Roman Legions against Macedonian Phalanx and Carthaginian Phalanx.

[Erpingham]

I am mindful that the Roman institutions we are discussing are rather earlier than the period John was originally interested in.  What sort of structure has been created by the time of the Punic Wars or clashes with Hellenistic states and does it give Rome any particular advantage?  I know Steven has done work on the Punic War period (apologies if you have also done work on the Hellenistic clashes which I have missed).

[Jim Webster]

Jim wrote:
Now as a side note, I wonder if either of you have read Early Roman Warfare: From the Regal Period to the First Punic War by Jeremy Armstrong.

Sorry Jim, have to disagree. Have it, read it, and rate it as a book about nothing, because he proves nothing! He does not provide any examination of the Roman army numbers given in the primary sources for the early republic, just ignores them, and then mentions the Roman army at the Allia having 40,000 men (taken from Plutarch). No mention of other ancient writers giving 24,000 men, or four legions. No examination of whether the Roman army did have 40,000 men. It's the same old story, avoid what you do not understand, and serve up the same info everyone else has been putting on the plate.

Lots of unfounded theories, which is the norm nowadays. And what gets up my nose is using the conclusions of other modern historians or interpretations to explain an event or system. That is a real cop out for me.

The problem is that it's history. If you want to prove stuff, you have to stick to physics or maths. With history you can demonstrate that an idea is likely correct.
Using the work of others is pretty normal in most fields.
The problem with early Roman history is the problem of sources. These are well discussed all over the place and the usual technique is to laud the authenticity of those who the writer has used to back up their ideas, and to cast doubt on those whose comments contradict.
What I found interesting was his early stuff, long before Allia

[Mark G]

So now that you've all learned how to repeat huge chunks of the post above yours... how can we teach you to trim that down to the absolute minimum.

Quoting 49 lines to add a two line response is just stupid.  Don't do stupid.

[Justin Swanton]

So now that you've all learned how to repeat huge chunks of the post above yours... how can we teach you to trim that down to the absolute minimum.

Quoting 49 lines to add a two line response is just stupid.  Don't do stupid.

Do smart. Do short. Tik Tok rules!

[Monad]

The problem is that it's history. If you want to prove stuff, you have to stick to physics or maths.

That is what my whole research centres on, the maths in the primary sources. And it's the first time that it has been properly examined. I turn a page in a primary source, say Livy for example, see a number and it gets examined, and explained in detail what the figure consists of and how that figure was arrived at. For example, in 197 BC, a Roman praetor was defeated by the Lusitanians with 6,700 Romans killed. That figure has been rounded from 6,720 men, and has been arrived at by someone taking the replacements for a praetorian army and deducting them from the size of a praetorian army. This methodology is quite common in the primary sources, and once you become aware of what they are doing, it becomes child's play exposing it.

and to cast doubt on those whose comments contradict

Which means attack anyone that does not conform to the narrative followed by the masses. I've had this ongoing debate with Professor Ronald Ridley for years. He was always advising me to mention the research of others as a tool for debunking them. I find this academic methodology and waste of time and paper. In find it deplorable that I single out two academics out of 100 academics who are all wrong as a means of propagating my research.

What I found interesting was his early stuff, long before Allia

There is no investigation into the 10 legions on campaign in 494 BC or the 10 legions in 450 BC, the levy of the 10 tribes in 418 BC. He does not investigate whether Dionysius and Livy are correct that two legions had 600 cavalry, mention for the year 495 BC and 449 BC. He does not draw the reader to the distribution patterns of the Roman army, which involves on many occasions the army being divided into three bodies or two bodies, or half the army given to each consul. He ignores the battle of Veii in which Dionysius mentions the Roman army has six legions and about 20,000 men. He ignores references to the campaigns served by soldiers. He does not examine whether Dionysius is correct that the triarii during this period actually guarded the camp or whether the term triarii was anachronistic. He does not examine whether the cavalry was intermixed with the infantry, or were the cavalry organised into centuries and cohorts. And yet he claims his book is about early Roman warfare.

 
 

[Jim Webster]

The problem is that it's history. If you want to prove stuff, you have to stick to physics or maths.

That is what my whole research centres on, the maths in the primary sources. And it's the first time that it has been properly examined. I turn a page in a primary source, say Livy for example,
 

I think you have misunderstood me. Livy is sort of a primary source, but he wrote in his own time, so you have to assess his souces.
One issue could be that Livy is a Pythagorean projecting backwards (which in itself would be an interesting discovery) so you really ought so see whether Polybius shows the same Pythagorean relationships.
Or any of the other authors we have.

Then if Pythagorean thinking was so deeply set in Roman thinking, where else can we see it? Are there examples from architecture, religion etc?

[Monad]

Then if Pythagorean thinking was so deeply set in Roman thinking, where else can we see it? Are there examples from architecture, religion etc?

Pythagorean maths and ratios are used in Roman architecture, but it has been so long since I have read that information. I remember reading about some some famous Roman building still standing that was designed on Pythagorean ratios. Pythagorean doctrines were only known to the priests, and those that gained admission to the priesthood, I think Caesar and Octavius did so, but don't quote me. I've used Pythagorean maths and Roman architecture in a bid to construct the cuneas formation.

In 44 BC, 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. 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 the secret of the saeculum against the will of the gods.

The saeculum is part of the Pythagorean system. This shows the timetable for the saeculum was kept secret by the priests from the Roman people. Although it states the end of the ninth saeculum and the beginning of the tenth saeculum, it should be corrected to the end of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth saeculum. Suetonius claimed that the emperor Claudius (41 AD to 54 AD) declared that Augustus had restored the Secular Games "to their proper place after a very careful calculation of the intervals." I can vouch that Augustus did do so, and finally got the Pythagorean system back in line. The saecula had extremely import religious significance. It meant life, death and rebirth. This meant at the beginning of a saeculum, you could legally undertake any reform you wanted to, as it meant the death of the old and the beginning of something new.