01-17-2013, 12:54 PM
Hello Mark,
First Mark I would like to apologise for the lateness in my reply but I’m recovering from an illness.
Mark wrote:
I am not, however, desirous to comment on your astrological or cosmological view(s), that I have seen expounded here before, due to a firm logical and deductive basis for believing that military structures are based primarily on battlefield tactical deployments due to weapons usage and operational requirements of military command and control, with a good dose of common sense and occasional bouts of historical comfort.
I want to point out that although the Romans adhered to the laws of their cosmos system, they could be pragmatic within the system. For the campaign of 495 BC, Dionysius (VI 26) states the senate deliberated about “what forces were to be taken in the field.” This comment, informs us the Romans had a number of options regarding the distribution of the army. Throughout the history of the republic, depending on the strategic situation, the Romans can mobilise legions of 40 centuries, 50 centuries, 60 centuries and emergency legions. Therefore, they have many military options at their disposal. The primary sources also inform us the Romans rearmed their men or copied the equipment of their enemies, which highlights the fact that being interlocked with their cosmos did not prevent the introduction of new or better technology, nor prevent them from undertaking internal legion organisational changes.
Mark wrote:
From all that I have been able to discover and unless I have been mislead; there seem to be only 5 main sources <snip> and looking at the period after Livy's strange early legion breakdown; they being: Polybius; Josephus; 'Hyginus'; and Vegetius;
If I was to be critical of Livy’s legion description I would castigate him for a lack of nouns. Livy’s legion description goes into more depth concerning the legion’s many organisational levels than Polybius does. Both have made simple mistakes, what one leaves out the other includes, but when they are corrected, the Livy legion and the Polybius legion is actually one and the same. Polybius’ mistake is very obvious; he claims the velites came from the poorer classes. Now there are six property classes in Dionysius’ version of the Servian constitution and five in Livy. However, Polybius states a legion consists of men from four classes…so who are Polybius’s poorer classes? And that is the crux of the problem…Polybius is confused on this very issue.
Mark wrote:
No cohort structure is mentioned and there are no commanders of such detailed.
Livy’s first uses the term “cohort” in Book 2, for the year 508 BC, with a further 21 examples between Books 2 to 5. Dionysius’ first use of ‘cohort’ occurs in Book 7 for the year 488 BC, with another 16 examples found in Books 8 to 11. I have not undertaken a study to find out how many pre-Marian ancient historians use the term cohort but it would amount to a lot of references. How is it that modern historians cannot reached a consensus on the size and organisation of the pre-Marian legions (4000 men, 5000 men, 5200 men, 5400 men, 6000 men, 6200 men or an emergency legion) but are adamant there is no cohort structure? I find that bewildering. So why would Livy state that two senators commanded a cohort if there is no cohort structure?
The cohort is one organisation found in the Roman legion and sometimes on the battlefield the cohort organisation is unsuitable, whereas the tribune command organisation is. However, Livy’s (32 17) reference to Roman cohorts sent one after another to attack a breach in the wall at Atrax is a good example of when the cohort organisation is the ideal organisation for this type of job. So because a legion has three organisational levels, something Livy is trying to explain in his legion description, there is an organisation level suited for a particular need.
Mark wrote:
It's no good - I'll have to write - perhaps by the end of the month if I try.
Good luck. I’ve finished writing. I took Professor Ridley’s advice knowing when to stop and pulled the plug on researching the Roman camp and the cosmos. The Romans are definitely modelling the camp on the cosmos but its trying to unravel the religious orientation methodology behind the changes to the camp’s layout that requires more time than I want to invest.
Anyway, I have 430 pages that faithfully follow the primary sources, and with the empirical date found in the primary sources (and there is a lot) I can show that cohorts existed right back to the Servian constitution and besides centurions, senators and later prefects commanded Roman cohorts.
Steven
First Mark I would like to apologise for the lateness in my reply but I’m recovering from an illness.
Mark wrote:
I am not, however, desirous to comment on your astrological or cosmological view(s), that I have seen expounded here before, due to a firm logical and deductive basis for believing that military structures are based primarily on battlefield tactical deployments due to weapons usage and operational requirements of military command and control, with a good dose of common sense and occasional bouts of historical comfort.
I want to point out that although the Romans adhered to the laws of their cosmos system, they could be pragmatic within the system. For the campaign of 495 BC, Dionysius (VI 26) states the senate deliberated about “what forces were to be taken in the field.” This comment, informs us the Romans had a number of options regarding the distribution of the army. Throughout the history of the republic, depending on the strategic situation, the Romans can mobilise legions of 40 centuries, 50 centuries, 60 centuries and emergency legions. Therefore, they have many military options at their disposal. The primary sources also inform us the Romans rearmed their men or copied the equipment of their enemies, which highlights the fact that being interlocked with their cosmos did not prevent the introduction of new or better technology, nor prevent them from undertaking internal legion organisational changes.
Mark wrote:
From all that I have been able to discover and unless I have been mislead; there seem to be only 5 main sources <snip> and looking at the period after Livy's strange early legion breakdown; they being: Polybius; Josephus; 'Hyginus'; and Vegetius;
If I was to be critical of Livy’s legion description I would castigate him for a lack of nouns. Livy’s legion description goes into more depth concerning the legion’s many organisational levels than Polybius does. Both have made simple mistakes, what one leaves out the other includes, but when they are corrected, the Livy legion and the Polybius legion is actually one and the same. Polybius’ mistake is very obvious; he claims the velites came from the poorer classes. Now there are six property classes in Dionysius’ version of the Servian constitution and five in Livy. However, Polybius states a legion consists of men from four classes…so who are Polybius’s poorer classes? And that is the crux of the problem…Polybius is confused on this very issue.
Mark wrote:
No cohort structure is mentioned and there are no commanders of such detailed.
Livy’s first uses the term “cohort” in Book 2, for the year 508 BC, with a further 21 examples between Books 2 to 5. Dionysius’ first use of ‘cohort’ occurs in Book 7 for the year 488 BC, with another 16 examples found in Books 8 to 11. I have not undertaken a study to find out how many pre-Marian ancient historians use the term cohort but it would amount to a lot of references. How is it that modern historians cannot reached a consensus on the size and organisation of the pre-Marian legions (4000 men, 5000 men, 5200 men, 5400 men, 6000 men, 6200 men or an emergency legion) but are adamant there is no cohort structure? I find that bewildering. So why would Livy state that two senators commanded a cohort if there is no cohort structure?
The cohort is one organisation found in the Roman legion and sometimes on the battlefield the cohort organisation is unsuitable, whereas the tribune command organisation is. However, Livy’s (32 17) reference to Roman cohorts sent one after another to attack a breach in the wall at Atrax is a good example of when the cohort organisation is the ideal organisation for this type of job. So because a legion has three organisational levels, something Livy is trying to explain in his legion description, there is an organisation level suited for a particular need.
Mark wrote:
It's no good - I'll have to write - perhaps by the end of the month if I try.
Good luck. I’ve finished writing. I took Professor Ridley’s advice knowing when to stop and pulled the plug on researching the Roman camp and the cosmos. The Romans are definitely modelling the camp on the cosmos but its trying to unravel the religious orientation methodology behind the changes to the camp’s layout that requires more time than I want to invest.
Anyway, I have 430 pages that faithfully follow the primary sources, and with the empirical date found in the primary sources (and there is a lot) I can show that cohorts existed right back to the Servian constitution and besides centurions, senators and later prefects commanded Roman cohorts.
Steven
