Roman Legions against Macedonian Phalanx and Carthaginian Phalanx.

[Justin Swanton]

Feels like two parallel conversations. 

I think so.  Justin is focussed on the tactical while others are in grand strategy mode.

I'm sure many period specialist could challenge Justin's perception of hoplite warfare and their equipment (was a pilos helmet more complex than a coolus? Were they all heavily armoured or did some of them do without body armour?), it's clear that Romans fought differently. One of Patrick's insights on Roman armies that has stuck with me is that their system was based on "the long game".  They were well trained, building endurance, and organised in a way to allow them to easily introduce fresh troops into the line as the battle proceeded. If it was all about pila and a quick "chuck and charge", they'd be no more resilient than a bunch of barbarians, just with different javelins.

I'm sure period specialists can challenge my perception of hoplite warfare but challenging and refuting are two different things. I don't pretend to know everything about the subject and am always ready to be refuted, but I'm a little tired of being told the specialists don't agree with me as if that is a refutation in itself.

To answer your specific points:

The corinthian helmet was the most common type used by hoplites, and it was more expensive than the the pilos or coolus. The pilos had the sole advantage of being cheap - my take is that it was used by rear rank troops since in the shield-vs-shield crush of othismos the hoplite's face would be too exposed. That's why the corinthian helmet covered the entire face since the face was in range of knife strikes by an opponent. The aspis could not be used to cover the lower half of the face since it had to rest against the sternum in othismos (top edge against sternum, bottom edge against upper leg - the curvature of the bowl allowed the hoplite to breathe).

Armour - the front rankers at least would need body armour since the dory was used to punch straight through the opponent's shield which meant body armour supplied necessary additional protection. Again, in a close knife fight, the hoplite would need protection for his upper body against being stabbed by his opponent.

[Erpingham]

I'm sure period specialists can challenge my perception of hoplite warfare but challenging and refuting are two different things. I don't pretend to know everything about the subject and am always ready to be refuted, but I'm a little tired of being told the specialists don't agree with me as if that is a refutation in itself.

It wasn't meant as a refutation but a reminder that other interpretations are out there. I'm not a specialist in hoplite warfare by any means but am well aware many who are would hold varying views.  You know you and I have different approaches here and it is nothing to do with you personally - I am crippled by a need to see things from multiple directions, which tends towards greater uncertainty in interpretation       

The corinthian helmet was the most common type used by hoplites, and it was more expensive than the the pilos or coolus.

When and by whom is the question. Early hoplites yes but it went out of fashion in favour of more open styles with cheek protection or even a simple pilos-type. The place Corinthian helmets clung on longest was Italy. Wealthier Romans were probably wearing Italo-Corinthian helmets long after the Greeks had given up.

Armour - the front rankers at least would need body armour since the dory was used to punch straight through the opponent's shield which meant body armour supplied necessary additional protection.

The point was you made a lot of how the Romans only had a square chest protector as armour unlike all the heavily armoured Greeks.  Many later hoplites had a shield, a simple helmet and greaves and even the later might be dispensed with.  I don't disagree with your analysis of the front rankers though.

[Swampster]

When and by whom is the question. Early hoplites yes but it went out of fashion in favour of more open styles with cheek protection or even a simple pilos-type. The place Corinthian helmets clung on longest was Italy. Wealthier Romans were probably wearing Italo-Corinthian helmets long after the Greeks had given up.

]
And I think it is notable that this only persisted by becoming a form which could only be worn leaving the face free, the eye holes becoming no more than decoration.

[Justin Swanton]

I'm sure period specialists can challenge my perception of hoplite warfare but challenging and refuting are two different things. I don't pretend to know everything about the subject and am always ready to be refuted, but I'm a little tired of being told the specialists don't agree with me as if that is a refutation in itself.

It wasn't meant as a refutation but a reminder that other interpretations are out there. I'm not a specialist in hoplite warfare by any means but am well aware many who are would hold varying views.  You know you and I have different approaches here and it is nothing to do with you personally - I am crippled by a need to see things from multiple directions, which tends towards greater uncertainty in interpretation 

Very good. Period specialists can challenge me, I can challenge them, and they can challenge each other.     

The corinthian helmet was the most common type used by hoplites, and it was more expensive than the the pilos or coolus.

When and by whom is the question. Early hoplites yes but it went out of fashion in favour of more open styles with cheek protection or even a simple pilos-type. The place Corinthian helmets clung on longest was Italy. Wealthier Romans were probably wearing Italo-Corinthian helmets long after the Greeks had given up.

The Thracian and Chalcidean helmets also offer good protection if you include nose guard and cheek pieces. There's no proof as far as I know that the Spartans or anyone else generally used the pilos. It seems to have been the poor man's helmet. From Chaeronea in 338BC classical hoplite phalanx warfare began to take a back foot, with thureophoroi increasingly becoming the new popular troop type. That would argue for more open helmets as combatants were no longer in such close quarters. Of course this is all hypothesis.

Going back to the original question, the 5 classes of Servius Tullius equate weaponry to expense and the first class, equipped as hoplites, had the most expensive weaponry. A typical legionary of the later Republic would fit into the second or even third class, hence equipping a legionary was considerably cheaper than equipping a hoplite.

Armour - the front rankers at least would need body armour since the dory was used to punch straight through the opponent's shield which meant body armour supplied necessary additional protection.

The point was you made a lot of how the Romans only had a square chest protector as armour unlike all the heavily armoured Greeks.  Many later hoplites had a shield, a simple helmet and greaves and even the later might be dispensed with.  I don't disagree with your analysis of the front rankers though.

Right. It all depended on where in the file you were. But even front rank legionaries after Tullius had the bare minimum as body protection in addition to their shield. It was all about cost and being able to equip larger armies of HI than a comparable Greek polis could.

[Monad]

Firstly, sorry I went on a bit of a rant. Got excited, which hasn't happened for a long time.

Justin wrote:
A man after my own heart! And if Patrick had still been alive, after his too.

Oh, a lot of my research could be very damaging to your theories, that I don't think you would label me as a man after your own heart. Also, Patrick had read my first volume and he like many others had nothing to say. He didn't want to discuss it with me.

Justin wrote:
I too have done research on the Legion and written non-standard stuff on how line relief worked. Published a book on it too.

Of which I purchased.

Justin wrote:
Platform means bandwagon which means considerable resistance to any radically new ideas, not because they can be refuted, but because they don't follow the general trend.

Trust me Justin, you are nowhere near radical. My research can turn everything we know about the Romans on its head, and all back by evidence from the ancient sources. I've had my work examined by Melbourne university and Sydney University. They were confident of being able "to destroy" my research. End result was that Melbourne University just comment "hidden by its simplicity" and some woman from Sydney University, who wrote a book on Hadrian or Trajan, told me I was going to destroy the reputations of many academic's past and present. Are you happy about that."

What is your conclusion on stipendium?

Justin wrote:
So - following Livy's Latin - the Romans dumped the clipeus for the scutum soon after they started paying a tribute or tax.

If the soldiers are the ones having to pay a tribute or tax, then that makes no sense of what the Struggle of the Orders was about, and would exacerbate the soldier's problem of going into debt while serving on campaign. However, if they received something, and then had to pay a war tax on the state supplied equipment, that makes sense to me.

Justin wrote:
When did they start doing that? When Servius Tullus introduced the war tax to pay for the equipment and supplies issued to the soldiers. At that time he reorganised the military, introducing the 5 classes of which a little under half the infantry served in the 1st class and were still equipped with the clipeus (which they had to supply themselves) whilst the 2nd and 3rd classes had the scutum.

And this is where we travel down different and widely diverging roads. I have a five volumes starting from 513 BC to 410 AD, that overwhelmingly proves that Tarquinius Superbus introduced the 20 tribes of Rome, the six property classes (yes six as per Dionysius), the hearth of the Vestal Virgins, the saeculum, the Roman generation, and the maniple and cohort. And that is why Zonaras (2 8 9) rightfully states that nothing was done worthy of record during the reign of Servius Tullius, and that it was Tarquinius Superbus the seventh king of Rome, that put forth a proposal to rearrange the tribes. This action accords well with Dionysius' (4 41 2) comment that Tarquinius Superbus:

"Confounded and abolished the customs, the laws, and the whole native form of government, by which the former kings had ordered the commonwealth."

So, why would Zonaras make such a claim if it was widely accepted that Servius Tullius introduced the property class system? My answer is because Zonaras was following the historical account, and not the fabricated version of Rome's early history.

NOW, LET US SPEAK OF ALL THINGS PYTHAGORAS
Firstly, why Pythagoras? The answer is because Rome's institutions, both social and military were designed by Pythagoras himself. Because the Roman social system was based on Pythagorean doctrines, which in itself was a religion based on mathematics, the mathematical data in the ancient sources in regard the Roman social and military systems can be "unravelled" via the use of Pythagorean mathematical teaching, and reveal how and when the Roman legion was organised over a period of one thousand years.

Around 532 BC, at 40 years of age, Pythagoras arrived in Southern Italy and eventually settled in the city of Croton. According to Iamblichus, the name Pythagoras meant "prophesised by Apollo." (1) Pythagoras was believed to have been born in 570 BC on the island of Samos off the coast of Asia Minor. While in Croton, Pythagoras founded a secret religious mystical sect from which its members went on to gain political dominance in many of the cities of Southern Italy. Within the sect the Pythagoreans shared their knowledge of mathematics and science. Pythagoras' influence as a philosopher, a political leader, and a religious dignitary extended over Southern Italy, with miracles and God-like feats being attributed to him. (2) Around 513 BC or earlier, when Pythagoras was 57 years of age, two ambassadors from Rome travelled to Croton in Southern Italy and met with Pythagoras. This single meeting resulted in Pythagoras designing a new Roman system of government that included the introduction of many new religious practices to the Roman way of life. Pythagoras' meeting with the Romans was to change the ancient world, give rise to the Roman Empire and formulated the ideology of Christianity. However, that is not the traditional story as told by the Romans.

Following Roman tradition, one year after the death of Rome's first king, Romulus in 715 BC, two Roman envoys, Proculus and Velesus travelled to Cures, a Sabine town to bequeath to Numa Pompilius, a man nominated by the Roman senate for his celebrated virtues, to be Rome's second king. (3) According to Plutarch, Numa was born by divine bliss on the very day when Rome was founded (21st April 753 BC). (4) During his reign, Numa is accredited with introducing great innovations in modes of government, establishing the office of the Pontifex Maximus, the augurs, the Salii and other priesthoods; changed the year from 10 months to 12 months, introduced intercalation, rearranged the order of the months, placing January and February before March, and instigated the hearth of Vesta and the Vestal Virgins. (5) Some ancient historians believed that while serving as Rome's second king, Numa became an intimate friend of Pythagoras, and that Numa was responsible for instigating many new precepts that were in harmony with the doctrines of Pythagoras. (6) However, Cicero asserts that there is no proof in the public records to prove an acquaintance between Numa and Pythagoras because:

"The supposition is false...it is not merely a fiction, but a ridiculous and bungling one too; and we should not tolerate those statements, even in fiction, relating to facts which not only did not happen, but which never could have happened. For it was not till the fourth year of the reign of Tarquinius Superbus (534 BC to 509 BC) that Pythagoras is ascertained to have come to Sybaris, Crotona, and this part of Italy. And the 62nd Olympiad (531 BC to 528 BC) is the common date of the elevation of Tarquinius Superbus to the throne, and of the arrival of Pythagoras. From which it appears, when we calculate the duration of the reigns of the kings, that about 140 years must have elapsed after the death of Numa before Pythagoras first arrived in Italy. And this fact, in the minds of men who have carefully studied the annals of time, has never been at all doubted." (7)

In support of Cicero, Dionysius writes: "many have written that Numa was a disciple of Pythagoras and that when he was chosen king by the Romans, he was studying philosophy at Croton. But the date of Pythagoras contradicts this account, since he was not merely a few years younger than Numa, but actually lived four whole generations later, as we learn from universal history; for Numa succeeded to the sovereignty of the Romans in the middle of the 16th Olympiad (712 BC), whereas Pythagoras resided in Italy after the 50th Olympiad (576 BC). But I can advance yet a stronger argument to prove that the chronology is incompatible with the reports handed down about Numa, and that is, that at the time when Numa was called to the sovereignty by the Romans the city of Croton did not yet exist." (

The evidence is clear; Numa was not a disciple of Pythagoras nor was Pythagoras alive during the reign of Numa. A character study between Numa and Pythagoras will reveal many identical traits that cannot be dismissed as coincidence. Plutarch also has Numa as being 40 years of age when he was approached by the Romans to be their king. (9) Coincidentally, Aristoxenus and Porphyry state that Pythagoras was 40 years of age when he arrived in Italy. (10) When describing Numa, Plutarch writes that Numa was "inclined to the practice of every virtue, and he had subdued himself still more by discipline, endurance of hardships, and the study of wisdom...On this account he banished from his house all luxury and extravagance." (11) Iamblichus also states that Pythagoras believed luxury was the first evil, and that "luxury should by all possible means be excluded and expelled from every house and city." (12)

Plutarch further comments that "Numa, forsaking the ways of city folk, determined to live for the most part in country places, and to wander there alone; passing his days in groves of the gods, sacred meadows, and solitudes." (13) Porphyry writes that Pythagoras liked to take walks "in the company of one or two companions, in temples of sacred groves, selecting the most quiet and beautiful places." (14) Plutarch adds that when Numa performed sacrifices to the gods, "the sacrifices involved no bloodshed, but were made with flour, drink-offerings, and the least costly gifts." (15) Iamblichus writes that the Pythagoreans did not sacrifice animals to the Gods." (16) Of even greater interest, Ovid writes that Numa in a bid to learn the laws of nature forsook his native Sabine country and travelled to Croton, which coincidentally was Pythagoras' place of residency in Italy. (17) And the reason as to why Numa has been associated with Pythagoras was because many ancient historians were unaware that Numa was actually Pythagoras.

Rather than Numa, it was Pythagoras who was approached by an embassy from Rome consisting of Proculus and Velesus. Diogenes Laertius and Porphyry confirm that the Romans visited Pythagoras when he resided in Croton. (18) The most likely purpose of the meeting by Proculus and Velesus was to invite Pythagoras to Rome for the purpose of helping Tarquinius Superbus, (534 BC to 509 BC) to design a new constitution, possibly modelled on the constitution Pythagoras developed for Croton. (19) Porphyry states that "Pythagoras and his associates were long held in such admiration in Italy that many cities invited them to undertake their administration." (20) After much pleading by Proculus and Velesus for Pythagoras to make the Roman people virtuous and harmonious, Pythagoras relented. On his arrival in Rome:

"the senate and people met him (Pythagoras and not Numa as was originally written) on his way, filled with a wondrous love of the man; women welcomed him with fitting cries of joy; sacrifices were offered in the temples, and joy was universal, as if the city were receiving, not a king, but a kingdom." (21)

The fact Pythagoras travelled to Rome is confirmed by Plutarch's claim that Pythagoras was enrolled as a citizen of Rome. (22) In his Tusculan Disputations, Cicero acknowledges that Pythagorean philosophy made its way to Rome, and that the Romans had adopted many Pythagorean customs. (23)

Iamblichus writes that the Romans united themselves to the Pythagoras sect. (24) Diogenes Laertius and Porphyry make the same comment that "the Lucanians, the Peucetians, the Messapians and the Romans remained attached to him and came to him to listen to his discourses. (25) According to Pliny, in the third century, when fighting the Samnites, as part of a religious command, the Romans had to erect one statue to the wisest of the Greeks and one to the bravest. (26) In response, the Romans erected a statue to Pythagoras and one to Alcibiades, a testament to the high veneration the Romans held for Pythagoras.

In conclusion, further evidence will demonstrate that it was during the reign of Tarquinius Superbus, (534 BC to 509 BC), that Rome became a Pythagorean city. It was Pythagoras and not Numa that altered the Roman calendar from 10 months to 12 months, introduced intercalation, instigated the hearth of Vesta and the Vestal Virgins, and established the office of Pontifex Maximus, and many other sacred priesthoods. It was Pythagoras, and not Servius Tullius, the sixth king of Rome (578 BC to 534 BC), that introduced the creation of the 35 tribes, the property classes, the census and the century assembly.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And as a side note, why are there 35 tribes. Answer: the creation of the 35 tribes of Rome has its foundations in the Pythagorean tetrachord (6, 8, 9, 12), and because of this the number of tribes could never exceed 35 tribes. This was because the integers of the Pythagorean tetrachord added up to 35 (6 + 8 + 9 + 12 = 35). In Pythagorean lore, two harmonic fourths (the ratio 4/3), created the harmonic fifth (the ratio 3/2). The 12 and 9 of the tetrachord produce the harmonic fourth and represent 21 of the 35 tribes. The 8 and 6 also produce the harmonic fourth, and represent the remaining 14 tribes. The 21 tribes and the 14 tribes produce the harmonic fifth (the ratio 3/2).

Notice how after the 21 tribe was created, there was a break to 387 BC, until tribes 22 to 25 were created. This is because the 12 vultures of Romulus become 18 vultures of his brother. This mythical story is based on the expansion of the tribes. Varro (LL 5 11 3) writes that Pythagoras said that "the primal elements of all things are in pairs." Notice how after 387 BC, all tribes are created in pairs. Legions are also paired.

Justin wrote:
The army still operated more or less as a hoplite phalanx in the battle of the new Republic against Tarquinius Superbus in 508BC: "The right wings of both armies were victorious and the left worsted." – Livy: 2.6. Typical hoplite battle.

Oh Justin, Lake Regillus is my happy hunting ground. The Romans did not learn anything from the Latins, in fact the Roman Pythagorean system was given to the Latins by Tarquinius Superbus. See my paper on the Roman army of 499 BC:

https://www.academia.edu/27762717/The_Roman_Tribes_and_the_Roman_Army_of_499_BC

At the battle of Cumae in 524 BC, Dionysius (7 4) describes a combined army of the Etruscans from Tarquinii, the Umbrians, and the Daunians, "without any order, the horse and the foot intermingled, fighting against 600 Cumean cavalry." So, if the Etruscans have foot and horse intermixed, it is not a hoplite battle.

Justin wrote:
But it appears the clipeus fell out of use soon after that since the Romans began to use at least two lines in 496BC in another battle with Tarquinius, who this time led a Latin army that itself had at least two lines. It seems the Romans dropped the hoplite system of the Etruscans (who had only one line) for the multi-line system of the Latins.

Oh dear, more disagreement. The Roman Pythagorean system was given to the Latins by Tarquinius Superbus, resulting in the Latin army being modelled on the Roman army. There are eleven sacred Pythagorean tetractys as listed by Theon of Smyrna (Mathematics useful for reading Plato 3 38), of which the Roman system is based on the number six and the Latins on the number five. This means the Roman system has six property classes (as per Dionysius), and the Latins have five property classes. The symbolism of the 11 sacred Pythagorean tetractys is also rooted in the Song of the Celestial Sirens, which involves the three daughters of fate and the eight sirens that sing in unison with the three daughters of fate (3 daughters + 8 sirens = 11). This is called the Harmony of the Spheres. Theon of Smyrna claimed the 11 tetractys resulted in the "perfect world," because "everything is part of it, and it is itself a part of nothing else."

Justin wrote:
Quote: As Postumius was drawing up his men and encouraging them in the first line [prima in acie]...In the other wing also, Æbutius, master of the horse, had charged Octavius Mamilius; nor was his approach unobserved by the Tusculan general, who also briskly spurred on his horse to encounter him. And such was their impetuosity as they advanced with hostile spears, that Æbutius was run through the arm and Mamilius struck on the breast. The Latins received the latter into their second line [in secundam aciem]. – Livy: 2.19.

For me, the Roman army for this period was organised on centuries, maniples, ordines and cohorts, which makes line relief possible with any shield type, even using my front door would work if line relief was undertaken using the ordo system, as explained by Livy (8

As I explained in my previous post, a Roman legion was arrayed one cohort (600 infantry) wide by four cohorts deep, which following the style and practices of most ancient writers, was written as being arrayed in two lines. In same cases, the legion was also arrayed in five battle lines for this period. Behind each battleline in a legion, the Roman could station cavalry, but the most common position was behind the last battleline, made up of those troops with the least combat experience.
When fighting the Volscians in 459 BC, Livy (3 22) has the legionary cavalry "stationed behind their respective divisions.

At the battle of Lake Regillus in 499 BC, Dionysius (6 10) mentions that when the Romans and Latins charged, the light infantry and the cavalry on each side, and the solid foot were all mingled. Livy (2 20) has the Roman cavalry stationed behind the infantry, and during the battle dismounted and fought as infantry. Again, at the battle of Lake Regillus in 496 BC, Dionysius (6 12) also mentions that the Roman exiles consisted of both light infantry and cavalry, and later, the Latin commander Mamilius, entered the battle at the head of a strong body of both horse and foot.

In 487 BC, Dionysius (8 67) mentions the consul Titus Siccius kept the legionary cavalry in reserve so as to be ready to reinforce any part of the line that was hard pressed. (6) Paul Silentiarius (520 AD to 580 AD), when discussing the history of the Roman cavalry, also mentions that the infantry was drawn up in front of the cavalry. 7 Paul Silentiarius (Military Matters 4 36), Three Political Voices from the age of Justinian Menas, Peter N. Bell; Translated Texts for Historians, Liverpool University Press

Justin wrote:
My take is that several lines means line relief and you can't do line relief with hoplite aspides since the shields are too wide to permit the front line to retire between the files of the open-order second line. That is why the hoplite phalanx was a single line. You can however do line relief with narrower oblong shields. Which introduces the topic of how line relief actually worked but does anyone want to cover that again?

My take is the Roman army for this period was organised on centuries, maniples, ordines and cohorts, which makes line relief possible with any shield type, even using my front door would work if line relief was undertaken using the ordo system, as explained by Livy (8

In 495 BC, Dionysius (6 26) writes that the Roman senate convened to deliberate what forces were to be taken into the field to fight a Volscian army. This is a very overlooked comment and what it means is the Romans have a variety of legions sizes.

Returning to Lake Regillus, the Roman army at Lake Regillus amounted to 16,380 men, as opposed to Latin army of 23,760 men. Each of the 30 Latin cities levied 792 men (infantry and cavalry).

Dionysius claims that the Latin army amounted to 40,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry. However, the 3,000 cavalry is included in the 40,000 infantry. For the Romans, Dionysius has 23,700 infantry and 1,000 cavalry. The mistake is the 23,700 men are the Latins, both infantry and cavalry. By deducting Dionysius' 23,700 Romans from the 40,000 Latins, the result is 16,300 Romans, and as 1,000 cavalry is mentions, this converts to 15,300 infantry and 1,000 cavalry, which has been rounded from 1,080 cavalry. The 15,300 infantry converts to 180 centuries each of 85 infantry, which is1/100 of the Roman century assembly (85 centuries of juniors etc.) With three Roman commanders present at Lake Regillus, this allocated each commander 60 centuries (5,100 infantry). The 1,080 cavalry, when divided by 180 centuries allocates each cavalry century 6 cavalrymen, and with each commander allocated 60 cavalry centuries, each Roman commander was allocated 360 cavalry. Livy mentions cavalry centuries. In 423 BC, Livy and Valerius Maximus (3 2 write that during the battle of Verrugo, "when the Roman infantry began to fall back, the Roman cavalry dismounted and arranged themselves in centuries."

What I have found interesting about Lake Regillus is that the Latins make a catastrophic mistake and follow their tactical doctrine of leaving camp guards. Dionysius states that after the battle, 5,500 Latins were made prisoners. Now when I followed the Roman doctrine of the number of men allocated to guarding the camp for a Latin army of 23,760 men, I arrived at 5,520 men, so Dionysius has rounded down by 20 men. However, I am still missing the cavalry reserve kept in the Latin camp. Ah, later Dionysius claims that the Roman released 6,000 Latin prisoners, and there is my missing 720 Latin cavalry. So, all in all, there were 6,240 Latin camp guards. The removal of the Latin camp guards reduced the Latin army from 23,760 men to 17,520 men, versus 16,380 Romans, a big mistake as the Roman allocated no one to guarding their camp.

When the Latin becomes allies with the Romans, part the Latin cavalry is allocated to guarding the camp and to act as a reserve. This practice continued for a very long time, and I believe I cover this in my paper on the breakdown of the Roman army at Cannae. Many of the figures given for the allied or Latin cavalry in the ancient sources omit the cavalry left in the camp, as do they omit the Roman guard cavalry. And that is another major reason why so many cannot understand the data in the ancient sources.

[Justin Swanton]

Firstly, sorry I went on a bit of a rant. Got excited, which hasn't happened for a long time.

Justin wrote:
A man after my own heart! And if Patrick had still been alive, after his too.

Oh, a lot of my research could be very damaging to your theories, that I don't think you would label me as a man after your own heart.

I tend to agree. Let me answer just some of what is a very long post.

What is your conclusion on stipendium?

As I gave - that Roman soldiers began to pay a tax under Servius Tullius for their provisionment after which they switched from the clipeus to the scutum. But the change seems not to have happened all at once. Seems that the early Republic - some time after Tullius - started out practising hoplite warfare before abandoning it soon afterwards.

And this is where we travel down different and widely diverging roads. I have a five volumes starting from 513 BC to 410 AD, that overwhelmingly proves that Tarquinius Superbus introduced the 20 tribes of Rome, the six property classes (yes six as per Dionysius), the hearth of the Vestal Virgins, the saeculum, the Roman generation, and the maniple and cohort. And that is why Zonaras (2 8 9) rightfully states that nothing was done worthy of record during the reign of Servius Tullius, and that it was Tarquinius Superbus the seventh king of Rome, that put forth a proposal to rearrange the tribes. This action accords well with Dionysius' (4 41 2) comment that Tarquinius Superbus:

"Confounded and abolished the customs, the laws, and the whole native form of government, by which the former kings had ordered the commonwealth."

And here we differ, not only on conclusions but also on methodology. My approach to the primary sources is not to dismiss what they say when they don't fit a theory but to do everything I possibly can to resolve apparent impossibilities, inconsistencies or contradictions, which includes checking the texts in the original languages. I conclude that the sources are far more consistent than they are generally given credit for even though they obviously aren't entirely consistent. These are humans writing, after all.

One example of this is the size of armies in Antiquity. The sources consistently give huge numbers for Achaemenid Persia (amongst plenty of other nations). They may not agree on exact figures but they are always in the hundreds of thousands. Contemporary historians dismiss these numbers stating logistical impossibilities plus how such huge armies were supposed to travel. I preferred to examine just what was logistically required and in what way the armies moved overland (spoiler - they didn't use roads/tracks) and concluded that the huge numbers were quite plausible. We had a monster of a thread on that topic.

Coming to Servius Tullius, Livy and Dionysius both affirm he was the king that instituted the wide ranging reforms of the Roman social and military order. No other primary source contradicts them. They both lived about 500 years after the events. To say they both gave the wrong king as agent for such a fundamental reform of the Roman state would be the same as saying contemporary historians are all wrong to affirm that Henry VIII broke with Rome and created a national Church when in fact it was Elizabeth I. It just doesn't track.

Even Zonaras - who incidentally lived a thousand years after Livy and Dionysius - does not say that Tarquinius was the instigator of the reforms, merely that nothing significant happened during the reign of Tullius. Significant in what way? Military campaigns? Conquests?

As for "Confounded and abolished the customs, the laws, and the whole native form of government, by which the former kings had ordered the commonwealth" this doesn't concern the tribal or military organisation but the whole legal foundation of the state. Not the same thing.

Let me end there for now (I'm typing this at work). I'll look at the rest later when I have a chance.

[Monad]

Justin wrote:
As I gave - that Roman soldiers began to pay a tax under Servius Tullius for their provisionment after which they switched from the clipeus to the scutum. But the change seems not to have happened all at once. Seems that the early Republic - some time after Tullius - started out practising hoplite warfare before abandoning it soon afterwards.

Sorry Justin, for me, this does not explain your conclusion of what you believe stipendium was? The period of the Struggle of the Order is about soldiers falling in debt while on campaign for up to six months. To prevent a dividing of the state and the possibility of a civil war, the senate did come up with a solution and that was to provide something to the soldiers. Imposing another tax on the soldiers as you commented would have ignited a civil war. Something had to be given, not something taken from them.

Justin wrote:
And here we differ, not only on conclusions but also on methodology. My approach to the primary sources is not to dismiss what they say when they don't fit a theory but to do everything I possibly can to resolve apparent impossibilities, inconsistencies or contradictions, which includes checking the texts in the original languages.

Well, I did warn you we both travel down wide and diverging roads. I have been accused many a time of dismissing information to fit my theory, and all accusations from people who have never read anything I have produced. For the record, I follow the primary sources and let them tell their story. If Servius Tullius introduced the tribal system, the century assembly and the rest, and that is what I found, I have no problem with that. I don't have a theory to protect, that is the trade mark of academics. I am just telling what I found, and much of what I have found does not rest on one single item that makes me jump to conclusions. I need a lot of good hard evidence before I make a conclusion. However, I am fortunate as the number tell the story, I am merely its scribe.

Justin wrote:
I conclude that the sources are far more consistent than they are generally given credit for even though they obviously aren't entirely consistent. These are humans writing, after all. One example of this is the size of armies in Antiquity.

Yes and no. I have found a lot is crap, or just recycled history with a different variant. As the saying goes, "where there is contradiction, there is fabrication." In regard to army numbers, Orosius has this to say:

Orosius (4 1 12-13) "For it is certainly not the custom of writers of olden times to preserve for posterity the number of the victor's dead, lest his losses tarnish the glory of his victory, unless by chance so few fall that the number lost enhances the admiration for and the fear of the victor's courage. This was the case with Alexander the Great in the first battle of the Persian War. It is reported that his army lost only nine infantrymen, whereas the enemy's losses numbered almost four hundred thousand.

Orosius (4 20). "This inconsistency of the historians is certainly an evidence of falsehood. But flattery is surely the cause of their misrepresentation, since they eagerly heap praises upon the victor and extol the virtue of their own country for the edification of present and future generations. Otherwise, if the number had not been investigated, it never would have been spoken of at all. But if it is glorious for a commander and a country to have destroyed so many of the enemy, how much more joyful is it for a country and how much happier for a commander if they have lost none or very few of their men. The intent to deceive becomes absolutely plain, because with like shamelessness they lied by exaggerating the number of the enemy dead while they either minimized the losses suffered among their own allies or kept them entirely secret."

Orosius (5 3). "Now I have already made some remarks about the variety of opinions expressed by disagreeing historians. Let it suffice to say that these historians have been exposed and branded as liars, because if writers present entirely different accounts of events which they themselves saw as eyewitnesses it indicates very clearly that their opinions of other events are worth very little."

Justin wrote:
Coming to Servius Tullius, Livy and Dionysius both affirm he was the king that instituted the wide ranging reforms of the Roman social and military order. No other primary source contradicts them.

Hello , let's not forget Zonaras.

Justin wrote:
They (Livy and Dionysius) both lived about 500 years after the events. To say they both gave the wrong king as agent for such a fundamental reform of the Roman state would be the same as saying contemporary historians are all wrong to affirm that Henry VIII broke with Rome and created a national Church when in fact it was Elizabeth I. It just doesn't track.

The fact they lived 500 years after the event is an indication they are following the contemporary view of the time, and the one that gained traction over time. A lot can be written in 500 years. Livy and others were well aware that Roman history was indeed infected with fiction.

Claudius Quadrigarius (FRRH2 1.1) writes that ancient records disappeared in the sufferings of the metropolis under the Gauls {390BC}; those now available are untrue because of men wanting to please individuals inserting themselves into first families and the most distinguished houses, to which they do not in fact belong.

Cicero Brutus 62: These eulogies have falsified our history. Much written in them is fiction, fictitious triumphs, more consulships than an individual actually had, false clan names and false reckonings of some as plebeians, since men of lower status have been falsely introduced into unrelated clans which happen to have the same name.

Livy (8.40.4-5): "History has been falsified in funeral eulogies and with false captions to portraits, from families' desire for fame from bogus deeds and positions of honour. This has infected both records of individual families' deeds and also public monuments. Nor is there any other surviving author from around this time {322 BC} in whom we can put our trust.

We are left with the question, did many of the ancient historians know fact from fiction when they wrote? Didn't the British Royal Air Force really win the battle of Britian because they ate carrots?

Justin wrote:
Even Zonaras - who incidentally lived a thousand years after Livy and Dionysius - does not say that Tarquinius was the instigator of the reforms, merely that nothing significant happened during the reign of Tullius. Significant in what way? Military campaigns? Conquests?

Are we now going to define what "significance" is? Apparently Servius Tullius so called reforms were a major event for many ancient historians and would be classified as significant. We know what events is accredited to Servius Tullius and it is not military campaigns or conquests. Livy and Polybius tell us of the great military events that Gnaeus Scipio achieved in Spain, and yet Appian claims that Gnaeus Scipio achieved little. If one does their research, one will find that all those events claim to be undertaken by Gnaeus Scipio were conducted by other Roman commanders during the Second Punic War. Recycled history to glorify the Scipio name.

Justin wrote: Let me end there for now (I'm typing this at work).

I promise I won't tell your boss.

As a side note, regarding the 20 tribes of Rome created by Pythagoras, as the tribal system is also a calendar for keeping track of the movement of the Pythagorean cosmos, at the beginning each tribe represented 12 years of time. Therefore, 20 tribes amounted to 240 years, and when deducted from Rome's founding date of 753 BC, the result is the year 513 BC, which I know from other data such as the Pythagorean tonal system (harmony of the spheres) is the year the Roman tribal system was created.

Later, the Roman increase the tribes to 18 years of time, and increase of six years, which seems to fit very nicely with the story of Romulus sighting 12 vultures and his brother Remus, six vultures, which adds up to 18 vultures. There appears to be some historical origin to these fairy tales.

And of great importance, if Pythagoras had nothing to do with the creation of anything, why did the Romans associate Pythagoras with Numa?

[Jim Webster]

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

I include a link to the Amazon UK site knowing it to be useless to both of you 

I confess to reading it and being impressed
I am not going to say that he is correct, but that he is interesting, and it may be that he is the person whose arguments have to be addressed 

[Justin Swanton]

I include a link to the Amazon UK site knowing it to be useless to both of you 

Oh, include it! 

[Monad]

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.

[Justin Swanton]

Justin wrote:
As I gave - that Roman soldiers began to pay a tax under Servius Tullius for their provisionment after which they switched from the clipeus to the scutum. But the change seems not to have happened all at once. Seems that the early Republic - some time after Tullius - started out practising hoplite warfare before abandoning it soon afterwards.

Sorry Justin, for me, this does not explain your conclusion of what you believe stipendium was? The period of the Struggle of the Order is about soldiers falling in debt while on campaign for up to six months. To prevent a dividing of the state and the possibility of a civil war, the senate did come up with a solution and that was to provide something to the soldiers. Imposing another tax on the soldiers as you commented would have ignited a civil war. Something had to be given, not something taken from them.

Dionysius says what it was:

In pursuance of this arrangement he levied troops according to the division of the centuries, and imposed taxes in proportion to the valuation of their possessions. For instance, whenever he had occasion to raise ten thousand men, or, if it should so happen, twenty thousand, he would divide that number among the hundred and ninety-three centuries and then order each century to furnish the number of men that fell to its share. As to the expenditures that would be needed for the provisioning of soldiers while on duty and for the various warlike supplies, he would first calculate how much money would be sufficient, and having in like manner divided that sum among the hundred and ninety-three centuries, he would order every man to pay his share towards it in proportion to his rating. - Antiqities, 4:19

Justin wrote:
And here we differ, not only on conclusions but also on methodology. My approach to the primary sources is not to dismiss what they say when they don't fit a theory but to do everything I possibly can to resolve apparent impossibilities, inconsistencies or contradictions, which includes checking the texts in the original languages.

Well, I did warn you we both travel down wide and diverging roads. I have been accused many a time of dismissing information to fit my theory, and all accusations from people who have never read anything I have produced. For the record, I follow the primary sources and let them tell their story. If Servius Tullius introduced the tribal system, the century assembly and the rest, and that is what I found, I have no problem with that. I don't have a theory to protect, that is the trade mark of academics. I am just telling what I found, and much of what I have found does not rest on one single item that makes me jump to conclusions. I need a lot of good hard evidence before I make a conclusion. However, I am fortunate as the number tell the story, I am merely its scribe.

Mmh...rejecting two historians who assign the reforms to Tullius would require a considerable weight of counter-testimony before they could be discounted and there isn't any such testimony.

Justin wrote:
I conclude that the sources are far more consistent than they are generally given credit for even though they obviously aren't entirely consistent. These are humans writing, after all. One example of this is the size of armies in Antiquity.

Yes and no. I have found a lot is crap, or just recycled history with a different variant. As the saying goes, "where there is contradiction, there is fabrication." In regard to army numbers, Orosius has this to say:

Orosius (4 1 12-13) "For it is certainly not the custom of writers of olden times to preserve for posterity the number of the victor's dead, lest his losses tarnish the glory of his victory, unless by chance so few fall that the number lost enhances the admiration for and the fear of the victor's courage. This was the case with Alexander the Great in the first battle of the Persian War. It is reported that his army lost only nine infantrymen, whereas the enemy's losses numbered almost four hundred thousand.

Orosius (4 20). "This inconsistency of the historians is certainly an evidence of falsehood. But flattery is surely the cause of their misrepresentation, since they eagerly heap praises upon the victor and extol the virtue of their own country for the edification of present and future generations. Otherwise, if the number had not been investigated, it never would have been spoken of at all. But if it is glorious for a commander and a country to have destroyed so many of the enemy, how much more joyful is it for a country and how much happier for a commander if they have lost none or very few of their men. The intent to deceive becomes absolutely plain, because with like shamelessness they lied by exaggerating the number of the enemy dead while they either minimized the losses suffered among their own allies or kept them entirely secret."

Orosius (5 3). "Now I have already made some remarks about the variety of opinions expressed by disagreeing historians. Let it suffice to say that these historians have been exposed and branded as liars, because if writers present entirely different accounts of events which they themselves saw as eyewitnesses it indicates very clearly that their opinions of other events are worth very little."

Sure. These are specific instances where a serious historian of the period has trouble getting accurate information because the eyewitnesses don't give them. Orosius is a serious historian. So is Livy (at least in his concern for accurate information) and Dionysius. Notice how Osorius affirms that prejudiced 'historians' are "exposed and branded as liars." So critical evaluation was a thing in Antiquity.

But nobody can substantially alter something as huge and widely known as sweeping reforms in the city of Rome. Rather like you can't claim that Elizabeth I broke with Rome rather than Henry VIII.

Justin wrote:
Coming to Servius Tullius, Livy and Dionysius both affirm he was the king that instituted the wide ranging reforms of the Roman social and military order. No other primary source contradicts them.

Hello , let's not forget Zonaras.

Let's not forget him. What about him?

Justin wrote:
They (Livy and Dionysius) both lived about 500 years after the events. To say they both gave the wrong king as agent for such a fundamental reform of the Roman state would be the same as saying contemporary historians are all wrong to affirm that Henry VIII broke with Rome and created a national Church when in fact it was Elizabeth I. It just doesn't track.

The fact they lived 500 years after the event is an indication they are following the contemporary view of the time, and the one that gained traction over time. A lot can be written in 500 years. Livy and others were well aware that Roman history was indeed infected with fiction.

Claudius Quadrigarius (FRRH2 1.1) writes that ancient records disappeared in the sufferings of the metropolis under the Gauls {390BC}; those now available are untrue because of men wanting to please individuals inserting themselves into first families and the most distinguished houses, to which they do not in fact belong.

Cicero Brutus 62: These eulogies have falsified our history. Much written in them is fiction, fictitious triumphs, more consulships than an individual actually had, false clan names and false reckonings of some as plebeians, since men of lower status have been falsely introduced into unrelated clans which happen to have the same name.

Livy (8.40.4-5): "History has been falsified in funeral eulogies and with false captions to portraits, from families' desire for fame from bogus deeds and positions of honour. This has infected both records of individual families' deeds and also public monuments. Nor is there any other surviving author from around this time {322 BC} in whom we can put our trust.

We are left with the question, did many of the ancient historians know fact from fiction when they wrote? Didn't the British Royal Air Force really win the battle of Britian because they ate carrots?

Of course one can falsify specific, esoteric things like funeral eulogies where few people are aware of the facts. But it is impossible to falsify a general event known by tens of thousands. That kind of widespread knowledge is passed down from one generation to the next. Those who try to create a substantially different version are "exposed and branded as liars."

Justin wrote:
Even Zonaras - who incidentally lived a thousand years after Livy and Dionysius - does not say that Tarquinius was the instigator of the reforms, merely that nothing significant happened during the reign of Tullius. Significant in what way? Military campaigns? Conquests?

Are we now going to define what "significance" is?

Yes we are because we need to try and reconcile Zonaras with Livy and Dionysius - my methodology. Can you give the quote from Zonaras with its context?

Apparently Servius Tullius so called reforms were a major event for many ancient historians and would be classified as significant. We know what events is accredited to Servius Tullius and it is not military campaigns or conquests.

Well there you go. If Servius is not notable for military stuff then Zonaras makes sense.

Let me leave Pythagoras for now. Enough on the plate to go with.

[Monad]

Sorry, I tried, but have no idea of how to operate the quote system.

Justin wrote:
Dionysius (4 19) says what it was: "In pursuance of this arrangement he levied troops according to the division of the centuries, and imposed taxes in proportion to the valuation of their possessions. For instance, whenever he had occasion to raise ten thousand men, or, if it should so happen, twenty thousand, he would divide that number among the hundred and ninety-three centuries and then order each century to furnish the number of men that fell to its share. As to the expenditures that would be needed for the provisioning of soldiers while on duty and for the various warlike supplies, he would first calculate how much money would be sufficient, and having in like manner divided that sum among the hundred and ninety-three centuries, he would order every man to pay his share towards it in proportion to his rating."

No, no, no. Dionysius is describing the war tax placed on the men in relation to their property class. The soldiers have to pay a war tax for the military equipment provided by the state. This means the men of Class I, because they can afford the pay a higher war tax are issued better equipment (helmet, round shield (clipeus), bronze breastplate (lorica), greaves (ocreae), sword (gladius), and spear (hasta). The war tax on Class II is less that what Class I pays, and they are issued by the state a helmet, scuta, greaves, sword and spear. Class III pays less than Class II and gets helmet, scuta, spear and sword.

How, by everyone having to pay his share does that solve the crisis of the time regarding men going into debt while on campaign? And if no one believes there is no money system, then what are the men supposed to give to the state in relation to their property class?

Justin wrote:
Mmh...rejecting two historians who assign the reforms to Tullius would require a considerable weight of counter-testimony before they could be discounted and there isn't any such testimony.

Well, I confidently have that, and it has not been debunked. Not even by two universities, and others since then that have seen the latest and final editions.

Justin wrote:
But nobody can substantially alter something as huge and widely known as sweeping reforms in the city of Rome.

I have to point out that the first histories of Rome were written by Quintus Fabius Pictor and Lucius Cincius Alimentus, who both flourished during the Second Punic war, which is around 350 years after the events we are discussing.

Justin wrote:
Of course one can falsify specific, esoteric things like funeral eulogies where few people are aware of the facts. But it is impossible to falsify a general event known by tens of thousands. That kind of widespread knowledge is passed down from one generation to the next. Those who try to create a substantially different version are "exposed and branded as liars."

So, we have 350 years of Chinese whispers, and during that time, nothing is going to get corrupted or rewritten to the changing moods of the public. What if Fabius Pictor did not want to accredit Rome's reforms to Tarquinius Superbus as he believed it would not go down well with Roman society. Why was Numa attached to Pythagoras? Why did the Romans erect a statue to Pythagoras? Why did some Pythagorean writings that appeared in 189 BC, had to be burnt as they posed a threat to the state?

With a gap of 350 years, and supposedly many records destroyed during the sack of Rome (according to Livy I think), Fabius Pictor and Lucius Cincius Alimentus had a free playing hand to write their version of events, which would explain why there is a lot of contradiction in the sources. And also, they could cover up any embarrassments, even invent characters like Porsenna to cover up that Rome was sacked in 509 BC (Tacitus?). Maybe Fabius Pictor and Lucius Cincius Alimentus were actually Rome's first tabloid writers.

[Erpingham]

Sorry, I tried, but have no idea of how to operate the quote system.

Easiest way is to highlight text you want to quote.  You should see a box in the bottom right that says "Quote selected text". Click that and it inserts it at the point you are at in your reply.  However, this can be temeramental.  You can also highlight text and click the "Speech bubble" symbol in the task bar, which will do the same. Finally, you can go old school and type in the mark up .

Forum convention is not to use the quote mark up for external quotes, like texts, but to use quote marks and usually italics.

If you need to edit in quotes later, quick edit will not give you the task bar but you can manually insert mark up.  To get the task bar, click "More" button and select "Modify".

Hope that helps

Add : Doesn't like my empty mark up.  So, start is square brackets enclosing the word quote. Finish is square brackets enclosing /quote.

[Monad]

Thank you Erpingham.

[Justin Swanton]

Sorry, I tried, but have no idea of how to operate the quote system.

Select the text you want to be in a quote then, with it highlighted, click the quote button - it's the one on the right with the little speech bubble.

Justin wrote:
Dionysius (4 19) says what it was: "In pursuance of this arrangement he levied troops according to the division of the centuries, and imposed taxes in proportion to the valuation of their possessions. For instance, whenever he had occasion to raise ten thousand men, or, if it should so happen, twenty thousand, he would divide that number among the hundred and ninety-three centuries and then order each century to furnish the number of men that fell to its share. As to the expenditures that would be needed for the provisioning of soldiers while on duty and for the various warlike supplies, he would first calculate how much money would be sufficient, and having in like manner divided that sum among the hundred and ninety-three centuries, he would order every man to pay his share towards it in proportion to his rating."

No, no, no. Dionysius is describing the war tax placed on the men in relation to their property class. The soldiers have to pay a war tax for the military equipment provided by the state. This means the men of Class I, because they can afford the pay a higher war tax are issued better equipment (helmet, round shield (clipeus), bronze breastplate (lorica), greaves (ocreae), sword (gladius), and spear (hasta). The war tax on Class II is less that what Class I pays, and they are issued by the state a helmet, scuta, greaves, sword and spear. Class III pays less than Class II and gets helmet, scuta, spear and sword.

How, by everyone having to pay his share does that solve the crisis of the time regarding men going into debt while on campaign? And if no one believes there is no money system, then what are the men supposed to give to the state in relation to their property class?

I don't see what the problem is. All that matters is when the soldiers became stipendiarii, i.e. when did they start paying a tax, and that happened under Servius. The tax could be in any form, not just money. The rest is irrelevant.

Justin wrote:
Mmh...rejecting two historians who assign the reforms to Tullius would require a considerable weight of counter-testimony before they could be discounted and there isn't any such testimony.

Well, I confidently have that, and it has not been debunked. Not even by two universities, and others since then that have seen the latest and final editions.

Fine, but I confidently need to see some hard primary source evidence.

Justin wrote:
But nobody can substantially alter something as huge and widely known as sweeping reforms in the city of Rome.

I have to point out that the first histories of Rome were written by Quintus Fabius Pictor and Lucius Cincius Alimentus, who both flourished during the Second Punic war, which is around 350 years after the events we are discussing.

We aren't talking about a written history that has survived to the present time, but general social knowledge which would make it impossible to write a history that said anything else. In addition to general social knowledge, there will be a wealth of documentary evidence in that period that has not survived until today.

Justin wrote:
Of course one can falsify specific, esoteric things like funeral eulogies where few people are aware of the facts. But it is impossible to falsify a general event known by tens of thousands. That kind of widespread knowledge is passed down from one generation to the next. Those who try to create a substantially different version are "exposed and branded as liars."

So, we have 350 years of Chinese whispers, and during that time, nothing is going to get corrupted or rewritten to the changing moods of the public. What if Fabius Pictor did not want to accredit Rome's reforms to Tarquinius Superbus as he believed it would not go down well with Roman society. Why was Numa attacked to Pythagoras? Why did the Romans erect a statue to Pythagoras? Why did some Pythagorean writings that appeared in 189 BC, had to be burnt as they posed a threat to the state?

Again, and again, this is impossible. You can falsify a specific limited event that is known to few, like how many dead in a battle (how many soldiers actually do the counting?) but you can't fake or falsify an event that is known from the get-go by the general population. Charles I's head was cut off in 1649. You can't claim it never happened, or that it was Charles II's head that was cut off. This is common sense. All I can do is keep repeating it.

With a gap of 350 years, and supposedly many records destroyed during the sack of Rome (according to Livy I think), Fabius Pictor and Lucius Cincius Alimentus had a free playing hand to write their version of events, which would explain why there is a lot of contradiction in the sources. And also, they could cover up any embarrassments, even invent characters like Porsenna to cover up that Rome was sacked in 509 BC (Tacitus?). Maybe Fabius Pictor and Lucius Cincius Alimentus were actually Rome's first tabloid writers.

Contradictions in details or in major events?