SoA Forums

Ok, you say you are not looking for a fight, putting aside the criticism on structure and so on, that is good to hear, but let me also give you some friendly advice. When you write "not assert that they are the only person ever to have been clever enough to work things out." Be honest, that is aimed at me and is inflammatory. Had you treated me in the same manner as Justin, we would not have a problem. Please don't make me the villain. I did not make statements like "would be laughed out of court in any academic environment." That is an insult to those academics that are associated with my work, especially Professor Ronald Ridley, whom I have a lot of respect for. Wouldn't it have been better to ask first if I have been peered reviewed?

It becomes frustrating when you claim that Pythagoras had nothing to do with Roman military organisation, and then refuse to provide any evidence to support this. Wouldn't it have been better to ask me how does Pythagorean mathematics integrate with the Roman legion? That would have given me to chance to explain the how and whys, and then armed with that, a better debate can begin. Your line of questions actually shuts down any serious discussion and will always result in a brawl. Do you treat me the same as everyone else on this forum? I see two David's here.

The centre of the problem for me is no matter what evidence I present, it is completely ignored. It is like it does not exist. The focus is on implying I am wrong, and then to tell me not to get upset when someone disagrees with you. If my army numbers did not add up, would it have been ignored, or would the board light up like a Xmas tree, letting me know about it?

Quote from: Erpingham on February 08, 2025, 10:39:52 AMThanks for the clarification, Steven.  I would assume the simplest version of this would be 6 x 10, so a 60 man front, or would you go narrower (and deeper) still?

Sorry, lost here about the 6 x 10. Is that referring to the 60 infantry in a century. As Polybius refers to the maniple, the frontage in my diagram for a maniple is 20 infantry wide by 6 deep in the standard array. So, a maniple of 120 infantry can be arrayed 10 wide by 12 deep, 8 wide by 15 deep, 6 wide by 20 deep, 5 wide by 24 deep, 4 wide by 30 deep, 3 wide by 40 deep, and 2 wide by 60 deep. With the legion arrayed 5 maniples wide by 6 maniples deep, those frontages from 5 wide to 2 wide, is creating a extremely deep legion. From my examination of the numbers given and also the casualties, the triarii were guarding the camps. With this in mind, each maniple is arrayed 8 wide by 15 deep, and a legion 5 maniples wide by 5 maniples deep, has a frontage of 40 infantry and a depth of 75 infantry. this omits the velites. Therefore, the 14 legions has a frontage of 560 infantry (560 yards or 1,680 feet). From a frontage of 1,400 yards, that leaves 840 yards for the Roman and allied cavalry. However, as I have stated earlier, I am leaving cavalry gaps for both Roman and allied cavalry. Leaving no cavalry squadron gaps for the Roman cavalry I am struggling with, as it does not explain how they would turn their horses around and manage to flee.

Thanks again Steven.  Apologies for using centuries rather than maniples and the confusion it caused. This info will be useful to those wanting to compare your reconstruction of the Roman formation with Justin's.

Quote from: Erpingham on February 08, 2025, 01:28:30 PMThanks again Steven.  Apologies for using centuries rather than maniples and the confusion it caused. This info will be useful to those wanting to compare your reconstruction of the Roman formation with Justin's.

Oh, sorry, I forgot the cavalry. It is late at night here, and I am quite tired. The 140 allied cavalry on the left wing are arrayed 28 squadrons wide by 5 squadrons deep, giving a frontage of 1,680 feet (560 yards), which is the same frontage as the 14 legions. The 70 Roman cavalry squadrons are arrayed 14 squadrons wide by 5 squadrons deep, giving a frontage of 840 feet (280 yards). So in all, a frontage of 1,400 yards.
 

If the Mighty Ones don't mind, here is a link to that Cannae article I did some time back.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 10, 2025, 04:33:36 AMIf the Mighty Ones don't mind, here is a link to that Cannae article I did some time back.

Thanks very much for that, which I have read with pleasure and enlightenment while waiting with hope for the latest edition of Slingshot to make it to this benighted corner of the world.

Quote from: Keraunos on February 10, 2025, 08:14:15 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 10, 2025, 04:33:36 AMIf the Mighty Ones don't mind, here is a link to that Cannae article I did some time back.

Thanks very much for that, which I have read with pleasure and enlightenment while waiting with hope for the latest edition of Slingshot to make it to this benighted corner of the world.

Which benighted corner of the world is that?

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 10, 2025, 09:43:53 AMWhich benighted corner of the world is that?

A little pimple on the bottom of China

Quote from: Keraunos on February 10, 2025, 10:37:55 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 10, 2025, 09:43:53 AMWhich benighted corner of the world is that?

A little pimple on the bottom of China

You're where it's at.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 10, 2025, 10:44:16 AMThink Chink!

Perhaps not a good choice of words there, Justin.

Quote from: Erpingham on February 10, 2025, 10:48:39 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 10, 2025, 10:44:16 AMThink Chink!

Perhaps not a good choice of words there, Justin.

Oh I use them in S.A. all the time and nobody minds. I appreciate that in the UK using certain words - regardless of context - can get the police knocking on your door, a judge passing sentence, and you sitting in a jail cell. None of that occurred to me when I wrote the post - for me it was just a harmless joke. But fine, I'll try to be careful next time. Vive la liberté. Jonathan Pie sums it all up nicely.

Yes, we sort of moved on to considering it impolite to use derogatory terms for people as a joke in the UK. However, as we have a code of polite discourse on the forum, I'm glad you see the point.

I for one would appreciate it if the expression could be edited out. I would hate for someone who has been on the receiving end of such expressions delivered maliciously to be faced with the same again here, no matter how innocent the intention. Thank you

Quote from: Erpingham on February 10, 2025, 11:42:29 AMYes, we sort of moved on to considering it impolite to use derogatory terms for people as a joke in the UK. However, as we have a code of polite discourse on the forum, I'm glad you see the point.

Politicians using WhatsApp excepted.

Quote from: Prufrock on February 10, 2025, 11:53:28 AMI for one would appreciate it if the expression could be edited out. I would hate for someone who has been on the receiving end of such expressions delivered maliciously to be faced with the same again here, no matter how innocent the intention. Thank you

I can't imagine that anyone from China would be remotely offended by the post since - reading the entire thing in context - it is actually complimentary of China. Economically they are the future. But Anthony can remove it if he likes.