09-04-2018, 10:22 AM
Nathan wrote:
How would anyone 'prove' such a thing? The only evidence we have for it is Frontinus saying that there were three lines, ten deep each. If he did not mean exactly what he wrote, why did he write it?
Why does Polybius write that Publius Scipio was sent to Iberian with 20 ships? Why does Livy write that Publius Scipio was sent to Iberian with 30 ships? The answer is due to rounding the numbers.
Why do Appian and Caesar give the size of Caesar’s army at 22,000 men? Why do Eutropius and Orosius give Caesar’s army at less than 30,000 infantry? What is happening is Eutropius and Orosius are giving the total of Caesar’ infantry before the deduction of the 1,500 camp guards, the 3,000 men of the fourth line, and the 1,500 antesignani allocated to the cavalry. Appian and Caesar are providing the number of men left after these deductions have been made. In total, Caesar’s army amounted to 28,000 men, which omits the auxiliaries, calculated at 9,000 men:
Appian gives Caesar’s army at 22,000 men, of which 1,000 were cavalry. This works out to be 21,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry, which matches my calculations above. I have based the number of antesignani on the whole frontage of Caesar’s army. As the antesignani were front line men, the figure of 1,500 works. I have other data from Caesar about the antesignani to collaborate my claim.
I found Eutropius and Orosius figure of ‘less than 30,000 infantry, would approximate to 27,000 infantry, which are legionaries.
The paper I did on Pharsalus has since been rewritten, with more insights added. Most modern scholars simply take Caesars 22,000 men and divide it by 80 cohorts to arrive at each cohort having 275 men. And then they jump up and down with excitement claiming how under strength Caesar’s army was. However, they forget that Appian states the army numbered 22,000 men of which 1,000 were cavalry, so you should get 21,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry. Also Caesar mentions 22,000 men, not 22,000 infantry.
So Nathan, Caesar has given Pompey’s army at 45,000 men, and has not taken into account those deducted as camp guards, whereas Caesar’s figure of 22,000 men is the number of legionaries and cavalry left on the battlefield. And this makes sense as Caesar would know what he had done with his army. However, by omitting the number of camp guards, the antesignani and the flanking cohorts makes his army smaller and would be good propaganda for himself.
So at Pharsalus, Pompey’s 42,000 legionaries arrayed 1,500 men wide by 28 men deep, faced Caesar’s 21,000 legionaries arrayed 1,500 men wide by 14 men deep.
To answer your question, Frontinus has used the depth of Pompey’s legionaries before the camp guards were deducted or just rounded the 28 to 30 deep. Whichever method, Frontinus is doing what other ancient authors do all the time.
Have a look at all the papers on Pharsalus and see if any have studied the numbers as I have.
Nathan wrote:
You have mentioned often enough that the estimates of army numbers differ in ancient sources, so using evidence from one writer to make accurate calculations of the numbers in another writer is not a sure method.
You are quite mistaken. And it is important not to take things out of content. For example, all the various numbers given for the Roman army at Cannae can be reconciled and are one and the same. It is what some omit that makes the difference. Plutarch has 88,000 Romans in battle array. His mention of battle array refers to those on the battlefield. Livy has 87,000 Romans at Cannae. The difference between Livy and Plutarch is Plutarch has included all the officers, standard bearers and musicians. Missing from his total are the artificers, which remained in camp. So when I did the maths and got Livy’s 87,000 men and then added the rest I got 88,000 men. Well what can I say; I must be doing something right.
Nathan wrote:
But I do not believe there was a 'Roman military doctrine going back to the early republic' that would determine things like numbers of men sent to guard camps.
Seriously! The early republic is beyond your expertise. So how can you make such a statement? And opinion is not fact.
At the battle of Silva Arsia in 509 BC, Dionysius (5 15) refers to those soldiers guarding the field camp as the triarii, and those troops acting as the reserve also as the triarii. At the battle of Longula in 486 BC, Dionysius (8 86) mentions the triarii, because they were the oldest men, guarded the camp and that they also fought in close order as a reserve force on the battlefield. Dionysius (9 12) has the triarii accompanied by the artificers guarding the camp at the battle of Veii in 480 BC.
On occasion, Dionysius (9 61) uses the term “older men” and “veterans of the reserve” as guarding the field camp. This means the oldest of the triarii guarded the camp. Livy (2 47), (4 19) also mentions the triarii as guarding the field camp. Livy (44 38 6) also has the triarii guarding the baggage camp and claims the triarii were not regarded as the worst of the soldiers. Dionysius’ description of the triarii guarding the camp and also acting as a reserve, highlights they could do both tasks simultaneously when desired by a consul.
You can dismiss the above references as anachronistic, but before you do, prove it.
Nathan, it doesn’t matter what I put forward as evidence. With you and the usual suspects, I will always be wrong. As Theodoric replied to you, even with a time machine that still would not be sufficient evidence for you. You’ll find a way to try and make it wrong. In truth, I have many people personally contacting me about my research and many claim it has opened doors for them. I have found some of my papers have been translated into Russian. The odd public snips I get are from you and the usual suspects on this forum, and some sad wargame designer, who found me research did not match his wargaming view of the Roman legion. Professor Roth contacted me and wanted to read my work, and stated he was willing to help me in any way possible. I sent him the first section on the early republic from 509 BC to 407 BC, and he replied I knew nothing about the Roman legion, but did not address one issue about what I sent him. Since then Roth is now following me on academia. Go figure that out.
Unfortunately, the very early republic, especially in relation to the Roman army has invited any real study. It is just a blank canvass. However, I have found that to understand the Roman legion, the early period must be understood, otherwise you will never know how the Romans arrived at the legion of the principate.
Here’s what I found, the Roman legion started at 2,400 men, increased to 3,600 men, and then 4,800 men and finally finished at 6,000 men. The period of the 3,600 man legion was increased to 4,800 men by adding 1,200 velites, and then in Caesar’s time, 1,200 auxiliaries (archers and slingers).
All legions, regardless of size had a combined depth of 12 men. Therefore, the legion went from 200 men wide, to 300 men wide, to 400 men wide and then 500 men wide. And I have found the rationale behind this, which is covered in the book.
Is it true that people in the same fields of research, if someone knows more, the others don’t like that person?
How would anyone 'prove' such a thing? The only evidence we have for it is Frontinus saying that there were three lines, ten deep each. If he did not mean exactly what he wrote, why did he write it?
Why does Polybius write that Publius Scipio was sent to Iberian with 20 ships? Why does Livy write that Publius Scipio was sent to Iberian with 30 ships? The answer is due to rounding the numbers.
Why do Appian and Caesar give the size of Caesar’s army at 22,000 men? Why do Eutropius and Orosius give Caesar’s army at less than 30,000 infantry? What is happening is Eutropius and Orosius are giving the total of Caesar’ infantry before the deduction of the 1,500 camp guards, the 3,000 men of the fourth line, and the 1,500 antesignani allocated to the cavalry. Appian and Caesar are providing the number of men left after these deductions have been made. In total, Caesar’s army amounted to 28,000 men, which omits the auxiliaries, calculated at 9,000 men:
Hastati 7500 men
Princeps 9000 men
Pilani 4500 men
Total 21000 men
Antesignani 1500 men
Fourth line 3000 men
Camp guards 1500 men
Total 27000 men
Cavalry 1000 men
Total 28000 men
Appian gives Caesar’s army at 22,000 men, of which 1,000 were cavalry. This works out to be 21,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry, which matches my calculations above. I have based the number of antesignani on the whole frontage of Caesar’s army. As the antesignani were front line men, the figure of 1,500 works. I have other data from Caesar about the antesignani to collaborate my claim.
I found Eutropius and Orosius figure of ‘less than 30,000 infantry, would approximate to 27,000 infantry, which are legionaries.
The paper I did on Pharsalus has since been rewritten, with more insights added. Most modern scholars simply take Caesars 22,000 men and divide it by 80 cohorts to arrive at each cohort having 275 men. And then they jump up and down with excitement claiming how under strength Caesar’s army was. However, they forget that Appian states the army numbered 22,000 men of which 1,000 were cavalry, so you should get 21,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry. Also Caesar mentions 22,000 men, not 22,000 infantry.
So Nathan, Caesar has given Pompey’s army at 45,000 men, and has not taken into account those deducted as camp guards, whereas Caesar’s figure of 22,000 men is the number of legionaries and cavalry left on the battlefield. And this makes sense as Caesar would know what he had done with his army. However, by omitting the number of camp guards, the antesignani and the flanking cohorts makes his army smaller and would be good propaganda for himself.
So at Pharsalus, Pompey’s 42,000 legionaries arrayed 1,500 men wide by 28 men deep, faced Caesar’s 21,000 legionaries arrayed 1,500 men wide by 14 men deep.
To answer your question, Frontinus has used the depth of Pompey’s legionaries before the camp guards were deducted or just rounded the 28 to 30 deep. Whichever method, Frontinus is doing what other ancient authors do all the time.
Have a look at all the papers on Pharsalus and see if any have studied the numbers as I have.
Nathan wrote:
You have mentioned often enough that the estimates of army numbers differ in ancient sources, so using evidence from one writer to make accurate calculations of the numbers in another writer is not a sure method.
You are quite mistaken. And it is important not to take things out of content. For example, all the various numbers given for the Roman army at Cannae can be reconciled and are one and the same. It is what some omit that makes the difference. Plutarch has 88,000 Romans in battle array. His mention of battle array refers to those on the battlefield. Livy has 87,000 Romans at Cannae. The difference between Livy and Plutarch is Plutarch has included all the officers, standard bearers and musicians. Missing from his total are the artificers, which remained in camp. So when I did the maths and got Livy’s 87,000 men and then added the rest I got 88,000 men. Well what can I say; I must be doing something right.
Nathan wrote:
But I do not believe there was a 'Roman military doctrine going back to the early republic' that would determine things like numbers of men sent to guard camps.
Seriously! The early republic is beyond your expertise. So how can you make such a statement? And opinion is not fact.
At the battle of Silva Arsia in 509 BC, Dionysius (5 15) refers to those soldiers guarding the field camp as the triarii, and those troops acting as the reserve also as the triarii. At the battle of Longula in 486 BC, Dionysius (8 86) mentions the triarii, because they were the oldest men, guarded the camp and that they also fought in close order as a reserve force on the battlefield. Dionysius (9 12) has the triarii accompanied by the artificers guarding the camp at the battle of Veii in 480 BC.
On occasion, Dionysius (9 61) uses the term “older men” and “veterans of the reserve” as guarding the field camp. This means the oldest of the triarii guarded the camp. Livy (2 47), (4 19) also mentions the triarii as guarding the field camp. Livy (44 38 6) also has the triarii guarding the baggage camp and claims the triarii were not regarded as the worst of the soldiers. Dionysius’ description of the triarii guarding the camp and also acting as a reserve, highlights they could do both tasks simultaneously when desired by a consul.
You can dismiss the above references as anachronistic, but before you do, prove it.
Nathan, it doesn’t matter what I put forward as evidence. With you and the usual suspects, I will always be wrong. As Theodoric replied to you, even with a time machine that still would not be sufficient evidence for you. You’ll find a way to try and make it wrong. In truth, I have many people personally contacting me about my research and many claim it has opened doors for them. I have found some of my papers have been translated into Russian. The odd public snips I get are from you and the usual suspects on this forum, and some sad wargame designer, who found me research did not match his wargaming view of the Roman legion. Professor Roth contacted me and wanted to read my work, and stated he was willing to help me in any way possible. I sent him the first section on the early republic from 509 BC to 407 BC, and he replied I knew nothing about the Roman legion, but did not address one issue about what I sent him. Since then Roth is now following me on academia. Go figure that out.
Unfortunately, the very early republic, especially in relation to the Roman army has invited any real study. It is just a blank canvass. However, I have found that to understand the Roman legion, the early period must be understood, otherwise you will never know how the Romans arrived at the legion of the principate.
Here’s what I found, the Roman legion started at 2,400 men, increased to 3,600 men, and then 4,800 men and finally finished at 6,000 men. The period of the 3,600 man legion was increased to 4,800 men by adding 1,200 velites, and then in Caesar’s time, 1,200 auxiliaries (archers and slingers).
All legions, regardless of size had a combined depth of 12 men. Therefore, the legion went from 200 men wide, to 300 men wide, to 400 men wide and then 500 men wide. And I have found the rationale behind this, which is covered in the book.
Is it true that people in the same fields of research, if someone knows more, the others don’t like that person?
