Ancient Armies YouTube video on Zama

[Michael Collins]

I'm much more prepared to believe that the primary sources got some of their numbers wrong than that those numbers prove a major battle never existed. I'll go into the details of the numbers for Utica later (a little under the gun at the moment) but enough to say for now that differing numbers for armies and army casualties is pretty much across the board in the sources. It can be difficult, even for a contemporary, to know exactly how many men were involved in a battle. But it is much easier to know that a battle did or didn't take place.

Re those WW2 examples: none demonstrate that a major battle never took place or took place somewhere else. We need proof that something as significant as Zama could have been fabricated from whole cloth by contemporary writers who were able to convince contemporary readers of of their fabrication.

Would proof have to involve finding the battlefield of Zama ?

     
No. It would involve demonstrating in a convincing way that a major historical event could be invented by writers of that time who succeed in convincing everyone else. I hold that to be utterly impossible to accomplish. It's just about possible to get something across that fools many people for a short period of time (that's what propaganda is for), but that doesn't age well. After a few decades the truth always emerges. And propaganda gives slants to events rather than create them ex nihilo. The Deutsche Wochenshau is a good example of this. The Nazi propaganda machine could not pretend military defeats didn't happen, or that nonexistent victories did, but it exaggerated the victories that did happen and played down the defeats.




I know that both Steven and I have written here about how Polybius` version of Zama came about 50+ years after the end of the 2PW and that there was time and space for the early Roman histrorians to interpret the events of the war in the best favourable light.
I have mentioned too (here and there) how his soldiers received bonuses, his veterans were given land grants, and the others were "voluteered" to serve in Greece not long after the 2PW was concluded, and how Scipio and his officer corps benefited from public appointments and honours in the decade of so afterwards.
In addition to that, the war was concluded in enemy territory, on another continent, to which the Romans did not have access to until that 50+ years had passed - such a fabrication would not have been possible in Cisalpine Gaul, but in Africa I believe it was possible. 
Steven has arrived at Alimentus as being the key to the cover-up and fabrications and I would agree with him; Alimentus was first to be able to do this. Although Pictor was close in time too, he was openly distrusted by Polybius for his pro-Roman bias and so he can`t be entirely beyond suspicion of exaggerating the facts either.
Alimentus would have had access to versions of the battle from Scipio`s subordinate commanders. With his link to Marcus Valerius Laevinus and the stratagem used against Pyrrhus, it could have been Alimentus who inserted the Three Spies Story; doing this would have shown a high degree of sophistication in referring to Greek history; it would have been flattering to both Scipio as a commander and to Alimentus` Roman audience too, who might then sneer at Hannibal`s lack of education and gullibility. Steven is also "on point" with Alimentus` hatred being vented in his history; revenge is a great motivator.

But I`m guessing we`re not going to convince you that the connections and associations that we might make between authors, or statistics or the elements within the narratives are indicative of fabrications, doubling of stories, or just ancient "spin", but if a battlefield was found, it might confirm the context of a battle that we know as "Zama", or perhaps if the battlefield was actually somehwere in the rolling hills of the Siliana region of Tunisia, then people`s assumptions about the nature of the battle may be modified?

[Steven James]

Michael wrote:

I know that both Steven and I have written here about how Polybius` version of Zama came about 50+ years after the end of the 2PW and that there was time and space for the early Roman historians to interpret the events of the war in the best favourable light.

 

They seem to have gotten away with blaming Varro for Cannae instead of Paullus. So how did they manage that? Wouldn’t the soldiers that survived have made some noise? Doing it 50 years later would make it possible. Some years ago, while study Roman religion, I stumbled on to religious rite that was only performed by the consul in command that day, and it mentions at Cannae, Paullus conducted this rite. I have never seen this reference mentioned in any account of Cannae by modern historians, not one. Therefore, Paullus was the prior consul at Cannae on the day of the battle.

 

Talking of Paullus, I was watching a documentary on Frederick Paulus, who commanded the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad, and he was, after reading Eduard von Manstein’s book, so angry about the lies Manstein wrote about his actions during operation Winter Storm. Paulus claimed Manstein lied many times in his book and these lies can be proven in OKH transcripts of the communication between them while operation Winter Storm was being conducted. In fact, Paullus claimed many of the German general memoirs were full of lies and fabrications. Many of these memoirs were written 10 to 25 years after the end of WW2.

 

Michael wrote:

In addition to that war was concluded in enemy territory, on another continent, which the Romans did not have access to until that 50+ years had passed - such a fabrication would not have been possible in Cisalpine Gaul.

 

I’m rather dubious about the battle with Mago that occurred in Cisalpine Gaul. So many other battles in Cisalpine Gaul are very similar. In fact, there is some total confusion of events for that period. This can be established by studying the contradictions, which alas, there are many. In fact it is quite a mess.

 

Michael wrote:

Steven has arrived at Alimentus as being the key to the cover-up and fabrications and I would agree with him; Alimentus was first to be able to do this. Although Pictor was close in time too, he was openly distrusted by Polybius for his pro-Roman bias and so he can`t be entirely beyond suspicion of exaggerating the facts.

 

Fabius Pictor could also have his finger in the Zama pie, but I don’t have the strong evidence (use of military numbers) to say how and when.

 

Michael wrote:

Steven is also on point with Alimentus` hatred being vented in his history; revenge is a great motivator.

 

An important point is when was Alimentus freed from Carthaginian slavery? Before the peace terms were signed or after. Appian mentions many Roman prisoners being freed before the battle of Utica. If so could Alimentus had accompanied Scipio in Africa or elected to get on the first ship for home?

 

[Michael Collins]

I'm much more prepared to believe that the primary sources got some of their numbers wrong than that those numbers prove a major battle never existed. I'll go into the details of the numbers for Utica later (a little under the gun at the moment) but enough to say for now that differing numbers for armies and army casualties is pretty much across the board in the sources. It can be difficult, even for a contemporary, to know exactly how many men were involved in a battle. But it is much easier to know that a battle did or didn't take place.

Re those WW2 examples: none demonstrate that a major battle never took place or took place somewhere else. We need proof that something as significant as Zama could have been fabricated from whole cloth by contemporary writers who were able to convince contemporary readers of of their fabrication.

Would proof have to involve finding the battlefield of Zama ?

     
No. It would involve demonstrating in a convincing way that a major historical event could be invented by writers of that time who succeed in convincing everyone else. I hold that to be utterly impossible to accomplish. It's just about possible to get something across that fools many people for a short period of time (that's what propaganda is for), but that doesn't age well. After a few decades the truth always emerges. And propaganda gives slants to events rather than create them ex nihilo. The Deutsche Wochenshau is a good example of this. The Nazi propaganda machine could not pretend military defeats didn't happen, or that nonexistent victories did, but it exaggerated the victories that did happen and played down the defeats.

Michael wrote:

I know that both Steven and I have written here about how Polybius` version of Zama came about 50+ years after the end of the 2PW and that there was time and space for the early Roman historians to interpret the events of the war in the best favourable light.

 

They seem to have gotten away with blaming Varro for Cannae instead of Paullus. So how did they manage that? Wouldn’t the soldiers that survived have made some noise? Doing it 50 years later would make it possible. Some years ago, while study Roman religion, I stumbled on to religious rite that was only performed by the consul in command that day, and it mentions at Cannae, Paullus conducted this rite. I have never seen this reference mentioned in any account of Cannae by modern historians, not one. Therefore, Paullus was the prior consul at Cannae on the day of the battle.

 

Talking of Paullus, I was watching a documentary on Frederick Paulus, who commanded the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad, and he was, after reading Eduard von Manstein’s book, so angry about the lies Manstein wrote about his actions during operation Winter Storm. Paulus claimed Manstein lied many times in his book and these lies can be proven in OKH transcripts of the communication between them while operation Winter Storm was being conducted. In fact, Paullus claimed many of the German general memoirs were full of lies and fabrications. Many of these memoirs were written 10 to 25 years after the end of WW2.

 

Michael wrote:

In addition to that war was concluded in enemy territory, on another continent, which the Romans did not have access to until that 50+ years had passed - such a fabrication would not have been possible in Cisalpine Gaul.

 

I’m rather dubious about the battle with Mago that occurred in Cisalpine Gaul. So many other battles in Cisalpine Gaul are very similar. In fact, there is some total confusion of events for that period. This can be established by studying the contradictions, which alas, there are many. In fact it is quite a mess.

 

Michael wrote:

Steven has arrived at Alimentus as being the key to the cover-up and fabrications and I would agree with him; Alimentus was first to be able to do this. Although Pictor was close in time too, he was openly distrusted by Polybius for his pro-Roman bias and so he can`t be entirely beyond suspicion of exaggerating the facts.

 

Fabius Pictor could also have his finger in the Zama pie, but I don’t have the strong evidence (use of military numbers) to say how and when.

 

Michael wrote:

Steven is also on point with Alimentus` hatred being vented in his history; revenge is a great motivator.

 

An important point is when was Alimentus freed from Carthaginian slavery? Before the peace terms were signed or after. Appian mentions many Roman prisoners being freed before the battle of Utica. If so could Alimentus had accompanied Scipio in Africa or elected to get on the first ship for home?

Yes, that battle with Mago defeated seems doubtful to me too and yet he managed to get his army away. Hasdrubal too at Baecula - lots of slingshot was spent there (check out the archaelogical reports of the excavations there) another army that got away but that time from Scipio himself!

I`d not thought of an early release for Alimentus - I would have thought it was after the war had ended. But even then, with a number of versions of the battle around by Appian`s and Cassius Dio`s time, there had been a corresponding number of "witnesses" willing to inform Alimentus of their parts in Hannibal`s downfall - apart of course from Scipio himself, there were; Laelius, Octavius and Thermus.

[Justin Swanton]

But I`m guessing we`re not going to convince you that the connections and associations that we might make between authors, or statistics or the elements within the narratives are indicative of fabrications, doubling of stories, or just ancient "spin", but if a battlefield was found, it might confirm the context of a battle that we know as "Zama", or perhaps if the battlefield was actually somehwere in the rolling hills of the Siliana region of Tunisia, then people`s assumptions about the nature of the battle may be modified?

No, I don't think it possible to make up a battle like Zama within a few decades of the supposed event and hope to convince anyone. It's just about possible if the event is supposed to have taken place several centuries earlier, and in a different region to those reading about it (although even something like the Trojan War is founded on a real event). People traveled in the past and news traveled with them. They didn't rely on historians for their information of current events. Too many people would know too much about the events surrounding Zama for the battle to have been created ex nihilo. The descriptions are detailed: composition of the armies, deployment, course of the battle. They have some unusual details like the elephant lanes. In other words they do not have the smell of a fabrication.

[Michael Collins]

I'm much more prepared to believe that the primary sources got some of their numbers wrong than that those numbers prove a major battle never existed. I'll go into the details of the numbers for Utica later (a little under the gun at the moment) but enough to say for now that differing numbers for armies and army casualties is pretty much across the board in the sources. It can be difficult, even for a contemporary, to know exactly how many men were involved in a battle. But it is much easier to know that a battle did or didn't take place.

Re those WW2 examples: none demonstrate that a major battle never took place or took place somewhere else. We need proof that something as significant as Zama could have been fabricated from whole cloth by contemporary writers who were able to convince contemporary readers of of their fabrication.

Would proof have to involve finding the battlefield of Zama ?

     
No. It would involve demonstrating in a convincing way that a major historical event could be invented by writers of that time who succeed in convincing everyone else. I hold that to be utterly impossible to accomplish. It's just about possible to get something across that fools many people for a short period of time (that's what propaganda is for), but that doesn't age well. After a few decades the truth always emerges. And propaganda gives slants to events rather than create them ex nihilo. The Deutsche Wochenshau is a good example of this. The Nazi propaganda machine could not pretend military defeats didn't happen, or that nonexistent victories did, but it exaggerated the victories that did happen and played down the defeats.

But I`m guessing we`re not going to convince you that the connections and associations that we might make between authors, or statistics or the elements within the narratives are indicative of fabrications, doubling of stories, or just ancient "spin", but if a battlefield was found, it might confirm the context of a battle that we know as "Zama", or perhaps if the battlefield was actually somehwere in the rolling hills of the Siliana region of Tunisia, then people`s assumptions about the nature of the battle may be modified?

No, I don't think it possible to make up a battle like Zama within a few decades of the supposed event and hope to convince anyone. It's just about possible if the event is supposed to have taken place several centuries earlier, and in a different region to those reading about it (although even something like the Trojan War is founded on a real event). People traveled in the past and news traveled with them. They didn't rely on historians for their information of current events. Too many people would know too much about the events surrounding Zama for the battle to have been created ex nihilo. The descriptions are detailed: composition of the armies, deployment, course of the battle. They have some unusual details like the elephant lanes. In other words they do not have the smell of a fabrication.

I think I need to make my position clear that I believe that an important  battle at Zama was not a complete fabrication and that the battle did not suddenly appear in its complete Polybian form. It was not conjured out of thin air. It was something that grew in the telling and if we would pause to consider Livy`s, Appian`s and Cassius Dio`s accounts we may catch a glimpse of the different forms that history took before Polybius`s time (e.g.  Livy`s inclusion of Macedonian troops was probably derived from an early account).

So, did people (independent and unbiased witnesses) travel from the battlefield site (wherever you believe that to be) to Rome and report back?
What reasons would a Roman citizen have for such a jouney deep into Carthaginian territory? Doubtless through trade links, the Romans got to know about  large numbers of Roman and Italian "deserters" (who were the main part of Hannibal`s army in 203-201 BC) being found in the streets of Carthage - we read of this is Livy. But beyond this, the Romans would not have had access to the area.

In the years immediately following the 2PW Rome had another big fish to fry and public attention shifted to Greece. Rome needed provisions from Africa to feed its army and grain was supplied and traded by both Massinissa`s Numidia and Carthage - Carthage itself was also obliged to supply ships.

So take the political rewards that individuals gained with Scipio`s influence and Scipio`s treatment of his soldiers (veterans rewarded, the volutneers sent on to Greece) which I referred to earlier and add to these things the amounts of silver and gold that Scipio brought back to Rome, and the annual indemnity.... Why would anyone question contemporary claims of: "around 20,000 Carthaginian dead and 20,000 captured" or that Hannibal had: "twice the number of elephants that he had before in Italy"? 

I don`t know about you, but I detect something of the smell of a fabrication when I read conflicting accounts about the same event, or when accounts are by themselves contradictory.
The "event" that is crucial for me in this is the three spies` story and the way that Polybius is the only source which tells us that Massinissa was not present at the time.
It`s only Polybius who connflicts with the original version and the context of the battle is fundamentally altered by this. I have asked why this was the case and I`ve come to a conclusion that Polybius or Polybius` source had changed the story to suit the omission (cover up) of a cavalry battle at which Massinissa gave the Romans the advantage in the battle and the campaign.

[Steven James]

So far Justin from what you have written, the evidence you presented comes down to “it can’t be, therefore it isn’t. I have to question how well you know the Second Punic War. If you compile the events of the Second Punic War and extract the contradictions, you can only come to one conclusion, and that is what is fact and what is fiction. Take for example the years 212 BC to 210 BC:

 

In 212 BC, before attacking the Carthaginian camp, Fluvius order his men to leave all their kit and baggage in Beneventum. In 211 BC, before attacking the Roman camp. Hannibal has his men equipped for rapid marching, which indicates they had no personal kit and no baggage wagons. In 210 BC, Hannibal, marched with his army unencumbered by baggage to Herdonea.

 

In 212 BC, Hanno’s camp lacked military discipline. In 212 BC, Fluvius’ men at Herdonea lacked military discipline.

 

In 212 BC, the praetor Fluvius’ was accused of not having his camp in a defensive position. During his trial, the praetor Gnaeus Fulvius Flaccus declared in his defence that his camp was not positioned on unfavourable ground. In 210 BC, the proconsul Gnaeus Fulvius Centumalus camped in a position not sufficiently protected, and the camp was not in a proper state of defence.

 

In 212 BC, the praetor Fluvius’ was described as being incompetent. In 210 BC, the proconsul Gnaeus Fulvius Centumalus was described as being a careless commander.

 

In 212 BC and 211 BC, both camps were surprised when attacked. In 212 BC and 211 BC, the attackers, be it Carthaginian or Roman are fighting uphill.

 

In 212 BC, a Roman cohort broke into the Carthaginian camp. In 211 BC, a Carthaginian cohort broke into the Roman camp.

 

In 212 BC, Vibius Accaus, the prefect of the Paelignian cohort threw a standard into the Carthaginians fortifications and threatened his men with a curse if they did not retrieve it. In 211 BC, Q. Navius a leading centurion took a standard from the second maniple and threatened to throw it into the mists of the Carthaginians if his men did not follow him.

 

In 212 BC, the primus centurion of the princeps (T. Pedanius) takes a standard and when his men follow, victory is gained. In 211 BC, M. Atilius lead the leading maniple of the sixth legion, and when his men follow, victory is gained.

 

In 212 BC, when attacking the Carthaginian camp, as the defence was stubborn, Fluvius ordered his men to retire. In 211 BC, when attacking the Roman camp, as the defense was stubborn, Hannibal ordered his men to retire. In response, Fluvius ordered his men not to pursue the retiring Carthaginians but to retire.

 

In 212 BC, Hannibal had 3,000 light infantry at Herdonea. In 211 BC, during the siege of Capau, the Campanians, Hannibal’s allies, incur 3,000 casualties, while Hannibal’s losses are given at 8,000 men killed. In 210 BC, at Herdonea 8,000 Romans are killed.

 

In 211 BC, the Roman sixth legion at Capua is disordered. In 210 BC, the Roman sixth legion at Herdonea is disordered.

 

In 211 BC, at Capua, in Livy’s account, Hannibal attacks one side of the Roman lines, while the Capuans attack the other side. In 210 BC at Herdonea, in Livy’s account, Hannibal had one cavalry division attack the Roman camp and the other cavalry division attackwd the rear of the Roman lines. In 211 BC, Polybius has Hannibal surround the Roman camp of Appius Claudius, whereas Livy has Hannibal in combat with Fulvius.

 

[Justin Swanton]

So far Justin from what you have written, the evidence you presented comes down to “it can’t be, therefore it isn’t. I have to question how well you know the Second Punic War. If you compile the events of the Second Punic War and extract the contradictions, you can only come to one conclusion, and that is what is fact and what is fiction.

I prefer not to get into an erudition contest. I don't quite understand the point of your examples. Are you saying that because two events have certain similarities to each other one must conclude that one of the events is a fabrication?

[Steven James]

Justin wrote:

I prefer not to get into an erudition contest.

 

Nor do I, and it is not about an erudition contest.

 

Justin wrote:

I don't quite understand the point of your examples. Are you saying that because two events have certain similarities to each other one must conclude that one of the events is a fabrication?

 

You have answered your own question. Yes, one event from each two events is a fabrication. So an historical event such as a Roman defeat is manufactured as a fabricated Carthaginian defeat. Tit for tat.

[Hanny]

They seem to have gotten away with blaming Varro for Cannae instead of Paullus. So how did they manage that? Wouldn’t the soldiers that survived have made some noise? Doing it 50 years later would make it possible. Some years ago, while study Roman religion, I stumbled on to religious rite that was only performed by the consul in command that day, and it mentions at Cannae, Paullus conducted this rite. I have never seen this reference mentioned in any account of Cannae by modern historians, not one. Therefore, Paullus was the prior consul at Cannae on the day of the battle.

 

Talking of Paullus, I was watching a documentary on Frederick Paulus, who commanded the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad, and he was, after reading Eduard von Manstein’s book, so angry about the lies Manstein wrote about his actions during operation Winter Storm. Paulus claimed Manstein lied many times in his book and these lies can be proven in OKH transcripts of the communication between them while operation Winter Storm was being conducted. In fact, Paullus claimed many of the German general memoirs were full of lies and fabrications. Many of these memoirs were written 10 to 25 years after the end of WW2.

 

This has been known for decades and is in many works.

https://www.unk.edu/academics/psychology...%20REC.pdf

As Seibert (1993a 192) has pointed out, the consul in command would have traditionally led the right wing, where the Roman horse (the equites) were placed. It was Aemilius Paulus who was in this place of honor. Varro, on the other hand, was in charge of the left wing, that of the allied cavalry. It was Aemilius Paulus who can therefore be identified as the consul in command that day.



Eduard von Manstein published Lost victories in 1955 in Germany, but not translated to english till 1958, V Paulus had been and anti german soviet mouthpiece since his capture in 43 https://www.rbth.com/arts/history/2017/0...oll_829512 and  was critical of all things German, in his own book on the Eastern front, were we learn the Paulus study of the Invasion included 30 SU Divisions as what the Heer would face after destruction of the red Army on the border, before Lost victories appeared and till his death in 1957.

[Hanny]

 

An important point is when was Alimentus freed from Carthaginian slavery? Before the peace terms were signed or after. Appian mentions many Roman prisoners being freed before the battle of Utica. If so could Alimentus had accompanied Scipio in Africa or elected to get on the first ship for home?

 

Frier, Bruce W. (1999). Libri Annales Pontificum Maximorum: The Origins of the Annalistic Tradition. University of Michigan Press.

He Argues (he was freed along with others captured with Alimentus in Bruttium, and none of them are refered to till after the wars end) after Zama and the peace treaty resulting from it, and wrote his book shortly therafter, so he was writting for an audeience that had first hand knowledge of Zama as a historical event, 000s of them having or had relatives take part in it.

Expensive book but this has some of it, inc Livy who also says post zama.
https://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022409/00001

---

 

Hitler won the leadership of the Nazi Party by one vote.

Carrots help you see in the dark.

Japanese troops were experienced jungle fighters

Hitler held back the development of the Me 262

Most Americans volunteered in WW2

The majority of Japanese civilians died from the two atomic bombs.

The atomic bombs convince Japan to surrender.

The Polish cavalry charged German tanks

General Yamashita hid millions in gold somewhere in Manila

The saying “the whole nine yards” meant the measure of a machine gun’s ammunition.

Hitler let the British escape at Dunkirk

Germany invaded Russia because Russia was going to invade Germany.

1.Hitler won the leadership of the Nazi Party by one vote.
2.Carrots help you see in the dark.
3.Japanese troops were experienced jungle fighters
4.Hitler held back the development of the Me 262
5.Most Americans volunteered in WW2
6.The majority of Japanese civilians died from the two atomic bombs.
7.The atomic bombs convince Japan to surrender.
8.The Polish cavalry charged German tanks
9.General Yamashita hid millions in gold somewhere in Manila
10.The saying “the whole nine yards” meant the measure of a machine gun’s ammunition.
11.Hitler let the British escape at Dunkirk
12.Germany invaded Russia because Russia was going to invade Germany.

It would not be the first time in history that fiction becomes fact. The Second World War has such examples.

1.is fiction and has always been known as fiction, there was 1 vote against him.
2 is fiction and remains fiction, as everyone knows, and every one into history knows it was UK propoganda to cover RAF night interception sucess through technology.
3 is fiction and remains fiction, they no more experience in jungle fighting than those they thrashed in the Jungle. IJA never claimed they wwere expeienced jungle fighters.
4, Is fiction, as AH pushed develpment forward, but as a FB not a Ftr.
5 Is fiction then and is fiction now, USA never claimed otherwise.
6. Is fiction as war time casulaty estimates make clear, US has never claimed majority of Japanese civilians died from the two atomic bombs.
8. Fact they did, on Day one of the war at Krojanty Polish cav overun a Inb Bttn and was counter attacked by Leichter Panzerspähwagen who were designed to repalce Panzer Is, and cut them to pieces.
9. Fiction then and fiction new.
10,Fact then and a fact now, it was the standard length of 303 rnds in WW2.
11. AH says he did let the UK escape in his last testament, if AH did not not know what AH did and why, then who does?.
12. SU Revisionsit made this claim 40 years after the event, its not widely accepted anywhere as fact.

Your examples of fiction becoming fact look rather slim. Now exactly which WW" battles never actually heppened then?.

[Hanny]

Now I followed the link to the TMP and well, I see I have been drawn into the debate on that forum.

Plutarch also claims that Pythagoras was enrolled as a citizen of Rome.
If you examined the personality traits of Pythagoras and Numa (which has not been done before), you will find Numa and Pythagoras are one and the same person.

Plutarch does eactly that comparision.
http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Plutarch/numapomp.html

How can two people not alive at the same time be the same person.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Numa-Pompilius
His supposed relationship with Pythagoras was known even in the Roman Republic to be chronologically impossible, and the 14 books relating to philosophy and religious (pontifical) law that were uncovered in 181 BCE and attributed to him were clearly forgeries.

Numa 753-673 BC
Pythagoras 570 - to 495 BC

Therefore, it was Pythagoras and not Numa that altered the Roman calendar from 10 months to 12 months, introduced intercalation, instigated the hearth of Vesta and the Vestal Virgins, and established the office of Pontifex Maximus.

 

Rome changed to a 12 month calender around 713 B.C, well before Pythagoras was alive, intercalation at the same time, a function of the Pontifices political authority to add them in, https://www.livescience.com/45650-calendar-history.html Numa apponted 4 vestals in Rome at the same time, Post of Pontifex Maximus did not exist in Numas day as he introdiced 5 pontifices and no high priest. lex Ogulnia, 4 in 300BC added more, and when the Empire came, it was he who was the first Pontifex Maximus and could have as many pontifices as he wanted.

---

The Pythagorean zodiac determines the size of a cohort. For example, a 480 man cohort in the time of Augustus represents 16 zodiacs have past the apex, with each zodiac amounting to 30 degrees. You can work out the number of men in the 35 tribes by multiplying the 480 men by Strabo's claim each degree represents 700 stadia. So 480 men per cohort multiplied by 700 stadia equals 336,000 stadia, which is then converted to 336,000 men. The 336,000 men when divided by the 35 tribes, allocates each tribe 9,600 men. As everything in the Pythagorean system is in pairs, 9,600 divided by two equals 4,800 men. Therefore, the size a legion without officers and supernumeraries is 4,800 men (rounded to 5,000 men in the primary sources) organised into 10 cohorts each of 480 men.

Ism hard to keep being so wrong.
Romulas 753 – 716 BC began with 3 tribes.
Servius Tullius 578–535 BC replaced them with 30 tribes.
Reduced down to 20 Tribes.
495 BC 1 tribe added,  4 more in 387 BC, 2 more in 358 BC, 2 more in 332, 1 more in 318 and another in 299, and by  241 BC there were 35. At the end of the social, 87 BC war 8 more were added, and then removed. There were still 35 by 3rd cent AD.

Every expansion in the number of tribes was from an increase in population banumbers under Roman control and not related to a cult

When Dionysius remarks that in 462 BC, four cohorts each of 600 men were stationed in front of Rome, here Dionysius is mentioning the four tribune cohorts.

Except military tribunes dont exist yet, they are established in 445BC with 3 Military tribunes,  the number increased to four in 426 and to six in 406.

All academics when discussing the carrying capacity of a Roman quinquereme will cite Polybius that they carried 120 soldiers. As a reader you get the impression that is the only source, and there is nothing to collaborate it. But I have found the opposite to be true. Because I examine all the mathematical data in the primary sources, when researching the Roman fleet, I found that the ancient historian Orosius mentions that at the battle of Hermanaeum in 255 BC, the Romans lost 9 ships and 1,100 soldiers. Taking a calculator, and applying Polybius' claim 120 soldiers to a ship, the 9 ships lost would amount to 1,080 soldiers, which Orosius has rounded to 1,100 men. So now I had further proof that 120 soldiers were transported on Roman vessels.
I found that the ancient historian Orosius mentions that at the battle of Hermanaeum in 255 BC, the Romans lost 9 ships and 1,100 soldiers.

Correct, but thats not the only example he gives, in this one there are now 11111 men to a ship acording to you.

http://attalus.org/translate/orosius3A.html
but nine of the Roman ships were sunk, and one hundred thousand soldiers perished.[/quote]

The number of lives lost in a battle tells you nothing about how many were on each ship your utter fool.

Academics confess to having no idea of how many soldiers the Carthaginians put on their ships, yet I have found two sources that when I divided the number of ships by the number of soldiers mentioned, a number without fractions showed up. When I took this number and divided it by the mathematical data in the primary sources relating to the number of Carthaginian ships captured with their full crew of rowers and soldiers, after deducting the rowers, I got the same number of Carthaginian soldiers per ship. Livy tells us the Carthaginians did not have many soldiers and he was right, and this explains why Livy states the Carthaginians would surrender when the Romans got aboard.
When I took this number and divided it by the mathematical data in the primary sources relating to the number of Carthaginian ships captured with their full crew of rowers and soldiers, after deducting the rowers, I got the same number of Carthaginian soldiers per ship.

Except of course academics are far better at looking at sources and doing math than you, so you say the following means there are 120 carthaginian soldiers per ship, so that leaves teh number of rowers ( no ship has a captain sailors, orator, carpemter etc, just rowers) example 1-4, 110 rowers, 140 rowers, 113 rowers,153 rowers. No wonder they lost, they had a fraction of their rowers and were packed with marines instead.

http://attalus.org/translate/orosius3A.html
After the naval battle had begun, Hannibal, having lost the ship in which he spared, fled in a skiff. Thirty and one of his ships were captured, thirteen sunk, three thousand men slain, and seven thousand captured.
7000/31 =225 and 3000/13=230.

The naval battle could not be postponed. 6 One hundred and four ships of the Carthaginians were sunk, thirty with the fighting men were captured, and thirty-five thousand of the soldiers besides themselves were slain;
35000/134=261

After these, the consul Claudius, with a fleet of one hundred and twenty ships, set out against the enemy at the harbor of Drepani, where he was soon received by the fleet of the Carthaginians, and defeated. and he himself, indeed, with thirty ships, fled into the camp of Lilybaeum; all the rest, that is, ninety, were either captured or sunk; Eight thousand soldiers are reported to have been slain and twenty thousand captured
28000/120=233

Hanno turned his ship away, and was the first general of flight. a considerable part of his army went to Africa with him; others fled to Lilybaeum; sixty-three Carthaginian ships were captured, one hundred twenty-five sunk, thirty-two thousand captured, and fourteen thousand slain
46000/168=273

4 examples and not one shows that carthage had a full number of rowers let alone anything else, nor are the same number per ship.

As to someone's comment that academia does not take me seriously...

[removed]