Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
D B Campbell The Roman Army in Detail: The Problem of the First Cohort
#31
Stefan Zehetner wrote:

Vegetius does not list a triarius posterior.
 
And shouldn’t that be the focal point of any investigation? Why isn’t there a triarius posterior?
 
Stefan Zehetner wrote:
Spurnius Lingustinus is in fact listed in the tenth ordo of hastati. But in Republican times the term "ordo" is to understand as "manipulus" as this was the organizational subunit of a legion.
 
That an ordo is a maniple is standard academic rhetoric. Where is a deeper analysis to support this claim? To answer the question, there is none, and it seems a general statement is all that is required from academia and everyone jumps on the bandwagon. Livy claims an ordo without officers numbered 180 men, so how does Polybius’ 1,200 hastati divided into 180 men to arrive at 10 ordines of hastati? Well it doesn’t, and produces a result of 6 point 66666 ordines. Academics could counter attack by declaring Livy’s figure of 180 men to an ordo to be corrupt, but they then need to prove it.
 
However, all is not lost. Livy does say there were 15 maniples of hastati, and taking a maniple at 120 men, this gives a total of 1,800 hastati, which can be organised into 10 ordines each of 180 men. The 1,200 principes and 600 triarii add up to 1,800 men and can also be organised into 10 ordines each of 180 men. So when the maths adds up, doesn’t that say something? See my paper on the Roman Legion of 406 BC to understand the difference between an ordo and a maniple.
 
https://www.academia.edu/29930853/The_Roman_Legion_of_406_BC
 
One of the greatest blunders with academics, and has been going on since Lipsius released his book in around 1590, is that Polybius’ legion is believed to be the most reliable version and nothing has changed. So like yourself, every piece of data must align to Polybius’ legion and if it does not, then it is given a weak explanation as to why it doesn’t (like ordo is a maniple), or it is entirely dismissed. And so, academia remains in a rut of their making. The Roman legion is very simple to understand, but unfortunately for academics, it remains hidden by its simplicity.
 
My bet is the reason why Livy chose to describe the 340 BC legion and not Polybius’ legion, is because Livy knew Polybius’ legion was bollocks.
 
Stefan Zehetner wrote:
The term "ordinarius" is used for the term "centurio" in the third century AD. A centurio ordinarius is not known in Republican times.
 
I am well aware of when the title was employed, that is why I wrote if “Spurnius Lingustinus been in charge of the 10th ordo during the PRINCIPATE, he would have been termed a centurio ordinarius.
 
Stefan Zehetner wrote:
Scipio Africanus introduced the cohort for his military operations in Spain.
 
Oh yes the 210 BC theory, but now changed from the 102 BC theory. The 210 BC theory was originally rejected, but now is the mantra of the new generation of academics. To make the 210 BC or 102 BC theory work, academics have dismissed all those references to cohort before 210 BC or 102 BC as being anachronistic, but still fail to provide proof. All they have to do is just say it and it becomes fact. And the more people believe it, the more people (sheeple) are convinced that it must be right. As Goebbels said, keep repeating a lie and people will believe it.
 
But why the change from 102 BC to 210 BC? Well the answer is simple. Academia painted itself into a corner by claiming that Polybius, being the most reliable of historians, mentions cohort in 210 BC, and by not recognising this fact, it would indeed do a disservice to Polybius. Had Polybius mentioned a cohort in 265 BC, then that would have been the new date of the supposedly introduction of the cohort. Polybius believed that a cohort was made up of 3 maniples, so wouldn’t it be logical to find Polybius’ first use of the maniple as also being connected to the cohort. So his use of the maniple in 255 BC, would indicate there were also cohorts. So much for the 210 BC theory. Most academic theories are built on sand, and therefore, easy to knock over.
 
Stefan Zehetner wrote:
There is no proof, that all cohorts of a legion had 10 centuries.
 
Then you need to rewrite that line claiming this.
 
Stefan Zehetner wrote:
In fact the term "manipulus" was used in imperial times. But indicating old organizational charts, it was only used in literary sources, where they simply were used as stylistic devices.
 
I know for a fact you cannot prove that the term maniple was a “stylistic device.” This is another academic response to protect a poorly investigated theory.
 
Stefan Zehetner wrote:
Primary sources do not indicate any manipuli in imperial times any longer. Some sources (SHA, Ammianus Marcellinus, Vegetius) claim, that the term "manipulus" was used for the "contubernium", the tent party.
 
That is how they have been interpreted. Claudian also attests to the existence of the maniple during the reign of the emperor Theodosius. Pacatus writes that during the time of Theodosius I the cohorts were arranged by maniples. No matter how many references to maniples are found, they are dismissed because they do not conform to academic theories, which are mainly one and the same nowadays. The problem I have with the university system is they teach you what to think, and not how to think.
 
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The AD33 crucifixion detail in Judea jkaler48 104 14,668 07-12-2012, 03:57 AM
Last Post: Crispvs
  Xanten gates-need info with more detail Arahne 2 861 07-14-2007, 03:43 PM
Last Post: Praefectusclassis

Forum Jump: