03-27-2014, 01:23 AM
Macedon wrote:
I do not know if these specific papyri are there but I am sure that whoever has the balls to really study what is listed here will be able to shed much light into the era...But one would need an insane amount of time to study these texts with the proper care...
Oh god, I just had a vision of chaining Professor Ridley to a table and not setting him free until he has translated the whole lot.
Evan wrote:
Duncan-Jones and AHM Jones both tried to use Papyrii and sources from the 6th century to extrapolate unti sizes with.
As does Coello, which in my book is madness to try and work out unit size averages based on this type of data. In the end its conclusions are nothing more than “if, but, maybe, could be,” which started to grate with me when I was trying to read Coello. There is enough empirical data in Ammianus, Zosimus and Orosius to calculate the organisation of the Late Roman army. 1200 men is four parts of 300, two parts of 600, three parts of 400, six parts of 200 and 12 parts of 100. However, 1200 men is not divisible by 800 men, a number that appears twice in Ammianus. That alone is a mathematical clue to how one should approach the problem. Then you do the same for the cavalry numbers and follow this up and determine if there is a ratio between the numbers of infantry to cavalry.
I have yet to see one historian employ this method, and I do not understand why historians have an aversion to mathematics.
I do not know if these specific papyri are there but I am sure that whoever has the balls to really study what is listed here will be able to shed much light into the era...But one would need an insane amount of time to study these texts with the proper care...
Oh god, I just had a vision of chaining Professor Ridley to a table and not setting him free until he has translated the whole lot.
Evan wrote:
Duncan-Jones and AHM Jones both tried to use Papyrii and sources from the 6th century to extrapolate unti sizes with.
As does Coello, which in my book is madness to try and work out unit size averages based on this type of data. In the end its conclusions are nothing more than “if, but, maybe, could be,” which started to grate with me when I was trying to read Coello. There is enough empirical data in Ammianus, Zosimus and Orosius to calculate the organisation of the Late Roman army. 1200 men is four parts of 300, two parts of 600, three parts of 400, six parts of 200 and 12 parts of 100. However, 1200 men is not divisible by 800 men, a number that appears twice in Ammianus. That alone is a mathematical clue to how one should approach the problem. Then you do the same for the cavalry numbers and follow this up and determine if there is a ratio between the numbers of infantry to cavalry.
I have yet to see one historian employ this method, and I do not understand why historians have an aversion to mathematics.
