01-07-2013, 07:27 PM

Mark Hygate wrote:

This seems rather confusing to the otherwise generally accepted ideas.

That is because 80% of my research is in total opposition to the “generally accepted ideas.” However, I will state my research is 100% faithful to the primary sources. I’ve read these “general accepted views” that claim the cohort was introduced as part of the Marian reform or the cohort was introduced in Spain around 211 BC (Bell). The general view is that all those references to cohorts found before 211 BC or 102 BC are all explained away as being anachronistic, yet not one person can prove that they are anachronistic other than claiming they are anachronistic...which is not proof…its conjecture.

Mark Hygate wrote:

There is also the issue of the use of the cohort as even an idea at that early stage. Whilst writing later, Polybius (the best and most detailed of the early writers)

I have studied many historians and their methods dating back to the 17th century and I was fascinated to find too many place so much trust in Polybius. Realising no one has explored the premise Polybius could be wrong, I undertook such a study which began seven years ago and combined with the notion to ignore “the generally accepted views,” I can truly say those two small decisions for me personally have paid great dividends.

Mark Hygate wrote:

(Polybius) has the strength of a legion at 4,000 + 'Officers' + 300 Cavalry. If considered as a Cohort structure (which it wasn't at that time) this would give 10 Cohorts of 5 Centuries of Infantry and a Turma of cavalry.

With due respect Mark, to my understanding, you claim that Polybius is “the best and most detailed of the early writers” then you also believe the legion of Polybius is not a cohort structure. This completely goes against Polybius’ use of the word cohort, especially at Zama when he mentions the hastati were in cohorts. Polybius also states that three maniples made a cohort. So if Polybius is “the best” then his use of the word cohort cannot be dismissed…so Polybius must be correct in regard to cohorts.

As I am a great supporter and believer in the primary sources, allow me to indulge in a long exercise to make my point. At Caudium in 315 BC, Livy states that on to the left wing, Poetelius made a sudden decision to reinforce his front line with the reserve (subsidiarias) cohorts. This has been interpreted to be the triarii. At the battle of Zama in 202 BC Polybius describes the hastati being organised in cohorts. So here we have two ancient historians referring to cohorts, one in 315 BC for the triarii and one in 202 BC for the hastati. So can we combine the two references and see if both ancient writers are working from the same page? Taking the legion of Polybius, be ignoring the 1200 velites we are left with a legion of 3000 men consisting of 1200 hastati, 1200 principes and 600 triarii. By dividing 3000 men by 10 cohorts the result is:

1200 hastati organised into four cohorts each of 300 men

1200 principes organised into four cohorts each of 300 men

600 triarii organised into two cohorts each of 300 men

This gives a total of 10 cohorts. So now we have subsidiarias cohorts (the triarii) as stated by Livy and we also have the hastati organised into cohorts as mentioned by Polybius. The problem with modern historians is many believe a cohort consists of one maniple of hastati, one maniple of principes and one maniple of triarii. If you have the wrong premise, you have the wrong conclusion. Ignoring Lydus comment a cohort numbered 300 men, I am going to introduce a new mathematical methodology to see if I can support the fact there are 10 cohorts to a Polybian legion with a cohort numbering 300 men. My methodology to many on RAT is not new and involves using my research regarding the Roman cosmos system. A cohort of 300 men is equivalent to 10 zodiacs each of 30 degrees. With a degree equal to 700 stadia, a 300 man cohort amounts to 210,000 men, and when divided by 35 tribes each tribe numbers 6000 men. When divided into a 50/50 ratio of iuniores to seniores as outlined by Dionysius and Livy, the 6000 men are divided into 3000 iuniores and 3000 seniores and when divided by ten, each amounts to 300 men. Now let’s take this a step further. In 225 BC, Polybius details the levy which has the Roman and Campanian army at 250,000 men. For 216 BC, Livy numbers the Campanians at 30,000 infantry and 4000 cavalry giving a total of 34,000 men. I think Mark you will now see where this is going. After subtracting the Campanians the total is 216,000 men, which is an increase of 6000 men over 210,000 men. However, my research can confirm the number should be 210,000 Romans for this period and Polybius has given the Campanians at 40,000 men. So in conclusion, in 225 BC the 35 tribes numbered 210,000 men which equates to 10 zodiacs and during the reign of Augustus the 35 tribes number 336,000 men or 16 zodiacs. As I already discussed this on RAT, a cohort of 480 men equates to 16 zodiacs, multiplied by 700 stadia equals 336,000 men and when divided by 35 tribes equals 9600 men per tribe and when divided into a 50/50 ratio of iuniores to seniores the 9600 men are divided into 4800 iuniores and 4800 seniores and when divided by ten, each amounts to 480 men per cohort.

My research can confirm the Roman army has been organised into cohorts dating back to the Servian constitution because the size and organisation of the cohort is interconnected with the cosmos via the tribal system. They are all integrated from one system. Because I have found Livy to be extremely reliable, and by taking Livy at face value, in the beginning senators commanded Roman cohorts and then this changed to Roman prefects.

Steven

This seems rather confusing to the otherwise generally accepted ideas.

That is because 80% of my research is in total opposition to the “generally accepted ideas.” However, I will state my research is 100% faithful to the primary sources. I’ve read these “general accepted views” that claim the cohort was introduced as part of the Marian reform or the cohort was introduced in Spain around 211 BC (Bell). The general view is that all those references to cohorts found before 211 BC or 102 BC are all explained away as being anachronistic, yet not one person can prove that they are anachronistic other than claiming they are anachronistic...which is not proof…its conjecture.

Mark Hygate wrote:

There is also the issue of the use of the cohort as even an idea at that early stage. Whilst writing later, Polybius (the best and most detailed of the early writers)

I have studied many historians and their methods dating back to the 17th century and I was fascinated to find too many place so much trust in Polybius. Realising no one has explored the premise Polybius could be wrong, I undertook such a study which began seven years ago and combined with the notion to ignore “the generally accepted views,” I can truly say those two small decisions for me personally have paid great dividends.

Mark Hygate wrote:

(Polybius) has the strength of a legion at 4,000 + 'Officers' + 300 Cavalry. If considered as a Cohort structure (which it wasn't at that time) this would give 10 Cohorts of 5 Centuries of Infantry and a Turma of cavalry.

With due respect Mark, to my understanding, you claim that Polybius is “the best and most detailed of the early writers” then you also believe the legion of Polybius is not a cohort structure. This completely goes against Polybius’ use of the word cohort, especially at Zama when he mentions the hastati were in cohorts. Polybius also states that three maniples made a cohort. So if Polybius is “the best” then his use of the word cohort cannot be dismissed…so Polybius must be correct in regard to cohorts.

As I am a great supporter and believer in the primary sources, allow me to indulge in a long exercise to make my point. At Caudium in 315 BC, Livy states that on to the left wing, Poetelius made a sudden decision to reinforce his front line with the reserve (subsidiarias) cohorts. This has been interpreted to be the triarii. At the battle of Zama in 202 BC Polybius describes the hastati being organised in cohorts. So here we have two ancient historians referring to cohorts, one in 315 BC for the triarii and one in 202 BC for the hastati. So can we combine the two references and see if both ancient writers are working from the same page? Taking the legion of Polybius, be ignoring the 1200 velites we are left with a legion of 3000 men consisting of 1200 hastati, 1200 principes and 600 triarii. By dividing 3000 men by 10 cohorts the result is:

1200 hastati organised into four cohorts each of 300 men

1200 principes organised into four cohorts each of 300 men

600 triarii organised into two cohorts each of 300 men

This gives a total of 10 cohorts. So now we have subsidiarias cohorts (the triarii) as stated by Livy and we also have the hastati organised into cohorts as mentioned by Polybius. The problem with modern historians is many believe a cohort consists of one maniple of hastati, one maniple of principes and one maniple of triarii. If you have the wrong premise, you have the wrong conclusion. Ignoring Lydus comment a cohort numbered 300 men, I am going to introduce a new mathematical methodology to see if I can support the fact there are 10 cohorts to a Polybian legion with a cohort numbering 300 men. My methodology to many on RAT is not new and involves using my research regarding the Roman cosmos system. A cohort of 300 men is equivalent to 10 zodiacs each of 30 degrees. With a degree equal to 700 stadia, a 300 man cohort amounts to 210,000 men, and when divided by 35 tribes each tribe numbers 6000 men. When divided into a 50/50 ratio of iuniores to seniores as outlined by Dionysius and Livy, the 6000 men are divided into 3000 iuniores and 3000 seniores and when divided by ten, each amounts to 300 men. Now let’s take this a step further. In 225 BC, Polybius details the levy which has the Roman and Campanian army at 250,000 men. For 216 BC, Livy numbers the Campanians at 30,000 infantry and 4000 cavalry giving a total of 34,000 men. I think Mark you will now see where this is going. After subtracting the Campanians the total is 216,000 men, which is an increase of 6000 men over 210,000 men. However, my research can confirm the number should be 210,000 Romans for this period and Polybius has given the Campanians at 40,000 men. So in conclusion, in 225 BC the 35 tribes numbered 210,000 men which equates to 10 zodiacs and during the reign of Augustus the 35 tribes number 336,000 men or 16 zodiacs. As I already discussed this on RAT, a cohort of 480 men equates to 16 zodiacs, multiplied by 700 stadia equals 336,000 men and when divided by 35 tribes equals 9600 men per tribe and when divided into a 50/50 ratio of iuniores to seniores the 9600 men are divided into 4800 iuniores and 4800 seniores and when divided by ten, each amounts to 480 men per cohort.

My research can confirm the Roman army has been organised into cohorts dating back to the Servian constitution because the size and organisation of the cohort is interconnected with the cosmos via the tribal system. They are all integrated from one system. Because I have found Livy to be extremely reliable, and by taking Livy at face value, in the beginning senators commanded Roman cohorts and then this changed to Roman prefects.

Steven