In 219 BC, the consul Tiberius Sempronius was to launch an invasion of Africa. During Rome's mobilization, Livy (21 17) and Polybius (3 41) allocate the consul Tiberius Sempronius 160 quinqueremes. Livy also claims that Tiberius Sempronius had a fleet of 220 warships and 20 light galleys, for a total of 240 ships. Later, Livy allocates Tiberius Sempronius 160 quinqueremes and 12 light galleys for a total of 172 ships. Appian (The Iberian Wars 14) allots Tiberius Sempronius Longus with 160 ships and two legions. However, Livy and Polybius, only allocate the consul Publius Cornelius Scipio, with a fleet of 60 quinqueremes to transport his consular army to Iberia. Appian (The Iberian Wars 14) also allocates Publius Cornelius Scipio 60 ships, conveying 10,000 infantry and 700 cavalry. This becomes more perplexing because in 229 BC, Polybius (2 11 7) has the consul Gnaeus Fulvius sail from Rome with 200 ships to Corcyra. So, it would appear that around 200 ships should be allocated to a consul.
As Polybius (1 26 7) has, during the First Punic War, stated that 120 soldiers were allocated to each quinquereme, and yet Polybius shows no concern that Publius Scipio's fleet of 60 quinqueremes was grossly inadequate for a consular army. Now if we follow Polybius that a legion had 4,200 infantry, we are only going to experience dead ends, but my working on the figure of 4,800 infantry per legion (1,200 velites, 1,800 hastati, 1,200 princeps and 600 triarii), when the 4,800 infantry per legion are divided by 120 infantry per ship, this means each legion needed to be conveyed in 40 ships, and four legions needed 160 ships, which is a figure provided by Appian, Livy and Polybius. With 19,200 infantry requiring 160 ships, Publius Scipio's 60 ships can only convey 7,200 infantry, which means Scipio is missing 12,000 infantry.
The two consular armies would require 320 ships to convey 38,400 infantry organised into eight legions each of 4,800 infantry. And here the answer to the problem is revealed. Basically, you are looking right at it. When it comes to the fleet of Publius Scipio, Polybius or his source has mistaken the number of ships for two consular fleets as being the number of infantry able to be conveyed on the ships, so Scipio's 60 ships each transport 320 infantry, which produces a total of 19,200 infantry (320 infantry x 60 ships = 19,200 infantry).
In order to rid the Mediterranean of pirates, in 67 BC, the senate allocated Pompey an army of 120,000 infantry, 4,000 cavalry, and 270 ships. Well, the problem is pretty obvious, 270 ships to convey 120,000 infantry and 4,000 cavalry, while the consuls of 218 BC needed 320 ships to convey 38,400 infantry. It could be that the Romans now built ships with five storeys, like the modern cruise liners. Now, if we cast our net out further, Appian tells us that after defeating the pirates, Pompey capture 71 pirate ships, another 306 pirate ships surrendered, and "about" 120 pirate towns, and fortresses were captured with "about" 10,000 pirates killed. These captured pirate ships, towns and fortresses have been deducted from Pompey's original fleet, and when included, Pompey's fleet of 270 ships increased to 767 ships.
Turning ships into captured towns first appears in Polybius' account of the First Punic War, and then again in the Second Punic War, and again in 67 BC. The other disparity relating in Pompey's army is 120,000 infantry are only allocated 4,000 cavalry. This is because those 10,000 pirates killed have been converted from 10,000 cavalry, which would increase Pompey's cavalry to "about" 14,000 cavalry. A very common pattern in Appian, is he breaks the total number of infantry and cavalry into separate infantry and cavalry figures. For example; 7,700 infantry and 1,000 cavalry amount to 8,700 men, which Appian then breaks into 8,000 infantry and 700 cavalry.
If anyone is interested, I can rant on about the battle of Bagradas and how Roman ships were turned into Carthaginian elephants or Carthaginian towns.
Chinese whispers with maths. ::)
Good approach to looking at them though.
It's a weird thing to do, swapping ships for towns and elephants. What do you think the reason might be?
I think you are making the error of assuming that the field army is only transported by galleys, and not by other ships in addition, not least the cavalry. Just because the other ships are not mentioned does not mean they were not there. It is the same in the 16th C, the contemporary sources are very focused on the galleys of the Christian and Ottoman fleets, but any invasion force was heavily reliant on "round ships" which only tend to get much of a mention when the larger ones embarrass galleys trying and failing to take them out.
As for the original questions.
The lists mention millitary assets. Warships had a millitary function, and military crews. In these cases substantial (paid and armed) crews. We know that horse transports and commercial shipping was also used. It's just not important (to the writers and their intended audiance) enough to record.
Tom..
Quote from: Erpingham on November 13, 2024, 09:58:08 AMIt's a weird thing to do, swapping ships for towns and elephants. What do you think the reason might be?
I believe for Bagradas, it was done to hide the true nature of the defeat, which in military terms was a disgrace. Also, it would appear that the original author wanted to protect Regulus' name and reputation. The story of Regulus returning to Rome and telling the Romans to keep fighting, and then going back to Carthage as a hostage is pure fiction, invented to restore Regulus' name and honour.
Regulus faced a Carthaginian army of 12,000 infantry, 4,000 cavalry and about 100 elephants. Regulus with 500 cavalry faced the Carthaginian cavalry of 4,000 horse, therefore, outnumbered 8 to 1. They never had a chance against so many elephants and cavalry, that it becomes understandable as to why Regulus was defeated. We sympathise with him.
He is what I have found, and when I found it, I did feel demoralised as now I had something more ludicrous to explain, and knew this was going to make my research harder to sell. However, too much data now of ships and towns being turned into elephants, that the 54 Seulucid elephants at Magnesia could be reduced to 9. Ever wonder why the Carthaginian fleet in Spain during the Second Punic War had 37 ships and Hannibal had 37 elephants.
Back to Bagradas, which is fabrications built on truth, just the national identities get changed. Regulus was left with an army of 15,000 infantry, 500 cavalry and 40 ships. No, Regulus was left with his fleet in Africa, which is a lot more than 40 ships. Orosius has the rest of the army return to Rome with 27,000 slaves, which has been rounded from 26,880 men. Zonaras claims 20,000 slaves, which has been rounded from 19,200 men. Taking into account Eutropius and Orosius give the Roman army (two consuls) that landed in Africa at 32,000 men, while Appian gives the Roman army that landed in Africa at 30,000 men (rounded from 32,000), one can see a link to the 27,000 slaves. Notice that before the battle of Adyss, which is the historical account of Regulus' defeat, the Carthaginians receive 5,000 infantry and 500 cavalry. Well, Orosius' 32,000 Roman army and the 27,000 slaves leaves a difference of 5,000.
Also notice how no ancient author mentions how Regulus travelled to the Bagradas. That is because he went by ship, and landed somewhere near Tunis. Appian's account, which is more accurate than Polybius, has him march around a lake, which is possibly the Tunis Lake.
I'm following Roman military doctrine here which is rigidly structured, and all consuls follow it. Regulus left at Aspis part of the fleet to protect the anchorage, which is close to 40 ships, so the 40 ships are his garrison fleet, which requires around 4,000 men to protect. This left Regulus with 12,000 men (both infantry and cavalry) and 96 ships to transport the Roman army to the coast of Tunis. I hope you can see where this is going.
Once landed, Regulus now needed men to man some of those 96 ships so they can protect the anchorage from any Carthaginian ships that may attack. Following Roman naval garrison doctrine, this meant Regulus had to leave 3,000 men to protect the anchorage, and with 9,000 men (both infantry and cavalry), marched to Tunis.
Regulus' 12,000 men (infantry and cavalry) has been converted to 12,000 Carthaginian infantry, the 4,000-garrison force to 4,000 Carthaginian cavalry, and the figure of "about" 100 elephants has been converted from the 96 ships. Notice the elephant numbers in the First Punic War, like 140 elephants, hmmm, 96 plus 40 = 136, rounded to 140. Important fact, all Roman armies and fleets of the Punic Wars are standardised.
Regulus is defeated, and next year a Roman fleet of 350 ships is sent to rescue Regulus' 40 ships and survivors. Bit odd. Rescue fleet arrives, fights a land battle, and guess what, 9,000 Carthaginians are killed.
Oh, as a side note, the Roman rescue fleet gets shipwreck, Polybius has 364 ships lost while Eutropius has 464 ships, a difference of 100 ships, which, well, are they Regulus 96 ships rounded to 100 ships? Now if I take Regulus' 96 ships and deducted from Polybius' 364 ships lost, this produces 268 ships, and when divided by the two consuls, the result is 134 ships, wow, close to Regulus' 136 ships (96 ships + 40 ships)
So, what do we know about the size of the Carthaginian army, well....zip.
Quote from: DBS on November 13, 2024, 11:29:11 AMI think you are making the error of assuming that the field army is only transported by galleys, and not by other ships in addition, not least the cavalry.
I'm not sure how you can make such an assumption based on not having access to my full research. The differing ships numbers given by the ancient sources is due to some leaving out command ships and horse transport, or others including both, or omitting the horse transports. Also, many omit the garrison fleet that was left to protect the anchorage. Garrison fleet numbers get converted to enemy ship losses, and many of those figures are accurate. Just recently a historian with the British Naval Museum had read my research on the Roman navy for the entire First Punic War and was astounded a what was revealed. It is a very comprehensive study of the data, and I go after all ship numbers, battles, and fleet formations.
Quote from: Monad on November 13, 2024, 11:58:25 AMQuote from: Erpingham on November 13, 2024, 09:58:08 AMIt's a weird thing to do, swapping ships for towns and elephants. What do you think the reason might be?
So, what do we know about the size of the Carthaginian army, well....zip.
I think this begs the question 'why did they bother do do this?' Other peoples exaggerated or diminished army sizes perfectly happily without having to go through complicated gymnastics. Also given that the mathematical gymnastics merely allowed somebody to calculate back to the original figures, what was the point?
Sorry, you base your calculations on Publius Scipio only having sixty ships and therefore "missing" 1200 men. Rather than considering whether there were non warships carrying the 12000 (or even more of the army, rather than max out the galleys) you postulate a much higher number of troops per galley. If you study galley design and logistics, you would see that you only put a lot of soldiers on a galley if you are expecting an imminent sea fight.
Otherwise water supply alone becomes a nightmare, and you really want to save every pint for the engine room rowers who are more important than a few extra boarders.
320 infantry per galley is close to the much heavier lanterna galleys of the 16th C, and pushes credulity as a standard load for a quinquereme.
I think this begs the question 'why did they bother do do this?' Other peoples exaggerated or diminished army sizes perfectly happily without having to go through complicated gymnastics. Also given that the mathematical gymnastics merely allowed somebody to calculate back to the original figures, what was the point?
[/quote]
I was hoping someone could tell me. I was a little dumbfounded when the practice of turning ships into cities was still going on for Pompey's campaign of 67 BC. Also found in "The Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus." Archelaus was the bishop of Caschara (one of the cities of Mesopotamia), and was offered for a sum of money, a large number of Christian prisoners (men, women and children) by the soldiers of the camp. After the soldiers had attacked the Christians, the tally of Christians consisted of 'some' 7,700 prisoners, of which 500 were wounded, and 'about' 1,300 Christians were killed. This gives a grand total of about 9,000 Christians. All these number are taken from the Late Roman Army. Those numbers just locked in or reinforced the organisation of the Late Roman Army and amount to 8,967 men (both juniors and seniores). The 7,200 non-wounded prisoner includes infantry and cavalry (both juniors and seniores, and the 500 wounded represent 480 junior cavalry.
On a positive note, using the Roman army or fleet for enemy losses has provided a wealth of data that provides more insight into the Roman army and fleet. And let's not forget how a legion was actually deployed, which no one has come close to getting right. I have not been idle for 20 years.
Quote from: DBS on November 13, 2024, 12:29:40 PM320 infantry per galley is close to the much heavier lanterna galleys of the 16th C, and pushes credulity as a standard load for a quinquereme.
Ok, maybe I did not make it clear. Someone, maybe Polybius, maybe not, had mistaken the 320 ships required to transport two consular armies as being the number of soldiers being conveyed on a single ship. It is nothing more than a mathematical mistake. Someone got confused and that is why Scipio was given 60 ships instead of 160 ships.
Or Scipio had sixty warships and a couple of hundred transports. Simpler and more probable than assuming complicated numerical errors. The Romans will have known/suspected that there was only a small Carthaginian fleet in Iberia, so why take lots more galleys, which are the least efficient maritime transport, and need 270 odd rowers each, a further huge drain on manpower? The idea that the Romans envisaged a set size for "consular" fleets is highly questionable. You take the number of ships that you need for a task, further modulated by what is actually available. You don't take 200 galleys when sixty is sufficient.
Quote from: DBS on November 13, 2024, 12:59:43 PMOr Scipio had sixty warships and a couple of hundred transports. Simpler and more probable than assuming complicated numerical errors.
I wouldn't call them "complicated numerical errors." They are very basic errors.
Quote from: DBS on November 13, 2024, 12:59:43 PMso why take lots more galleys, which are the least efficient maritime transport, and need 270 odd rowers each, a further huge drain on manpower?
Where's the evidence that a maritime transport needed 270 rowers.
Quote from: DBS on November 13, 2024, 12:59:43 PMThe idea that the Romans envisaged a set size for "consular" fleets is highly questionable.
Ok, you definitely have not studied the data, or if you had, you would not arrive at such a conclusion.
Quote from: DBS on November 13, 2024, 12:59:43 PMYou don't take 200 galleys when sixty is sufficient
Can you please explain how 60 ships are sufficient? Anything to back up your claim? So far I've only seen a viewpoint. The reason why I am highly confident in my research is because I have gone after all the data concerning the Roman fleets, consular fleet and praetorian fleets, and how they are organised and deployed. I have masses of data that reveal Roman garrison fleets, horse transports, command ships, infantry carrying ships. It is all there in the primary sources, but alas, who has really seriously dissected it? Christa Steinby author of "Rome Versus Carthage: The War at Sea" did not, nor did Lazenby "The First Punic War" who, because of his bias towards Polybius, on page 82 remarks that Appian's figure of 350 ships "this is surely a mistake." So, how can Lazenby who cannot decipher what a Roman consular fleet is, believe Appian has made a mistake?
Interesting isn't it, that Regulus, a consul has 40 ships left with him, which I have already stated was his garrison fleet, and at Mylae, in which a consular fleet was involved, some ancient historians give Carthaginian losses at 44 ships or 45 ships, while Polybius gives 50 ships in total. Seems no one has made the connection. We also have Sulpicius with 200 ships faced 80 Carthaginian ships. So far my examples have been consistent. Lazenby page 59, "He (Diodorus) says that the Romans lost 30,000 foot and 540 cavalry...30,000 surely too many and 540 cavalry too precise." For me, when researching the First Punic War, that quote from Diodorus was manu from heaven, like winning the lottery big time.
Anyway, David, you have your viewpoint and I have mine, and I have no desire to convince you either way. I know what I have and not once did I need to bash squares into round holes. However, if the Romans did not have standardised consular armies or consular fleets, praetorian armies and praetorian fleets, I would not have accomplished what I have accomplished.
270 rowers for a quinquereme. That is why it is a supremely inefficient transport.
With all due respect, you are claiming expertise and denigrating anyone else. The reason that people might dismiss your Pythagorean numerical theories is because they have studied the sources as much as you have, but are not situating their appreciation on a preconceived theory, but also applying pragmatism and common sense.
You are entitled to your opinion but please do not get snippy.
Quote from: Monad on November 13, 2024, 12:43:22 PMI was hoping someone could tell me. I was a little dumbfounded when the practice of turning ships into cities was still going on for Pompey's campaign of 67 BC. Also found in "The Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus." Archelaus was the bishop of Caschara (one of the cities of Mesopotamia), and was offered for a sum of money, a large number of Christian prisoners (men, women and children) by the soldiers of the camp. After the soldiers had attacked the Christians, the tally of Christians consisted of 'some' 7,700 prisoners, of which 500 were wounded, and 'about' 1,300 Christians were killed. This gives a grand total of about 9,000 Christians. All these number are taken from the Late Roman Army. Those numbers just locked in or reinforced the organisation of the Late Roman Army and amount to 8,967 men (both juniors and seniores). The 7,200 non-wounded prisoner includes infantry and cavalry (both juniors and seniores, and the 500 wounded represent 480 junior cavalry.
Sorry, I'm obviously being thick here. When you say all these numbers are taken from the late Roman army (which I might have highlighted in red) what actually do you mean by that. Where is the force that we have that has those figures, or whatever? Then I can look at the figures from the source with the Late Roman army, and compare it with these figures, and understand.
Jim
Quote from: DBS on November 13, 2024, 03:08:09 PM270 rowers for a quinquereme. That is why it is a supremely inefficient transport.
That is not my quote. David wrote that. David's name did not appear when I hit the quote button. Having problems with the quotes system lately.
Quote from: DBS on November 13, 2024, 03:08:09 PMThe reason that people might dismiss your Pythagorean numerical theories is because they have studied the sources as much as you have, but are not situating their appreciation on a preconceived theory, but also applying pragmatism and common sense.
This posting was about the Roman fleet. Never mentioned Pythagoras for the Roman fleet. Also, in other posts I use Pythagoras because I standby my research, and quite truthfully, I am not concerned if people dismiss it.
Quote from: DBS on November 13, 2024, 03:08:09 PMYou are entitled to your opinion but please do not get snippy.
It is a well known fact that electronic communication causes a lot of arguments due to the lack of emotional signs that are portrayed during a face to face conversation. Please do not tell me I am getting snippy when I am not. That is your (incorrect) perception. Quite seriously, I could same the same thing about your response.
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 13, 2024, 04:19:28 PMWhen you say all these numbers are taken from the late Roman army (which I might have highlighted in red) what actually do you mean by that.
Sorry, what I mean is my research into the Late Roman army. I used the primary sources and the tribal system of the time (my research) and from that formulated what a Late Roman legion was. Then to prove if it holds up, collect all the data relating to the period and then make comparisons. The data found in The Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus concerning the killed and captured Christians conforms of fits in quite well, or just damn accurate, because those numbers have been based on the vexillation organisation of the Roman army. That is my finding.
The Second Book of Chronicles also uses the number 7,700 for the size of a flock of rams and goats. My personal take on this is that it could be that the original author recognised the similarity to the biblical number of 7,700 rams and goats, and therefore, partition those taken prisoners and wounded to closely recreate that figure.
Also, the historian Macarius, mentions 1,104 soldiers were stationed at Melitene. I also get 1,104 soldiers. Same result with Saint Meletius' example of 252 Christian soldiers killed. Both Macrius and Saint Meletius omit the artificers. During his time, Livy, Polybius etc. also omit the artificers on many occasions. So take the 252 soldiers multiply by four, result is 1,008 soldiers, deduct from Macarius' 1,104 soldiers leaves 96 soldiers, cavalry maybe?
Many of the accounts of the martyrdom of the Christian saints, such as the Passion of Saint Florian and the Passion of Saint George, make reference to units of 40 soldiers. So Saint Meletius' example of 252 soldiers, taking the premise that a cohort still had six centuries, 40 x 6 = 240, deducted from 252 leaves a residue of 12, divided by 6 centuries per cohort allocates each century 2 officers.
The Passion of Saint George mentions 2,408 Christian soldiers were executed by the order of Dadianus the governor of Bithynia. So, 1104 x 2 = 2,208 minus 2,408 leaves 200, cavalry maybe? Synesios gives the various sizes of the Unnigardae cavalry at 40 men, 160 men and 200 men. At the battle of Strasbourg Zosimus mentions the poor performance of 600 of Julian's schola cavalry. Also at the same battle, Ammianus reports that Julian had with him 200 schola cavalry. 600 is divisible by 200.
Returning to the 40 soldiers, Vegetius cites that from each century four infantry were selected for sentry-duty. The Passion of Saint George also mentions four quaternions (a set of four) of soldiers. The Passion of Luxurius, Camerinus and Cisellus also has four groups of four soldiers.
As I said in a previous post, I don't need to bash squares into round holes in order to fit a theory. My premise has always been to let the data do the talking. I don't need to reshape it or bend it. I have powerful resources at my fingertips, that is the Pythagorean system and the internal organisation of the tribal system, which is a calendar. The Late Roman legion came into existence during the reign of Diocletian. Early Christian writings support this also, with centuries of 100 men mentioned during Diocletian's persecution of the Christians and also units of 40 soldiers during Diocletian's reign, which I know are juniors because the seniores have been removed. Seniores are part of the legion, seniores get detached legion becomes smaller, so different legion or unit sizes. Then the reserves are detached, legion becomes smaller again.
So Jim, my modus operandi is the determine the size of a legion via the tribal system of that time frame, then break it down into centuries, maniples, cohorts, ordines, vexillations, arithmos, tagma and numerus and then compare it to the data in the ancient sources. Twenty years later, it still holds up.
Quote from: Monad on November 13, 2024, 11:49:37 PMQuote from: Jim Webster on November 13, 2024, 04:19:28 PMWhen you say all these numbers are taken from the late Roman army (which I might have highlighted in red) what actually do you mean by that.
Sorry, what I mean is my research into the Late Roman army. I used the primary sources and the tribal system of the time (my research) and from that formulated what a Late Roman legion was. Then to prove if it holds up, collect all the data relating to the period and then make comparisons. The data found in The Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus concerning the killed and captured Christians conforms of fits in quite well, or just damn accurate, because those numbers have been based on the vexillation organisation of the Roman army. That is my finding.
The Disputation of Archelaus was in 278AD, so I'm not sure it was 'Late Roman'. Diocletian didn't come to power until 284AD
Quote from: Monad on November 13, 2024, 11:49:37 PMThe Second Book of Chronicles also uses the number 7,700 for the size of a flock of rams and goats. My personal take on this is that it could be that the original author recognised the similarity to the biblical number of 7,700 rams and goats, and therefore, partition those taken prisoners and wounded to closely recreate that figure.
We know that The book of Chronicles was translated into Greek and divided into two books in the Septuagint in the mid-3rd century BC. It was written in Hebrew at some point after 539BC and before the 3rd century BC. So perhaps 600 years before Archelaus
Quote from: Monad on November 13, 2024, 11:49:37 PMThe Passion of Saint George mentions 2,408 Christian soldiers were executed by the order of Dadianus the governor of Bithynia. So, 1104 x 2 = 2,208 minus 2,408 leaves 200, cavalry maybe?
Even if one believes such sources accurately record numbers, and one believes that a Roman governor would execute as many as 2408 of his provincial army, a rather high percentage of his available forces to put it mildly, why would one assume that he was executing by unit, rather than individuals? Even decimation, the most severe Roman military punishment, was carefully designed to leave 90% of a unit intact. So I really do not think one can draw any inferences for unit size from such numbers.
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 14, 2024, 06:14:55 AMThe Disputation of Archelaus was in 278AD, so I'm not sure it was 'Late Roman'. Diocletian didn't come to power until 284AD
Well, Jim, thank you so much for that. I'm still polishing Volume 3 so haven't gotten to start polishing Volume 4 yet. The Pythagorean system has three major time intervals, and I have used the right time system that the Romans should have used. I went back and looked at the time interval systems and bang, one of the intervals of time produces 276 AD. This time system uses Rome's date of conception as the starting point and not Rome's founding date. And it has cause a lot of confusion with the Roman priesthood. Too many time systems in the Pythagoras' system.
For the year 401 AD, Claudian relates that after cutting open two wolfs that attacked the emperor's cavalry escort, who at the time was accompanied by the Roman general Stilicho: "In each animal, on its being cut open, was found a human hand, in the stomach of one a left hand, in that of the other a right was discovered, both still twitching, the fingers stretched out and suffused with living blood."
One interpretation of the omen as given by Claudian believed that the might of Roman was to be unimpaired. However, another interpretation of the portent believed the portent threatened destruction on Rome and her empire. Claudian goes on to say: "then they reckoned up the years and, cutting off the flight of the twelfth vulture, tried to shorten the centuries of Rome's existence by hastening the end."
The 12th vulture is the Pythagorean saecula system of time. It should be the correct system to follow as it is the most sacred. However, the Pythagorean tonal/zodiac combined system and its time intervals have been employed. I do not know how to truly thank you Jim, except to say I am extremely in your debt. Happy to make a note in this section of the volume thanking you for pointing this out, if that is ok with you.
Quote from: Monad on November 14, 2024, 09:03:05 AMQuote from: Jim Webster on November 14, 2024, 06:14:55 AMThe Disputation of Archelaus was in 278AD, so I'm not sure it was 'Late Roman'. Diocletian didn't come to power until 284AD
Well, Jim, thank you so much for that. I'm still polishing Volume 3 so haven't gotten to start polishing Volume 4 yet. The Pythagorean system has three major time intervals, and I have used the right time system that the Romans should have used. I went back and looked at the time interval systems and bang, one of the intervals of time produces 276 AD. This time system uses Rome's date of conception as the starting point and not Rome's founding date. And it has cause a lot of confusion with the Roman priesthood.
Not half as much as it has caused me. I cannot see why the book of Chronicles, written in Hebrew by people who might have been influenced by Babylonian thought, should be interested in Pythagoras?
Given he started his school in Italy about 530BC it would make the Jews very early adopters indeed!
Note that if Pythagoras had been such an influence on Jewish thought, Jewish philosophers like Philo of Alexandria who majored on Judaism as comparable with Greek thought would have picked up on it.Instead he got caught up with Plato and Neoplatonism
Quote from: DBS on November 14, 2024, 08:57:51 AMEven if one believes such sources accurately record numbers, and one believes that a Roman governor would execute as many as 2408 of his provincial army, a rather high percentage of his available forces to put it mildly, why would one assume that he was executing by unit, rather than individuals?
I didn't put that number in the primary source, so I cannot answer you question. Maybe the author used a army unit size as it was convenient and they wanted to exaggerate the crime.
Quote from: DBS on November 14, 2024, 08:57:51 AMSo I really do not think one can draw any inferences for unit size from such numbers
I can, and I have, and I have done it because it can be corroborated with other data.
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 14, 2024, 10:26:20 AMNot half as much as it has caused me. I cannot see why the book of Chronicles, written in Hebrew by people who might have been influenced by Babylonian thought, should be interested in Pythagoras?
I'm lost here Jim. The author of The Disputation of Archelaus was using the 7,700 figure, not Pythagoras.
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 14, 2024, 10:26:20 AMGiven he started his school in Italy about 530BC it would make the Jews very early adopters indeed!
Ah, now I see. You are not aware of the written history of Pythagoras' life. Pythagoras supposedly gained his knowledge in Egypt and from the Jews living in Egypt. All of Pythagoras' teaching are taken from the Jews and Egyptians. He studied there for 22 years before moving to Croton in Southern Italy. Pythagoras' just plagiarised the knowledge gained in Egypt and utilised it when designing the Rome Pythagorean system. That is why the Roman Pythagorean system can be found in the Book of Revelation, which in turn can be found in the Amduat, the Book of Aker, Book of the Dead, Book of the Devine Cow, Book of Gates, Book of Caverns, Books of Heaven, Book of Night, plus text and painting on the ceilings and walls of the pharaoh's tombs. See "Egyptian Origin of the Book of Revelation," John H. C. Pippy.
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 14, 2024, 10:26:20 AMNote that if Pythagoras had been such an influence on Jewish thought, Jewish philosophers like Philo of Alexandria who majored on Judaism as comparable with Greek thought would have picked up on it.Instead he got caught up with Plato and Neoplatonism
Other way around. Jewish philosophy influenced Pythagoras. The Pythagorean cosmos was influenced by the mystical meaning of the Jewish tabernacle (place of worship), Clement of Alexandria writes there were seven circuits around the temple, the motions of the seven planets were outlined, and the seven eyes of God were the seven spirits. This highlights that many of Pythagoras' concepts, especially concerning the hebdomad system. In the Book of Revelation, each of the 12 tribes of Israel number 12,000 men, for a total of 144,000 men. Pippy's investigation is again, too large to reproduce here. However, by dividing the 144,000 men of the 12 tribes by the Pythagorean sacred integer 10, we coincidentally arrive at the Pythagorean five elements amounting to 14,400 degrees.
Heaven 6480 degrees
Fire 720 degrees
Air 1440 degrees
Earth 2160 degrees
Water 3600 degrees
14400 degrees
That is what the whole Pythagorean system is built on, 14,400 degrees. From that, one can create the 35 tribes and the whole Roman system.
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 14, 2024, 06:14:55 AMThe Disputation of Archelaus was in 278AD
Some claim 262 AD and even 440 AD. Always controversy. However, seems the emperor responsible could be Aurelian or Probus. Compared to the other emperors, both had a decent amount of time to undertake a reform, Aurelian in power for five years and Probus six years. Although Probus is closer to the mark, I will mention both, with Probus being the most likely candidate, based on the timing of most other reforms, which occurs within a year or on the year prescribed. Imagine designing a system to cover over 1,200 years with a number of differing calendars and expecting everyone overtime to get it right. What was Pythagoras thinking.
Quote from: Monad on November 14, 2024, 02:33:34 PMQuote from: Jim Webster on November 14, 2024, 06:14:55 AMThe Disputation of Archelaus was in 278AD
Some claim 262 AD and even 440 AD. Always controversy. However, seems the emperor responsible could be Aurelian or Probus. Compared to the other emperors, both had a decent amount of time to undertake a reform, Aurelian in power for five years and Probus six years. Although Probus is closer to the mark, I will mention both, with Probus being the most likely candidate, based on the timing of most other reforms, which occurs within a year or on the year prescribed. Imagine designing a system to cover over 1,200 years with a number of differing calendars and expecting everyone overtime to get it right. What was Pythagoras thinking.
Imagine designing a system to cover over 1,200 years and expecting people to care?
I do wonder how many legions were actually raised to their formal full strength. I can see in the early republic there were times when things could be done with proper formality, but even in the republic we come across legions that were raised understrength and in some haste
Same with Late Roman army where we have actual returns for military units, down to how many men were off sick etc. The actual number of men in a military unit seems to have had very little connection with any official order of battle. Indeed some units may have been overstrength, or were perhaps examples of units we have incorrectly categorised.
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 16, 2024, 08:47:19 PMImagine designing a system to cover over 1,200 years and expecting people to care?
But care they did, and it was extremely important to acknowledge it. Zosimus writes that while the Romans celebrated the Secular Games:
"The Roman Empire was safe and Rome remained in control of virtually all the inhabited world, but once this festival was neglected after Diocletian's abdication, the empire gradually collapsed and was imperceptibly barbarised. "
Zosimus believed that the decision by the Christian emperors, especially Constantine I to abolish the Secular Games and other religious pagan rituals would result in the pagan gods withdrawing their protection of Rome. This same sentiment can be found in the Suda, which details the Christian emperor Theodosius I (379 AD to 395 AD), appeal to the Senate to abandon the pagan gods and embrace the Christian religion.
"None of the senators obeyed the injunction nor chose to denounce their ancestral traditions, which dated to the founding of the city, in favour of honouring Christian beliefs. The senators said that by protecting their ancestral customs, they had inhabited a city that had been free from destruction for nearly 1,200 years and, exchanging new beliefs for these, they were uncertain of the future...Therefore, traditional sacrifice was suspended and the Roman Empire was progressively weakened."
If the saecula was not honoured, the gods would remove their protection.
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 16, 2024, 08:47:19 PMI do wonder how many legions were actually raised to their formal full strength. I can see in the early republic there were times when things could be done with proper formality, but even in the republic we come across legions that were raised understrength and in some haste
I am not sure how academia or anyone can come to that conclusion when most cannot really define what a legions is. If the benchmark is Polybius' legion, that means there can be no reconciliation with the primary sources because Polybius got it wrong. His legion is 600 hastati short, and than means a consular army will be 2,400 hastati short. All primary source data is based on full strength legions, which includes officers, cavalry and supernumeraries. Other figures omit officers and supernumeraries, while others omit officers, cavalry and supernumeraries. Other examples mistakenly add the consular armies' replacements for that year to the size of the consular army, while other examples have deducted that year's replacements.
The evidence that has created the theory that consular armies were ad hoc has been based on Livy's example of the campaign of 296 BC, in which the consul Appius Claudius had under his command the first and the fourth Roman legion and 12,000 allies, while the other consul Lucius Volumnius Flamma had under his command, the second and third Roman legion, and 15,000 allied troops.
This is what annoys the jeebees out of me about academics. They make judgements on face value, and continually fail to dig deep when it comes to raw date. The difference between Appius Claudius' 12,000 allies and Lucius Volumnius Flamma's 15,000 allied troops, is because Flamma has been given all the allied cavalry for both consular armies.
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 16, 2024, 08:47:19 PMSame with Late Roman army where we have actual returns for military units, down to how many men were off sick etc. The actual number of men in a military unit seems to have had very little connection with any official order of battle. Indeed some units may have been overstrength, or were perhaps examples of units we have incorrectly categorised.
Well, my take is "incorrectly categorised."
Quote from: Monad on November 17, 2024, 06:48:26 AMIf the benchmark is Polybius' legion, that means there can be no reconciliation with the primary sources because Polybius got it wrong.
Polybios, for the second century legion, IS the primary source. As a member of the Scipionic circle, he witnessed them being mustered. He almost certainly accompanied them on campaign. He was an experienced soldier himself.
Polybios is certainly not infallible, but you would need
mighty strong evidence to argue that on the legionary structure of the first half of the second century BC he was wrong. What "primary sources" can you offer against him?
Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 11:40:58 AMPolybios, for the second century legion, IS the primary source. As a member of the Scipionic circle, he witnessed them being mustered. He almost certainly accompanied them on campaign. He was an experienced soldier himself.
Doesn't mean he is right. Can someone show me an investigation into Polybius' legion that proves Polybius is correct? Anyone!
Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 11:40:58 AMPolybios is certainly not infallible, but you would need mighty strong evidence to argue that on the legionary structure of the first half of the second century BC he was wrong.
Well, you said it, "Polybius is certainly not infallible," so why presume his breakdown of the legion is correct? If his legion of 4,200 men is correct, then it should match the masses of army data available to us. Oh, that's right, Polybius has a few numbers for the legion, so it could be 4,000, 5,000 or 5,200 infantry. So far, all I have ever read, or received as a reply is excuses for Polybius' legions not matching anything.
Could Polybius, by looking at a legion, and as an eye witness tell what property class each soldier belonged to? Does Polybius tell us how the troops were organised into their specific campaign divisions? He mentions military service. Why doesn't Polybius tell us during his description of the levy why the troops were organised into brackets of four men? Why doesn't Polybius tell us how many tribes were levied in his description of the four legions being levied?
Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 11:40:58 AMWhat "primary sources" can you offer against him?
Well, all I have to offer against him is all the army data in the primary sources dealing with the republic. I have uploaded some papers on academia, which are a mere drop in the ocean of what I have to offer.
https://www.academia.edu/15833849/225_BC_Polybius_Account_of_the_Telamon_Campaign
https://www.academia.edu/52383876/A_Breakdown_of_the_Roman_Army_at_Cannae_216_BC
At Cannae, Plutarch gives the size of the Roman army at 88,000 men. My research arrives at 88,320 men. My research is based on 1,800 hastati in a legion, and not Polybius' 1,200 hastati, which is a dead-end road to go down. In my Cannae paper, I have left out information pertaining to how Livy arrived at 45,000 infantry killed. Keeping some things under wraps.
https://www.academia.edu/43836283/THE_ARMY_AND_FLEET_OF_PUBLIUS_SCIPIOS_AFRICAN_CAMPAIGN_204_BC
Have you or anyone else amassed all the army data in the primary sources dealing with the republic and then examined it? I can confidently say no you have not. So far, seems I am the only one that has done this. That data is one continuous stream of collaboratingd data...that is once you understand the data.
In 209 BC the consul Quintus Fulvius Flaccus ordered his son to give the proconsul M. Valerius Laevinus in Sicily a body 4,344 men, taken from the consular army of Quintus Fulvius Flaccus. Can someone show me an investigation into the 4,344 men and what they are? Is this Polybius' legion of 4,200 infantry? Did Polybius' legion of 4,200 infantry included the cavalry by mistake?
Without any investigation into Polybius' legion, no one can answer the question, and yet, Polybius is blindly followed, because the masses blindly follow the popularist view, and woe to those who question it.
Quote from: Monad on November 17, 2024, 06:48:26 AMQuote from: Jim Webster on November 16, 2024, 08:47:19 PMI do wonder how many legions were actually raised to their formal full strength. I can see in the early republic there were times when things could be done with proper formality, but even in the republic we come across legions that were raised understrength and in some haste
I am not sure how academia or anyone can come to that conclusion when most cannot really define what a legions is.
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 16, 2024, 08:47:19 PMI can answer that one. If Caesar or Mark Anthony called it a legion, it was a legion. Same with Cicero or Sallust. They know one when they saw it.
We have Sallust on about Cataline
"56 While this was taking place in Rome, Catiline combined the forces which he had brought with him with those which Manlius already had, and formed two legions, 2 filling up the cohorts so far as the number of his soldiers permitted.�91 Then distributing among them equally such volunteers or conspirators as came to the camp, he soon completed the full quota of the legions, although in the beginning he had no more than two thousand men. But only about a fourth part of the entire force was provided with regular arms.� The others carried whatever weapons chance had given them; namely, javelins or lances, or in some cases pointed stakes."
On the other side we see forces raised, not by legion but by cohort. Also from Sallust "Petreius placed in the van the veteran cohorts which he had enrolled because of the outbreak, and behind them the rest of his army in reserve."
But then throughout the civil wars, people were raising legions all over the place, (the insistence on citizens seems to have been watered down somewhat) deploying them well under strength.
Quote from: Monad on November 17, 2024, 01:36:32 PMWell, you said it, "Polybius is certainly not infallible," so why presume his breakdown of the legion is correct? If his legion of 4,200 men is correct, then it should match the masses of army data available to us. Oh, that's right, Polybius has a few numbers for the legion, so it could be 4,000, 5,000 or 5,200 infantry. So far, all I have ever read, or received as a reply is excuses for Polybius' legions not matching anything.
Could Polybius, by looking at a legion, and as an eye witness tell what property class each soldier belonged to? Does Polybius tell us how the troops were organised into their specific campaign divisions? He mentions military service. Why doesn't Polybius tell us during his description of the levy why the troops were organised into brackets of four men?
I am sorry, you really have to face the fact that only Polybios counts as a primary source for the second century legion. His is the only surviving contemporary account. There are no other comparable primary sources. If you claim that a primary source is wrong, simply because it does not match your Pythagorean fantasy, then you should not be surprised not to be taken seriously. Polybios was a close friend of the Scipios, men who conducted these musters. He is not some gormless tourist staring at a muster, but trying to describe for his fellow Greeks the detail of how the Romans raised and equipped their forces, and tended to defeat Hellenistic forces. One might add that if there was even the faintest whiff of Pythagoras associated with it, then he, a Greek, would probably have highlighted it to his fellow Greeks as an example of how the Romans were exploiting Greek philosophical concepts, even barking ones like Pythagoras'.
Oh, and note that Polybios specifically states that the size of the legion varied according to need, with numbers adjusted upwards except for the 600 triarii. Proof that the Romans exercised sensible military pragmatism, not enslaved by the numerology of a long dead foreign philosopher who, it might be added, may not have been that interested in numbers at all, if the theories about Philolaus are at all accurate.
Quote from: Monad on November 17, 2024, 01:36:32 PMHave you or anyone else amassed all the army data in the primary sources dealing with the republic and then examined it? I can confidently say no you have not.
That is extraordinarily arrogant. I have read deeply on the subject for more than four decades. If you want published works, there is always Michael Sage's Roman Republican Army: A Source Book, which has all the meaningful references on the organisation of said army. Sat on my book shelf a few feet away...
Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 07:12:35 PMI have read deeply on the subject for more than forty decades.
If the tangent be excused, I have some questions about 17th to 19th century military history you may be able to answer from personal experience :P
Touche, sir! Sometimes four feels like forty...
Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 07:12:35 PMI am sorry, you really have to face the fact that only Polybios counts as a primary source for the second century legion.
Yes, he is a source, but not the only one. If I told you I have a machine that can turn anything put into it into gold, and I want you to invest in my machine, before you invest, would you want proof first? Therefore, I am asking you again, show me the proof that Polybius' legions, whatever the size, are correct. For example, can you provide a breakdown of the composition of Polybius' 5,200 infantry per legion?
Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 07:12:35 PMIf you claim that a primary source is wrong, simply because it does not match your Pythagorean fantasy, then you should not be surprised not to be taken seriously.
Oh, your favourite tact. This is nothing to do with Pythagoras. It's about Polybius' legion numbers. All I am asking is for you to provide evidence that can once and for all confirm Polybius is correct. So far, you just giving generalisations, and have failed to answer one question I have put to you.
Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 07:12:35 PMOne might add that if there was even the faintest whiff of Pythagoras associated with it, then he, a Greek, would probably have highlighted it to his fellow Greeks as an example of how the Romans were exploiting Greek philosophical concepts, even barking ones like Pythagoras'
I've already stated in a previous post that the Pythagorean system was only known to the priesthood. Therefore, a mere hostage such a lowly Polybius would not have access to state secrets, nor would the Scipio family. Many ancient sources do mention the secret of the empire. Those that entered the priesthood like Caesar and Octavius, would have become fully aware of what it was all about. There actions of being involved in the Roman calendar and Octavius resenting the intervals (of time), and how correctly Octavius recorrected the saecula, tells me he knew.
Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 07:12:35 PMOh, and note that Polybios specifically states that the size of the legion varied according to need, with numbers adjusted upwards except for the 600 triarii.
Ok, the legion's varied according to need. So how does that play out? Can you provide examples to support Polybius' claim? Just responding that he had legions of 4,000 men, "about" 4,000 men, 5,000 men, or 5,200 men is avoiding the question. How about a precise breakdown of those legion sizes, and then comparisons with army numbers in the field in order to validate them? Surely, if Polybius is all you say he is, it should be achievable. I just want something more than Polybius said so. However, I am not disagreeing with Polybius about legion sizes varied, there was also garrison legion of 4,200 infantry and 200 cavalry. However, if Polybius believed the core legion had 4,200 infantry, and he was always coming across legion sizes of 5,000 infantry, then of course he would come to the conclusion that the size of the legion varied according to need. What is his legion of 5,200 infantry was also a mistake, and he took the legion of 4,000 infantry and added the 1,200 velites? What if the 4,000 legion had no velites, because the Romans believed that the youngest of the hastati could also act as skirmishers? What if this doctrine was found to be wrong and the Romans had to introduce velites?
No one questions anything anymore, just take the data at face value and because Polybius said so, it has to be right.
Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 07:12:35 PMProof that the Romans exercised sensible military pragmatism, not enslaved by the numerology of a long dead foreign philosopher who, it might be added, may not have been that interested in numbers at all, if the theories about Philolaus are at all accurate.
Oh, the old numerology chestnut. That tells me how little you know about Pythagoras.
Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 07:12:35 PMThat is extraordinarily arrogant.
You are too emotional. And your response tells me you have been "triggered" and have not collected and studied all the army data.
Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 07:12:35 PMI have read deeply on the subject for more than four decades. I
I started collecting the data in the late 80's and categorised them into brackets of ten-year intervals (294 BC to 284 BC etc.). So, using that period for example, listed Livy's figures, Appian, Eutropius etc. It was quite revealing and some very strong patterns emerged throughout this exercise for all the periods.
Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 07:12:35 PMIf you want published works, there is always Michael Sage's Roman Republican Army: A Source Book, which has all the meaningful references on the organisation of said army.
I have his book, had it for years. Funny you should mention Michael Sage. It just so happens that I am conversing with Michae Sage at this present moment. I am about to offer him Volume I to get things rolling.
For Jim, I have no idea what your question is or what point you want to make. You have quoted from quotes taken from quotes.
Now before everyone and sundry wants to chime in, I have provided links to my papers, to present my case. These papers show the composition of the Roman legion and how they conform to the army figures given for Cannae, Publius Scipio's African campaign, and the Telamon campaign, which is also a breakdown of the census given by Polybius. And yet, everyone ignores them, and so far, not one rebuttal. However, on forums, people just counter attack with nothing more than opinions, generalisations, or provide one blanket primary source reference in the belief that is enough to prove I am wrong, isn't going to cut the mustard with me.
Quote from: Monad on November 18, 2024, 01:41:04 AMI've already stated in a previous post that the Pythagorean system was only known to the priesthood. Therefore, a mere hostage such a lowly Polybius would not have access to state secrets, nor would the Scipio family.
Hmmm, so the Aemilii, Cornelii and Scipiones, despite their domination of Roman politics in the late third and early second centuries, their regular holdings of senior priestly office, and, in the case of the Aemilii, their supposed descent from Numa, the legendary architect of Roman religion and ritual, were ignorant of this supposed state secret? Hmmm...
And obviously equally ignorant was Cato, who tried to rid Rome of the influence of Greek philosophy. If only he, a consul and censor, had known that Rome's big secret was Greek philosophy! :o
By the way, Polybios is our only primary source for Rome in the early second century. For earlier periods, he is a secondary source, and the likes of Livy and Dionysios, writing in the first century, are definitely secondary sources. You keep claiming the authority of primary sources, but there simply are none before Polybios.
Quote from: DBS on November 18, 2024, 10:13:38 AMHmmm, so the Aemilii, Cornelii and Scipiones, despite their domination of Roman politics in the late third and early second centuries, their regular holdings of senior priestly office, and, in the case of the Aemilii, their supposed descent from Numa, the legendary architect of Roman religion and ritual, were ignorant of this supposed state secret? Hmmm...
And obviously equally ignorant was Cato, who tried to rid Rome of the influence of Greek philosophy. If only he, a consul and censor, had known that Rome's big secret was Greek philosophy!
In 44 BC, according to Servius, during the funeral games of Julius Caesar a comet was visible for seven days in the sky. The common people believed that this signified the soul of Julius Caesar being received among the spirits of the immortal gods. A haruspex (prophet) named Vulcatius went before the popular assembly proclaiming the comet heralded the end of the ninth saeculum and the beginning of the tenth saeculum, which foretold of the destruction of the Etruscan language. (4) After making his proclamation, Vulcatius immediately collapsed and died in front of the assembly. Vulcatius' death was believed an act of the gods because Vulcatius' had revealed this secret against the will of the gods.
I commend the Scipio' and Cato for keeping the saecula a secret, and didn't blab it to irrelevant Polybius, assigned to being a teacher to a Scipio kid.
Quote from: DBS on November 18, 2024, 10:13:38 AMBy the way, Polybios is our only primary source for Rome in the early second century. For earlier periods, he is a secondary source, and the likes of Livy and Dionysios, writing in the first century, are definitely secondary sources. You keep claiming the authority of primary sources, but there simply are none before Polybios.
I sometimes use primary source or ancient source. I'm kinda slack about using them on forums, but I do find it amusing that you have to be so pendatic to prove how wrong I am, primary or ancient, who cares on a forum...David does.
David, instead of all this huffing and puffing about the Scipio and Polybius, if you truly want to prove I am so wrong, go after my papers, and that goes for everyone else. Apparently, academics do that, a historian writes a paper or a book and the academics who believe the author is wrong, bring it to the attention of the author. They don't huff and puff about everything in sundry that has noting to do with their paper or book.
And meanwhile, while this has been going on, came upon two references to that small legion Vegetius mentions, that seriously, has again reinforced everything I have written about the so called Late Roman legion. The ancient source army data just keeps on giving.
I am instead just going to ignore you, because it has become impossible to discuss this with you in a rational manner. By all means carry on believing all your nonsense about Pythagoras, Egyptian and Hebrew teachings, Roman state secrets, tribes as calendars, it is a free world. :)
Quote from: DBS on November 18, 2024, 11:08:54 AMI am instead just going to ignore you, because it has become impossible to discuss this with you in a rational manner. By all means carry on believing all your nonsense about Pythagoras, Egyptian and Hebrew teachings, Roman state secrets, tribes as calendars, it is a free world.
Thank you, thank you. Sorry you have wasted four decades of reading.
Quote from: Monad on November 18, 2024, 11:43:05 AMThank you, thank you. Sorry you have wasted four decades of reading.
That's uncalled for. Please be civil.
It is perhaps time to step back from this discussion, at least for a while.
Quote from: Prufrock on November 18, 2024, 11:54:22 AMThat's uncalled for. Please be civil.
But it is ok if its implied I am irrational, and told I am arrogant.