Zodiac and Roman Army Camp construction

[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.