04-02-2024, 12:00 PM
Nathan wrote: I think you've addressed that yourself! :
No, I have not! I have shown via Isidore how to understand how Vegetius arrived at his numbers, not that Vegetius 6,000-man legion is unhistorical. That would contradict all my research. Wink wink.
Nathan wrote: Seriously though... Vegetius is describing the 'ancient legion', so it's supposed to be 'historical' and not the organisation of his own time (whenever that was!).
Vegetius is describing the legion before the reforms of Dioceltian, which I have termed “the last Pythagorean legion.” This is because a legion of 6,000 infantry and 600 cavalry is the size of a legion at the end of the Pythagorean system. The end of the Pythagorean system came about during the reign of Dioceltian, and what the Romans did was restart the system from the beginning. So, Livy’s books 1 to 5 provide more information on the Late Roman legion because it is this legion organisation that came into play. So, in 464 BC, when Dionysius explains that four cohorts each of 600 men were stationed outside Rome, bingo.
Nathan wrote: It's possible that what he describes is close to the genuine legion organisation of some point in the second or early third century, maybe.
The 6,000-man legion came into being during the reign of Septimius Severus, or in conjunction with the ninth saeculum.
Nathan wrote: But, as you've confirmed yourself, there do seem to be mistakes in the picture he presents.
Mathematical mistakes. Most ancient historians have made them, even Pliny in his belief the Pythagorean cosmos had seven tones, as opposed to Censorinus’ figure of six tone. For some years I followed Pliny until I found it was wrong. Dioceltian’s reforms held the key.
Nathan wrote: As for the 12 cohorts... I'm sure we've discussed this before but I still cannot imagine why any army would restructure itself in order to make camp. Why would they do that?
And yet the maths shows they did. Space would be one reason. However, Hyginus does tell us how it was done. Just another piece of information in Hyginus that has gotten no attention. When I came across the reference to 12 cohorts, I did not immediately reject it, I played with it to see where it went. Then overtime, more data backed it up. When I find a military doctrine, I then explore to see how far back in time it went. Hyginus provided more information that this was occurring during the principate, ok good, keep going back, and eventually, it goes right back to the early republic. Polybius claims a legion had “about” 4,000 infantry. I have no problem with this as it relates to an eight-cohort legion. There is a lot that is not understood about the legions and their military doctrines.
Nathan wrote: What purpose would it serve? Would it not cause total chaos, every evening and then every morning while reorganising to march out of camp?
No, chaos at all. What if the 12 cohorts were termed numeri? Cohort is a very general term and just means several maniples. This is where my research differs from most. Say cohort to most and 10 cohorts come to mind. The Roman legions has more organisations than the cohort. There are horizontal organisations and vertical organisations. However, on many occasions they get called a cohort. For example, take Dionysius’ four cohorts at 600 men.
Nathan wrote: What madness would have compelled the Romans to do this, and (perhaps more importantly) why did nobody ever notice or report them engaging in this strange activity?
It is not a strange activity. And the sources do give the data that supports this. It is all there. The problem has been academia’s lack of seriously going after all the data, and keeping an open mind, and not being fixated with finding only the information that conforms to their theory.
Nathan wrote: Hmm, maybe - although the evidence that we have (both literary and, for example, fort sizes) suggests that all units were getting smaller, not just the cavalry.
My take on the Late Roman legion is, like all legions since the being of the republic gets smaller due to some military doctrine kicking in, like assigning the triarii to be camp guards. For the Late Roman legion, I have the seniores as being in the same century as the juniors. So, removing the seniores reduced the size of the century and also the legion. These numbers exist in the primary sources. Next, and a different doctrine to the rest, is those troops termed the reserve are also in the same centuries, so when they are detached, the century decreases in size. Ammianus and so many provide the data. However, if no one takes the time to understand it, it continues to remain a secret.
Nathan wrote: But I think it's quite likely that the legions of the 2nd/3rd century had more than 120 cavalry.
I’m with you on this.
No, I have not! I have shown via Isidore how to understand how Vegetius arrived at his numbers, not that Vegetius 6,000-man legion is unhistorical. That would contradict all my research. Wink wink.
Nathan wrote: Seriously though... Vegetius is describing the 'ancient legion', so it's supposed to be 'historical' and not the organisation of his own time (whenever that was!).
Vegetius is describing the legion before the reforms of Dioceltian, which I have termed “the last Pythagorean legion.” This is because a legion of 6,000 infantry and 600 cavalry is the size of a legion at the end of the Pythagorean system. The end of the Pythagorean system came about during the reign of Dioceltian, and what the Romans did was restart the system from the beginning. So, Livy’s books 1 to 5 provide more information on the Late Roman legion because it is this legion organisation that came into play. So, in 464 BC, when Dionysius explains that four cohorts each of 600 men were stationed outside Rome, bingo.
Nathan wrote: It's possible that what he describes is close to the genuine legion organisation of some point in the second or early third century, maybe.
The 6,000-man legion came into being during the reign of Septimius Severus, or in conjunction with the ninth saeculum.
Nathan wrote: But, as you've confirmed yourself, there do seem to be mistakes in the picture he presents.
Mathematical mistakes. Most ancient historians have made them, even Pliny in his belief the Pythagorean cosmos had seven tones, as opposed to Censorinus’ figure of six tone. For some years I followed Pliny until I found it was wrong. Dioceltian’s reforms held the key.
Nathan wrote: As for the 12 cohorts... I'm sure we've discussed this before but I still cannot imagine why any army would restructure itself in order to make camp. Why would they do that?
And yet the maths shows they did. Space would be one reason. However, Hyginus does tell us how it was done. Just another piece of information in Hyginus that has gotten no attention. When I came across the reference to 12 cohorts, I did not immediately reject it, I played with it to see where it went. Then overtime, more data backed it up. When I find a military doctrine, I then explore to see how far back in time it went. Hyginus provided more information that this was occurring during the principate, ok good, keep going back, and eventually, it goes right back to the early republic. Polybius claims a legion had “about” 4,000 infantry. I have no problem with this as it relates to an eight-cohort legion. There is a lot that is not understood about the legions and their military doctrines.
Nathan wrote: What purpose would it serve? Would it not cause total chaos, every evening and then every morning while reorganising to march out of camp?
No, chaos at all. What if the 12 cohorts were termed numeri? Cohort is a very general term and just means several maniples. This is where my research differs from most. Say cohort to most and 10 cohorts come to mind. The Roman legions has more organisations than the cohort. There are horizontal organisations and vertical organisations. However, on many occasions they get called a cohort. For example, take Dionysius’ four cohorts at 600 men.
Nathan wrote: What madness would have compelled the Romans to do this, and (perhaps more importantly) why did nobody ever notice or report them engaging in this strange activity?
It is not a strange activity. And the sources do give the data that supports this. It is all there. The problem has been academia’s lack of seriously going after all the data, and keeping an open mind, and not being fixated with finding only the information that conforms to their theory.
Nathan wrote: Hmm, maybe - although the evidence that we have (both literary and, for example, fort sizes) suggests that all units were getting smaller, not just the cavalry.
My take on the Late Roman legion is, like all legions since the being of the republic gets smaller due to some military doctrine kicking in, like assigning the triarii to be camp guards. For the Late Roman legion, I have the seniores as being in the same century as the juniors. So, removing the seniores reduced the size of the century and also the legion. These numbers exist in the primary sources. Next, and a different doctrine to the rest, is those troops termed the reserve are also in the same centuries, so when they are detached, the century decreases in size. Ammianus and so many provide the data. However, if no one takes the time to understand it, it continues to remain a secret.
Nathan wrote: But I think it's quite likely that the legions of the 2nd/3rd century had more than 120 cavalry.
I’m with you on this.
