Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Twelfth Hour
#16
Steven, can you recommend a simple book on Pythagoras and his philosophy that will enable me to understand your theories better?
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#17
Unless you can prove your methodology to other academic's your never going to be taken seriously by them. If you have a theory or statement you need to reference where and why you have developed it from so that it can be independently checked and verified. The academic world was shaken to its core a few years ago when it was established that a number of scientific theories that had been developed were actually never verified and tested independently by others and when this finally happened it was found that the theories were bogus. This has led to much more scrutiny of academic work.

It is probably better to write a polite letter to a critic asking how they feel your work could be improved rather than venting your spleen on them.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#18
Adrian wrote:
Unless you can prove your methodology to other academic's your never going to be taken seriously by them.
 
I’m not after the approval of academia. When this academic approached me to review my work, I did not refuse his request, due to the confidence I have in my research. There is no harder critic of my work than me. However, when the academic in question did not have the decency to provide a detailed review as promised but only castigate me for not referring to the theories of academia (as if they are the benchmark), and that made it unpublishable, it is the academic that is the problem, not me.
 
Adrian wrote:
If you have a theory or statement you need to reference where and why you have developed it from so that it can be independently checked and verified.
 
Could you please examine my four papers on academia edu then make that same statement. Please notice I work with the primary sources, what more can I do? Or are you saying that the theories of academia hold more sway and importance than solely working with the primary sources?
 
Now I could post another paper at academia edu that would correlate the army numbers given in the primary sources with the tribal system and the description of the levy, and I get a perfect match. But what is the point; all I will get in return is silence.
 
Adrian wrote:
The academic world was shaken to its core a few years ago when it was established that a number of scientific theories that had been developed were actually never verified and tested independently by others and when this finally happened it was found that the theories were bogus.
 
Well I have found that a number of academic theories also have never been verified and tested. In fact too many, and that is what my book does best, it shows most of those theories are built on sand. And why should the general reader have to be subjected to this petty mindedness. After all, Connelly wrote a book on the Roman army without referring to the debates or theories of academia. The end result is many academics reference Connolly. I also have many books on the Romans written by academics that do not bring to the reader the attention of the works of academics. So why should I?
 
Also I have challenged many an academic theory on this forum to no avail. I can do it again. Seeing he is the latest conforming to academic mindset, can M. Taylor prove that the maniple was faded out in 210 BC, the year in which the cohort was supposedly introduced? How does he explain those references to the maniple after 210 BC and how does he explain the many references to the term cohort before 210 BC? His options are not many. Academia will state they are anachronistic, or then dismiss them on the ground of the ancient writer being unreliable. If that is so, then prove it. I’ve nothing personal against M. Taylor so to let him off the hook, no academic can prove it. However, because so many academic adhere to this notion, because so many believe it, it must be right....safety in numbers. So where is the scientific methodology in this? If anyone has read as many academic works as I have you will see a continuous pattern of disparaging the primary sources in order to make their theories work. Unfortunately, Taylor is guilty of this.
 
The bottom line and the truth of the matter is most theories of academics writing on the Roman legion are not tested or verified. The end result is as found in M. Taylor’s latest paper is academics are now building new theories on the foundations of their unverified or untested theories. The good news for Taylor is he can get away with this is because his theory conforms to academia’s mindset and it doesn’t upset the apple cart. God help Taylor and his career should he veer away from this by seriously challenging academia’s latest mindset and be in a position to prove them wrong. Woe unto thee.
 
Adrian wrote:
It is probably better to write a polite letter to a critic asking how they feel your work could be improved rather than venting your spleen on them.
 
Well strike me black and blue. All my correspondence with the academic who requested my work was cordial, polite, civil, of good nature, and highly respectful. What that sad academic was really telling me was my work is unpublishable because I have not conformed to the theories of academia. He knows I have categorically proven his theories to be incorrect, and what would this do to his reputation. He claims my work is unpublishable because he doesn’t want it to see it published. If there were holes in my theories, then why didn’t he attack them? That would have been professional. Problem is he couldn’t find any holes, so he looks for something I haven’t done and in so doing so; he implies it all can be dismissed.
Reply
#19
I do feel for you Steven as I know you have put in an awful lot of time and effort into your research and the barb of a critic's tongue can be quite hurtful when it appears they have missed the thrust of your work. My advice to you is to publish the work in book form either via a publisher or self-publishing.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#20
Adrian wrote:
I do feel for you Steven as I know you have put in an awful lot of time and effort into your research and the barb of a critic's tongue can be quite hurtful when it appears they have missed the thrust of your work. My advice to you is to publish the work in book form either via a publisher or self-publishing.
 
That is the problem; he didn’t even acknowledge the thrust of the work. It will be interesting to see if he publishes a new revised edition of his work on the Roman legion that removes his previous incompetency.
 
I am considering two options, one to self publish, the other to put the book on the internet in pdf format for free. I know I have said this before, but I feel I am at the end of the road in new discoveries, so as the saying goes, it is hopefully the end game. However, when I have felt this before, while looking up some other reference in the primary source, I stumble on something else that opens another door deeper into the system. The musical aspects of the system or the musical frequencies in which the tribes are based I am leaving this to others with musical knowledge to explore. I believe some great discoveries will come from my groundwork, and someone will be able to construct the Song of the Sirens or what Pythagoras designed the harmony of the spheres to sound like. And I look forward to hearing it one day.
 
Looking back, I have found it quite astonishing to have been able to answer the many questions that have crossed my mind for many years. Why did the Romans only have 35 tribes? How was a tribe organised? Then there were dozens of questions concerning the size and organisation of the Roman legion...too many to name. In the end with the Pythagorean system being the heart of the Roman social and military systems, my research was moving along a road not travelled before and far removed from the theories of academia. This I could not help nor control. Some of the differences between my research and academia are:
 
Academics believe the maniple legion was introduced in 406 BC, 386 BC, or sometime during the Samnite wars. Academics believe the cohort was introduced in 210 BC.
 
My research shows the maniple legion was introduced during the reign of Tarquinius Superbus as part of the Pythagorean reform. The Roman legion has four organisations, two horizontal and two vertical, each of different sizes. The legion was organised into cohorts, maniples and centuries. These three organisations have significant meaning in the Pythagorean system. Livy’s description of the legion of 340 BC is highlighting the introduction of the hastati. This reform was due to the Romans altering the Pythagorean cosmos system. The Roman legion had four distinct sizes, with the smallest legion consisting of 40 centuries. Polybius has confused all four legions and rolled them into one legion of 4,200 men. Also Polybius often confuses the maniple organisation with the ordo organisation, due to in some legions the maniple size is equivalent to the ordo in another legion. At Cannae, the Roman used the ordo organisation. It is mathematically impossible to do what Polybius states using the maniple organisation. At Zama, half the legion used the maniple organisation for creating gaps and the other half the ordo organisation.
 
Because of the Pythagoreans system, or the religion of numbers, the Roman military system was chronically formalistic. During the levy, a consul was given the same number of men as another consul. To do contrary would be an insult to the other consul’s dignity. Therefore, those army numbers in the primary sources that show one consul having more men than the other consul are wrong. There are exceptions like the Trebbia when one consul united with another consul who had suffered previous losses. All of these numbers fall within the time frame of Polybius’ writings, and highlight the fact that Polybius is in error on so many occasions. The mathematical mistakes made by Polybius can also be found in the writings of Appian and Livy and others, due to them using Polybius as their source.
 
So in a nutshell, Polybius has given us a distorted picture of the Roman legion and the Roman army. This is not to say everything Polybius wrote about the Roman legion was in error, that would be wrong, but he has made major mistakes.
Reply
#21
Michael wrote:
Steven, can you recommend a simple book on Pythagoras and his philosophy that will enable me to understand your theories better?
 
You would think this would be an easy question to answer, but alas it is not so. Many of the books I have found on Pythagoras concentrate on specific doctrines and do not include the whole gambit of Pythagorean thought. Many dismiss the Pythagorean cosmos as being a novelty and had no application. Many also write that the Romans had no concept of a cosmos.
 
I found that many modern books on Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans did not cover the ground I was exploring. In fact many were making discovery difficult.
 
In the end I simply resorted back to the primary sources and worked from there. This produced real results. There is nothing written to state the Roman tribes were time pieces for calculating the movement of the Pythagorean cosmos. It was after reading Censorinus that I saw a correlation between the Pythagorean tonal system and the numbers in the tribes. Bingo....and the rest is history.
Reply
#22
Steven, have you thought of publishing your work as a 'living' web based document, something like Peter Donnelly has done with his Adrianople paper. He regularly updates it as new information is discovered so it is always up to date.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#23
Adrian wrote:
Steven, have you thought of publishing your work as a 'living' web based document, something like Peter Donnelly has done with his Adrianople paper. He regularly updates it as new information is discovered so it is always up to date.
 
Thanks for that Adrian. I had a look at and it is a good idea should I go down that road. At present I still have a lot of diagrams to do before it can be presentable.
 
It has been pointed out to me that the general reader will have no idea that the new information I present is ground breaking and will consider it common knowledge. In another email from a different source I have been requested to put forth that “I am aware of the current state of scholarship...but point out where and why I differ from them.”
 
I am taking both suggestions onboard and I can see how it can be done without cutting into the flow of the book. This was a major concern. So there will be a section at the beginning of each relevant chapter with the working title for the present “what the academics say.”
 
For the section on the Roman tribes, I will be using quotes from academics dismissing most of the evidence that had the academics used them this would have opened so many doors. Academics dismiss references to the early Roman army numbering 20,000 men. They did this because they believe Rome was small back in the fifth century. Because of this they have failed to notice that the 200 musicians or 200 artificers in the Servian constitution are divisible by 20,000 men, thereby creating 200 centuries. Had they then experimented with a Roman tribe under Romulus having 10 centuries, they could have postulated that the 200 centuries would make 20 tribes each of 10 centuries. Then they could have added Livy’s (2 21) statement that for the year 495 BC, “the number of tribes at Rome was increased to twenty-one and have known that previous to this there was 20 tribes.
 
So by going down this road, I will be intentionally or unintentionally highlighting academia’s shortcomings and some of them will appear quite comical. In fact the whole thing looks like a tragic comedy.
Reply
#24
(04-28-2016, 05:04 AM)Steven James Wrote: So there will be a section at the beginning of each relevant chapter with the working title for the present “what the academics say."

That seems a good idea. It would show that you are up to date with current ideas but without disrupting the flow of your narrative. May I suggest an alternative title of 'The State of Scholarship to Date' or, simply, 'Scholarship to Date'?
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#25
(04-28-2016, 05:04 AM)Steven James Wrote: Had they then experimented with a Roman tribe under Romulus having 10 centuries, they could have postulated that the 200 centuries would make 20 tribes each of 10 centuries.
But isn't Romulus credited with three tribes of 10 curiae?
posted by Duncan B Campbell
Reply
#26
Michael wrote:
May I suggest an alternative title of 'The State of Scholarship to Date' or, simply, 'Scholarship to Date'?
 
Well you have won me over. And that is why I called it a working title.
 
Duncan wrote:
But isn't Romulus credited with three tribes of 10 curiae?
 
Don’t you mean three tribes each of 10 curiae, for a total of 30 curiae? If Romulus had an army reported to consist of 3,000 infantry and 300 cavalry, then a curiae is equivalent to 100 men and 100 men in its military term is called a century. So curiae and century is one and the same thing.
 
Tell me where I am wrong Mr. Campbell?
 
Reply
#27
(04-25-2016, 03:08 PM)ValentinianVictrix Wrote: My advice to you is to publish the work in book form either via a publisher or self-publishing.

On the self-publishing route, I understand that you can do this via Amazon, either as a print book or on Kindle or both. I don't know precisely how it works but I think that at least one of our members has done that. If you can work both the Roman Army and Pythagoras into your title, you could hit two markets in one go.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#28
Michael wrote:
On the self-publishing route, I understand that you can do this via Amazon, either as a print book or on Kindle or both.
 
I looked into this two years ago and the technology for producing the diagrams I will need in the book is not possible with Kindle.
 
Michael wrote:
If you can work both the Roman Army and Pythagoras into your title, you could hit two markets in one go.
 
The working title (at the moment) is: The Evolution of the Roman Legion: Decoding its Pythagorean Organisation 753 BC to 410 AD.”
 
I’m always open to suggestions.
Reply
#29
(04-25-2016, 02:13 PM)Steven James Wrote: When this academic approached me to review my work, I did not refuse his request, due to the confidence I have in my research. There is no harder critic of my work than me. However, when the academic in question did not have the decency to provide a detailed review as promised but only castigate me for not referring to the theories of academia (as if they are the benchmark), and that made it unpublishable, it is the academic that is the problem, not me.

I have had some thoughts on your unhelpful academic. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt (whether he deserves it or not). He expressed an interest in your theories but, when he saw your text, he identified what he perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be a fatal omission. He may have been quite disappointed. What you might do is reply to him, thank him for his response, point out that you are, in fact, quite au fait with current opinion and say that you are working on how to introduce that into your text. You could then ask him, on the assumption that this deals with his initial concern, for his assessment of the merits and/or demerits of your theory. You may get nothing back or you may get a critique which you could use to advantage. It's just an idea but, if you do that, it would be interesting to see what reaction it provokes.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#30
(04-28-2016, 08:22 AM)Steven James Wrote: Don’t you mean three tribes each of 10 curiae, for a total of 30 curiae? If Romulus had an army reported to consist of 3,000 infantry and 300 cavalry, then a curiae is equivalent to 100 men and 100 men in its military term is called a century. So curiae and century is one and the same thing.

I only mention it because, in the previous post, you berated "academics" for not "postulating that [under Romulus] the 200 centuries would make 20 tribes each of 10 centuries". Probably nobody has postulated this because Romulus didn't have 20 tribes of 10 centuries.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
Reply


Forum Jump: