01-26-2013, 10:26 AM
M. Demetrius wrote:
I don't know if Polybius is confused, but I certainly am.
Ross Cowan wrote:
Ditto.
I can understand the difficulty you both are experiencing in grasping the concept that Polybius has included the cavalry numbers with the legionaries then mentions the cavalry numbers again…called a doublet. I can also understand you do not understand Vegetius claim that “the cavalry are joined to the legion” and are “incorporated on the same rolls.” This simply means the cavalry are assigned to an infantry century. The number of cavalry assigned to a century is five cavarlymen. So in a 40 century legion the legion will have 200 cavalry. But how is that possible. Well you mulitiply 40 centuries by 5 cavalrymen per century and you get 200 cavalry, a number supported by Polybius. In a 60 century legion the number of cavalry works out to be 300 cavalry. Again you mulitiply 60 centuries by five to get 300 cavalry. Now if you don’t know the number of centuries in the legion, you take the cavalry numbers and divided by five. On occasion Livy (40 36) mentions a legion of 5200 men being accompanied by 400 cavalry, so if we divided 400 by five the result is 80 centuries. Wow, what have we got here…an 8000 man legion. No, but if you multiply 80 centuries by 60 men per century the result is a legion of 4800 men. Could the legions also have variable century values? So how did Livy arrive at a figure of 5200 infantry accompanied by 400 cavalry if the legion is suppose to be 4800 men? The answer is because Livy’s source is Polybius, which comes with Polybius’ distinct trademark of the cavalry numbers being included with the infantry. So if we subtract 400 cavalry from 5200 men, the answer is a legion of 4800 men.
Ross Cowan wrote:
There is no evidence for a legionary cohort commander. Troubling as that is to us moderns (who expect battalions to be commanded by colonels), we have to accept it and move on.
I prefer to challenge your stance Mr Cowan rather than “accept it and move on” simply because you have instructed us to do so. As academia cannot arrive at a consensus concerning what the centurion command structure for a given legion is, what makes you think you are right? Perhaps knowing the centurion command structure could answer many questions, but to do that we still need to know how a legion is organised for a given period. My views are also expressed by Istvan Kertesz The Roman Cohort Tactics – Problems of Development, Oikumene 1 (1976):
“All writers on Roman military history tend to connect the cohort, which succeeded the maniple as a new tactical formation in the Roman army, with the military reforms of Marius. This generally accepted view does not take into account or is unaware of the clear evidence in ancient historiography that the nucleus of cohort tactics existed long before the reforms of Marius. Data concerning the early appearance of the cohort tactics were well known, nevertheless, they were not analysed with the required degree of precise textual criticism.”
I’d like to emphasis Kertesz statement “the early appearance of the cohort tactics were well known, nevertheless, they were not analysed with the required degree of precise textual criticism.” And this is the crux of the problem. There are references to allied cohorts being commanded by a prefects before the consulship of Marius, and we have Livy’s (8 6) statement that in 340 BC:
“Their (the Romans) anxiety was increased by the fact that it was against the Latins that they had to fight, a people resembling them in language, manners, arms, and especially in their military organisation. They had been colleagues and comrades, as soldiers, centurions, and tribunes, often stationed together in the same posts and side by side in the same maniples. That this might not prove a source of error and confusion, orders were given that no one was to leave his post to fight with the enemy.”
Clearly this indicates the Latin and Roman command structures as well as the legion organisations were identical. So if the allieds have cohort commanders then so do the Romans. So Mr Cowan, as you believe there was no cohort commander, then you must have made your readers in your article aware of Livy’s statement “a cohort was commanded by two senators” and thereby given your analysts as to why this is incorrect. Or were you unaware of this reference and any other that contradicts your theory? As no one has done a serious analyst of the army or legion’s organisation for 462 BC, then how can anyone dismiss Livy’s claim.
The scientific methodology today seems to be that “if everyone believes it is must be right.” This does not work for me. Livy states a cohort was commanded by two senators (who are people of authority and importance) and senators are reported to have died at Cannae so why would Livy make this claim if there were no cohort commander?
Steven
I don't know if Polybius is confused, but I certainly am.
Ross Cowan wrote:
Ditto.
I can understand the difficulty you both are experiencing in grasping the concept that Polybius has included the cavalry numbers with the legionaries then mentions the cavalry numbers again…called a doublet. I can also understand you do not understand Vegetius claim that “the cavalry are joined to the legion” and are “incorporated on the same rolls.” This simply means the cavalry are assigned to an infantry century. The number of cavalry assigned to a century is five cavarlymen. So in a 40 century legion the legion will have 200 cavalry. But how is that possible. Well you mulitiply 40 centuries by 5 cavalrymen per century and you get 200 cavalry, a number supported by Polybius. In a 60 century legion the number of cavalry works out to be 300 cavalry. Again you mulitiply 60 centuries by five to get 300 cavalry. Now if you don’t know the number of centuries in the legion, you take the cavalry numbers and divided by five. On occasion Livy (40 36) mentions a legion of 5200 men being accompanied by 400 cavalry, so if we divided 400 by five the result is 80 centuries. Wow, what have we got here…an 8000 man legion. No, but if you multiply 80 centuries by 60 men per century the result is a legion of 4800 men. Could the legions also have variable century values? So how did Livy arrive at a figure of 5200 infantry accompanied by 400 cavalry if the legion is suppose to be 4800 men? The answer is because Livy’s source is Polybius, which comes with Polybius’ distinct trademark of the cavalry numbers being included with the infantry. So if we subtract 400 cavalry from 5200 men, the answer is a legion of 4800 men.
Ross Cowan wrote:
There is no evidence for a legionary cohort commander. Troubling as that is to us moderns (who expect battalions to be commanded by colonels), we have to accept it and move on.
I prefer to challenge your stance Mr Cowan rather than “accept it and move on” simply because you have instructed us to do so. As academia cannot arrive at a consensus concerning what the centurion command structure for a given legion is, what makes you think you are right? Perhaps knowing the centurion command structure could answer many questions, but to do that we still need to know how a legion is organised for a given period. My views are also expressed by Istvan Kertesz The Roman Cohort Tactics – Problems of Development, Oikumene 1 (1976):
“All writers on Roman military history tend to connect the cohort, which succeeded the maniple as a new tactical formation in the Roman army, with the military reforms of Marius. This generally accepted view does not take into account or is unaware of the clear evidence in ancient historiography that the nucleus of cohort tactics existed long before the reforms of Marius. Data concerning the early appearance of the cohort tactics were well known, nevertheless, they were not analysed with the required degree of precise textual criticism.”
I’d like to emphasis Kertesz statement “the early appearance of the cohort tactics were well known, nevertheless, they were not analysed with the required degree of precise textual criticism.” And this is the crux of the problem. There are references to allied cohorts being commanded by a prefects before the consulship of Marius, and we have Livy’s (8 6) statement that in 340 BC:
“Their (the Romans) anxiety was increased by the fact that it was against the Latins that they had to fight, a people resembling them in language, manners, arms, and especially in their military organisation. They had been colleagues and comrades, as soldiers, centurions, and tribunes, often stationed together in the same posts and side by side in the same maniples. That this might not prove a source of error and confusion, orders were given that no one was to leave his post to fight with the enemy.”
Clearly this indicates the Latin and Roman command structures as well as the legion organisations were identical. So if the allieds have cohort commanders then so do the Romans. So Mr Cowan, as you believe there was no cohort commander, then you must have made your readers in your article aware of Livy’s statement “a cohort was commanded by two senators” and thereby given your analysts as to why this is incorrect. Or were you unaware of this reference and any other that contradicts your theory? As no one has done a serious analyst of the army or legion’s organisation for 462 BC, then how can anyone dismiss Livy’s claim.
The scientific methodology today seems to be that “if everyone believes it is must be right.” This does not work for me. Livy states a cohort was commanded by two senators (who are people of authority and importance) and senators are reported to have died at Cannae so why would Livy make this claim if there were no cohort commander?
Steven
