The Roman Army of Diocletian

[antiochus]

Robert wrote:
Also you take one source (e.g. Isidore) and accept one figure (a maniple with 200 men) but reject another (200 squadrons ‘which is a corruption’) without telling us why one figure is to be trusted and another isn’t.

I have given my views on this.

Robert wrote:
First of all Steven I would appreciate it if you take the personal tone out of your next reply to my posts.

Robert I cannot have any control on how you interpret my reply. Email and the internet are regarded as the medium for creating more misunderstanding as there is no body language or voice tone associated with the message.

Robert wrote:
But I resent being accused of ‘having an agenda’, ‘bending posts’, or trying to ‘discredit’ you. None of these are based on reality.

Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Robert wrote:
I fully appreciate that you do not take all the material at once, and that some sources come later. That is not my point, even though it seems strange to me that you build an hypothesis without reading some sources – would it not be much easier to read all the material available before you draw up your conclusions?

But I do….then I select material specific to a certain time period and investigate them. I then increase the time period (say 285 BC to 320 AD), and determine if there are any empirical continuity. After that I expand the time by using any author that covers this time frame. As I have already stated, I crawl rather than walk.

Robert wrote:
That is why I wrote about using one source while ignoring another, for reasons that I do not understand. So please Steven, read your own posts before you are going to accused me of bending yours.

And here is the problem. You say I am using one source and ignoring another and I have stated previously I introduce a new source into my research when I have fully covered the sources I am working with. There is as difference here and yes I do see your wording as bending my meaning and making it negative, when you define it that way. You make it out that for examples sake, I would only use Livy’s version of the Servian constitution and ignore Dionysius’ version of the constitution because Livy suites my theory. My method is, I will choose one first then introduce the other later. So if I chose Livy first, I use his version of the Servian constitution first and compare it with empirical data found in all the primary sources. Later I will do the same with Dionysius. This method has provided me with some exceptional results and I do not see the need to change it.

Also I should have added that for the moment I am not using Maurice but will be further down the road. I have selected to use sources that involve Strasbourg and Adrianople to build my model, which is to establish whether there is a link between the legion of Vegetius. At the moment I am working with Ammianus and Zosimus, although I am now introducing new sources. Jumping immediately to include the empirical data of Maurice into the Strasbourg and Adrianople mix of empirical data eliminates any chance of becoming aware of any military changes. I’ve seen this done time and time again by academics and members of this forum. One example is introducing Hyginus’ 80 man century into the mid republic. The authors who do this may believe the numbers may work, but are they right? My question is if Maurice is providing empirical data for the year 550 AD, and this goes beyond my cut off point of wanting the book to end in 420 AD, why should I have to include such information?

Robert wrote:
But my reply to you was about how you knew when and how to round off numbers and when not to. That was my question to you.

And my answer was because of the introduction of new methodology such as the Pythagorean system and my insights gained from the Servian constitution. For the record, you can work out the organisation of the Roman tribe via the Servian constitution…you don’t need anything else.

Robert wrote:
If that cannot be established, I would be very careful with statements like ‘Ammianus did so and so’.

In my postings I do use words like “possibly”,” “could be” etc. etc. Sometimes I forget to include these words. In my last post I gave examples from members of this forum of them making statements of fact and no one picks them up for it. So why now am I the one who has to be instructed in protocol?

Robert wrote:
As I’ve said a number of times, I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying that you do not convince me. Is that a reason to become personal?.....Then why make my disagreement a personal matter involving accusations?

My problem is I see double standards at play. Later in your posting you reply with this comment “Well at least we are on topic again, so I will answer this barrage.” Personally I take you use of the term “barrage” as insulting. See also further answers in this post.

Robert wrote:
Well, I am going to ignore the generalization here, although I really think that some rather interesting conclusions can be drawn from this statement.

I’m not paranoid….my mother had me tested….everything’s good.

Robert wrote:
If a source gives facts (dates, names, numbers) always take these at face value unless you have cross-references from other credible sources that give you reason for doubt.

My method as well.

Robert wrote:
Well that’s no doubt a nice and worthy investigation, although I would have problems with that, as 1) I do not accept Vegetius as trustworthy in that aspect (although I am fully aware that I could be wrong) and 2) I do not see any evidence for the ‘Vegetian legion’ before Ammianus or even before Vegetius, who wrote about a century after Ammianus. But that’s me and really, perhaps you are on to something, I’ll await your final conclusions.

See my answer to below.

Renatus wrote:
Like you, I am sceptical about the existance of a 'Vegetian legion' as such. It seems to me to be an impossible combination of elements from the Republic, the Principate and the Dominate. That said, I am extremely interested in Steven's research and, when the time comes, will study it carefully and, if it does suggest that a 'Vegetian legion' existed, will reconsider my position.

I came to the conclusion some two years ago the Vegetius legion and the legion described by Isidore of 6000 men organised into 30 maniples and 12 cohorts of 500 men are one and the same. What my research has taught me is the lack of adjectives in relation to the use of the word cohort in the primary sources. For this example I am going to call a 600 man cohort a prefect cohort and a 500 man cohort a picked cohort.

A 6000 man legion organised into 10 prefect cohorts of 600 men and also 12 picked cohorts of 500 men. My research has concluded that there are actually three different cohort organisations to a legion and this goes back to the Servian constitution. For this example I will use the picked cohort organisation to show how Vegetius has mixed up the legion’s doctrines which produce varying sizes and organisation.

A commander of a 6000 man legion leaves the camp but has left behind cohorts 11 and 12 to guard the camp. The legion is now reduced from 6000 men to 5000 men. The next day the commander decides he wants more troops in the field but also he wants to guard the camp so he orders cohort 12 to guard the camp. The legion now numbers 5500 men organised into 11 cohorts. However, the commander does not want 11 cohorts so he has the 500 men from cohort 11 distributed among the 10 remaining cohorts. This will allocate 50 men to each cohort, thereby increasing a 500 man cohort to 550 men. Don’t take my word for it, if you look at Vegetius he has some centuries numbering 150 men. Dio also mentions a body of Europeans at 550 men.

So now we have three legion sizes, 6000 men, 5500 men and 5000 men. When in camp, by having cohort 12 stationed with cohort 1, you have a double cohort. So how do get the legion to number 6100 men as stated by Vegetius? When you distribute cohort 11 among the other 10 cohorts, you make a mathematical mistake by accidentally allocating an additional 50 men to cohort 12. In this manner, instead of allocating 50 men from cohort 11 to cohorts one to ten, you allocate 50 men to cohorts one to ten and also 50 men to cohort 12. This results in the 11 remaining cohorts amounting to 6050 men and with the addition of the 50 centurions, which are included in Vegetius’ cohort numbers, the legion amounts to 6100 men. With each cohort allocated 66 cavalry, Vegetius has repeated the same mistake and has also allocated an additional 66 cavalry to cohort 12, thereby increasing the cavalry from 660 cavalry to 726 cavalry. Therefore, the legion should number 6000 men accompanied by 660 cavalry. So what does that make of the reference to a Theban legion numbering 6666 men? Could it translate to 6000 infantry, 660 cavalry and 6 military tribunes?

The answer to why there are 12 cohorts can be found in the primary sources dealing with the principate. Maybe it’s the vexillation organisation? The history of the legion’s organisation from the Servian constitution is contained within the legion. It is multi layered and by peeling each layer away, the legion’s previous organisation is revealed. The whole history of the legion’s organisation is contained in the Vegetius legion. That makes the Vegetius legion historical in my book. I don’t have a problem with the primary sources, other people do.

[Mark Hygate]

..................... So how do get the legion to number 6100 men as stated by Vegetius? ..............

Steven,

There's just so much Militarily and Logistically wrong with the last part of your post, that I'm really quite surprised......do you really think that splitting up a cohort into groups of 50 men to scatter willy-nilly amongst other, already formed and trained units, is an act of war?

That said - answering your question is easy. Vegetius states that the first cohort numbers 1105 men and cohorts 2 to 10 number 555 men each; the maths is fairly easy. The fact that Vegetius, when discussing the officers later both makes a mistake in adding the primi ordines as an extra 5 and then states that there are 55 centurions total in addition, which ought to take his numbers to 6110 suggests that he lost his way. And let's not forget the 726 cavalry.

Vegetius is entirely consistent, although I believe his legion is a made up one and based upon a set of misunderstandings of his, a desire for pretty numbers, a main theme of trying to return to 'large' legions, but, however, based upon a set of principles that has indeed lasted some 700+ years.

A simple question, however: do you reject the idea that an ancient author who knows that (taking Isidore as you have above) a legion consists of 30 maniples, each of 2 centuries, may well simply express it as a total of 6000; when actually it's 5000 when noting that the 30 maniples/60 centuries are organised in 10 cohorts of 500 men each?

For I find it quite reasonable to have a source who is removed from the field of battle and who has no experience of actually managing a legion/cohort himself to not know that a century is not equal to 100 men; but simply to presume that, knowing no better.

It['s exactly the same as all the people these days who buy horses in guineas, with no idea why.......

Or why the acre is the size it is......

Or that three score and ten equates to 70, without knowing anything about arrow resupply!

[antiochus]

Mark wrote:
There's just so much Militarily and Logistically wrong with the last part of your post, that I'm really quite surprised......do you really think that splitting up a cohort into groups of 50 men to scatter willy-nilly amongst other, already formed and trained units, is an act of war?

I have no idea of what you mean by an act of war. As to the distribution of allocating 50 men to each cohort this does not contravene Roman doctrine. According to Frontinus Scipio Aemililanus distributed archers and slingers among the cohorts and centuries. You also fail to notice that the men of cohort 11 to be distributed among the other 10 cohorts are also trained, so what is the problem with them being distributed among the other 10 cohorts? If the other cohorts cannot adapt to this then I do not know how they would have coped with receiving new replacements.

Instead of just stating I am wrong because “it isn’t an act of war” or whatever it is you mean, how about you tell me how Vegetius ended up with a figure of 150 men or one and a half centuries? In my other posting to Michael Taylor about basing his figure of 26,000 men as opposed to over 26,000 men as given by Plutarch, I gave numbers and examples to back up my claim that Plutarch’s over 26,000 men is quite feasible. How about you do the same? This way I won’t have to defend myself against conjecture.

Mark wrote:
Vegetius states that the first cohort numbers 1105 men.

Don't forget Vegetius (2 8) which has the first cohort numbering 1000 men (400 + 200 + 150 + 150 + 100).

Mark wrote:
Vegetius is entirely consistent, although I believe his legion is a made up one and based upon a set of misunderstandings of his, a desire for pretty numbers, a main theme of trying to return to 'large' legions.

Why is he trying to do that?

Mark wrote:
A simple question, however: do you reject the idea that an ancient author who knows that (taking Isidore as you have above) a legion consists of 30 maniples, each of 2 centuries, may well simply express it as a total of 6000; when actually it's 5000 when noting that the 30 maniples/60 centuries are organised in 10 cohorts of 500 men each?

Both Vegetius and Isidore give the figure of 6000 men. That is what I am working with. If you think it is actually 5000 men then that is for you to prove. Of course that is easy to do if you are not intending on including other sources that do not support your view such as the ones I gave (Dio and the 6666 man Theban legion).

[Mark Hygate]

Steven,

I'm not surprised you don't understand what I refer to as "...an act of war", as I suspect you have no military experience or military theory to draw on, but that's not the point. The 'other cohorts' could certainly cope with replacements (to the correct number), but they are not under strength. All I think you're doing is playing with numbers without thinking 'why'.

But I did not say that you were wrong; although I think it very unlikely. Distributing skirmishing troops along a battle line is completely different to breaking up a coherent organisation and just adding numbers to other fully organised ones (that have suffered no losses) - the numbers you used were for fully recruited cohorts.

I do not forget Vegetius' subsequent breakdown of the First cohort and the fact that he now forgets to add his section leaders into his figures is one of the things that should cause his figures to be queried. I am also quite happy to note that his, apparently unusual, breakdown of the first cohort into 5 mismatched groupings is one of the stranger things he does; it seems he believes his primi ordines should command different numbers based upon their ranking. What he then trips himself up on is re-confirming that the 10 centuries of the first cohort each have a centurion leading them - so he apparently breaks ups century command structures too!

As to why Vegetius is trying to return to 'large legions' - that seems to me to be fairly clear. The same 'Ancients' he reads are the same ones we do and we have to look really no further than Polybius and Livy and compare to what he sees in his times to see why. The Field Armies of the Palatine & Comitatenses that Vegetius hears about contain, regularly, half a dozen or more 'legios' these days that are all 'small', are supported by many auxilia and a number of cavalry units. What he notes particularly is that, in the 'ancient times', all that was needed was a Consular Army of two legions, including integral cavalry! The thrust of his treatise on organisation thereafter is to attempt to re-make a large legion structure where he simply adds wherever he can and additionally seems to have a predeliction to 'pretty numbers' (11, 33, 111, 555, etc), whilst not addressing the other elements of the command structure (Optios & Signifers) that we were previously used to.

What I will note is that neither of us will be able to 'prove' our theories and that's why they will always remain theories (unless something surprising turns up!). You, I believe from what I've seen, will be attempting to show a set of potential numerical causal links from other, non-military related, areas of political, astrological, cosmological and theology (please correct if I'm wrong) understandings that attempt to show that every different legion size we see is actually accurate and they could fluctuate in organisation almost all the time; whilst I believe in a much simpler approach of a single legion structure that really doesn't change much at all, but undergoes gentle evolution.

On my basis, therefore, yes, I have no particular worries when I see an ancient author seem to think that a centuriae equals 100 men and multiplies on that basis; just the same way that if we asked anyone locally how many years were in a century then I'd expect a similar answer! If, however, I asked a Roman Military Historian, then we could have an interesting pub chat on 30, 33, 40, 43, 60, 63, 80, 83, 100, 110 or 111!

Curiously my 'theory of organisation' and what I believe I see Vegetius doing are very similar; it's just that we come to different conclusions. But, do I think Vegetius actual numbers and structure were ever actually used, no I don't. He is offering his treatise, but I do not think the specifics were adopted, nor detailing a structrue that ever actually existed.

You are quite right in one respect - for I do not intend to attempt to match my theory with every number we can find in an ancient source and especially not simple totals; and I am doing that deliberately. There are very few ancient sources that detail the actual organisation and I am concentrating on those and they are certainly enough to construct a coherent theory - especially a relatively simple one. For I believe the Roman Military approach is beautifully simple.

[antiochus]

Mark wrote:
I'm not surprised you don't understand what I refer to as "...an act of war", as I suspect you have no military experience or military theory to draw on, but that's not the point.

As I have no military experience or military theory to draw on, and because of my lack of qualifications in not having commanded a legion, cohort, maniple or century, I will no longer waste your time in discussing the Roman army with you. However, I would be interested to hear from Renatus.

[Renatus]

I would be interested to hear from Renatus.

Happy to oblige! I was working on the following when you posted.

There is another way of explaining Vegetius’ figures but, first, let us remind ourselves of what they are. A legion consists of 6100 infantrymen and 726 cavalrymen and is made up of ten cohorts. Cohort I is milliary and comprises 1105 infantrymen and 132 cavalrymen; Cohorts II-X are quingenary and each comprises 555 infantrymen and 66 cavalrymen.

The calculation is based on certain assumptions, stated or implicit. A century consists of 100 men. Coh. I consists of 10 centuries commanded by five centurions (there is no need to go into Vegetius’ irregular allocation of centuries to centurions; the number is still 1000). It is double-sized, so each quingenary cohort contains five centuries, also commanded by five centurions. Each century is divided into 10 contubernia of 10 men each, with a decanus in charge of each contubernium.

The calculation of the number of infantrymen is as follows:

Cohort I

10 centuries @ 100 men each = 1000
1 decanus per contubernium = 10 per century = 100
5 centurions
Total: 1105

Cohorts II-X

5 centuries @ 100 men each = 500
1 decanus per contubernium = 10 per century = 50
5 centurions
Total: 555 x no. of cohorts (9) = 4995

Grand total: 1105 + 4995 = 6100 infantrymen

A similar calculation can be made for the cavalry, based on each turma consisting of 32 men, commanded by a decurion. Coh. I consists of 4 turmae and each quingenary cohort of 2 turmae.

Thus, the calculation of cavalrymen is as follows:

Cohort I

4 turmae @ 32 men = 128
1 decurion per turma = 4
Total: 132

Cohorts II-X

2 turmae @ 32 men = 64
1 decurion per turma = 2
Total: 66 x no. of cohorts (9) = 594

Grand total: 132 + 594 = 726 cavalrymen

[Mark Hygate]

Mark wrote:
I'm not surprised you don't understand what I refer to as "...an act of war", as I suspect you have no military experience or military theory to draw on, but that's not the point.

As I have no military experience or military theory to draw on, and because of my lack of qualifications in not having commanded a legion, cohort, maniple or century, I will no longer waste your time in discussing the Roman army with you. However, I would be interested to hear from Renatus.

Ahhh, dear Steven,

It's sad you didn't take the allusion for what it was, but obviously you don't like the criticism. In which case I'll simply give you one piece of advice.....

Do not try and give a trite example of 'splitting up an 11th cohort into 10 parts and distributing 50 men each to 10 other cohorts (also 500 strong) to create 10 of now 550 to give a legion strength of 5500'; without at least a moderately viable military reason for doing so. For otherwise you are indeed just playing with numbers.

For I can most certainly explain why 2+2=4; or =10; or =11 and give firm mathematical foundations for doing so.

[antiochus]

Mark wrote:
Do not try and give a trite example of 'splitting up an 11th cohort into 10 parts and distributing 50 men each to 10 other cohorts (also 500 strong) to create 10 of now 550 to give a legion strength of 5500'; without at least a moderately viable military reason for doing so.

Please reread my posting, and please stop lecturing me. However, I will repeat it again. In it I stated the legion commander wanted more men in the field but still wanted the camp to be guarded, so he left cohort 12 to guard the camp. This left him with 11 cohorts of which he wanted 10 so he distributed cohort 11 among the remaining 10 cohorts.

Renatus, thanks for views on the Vegetius legion. It made me question my theories, which is good. Following your calculations, with the removal of the 600 officers (50 centurions and 550 decani) you are advocating there are 5500 legionaries. Vegetius (2 8) does state that the decanus commanded 10 men, thereby giving a total of 11 men.

“There were deans too, in charge of ten soldiers each, they are now called caput contubernii.”

It’s there in black and white and it cannot be ignored. Following Vegetius, this would imply Hyginus’ 80 man century be increased to 90 men. With six centuries in the Hyginus legion, a cohort numbers 540 men and 10 cohorts amounts to 5400 men. Again by following Vegetius, all 60 century legions throughout Rome’s history would require an additional 600 men, unless we have 4200 legionaries and 600 decani. In book 2 13, Vegetius writes “the centuries were themselves subdivided into 10 man contubernia. For every 10 soldiers living under one tent, there was one in charge as decanus.” (Milner translation). This passage can indicate 9 legionaries plus one decani. Apology if my Latin singular and plural is wrong.

The outline I gave on how Vegetius could have arrived at his numbers I also found conformed to the legion’s continuous deployment pattern since the Servian constitution (based on my research). This has a lot to do with references to the older men being assigned to guard the camp. The manner in how the Vegetius legion is deployed allows it to have an organisation for one and a half centuries (150 men). It maintains the same continuity in regard to the legion’s past deployment history. That was something I could not ignore. Also the concept of having a cohort distributed among the rest of the legion I have determined from similar doctrines practiced by the Romans which I became aware of through my research. The odd numbered cohort (eleven) gives additional depth to the other 10 cohorts.

[Renatus]

In book 2 13, Vegetius writes “the centuries were themselves subdivided into 10 man contubernia. For every 10 soldiers living under one tent, there was one in charge as decanus.” (Milner translation). This passage can indicate 9 legionaries plus one decani. Apology if my Latin singular and plural is wrong.

I don't think so, necessarily. The wording is sufficiently imprecise to allow for ten legionaries and one decanus. Vegetius is more explicit in Bk. 2. 25. 2, where he says that each century has one carroballista manned by a contubernium of eleven men. Lt. Clarke, in his 1767 translation, thought that this was a mistake and changed the number to ten but I am more inclined to see it as Vegetius' normal ten-man contubernium plus decanus.

Following Vegetius, this would imply Hyginus’ 80 man century be increased to 90 men. With six centuries in the Hyginus legion, a cohort numbers 540 men and 10 cohorts amounts to 5400 men.

Hyginus allows his First Cohort double the space allotted to a six-century quingenary cohort (de mun. cast. 3). This suggests that he was taking Coh. I as also having six centuries, although double-sized. Tacitus hints at the existance of a six-century First Cohort (Ann. 1. 32; Hist. 3. 22) and an inscription from Apamea recording a primus pilus posterior implies the same. Applying your Vegetian interpretation of Hyginus' cohort, doubling the First Cohort and adding in the centurions produces a result that you may find interesting.

Cohort I

6 double-sized centuries @ 160 men = 960
1 decanus per contubernium = 20 per century = 120
6 centurions
Total: 1086

Cohorts II-X
6 centuries @ 80 men = 480
1 decanus per contubernium = 10 per century = 60
6 centurions
Total: 546 x no. of cohorts (9) = 4914

Grand total: 1086 + 4914 = 6000

[antiochus]

Renatus wrote:
Lt. Clarke, in his 1767 translation, thought that this was a mistake and changed the number to ten but I am more inclined to see it as Vegetius' normal ten-man contubernium plus decanus.

My position is Vegetius is mistaken and I cannot find anything throughout the history of the Roman legion that supports the decanus was additional. Hyginus has 80 men and 10 tents. Hyginus mentions the centurion having his own tent but nothing is factored in for a contubernium commander. I am happy to be proven wrong on this.

Renatus wrote:
Applying your Vegetian interpretation of Hyginus' cohort, doubling the First Cohort and adding in the centurions produces a result that you may find interesting…..Grand total: 1086 + 4914 = 6000

Actually I do not have a problem with a 6000 man legion for the period of Hyginus. It is not as farfetched as one might think. In 6 AD, 10 legions and 10,000 veterans are levied (Paterculus 2 113). Tacitus (Annals 3 21) has a detachment of veterans at about 500 men. This would allocate 1000 veterans to each of the ten legions, thereby increasing a 5000 man legion to 6000 men. At Pharsalus, Pompey had 2000 veterans distributed throughout his entire army, and Caesar mentions a unit of 120 veterans at Pharsalus. In the time of the principate the veterans are now organised into their own units. This does not mean they cannot be distributed throughout the army, and this is what I believe Vegetius’ numbers are implying. However, I don’t believe they are additional veterans in the Vegetian legion but half of the pilus posterior, with the other half forming the double cohort, which I believe is only a camp arrangement. So like Pompey, a commander could distribute half his pilus posterior and place them in the front rank of the army if a commander wanted more experienced men at the front, or even the rear of a line of troops.

The sources mention for the republic the older troops being assigned to guard the camp and I associate this policy carrying on in the principate because the pilus posterior are the oldest men in the legion. Before the introduction of the pilus posterior, it was the triarii who were left to guard the baggage or dig the ditches. The triarii in the time of the principate would be equivalent to the pilus prior. References to some legion numbers in Tacitus show the pilus prior and posterior are missing. They could be left behind to guard the field camp or to guard the fort. Let’s not forget that Arrian mentions the first cohort of the 15th legion had only five centurions (one of our centurions is missing).

I’m standing by my interpretation of the Vegetian legion and that Vegetius has added an additional 50 pilus posterior to the mix. A legion of 6000 men and 660 cavalry is supported by other sources besides Vegetius. So in the famous words of Jeff Champion (author Pyrrhus of Epirus - Pen & Sword Books), “my book, my bias.”

[Renatus]

My position is Vegetius is mistaken and I cannot find anything throughout the history of the Roman legion that supports the decanus was additional. Hyginus has 80 men and 10 tents. Hyginus mentions the centurion having his own tent but nothing is factored in for a contubernium commander. I am happy to be proven wrong on this.

I don't disagree. As you know, my view of Bk. 2 is that it is a mish-mash cobbled together from disparate sources. It would not be surprising if there were mistakes in it. As far as I know, decanus is not attested epigraphically and may be a conjecture by Vegetius, possibly from decani being present in religious communities (it may be no coincidence that Milner chose to translate decanus as 'dean'). Decanus may, therefore, be no more than the senior soldier in a contubernium.

Let’s not forget that Arrian mentions the first cohort of the 15th legion had only five centurions (one of our centurions is missing).

This seems to correspond largely with the epigraphic position. Pili posteriores are attested for the other cohorts but there are, apparently, only three inscriptions (correction to my previous post, which mentioned only one), all from Apamea relating to Legio II Parthica, which allude to the First Cohort.

“my book, my bias.”

Which is why I am looking forward to seeing yours!

[antiochus]

Renatus wrote:
Decanus may, therefore, be no more than the senior soldier in a contubernium.

That is my conclusion, of which I am prepared to die in a ditch for. I also found the stand bearer mentioned by Polybius is not additional to the maniple. The numbers don’t add up having the standard bearer as additional. However, the musicians are additional and that is why they are mentioned separately in the Servian constitution.

Renatus wrote:
This seems to correspond largely with the epigraphic position. Pili posteriores are attested for the other cohorts but there are, apparently, only three inscriptions (correction to my previous post, which mentioned only one), all from Apamea relating to Legio II Parthica, which allude to the First Cohort.

This is why I know at Pharsalus Caesar’s figure of 22,000 men does not include the older men he assigned to guard the camp. Caesar’s 22,000 men only include the men of the three lines. The fourth line and the older men must be added to the mix. Orosius figure of 30,000 men is more exact. There are a lot of patterns in the primary sources that have gone unnoticed. When you separate these patterns they have a distinct continuity emanating from the Servian constitution and flowing through to Vegetius.

Renatus wrote:
Which is why I am looking forward to seeing yours!

I am looking for more people to study the material and provide feedback. Sometimes finding the right person is not always easy. Some in the past don’t like having their preconceptions of the Roman army turned upside down. This is not saying those people found my research to be the work of a crackpot, but some didn’t like the concept of the Romans being bound to an esoterical system. It does take some getting use to. No one has disputed the Pythagorean data and how it works, but I’ve had a disagreement over the frontage of the legion in relation to a certain Pythagorean age. The reader thought it should belong to an earlier age, but this was based on his personal belief. Some wargamers want the Pythagorean stuff as appendices, while others (historians) believe that by regulating the Pythagorean matrial to the appendices devalues the discovery. Those wargamers who want the Pythagorean material as appendices also find any rule set over two pages to be too detailed. So the Pythagorean material remains in the first section. I haven’t finished the introduction but I am asking the reader to bear with it as it will give deeper insights into the Roman army. However, the problem with the Pythagorean data and the number of tables seems to be getting resolved by the books layout. Last week the book designer presented five layout versions. Everyone who received a copy is in agreement layout 2 is the go. As one historian wrote:

“I appreciate the way it offers information by varied avenues. There is text. And there are tables. And they’re not the same thing. That helps the tables be more readily digestible and useful. I like the white space; it helps the material feel less daunting, as though there were added space to breathe and think about what is being presented.”

At the moment I am waiting on a reply from a subject editor recommended to me by Professor Ridley. The present layout is in Word, A4 page, and it is just straight text interrupted by tables so it does look “heavy” on the eye. So if you are interested Renatus let me know and I will send an electronic version. The only drawback is you must agree to keep the material private and not share it around. However, that does not mean you cannot make postings on this forum stating my research is bollocks and I am mad and should be shot. Also if you accept I will forward your name and the version I sent you to my copyright lawyer. Let me know if you are ok with that.

[Renatus]

So if you are interested Renatus let me know and I will send an electronic version. The only drawback is you must agree to keep the material private and not share it around. However, that does not mean you cannot make postings on this forum stating my research is bollocks and I am mad and should be shot. Also if you accept I will forward your name and the version I sent you to my copyright lawyer. Let me know if you are ok with that.

I am indeed interested and would, of course, respect your wish to keep the material private - even without the threat of the copyright lawyer hanging over me! Nevertheless, if you feel that you need the security, by all means give him my name. I cannot promise to give you feedback but, if I feel that I have something useful to say, I will give you my views - privately, of course. It would be helpful to know if there is any date after which comment would be too late. I doubt very much that I would be so undiplomatic as to denounce your research as bollocks etc., even if I disagreed with your conclusions. After all, if I did and you proved to be correct, I might be the one facing the firing-squad!

[antiochus]

Renatus wrote:
I cannot promise to give you feedback but, if I feel that I have something useful to say, I will give you my views - privately, of course.

That’s all I am asking. I know this system backwards but I want to make sure I’ve written it so the reader also understands the system as well. Some readers (the minority) think there should be a conclusion section at the end of a chapter, while the majority don’t think it necessary. You could change the balance.

Renatus wrote:
It would be helpful to know if there is any date after which comment would be too late.

I’ll send the first sections which is Rome’s Infancy. The book is structured on Florus’ four ages of progress (infancy, youth, manhood, and lost vigour). The time frame you have available depends on other factors such as how long the editor takes and also the design team (layout, diagrams etc). Basically I do not know precisely how long they will take, but I would say you have a few months.

Renatus wrote:
I doubt very much that I would be so undiplomatic as to denounce your research as bollocks etc., even if I disagreed with your conclusions. After all, if I did and you proved to be correct, I might be the one facing the firing-squad!

Oh well, I guess I’ll have to live with being called a crackpot for a little longer.

[Renatus]

The time frame you have available depends on other factors such as how long the editor takes and also the design team (layout, diagrams etc). Basically I do not know precisely how long they will take, but I would say you have a few months.

That's fine. I was afraid that we might be talking about a few weeks.

Renatus wrote:
I doubt very much that I would be so undiplomatic as to denounce your research as bollocks etc., even if I disagreed with your conclusions. After all, if I did and you proved to be correct, I might be the one facing the firing-squad!

Oh well, I guess I’ll have to live with being called a crackpot for a little longer.

The logic of this is that people might say, "If Renatus thinks it's bollocks, it must be all right." I'm not sure that I should be flattered by that! Joking aside, I don't think that I should say anything here about the content of your book, unless it is already in open forum; whatever other comments I may have should be between the two of us.