 480 men (variable)
stadia to a degree = 700 (constant)
number of men of military age in a tribe = 336.000 (constant?)
number of tribes = 35 (constant?)
ratio of iuniores to seniores = 50/50 (constant?)

Some of this data is not always the same. The tribes were not always 35, the number of men of military age was not, I guess, although as I understood you think it was (not impossible if the Romans wanted to)? The ratio of iuniores and seniores was also constant? I honestly have not occupied with such aspects of the Roman society, so if you say that the Romans maintained the population of their tribes constant by expelling and accepting citizens into their numbers to do so, I will just get your word for it. If the formula changes for times when the tribes were not 35, it is also OK.

So.. the only true variable here is the manpower of the cohort. If I use this formula for the Polybian Romans I would have :

cohort = 420 men (maniple of hastati = 120 hastati + 40 grosphomachoi, maniple of principes = 120 principes + 40 grosphomachoi, maniple of triarii = 60 triarii + 40 grosphomachoi = 160+160+100=420)

So, 420 x 700 stadia = 294,000 stadia. Does it mean that now we have to have 294,000 Romans in the tribes? This would be a prediction. Now,the rest has to do with the number 10, which would be the 700 stadia divided by 35 tribes and then again divided by 2 (i/s). When the tribes were just 3, this would instead be calculated as 700/(3x2)=116.66. Since it obviously cannot stand to calculate the size of a legion (assuming a constant of 336,000 men / 3 = 112,000 / 2 (i/s) = 56,000 men in a legion), I expect that there would be another formula addressing the same issue.

So, in effect, this formula is supposed to calculate the number of available Roman citizen manpower by using the size of cohorts and then the size of the legion by dividing it with 70, that is claiming that each tribe, after their number became 35, kept its population steady as to provide 2 full legions.

Isn't that what this specific formula predicts (not explains)? If we have testaments as to the Roman population in abundance, then we can check it. If you instead support that this formula only applied during a specific short period, then it cannot be used to predict other periods and thus you of course will have developed other formulas each one explaining a very specific fact in a very specific era. That would mean that you have developed dozens of formulas that are not interdependent in a manner we can check.

I have in previous postings before stated that one degree equals 700 stadia when discussing the zodiac. The zodiac being a circle is divided into degrees. The cosmos, being a straight line is not divided into degrees.

Yes, but 700 stadia of what? of the circumference of the zodiac sphere, that of earth or something else? In order for a degree of a circle to be 700 stadia, there has to be a circle of 360 degrees with a circumference of 252,000 stadia. What is this circle? I think you said it was not earth?

Florus Introduction: “If anyone were to contemplate the Roman people as he would a single individual and review its whole life, how it began, how it grew up, how it arrived at what may be called the maturity of its manhood, and how it subsequently as it were reached old age, he will find that it went through four stages of progress. The first period, when it was under the rule of kings, lasted for nearly 400 years, during which it struggled against its neighbours in the immediate vicinity of the capital. This period will be its infancy. Its next period extends from the consulship of Brutus and Collatinus to that of Appius Claudius and Quintus Fulvius, a space of 150 years, during which the Roman people subjugated Italy. It was an age of extreme activities for its soldiers and their arms, and may therefore be called its youth. The next period is the 150 years down to the time of Augustus Caesar, during which it spread peace throughout the world. This was the manhood and, as it were, the robust maturity of the empire. From the time of Caesar Augustus down to our own age there has been a period of not much less than 200 years, during which, owing to the inactivity of the emperors, the Roman people, as it were, grew old and lost its potency, save that under the rule of Trajan it again stirred its arms and, contrary to general expectation, again renewed its vigour with youth as it were restored.”

In 44 BC, as preserved by Cassius Dio (45, 18, 3), (47, 7, 1), during the funeral games of Julius Caesar a comet was visible for seven days in the northern part of the sky. The common people believed that this star signified the soul of Caesar received among the spirits of the immortal gods (Pliny Natural History 2 23, 93-94), Plutarch (Caesar 63 1), Suetonius (Caesar 88) According to Servius, (ad Verg ecl 9 47f) a haruspex by the name of Vulcatius went before a popular assembly proclaiming the new comet indicated the end of the age. This was a major event, but especially in this case, because according to official reckoning the age, now pronounced ended, had been the ninth, and many looked forward with superstitious dread to the tenth.

The above is intertwined with Florus. With regard to the ages, Virgil (Eclogue IV: The Golden Age) writes that the golden age begins with the consulship of Pollio (For, Pollio, in your consulship, this noble age begins”). Pollio’s consulship began in January 40 BC (Dio 48 15), some four years after the comet of 44 BC. The reference of Florus, Servius and Virgil I would rate as “research without depth” because it can be argued that Virgil has associated the beginning of the golden age with the signing of the treaty of Brundisium in October 40 BC, reconciling Antony with Octavian.

I do not doubt you, I have never occupied myself with the ages question. What initiates these ages? Is there some astrological or religious factor that determines that or are they just about historical cornerstones and nothing more?

I have a signa originally numbering 30 men, which would equate to the 30 degrees of a zodiac. However, it seems at the present to only mathematically relate to a specific time period. I haven’t come to a firm conclusion as this is on my “to do list.”

Is this a prediction that there was a unit called signa numbering 30 men? Do you support that all Roman subunits obey to such analogies?

I have found a distinct pattern that the Romans never raise more legions than the tribal formula dictates.

I guess that this is another formula that could be used to predict. Can you reveal it? I guess it depends on the men of the tribes, so I really would expect you to have gathered a lot of information on Roman population statistics. How many references are there on this issue? I know Polybius does give some clues although he is not clear.

Hang on, let me give you an answer that will be more satisfying. The one you really want and believe it to be. It will never be published. I’ve made it all up. I’ve been trying to string you along for years. But alas, it hasn’t worked, you are all too smart for me.

Don't be that defensive. Nic asked many times without any offensive remarks and so I guess he was frustrated for getting no answer to a question that only showed interest. There is no problem with advocating any non-standard position, most of us do in a variety of issues. On the other hand, having such positions draws doubt, especially when you, and understandably so, do not open your cards. People pose questions that are not answered to their satisfaction, since you are protective of your data, and this only reinforces doubt, you should have expected that. What I would only advise is answering to the best of your ability questions that do not have to actually do with your system but with the data you accepted as fact (sizes of units, layout of camps etc)

[nikgaukroger]

Nik wrote: Steven, it is your theory and thus it is your responsibility to explain why it works - my question is there because I can see nothing in your postings that does explain. I would appreciate it if you could do so.

You asked if I could, well I cannot. I do not have to give my research away on an internet discussion group. Like Roy said on ancmed, it blows away in the wind. It has taken me years of hard work. I have given examples of some of my research and findings to this group and it hasn’t even been acknowledge. And you turn around and have the audacity to tell me “you see nothing.”

I certainly "have the audacity" when I cannot see the answer to my question in the material you have posted. I'd suggest that is a normal and reasonable thing to do. Obviously I cannot force you to post anything, however, after the teasers you have posted to date you can, I hope, understand that it is a tad frustrating if you do not answer queries raised from that material. I would point out that nobody is doubting you have done research and have developed what appear to be interesting theories.

Nic wrote: Finally, can I ask (yet again) when this book is to be published. You've been talking about it on various forums for many years now, but it never appears.

You mentioned me and various forums. Can you list these various forums Nik? Like how many? Your wording is making it out to be quite a lot. As to the book, it will be published when it’s published! Sorry Nic, it’s not another cut and paste book on the Roman army. It actually consists of original research derived from the primary sources, and because of its nature, it does not come with a road map. I have to make the road. I do not use the works of modern scholars either regarding the Roman army as I much of what they have to say is irrelevant to my research. Hang on, let me give you an answer that will be more satisfying. The one you really want and believe it to be. It will never be published. I’ve made it all up. I’ve been trying to string you along for years. But alas, it hasn’t worked, you are all too smart for me.

I'm afraid the answer is far more prosaic - I'm actually intrigued by the snippets you have posted and am rather keen to see the whole thing published so that (a) I can read it and, (b) see what reviews and critiques say about it.

Although you seem a bit reluctant to answer questions at present can I just repeat one - what period of the Roman does the book cover? As I said it looks to me as though it must start coverage from the beginnings of Rome (but I could be wrong), but am not sure how late it goes. I am assuming that it might well end with Christianity becoming the official religion of the empire.

[antiochus]

Mr Campbell wrote: I think maybe you've lost track of the purpose of this thread, Steven. You are working on a theory which you decided to try out on a group of Roman army enthusiasts (RAT), to make sure that your theory works.

I am well aware that for anyone to try out my theory it involves giving them everything, not snippets. I made that clear in my last post. The original thread concerned questions about the later roman army being divisible by 7200 men. Sean Manning spoke about whether or not there was a mathematical plan. It was at this point I volunteered some of my research to show I believe there is.

Mr Campbell wrote: Now, you're complaining when people point out deficiencies in your theory.

I haven’t found one yet. Some like Macedon have presented a hypothesis of what they think I am on about.

Mr Campbell wrote: Again, I am bewildered by your cavalier treatment of "evidence". You've said that you believe Polybius writes about a camp divided into four areas. I have asked you to examine where you got that idea from. Once you go back and read Polybius' account, you'll see that his camp is not divided into four.

When I start labelling some ancient authors as untrustworthy as you have done, then by all means you have the right to call me careless. A camp is a square and I am applying Roman doctrine of the square to the military camp to see where it takes me. As I have found the Roman system is a macro-micro, if like most things it is governed by the cosmos, then I will apply this doctrine to the military camp and see what I can learn (nothing ventured nothing gained).

Mr Campbell wrote: I'm no mathematician, but I know that if I take any number and (1) multiply by 700, (2) divide by 35, and (3) break it down 50/50, I'll get my original number with a zero on the end. It's like these party tricks where you think of a number. "I'm thinking of 480." (Nudge: Why were you thinking of 480?)

I’d be more impressed if you can get the Servian constitution to produce the same number (336,000) for the same period of time. I have did this way before I realised there was a connection to the zodiac. But as you said you can take any number; so 800 multiplied by 700 = 560,000 divided by 35 = 16,000 divided by 2 = 8000. The 560,000 stadia divided by 21,000 stadia per zodiac = 26 point 6 zodiacs. What am I suppose to relate the figures to? Especially in regard to the point 6 of a zodiac.

Mr Campbell wrote: My initial reaction is that, if you have a signa numbering 30 men, you've made a mistake. So I'd be very interested to hear where this information comes from.

Mathematical deduction based on the original organisation of the Servian army which was gained from the Servian constitution, then found to interlock with the cosmos. After a period of time (that’s why I stated period specific), changes to the legion’s organisation made it impossible for the lower level organisation to be divisible by 30. For example, an 80 man century is not evenly divisible by 30 (2 point 66).

Mr Campbell wrote: Again, I think you've lost sight of the original point of your own thread. I thought you wanted people to test-drive your theory? But we cannot test-drive it blindfolded.

I asked about the possibility of the late roman army being based on the number 7200 men. That has been resolved. So what are you on about now?

Mr Campbell wrote: As you may be beginning to realise, theories evolve over time. You are correct to say that many scholars have accepted that Augustus retained 28 legions. In 2005, when I wrote that book, I agreed with them. Now, I'm not so sure. So, if your theory absolutely requires Augustus to have chosen 28 legions, I am warning you that this might not be a secure assumption. Pardon me for trying to help.

My theory does not “absolutely require Augustus to have 28 legions.” I’m interested in the organisation of the legion he’s got. On a side note I am exploring the possibility that Augustus wanting to restore the old religion of the Romans has aligned himself with the hebdomad system as part of the process of restoring the old religion. The hebdomad system is the foundation of the 35 tribes. And please Mr Campbell, stop the pretence, you have no interest in helping me. I have all the posting going back over the years to show this is not so. Your opening comment “as you may be beginning to realise, theories evolve over time” shows contempt as does you comment about being aware of the number of legions under arms during the civil war.

Mr Campbell wrote: Are you aware of how many legions were under arms during the Civil War? (Another friendly nudge.

Are you aware of when the system broke down and are you aware that Augustus could have reinstalled it?

Mr Campbell wrote: I would advise that you (a) check primary sources in the original, not in the Penguin translation, and (b) have a look at the "traditional thinking" of modern works, in case they shed any light on your subject. This will help to save you from any embarrassment.

I used the Penguin to answer your question about the camp as it was close at hand and I did not want to spend time on the question. But thank you for trying to save me from any embarrassment. This comes as a surprise after you trying to embarrass me over the years. But for the record, I don’t have a fear of being embarrassed. And as you think what I have to say is rubbish, why do you continue to indulge in asking questions? If you find it amusing then I am happy to amuse you.

Macedon wrote: Isn't this the point of the discussion?

And what is the point of the discussion? I’m being asked so many different questions someone needs to define it for me.

Macedon wrote: Maybe you should clearly set the purpose of this thread so that we know how to respond.

No someone tell me. And it has nothing to do with D. Cambpell’s that I’m testing my theory on this group. He loves to twist the facts, just like a politician.

Macedon wrote: I guess that till now, everyone thought that we were helpful by asking questions about details we think relevant and how they conform to your system and by trying to check your various facts as they were presented. If such an approach does not help you, then you should tell us what would, so that we can act accordingly.

Everyone was helpful about my original question which was about the late roman army. I have asked nothing about the cosmos, nor am I seeking anyone’s advice about it so as to test my theory. There is other more appropriate forum to do that. I have been asked one question after another and when I do give a general answer, more questions arise. The only way to break the cycle is to stop answering the questions. When I stated I was giving my thoughts to a question and not to start a frenzy of questions, guess what, more questions. I’m actually trying to get out of the loop but somehow feel obligated to reply.

Macedon wrote: If you instead support that this formula only applied during a specific short period, then it cannot be used to predict other periods and thus you of course will have developed other formulas each one explaining a very specific fact in a very specific era. That would mean that you have developed dozens of formulas that are not interdependent in a manner we can check.

Are you asking a question or making a hypothesis to prove I am wrong? If you are asking a question then the answer is no. The tribal formula remains in use until the breakdown of the social class in the legion (the Marius thing with the enrolment of the capite censi). Then under Augustus, the hebdomad system is possibly reinstalled. The other formula governs the cosmos and this same formula is used to give the time frame for each of the ages as described by Florus (infancy, youth, manhood and lost vigour). In all it takes about 40 pages with diagrams to show how it all works. The rest of the book covering the legion’s history interlocks with the data given for the cosmos.

Macedon wrote: Yes, but 700 stadia of what? of the circumference of the zodiac sphere, that of earth or something else? In order for a degree of a circle to be 700 stadia, there has to be a circle of 360 degrees with a circumference of 252,000 stadia. What is this circle? I think you said it was not earth?

Ok, this is a jeer up right. Well, I will continue to play along. The zodiac is a circle, the same zodiac I said encompassed the planets.

Macedon wrote: Isn't that what this specific formula predicts (not explains)? If we have testaments as to the Roman population in abundance, then we can check it. If you instead support that this formula only applied during a specific short period, then it cannot be used to predict other periods and thus you of course will have developed other formulas each one explaining a very specific fact in a very specific era. That would mean that you have developed dozens of formulas that are not interdependent in a manner we can check.

You make the statement you don’t have enough information to go but you then get carried away with your own hypothesis. I have explained how the system works. The number of stadia determines the size of the tribes which is 336,000 during the reign of Augustus. The census states there are 5,000,000 people registered in the tribes. When it comes to voting, 336,000 people are chosen by lot to vote. It is that simple. Now of the 5,000,000 people if 4,800,000 people suddenly died, leaving only 200,000 to vote in a system requiring 336,000 then the Romans would have to make some changes to the system.

Macedon wrote: I do not doubt you, I have never occupied myself with the ages question. What initiates these ages? Is there some astrological or religious factor that determines that or are they just about historical cornerstones and nothing more?

The ages are interconnected with the Egyptian religious calendar. The ages have religious and philosophical connotations. They could be what are termed the God angles and numbers, but I cannot be certain of this. At the end of one age and the beginning of another, after the creation of the 35 tribes the Romans increase the size of the tribes in order to synchronise the number of men in the tribes to the movement of the cosmos during an age. Before the creation of the 35 tribes, the addition of each tribe was used to synchronise with the cosmos.

Nic wrote: I would point out that nobody is doubting you have done research and have developed what appear to be interesting theories.


You say “interesting theories.” Well thank you for the compliment. I have plenty of interesting theories to discuss. Is your question about the camp and the formula 16 squared minus 14 squared? What was fascinating was learning about that formla from the cosmos and zodiac and seeing it in a diagram of a Roman camp drawn in 1905, and found in Miller’s book on Hyginus.


[attachment=2653]256camp.jpg[/attachment]


The barracks on the inter vallum numbers 8 for each side and 4 at the top. This has to do with the ancient doctrine of the gnomon. Now the trick is to multiply the porta principalis sinisterior by the porta praetori to arrive at 32. Do this for the dexterior and porta decimana to arrive at 32. Both are added to make 64 which is multiplied by four to get 256.

If you follow the via sagularis, you can define six large areas. Some consist of 10, barracks others 9, 12, 13 and 11. In its basic form, the six areas are divided into eight barrack, and when multiplied by four equals 32. The reason as to why you multiply by four is because the mathematical value of a line is one, which means a rectangle of square has a value of 4. So the six areas have a value of 32, and a total of 192. However, 14 squared equals 196, so I’m missing 4. Silly me, I forgot to add the forum (4) which brings the total to 196. Now if we take 196 and apply it to the hebdomad system (divisions of 7) the result is 28, which is the fourth age according to Florus, and the fourth age begins during the reign of Augustus. And let’s not forget Augustus created 28 military colonies.

Now Stolle’s interpretation of the Hyginus camp get really interesting. The number of lines in each of the six areas various from 40, 36, 48, 52, 36, and 44 which give a total of 256. This could throw light on the Romans belief in the cosmic space between Saturn and the zodiac. Putting this aside, the Hyginus camp in its basic form could be trying to look like this:


[attachment=2654]cosmoscamp.jpg[/attachment]


The grey areas are the zodiac happily orbiting the planets. Manilius defines the Roma Quadrata as looking like this:


[attachment=2655]RomaQuadrata.jpg[/attachment]


What would happen if you could align the Roma Quadrata with the orbit of the zodiac that orbits the planets? Could we get a better understanding of the Roman orientation during the reign of Augustus? Now could the cosmic cycle in conjunction with the zodiac also be of some assistance:


[attachment=2656]Cosmiccycle.jpg[/attachment]


Again, as can be seen in the bottom right of the equilateral triangle (numerical value of 10) is the number 28.

Nic wrote: I'm afraid the answer is far more prosaic - I'm actually intrigued by the snippets you have posted and am rather keen to see the whole thing published so that (a) I can read it and, (b) see what reviews and critiques say about it.

You have to tell me what snippets you have in mind. Hypothetically, if you read the book and cannot dispute it, but the critics give it a bad review, do you then stand by your convictions, or follow the lead of the majority?

Nic wrote: Although you seem a bit reluctant to answer questions at present can I just repeat one - what period of the Roman does the book cover? As I said it looks to me as though it must start coverage from the beginnings of Rome (but I could be wrong), but am not sure how late it goes. I am assuming that it might well end with Christianity becoming the official religion of the empire.

You have asked before about the time line of the book and I have given it. But for the record it covers from Servius Tullius to Vegetius. However, the cosmos has been designed for a 1200 year period so this takes it to around 460 AD. I believe Vegetius is describing the last legion.

[D B Campbell]

You've said that you believe Polybius writes about a camp divided into four areas. ... Once you go back and read Polybius' account, you'll see that his camp is not divided into four.

A camp is a square and I am applying Roman doctrine of the square to the military camp to see where it takes me. ... the Roman system is a macro-micro, if like most things it is governed by the cosmos, then I will apply this doctrine to the military camp and see what I can learn (nothing ventured nothing gained).

I see that, later in your post, you have gone over to the rectangular six-area camp, in any case. So I suppose Polybius was a red herring.

I'm no mathematician, etc.

But as you said you can take any number ... What am I suppose to relate the figures to?

I have no idea. As I said before, I simply do not understand your zodiac theory (although I see that -- at last -- you have begun to explain it at the end of your post). The calculation that you quoted was probably another red herring.

... if you have a signa numbering 30 men, you've made a mistake.

Mathematical deduction based on the original organisation of the Servian army which was gained from the Servian constitution, then found to interlock with the cosmos.

So, no source actually mentions a signa of 30 men?

if your theory absolutely requires Augustus to have chosen 28 legions, I am warning you that this might not be a secure assumption.

My theory does not “absolutely require Augustus to have 28 legions.”

Pardon me. I must have misread your post, where you vehemently argued for 28 legions and drew everyone's attention to my Osprey book about Roman Fortresses.

I used the Penguin to answer your question about the camp as it was close at hand and I did not want to spend time on the question.

But you didn't answer my query about the camp. However, it seems (from later in your post) that the square camp (like the 28 legions) is not important to your theory. (Why did you bring those points up, then?)

Is your question about the camp and the formula 16 squared minus 14 squared? What was fascinating was learning about that formla from the cosmos and zodiac and seeing it in a diagram of a Roman camp drawn in 1905, and found in Miller’s book on Hyginus.

Bingo! This is my question about the camp. Would you be so kind as to explain? I notice your diagram depicts a rectangular (i.e. not square) camp. You attribute it to the time of Augustus, but the drawing is an interpretation of an undated treatise (incorporating material no earlier than Domitian and perhaps as late as Marcus). It seems to be important for your theory that the six areas "have a value of 32", but I can't see where you've proved this number.

I’m being asked so many different questions someone needs to define it for me. ... And it has nothing to do with D. Cambpell’s that I’m testing my theory on this group. He loves to twist the facts, just like a politician.

Hmmm, that's a little unkind, and also untrue. I really did think you were testing your theory. So ... what are you doing?

I have been asked one question after another and when I do give a general answer, more questions arise. ... When I stated I was giving my thoughts to a question and not to start a frenzy of questions, guess what, more questions. I’m actually trying to get out of the loop but somehow feel obligated to reply.

Probably, most people thought that they were helping, pointing out the problems with your theory. In particular, Macedon/George's contributions have been quite thought-provoking. I hope you take them on board. Your theory still seems a little vague. I hope your other forum is as helpful as RAT.

[nikgaukroger]

You have asked before about the time line of the book and I have given it. But for the record it covers from Servius Tullius to Vegetius. However, the cosmos has been designed for a 1200 year period so this takes it to around 460 AD. I believe Vegetius is describing the last legion.

In which case, as the later empire is the period on the empire I find most interesting, I expect I will be even more interested in your work as I assume that you will be explaining why you think that Vegetius is describing the legio in use around the middle of the C5th as current view is certainly that Vegetius is looking back at something that no longer exists (presumably why it is called the antiqua legio). Not to mention the size of the Roman army of the period as there were, if we may assume that the 2 parts of the Notitia can be used as a reasonable estimate for the early C5th, 93 legions in the field armies to which those of the limitanei would have to be added.

[nikgaukroger]

Hypothetically, if you read the book and cannot dispute it, but the critics give it a bad review, do you then stand by your convictions, or follow the lead of the majority?

Would rather depend on why the critics had given it a bad review. For example they may well be disputing the evidence you use, or the conclusions drawn, and I may not have and great knowledge of that evidence, in which case I would have to weigh up what was said.

[Macedon]

Are you asking a question or making a hypothesis to prove I am wrong? If you are asking a question then the answer is no. The tribal formula remains in use until the breakdown of the social class in the legion (the Marius thing with the enrolment of the capite censi). Then under Augustus, the hebdomad system is possibly reinstalled. The other formula governs the cosmos and this same formula is used to give the time frame for each of the ages as described by Florus (infancy, youth, manhood and lost vigour). In all it takes about 40 pages with diagrams to show how it all works. The rest of the book covering the legion’s history interlocks with the data given for the cosmos.

Of course I am not trying to prove you wrong. I cannot since I anyways know very few things about your model. I am just trying to understand how your system might work and apply to what I know from what you have written. I sincerely have no intent to prove or disprove what you say and I have freely admitted that I cannot voice an opinion on much of what you offer for lack of sufficient knowledge.

What I think you should be very careful with is the definition of the various variables, constants and aspects of your system. They have to be absolutely specific and allow no room for misunderstanding since you do know that your research will meet a lot of scrutiny, being thus different from what is considered tradition. Is the tribal formula the one that states [men in a cohort x 700 stades = number of men in the tribes] or the one that states [men in a legion x number of tribes x 1/ratio of iuniores or seniores to total population = number of men in the tribes]? Or both together? Do the numbers computed for the nominal Polybian legion as I understand these formulas agree with you (predicts 294,000 men in the tribes)? What is the hebdomad system?

Ok, this is a jeer up right. Well, I will continue to play along. The zodiac is a circle, the same zodiac I said encompassed the planets.

No jeering here. The 700 stades are a distance measuring something. If they measure the arc of the zodiac circle that circumvents the earth encompassing all planets too, then the distance of 252,000 stades is according to the Romans what they believed the circumference of this circle to be. According to the same beliefs, is there a suggested size of the earth?

You make the statement you don’t have enough information to go but you then get carried away with your own hypothesis. I have explained how the system works. The number of stadia determines the size of the tribes which is 336,000 during the reign of Augustus. The census states there are 5,000,000 people registered in the tribes. When it comes to voting, 336,000 people are chosen by lot to vote. It is that simple. Now of the 5,000,000 people if 4,800,000 people suddenly died, leaving only 200,000 to vote in a system requiring 336,000 then the Romans would have to make some changes to the system.

This is what I meant with the need to clarify the definitions. Then, the number does not depict the men in the tribes or those of military age or any population. It is the number of men who are chosen by lot to participate in the votes on behalf of the tribes. Was this the norm in the Roman political system?

The ages are interconnected with the Egyptian religious calendar. The ages have religious and philosophical connotations. They could be what are termed the God angles and numbers, but I cannot be certain of this. At the end of one age and the beginning of another, after the creation of the 35 tribes the Romans increase the size of the tribes in order to synchronise the number of men in the tribes to the movement of the cosmos during an age. Before the creation of the 35 tribes, the addition of each tribe was used to synchronise with the cosmos.

You mean that when an age was initiated there would be an initial fixed number of men who would be given the right to vote, their number increasing as the age proceeded and this increase would somehow be analogous (synchronize) to the advancement of the age? What happened when the age restarted? Would they again apply the minimum or start where they left off?

[popularis]

You make the statement you don’t have enough information to go but you then get carried away with your own hypothesis. I have explained how the system works. The number of stadia determines the size of the tribes which is 336,000 during the reign of Augustus. The census states there are 5,000,000 people registered in the tribes. When it comes to voting, 336,000 people are chosen by lot to vote. It is that simple. Now of the 5,000,000 people if 4,800,000 people suddenly died, leaving only 200,000 to vote in a system requiring 336,000 then the Romans would have to make some changes to the system.

A couple of quick questions, if I may

By 'size of the tribes which is 336,000' do you mean the size of the tribal assembly? I.e. that the tribal assembly contained a total of 336,000 men for any given vote.

Do you believe that the tribes were of (roughly) equal size?

What is your evidence for the use of the lot to determine voters in the Augustan tribal assembly?

blue skies

Tom

[antiochus]

Mr Campbell wrote: I see that, later in your post, you have gone over to the rectangular six-area camp, in any case. So I suppose Polybius was a red herring.

There is no red herring. You are making a judgement without having all the facts!

Mr Campbell wrote: The calculation that you quoted was probably another red herring.

You really are addicted to accusing me of something. Ok, it was a red herring. Are you happy now!

Mr Campbell wrote: Bingo! This is my question about the camp. Would you be so kind as to explain? I notice your diagram depicts a rectangular (i.e. not square) camp.

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

Mr Campbell wrote: You attribute it to the time of Augustus, but the drawing is an interpretation of an undated treatise (incorporating material no earlier than Domitian and perhaps as late as Marcus).

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.

Nik wrote: In which case, as the later empire is the period on the empire I find most interesting, I expect I will be even more interested in your work as I assume that you will be explaining why you think that Vegetius is describing the legio in use around the middle of the C5th as current view is certainly that Vegetius is looking back at something that no longer exists (presumably why it is called the antiqua legio).

I will support that Vegetius is as you state “looking back at something that no longer exists.” It’s the same legion as the Theban legion and the legion of Isidore. The Vegetius legion is a product of the fifth age so it has a power of five. Vegetius’ reference to the legion forming 10 men deep or more concerns the Vegetius legion and his reference to forming six deep refers to the legion of the third age. As strange as it may seem, that is how it works. 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.

Nik wrote: Not to mention the size of the Roman army of the period as there were, if we may assume that the 2 parts of the Notitia can be used as a reasonable estimate for the early C5th, 93 legions in the field armies to which those of the limitanei would have to be added.

The dates I have read about the ND of the west and the east is that it is right in the middle of the ending of the fifth age and the beginning of the sixth age. So it leaves the possibility the west is organised for the fifth age and the east has changed it organisation for the sixth age. But I cannot confirm this either way as the ND is not my specialty and I don’t think there is enough empirical data to nail it down. However, units of 3000 men, 4000 men, 5000 men and 6000 men seem to fit the power of 5 and produce numbers found in the primary sources. Units of 800 men could be from five units of 800 men amounting to the parent unit being 4000 men. If the Romans for this period are following their traditional doctrine, of which I believe they are, then they are using multiple combinations as permitted by the mathematics. A 3000 man unit can be organised into five units of 600 men but more likely 10 units of 300 men. The 3000 men by 10 units of 300 men is interesting as it can also be calculated at 150 men by 20. It must be remembered that Vegetius does mention the princeps of the first cohort commanded 150 men and the second centurion of the hastati also commanded 150 men. For the year 464 BC, Dionysius figure of four cohorts at 600 men relates to the military tribune cohort, and Livy’s remark two senators commanded a cohort means a 600 man military tribune cohort is also organised into two 300 man cohorts. The term cohort is broadly used by the ancient writers. However, cohorts of 300 men are not to be found in Dionysius, but this is because Dionysius figure of 600 man cohorts omits around 35% of the cohort, 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. Dionysius reference that two cohorts did not exceed 1000 men is referring to a military tribune cohort of about 1000 men (as opposed to his earlier reference of 600 men), which consist of two smaller cohort of around 480 men. This would mean the military tribune cohort (the larger cohort) numbers around 960 men, organised into two smaller cohorts of around 480 men. I’ll keep banging my drum about this, but there is nothing wrong with the primary sources.

Now when it comes to tactical necessity, the Romans are not going to let the cosmos system prevent them from protecting themselves. Let say for example, the Romans can mobilise 600 centuries of iuniores. The religious part of the system would allow the Romans to have a maximum of 10 legions at 60 centuries. However, the strategic situation demands more legions to fight on different fronts. Rather than be restricted by the system, but still accord to its religious and sacred principles, the Romans have the option to distribute the 600 centuries into:

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

In this manner the Romans do not violate any religious principles as the number of centuries does not exceed 600 centuries. Maybe this would explain why Dionysius states the Roman senate deliberated about what forces to send into the field…they had different options.

Now we have Augustus believing that the civil wars were a result of not observing old religious practices and if he is reintroducing the religious laws of the cosmos, because his reign begins in the fourth age, which in the hebdomad system is the number 28, then he could have set the number of legions at 28, and built 28 new military colonies because of this. Now although I have been building up the research, but still have not reached a full conclusion, for future emperors to get around the restrictions of the hebdomad system it could be that new legions were raised during the zodiac of the twins. This could be the reason why some legions had the same number and name. By doing this could be perceived by the Romans as not violating the religious restrictions of the system.

Macedon wrote: Of course I am not trying to prove you wrong. I cannot since I anyways know very few things about your model. I am just trying to understand how your system might work and apply to what I know from what you have written. I sincerely have no intent to prove or disprove what you say and I have freely admitted that I cannot voice an opinion on much of what you offer for lack of sufficient knowledge.

Well Mr Campbell thinks you have proven me wrong. In all honesty, the cosmos system takes around 35 pages of data to explain. There are numerous diagrams as well. It is a macro micro system that is repetitiously repeated. This is why a square can be broken into four, then each smaller square within the large square again broken into four. The primary sources tell us the order of the planets and the zodiac. However, the empirical data in the primary sources does paint a more detailed picture indicting a grid system. Imagine the cosmos with a grid system consisting of four large squares. The order of the planets represents the horizon. Two large squares are above the horizon and two below. Now divide each square into four more squares. We now have eight squares above and eight squares below, but we still have four parent squares. Now when the primary sources mention six zodiacs above and six below it makes sense. Next the cosmos is divided into a right heaven and a left heaven. If we take a square from above and merge it with a square from directly below it we get a rectangle. But the principle is always based on the square which has a value of 4, so eight squares below have a value of 32, and eight above also a value 32.

Macedon wrote: They have to be absolutely specific and allow no room for misunderstanding since you do know that your research will meet a lot of scrutiny, being thus different from what is considered tradition.

Some years ago, before I made the connection with the cosmos, I sent a copy of the first two chapters to a publisher. A year later, after hearing nothing, I asked what the result was. They replied they were not interested. Last year through a third person I found out that the publisher at that time had forwarded the work to an academic (name unknown to me) to review, who highly recommended it be published because it “was the most densely-argued explanation of the Roman army under the kings he could remember reading anywhere.”

Strangely, this unknown academic was only given chapter one so I have no idea why he did not receive chapter two which concerns the maniple legion. Now my source informs me this academic is a member of the RAT forum, so I would be grateful if he privately emailed me as he did restore my faith in academia. My source also informed me the publisher rejected the work as it was too specialised for their market.

The problem with the book is it involves other disciplines, a specialist in Roman military history is not in a position to make a judgement about the cosmos information. This is why Professor Brian Campbell recommended me to an academic who specialises in ancient astronomy. He also recommended Kate Gilliver to have a look at the material. Returning to the book, I only use numbers found in the primary sources and only apply mathematical procedures outlined by the primary sources. For example the Roman application of changing numbers of inequality to equality is one such process employed in the book. There is much I have not mentioned concerning some of my findings as this would spark an explosion of questions, and going by my past experiences on this forum, one can expect petty minded sarcasm from a few closed minded individuals. One example of my research could be that the foundation date of the tribes has nothing to do with Servius Tullius, and that it occurred at a later date? And what if I had information taken from the primary sources about intercalation that supports my findings?

Macedon wrote: Do the numbers computed for the nominal Polybian legion as I understand these formulas agree with you (predicts 294,000 men in the tribes)?

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.

Macedon wrote: What is the hebdomad system?

The hebdomad system means divisions of 7 (21 = 7+7+7). The number 35 is termed harmonic 35 and this governs why there are only 35 tribes as harmonic 35 represents a body can no longer get any stronger. From Anatolius: The sequence from the monad to it added together totals 28; the 28 days of the moon are fulfilled hebdomad by hebdomad. Starting with the monad and making a sequence by doubling seven numbers yields 64, the first square which is also a cube 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64. The hebdomad consists of three dimensions, length, breadth and depth and the four limits (point, line, surface and solid) reveals corporeality.

The monad (unity) is associated with the gods. And let’s not to forget this:

“Hence many things, both in the heavens of the universe and on the Earth-celestial bodies and creatures and planets are in fact bought to completion by it. The facts of the heavenly spheres provide important proof of this, in that the sphere of the moon, which is eight from the top and third from the bottom, carries the influence and power of influences which revolve around the Earth, since it is considered to be mediator between those above and those below. And it turns out to employ a hebdomad for this, with a tetrad assisting as shield bearers-for the tetrad, along with the hebdomad itself, is evidently a mean in the decad, with the result that necessarily completion and fullfillment are achived for thingts by means of both numbers, especially given that 28, which is perfect in relation to its parts, it the product of the multiplication of them both (for it is four times seven)- but the hebdomad’s assistance is far greater, for the addition of the numbers from the monad to the hebdomad yields 28.”

I don’t know about the rest of you….but that brings a tear to my eyes. Its what the military would term a target rich enviroment.

Macedon wrote: If they measure the arc of the zodiac circle that circumvents the earth encompassing all planets too, then the distance of 252,000 stades is according to the Romans what they believed the circumference of this circle to be. According to the same beliefs, is there a suggested size of the earth?

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.

Macedon wrote: It is the number of men who are chosen by lot to participate in the votes on behalf of the tribes. Was this the norm in the Roman political system?

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.

Macedon wrote: What happened when the age restarted? Would they again apply the minimum or start where they left off?

They start where they left off. So the tribes are getting larger and larger, and because of this, I presume more citizens can vote.

Popularis wrote: By 'size of the tribes which is 336,000' do you mean the size of the tribal assembly? I.e. that the tribal assembly contained a total of 336,000 men for any given vote.

The tribal system I have shows the Century Assembly and the Tribal Assembly are one and the same. It’s how the voting is arranged that separates them. This is because the system is a macro micro system. Although I haven’t done a proper investigation, the Century Assembly could be associated with the upper heaven, and the Tribal Assembly, the lower heaven. From what I have read of the Tabula Hebana, each tribe had one vote. What I can deduct from the tribal structure is each century had one vote, and if the number of centuries in a tribe had the majority, then the majority won the day for that tribe.

Popularis wrote: Do you believe that the tribes were of (roughly) equal size?

I have them all of equal size because a tribe has to represent a specific time and distance, so when added together they give the position the Romans are in relation to the cosmos. This procedure is updated with the beginning of a new age conducted after a number of centuries.

Popularis wrote: What is your evidence for the use of the lot to determine voters in the Augustan tribal assembly?

The Tabula Hebana and other references in the primary sources were a procedure is conducted by lot. However, the voting procedure has not been my focus of research for some time. It will take more years than I am prepared to invest. As my mother always said, “leave something for someone else.”

[Robert Vermaat]

Mr Campbell wrote: Bingo! This is my question about the camp. Would you be so kind as to explain? I notice your diagram depicts a rectangular (i.e. not square) camp.
Now you’re being silly. You perfectly well known that two squares make a rectangle. See my notes further on.

I fear this discussion is getting silly if we get exchanges like this about simple basics. A square and a rectangle are not the same. In geometry, a square is a regular quadrilateral. This means that it has four equal sides and four equal angles (90-degree angles, or right angles). Nor does a rectangle consist of 2 sqaures: three or more squared could also make a rectangle.
If you are discussing a square and you show a rectangle, you can't shrug it off by calling the other man silly.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Antiochus, my advice to you is to take the well known phrase 'Publish and be damned' (or even 'Publish or be damned' in this instance!) and as soon as possible.

I find your argument rather too esoteric, but, entertaining none the less.

[Ghostmojo]

Mr Campbell wrote: Bingo! This is my question about the camp. Would you be so kind as to explain? I notice your diagram depicts a rectangular (i.e. not square) camp.
Now you’re being silly. You perfectly well known that two squares make a rectangle. See my notes further on.

I fear this discussion is getting silly if we get exchanges like this about simple basics. A square and a rectangle are not the same. In geometry, a square is a regular quadrilateral. This means that it has four equal sides and four equal angles (90-degree angles, or right angles). Nor does a rectangle consist of 2 sqaures: three or more squared could also make a rectangle.
If you are discussing a square and you show a rectangle, you can't shrug it off by calling the other man silly.

As an active member of The Oblong Society of Great Britain I really must object to the continual usage of the words 'square' and 'rectangular' without the mention of the 'O' word at all. We feel this is shameful, unfair, polygonally unrepresentative and discriminatory and will be writing to our local MP (who admittedy is a bit of a square) about it.

The politically correct term is (as Mr. Vermaat has indicated) 'quadrilateral' but, in the spirit of compromise, we are prepared to accept 'four-sided polygonal' or 'tetragonal' (I made that one up).

mile: :grin: :wink: :lol:

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

[D B Campbell]

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

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