Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Twelfth Hour
#46
(05-08-2016, 07:50 AM)Steven James Wrote: 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

I think I mentioned previously in this thread that there is no evidence for an establishment of 20 tribes. Livy (6.5.8) mentions that, when four new tribes were created in 387 BC, there were now 25, which means there had been 21. If you wish to base your theory on an establishment of 20 tribes, you need to persuade your readers that, at some point, there had actually been 20 tribes. You cannot simply assume this.

Equally, regarding the number of centuries, the sources agree that there were 193 (Dion. Hal. 4.18.2) or 192 (adding up the numbers in Livy 1.43.1-9). Not 240. (I'm not sure where you got 240 from.)

Dionysius (4.19.1) even explains that, although there were 193 centuries, different sizes of armies (he quotes 10,000 and 20,000) could be raised by varying the size of the century.

If the remainder of your theory depends upon 240 centuries, you will need to address these points.


Edit:
(05-08-2016, 07:50 AM)Steven James Wrote: 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.

You have misunderstood the sources here. The two armies each elected ten tribunes to go to Rome, where they would select two of their number to take over from the deposed decemviri. Roman legions did not normally have this number of tribunes. It was a response to the crisis of 449 BC.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
Reply
#47
Duncan wrote:
I think I mentioned previously in this thread that there is no evidence for an establishment of 20 tribes. Livy (6.5.8) mentions that, when four new tribes were created in 387 BC, there were now 25, which means there had been 21. If you wish to base your theory on an establishment of 20 tribes, you need to persuade your readers that, at some point, there had actually been 20 tribes. You cannot simply assume this.
 
As I wrote in posting #32 for the year 495 BC, Livy writes that “the number of tribes at Rome was increased to twenty-one.” Also I am assuming nothing. I bring new methods of investigation to the table, and these mathematical methods show that at the start of the Pythagorean system the number of tribes was 20. I’m taking the ambiguity out of the primary sources.
 
Duncan wrote:
Equally, regarding the number of centuries, the sources agree that there were 193 (Dion. Hal. 4.18.2) or 192 (adding up the numbers in Livy 1.43.1-9). Not 240. (I'm not sure where you got 240 from.)
 
I’ve explained it here: “The Roman Tribes: A New Perspective.”
 
https://independent.academia.edu/StevenJames1
 
If you are not interested in reading it, I am not interested in repeating it. However, my paper on the Roman tribes on academia edu is an edited version. It does not contain all the evidence. Missing is the five elements, heaven, fire, air, earth, and water, all formed into five mathematical solid shapes. In total the five elements amounted to 14,400 degrees.

Heaven 6480 degrees
Fire 720 degrees
Air 1440 degrees
Earth 2160 degrees
Water 3600 degrees
  
Unbeknown to many, the five elements are the heart beat of Rome. From the five elements you can created the Roman tribal system and the Servian constitution. Care to have an attempt at doing this Duncan? Hint! If you examined my paper on the Roman tribes you will see the number of cavalry, both iuniores and seniores amounts to 2160 men.
 
Duncan wrote:
Dionysius (4.19.1) even explains that, although there were 193 centuries, different sizes of armies (he quotes 10,000 and 20,000) could be raised by varying the size of the century. If the remainder of your theory depends upon 240 centuries, you will need to address these points.
 
https://independent.academia.edu/StevenJames1
 
Duncan wrote:
Roman legions did not normally have this number of tribunes. It was a response to the crisis of 449 BC.
 
Where’s your proof the Roman army for this period did not have a total of 20 military tribunes?
 
Reply
#48
Quote:As I wrote in posting #32 for the year 495 BC, Livy writes that “the number of tribes at Rome was increased to twenty-one.”
Are you using the original Latin or a translation?
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#49
And not only that, if an argument hinges on numbers, its a good idea to check a printed edition with an apparatus criticus. Often a number which appears in an old translation is not found in any one manuscript, but is a reconstruction from inconsistent figures or gibberish. The only way to know what the manuscripts actually say is to check the app. crit.
Nullis in verba

I left this forum around the beginning of 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value
Reply
#50
Dan wrote:
Are you using the original Latin or a translation?
 
Both, and others help with translating the Latin and Greek when need be, or I consider it critical. And I use more than one translation when possible. Should I give another example of army numbers in the primary sources that show the number of tribes at the beginning was 20 tribes? Then again, what would be the point? It will be ignored and I will have to answer these types of questions.
Reply
#51
(05-09-2016, 05:41 AM)Dan Howard Wrote:
Quote:As I wrote in posting #32 for the year 495 BC, Livy writes that “the number of tribes at Rome was increased to twenty-one.”
Are you using the original Latin or a translation?

The Loeb edition has, 'Romae tribus una et viginti factae', translated as, 'At Rome twenty-one tribes were formed.' It does not tell us the position before these tribes were formed. Presumably, this is to be found elsewhere, for which we need a reference. I appreciate that the tribes are listed in Steven's paper but, unless I have missed it, I do not see a reference for that.
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
#52
Quote:Should I give another example of army numbers in the primary sources that show the number of tribes at the beginning was 20 tribes? Then again, what would be the point? It will be ignored and I will have to answer these types of questions.
Not ignored, disputed. You need to produce the original Latin so your interpretation can be independently verified - ideally by using the apparatus criticus that Sean mentioned. Right now you don't seem to have anything to confirm that there were originally 20 tribes.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#53
Michael wrote:
The Loeb edition has, 'Romae tribus una et viginti factae', translated as, 'At Rome twenty-one tribes were formed.'
 
On the subject Cornell writes:
 
Livy's phrase tribus una et viginti factae is unfortunately ambiguous: it could mean 'the twenty-one tribes were formed', which would imply that the system of local tribes was first instituted at that time, and not under Servius Tullius, as Livy elsewhere maintains. Alternatively, the phrase could equally well mean 'the tribes became twenty-one' - that is to say, one or more new tribes were added to the pre-existing ones, so as to bring the total to twenty one. This second interpretation is the more likely on general grounds, and is the one most widely adopted by modern scholars.”
 
Michael wrote:
It does not tell us the position before these tribes were formed. Presumably, this is to be found elsewhere, for which we need a reference.
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but are saying we need a reference from the primary sources categorically stating there are 20 tribes at the beginning? You have for sometime my work on “Rome’s Infancy,” with all its detail on the tribes and how the army numbers correlate to the tribal system, so I am not sure what it is I need to answer.
 
Dan wrote:
Not ignored, disputed. Your problem is that Duncan's ability to translate these passages is better than yours so you need to produce the original Latin passage so it can be independently confirmed.
 
My research has been given to Professor Ronald Ridley for years. So yes I am independently confirmed and Ridley is not the only one. If you are disputing there are 20 tribes, then cross examine my methods in my paper. Tell me 200 musicians does not divide into 20,000 men to produce 200 centuries. Tell me why one independent maths system, that is the Servian constitution doesn’t correlate with another independent maths system, that is the Pythagorean cosmos.
 
What I get and always have, is an avoidance of directly engaging my research in its entirety, but picking over some ambiguity in the primary sources in some attempt to bring it all down. It won’t work. I have a lot more evidence to show that in the beginning there were 20 tribes, evidence hidden in the maths and easy to disclose if you know what you are doing. Looking back over this post, I have covered other topics besides the tribal system, of which nothing is said.
 
How about someone show me evidence that there was not 20 tribes before 495 BC? And please don’t give me that line about the ownership is on me to prove it, I have produced a paper on academic, so what more do you want?
Reply
#54
(05-09-2016, 10:01 AM)Steven James Wrote:  
Michael wrote:
It does not tell us the position before these tribes were formed. Presumably, this is to be found elsewhere, for which we need a reference. 
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but are saying we need a reference from the primary sources categorically stating there are 20 tribes at the beginning?

That would be nice, yes. As it is, we have three tribes at the beginning, rising to 35 with a variety of numbers in between, none of which (as far as I am aware but, of course, I am always open to correction) is 20.

(05-09-2016, 10:01 AM)Steven James Wrote: You have for sometime my work on “Rome’s Infancy,” with all its detail on the tribes and how the army numbers correlate to the tribal system, so I am not sure what it is I need to answer.

True, but others have not. I have looked through it again and, of course, may have missed something, but what I see is the argument that you have advanced here that dividing Dionysus' army of 20,000 into centuries of 100 each produces 200 centuries which, at ten centuries per tribe, gives 20 tribes. However, as you also acknowledge, Dionysus also speaks of an army of 10,000 men which, applying the same logic, would give ten tribes. Also, if Duncan is right in saying that Dionysus states that armies of different sizes could be raised by varying the size of the century, this implies that the number of tribes would remain constant.
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
#55
(05-09-2016, 10:01 AM)Steven James Wrote: Livy's phrase tribus una et viginti factae is unfortunately ambiguous


It seems so. According to the article in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities of 1890 (!) the passage itself might be dubious:

"All the best MSS. of Liv 2.21 contain under the year 259 A.U.C. the words “Romae tribus una et triginta factae.” To correct this from the Epitome to “una et viginti” is certainly unsafe, since the epitomator may easily have corrected the text from Liv. 6.5; and there is much to be said for Mommsen's hypothesis that the original reading, till tampered with by an ignorant scribe, was the mere annalistic statement, “Romae tribus factae.”


I don't know whether 126 years of subsequent scholarship has disproved the idea that Livy originally wrote 31 rather than 21... But this again shows the importance of the critical apparatus!

Source

Incidentally, the writer of this article seems to agree with you that there were, at one point during the tribal development, 20 tribes - although the inference rests on a supposed corruption in a passage of Dionysius:

"The passage again of Dionysius (7.64) with regard to the trial of Coriolanus in 263 A.U.C. is clearly corrupt. He says, μιᾶς γὰρ καὶ εἴκοσι τότε φυλῶν οὐσῶν, αἷς ἡ ψῆφος ἀνεδόθη, τὰς ἀπολυούσας ἔσχεν ὁ Μάρκιος ἐννέα: ὥστ᾽ εἰ δύο προσῆλθον αὐτῷ φυλαί, διὰ τὴν ἰσοψηφίαν ἀπελύετο ἄν, ὥσπερ ὁ νόνος ἠξίον.* As the number twenty-one is inconsistent with the ἰσοψηφία, one part of the statement must be rejected. The latter, however, is almost too definite to admit of mistake, and it seems better therefore to assume that Dionysius (or a scribe) carelessly substituted the more familiar number twenty-one, certainly existing for a considerable time previous to 367 A.U.C., for the earlier number twenty; while some similar, but inexplicable, confusion lurks under the numbers ἐννέα and δύο. But, apart from this confessedly uncertain inference, the list of the earliest seventeen rustic tribes also leads to the conclusion that there was a period when the tribes were twenty in number."


* The passage in Greek is translated in Loeb as: For out of the twenty-one tribes that were then in existence and gave their votes Marcius had nine in favour of his acquittal; so that if two more tribes had joined his side, he would have been acquitted as the result of the equal division of the votes, as the law prescribed. The writer is presumably querying the idea that there could be 'an equal division of the votes' with an uneven number of tribes, and assuming therefore that the numbers given in the text must be wrong. He goes on to suggest that Clustumina may have been added later to make up 21, a point also raised by Cornell; however, the latter points out that Claudia may have been another later addition, leaving the original number as 19.

(source as above)


(05-09-2016, 10:01 AM)Steven James Wrote: Tell me why one independent maths system, that is the Servian constitution doesn’t correlate with another independent maths system, that is the Pythagorean cosmos.

Nobody else, as far as I know, is claiming that the Servian Constitution was a mathematical system.
Reply
#56
(05-09-2016, 10:01 AM)Steven James Wrote: What I get and always have, is an avoidance of directly engaging my research in its entirety, but picking over some ambiguity in the primary sources in some attempt to bring it all down. It won’t work. I have a lot more evidence to show that in the beginning there were 20 tribes, evidence hidden in the maths and easy to disclose if you know what you are doing. Looking back over this post, I have covered other topics besides the tribal system, of which nothing is said.

It's not really an "ambiguity" but a solid fact that no source mentions 20 tribes. I have highlighted this to you, as it seems to be a fundamental building block for your theory. However, I must admit that I cannot understand where your numbers come from. That was why I highlighted the 192 (or 193) centuries mentioned by the ancient sources, which (again) is radically different from the number you have proposed.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
Reply
#57
Quote:what I see is the argument that you have advanced here that dividing Dionysus' army of 20,000 into centuries of 100 each produces 200 centuries which, at ten centuries per tribe, gives 20 tribes. However, as you also acknowledge, Dionysus also speaks of an army of 10,000 men which, applying the same logic, would give ten tribes. Also, if Duncan is right in saying that Dionysus states that armies of different sizes could be raised by varying the size of the century, this implies that the number of tribes would remain constant.

This is the key to the whole thing. Either the century was a fixed size or the number of tribes was fixed; both cannot be true. Without solid evidence that there were originally twenty tribes, the whole theory falls apart.

Quote:Tell me why one independent maths system, that is the Servian constitution doesn’t correlate with another independent maths system, that is the Pythagorean cosmos.

Because the Servian Constitution wasn't a mathematical system.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#58
Duncan wrote:
It's not really an "ambiguity" but a solid fact that no source mentions 20 tribes.
 
And no source refutes it either.
 
Duncan wrote:
I have highlighted this to you, as it seems to be a fundamental building block for your theory.
 
Well if I had to rely on the primary sources that would be correct, but the Pythagorean system tells a different story and supports 20 tribes. Those 20 tribes also have a symbolic meaning.
 
Duncan wrote:
However, I must admit that I cannot understand where your numbers come from.
 
And I told you it is explained in my paper on academia edu. As I previously stated, if you have no interest in reading it, I have no interest in repeating it, so let’s stop wasting time.
 
Michael wrote:
However, as you also acknowledge, Dionysus also speaks of an army of 10,000 men which, applying the same logic, would give ten tribes.
 
This is not the same logic. It ignores the larger figure of 20,000 men. For the campaign of 418 BC, Livy (4 46) writes: “It was determined not to make a general levy on the entire people, but ten tribes were chosen by lot. From these the two tribunes enrolled the men of military age and led them to war.”
 
This is not evidence of there being ten tribes, but evidence of a levy outside the norm.
 
Michael wrote:
Also, if Duncan is right in saying that Dionysus states that armies of different sizes could be raised by varying the size of the century, this implies that the number of tribes would remain constant.
 
Ok then, how about Duncan providing an example of how this works. Why would they vary the size of the century? And how are the centuries arranged? It is so easy to make wide sweeping generalisations. So show me how this works. And when this has been accomplished, Duncan can then do the levy for 499 BC and match the size of the Roman army at Lake Regillus to show how it all interlocks. If that is too difficult, then how about Cannae, lots of numbers there so it will be much easier.
 
Nathan wrote:
Nobody else, as far as I know, is claiming that the Servian Constitution was a mathematical system.
 
The Servian constitution has a system of equations: 80 centuries + 20 centuries = 100 centuries. The Romans add up the number of votes in order to determine if a motion is carried. For me that is a mathematical system. Full stop.
 
Dan wrote:
This is the key to the whole thing. Either the century was a fixed size or the number of tribes was fixed; both cannot be true.
 
Don’t just give sweeping generalisations Dan, prove it. Show me the money. As the bargirls in Thailand say “no money, no honey.”
 
Dan wrote:
Without solid evidence that there were originally twenty tribes, the whole theory falls apart.
 
How does my theory of Pythagorean Rome fall apart Dan? Have you seen all of my research? I did not set out believing there was originally 20 tribes, the Pythagorean system did that for me.
 
Also the military campaigns before 495 BC support there being 20 tribes, and the military campaigns after 495 BC support there being 21 tribes. I have posted one of those campaigns, which again has been ignored.
 
I also posted an example of introducing scholarly theories (the one about Vegetius) into my work, which also has been ignored. But in the same manner, people still are determined to find some ambiguity then focus on that so as to hopefully prove I am wrong. Sorry guys, it won’t work. I have new and better tools of investigation to work with because the Pythagorean system has taken a lot of the ambiguity out of the primary sources, and also revealed a wealth of information about the Romans.
 
Today I have my critics, but in the generations to come, I know my work will be the norm and accepted. The old saying if you are right, insights will follow. I am confident a new generation of scholars will make further insights into our understanding of the Romans from my work and that in itself will be rewarding.
 
I do hope some of my questions to this forum will be answered instead of being ignored. And please, if you make general and broad sweeping statements, back them up with examples.
Reply
#59
(05-10-2016, 06:37 AM)Steven James Wrote: And I told you it is explained in my paper on academia edu. As I previously stated, if you have no interest in reading it, I have no interest in repeating it, so let’s stop wasting time.

You do me a disservice, sir. I have looked through your paper on Academia and I cannot understand where your numbers come from.

P.1. You take it for granted that 20,000 men would be organized into 200 centuries. Why? We’ve seen (from Dionysius) that there are only 193 centuries available, and only 85 of those are iuniores, the seniores presumably being a reserve.

P.1. You recommend allocating one musician per century (on this basis, your 200 centuries would require 200 musicians) but you then write: “This leaves ninety nine men unaccountable.” I don’t know what that means. Who are these 99 men?

P.1. You then recommend dividing Livy’s 192 centuries by 2 (the net effect of your more complicated calculation) to arrive at 96. You say that this means “96 men”, but who are these 96 men? And why did you do this calculation in the first place?

There is more of the same, but maybe once I understand p.1, the rest will fall into place?
posted by Duncan B Campbell
Reply
#60
Duncan wrote:
You do me a disservice, sir. I have looked through your paper on Academia and I cannot understand where your numbers come from. P.1. You take it for granted that 20,000 men would be organized into 200 centuries. Why?
 
Page 1: “Dionysius and Livy’s portray Classes I to V as homogenous voting centuries. However, Vegetius’ statement that the cavalry are legionary, “because they were joined to the legion,” and were “incorporated in it and on the same rolls,” means the cavalry belong to the same century as the infantry.”
 
My theory is the century was heterogeneous. What I am uncovering is the tribal century. The voting centuries are homogenous.
 
Duncan wrote:
We’ve seen (from Dionysius) that there are only 193 centuries available, and only 85 of those are iuniores, the seniores presumably being a reserve. P.1. You recommend allocating one musician per century (on this basis, your 200 centuries would require 200 musicians) but you then write: “This leaves ninety nine men unaccountable.” I don’t know what that means. Who are these 99 men?
 
This is what I wrote: “This leaves ninety nine men unaccountable. However, by dividing the Classes I to V and the cavalry by the 200 musicians this will produce a heterogeneous tribal century amounting to ninety six men:
 
Class I          80 centuries  = 8000 men ÷ 200 = 40 men
Class II         20 centuries  = 2000 men ÷ 200 = 10 men
Class III       20 centuries  = 2000 men ÷ 200 = 10 men
Class IV        20 centuries  = 2000 men ÷ 200 = 10 men
Class V         30 centuries  = 3000 men ÷ 200 = 15 men
Artificers        2 centuries  =   200 men ÷ 200 =   1 man
Musicians       2 centuries  =   200 men ÷ 200 =   1 man
Cavalry         18 centuries  = 1800 men ÷ 200 =   9 men
Total                                                                    96 men
 
To form a tribal century of 100 men, the four missing men are allocated to Class VI.”
 
Duncan wrote:
P.1. You then recommend dividing Livy’s 192 centuries by 2 (the net effect of your more complicated calculation) to arrive at 96. You say that this means “96 men”, but who are these 96 men? And why did you do this calculation in the first place?
 
Actually sir, it is you that are doing me a disservice. I have not on page 1 recommended dividing Livy’s 192 centuries by 2. I use the term 96 men, not 96 centuries. I can only conclude you are doing this purposely. Again, this is what I wrote: “However, by dividing the Classes I to V and the cavalry by the 200 musicians this will produce a heterogeneous tribal century amounting to ninety six men:
 
Class I          80 centuries  = 8000 men ÷ 200 = 40 men
Class II         20 centuries  = 2000 men ÷ 200 = 10 men
Class III       20 centuries  = 2000 men ÷ 200 = 10 men
Class IV        20 centuries  = 2000 men ÷ 200 = 10 men
Class V         30 centuries  = 3000 men ÷ 200 = 15 men
Artificers        2 centuries  =   200 men ÷ 200 =   1 man
Musicians       2 centuries  =   200 men ÷ 200 =   1 man
Cavalry         18 centuries  = 1800 men ÷ 200 =   9 men
Total                                                                    96 men
 
To form a tribal century of 100 men, the four missing men are allocated to Class VI.”
 
Duncan wrote:
There is more of the same, but maybe once I understand p.1, the rest will fall into place?
 
When you go after someone’s work, to be fair, you need to do it in its entirety. You need to include the Pythagorean system as it is related to the Servian constitution.
 
Since posting, what I have changed is Livy’s total of 194 centuries back to 193 centuries. This was done after correspondence regarding the translation of Livy’s text. Bosford’s book on the Roman assemblies first made me aware of the possibility of there being 194 centuries, as did other papers. The overall effect of changing from 194 centuries to 193 centuries on my research is nil.
 
Reply


Forum Jump: