Interpreting Polybius (was Late Roman Army)

[antiochus]

I've started a new thread which is taken from "The Late Roman Army."

Mark wrote:
Please re-read - for I didn't say that he did.

That’s my point. Polybius does not say the triarii are organised into maniples, but you have based your theory on the premise the triarii are half maniples.

Mark wrote:
But, given I'm reading a translation and not the original Greek, please help me understand in what way the opening paragraph of BkVI/24 shows that the Triarii are organised any differently to the others? ie not in sub-unit pairings with 2 Centurions, 2 Optios and 2 Signifers each?

Livy states the hastati and principes are the antipilani, which can translate as those before the files.

Mark wrote
Not again (translation) having picked up on the Livy differentiation, I would be quite happy that he used a different, but I believe very similar and often having the same meaning, term for a maniple at normal half-strength being called an ordo/ordine. That would make sense.

Livy states an ordo had 186 men of which six were centurions. So taking your premise an ordo is half a maniple, a maniple numbers 372 men (360 legionaries and 12 centurions). Polybius discusses 10 companies and these companies can be either maniples or ordines. This is only part of the legion’s organisation, and my research shows the full organisation consists of:

Tribune cohort
Standard cohort
Picked cohort
Maniple
Signum
Ordo
Century

The seven organisations above are reduced to six as the Tribune cohort consists of a number of picked cohorts, which are organised by property class. Because of the role they have to play, some organisations can be halved, then halved again, but this process can only be repeated twice. So because of the sub-units this would explain why there are varying names. Returning to Polybius (6 24):

“Next, in conjunction with the centurions, they divide each class into ten companies, except the velites, and assign to each company two centurions and two optiones from among the elected officers. The velites are divided equally among all the companies; these companies are called ordines or manipuli or vexilla, and their officers are called centurions or ordinum ductores.”

Polybius’ reference to dividing each class into 10 companies is interesting because he is referring to the property class system, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is important to remember that Polybius is also discussing the military levy. My tribal system has all the property classes organised into ten parts, so I can understand Polybius statement about dividing each class into ten companies, which Polybius calls “ordines or manipuli or vexilla.” Also notice some centurions are called “ordinum ductores.” Basically what he is saying is those centurions who command units that fall within the organisation of an ordo are termed ordinum ductores.

When it comes to the legion organisation, the ten companies Polybius has discussed can be either “ordines or manipuli or vexilla,” and shouldn’t be interpreted to mean the 1200 hastati and 1200 principes are organised into maniples, which seems to be the current trend.

Mark wrote
I have come to think my theory (and its adjuncts) might have some merit,

From my experience Mark, and this is what kept making the road difficult for me to travel, was the knowledge I had gained about the Roman legion from the years of reading books by modern historians. If you want to make inroads, flush your brain of everything you have read and only keep to the primary sources. I strongly recommend you start with a blank mind and reject every modern concept about the Roman army. This will be to your benefit.

[Mark Hygate]

........... If you want to make inroads, flush your brain of everything you have read and only keep to the primary sources......

That's already been done - any theory I am hoping to espouse is only based upon primary sources and then trying to fill the holes.

The Livy organisation you are referring to (the 3 x 60 = 180) seems to be part of the mixed hoplite-style phalanx and new Roman lines - that, quite honestly, seems to bear no relation to the 4,000-5,000 legion structure that Livy to refers to thereafter and otherwise fits entirely with Polybius. I make no bones about not including Livy's organisation in my theory, for, like many others, it seems to represent an earlier perhaps, if accurate indeed, transitional stage and I can make no sense of it in terms of later legion evolution.

I don't dismiss it, I don't ignore it - I just can't fit it to the theory and therefore have to assume it's 'before'. The organisation it suggests appears at no other point, even in parts, of his descriptions and must be a little suspect at least.

As to " these companies are called ordines or manipuli or vexilla" - those are Latin terms (afaik), what are the Greek terms that Polybius uses and what are their normal translations (my copy has 'unit, maniple or company', for example). I have no real problem thinking that any of them could be used to mean exactly the same thing - but the numbers all fall out of the 'divisions'. The fact that each sub-division has 2 centurions seems to suggest, quite strongly, that the sub-division (I shall use the normal maniple term) is divided into 2 centuries.

Does not 'antepilani' mean 'before the pilani'? And is 'pilani' not another term by which 'triarii' were known? The later centurion nomenclature seems to support that..... The fact that the lines of hastati and principes were normally in front of the triarii seems quite normal.

[Macedon]

Polybius is very clear as to what he is saying. He is talking about the soldiers forming a legion and has them divided in 30 units each of which he calls a tagma (meaning, men who have been arrayed and a term usually meaning "legion" by later authors, although it is also used as a broad term we would simply call "unit"), a speira (meaning men "coiled" or brought together, a term usually in later texts used for "cohort", although also used for a unit that acts on its own inside a battle-line) or a semaea (meaning a standard and also used to define a unit with its own standard). Each "meros" (part - Hastati-Principes-Triarii) he divides into 10 such units and assigns to them an equal portion of the grosfomachoi (javelineers). So, he does talk of Triarii maniples (he defines cohorts later in a different manner, so even though he does not use the exact term I personally think this would be the best "translation". However, just to theorize, one could say that we should as well translate this "unit" as a century) which do NOT contain half the men the Hastati and Principes maniples contain but half (or less in the case of reinforced legions) the heavy armed infantry. Here he does not speak of the political-conscriptional division of the Roman people but of the actual, picked legionaries within a legion. It is interesting that Polybius is one of the few Greek writers to actually do use some Latin terminology and does call a taxiarchos a centurion (taxiarchoi are most often a term reserved for the centurions when a tribunus is called a "chiliarchos" but many also use it as a tribunus when the term preferred for the centurion is "lochagos"). He has 2 centurions lead a maniple and clearly places one over the second as the leader of the maniple.

It is interesting that he does not speak of centuries in the legion, even though he has two centurions in a maniple, so any discussion on a Polybian century is theoretical only. It is as logical to have a unit of 120 legionaries (or 60 Triarii) led by someone called their centurion as count the light infantry in and say that they were a unit 160 (or about 150 if the light infantry were 1,000 and not 1,200) strong (100 and about 90 respectively for the Triarii) and so divided into 2 centuries. So, a full maniple initially seems to be easily divisible into 2 centuries but to be frank, its legionary part isn't. Then we have "centuries" of 30 and 60 legionaries respectively in the line of battle.

[Mark Hygate]

Thanks Macedon, I was hoping that your Greek-ability might appear.

Whilst I'm more than content Polybius is 'clear' I'm sure there's room for 'interpretation'. :wink:

The translation I would like to ask you about, therefore, is the one I have translated as: "The appropriate numbers of velites are then distributed equally among the sections."

For it's when I interpreted Polybius' very careful description in not actually enumerating the numbers of velites ,that I then suspected that there were 1,000 and not 1,200 as is commonly shown by more recent writers. For thus I am theorizing that what he in fact means is that the 'appropriate.....equally....' is 'in proportion'. For that would assign 40 velites to each 120 hastati/principes and 20 to each 60 triarii. Thus the maniples would indeed be 160 and 80 respectfully - and thus I see the proto-century of Polybius as 80 (plus the 'officers'), even if he doesn't use that delineation at that point himself - all the elements are there.

And that then connects to the new thread I started - and I don't mind which, except the title of this one is a bit odd.

Do you disagree with that interpretation from your own translation?

[Macedon]

The Greek text reads :

"τῶν δὲ γροσφομάχων τοὺς ἐπιβάλλοντας κατὰ τὸ πλῆθος ἴσους ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ μέρη διένειμαν."

He clearly writes that they alloted (dieneiman) the light infantry equally/the same (isous) to all the "parts" (meroi), which is the term Polybius uses here for the "maniple". So, I cannot see how the text could mean what you want, sorry. As worded, it can only mean that they were distributed in 30 equal parts, each one attached to a single "maniple".

One could contest that the "tous epivallontas" could mean "the appropriate" but then it would go to the total number of he light infantry, like saying that of the x number of the grosfomachoi, a part would be allotted equally among the "maniples". However, I see it as simply meaning "of the grosfomachoi who were following (the force)".

[Mark Hygate]

The Greek text reads :................. So, I cannot see how the text could mean what you want, sorry..............

That's great, thank you. I take it as a 'negative factor', but still can theorize that it means that, for he's only trying to describe what he was told and I think there's plenty of wiggle room ........but that will have to wait for the full theory - for it's the total evolution that has to hang together; and for that, then an 80-man (60+20) proto-century makes a whole heap of sense. :woot:

[antiochus]

Mark wrote:
The Livy organisation you are referring to (the 3 x 60 = 180) seems to be part of the mixed hoplite-style phalanx and new Roman lines - that, quite honestly, seems to bear no relation to the 4,000-5,000 legion structure that Livy to refers to thereafter and otherwise fits entirely with Polybius.

I have over 500 pages of data that can shoot that down.

Mark wrote:
I make no bones about not including Livy's organisation in my theory, for, like many others, it seems to represent an earlier perhaps, if accurate indeed, transitional stage and I can make no sense of it in terms of later legion evolution.

You gotta love a guy who has balls enough to throw out evidence. :grin:

Mark wrote:
I don't dismiss it, I don't ignore it - I just can't fit it to the theory :

Have you ever considered that maybe your theory is wrong? :whistle:

Mark wrote:
The organisation it suggests appears at no other point, even in parts, of his descriptions and must be a little suspect at least.

Livy is saying the same thing Polybius is, the legion has maniples, ordo, vexillums, that they must be on the same page. The difference is Livy mentions rorarii and accensi.

Mark wrote:
And that then connects to the new thread I started - and I don't mind which, except the title of this one is a bit odd.

Well the thread is about interpreting Polybius, so there’s nothing odd about the name.

Macedon wrote:
Each "meros" (part - Hastati-Principes-Triarii) he divides into 10 such units and assigns to them an equal portion of the grosfomachoi (javelineers). So, he does talk of Triarii maniples (he defines cohorts later in a different manner, so even though he does not use the exact term I personally think this would be the best "translation".

I am standing by my research that Polybius is mainly referring to the picked cohort organisation of the legion which is divided into 10 units for each property class. There are no maniples for the triarii. If the triarii were in maniples, there would be no point in calling them subsidiarias cohorts. Here again, this is the picked cohort organisation, that I believe in later times came to be called a vexillation.

Macedon wrote:
However, just to theorize, one could say that we should as well translate this "unit" as a century) which do NOT contain half the men the Hastati and Principes maniples contain but half (or less in the case of reinforced legions) the heavy armed infantry.

One too many theories for my liking.

Macedon wrote:
Here he does not speak of the political-conscriptional division of the Roman people but of the actual, picked legionaries within a legion.

The picked cohort is the levy organisation within the legion and is a mirror of the tribal system, therefore it is a political system as well, which is why Livy (7 16) states for the year 357 BC, the soldiers while on campaign voted by tribes about putting a tax on manumitted slaves.

Macedon wrote:
It is interesting that he does not speak of centuries in the legion, even though he has two centurions in a maniple, so any discussion on a Polybian century is theoretical only.

So what do you make of Livy’s (42 34 5) description of the career of Spurius Ligustinus?

“Spurius Ligustinus a member of the Crustuminian tribe served for two years as a common soldier during the consulship of P. Sulpicius Galba and C. Aurelius Cotta. After three years of service, during the consulship of T. Quinctius Flamininus, Spurius Ligustinus was promoted to the tenth ‘ordo’ of the hastati. While serving in Spain under the consul M. Porcius, Spurius Ligustinus was promoted to command of the first century of the hastati (primum hastatum prioris centuriae). While serving under the consul Manius Acilius, Spurius Ligustinus was promoted to first leader of the principes prior centuries (primus princeps prioris centuriae). Then while serving in Spain under Tiberius Gracchus, Spurius Ligustinus was appointed to first centurion (primus pilus) of the triarii.”

Points to highlight are “the tenth ordo of the hastati,” then command of the first century of the hastati prior, then the first century of the principes prior, then finally, the first centurion of the triarii. Clearly Livy is stating Spurius Ligustinus was in command of a century in the hastati and principes, but does not mention a century in the triarii.

The question is who is right and who is wrong? Or are they both right?

[Macedon]

I am standing by my research that Polybius is mainly referring to the picked cohort organisation of the legion which is divided into 10 units for each property class. There are no maniples for the triarii. If the triarii were in maniples, there would be no point in calling them subsidiarias cohorts. Here again, this is the picked cohort organisation, that I believe in later times came to be called a vexillation.

I believe you confuse what you believe to be the case with what Polybius describes. No matter how many pages of data you have amassed, according to Polybius, the Triarii of the legion are also divided in 10 "maniples" or whatever you want to call them. Polybius calls this unit a tagma, a speira or a semaea. He gives no Latin term for that. How right or wrong he is is a totally different question.

The picked cohort is the levy organisation within the legion and is a mirror of the tribal system, therefore it is a political system as well, which is why Livy (7 16) states for the year 357 BC, the soldiers while on campaign voted by tribes about putting a tax on manumitted slaves.

So? Polybius is clearly talking about the military organization of the legion as he believes it to be. I think that this is what is of interest to the questions I answered. I guess that should the OP have been about Dionysius Halicarnasensis, then we would indeed be discussing the tribal system and how it was reflected in the military organization.

So what do you make of Livy’s (42 34 5) description of the career of Spurius Ligustinus?

“Spurius Ligustinus a member of the ...

The question is who is right and who is wrong? Or are they both right?

Again you are confusing what other writers wrote with what Polybius wrote. My posts have nothing to do with the Roman military organization of the time as is described by other authors. I only wrote about the image given by Polybius, whether right or wrong, whether flawed or imaginary or anything. When I wrote about a "Polybian century", I meant "per Polybius" and not "in the age Polybius describes".

[antiochus]

Macedon wrote:
I believe you confuse what you believe to be the case with what Polybius describes. No matter how many pages of data you have amassed, according to Polybius, the Triarii of the legion are also divided in 10 "maniples" or whatever you want to call them. Polybius calls this unit a tagma, a speira or a semaea.

I can assure you there’s no confusion on my part, I know an apple from an orange. Just because Polybius mentions 10 units does not mean they should be connected with the 1200 hastati, the 1200 principes and 600 triarii. That is how you and many others like to associate it. Even your previous reply started to branch out into differing theories. People have been following the 10 maniples concept for decades, but I haven’t seen any progress being made by adhering to it, which should be an indicator they’re going about it the wrong way.

Macedon wrote:
So? Polybius is clearly talking about the military organization of the legion as he believes it to be.

If you can’t answer the question, just say so. No one is expecting you to know everything on the Roman legion. You claimed previously that Polybius “does not speak of the political-conscriptional division of the Roman people.”

I replied by providing a reference that the Roman legion is a political body of which you believe Polybius is not talking about. From a translation given to me, Polybius mentions that the each of the four property classes (helokias or class by age) was divided into 10 companies (deka mere). If you don’t believe the Roman legion was based on property classes then you do not understand the Roman legion, because property classes are associated with voting bodies. It’s all in Livy and Dionysius accounts of the Century Assembly. Therefore, when Polybius speaks of the property classes he is referring to the “political-conscription division” of the Roman people. His description of the levy is also one and the same.

Having gone over the research again from the Servian constitution to Vegetius, Polybius is focusing on the property classes being divided into 10, and then he follows up with terms for the rest of the legion’s organisation. The base organisation of any legion for any period is the property class centuries, which are voting bodies and are replications of the Century Assembly. The property class centuries never change from the Servian constitution to Vegetius, and because of this, the centurion command structure also never changes. My premise is no centurion can command a property class century. If he did so he has the power to influence the voting of the century he commands, and if he worked in collusion with other centurions, they could manipulate the voting outcome. However, in 357 BC, the problem was put to rest when the senate declared that the legions could not vote while on campaign, but the voting organisation remained within the legion, because without it there is no legion.

Rule 1: no centurion can command a property class century.
Rule 2: a centurion can command 100 men
Rule 3: two centuries cannot make a maniple

There is one major anomaly within the organisation of the Roman legion before 102 BC, which centres on who is classified as a prior or posterior century. If you get it wrong you end up with a 4200 man legion.

Macedon wrote:
Again you are confusing what other writers wrote with what Polybius wrote. My posts have nothing to do with the Roman military organization of the time as is described by other authors.

No sorry…confused I am not. You gave your views on the centuriate system in regard to Polybius, so I was asking you how you believe it would relate to Livy’s description of the career of Spurius Ligustinus because both centuriate systems contradict each other. I have no problem if you can’t answer the question. I don’t expect everyone to know everything about the Roman legion. We are all in the process of learning.

[Macedon]

Steven, it is my choice to answer or not answer questions you make. I think I made myself very clear when I said that I ONLY voiced my opinion on what Polybius said and nothing more. So, please, stop taunting me or trying to force me into a discussion I do not want to get involved in. If it makes you feel better to think that the reason I avoid it is because I cannot answer your questions feel free to do so. If you disagree with my understanding of Polybius because evidently the translations you have read seem to agree with you, feel also free to do so. Now, if you have any questions or something you want to say on Polybius' text I will be happy to reply as I have done with Mark but I do not wish to digress on a very specific topic and that's about it. I would advise that you start another thread if you want to discuss something different to the OP.

Plus, I mentioned Dionysius Halicarnasensis for a reason and that is because I wanted to show you that I DO know very well what he has written on the Roman political system and how it corresponds with the military one. Yet, this has nothing to do with Polybius, who is very clear (in my opinion and understanding of course) on the fact that he is describing the military system alone. Maybe he doesn't care, maybe he doesn't know better, but his Greek text leaves me no doubt whatsoever.

[Mark Hygate]

....................
Mark wrote:
I make no bones about not including Livy's organisation in my theory, for, like many others, it seems to represent an earlier perhaps, if accurate indeed, transitional stage and I can make no sense of it in terms of later legion evolution.

You gotta love a guy who has balls enough to throw out evidence. :grin:

Mark wrote:
I don't dismiss it, I don't ignore it - I just can't fit it to the theory :

Have you ever considered that maybe your theory is wrong? :whistle: ...............

Well, 'wow' to a lot of the rest.......but this is worth answering....

Livy (and the thread, as started by you) I thought was about Polybius.....as does Macedon it seems.

I don't 'throw out the evidence' - I have got the balls to suggest that we might not know everything and that the sources Livy has used are unknown to use, but that:

Livy I.43 - that whilst the 2 army idea links to the 2 Consular Army construct of Polybius, the 40 centuries + 1(Engineers) + 10 + 10 + 10 + 15 + 1½ does not......and nor does....

Livy VIII.8 - which has the classic hastati-principes-triarii, but also the rorarii and accensi, however they are in 15 maniples + 15 + 15 (the last in 3 sections)....

Neither of these 2 'legion/army' organisations seem to make connected sense to each other (IMHO). Whereas I think I will be able to propose a theory that shows a relatively simple, explainable, understandable, linear evolution of the Roman legion from Polybius to The Field Armies of the 4th & 5th centuries. So I don't know where Livy got his organisations from, but they certainly don't fit that evolution - but it doesn't mean I ignore them. I do know that Livy often otherwise seems to have 4-5,000 infantry and 300 cavalry legions all over his text, that do fit with Polybius - so I am quite content that something is awry!

Could my theory be wrong - of course it can - that's why it's a theory! But I will put it up against a equal theory that suggests that the Roman army was organised on the ever moving lines of Tribal organisations or links to the Cosmos, for that makes almost no military sense to me at all. Both of us can be wrong, but I'll apply Occam's razor and perhaps choose mine first - we will see.

I'm also a serious statistician and know almost anything can be 'proved' by numbers - which is why so much news we get these days isn't - for it only contains data and not information.........but that's for a different forum/blog. :whistle:

[antiochus]

Macedon wrote:
So, please, stop taunting me or trying to force me into a discussion I do not want to get involved.

Could you please stop dictating what my motives are! I am not trying to force or taunt you to do anything.

Macedon wrote:
If you disagree with my understanding of Polybius because evidently the translations you have read seem to agree with you, feel also free to do so.

That’s all well and fine. But it was you who told me on two occasions I was confused.

Macedon wrote:
I would advise that you start another thread if you want to discuss something different to the OP.

With all due respect Macedon, I started this thread about interpreting Polybius. I did it because I didn’t want to divert from the original thread which was about the late roman legion. Anyway let’s drop the subject.

Mark wrote:
Livy (and the thread, as started by you) I thought was about Polybius.....as does Macedon it seems.

Livy leads to Polybius and Polybius to Livy. A thread like this could also lead to Vegetius.

Mark wrote:
Livy I.43 - that whilst the 2 army idea links to the 2 Consular Army construct of Polybius, the 40 centuries + 1(Engineers) + 10 + 10 + 10 + 15 + 1½ does not......and nor does....

It is very simple t reconcile Livy’s outline of the century assembly with Dionysius. Dionysius gives the fiscal value of Class V at 12,500 asses (originally given as minae), while Livy has 11,000 asses. Livy is 1500 asses short of Dionysius. Cicero gives the fiscal value for the proletarii at 1500 asses. The mistake by Livy is he has subtracted the proletarii from Class V, when the proletarii along with the capite censi belong to Class VI.

Mark wrote:
Livy VIII.8 - which has the classic hastati-principes-triarii, but also the rorarii and accensi, however they are in 15 maniples + 15 + 15 (the last in 3 sections)....

My research shows there are six organisational levels in the Roman legion of which four of them overlap. As an experiment, if I added up the size of each of the four overlapping organisations, Livy’s legion would amount to well over 10,000 men. Approaching Livy by adding the parts to try and get the whole is the wrong methodology. I’m saying that from experience.

Mark wrote:
Livy often otherwise seems to have 4-5,000 infantry and 300 cavalry legions all over his text, that do fit with Polybius - so I am quite content that something is awry!

I’ve found each writer has committed one mistake in their description. However, if people elect to believe Polybius’ 1200 hastati and 1200 principes are organised into 10 maniples, then they will experience difficulties….a road I have been down.

Mark wrote:
Could my theory be wrong - of course it can - that's why it's a theory! But I will put it up against a equal theory that suggests that the Roman army was organised on the ever moving lines of Tribal organisations or links to the Cosmos, for that makes almost no military sense to me at all.

That’s what separates the Romans from the modern military. And I can’t remember Rommel or Patton sacrificing animals to read if the entrails will show a favourable sign for giving battle. I’d like to introduce a reference you Mark that is taken from Manilius Astronimica:

“And as in great cities the inhabitants are divided into classes, whereof the senate enjoys primacy and the equestrian order importance next to this, and one may see the knights followed by the commons, the commons by the idle proletariats, and finally the innominate throng, so too in the mighty heavens there exists a commonwealth wrought by nature, which founded a city in the sky. There are luminaries of princely rank and stars which come close to the highest eminence, there are all the grades and privileges of superior orders. But outnumbering all these is the populace, which revolves about heaven’s dome: had nature given it powers consonant with its legions.”

The reference to heaven’s dome is the zodiac, and the legion is based on the zodiac.

Mark wrote:
Both of us can be wrong, but I'll apply Occam's razor and perhaps choose mine first - we will see.

Yes, the proof is in the pudding. But I believe in the coming years, those who do not accept or ignore the Pythagorean aspect will be the minority, and ignored.

[Mark Hygate]

The Greek text reads :............ So, I cannot see how the text could mean what you want, sorry. As worded, it can only mean that they were distributed in 30 equal parts, each one attached to a single "maniple"...........

Dear Macedon,

Returning to this as the thread became alive again.....

Whilst you've obviously translated and interpreted as accurately as possible - would you consider re-assessing if you accepted this linked reference as part of the 'allocated in proportion' idea?

That, because the (standard 4,200 legion camp construction) triarii-maniples were allocated half the camping space of the hastati/principes ones, then it's reasonable to conclude that their velites complement was also half the size - and thus the velites are distributed proportionally? Polybius simply didn't (it seems) write it clearly enough for modern eyes?

[Macedon]

ehm... what linked reference?

[Mark Hygate]

ehm... what linked reference?

:lol: Yes, a use of the word 'linked' that doesn't mean a 'hyperlink' - I'm obviously not 'hip'......

The 'link' to the size of the camping plot I detailed - that the triarii-maniples were camped in 100ft x 50ft as opposed to the hastati/principes 100ft x 100ft. On that basis I certainly don't find it unreasonable to consider the triarii-maniple to be half the size and, by corollary, that the velite complement is also half the size.

And hence (my interpretation) that the 1,000 velites are distributed proportionally and leading to a view that the proto-century of 60+20+3 is already represented in the Polybian organisation.

You may have a view that the 'half-size' is not perhaps justified - but I thought I'd ask. Perhaps the translation could then be interpreted the 'proportional' way?