Just an aside, since last post makes me very away I'm not the only person having issues with it, the new RAT feature with the copy-paste function sucks. Paste something into the body of a reply and it comes out a different font and size than the standard text font and size. Admin, can you fix this?
Is there a secondary source that gives the basics of the currencies?
(08-11-2016, 09:07 AM)Steven James Wrote: Bryan wrote:
Also, century and tribes are two completely separate things.
How about instead of telling us, you educate us by showing us?
Jaroslav wrote:
its from a work i got from academia.edu called 225BC: Polybius Account of the Telamon campaign by Steven James.
Yes I’ve read this paper. What Steven didn’t tell us is how to calculate the size of a legion from the tribal system. He definitely deserves a good flogging. But he has his reasons and that is by doing so, he will have another battle on his hands from his dedicated critics, so I will do it for him.
Following Polybius that a legion consisted of four classes, by adding up Classes I to IV in the 35 tribes, the result is 126,000 men. Now if anyone knows something about the Pythagorean cosmos, a tone equals 126,000 stadia. By dividing the 126,000 men of Classes I to IV by 35 tribes, the result is 3,600 men per tribe. This is the core size of the legion. If I want an emergency legion, then I have 46,200 iuniores of Class V (proletarii) to call up, which when divided by the 35 tribes gives the Romans an additional reserve of 1,320 men to add to the legion. However, if I only call up 1,200 men, then the legion increases to 4,800 men.
Steven’s paper on Pharsalus shows that by using a legion of 3,600 men, the army numbers given by Caesar, Appian, Plutarch, Orosius and Eutropius make sense.
(08-31-2016, 01:01 AM)Paullus Scipio Wrote: Gentlemen, I have come somewhat late to this discussion, but feel I can add something useful. Much of the discussion revolved around classes and the monetary values assigned to them, but such discussion is rather futile, because the figures given by Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus as going back to the time of the legendary "Servius Tullius" ( 6th C BC) are clearly an invented anachronism.
If you look at the numismatical history - the dates of which are well-confirmed by archaeology, and not just for Rome, but all Italy - coins etc being common finds, what is called the 'as' in coins did not exist before 269 BC.( and changes into sestertii around the time of Sulla). Prior to that there were bronze bars weighing a roman pound, ( aes libra) - which were in use around the time of Pyrrhus . Prior to that, lumps of bronze slag, of indeterminate weights were used in barter, but not as currency ( aes rudera = red bronze: perhaps 600-300 BC)...... So no '100,000 asses' in "Servius Tullius" time - unless you want to argue each Class 1 Roman was worth 45 tons of bronze !! ( as he has come down to us, this King is unlikely to have existed, though A "Servius Tullius" MAY have existed) , or even within 100 years of it....
Pliny mentions "Servius Tullius" inventing money too - especially the 'Aes Signatum'. This is, perhaps, because it is 'necessary' to have money in existence IF the 'classes' and their worth are to be accepted. Unfortunately archaeology demonstrates that such 'Aes Signatum' - lumps of bronze stamped with bull designs etc do not date prior to 300 BC. Pliny gets the date right for the introduction of silver coins - 269 BC, but numismatics/archaeology show he got the type of coin wrong. Didrachms were issued, not the Denarius. [ Pliny nat Hist XXXIII.3.13; Livy Epitome.XV] ). Consider too, early 'mancipation' formulae ( 'per Aes et Libram' = by bronze and scales) whereby a citizen swore property was his, and then before witnesses, a lump of bronze was weighed and agreed as a 'price' for it. This is a crude barter system obviously, and not a monetary transaction. Or consider that in the reign of "Numa Pompilius Rex" (traditional reign 716-674 BC ) a 'donativum' of 2.5 libra weight is recorded as being 'aes incusam' = cut from bronze. Archaeology supports this with a find of an eighth C hoard of bronze adze/axe heads, all damaged and 'cut' or broken......
Other evidence that even crude money in the form of bronze 'barter bars' came late to Rome comes in the archaeological finds of hoards dating around mid-fifth century, and literary evidence referring to a crude barter/monetary economy - the Lex Aternia Tarpeia of 454 BC, the Lex Menenia Sestia of 452 BC and of course the Twelve Tables of 451 BC.
The first Roman crude coins are large,cast bronze, weighing exactly a 'libra/pound' and date to after 290 BC, the end of the Samnite wars......
Is there a secondary source that gives the basics of the currencies?
