Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Twelfth Hour
#31
(04-28-2016, 08:22 AM)Steven James Wrote: 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.

But surely each centuria was drawn from a curia (singular)? So they are not the same thing. The first derives from the second? If a curia was only 100 men, then the entire free male population of the Roman state (of thirty curiae, each comprising several gentes, together divided into three tribes) would have numbered only 3000 men, rather than the army?
Reply
#32
Michael wrote:
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.
 
This has already been done and I had no answer. As far as I am concerned the matter with him is closed. As one friend (published historian) commented to me on the matter:
 
“Nah, not worth asking *^%$#@ anything more. You don’t need to; you’ve already obtained what he can offer you: insight into this twist in the battle for public acceptance. Use it. It can only make your work stronger. Part of your strength derives from NOT conforming to Academia’s belief’s, but using the effective elements of academic structures of argumentation, as well as understanding their arguments, allows you to build a better mouse-trap.”
 
And what a mousetrap it is. It is Cannae, with the academics the Romans, confident because so many believe in their repetitious and unfounded theories. The Carthaginians in the centre are the ancient historians, long shamed by the academics. The Africans on the wings are the Pythagorean system, the instrument working in conjunction with the ancient historians that will encircle the academics in a mousetrap they cannot escape.
 
I’ve never hidden the fact my goal is to vindicate the ancient historian. Academic for two long have been purposely running sough shod over them and smearing their names with the sole intent of trying to give their theories credibility. Academics entered their profession from a love or passion of ancient history, yet end up denigrating the ancient historian because of ego.
 
Duncan wrote:
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.
 
I did not write “(under Romulus) the 200 centuries would make 20 tribes each of 10 centuries.” Here is what I wrote:
 
“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.”
 
Nathan wrote:
But surely each centuria was drawn from a curia (singular)? So they are not the same thing. The first derives from the second? If a curia was only 100 men, then the entire free male population of the Roman state (of thirty curiae, each comprising several gentes, together divided into three tribes) would have numbered only 3000 men, rather than the army?
 
I am not sure what your point is Nathan. Dionysius mentions the army as having 3,000 infantry, which is the figure you have calculated. Dionysius also wrote: “These curiae were again divided by him into ten parts, each commanded by its own leader, who was called decurio in the native language.”
 
So why is there a problem accepting that a curiae had 100 men and that a curiae can be termed a century?
Reply
#33
Steven,
If you're thinking of the indy route, you can use CreateSpace. You get free formatted MS Word templates, and you can convert your diagrams to Jpgs and slip them in. Do as much work yourself as possible, get an ISBN number for yourself, rather than use their "free" one, and finish the project by turning it into a PDF. It's not that hard; I've done it twice.

Oh, and don't be too hard on academics. I just gave a tribute to one of them on another thread. This particular professor was a warrior, thought "outside of the box," and arrived at thoughtful and unique conclusions. Wink
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#34
Alanus wrote:
If you're thinking of the indy route, you can use CreateSpace. You get free formatted MS Word templates, and you can convert your diagrams to Jpgs and slip them in. Do as much work yourself as possible, get an ISBN number for yourself, rather than use their "free" one, and finish the project by turning it into a PDF. It's not that hard; I've done it twice.
 
Thanks for that information Alanus. Much appreciated. Where can I see examples of what you have done?
 
Alanus wrote:
Oh, and don't be too hard on academics. I just gave a tribute to one of them on another thread. This particular professor was a warrior, thought "outside of the box," and arrived at thoughtful and unique conclusions.
 
And those that are “outside the box” are the ones I applaud with all my heart because it takes courage to step outside of the present academic mindset. However, the ones who have to denigrate the ancient historians because what the ancient historian has to say sabotages their theory are the ones I have little time for. It’s time they had a taste of their own medicine.
Reply
#35
(04-29-2016, 02:42 AM)Steven James Wrote: Here is what I wrote: “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.

Aha, so Romulus is a red herring and it's Servius who has the 20 tribes of 10 centuries. Except that Dionysius says he had thirty tribes, ... or maybe thirty-five (4.15.1), and all we know from Livy is that, by 387 BC, there were twenty-one (6.5.8). So (imho) you'd need to argue your case for Servius basing the constitution on twenty.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
Reply
#36
Duncan wrote:
Aha, so Romulus is a red herring and it's Servius who has the 20 tribes of 10 centuries. Except that Dionysius says he had thirty tribes, ... or maybe thirty-five (4.15.1), and all we know from Livy is that, by 387 BC, there were twenty-one (6.5.8). So (imho) you'd need to argue your case for Servius basing the constitution on twenty.
 
Munch it up anyway you want. Here’s how it goes. Servius has 20,000 men, Romulus has each tribe numbering 1000 men, so if some academic was smart enough to understand maths, they could have surmised that what if the 20,000 men under Servius were organised along the same tribal basis as Romulus. Duh! This would amount to Servius having 20 tribes each of 1,000 men. Then this bright academic would then add to this Livy’s (2 21) statement that for the year 495 BC, “the number of tribes at Rome was increased to twenty-one. That would mean that 21 minus 1 = 20, so gee this reinforce his belief that the 20,000 men under Servius could be organised into 20 tribes each of 1000 men.
 
This never happened because academics dismissed the figure of 20,000 men as being fanciful.
 
And yes I am aware of Dionysius writing about 30 tribes....but do you know why he has done this?
Reply
#37
(04-29-2016, 02:42 AM)Steven James Wrote: why is there a problem accepting that a curiae had 100 men and that a curiae can be termed a century?

Because a curia (singular!) was a social division and a centuria a military division. Each curia contributed a centuria of 100 men to the army, as I understand it. Therefore each curia (which contained various gentes - families) must have numbered more than 100 men. Unless you're suggesting that there were exactly 3000 men in Rome at this time and all of them served in the army.


(04-29-2016, 02:42 AM)Steven James Wrote: I’ve never hidden the fact my goal is to vindicate the ancient historian.

But you seem very hard on Polybius! - in your post above you call him 'confused' and 'in error', his mathematics 'impossible' and claim he gives us a 'distorted picture'. Isn't this what you're accusing 'academics' of doing?
Reply
#38
(04-29-2016, 07:56 AM)Steven James Wrote: Munch it up anyway you want. Here’s how it goes. Servius has 20,000 men, Romulus has each tribe numbering 1000 men, so if some academic was smart enough to understand maths, they could have surmised that what if the 20,000 men under Servius were organised along the same tribal basis as Romulus. Duh! This would amount to Servius having 20 tribes each of 1,000 men. Then this bright academic would then add to this Livy’s (2 21) statement that for the year 495 BC, “the number of tribes at Rome was increased to twenty-one. That would mean that 21 minus 1 = 20, so gee this reinforce his belief that the 20,000 men under Servius could be organised into 20 tribes each of 1000 men.

As you know, Steven, I am on your side in that I want to see your theories fully expounded and subjected to proper consideration, so let me give you some gentle advice: cut out the sarcasm. It won't impress your opponents and may risk alienating your supporters; it certainly irritates me. What is required is calm, reasoned exposition, not petulant outbursts. I know that it is annoying to have your carefully thought-out ideas questioned but that is the nature of academic debate. If you lose your temper, you are in grave danger of losing the argument, in my opinion.

(04-29-2016, 07:56 AM)Steven James Wrote: And yes I am aware of Dionysius writing about 30 tribes....but do you know why he has done this?

This sort of elliptical response doesn't help, either. Please be explicit.
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
#39
Nathan wrote:
Because a curia (singular!) was a social division and a centuria a military division. Each curia contributed a centuria of 100 men to the army, as I understand it. Therefore each curia (which contained various gentes - families) must have numbered more than 100 men. Unless you're suggesting that there were exactly 3000 men in Rome at this time and all of them served in the army.
 
No, of the male population, 3,000 men were selected for the infantry. Of the 80,000 male population under Servius, 20,000 iuniores and 4,000 seniores served in the army. The tribal system is based on the size of the army. That is why the Servian constitution has both a military and political function.
 
Nathan wrote:
But you seem very hard on Polybius! - in your post above you call him 'confused' and 'in error', his mathematics 'impossible' and claim he gives us a 'distorted picture'. Isn't this what you're accusing 'academics' of doing?
 
What academics do is degrade the reputation of an ancient historian in order to make their theory work. Most of their claims of anachronistism, etc cannot be proven (see my posting: A Class on their own). For example the latest is Mark Taylor who writes: “Even Caesar, in command of a firmly cohortal force, slips into describing the battle-line in terms of the archaic maniples.”
 
Where’s the proof the maniple was archaic? Mark fails to address those references to maniple carried on through the writings of Ammianus and others. If the maniple was archaic, then why the continual use of the term throughout the ages? It seems Caesar is getting in the way of Mark’s theory.
 
Mark Taylor further writes: “Some of this may have to do with the fact that Caesar is a competent prose stylist, mixing up cohort and maniple for the sake of variation.” Following Mark’s rationale, Caesar is now using the archaic term of maniple for the sake of variation. Can Mark prove this? And what are Caesar’s readers in Rome to think when he uses terms they do not understand? Is Caesar not worried about what his readership will think of him?
 
Mark writes: “But if a cohort in battle array consisted of three maniples fighting side by side, then Caesar’s variation would remain militarily accurate.” But Caesar cannot be accurate as Mark had made it clear that the maniple is archaic. Mark’s not on solid ground here and he knows it.
 
If an academic makes a statement and is able to prove it, then all and good, make the statement. If he cannot, wouldn’t it be more prudent not to make the statement.
 
As to my comments about Polybius, I have come to this conclusion based on being able to prove on numerous occasions Polybius is confused about the Roman legion. Polybius leaves a distinctive mathematical signature in his work. He does it time and time again. I don’t find it a burden but a blessing because by reversing the mistake, it brings his numbers in line with many other ancient historians. For example look at the numbers given for Hannibal’s army before marching to Italy:
 
Alimentus       80,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry
Appian            90,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry
Eutropius       80,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry
Livy                78,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry
Orosius         100,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry
Polybius          90,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry
 
Appian, Orosius and Polybius have more infantry than Alimentus, Eutropius and Livy. I have found it common practice that Polybius adds the cavalry numbers to the infantry number. So if we subtract the cavalry from the infantry for Appian, Orosius and Polybius, we end up with the following:
 
Alimentus     80,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry
Appian          78,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry
Eutropius     80,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry
Livy              78,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry
Orosius         80,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry
Polybius        78,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry
 
Except for Eutropius’ 20,000 cavalry, the six ancient historians are in the same range. Appian’s source is Polybius. And believe it or not, Eutropius’ 20,000 cavalry can be explained because of double counting. This is not a one of example; I have dozens showing Polybius is the culprit, and let’s not forget my paper on academia edu on the Telamon campaign of 225 BC.





 
Reply
#40
(04-29-2016, 09:59 AM)Steven James Wrote: of the male population, 3,000 men were selected for the infantry.

Yes, they were selected in 100-man centuriae from the curiae (plurals). So curia and centuria surely cannot be 'one and the same thing', as you suggested above, and a curia cannot have numbered 100 men. That's all I was questioning.


(04-29-2016, 09:59 AM)Steven James Wrote: What academics do is degrade the reputation of an ancient historian in order to make their theory work.

It still seems to me that this is what you're doing with Polybius! 'Degrade the reputation' sounds rather dramatic - 'question the reliability' might be more accurate. And questioning the reliability of sources is essential to study, I'd say.

Why should Polybius be more confused and erroneous than Livy, or Orosius for that matter? He was a lot closer in date to the events he was describing. Livy used Polybius as a source - who did Polybius use as a source? Could they all be wrong? Almost all ancient historians (excepting a few eyewitness participants - Caesar, Ammianus, Herodian and Dio at times) are drawing on previous writers. Deciding which of them were or were not 'in error', and identifying culprits, seems a partial approach when we know so little about their sources of information, and entirely in keeping with the supposed 'academic' attitude you seem to dislike.
Reply
#41
I would second what Michael has said, better being polite even when the barbs of criticism bite deep. It is the fate of the author to face both accolades and brickbats, but even the harshest criticism can be useful as a learning tool if it contains helpful information.

It is useful to remind ourselves that most historical works written by the ancients were actually meant to be read out and performed in front of an audience. So most ancient authors would include terms in their works which their audience, who had a classical education, would be familiar with. That's why you get a mix of both classical and current terminology within many ancient historian's writings. It is difficult at best that when Ammianus talks about maniples and centuries is he classising or actually describing the current make up of the legions he was describing. My own personal view is that maniples and centuries did exist during the time frame Ammianus served in the Roman army because why use terms he would not have been familiar with as a serving officer whilst serving with the army?
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#42
Nathan wrote:
Why should Polybius be more confused and erroneous than Livy, or Orosius for that matter? He was a lot closer in date to the events he was describing.
 
And that does not mean Polybius is always right. Surely you cannot believe that. Of those six writers providing Hannibal’s army numbers, Polybius was the earliest and this shows the pattern of double counting begins with him. Livy does not make the same mistake because he has not used Polybius as his source. The pattern of double counting does not occur before Polybius’ time nor after it, and that tells me a lot.
 
Nathan wrote:
Almost all ancient historians (excepting a few eyewitness participants - Caesar, Ammianus, Herodian and Dio at times) are drawing on previous writers.
 
This may not be the case when dealing with legion or army numbers. I get the feeling that some are working with highly detailed army numbers giving the total number of centuries, and the ancient author is then doing his own calculations, with some doing it better than others.
 
Nathan wrote:
Deciding which of them were or were not 'in error', and identifying culprits, seems a partial approach when we know so little about their sources of information, and entirely in keeping with the supposed 'academic' attitude you seem to dislike.
 
You have overlooked my previous posting. The attitude I dislike is when academics make a statement that is many ways detrimental to the ancient historian and for the love of god cannot back it up. I will back up my statements and provide evidence. If I can’t I keep my mouth shut.
 
Polybius is considered by academics to be most reliable. I have exposed Polybius’ method of double counting the cavalry. At least I can support my claim of his reliability or lack of it. Who was Polybius’ source? Well it could be Fabius Pictor, then it might not be. But this does not mean Polybius is not responsible for the double counting. If he isn’t then someone prove to me who was? Ah, but no one on this forum was even aware of the double counting problem until I pointed it out. There is another mathematical signature Polybius and only Polybius has, that I have not mentioned and this further highlights Polybius is solely the generator of such mathematical errors.
 
Let’s look at Livy’s events for 215 BC. In 215 BC, a legion numbering 5,000 men and 400 cavalry under the command of a Manlius was sent to Sardinia. To suppress a Carthaginian inspired revolt, Manlius had under his command 22,000 infantry and 1,200 cavalry for a total of 23,200 men.
 
Here’s what I have learnt about Roman ranking. A proconsul can command the same number of legions as a consul that is four legions (two Roman and two allied). As the number of Roman cavalry to allied cavalry had changed from a ratio of 3:1 to 2:1 by 205 BC, each allied legion in was allocated 600 allied cavalry, for a total of 1,200 allied cavalry per proconsul army.
 
Four legions amount to 20,000 men. As Livy has allocated 400 cavalry to a legion, hereby interpreted by stupid Steven as a Roman legion, the Roman cavalry amount to 800 Roman cavalry, and with the inclusion of 1,200 allied cavalry, this gives a total of 2,000 cavalry, increasing the army from 20,000 men to 22,000 men. Stupid Steven is 1,200 men short of Livy’s total of 23,200 men. However, if stupid Steven follows the premise that the allied cavalry has been double counted, then the additional 1,200 cavalry increases the figure of 22,000 men to 23,300 men, which approximates to Livy’s figure of 23,200 men. Therefore, Livy’s figure of 23,200 has been based on the following:
 
Roman infantry      10000 infantry
Allied infantry       10000 infantry
Total                     20000 men
Roman cavalry          800 cavalry
Allied cavalry          2400 cavalry
Total                     23200 men
 
As this trait is very common in Polybius, stupid Steven is led to believe that Livy’s source could be Polybius. Ok, I’ve provided more mathematical information, and like the rest will be ignore in favour of looking to find something else perceived to be wrong somewhere else.
 
When will anyone address the numbers I provide? I think I have more chance of hell freezing over. In fact I think my chances of winning the lottery are far greater.

I should mention that I have Livy’s figure for Hannibal’s army at 78,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry. It should read 90,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry. So Livy’s source was Polybius.
 
I have to pull out of this discussion as the news I received late this afternoon of a friend I was forming a business partnership with had committed suicide. The anger of him doing this is kicking in, and it is starting to show on this forum.
 
I am sorry.
Reply
#43
(04-29-2016, 12:30 PM)Steven James Wrote: I have to pull out of this discussion as the news I received late this afternoon of a friend I was forming a business partnership with had committed suicide. The anger of him doing this is kicking in, and it is starting to show on this forum.

I'm really sorry to hear that. The poor fellow must have been desperate. Come back when you feel able.
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
#44
Very sorry Steven, my thoughts are with you at this sad time.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#45
Adrian wrote:
My own personal view is that maniples and centuries did exist during the time frame Ammianus served in the Roman army because why use terms he would not have been familiar with as a serving officer whilst serving with the army?
 
Well I for one am not going to disagree with you. The terms cohort, maniple and century are common throughout the ages that it is still beyond my understanding as to why they are continuously ignored. Academia’s theory of the non existence of the maniple after 210 BC is set in concrete. It is nothing but a theory and an untested theory at that. Ask any academic to prove the maniple did not exist after 210 BC and watch the unconvincing excuses they produce.
 
At a lecture given by Antony Beevor (author Stalingrad, Berlin), Beevor was saying but not in these exact words but in meaning, that he was wary of any historian that approached the research material with a theory in mind. He believed they are not genuinely looking for the truth, and they are not genuinely open to discovery. Albert Einstein best sums it up: “Academic chairs are many, but wise and noble teachers are few; lecture-rooms are numerous and large, but the number of young people who genuinely thirst after truth and justice is small.”
 
When academics see conflicting numbers on the same subject by various ancient historians, there method is to determine which ancient historian is the more reliable and go with that ancient historian. For example, Tim Cornell in his book “The Beginnings of Rome,” (page 434, footnote 35) has this to say about the differing monetary figures given for property Class I:
 
“It is hard to know why Gellius gives a higher figure (sc. 125,000) for the rating of the first class than Livy or Dionysius (100,000). Festus (p. 100 L) gives 120,000, while Gaius (2.274) agrees with Livy and Dionysius. Possibly they refer to different periods.”
 
If as Cornell states “it is hard to know why,” then as that is his belief, it will be hard for Cornell to know. Cornell’s belief is his reality, so with a belief system like that, then don’t expect too much. Had Cornell abandoned is belief and his method of which ancient historian is right or wrong, Cornell would have seen the answer staring him in the face. Gellius’ higher figure of 125,000 asses for Class I is the maximum monetary figure and Dionysius and Livy’s figure of 100,000 asses is the minimum monetary figure for Class I. By following this train of thought, the Servian fiscal policy can be reconstructed to look like this:
 
Class I      125,000 asses to 100,000 asses
Class II     100,000 asses to 75,000 asses
Class III     75,000 asses to 50,000 asses
Class IV     50,000 asses to 25,000 asses
Class V       25,000 asses to 1,500 asses
Class VI       1,500 asses to 375 asses
 
Notice how the increment of 25,000 asses, which is the difference between Gellius and Livy’s Class I. Festus’ figure of 120,000 has been rounded from 125,000. Again, staying with Cornell (page 189):
 
“The original Servian system was probably centred on a classis of sixty centuries. This cannot be certain, but it is on balance more likely than the alternative reconstruction which postulates a classis of forty centuries. This means that in the sixth century Rome was capable of fielding an army of 6,000 hoplites.”
 
Unfortunately Cornell does not bring to the reader’s attention Dionysius (4 19) reference that Servius Tullius “whenever he had occasion to raise 10,000 men, or, if it should so happen, 20,000 men, he would divide that number among the 193 centuries and then order each century to furnish the number of men that fell to its share.”
 
Cornell also neglects Dionysius’ other reference to the Roman army in 480 BC as amounting to 20,000 men, of which four legions under two consuls were at Veii and two legions remained at Rome as a reserve. How many times does Dionysius have to write 20,000 men before it is taken seriously?
 
If you read my paper on the Roman tribes on academia edu, you will notice the total number of centuries for the 20 tribes is 240 centuries and when divided by the six legions levied for Veii, this works out to six legions each of 40 centuries. For the year 462 BC, Dionysius (9 69-71) has four cohorts each of 600 men stationed in front of Rome. This is the fifth 40 century legion of iuniores and combined with the 40 century legion of seniores, both are guarding Rome. Same pattern appears in 480 BC as in 462 BC. The four cohorts of Dionysius add up to 2,400 men and when divided by 60 men per century, the legion has 40 centuries. By further dividing the four cohorts of 600 men, each cohort has ten centuries. Dionysius’ 600 man cohort is a cohort under the command of a military tribune. Therefore, there are four military tribunes in command of a forty century legion. With the 200 centuries of iuniores producing five legions each of 40 centuries, and a 40 century legion having four military tribunes, there has to be a total of 20 military tribunes (one per tribe).
 
When the legions mutinied against the government of the Decimvir in 449 BC, the legions campaigning in Aligidum marched on Rome and occupied the Aventine. The legions stationed a Fidenae, on hearing of the revolt of the legions at Aligidum, also marched on Rome and joined forces with the legions from Aligidum. In Dionysius’ (11 43-44) account: “after joining the others, they put down their arms and left it to the twenty tribunes to speak and act in all matters as representatives of the whole group.” In Livy’s (3 51) account: “the two armies united, and the twenty military tribunes were requested to appoint two of their number to take the supreme direction of affairs.” Here both Dionysius’ and Livy confirm that twenty military tribunes commanded the Roman army.
 
Another academic walking in the same footsteps of Cornell is Lorne Ward, (Roman Population, Territory, Tribe, City and Army Size from the Republic’s Founding to the Veientane War, 509 BC to 400 BC: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 111, No. 1. (Spring, 1990), pp. 5-39.)
 
In his paper, Lorne Ward also fails to acknowledge the figure of 20,000 men for the Roman army as given by Dionysius. On page 17, Ward writes: “Although Dionysius (9 62-65) for one, incorrectly citing the first century BC legion size of his time, quotes an army of 5,000 in a war against the Aequi and Volsci in 464 BC, his figure is consistent with and only slightly above the usual army size of 4600.”
 
Ward’s claim that Dionysius’ 5,000 men are only sightly above Ward’s army of 4,600 men (4000 infantry and 600 cavalry) does not adhere to the primary sources. Ward’s approach to the primary sources is quite obvious to see. He is being selective about what information he chooses and what information he neglects because he has a preconceived theory in mind before setting out. Having arrived at a Roman army amounting to 4,600 men, Ward then selectively chooses data (one reference is all there is) that approximates to that figure.
 
Unfortunately, this is where it gets difficult for Ward because nowhere does Dionysius or Livy provided figures supporting Ward’s theory of the whole Roman army numbering only 13,800 men. Ward’s total for the Roman army of 12,000 infantry and 1,800 cavalry again ignores Dionysius’ claim of 20,000 men and the 1,200 cavalry being present at Veii. If we don’t use the primary sources as our principle road map, then what is the point?
 
But is Ward correct is claiming Dionysius is guilty of anachronism by using the size of the first century BC legion of his time and implanting this information to the year 464 BC? Ward like many other academics works on the principle that he cannot prove his theory but he knows you also cannot disprove his theory. For one, all the translation I have read state at Dionysius 9 63 the figure of about 5,000 men (not 5,000 men) are reinforcements made up of volunteers. This is Ward’s first mistake. The second mistake is he possibly believes as the primary sources have for centuries been extensively examined and re-examined, nothing new can be discovered that would prove him wrong. That is until now.
 
The reason why I am familiar with the campaign of 464 BC is because I spent years going backwards and forwards trying to prove if a legion of 5,000 men did exist for this time. It turned out to be a red-herring and not the first nor the last. The 5,000 men are what they are stated to be, that is reinforcements because for this campaign the Romans levied all 21 tribes instead of the standard 20 tribes. By referring back to my research on the Rome tribes as found on academia edu, there are 210 centuries of iuniores for the 21 tribes. With the consuls (Postumius and Furius) each commanding 80 centuries (supported by numerous other campaigns), this leaves the proconsul Quintius with a force of 50 centuries (80 + 80 + 50 = 210 centuries). When it comes to the levy, most of Class VI are not levied, just the artificers, so this brings Quintius’ force of 50 centuries below 5,000 men, which approximates to Dionysius figure of “about 5,000 men.”
 
In his closing narrative of the 464 BC campaign, Livy writes that the Roman historian Valerius Antias, with minute particularity, gives the number of men killed in the consular army of Furius at 5,800 men. Dionysius reports that during the attack on his camp, Furius lost two cohorts “not exceeding 1,000 men.” By adding these 1,000 men to the tally of 5,800 men claimed to be killed by Valerius Antias, the total is 6,800 men, which is the total number of infantry in Furius’ army of two forty century legions each of 3,400 infantry. Therefore, Valerius Antias figure of 5,800 men killed are the number of men that survived.
 
Livy further adds that Valerius Antias’ claimed that the consul Postumius killed 2,400 Aequian marauders, and the proconsul Quintius’ men killed 4,230 Aequians. The figure of 2,400 Aequians is coincidentally the number of men in a forty century legion taken from Classes I to III, and the figure of 4,230 Aequians killed by Quintius is seventy men short of Quintius’ total of 4,300 infantry taken from Classes I to V. This leaves the possibility that Quintius lost seventy men in his engagement with the Aequians.
 
Do people really want me to introduce the works of scholars into my book? What if I mentioned those academics who believe Livy’s first five books are not worthy of study as they are nothing more than fantasy? All I have to do is use their words verbatim and I can have a field day with it. And that will be achieved is to show all their shortcomings. I thought it would be better to let sleeping dogs lie.
 
On the flip side of the coin, the problem left to me by academics is high, wide and far. Most publishing houses believe only the works of academics can be taken seriously. As I have been told by publishing houses, only academics have specialist training, if they have not been able to discover that Rome was Pythagorean then such a concept cannot be taken seriously when presented by an amateur. I have even been told by a publishing house that as I am a nobody, no one will buy my book.
 
Putting all the above aside, here is rough sample of how I am approaching introducing scholarly opinion on the various subjects covered in the book. This one covers Vegetius.
 
VEGETIUS: SCHOLARSHIP TO DATE
Vegetius was the author of the De Re Militari (Epitome of Military Science), believed written in the fourth century AD. Among Vegetius’ sources was Cato the Censor (243 BC to 149 BC), Cornelius Celsus (25 BC to 50 AD), Frontinus (40 AD to 103 AD) and Paternus (date needed). This informs us Vegetius’ legion is interwoven with military terminologies, procedures and organisations spanning from the reign of the Roman kings to Vegetius’ own day. During the medieval period and up to the early twentieth century Vegetius was the most read and influential western military theorist, being highly regarded by scholars and the military academies of many European nations.
 
In 1572 believing the writings of Vegetius contained a message to improve the inadequacy of the Elizabethan armies, John Sadler translated and published Vegetius’ De Re Militari: “as a guide and warning to his queen and council, no doubt hoping that, through his efforts, the recruiting, training, and disciplining of the troops would in some measure be improved.”
 
Some 195 years later, in 1767, Lieutenant John Clarke felt it also important to publish Vegetius’ De Re Militari for the attention of the King of England: “to consider this attempt as the result of a desire to contribute to the advancement of the military sciences.”
 
However, by the nineteenth century, scholarly fashion found Vegetius was truly out of favour as found in the writings of Oman’s “Art of War in the Middle Ages,” published in 1884: “In drawing inferences from his statements, it has also to be remembered that he (Vegetius) frequently gives the ideal military forms of his imagination, instead of those which really existed in his day.”
 
By the twentieth century, Vegetius’ reputation had decline as expressed by Michael Speidel: “Vegetius’ reconstructed figures of strength for the antique ordination, therefore, cannot teach us anything about the legions and run counter to the rest of our knowledge…Vegetius’ figures must now be struck from the historical record.”
 
As will be shown, the main reason why Vegetius has fallen from grace is simply due to Vegetius and modern scholars failing to understand the machinations of the legion’s tactical doctrines. In fairness to Vegetius he does ask his readers not to blame him, but to “the difficulty of the actual subject.”
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael wrote:
to have your carefully thought-out ideas questioned but that is the nature of academic debate. If you lose your temper, you are in grave danger of losing the argument, in my opinion.
 
No, that is not correct. I do not mind having my ideas or theories questioned, far from it. What I am tired of is no matter what evidence I present, they are ignored, my critics go looking for something else in the hope of making me wrong. Let’s see, I used the word century instead of curiae. I know nit picking when I see it and when someone is subtly playing the smart arse. On the matter, Cornell writes that:
 
“Servius Tullius took over from the earlier military organisation not only the century as the basic unit (each curia supplied 100 men).”
 
Here’s what I learnt. Before the Pythagorean reform, a curia of 100 men was its political name and its military name was a century. In its political role, each curia was divided into ten parts called a decurio, and in its military role each section of ten men was called a maniple. After the Pythagorean reform a maniple became a larger body of men. So Vegetius ten man maniple relates to pre Pythagorean reforms. Here’s what I also have learnt. The legion’s size and organisation is governed by a single integer, which correspond to a Pythagorean age or its position in the Pythagorean cosmos. Armed with this information, one can read Vegetius and determine with complete accuracy, the time frame the data belongs to. This makes Vegetius’ work invaluable.
 
Now by responding to the nit picking, I am being castigated for being sarcastic, but nothing ever said on the evidence I present. Show me one positive or encouraging thing written about what I present? Show me a meaningful discussion on how I interpret the primary sources. Unfortunately, most of my experiences have been akin to those of Jean-François Champollion. That’s not to say I am putting myself in the same league as Champollion that would be wrong and offensive.
Reply


Forum Jump: