I was wondering about the different results between the Roman Legion, Macedonian Phalanx and the Carthaginian Phalanx? Was the Macedonian Phalanx with it Sarrisas too ponderous to fight the Romans successfully with their flexible Legions and was the Carthaginian Phalanx with its Thrusting Spear more flexible and therefore more able to counter the Romans? Was there some fundamental flaw with the Macedonian Phalanx or was it just poor generalship? I know Philip V was no Hannibal. Is this a case of Rock, Scissors, Paper?
If you dig into the direct legion v phalanx battles, the case for a weapon superiority is pretty poor.
Something else seems necessary for the legion to win.
You have the phalanx pushing so far forward it exposes its flank, or the romans being pushed back until the ground breaks up and the phalanx loses integrity, or you have elephants inside the formation breaking up that integrity.
Or even being caught redeploying on the field by charging cavalry
Basically, it comes down to some kind of flank vulnerability exploit.
What you don't have is good clear evidence of either pila killing phalangites or swordsmen having any impact at all against the steady front of a formed phalanx.
Vs the carthaginians it's less clear they were even comparable to a close order phalanx.
By describing them as similar but shorter spears, you are making them pretty close to hoplites but with smaller shields.
Even the famous requiping with captured Roman stuff is maybe not as simple as it looks - same fighting but better made stuff, or a change to copy as closely as possible what the romans had, or something else made understandable to a non military audience by those words?
Did the carthaginians even deal better? They certainly did when the hit the romans in the flank at Cannae after a very risky refused centre- but otherwise they seem to lose to the front every time, which is not true of the Macedonian phalanx in any reported cases.
Lots to unpack.
Could be a long discussion...
In the Battle of the Crimissus, 336BC, the Carthaginian HI are armed as hoplites. Nothing proves they had substantially changed their armament by the time of the 2nd Punic War, so using Occam's Razor one can assume they fought the Romans more-or-less as hoplites at the Trebia and Trasimere.
I had an interesting discussion with Nikolas Lloyd of the Lindy Beige YouTube channel (https://youtu.be/afqhBODc_8U?si=ebDIBB47UN4ghGFm). As a reenactor he has tested spear vs sword-armed infantry. His conclusion was that a single spearman would have no chance against a swordsman in a one on one duel, but a line of spearmen could outfight a line of swordsmen since several spearmen can target one swordsman who advances ahead of the others.
There is one exception to this: a line of determined and well-trained swordsmen who advance in perfect unison against spearmen will get past the spear guard since the spearmen won't have time to gang up against individual swordsmen.
But the best trained swordsmen cannot get past a pike guard no matter what they do. The Legion never beat the pike phalanx from the front provided the latter kept order.
The weakness of the pike phalanx was its inflexibility and vulnerability to rear attacks - the pikemen cannot just raise their pikes, turn 180 degrees and lower them to face the new threat. They are holding the pikes at their centre of gravity which means the butt points will hit the ground as they try to swivel them around. Furthermore, if they are in close order - the case when facing legions - their overlapping shields would make it impossible for them to face about.
Quote from: Imperial Dave on October 26, 2024, 06:52:20 AMCould be a long discussion...
I'm sure it has been on this forum in the past, though I can't pin it down. Polybius (I think) gave us an explanation of the pros and cons of the two sides, and this leads to arguments about relative frontages which Justin will know well.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 27, 2024, 01:04:41 PMQuote from: Imperial Dave on October 26, 2024, 06:52:20 AMCould be a long discussion...
I'm sure it has been on this forum in the past, though I can't pin it down. Polybius (I think) gave us an explanation of the pros and cons of the two sides, and this leads to arguments about relative frontages which Justin will know well.
The frontages of a 16,000 man phalanx of the manuals and a 16,000-20,000 man Consular army would be about the same since the Legion typically deployed 20 men deep whilst the phalanx deployed 16 men deep (it could deploy shallower but I suspect it would keep to 16 men when facing legions).
Arrian emphasizes just how badly the Legion would be outfought by the phalanx since the latter had the bad habit of shunting to close order - 8 men deep with a frontage of 1 man per 18" or 2 men per legionary. The pikes of the first 5 or 6 ranks could reach the enemy so each legionary faced 10 - 12 pike heads. There was nothing he could do.
I came across this - https://acoup.blog/tag/phalanx/ - but gave up after Part II. Not a negative comment more my limited attention span.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 27, 2024, 10:55:31 AMIn the Battle of the Crimissus, 336BC, the Carthaginian HI are armed as hoplites. Nothing proves they had substantially changed their armament by the time of the 2nd Punic War, so using Occam's Razor one can assume they fought the Romans more-or-less as hoplites at the Trebia and Trasimere.
The problem with that argument is that it is 119 years
The same period in Greece saw the Greek force change from the Army at Marathon to the battles of the Theban Spartan war or the time between the Battle of Chaeronea (Where Philip IInd of Macedon defeated the Greeks) and the Battle of Sellasia. There were changes in the Macedonian army in that period (and the Greeks had also changed in that period as well.)
It is possible that the Carthaginians hadn't changed but I think it would have to be demonstrated, not assumed.
Perhaps it was the later Macedonian Phalanx's downfall that by the time they met the Roman's their philosophy had devolved into winning by the push of the pike. In it's heyday the pike phalanx was to fix the enemy while the cavalry delivered the fatal blow. The hammer and anvil tactics of Alexander had been replaced by simpler push all the way along the line by the pikes. At Magnesia Antiochus III's cavalry beat the Roman cavalry and pursued and by the time they got back the battle was over and they had lost. If Antiochus had broken off pursuit and attacked the rear of the Romans the result would have been much different...
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 27, 2024, 01:48:26 PMIt is possible that the Carthaginians hadn't changed but I think it would have to be demonstrated, not assumed.
Furthermore, Krimisos was fought by Carthaginian forces most used to fighting Syracusan troops in Sicily. Trebia and Trasimene were fought by Carthaginian forces most used to fighting assorted Iberian types in Spain, and drawing on the lessons of a very long and hard fought war in Sicily and Africa against the Romans, not to mention the Mercenary War.
Put another way, at Krimisos the Carthaginians supposedly had their Sacred Band and chariots. Neither seem to be around by the time of the Punic Wars, so some change seems to have occurred...
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 27, 2024, 01:48:26 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on October 27, 2024, 10:55:31 AMIn the Battle of the Crimissus, 336BC, the Carthaginian HI are armed as hoplites. Nothing proves they had substantially changed their armament by the time of the 2nd Punic War, so using Occam's Razor one can assume they fought the Romans more-or-less as hoplites at the Trebia and Trasimere.
The problem with that argument is that it is 119 years
The same period in Greece saw the Greek force change from the Army at Marathon to the battles of the Theban Spartan war or the time between the Battle of Chaeronea (Where Philip IInd of Macedon defeated the Greeks) and the Battle of Sellasia. There were changes in the Macedonian army in that period (and the Greeks had also changed in that period as well.)
It is possible that the Carthaginians hadn't changed but I think it would have to be demonstrated, not assumed.
Sure, a lot happened in Greece, principally the revolution of the phalanx that switched from dorys to sarissas, but the Romans never got the memo so no reason to assume the Carthaginians did. It's not like today when revolutions in weaponry and tactics spread all over the planet in a few years.
Today war leads to rapid technological changes. Wouldn't that be true in ancient times? They were just as smart or smarter than we...
Quote from: Aetius on October 27, 2024, 02:41:11 PMToday war leads to rapid technological changes. Wouldn't that be true in ancient times? They were just as smart or smarter than we...
Modern warfare is continuous with plenty of time to try out and evaluate new tech and tactics. In Antiquity major battles were rare and it would need several of them before everyone got the idea that one system was superior. In the 1st Punic war there were only 2 major land battles: Agrigentum and Bagradas. The former not a clear victory either way and the latter a clear Roman defeat. Why would Carthage change anything before the 2nd Punic war?
even within the peloponesia war, we can (if we actually look) see great changes in evidence tactially. the idea that there is a static frozen era is wrong.
I really doubt we can assume that carthaginians are hoplites just because we don't have a specifc statement that they are not. its not like they were unaware of the other fighting types in evidence around them until they ran into them on the battlefield.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 27, 2024, 02:28:55 PMQuote from: Jim Webster on October 27, 2024, 01:48:26 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on October 27, 2024, 10:55:31 AMIn the Battle of the Crimissus, 336BC, the Carthaginian HI are armed as hoplites. Nothing proves they had substantially changed their armament by the time of the 2nd Punic War, so using Occam's Razor one can assume they fought the Romans more-or-less as hoplites at the Trebia and Trasimere.
The problem with that argument is that it is 119 years
The same period in Greece saw the Greek force change from the Army at Marathon to the battles of the Theban Spartan war or the time between the Battle of Chaeronea (Where Philip IInd of Macedon defeated the Greeks) and the Battle of Sellasia. There were changes in the Macedonian army in that period (and the Greeks had also changed in that period as well.)
It is possible that the Carthaginians hadn't changed but I think it would have to be demonstrated, not assumed.
Sure, a lot happened in Greece, principally the revolution of the phalanx that switched from dorys to sarissas, but the Romans never got the memo so no reason to assume the Carthaginians did. It's not like today when revolutions in weaponry and tactics spread all over the planet in a few years.
The Carthaginians did get the memo, they'd fought Romans for over forty years by this point. They'd spent a generation campaigning in Spain.
Quote from: Mark G on October 27, 2024, 03:19:45 PMeven within the peloponesia war, we can (if we actually look) see great changes in evidence tactially. the idea that there is a static frozen era is wrong.
There you go. The Peloponnesian war lasted 27 years and I count at least 11 major battles. Plenty of opportunity to refine the tactics of the hoplite phalanx. But 2 battles in a Punic war, nah.
QuoteI really doubt we can assume that carthaginians are hoplites just because we don't have a specifc statement that they are not. its not like they were unaware of the other fighting types in evidence around them until they ran into them on the battlefield.
They would adapt only if they personally encountered a new system and realized the need to do so. The Romans were totally unprepared for the pike phalanx even though they would have known of its successes long before Phyrrus landed in Italy.
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 27, 2024, 03:45:49 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on October 27, 2024, 02:28:55 PMQuote from: Jim Webster on October 27, 2024, 01:48:26 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on October 27, 2024, 10:55:31 AMIn the Battle of the Crimissus, 336BC, the Carthaginian HI are armed as hoplites. Nothing proves they had substantially changed their armament by the time of the 2nd Punic War, so using Occam's Razor one can assume they fought the Romans more-or-less as hoplites at the Trebia and Trasimere.
The problem with that argument is that it is 119 years
The same period in Greece saw the Greek force change from the Army at Marathon to the battles of the Theban Spartan war or the time between the Battle of Chaeronea (Where Philip IInd of Macedon defeated the Greeks) and the Battle of Sellasia. There were changes in the Macedonian army in that period (and the Greeks had also changed in that period as well.)
It is possible that the Carthaginians hadn't changed but I think it would have to be demonstrated, not assumed.
Sure, a lot happened in Greece, principally the revolution of the phalanx that switched from dorys to sarissas, but the Romans never got the memo so no reason to assume the Carthaginians did. It's not like today when revolutions in weaponry and tactics spread all over the planet in a few years.
The Carthaginians did get the memo, they'd fought Romans for over forty years by this point. They'd spent a generation campaigning in Spain.
How many major battles did the Carthaginians fight against legions before Hannibal entered Italy?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 27, 2024, 03:59:01 PMQuote from: Mark G on October 27, 2024, 03:19:45 PMeven within the peloponesia war, we can (if we actually look) see great changes in evidence tactially. the idea that there is a static frozen era is wrong.
There you go. The Peloponnesian war lasted 27 years and I count at least 11 major battles. Plenty of opportunity to refine the tactics of the hoplite phalanx. But 2 battles in a Punic war, nah.
You seem to have overlooked the twenty three years of the First Punic war. No shortage of fighting there on land as well as on sea.
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 27, 2024, 04:05:11 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on October 27, 2024, 03:59:01 PMQuote from: Mark G on October 27, 2024, 03:19:45 PMeven within the peloponesia war, we can (if we actually look) see great changes in evidence tactially. the idea that there is a static frozen era is wrong.
There you go. The Peloponnesian war lasted 27 years and I count at least 11 major battles. Plenty of opportunity to refine the tactics of the hoplite phalanx. But 2 battles in a Punic war, nah.
You seem to have overlooked the twenty three years of the First Punic war. No shortage of fighting there on land as well as on sea.
The 1st Punic war seems to have been largely a naval affair. I count 2 major land battles: not enough to evaluate anything. One battle was inconclusive and the other a Carthaginian victory. If anything, that would reinforce the natural inertia to carry on doing as they had always done.
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 27, 2024, 04:05:11 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on October 27, 2024, 03:59:01 PMQuote from: Mark G on October 27, 2024, 03:19:45 PMeven within the peloponesia war, we can (if we actually look) see great changes in evidence tactially. the idea that there is a static frozen era is wrong.
There you go. The Peloponnesian war lasted 27 years and I count at least 11 major battles. Plenty of opportunity to refine the tactics of the hoplite phalanx. But 2 battles in a Punic war, nah.
You seem to have overlooked the twenty three years of the First Punic war. No shortage of fighting there on land as well as on sea.
Indeed.
Also, we have no idea really the degree to which the Romans changed during the same time period. It is often forgotten that we only have a (assumed) reliable description from Polybius of the Roman army from the first half of the Second Century - ie after the 2nd Punic War, the most traumatic and hard fought war in Rome's history. We are perhaps too quick to assume that it is accurate for the 2nd Punic War, let alone the First Punic, or the Pyrrhic War, or the Telamon campaign, let alone reaching back to the conflicts contemporary with Krimisos. We do not have any better evidence, so I am not suggesting we ditch the Polybian model, but...
I would also suggest that the forces in the Pelopennesian war and other Greek city state contests were perhaps a bit more two dimensional; like largely fought like. Yes, there are upsets when lighter troops embarrass hoplites, but that is precisely because the phalanx could not cope reliably with them.
Regarding the Second Punic, there is the question of why the Romans go from losing every battle to winning most of them. Hannibal is a tactical genius, but... is it that his troops are far more professional at first? They actually get better kit over time thanks to their victories. Is it just that the Romans become more experienced/professional? Learn better how to cope with Carthaginian field armies? That the Carthaginians find themselves short of reliable manpower? Probably all of these. But it might be foolish to assume that there are necessarily no tactical changes, now lost to us, in those eighteen odd years. I am very sceptical about the "velites are invented in 211" story, but that is actually an example of a supposed development or evolution which certainly suggests that the Roman skirmisher performance improved significantly.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 27, 2024, 04:13:19 PMQuote from: Jim Webster on October 27, 2024, 04:05:11 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on October 27, 2024, 03:59:01 PMQuote from: Mark G on October 27, 2024, 03:19:45 PMeven within the peloponesia war, we can (if we actually look) see great changes in evidence tactially. the idea that there is a static frozen era is wrong.
There you go. The Peloponnesian war lasted 27 years and I count at least 11 major battles. Plenty of opportunity to refine the tactics of the hoplite phalanx. But 2 battles in a Punic war, nah.
You seem to have overlooked the twenty three years of the First Punic war. No shortage of fighting there on land as well as on sea.
The 1st Punic war seems to have been largely a naval affair. I count 2 major land battles: not enough to evaluate anything. One battle was inconclusive and the other a Carthaginian victory. If anything, that would reinforce the natural inertia to carry on doing as they had always done.
Battle of Messana in 264 BC
Battle of Agrigentum in 262 BC
Battle of Thermae in 259BC
siege of Aspis 255BC, not a field battle but a lot of fighting
Battle of Adys 256BC
Battle of the Bagradas River 255 BC
Battle of Panormus 250BC
Siege of Lilybaeum 250–241 BC again not a field battle but a lot of fighting
Fighting at Mount Ercte 247-244BC
Carthaginian forces started fighting in Spain in 236BC and you might say the campaigns finished with the siege of Saguntum in 219 BC
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 27, 2024, 05:22:46 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on October 27, 2024, 04:13:19 PMQuote from: Jim Webster on October 27, 2024, 04:05:11 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on October 27, 2024, 03:59:01 PMQuote from: Mark G on October 27, 2024, 03:19:45 PMeven within the peloponesia war, we can (if we actually look) see great changes in evidence tactially. the idea that there is a static frozen era is wrong.
There you go. The Peloponnesian war lasted 27 years and I count at least 11 major battles. Plenty of opportunity to refine the tactics of the hoplite phalanx. But 2 battles in a Punic war, nah.
You seem to have overlooked the twenty three years of the First Punic war. No shortage of fighting there on land as well as on sea.
The 1st Punic war seems to have been largely a naval affair. I count 2 major land battles: not enough to evaluate anything. One battle was inconclusive and the other a Carthaginian victory. If anything, that would reinforce the natural inertia to carry on doing as they had always done.
Battle of Messana in 264 BC
Battle of Agrigentum in 262 BC
Battle of Thermae in 259BC
siege of Aspis 255BC, not a field battle but a lot of fighting
Battle of Adys 256BC
Battle of the Bagradas River 255 BC
Battle of Panormus 250BC
Siege of Lilybaeum 250–241 BC again not a field battle but a lot of fighting
Fighting at Mount Ercte 247-244BC
Carthaginian forces started fighting in Spain in 236BC and you might say the campaigns finished with the siege of Saguntum in 219 BC
I need to be in front of a PC for this (monitor dead) but looking at the battles - sieges and scrappy fighting don't count - it's not at all clear to contemporary observers that Carthage's HI is inferior to Rome's to the extent that Carthage feels the need to adopt Roman kit by the 2nd Punic war.
Messana - Roman victory, OK. Other battles - one a Carth victory, another, defeat caused by routing elephants, a third, Carthaginians deploy on ground bad for their infantry and still manage to drive back the initial Roman assault before being outflanked and defeated.
So 2 Carth victories in total, one unclear result and only one defeat where Carth infantry were outfought by their Roman opposite numbers in a frontal fight (Messana). Hey, everyone has a bad day.
Quoteit's not at all clear to contemporary observers that Carthage's HI is inferior to Rome's to the extent that Carthage feels the need to adopt Roman kit by the 2nd Punic war
Sure, that's pretty much back on thread topic. Stick with that.
Quote from: vexillia on October 27, 2024, 01:23:35 PMI came across this - https://acoup.blog/tag/phalanx/ - but gave up after Part II. Not a negative comment more my limited attention span.
It is an excellent series and well worth reading; Bret Devereaux is a go to IMO.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 27, 2024, 06:28:47 PMI need to be in front of a PC for this (monitor dead) but looking at the battles - sieges and scrappy fighting don't count -
Why not, the majority of warfare is 'sieges and scrappy fighting' After all by your figures The Peloponnesian war lasted 27 years with at least 11 major battles. But an awful lot of sieges and scrappy fighting.
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 27, 2024, 09:03:09 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on October 27, 2024, 06:28:47 PMI need to be in front of a PC for this (monitor dead) but looking at the battles - sieges and scrappy fighting don't count -
Why not, the majority of warfare is 'sieges and scrappy fighting' After all by your figures The Peloponnesian war lasted 27 years with at least 11 major battles. But an awful lot of sieges and scrappy fighting.
Because we are comparing different types of HI in situations where they fight each other without any wargame modifiers like walled defences to obscure which is better.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 27, 2024, 09:21:48 PMQuote from: Jim Webster on October 27, 2024, 09:03:09 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on October 27, 2024, 06:28:47 PMI need to be in front of a PC for this (monitor dead) but looking at the battles - sieges and scrappy fighting don't count -
Why not, the majority of warfare is 'sieges and scrappy fighting' After all by your figures The Peloponnesian war lasted 27 years with at least 11 major battles. But an awful lot of sieges and scrappy fighting.
Because we are comparing different types of HI in situations where they fight each other without any wargame modifiers like walled defences to obscure which is better.
We are discussing why the Carthaginians might or might not make changes to their army. They weren't interested in wargame modifiers, they were interested in winning wars. So they would be really keen on troop types which made a success of sieges and scrappy fighting, because these appear to be the main sorts of actions out there. Why should they be too worried about major field battles? Especially when you seem to thing there were so few and they were irrelevant?
Indeed in various periods, major battles were shunned because the combatants seemed to feel there was too much of an element of chance in them and commanders were told to avoid them unless the odds were really stacked in their favour
Quote from: Aetius on October 26, 2024, 03:14:25 AMI was wondering about the different results between the Roman Legion, Macedonian Phalanx and the Carthaginian Phalanx? Was the Macedonian Phalanx with it Sarrisas too ponderous to fight the Romans successfully with their flexible Legions and was the Carthaginian Phalanx with its Thrusting Spear more flexible and therefore more able to counter the Romans? Was there some fundamental flaw with the Macedonian Phalanx or was it just poor generalship? I know Philip V was no Hannibal. Is this a case of Rock, Scissors, Paper?
If you look at Roman defeats across their encounters with the Macedonian and Carthaginian systems there are three main factors:
1) Something new to deal with. Against Pyrrhus there are the elephants and the phalanx; in Spain the brothers Scipio divide their forces and then encounter Masinissa and his Numidians; against Hannibal they face hardened veterans able to prosecute an envelopment and are greatly inferior in cavalry, in numbers and quality.
2) Generalship. The Eddie Jones factor: someone comes along who has been able to study the Roman system, finds a way to upset it, and has time to train men / refine tactics to do so. Xanthippus, Hannibal.
3) Outflanking. However it is done, Roman defeats are about them being outflanked.
The problem for both systems against Rome though as we all know was Rome's ability to adapt and its vast reserves of manpower and resources. Rome could be caught out, but it always eventually found a way, as they say.
Crikey - hasn't this been gone over already? Easier to point to a Slingshot article or have one of you well informed individuals put together a "summary" in Slingshot.
Great discussion, but I don't think it's as simple as "weapon A versus weapon B" stuff.
A counterpoint might be to ask why the Macedonians were still using pikes at Cynoscephalae and Pydna and the Greeks using pikes at Sellasia when the Pyhrric Wars and Punic Wars had demonstrated that Rome might be onto something? (Apologies to the Greeks as Sellasia predates the 2nd Punic War.)
Not to take it away from the pikes - they did do OK and could have won these battles. Imagine if the results of Beneventum, Cynoscephalae or Pydna had of been reversed - would Rome have adopted pikes phalanxes as a result? Would they have studied readily available histories of the Diadochi Wars and decided pikes versus pikes was inconclusive and our mounted and lack of horses cannot win? Or did Philip V or Perseus think conservatively that pikes were good enough for my father and my father's father etc, or was a military change just too damn hard (think of how poorly imitation legions performed)?
Questions and more questions. Someone, please write the article for Slingshot?!
That would be a great article. Glad I resubscribed...
Quote from: stevenneate on October 28, 2024, 12:08:55 PMA counterpoint might be to ask why the Macedonians were still using pikes at Cynoscephalae and Pydna and the Greeks using pikes at Sellasia when the Pyhrric Wars and Punic Wars had demonstrated that Rome might be onto something? (Apologies to the Greeks as Sellasia predates the 2nd Punic War.)
Because pikes worked?
Quote from: stevenneate on October 28, 2024, 12:08:55 PMNot to take it away from the pikes - they did do OK and could have won these battles. Imagine if the results of Beneventum, Cynoscephalae or Pydna had of been reversed - would Rome have adopted pikes phalanxes as a result? Would they have studied readily available histories of the Diadochi Wars and decided pikes versus pikes was inconclusive and our mounted and lack of horses cannot win? Or did Philip V or Perseus think conservatively that pikes were good enough for my father and my father's father etc, or was a military change just too damn hard (think of how poorly imitation legions performed)?
My own take is that there is a limit to how far a military system can adapt to deal with new opponents. So Philip was able to take the Greek hoplite phalanx and turn it into the pike phalanx because he didn't have to do too much to turn hoplites into phalangites. The dory is replaced with a sarissa that has to be held with two hands, so Philip tweaks the aspis to make that possible. Othismos remains, just now it's a push of pikes instead a push of shields. Pretty much everything else is the same.
The legionary system constantly adapted over 600 years but remained substantially the same until the Sassanian mounted archer-lancer essentially made it obsolete. The
foulkon was an attempt to make the Roman legion effective against the new brand of HC but it was an unwieldy formation, relegated to a passive role on the battlefield whilst mounted units did the manoeuvring. The Late Romans / Byzantine armies didn't turn into anti-cavalry Mediaeval pike blocks (manoeuvrable and without any vulnerable flanks) but let their infantry arm slowly wither whilst their HC became the backbone of their forces. My take is that it was too much for the infantry to adapt to the new cavalry reality so it didn't.
Edit: on second thoughts, the Byzantine lance-armed infantry square within which the cavalry could shelter was a pretty good adaptation to the new HC, but it was still rather passive - the Byzantine cavalry were the units that decided the battle.
Quote from: stevenneate on October 28, 2024, 12:08:55 PMQuestions and more questions. Someone, please write the article for Slingshot?!
I know, I know. Just need time and energy. Mainly energy.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 30, 2024, 11:32:57 AMThe foulkon was an attempt to make the Roman legion effective against the new brand of HC but it was an unwieldy formation, relegated to a passive role on the battlefield whilst mounted units did the manoeuvring.
While the
foulkon could be used defensively against cavalry, Maurice gives an extensive discussion of how to use it offensively against infantry too.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 30, 2024, 12:16:33 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on October 30, 2024, 11:32:57 AMThe foulkon was an attempt to make the Roman legion effective against the new brand of HC but it was an unwieldy formation, relegated to a passive role on the battlefield whilst mounted units did the manoeuvring.
While the foulkon could be used defensively against cavalry, Maurice gives an extensive discussion of how to use it offensively against infantry too.
How so?
They tighten up or close ranks when the line gets to about two or
three bowshots from the enemy's line and they are getting set to
charge. The command is: "Close ranks."" Joining together, they
close in toward the center, both to each side and to front and back,
until the shields of the men in the front rank are touching each other
and those lined up behind them are almost glued to one another.
This maneuver may be executed either while the army is marching
or while it is standing still. The file closers should order those in the
rear to close in forcefully on those to the front and to keep the line
straight, if necessary, to prevent some from hesitating and even hold-
ing back.
They move in a foulkon when the two lines, ours and the enemy's,
are getting close, and the archers are about to open fire, and the
front-rank men are not wearing coats of mail or knee guards. The
command is: "Form foulkon." The men in the front ranks close in
until their shields are touching, completely covering their midsec-
tions almost to their ankles. The men standing behind them hold
their shields above their heads, interlocking them with those of the
men in front of them, covering their breasts and faces, and in this
way move to attack.
When ranks have been properly closed, and the line is about one
bowshot from the enemy, and the fighting is just about to begin, the
command is given: "Ready." " Right after this another officer shouts:
"Help us." In unison everyone responds loudly and clearly: "О
God." ' The light-armed troops start shooting their arrows ovег-
head. The heavy infantry, who are drawn up in the front line,
advance still closer to the enemy. If the men have darts or missile
weapons, they throw them, resting their lances on the ground. If
without such weapons, they advance more closely, then hurl their
lances like javelins, take out their swords and fight, each man re-
maining in his proper position and not pursuing the enemy if they
turn to retreat. The men to the rear keep their heads covered with
their shields and with their lances support those in the front. Ob-
viously, it is essential for the soldiers in the first line to keep them-
selves protected until they come to blows with the enemy. Other-
wise, they might be hit by enemy arrows, especially if they do not
have coats of mail or greaves.
https://archive.org/details/maurice-strategikon-dennis-1984/Maurice_Strategikon_Dennis_1984/mode/2up. See p146.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 30, 2024, 01:22:04 PMThey tighten up or close ranks when the line gets to about two or
three bowshots from the enemy's line and they are getting set to
charge. The command is: "Close ranks."" Joining together, they
close in toward the center, both to each side and to front and back,
until the shields of the men in the front rank are touching each other
and those lined up behind them are almost glued to one another.
This maneuver may be executed either while the army is marching
or while it is standing still. The file closers should order those in the
rear to close in forcefully on those to the front and to keep the line
straight, if necessary, to prevent some from hesitating and even hold-
ing back.
OK. This clearly the line initially deployed in something resembling open order and then closing to intermediate order when in proximity to the enemy. Reminds me of Issus when Alex's phalanx initially deployed 32 deep (open order), doubling files to 16 deep (intermediate order) as they approached the Persians, then doubling again to 8 deep (close order) when near the enemy. The Byzantines seem to just close up files rather than double them, though I need to check the Greek text.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 30, 2024, 01:22:04 PMThey move in a foulkon when the two lines, ours and the enemy's,
are getting close, and the archers are about to open fire, and the
front-rank men are not wearing coats of mail or knee guards. The
command is: "Form foulkon." The men in the front ranks close in
until their shields are touching, completely covering their midsec-
tions almost to their ankles. The men standing behind them hold
their shields above their heads, interlocking them with those of the
men in front of them, covering their breasts and faces, and in this
way move to attack.
My guess is that the line is advancing pretty slowly at this point to keep the shield covering shield arrangement intact. Can the front rank see where they are going?
Quote from: Erpingham on October 30, 2024, 01:22:04 PMWhen ranks have been properly closed, and the line is about one
bowshot from the enemy, and the fighting is just about to begin, the
command is given: "Ready." " Right after this another officer shouts:
"Help us." In unison everyone responds loudly and clearly: "О
God." ' The light-armed troops start shooting their arrows ovег-
head. The heavy infantry, who are drawn up in the front line,
advance still closer to the enemy. If the men have darts or missile
weapons, they throw them, resting their lances on the ground. If
without such weapons, they advance more closely, then hurl their
lances like javelins, take out their swords and fight, each man re-
maining in his proper position and not pursuing the enemy if they
turn to retreat. The men to the rear keep their heads covered with
their shields and with their lances support those in the front. Ob-
viously, it is essential for the soldiers in the first line to keep them-
selves protected until they come to blows with the enemy. Other-
wise, they might be hit by enemy arrows, especially if they do not
have coats of mail or greaves.
This is a true testudo in that the rear rankers have their shields above their heads, about the only case where the Hollywood obsession with Romans always fighting in testudo has an historical foundation. Interesting that the men in the rear "with their lances support those in front". This could only be done if the lances are presented above the shoulders and the lances are as long as pikes. Very pike phalanx-like, this, just more preoccupied with guarding against missile fire.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 31, 2024, 05:43:01 AMOK. This clearly the line initially deployed in something resembling open order and then closing to intermediate order when in proximity to the enemy. Reminds me of Issus when Alex's phalanx initially deployed 32 deep (open order), doubling files to 16 deep (intermediate order) as they approached the Persians, then doubling again to 8 deep (close order) when near the enemy.
Is the comparison with Issus valid? Surely there it was not a case of open or close order but a practical issue of the Macedonians having to march through a narrow pass and then deploy in ground that slowly opened out, so having to begin in very deep order and gradually extending their line as space became available?
I tend to think Maurice's foulkon (I say Maurice's but this piece of the text seems to have been copy-pasted from an earlier work) describes a take on a northern European shieldwall refined by a regular army with an awareness of previous tactical manuals.
I think the point about it being slow is valid. Keeping it in good order and not getting ragged takes precedent over speed.
On the testudo, the Romanists may wish to comment but this formation does not have full "moving shed" form. Only one rank (the second) is holding shields overhead. On spear length, the kontos/kontarion is thought to have been 10-12 ft long and held with one hand. Overhand would be normal for the time.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 31, 2024, 10:52:53 AMOn spear length, the kontos/kontarion is thought to have been 10-12 ft long and held with one hand. Overhand would be normal for the time.
I think the length of the spear at the time of the Strategikon is somewhat uncertain. The Strategikon certainly talks about it being thrown and the infantry then using swords in some situations (against infantry IIRC).
Quote from: Keraunos on October 31, 2024, 07:56:53 AMQuote from: Justin Swanton on October 31, 2024, 05:43:01 AMOK. This clearly the line initially deployed in something resembling open order and then closing to intermediate order when in proximity to the enemy. Reminds me of Issus when Alex's phalanx initially deployed 32 deep (open order), doubling files to 16 deep (intermediate order) as they approached the Persians, then doubling again to 8 deep (close order) when near the enemy.
Is the comparison with Issus valid? Surely there it was not a case of open or close order but a practical issue of the Macedonians having to march through a narrow pass and then deploy in ground that slowly opened out, so having to begin in very deep order and gradually extending their line as space became available?
Open order would be the correct disposition for marching cross-country in formation. Re Issus, the phalanx would have the space to deploy in its standard width of just under a km not far after issuing from the pass.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 31, 2024, 10:52:53 AMOnly one rank (the second) is holding shields overhead.
What about "The men to the rear
keep their heads covered with their shields and with their lances support those in the front"?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 31, 2024, 11:17:25 AMQuote from: Erpingham on October 31, 2024, 10:52:53 AMOnly one rank (the second) is holding shields overhead.
What about "The men to the rear keep their heads covered with their shields and with their lances support those in the front"?
Fair point. I had read "men standing behind" the front rank as literally that, rather than the whole 15 other ranks.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 31, 2024, 11:28:08 AMFair point. I had read "men standing behind" the front rank as literally that, rather than the whole 15 other ranks.
Are the formations that deep. Pretty sure that the Strategikon talks about formations in defence as being 8 deep and in attack 4 deep - or that may be just one section as 16 is mentioned along the way and it may be contradictory.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on October 31, 2024, 11:40:11 AMAre the formations that deep. Pretty sure that the Strategikon talks about formations in defence as being 8 deep and in attack 4 deep - or that may be just one section as 16 is mentioned along the way and it may be contradictory.
Well, p133 says ranks might be as few as four (+1 light infantry) or as many as eight (+2 light infantry). On pp140-141, the preferred formation is 16 men (+4 light infantry). Each file also has two supernumerary "camp guards". The file may be organised with the light infantry placed between each group of four or all at the back. The 16 formation is in Chapter 12, which is the one that describes the foulkon in detail. So, it is quite varied, if not actually contradictory.
Varied is probably the correct description 8)
Quote from: Erpingham on October 31, 2024, 11:28:08 AMQuote from: Justin Swanton on October 31, 2024, 11:17:25 AMQuote from: Erpingham on October 31, 2024, 10:52:53 AMOnly one rank (the second) is holding shields overhead.
What about "The men to the rear keep their heads covered with their shields and with their lances support those in the front"?
Fair point. I had read "men standing behind" the front rank as literally that, rather than the whole 15 other ranks.
Rereading the passage, the "men to the rear keep their heads covered with their shields" does seem to refer to "the men standing behind them hold their shields above their heads" but it would help to read it in the original Greek.
Gentlemen, sorry to be a pain, but I think we have moved quite some distance away from the original topic!
;D
Doubt anyone is shocked ;)
I apologise for me role in the above digression. Returning to topic, then, can anyone summarise what we have concluded so far?
Roman legions were obviously tactically different but did this deliver an unstoppable superiority, or is Roman dominance down to non-tactical factors?
According to Hugh Elton in his book Understanding Ancient Battle these battles were decided by flanking maneuvers or attacks to the rear of the formations, not by frontal assault. Therefore there was not much difference in their attacks as one system fought another. The Romans however had much more cohesion and were harder to break than most of their opponents because of their training and loyalty to their units. There were few armies that had their staying power and manpower reserves...
That, and they could replace two full armies - where the greek counterparts couldn't replace one
And what were the socio-economic reasons behind that?
Social structure...bigger population...more cohesive political system....?
Quote from: Imperial Dave on November 02, 2024, 06:25:35 AMAnd what were the socio-economic reasons behind that?
Social structure...bigger population...more cohesive political system....?
I'd recommend you have a look at The Material and Social Costs of Roman Warfare in the Third and Second Centuries B.C.E.
Devereaux, Bret
https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/dissertations/3r074v31f
A very brief conclusion reads as follows. But the paper itself is well worth reading
"In turn, however, this conclusion begs an investigation into root causes: what allowed Rome to mobilize such a greater proportion of its resources? The answer lies in the Roman alliance system's ability to scale up an entitlement-based mobilization system.
This ability in turn was socially embedded insofar as it was reliant on a set of cultural preconditions in Italy. The most important of these was a shared social script rooted in systems of patronage whereby individuals and communities could enter into unequal, but reciprocal, relationships without the loss of honor or face. These ties were reinforced by Italy's long history of military confederations and shared military culture. Through this system, Rome was able to harness the civic militarism of subject 'allied' communities, making it possible to demand and receive a greater share of the resources of Italy in both men and matériel. This greater degree of mobilization in turn provided for the vast quantities of men, supplies and equipment on which Rome's military dominance depended. Here, then, is to be found the basis of Rome's success and the foundation of a broader imperium which would change both Rome, Italy, and the Mediterranean world."
Thanks Jim
Devereaux is currently writing a book that is based on this.
Quote from: Aetius on November 01, 2024, 02:02:36 PMAccording to Hugh Elton in his book Understanding Ancient Battle these battles were decided by flanking maneuvers or attacks to the rear of the formations, not by frontal assault. Therefore there was not much difference in their attacks as one system fought another. The Romans however had much more cohesion and were harder to break than most of their opponents because of their training and loyalty to their units. There were few armies that had their staying power and manpower reserves...
What the historical record shows is that the legion had no chance against the pike phalanx in a frontal assault. Against a hoplite phalanx probably the best examples we have are the battles against the Etruscans, who had an army composed partially of hoplite-equipped troops. If the Etruscans committed only their hoplite-armed troops they could drive a legion back and defeat it in ideal circumstances. I covered this in my book. Let me just give the relevant passage:
QuoteAfter the destruction of the Fabii clan at the Cremora river in 477 bc, the Etruscan army, composed of Veientian troops plus reinforcements from most of the other cities of Etruria, attacked the two-legion army of the consul Menenius not far away. Gaining possession of a hill adjacent to the Roman army, the Etruscan infantry, outnumbering the Romans two to one, formed up deep and advanced downhill driving the Roman foot back.
When they engaged, there was a great slaughter of the Romans, who were unable to keep their ranks. For they were forced back by the Tyrrhenians, who not only had the terrain as an ally, but were also helped by the vigorous pressure of those who stood behind them, their army being drawn up with deep files. – Dionysius: 9.23.7.
My take is that the Veientians and allied army represented their best, i.e. hoplite-equipped, troops and hence were able to practise othismos as that needed an aspis to work. It also helped that they outnumbered the Romans and that the terrain favoured othismos.
If the circumstances weren't absolutely ideal, however, the Etruscans lost. The same army that beat the Romans at the hill was beaten by them on level ground near Rome:
QuoteThe Etruscans had the advantage in numbers, the Romans in courage. The contest was equally maintained and cost many lives, including the bravest on both sides, nor did either army show any signs of giving way until the second Roman line came up fresh into the place of the first, who were wearied and exhausted. The Etruscans had no reserves to support their first line, and all fell in front of their standards or around them. – Livy: 9.32.
Given that the Romans abandoned hoplite gear and hence fighting style soon after the foundation of the Republic, it is probably safe to assume that the legion (at least in its early 2-line form) was better than the hoplite phalanx.
Quote from: Mark G on November 01, 2024, 09:52:30 PMThat, and they could replace two full armies - where the greek counterparts couldn't replace one
The big difference was, I think, equipment. A Greek hoplite had to be a man of substance to afford the aspis, cuirass, helmet and greaves in addition to his weapons. Hoplite warfare by its nature required that the hoplite be well armoured, and that was expensive.
Then look at the Roman soldier. His scutum was cheaper to make than an aspis. he had a simple brass plate as body armour and no leg armour and his helmet was a more basic design than the Greek one. That meant that a much wider social segment of men - who, like Greek hoplites, had to pay for their own equipment - could be drawn upon to fill out the legions. It would have to wait for the late Republic before the state could mobilise even the poorest citizens and equip and pay them. Add to this the fact that the Roman recruit didn't need much training - he just had to understand files and ranks and line relief IMHO was a fairly simple manoeuvre (not at all the quincunx which would be horribly complex to implement in a battle situation).
What applied to hoplites applied more so to phalangites. From the get-go they were professional soldiers, equipped and paid for by the state (which nearly bankrupted Philip) as they could not equip themselves. It took a lot of training before they could operate together in a pike phalanx which meant if the phalanx was destroyed it could not be easily replaced.
Feels like two parallel conversations.
I'm still reading the Devereux article
QuoteJustin wrote:
Given that the Romans abandoned hoplite gear and hence fighting style soon after the foundation of the Republic, it is probably safe to assume that the legion (at least in its early 2-line form) was better than the hoplite phalanx.
Ah, this is my favourite period. For the year 462 BC, Dionysius (9 69-71) has four cohorts numbering 600 men stationed in front of Rome. This is the reserve legion that was encamped in front of the Colline Gate and ready for any emergency that would arise. The four cohorts would be arrayed one cohort wide by four cohorts deep. Most ancient writers would describe this as being in two lines, artistic license maybe.
Each battle line consisted of men serving a particular number of campaigns, with those troops having undertaking the most campaigns serving in the front cohort, and those with the least number of campaigns under their belt, grouped in the fourth battle line. My research can support that this form of legion was introduced during the reign of Tarquinius Superbus and was still in use at the battle of the Allia in 390 BC. The only major change was Class I converted from the aspis to the scutum in 495 BC.
The next change in the legion was the introduction of the hastati, and the enlarging of the legion, in accordance with the increase in the number of Roman tribes, which is logical. First mention of the hastati is by Livy for the year 350 BC, so quite a late addition.
Quote from: Mark G on November 02, 2024, 09:39:56 AMFeels 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.
Quote from: Monad on November 02, 2024, 12:24:22 PMThe only major change was Class I converted from the aspis to the scutum in 495 BC.
Given that citizens - as with most contemporary city state cultures - had to provide their own kit, I am afraid that I am always very sceptical when claims are made that there was a specific date when everyone swapped out one major, expensive, item of said kit for another. It would effectively require a minor constitutional change, either a law being passed or a consular decree (and let us be honest, no-one can be sure what was the constitutional status of Rome in the late fifth century, given the doubts over whether the kings had ever truly existed, whether the Republic as popularly imagined had come into existence in 510, let alone the absolute chronology of any and all).
We cannot even be sure that the aspis was in widespread use in Rome at that time anyway.
QuoteDavid wrote: "Given that citizens - as with most contemporary city state cultures - had to provide their own kit, I am afraid that I am always very sceptical when claims are made that there was a specific date when everyone swapped out one major, expensive, item of said kit for another...We cannot even be sure that the aspis was in widespread use in Rome at that time anyway."
All of my research is in contradiction to everyone. However, I stand by it. Ok, warning, this is very long.
In Livy's (8 8-12) account of the battle of Mount Vesuvius, Livy writes that: "The Romans had formerly used small round shields; then, after they began to serve for pay, they made oblong shields instead of round ones." Here Livy makes it clear that after the Romans began receiving pay while serving on campaign, the Roman round shield (clipeas) was replaced with an oblong shield (scutum). Plutarch (Romulus 21) has the Romans under Romulus change the round shields of the Argive pattern to the Sabine oblong shield. Although the time line is inaccurate there could be some truth in Plutarch's claim the Romans adopted the scutum from the Sabines.
Stipendium
In 406 BC, in preparation for the long siege envisaged in capturing the Etruscan city of Veii, Livy writes that the Roman senate, for no apparent reason, decreed that the soldiers should receive pay (stipendium), from the public treasury while on campaign. (1) This was undertaken to alleviate the problem of the soldiers falling into debt while on campaign. As this generous act by the senate came about without any demands from the tribune of the plebeians, this endeared the plebeians towards the senate. (2) Livy mentions that one of the consular tribunes, Appius Claudius, opposed the soldiers being paid while on campaign, by declaring that pay should not be given as it had never been given. (3) Appius Claudius also recommended that the senate break down the power of tribunes (the Tribal Assembly). (4) Appius Claudius opposition to the granting of pay to the soldiers was rejected and the soldiers were granted pay while on campaign. (5)
Although Livy claims that the soldier's pay was introduced for the first time in 406 BC, some 15 years earlier in 421 BC, Livy contradicts himself by claiming the soldier were already receiving pay from a tax on the occupiers of public land. (6) Dionysius also mentions the soldiers receiving pay dating back to 486 BC, 478 BC, and 467 BC. (7) In all three references, Dionysius remains consistent in claiming six months' pay for the soldiers, which was equivalent to the military campaign season. In 502 BC, after defeating the Sabines, the Sabines had to pay a certain amount of money to the Roman army under the command of the consul Spurius Cassius Vecellinus, that had defeated the Sabines. (8) In this situation, the Romans made the defeated Sabines pay for the Roman soldier's wages.
Livy's contradictory date for when the soldier's pay was first introduced has come about as a direct result of Livy or his source confusing the Appius Claudius of 406 BC with the Appius Claudius of 494 BC. In 494 BC, a different Appius Claudius was opposed to the soldiers being granted relief from debt while on campaign. In 406 BC, Appius Claudius was opposed to the soldiers being paid for a period of 12 months. Therefore, in 406 BC, because of the siege of Veii was being undertaken, which required the soldiers to serve for 12 months, the proposal to increase the campaign season from six months to 12 months, and the soldier's pay from six months to 12 months had been placed before the senate.
This means that in 494 BC, Appius Claudius opposed the soldiers receiving debt relief, which was the granting of pay for six months, while on campaign. In 406 BC, a different Appius Claudius opposed the soldiers campaigning for 12 months and receiving pay for 12 months. In conclusion, in 494 BC, when the Tribal Assembly was created, in order to alleviate the plebeian's agitation against the debt laws, in order to prevent a succession of the state, the senate unexpectedly granted the soldiers pay for six months while serving on campaign.
In conclusion, the Roman army was granted pay in 495 BC, in and following Livy's comment that after the Romans served for pay, in the following year, that is 494 BC, the Romans fought a major engagement against the Sabines. (10) In conclusion the Romans changed the round shield (clipeas) carried by Class I to the oblong shield (scutum) carried by Class II and III, in 494 BC.
Endnotes
1 Tacitus (The Annals 12 35)
(2) Festus (468 L), refers to the first class as classis clipeata, distinguished by its use of the clipeus (round shield). Festus (48 32 L) also adds that "The ancients used the term classes clipeatae for what we now call armies."
3 Dionysius (4 16−18), Livy (1 43)
4 Isidore of Seville (Etymologica 18 12), describes a bronze shield (clipeus) as: "a rather large buckler, so called because it shields the body and removes it from danger. When it is held opposed to the enemy, by its defences it guards the body from spears and darts. A clipeus is for foot soldiers and a buckler (scutum), for horsemen."
5 The Ineditum Vaticanum (FGrh 8391 3 14-19)
6 Dionysius (9 21), (9 61)
7 Livy (2 30), (2 46)
8 Livy (reference needed)
9 Plutarch (Romulus 21)
10 Dionysius (6 42 1-2), Livy (2 30)
The State Supplied Weapons
The armament requirements listed by Dionysius and Livy for the Roman army indicate that for the individual citizen to comply with these stipulations, the state supplied the men with their weapons issued from state arsenals. The view taken by many modern scholars advocating that the men supplied their own equipment is contrary to the writings of the ancient sources. Dionysius writes that Tarquinius Superbus "having for the ensuing year armed all the Romans and taken as many troops as he could get from his allies, led them out against the enemy." (2) Dionysius has Tarquinius Superbus: "resolved to lead an army against the Sabines, choosing such of the Romans as he least suspected of being apt to assert their liberty if they became possessed of arms." (3)
The important point here is that Tarquinius Superbus, worried about a coup état, has only chosen those men he can trust to be supplied with arms. If the men owned their own equipment, then Tarquinius Superbus would have had to disarm all those he did not trust. In 503 BC, the consul Menenius:" "having armed all the men of military age, marched out with them in good order and discipline." (4)
In 494 BC, during the Struggle of the Orders, the plebeians boycotted the militarily levy and demanded that their liberty be restored before arms were put into their hands. (5) This statement would be meaningless if the plebeians had to provide their own arms for a campaign. In 488 BC, the consuls Spurius Nautius and Sextus Furius, "raised as large an army as they could from the register of citizens...They also got ready a great quantity of money, corn and arms in a short time." (6) In 477 BC, the Romans armed those juniors in the city. (7) In 450 BC, the consuls Appius and Spurius supplied their colleagues with arms, money, corn and everything else that was needed. (8)
For the year 463 BC, Livy writes that Quintus Fabius armed all men of military age in the city. (89) In 460 BC, a number of political refugees and some 2,500 slaves captured the Capitol. (10) The consuls Poplicola and Claudius were in a dilemma as to whether to arm the people or not to arm them. The consuls finally distribute arms, but on a limited scale. If the soldiers already have their own weapons and body armour, then why are the consuls in a dilemma about arming the people? Again, in 460 BC, with the Aequians and the Volscian army approaching Rome, in response the Roman troops were enrolled and issued with arms. (11) Again, if the soldiers are supposed to already have their own arms, why would there be a need to issue arms?
In 449 BC, the senate decreed a supply of arms to be sent to the defeated Roman army at Tusculum, so as to replace those weapons that had been lost in a previous battle. (12) In 439 BC, Spurius Maelius, a member of the equestrian order conspired to seize power and establish a monarchy. The plot was uncovered when a citizen happened to notice the conspirators were secretly stockpiling arms in Maelius' house. (13) Had the conspirators possessed their own arms as modern scholars believe, the conspirators had no need to conceal the weapons; they would have simply armed themselves in their own homes with their own weapons at the agreed time for the revolt. In addition to the references from Dionysius and Livy, both Gellius and Valerius Maximus mention the distribution of "public arms." (14)
In 386/7 BC Livy reports that Camillus ordered Quintus Servilius to mobilise and equip a second army, while Lucius Horatius was required to recruit a third army and to provide it with arms, missiles, corn and everything else to meet the demands of the situation. (15) This reference still maintains that the arming and issuing of military equipment was undertaken by the state. In his description of the ascriptivi, Varro defines the ascriptivi as men that took the place of the dead on the battlefield, who were enrolled as extras and did not receive arms. (16) This means that as the ascriptivi armed themselves with the weapons of the dead Romans, there was no need for the state to issue them with weapons when the army was being issued weapons.
After their defeat at Cannae in 216 BC because of the loss in military equipment, Livy writes that "armour, weapons, and other things of the kind were ordered to be in readiness, and the ancient spoils gathered from the enemy were taken down from the temples and colonnades." (17) In 205 BC, Livy reports that for the invasion of Africa by Scipio, the town of Arretium in Italy alone promised 3,000 shields, 3,000 helmets, and an equal proportion of javelins, short spears and lances to the number of 50,000. (18) Again, in all three references, it is the state, not the individual who provided the arms.
For military purposes, a uniformity of weapons guaranteed the Roman methodology of fighting was enforced, which would be disrupted if each citizen provided a varied assortment of armament and weapons. Therefore, the perception by modern scholars that the men provided their own military equipment does not belong to history. The property wealth of a citizen determined how he was to be equipped by the state; with the rich being better armed than the poor.
Because the state manufactured and controlled the distribution of the armaments, in order to keep costs reasonable, the equipment must have been simple and inexpensive in design. The property wealth of a citizen determined how he was to be equipped by the state; with the rich being better armed than the poor. According to Dionysius the issuing of state armaments meant those who could afford better armament, such as worn by Class I, paid a higher war tax:
"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 193 centuries, he would order every man to pay his share towards it in proportion to his rating." (19)
In support of the war tax involving payment for the military equipment issued by the state, for the year 508 BC, Dionysius writes that:
"This booty having been sold at public auction, all the citizens received back the amount of the contribution, which they had severally paid for the equipment of the expedition." (20)
Here Dionysius is explaining that the soldiers were reimbursed for the cost they had to pay for their military equipment (the war tax). This would indicate that the war tax on the military equipment was not governed by the soldier's property wealth or land holdings. Taking this into account, if a soldier met the specific age bracket for a specific property class, such a Class III, aged from 22 to 25 years of age, but did have the land wealth requirements for Class III (over 50,000 asses and up to 75,000 asses), but could pay the war tax for Class III, which would not be the same as the property wealth of Class III, that soldier was eligible to serve as a Class III soldiers and was issued the weapons and armour for a Class III soldier.
Dionysius further elaborates that the poorest citizen who voted last with one century (Class VI, the capite censi) "were exempt from the military levies and from the war-taxes paid by the rest of the citizens." (21) Dionysius also mentions that "those with the lowest rating in the census were stationed in the rear in battle and counted as a mere appendage to the forces that were arrayed in the battle line, being present merely to strike the enemy with terror, since they had no other arms but slings, which are of the least use in action." (22) As Dionysius describes property Class V as being armed with slings, as with property Class VI, property Class V (the proletarii), as they were not supplied with any weapons or armour, property Class V were also exempt from the war tax.
Endnotes
1 Dionysius (4 16−18), Livy (1 43), Dionysius (4 16−18), Dionysius (5 67), Livy (1 43), Festus (468 L), refers to the first class as "classis clipeata", distinguished by its use of the clipeus (round shield). Festus (48 32 L) also adds that "The ancients used the term "classes clipeatae" for what we now call armies." Isidore of Seville (Etymologica 18 12), describes a bronze shield (clipeus) as: "a rather large buckler, so called because it shields the body and removes it from danger. When it is held opposed to the enemy, by its defences it guards the body from spears and darts. A clipeus is for foot soldiers and a buckler (scutum), for horsemen."
2 Dionysius (3 57)
3 Dionysius (4 50)
4 Dionysius (5 44)
5 Livy (2 28)
6 Dionysius (8 16)
7 Dionysius (9 18)
8 Dionysius (11 24)
9 Livy (3 7), (3 10)
10 Livy (3 15), (3 20)
11 Livy (3 18)
12 Livy (3 42)
13 Livy (4 13)
14 Aulus Gellius (Attic Nights 16 10 12), Valerius Maximus (2 3)
15 Livy (6 6)
16 Varro (The Latin Language 7 56)
17 Livy (22 57)
18 Livy (28 45)
19 Dionysius (4 19-20)
20 Dionysius (5 47 1)
21 Dionysius (7 59)
22 Dionysius (5 67)
Quote from: Imperial Dave on November 02, 2024, 09:45:42 AMI'm still reading the Devereux article
There's a lot to get your teeth into isn't there :)
Quote from: Monad on November 02, 2024, 02:22:39 PMQuoteDavid wrote: "Given that citizens - as with most contemporary city state cultures - had to provide their own kit, I am afraid that I am always very sceptical when claims are made that there was a specific date when everyone swapped out one major, expensive, item of said kit for another...We cannot even be sure that the aspis was in widespread use in Rome at that time anyway."
All of my research is in contradiction to everyone. However, I stand by it. Ok, warning, this is very long.
And deserves working up into two slingshot articles!
Quote from: Monad on November 02, 2024, 02:22:39 PMStipendium...
I would gently observe that no Roman coinage is known before the 280s, whatever much later annalists might write. ;)
Quote from: DBS on November 02, 2024, 05:34:47 PMQuote from: Monad on November 02, 2024, 02:22:39 PMStipendium...
I would gently observe that no Roman coinage is known before the 280s, whatever much later annalists might write. ;)
This begs the question, was the Aes signatum coinage or merely the bronze equivalent of hack silver, in that they could be broken up, and had to be weighed to get their value
QuoteDBS wrote: I would gently observe that no Roman coinage is known before the 280s, whatever much later annalists might write.
Someone once told me this before. No money, so Volume I of my work is irrelevant and pointless. However, the ancient writes do talk about payment, so something was given, be it whatever, sheep, goats, credit or mother in laws.
The actual point is that academia has overlooked is Livy has confused the Appius Claudius of 495 BC, who opposed stipendium while on campaign for six months with the Appius Claudius of 406 BC, who opposed stipendium for 12 months. Therefore, Dionysius' claims of stipendium dating back to 486 BC, 478 BC, and 467 BC are now valid. And notice not one of Dionysius's dates are pre 495 BC. With stipendium being awarded in 495 BC, this helps to identify or narrow down when Class I changed from the clipeas to the scutum.
QuoteJim wrote: And deserves working up into two slingshot articles!
Trust me Jim, no one is interested in my research. Over the last 20 years I've mostly only received abuse, online and via private emails. Many have requested to read my work and yet, I haven't had any feedback from them, they responded that they have been too busy. I have heard this countless times from some many for nearly 20 years. It has to be some kind of record that should be entered in the Guinee's Book of Records. People aren't interested in wanting to know the ins and outs of the Roman legion and what exactly all that data in the ancient sources relates to. They are more interested in the soldier's pointy bits, as highlighted on RAT. My paper on the Equites Legionis and Singulares attracts 78 views over three months, and yet, a question about a weapon will attract over 200 views in a couple of days.
The net result is my interest in having my work published has evaporated, and combined with having to deal with a serious health issue, my continued research has been reduced to being a personal challenge driven by curiosity. As the curiosity gets quenched so does my enthusiasm to do anything with it. People are more than happy with their rather limited and distorted view of the Roman army, and don't want it challenged.
Quote from: Monad on November 02, 2024, 02:22:39 PMQuoteDavid wrote: "Given that citizens - as with most contemporary city state cultures - had to provide their own kit, I am afraid that I am always very sceptical when claims are made that there was a specific date when everyone swapped out one major, expensive, item of said kit for another...We cannot even be sure that the aspis was in widespread use in Rome at that time anyway."
All of my research is in contradiction to everyone. However, I stand by it. Ok, warning, this is very long.
....and the rest....
I'm impressed and very much in agreement. Let me get back later as I might have a piece of relevant data.
Quote from: Monad on November 03, 2024, 04:56:11 AMDBS wrote: I would gently observe that no Roman coinage is known before the 280s, whatever much later annalists might write.
Someone once told me this before. No money, so Volume I of my work is irrelevant and pointless. However, the ancient writes do talk about payment, so something was given, be it whatever, sheep, goats, credit or mother in laws.
I think this raises an interesting point. We often hear comments about silver being minted to pay troops/mercenaries.
But whilst it was useful it was not 'compulsory'. So especially with your own citizens troops could be paid/supported with land grants, tax incentives, occasional donatives, rations for soldier AND family, or any combination of the above. Just because you didn't mint coins as such didn't mean you couldn't pay troops.
Seriously Justin, can you just stop reposting everything before you reply.
It's ridiculous
Seconded.
Quote from: Mark G on November 03, 2024, 10:45:19 AMSeriously Justin, can you just stop reposting everything before you reply.
It's ridiculous
l'm doing this with my cellphone. Tricky to prune a quote that way but let's see what I can do.
Edit: there, done.
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 03, 2024, 09:12:27 AMSo especially with your own citizens troops could be paid/supported with land grants, tax incentives, occasional donatives, rations for soldier AND family, or any combination of the above. Just because you didn't mint coins as such didn't mean you couldn't pay troops.
Indeed, but the question is why pay troops, especially citizen troops? There would seem to be the following motives:
1) The troops are dependent on pay and loot as a livelihood. Applies to mercenaries, and indeed is their defining characteristic, and to impoverished members of your own society. Athens wants a navy, it needs to find a way to pay the poor who will row its ships, more so than the hoplites who have their farms and can take part in more gentlemanly expeditions against the neighbours. Similarly, some of the first Carthaginian coinage seems to be minted in Sicily, specifically to pay a partly mercenary field army.
2) The troops are going to be away for a long time and/or a long distance away, thus meaning they are stretching a gentleman's resources a bit, or neglecting the farm. This seems a probable reason for the Romans introducing coinage in the early third century, as that is the point when their depredations against other bits of Italy consistently reach beyond a certain distance from Rome itself, regardless of whether we believe in the siege of Veii having lasted ten years a little bit earlier.
But we must be careful to distinguish between pay and loot. You get the former (theoretically at least...) regardless of win, lose or draw. You get the latter when you win, be it land, slaves, or the enemy's wine cellar. The Romans are quite quick to catch on to the idea of using the seized land to create colonies, and thus laying the groundwork for their future resilience in manpower; but this is described (accurately or not) as a deliberate act by committee to settle and enrich the deserving poor, who thus enriched can be expected to turn up and serve as troops in the future (I would suggest unpaid in the generally accepted convention) precisely because you have made them yeoman farmers.
Slaves are also an investment for the future, as they can work the farms in the master's absence, but again, not pay, but exploitation of loot to ensure future success. Give me a slave whilst I am in midst campaign, and I simply have one more mouth to feed in camp. The problem with payment in kind is equity: not all slaves are equal; are you wanting a pretty girl, a muscular lad to work the land, or a skilled potter? That bit of land has a vineyard, that bit of land has poor soil. The whole point of coinage is a certain equity of face value.
There is also the separate idea of indemnifying loss, most usually of horses. After all, all citizens serve at personal risk, but if you want the wealthiest also to bring a horse (and a good horse at that), which carries a serious separate risk of death, injury or illness whilst on campaign, then that is an inequitable burden that needs addressing. But does not equal pay.
I would simply point out that the concept of pay, whether in coin or kind, imposes very significant organisational and resource issues. At what point does Rome really become big enough to be able to manage such a burden? Dividing up loot after a campaign is one thing. Encouraging merchants to come into camp (assuming you stay in one place for long enough) to ensure your troops have access to basic commodities is one thing. Recompensing Marcus because his horse was killed is one thing, especially if you do it by prioritising him for a looted horse. Regular payment is quite another thing, whether coin or corn, for a modest city state. That is why I am so sceptical about such a practice in
fifth century Rome, especially when the source dates from five centuries later. Early
Third century Roman introduces coinage at precisely the point when pay becomes intelligible as both practical and likely a necessity.
Quote from: Monad on November 03, 2024, 04:56:11 AMQuoteDBS wrote: I would gently observe that no Roman coinage is known before the 280s, whatever much later annalists might write.
Someone once told me this before. No money, so Volume I of my work is irrelevant and pointless. However, the ancient writes do talk about payment, so something was given, be it whatever, sheep, goats, credit or mother in laws.
The actual point is that academia has overlooked is Livy has confused the Appius Claudius of 495 BC, who opposed stipendium while on campaign for six months with the Appius Claudius of 406 BC, who opposed stipendium for 12 months. Therefore, Dionysius' claims of stipendium dating back to 486 BC, 478 BC, and 467 BC are now valid. And notice not one of Dionysius's dates are pre 495 BC. With stipendium being awarded in 495 BC, this helps to identify or narrow down when Class I changed from the clipeas to the scutum.
QuoteJim wrote: And deserves working up into two slingshot articles!
Trust me Jim, no one is interested in my research. Over the last 20 years I've mostly only received abuse, online and via private emails. Many have requested to read my work and yet, I haven't had any feedback from them, they responded that they have been too busy. I have heard this countless times from some many for nearly 20 years. It has to be some kind of record that should be entered in the Guinee's Book of Records. People aren't interested in wanting to know the ins and outs of the Roman legion and what exactly all that data in the ancient sources relates to. They are more interested in the soldier's pointy bits, as highlighted on RAT. My paper on the Equites Legionis and Singulares attracts 78 views over three months, and yet, a question about a weapon will attract over 200 views in a couple of days.
The net result is my interest in having my work published has evaporated, and combined with having to deal with a serious health issue, my continued research has been reduced to being a personal challenge driven by curiosity. As the curiosity gets quenched so does my enthusiasm to do anything with it. People are more than happy with their rather limited and distorted view of the Roman army, and don't want it challenged.
A man after my own heart! And if Patrick had still been alive, after his too. ;)
I too have done research on the Legion and written non-standard stuff on how line relief worked. Published a book (https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Battle-Formations-Justin-Swanton/dp/1526740060) on it too. I've had some interest shown in my reconstructions of the legion, pike phalanx and hoplite phalanx but I've come to realise that platform is everything in academia - like it is for pretty much anything else these days. 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. I've yet to encounter anyone who agrees with my mechanism for line relief and at the same time anyone who has attempted to refute it. Funny old world.
Anyhow, on the topic of Livy and Romans swopping round for oblong shields, it helps to look at Livy's Latin. It's been my experience, again and again, that translators can make a real pigs' breakfast of the original texts.
The passage as per your translation:
"The Romans had formerly used small round shields; then, after they began to serve for pay, they made oblong shields instead of round ones"
"After they began to serve for pay" translates
postquam stipendiarii facti sunt but the phrase literally means: "after they became stipendiarii." Now every single use of
stipendiarium I could find in Livy means an entity that
pays money and not and entity that receives money as pay:
QuoteThat the other states of Asia, which had been tributary [stipendiarii] to Attalus, should likewise pay tribute to Eumenes; and such as had been tributary [vectigales – synonym for stipendarius, with the meaning of payers of tribute/tax] to Antiochus, should be free and independent. – History: 37.55.6.
Those which had been tributaries [stipendiariae] to King Antiochus but had sided with the Roman people were granted freedom from taxation; those which had been partisans of Antiochus or tributaries [stipendiariae] to King Attalus were all ordered to pay tribute to Eumenes. – History: 38.39.6.
For the present he resolved to persist in the lenient line of conduct with which he had begun, and sending collectors round to the tributary states [stipendiarias civitates], to give the soldiers hopes of soon receiving their pay. – History: 28.25.9.
So - following Livy's Latin - the Romans dumped the clipeus for the scutum soon after they started paying a tribute or tax. 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. Since this was a major reorganisation the implication was that the army did things differently before. My guess is that the soldiers were previously all equipped as hoplites or skirmishers. The poorer class hoplites would have found furnishing their equipment a burden so Servius Tullus made it manageable by centralising production and equipping the classes according to what they could afford to pay.
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.
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:
QuoteAs Postumius was drawing up his men and encouraging them in the first line [prima in acie], Tarquinius Superbus, though now enfeebled by age, spurred on his horse with great fury to attack him; but being wounded in the side, he was carried off by a party of his own men to a place of safety. 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.
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?
Quote from: Erpingham on November 02, 2024, 12:33:32 PMQuote from: Mark G on November 02, 2024, 09:39:56 AMFeels 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.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 04, 2024, 08:10:07 AMI'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 :)
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 04, 2024, 08:10:07 AMThe 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.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 04, 2024, 08:10:07 AMArmour - 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.
Quote from: Erpingham on November 04, 2024, 11:14:34 AMWhen 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.
Quote from: Erpingham on November 04, 2024, 11:14:34 AMQuote from: Justin Swanton on November 04, 2024, 08:10:07 AMI'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. ::)
Quote from: Erpingham on November 04, 2024, 11:14:34 AMQuote from: Justin Swanton on November 04, 2024, 08:10:07 AMThe 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.
Quote from: Erpingham on November 04, 2024, 11:14:34 AMQuote from: Justin Swanton on November 04, 2024, 08:10:07 AMArmour - 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.
Firstly, sorry I went on a bit of a rant. Got excited, which hasn't happened for a long time.
QuoteJustin 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.
QuoteJustin 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.
QuoteJustin 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?
QuoteJustin 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.
QuoteJustin 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." (8)
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.
QuoteJustin 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.
QuoteJustin 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."
QuoteJustin 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 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
QuoteJustin 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 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 8) 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.
Quote from: Monad on November 04, 2024, 01:33:07 PMFirstly, sorry I went on a bit of a rant. Got excited, which hasn't happened for a long time.
QuoteJustin 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.
Quote from: Monad on November 04, 2024, 01:33:07 PMWhat 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.
Quote from: Monad on November 04, 2024, 01:33:07 PMAnd 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.
QuoteJustin 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.
QuoteJustin 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.
QuoteJustin 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."
QuoteJustin 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.
QuoteJustin 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?
QuoteJustin 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.
QuoteJustin 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?
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 8)
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 05, 2024, 10:10:13 AMI include a link to the Amazon UK site knowing it to be useless to both of you :-[
Oh, include it! ;D
QuoteJim 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.
Quote from: Monad on November 05, 2024, 09:41:49 AMJustin 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:
QuoteIn 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
Quote from: Monad on November 05, 2024, 09:41:49 AMJustin 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.
Quote from: Monad on November 05, 2024, 09:41:49 AMJustin 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.
Quote from: Monad on November 05, 2024, 09:41:49 AMJustin 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?
Quote from: Monad on November 05, 2024, 09:41:49 AMJustin 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."
Quote from: Monad on November 05, 2024, 09:41:49 AMJustin 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?
Quote from: Monad on November 05, 2024, 09:41:49 AMApparently 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.
Sorry, I tried, but have no idea of how to operate the quote system.
QuoteJustin 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?
QuoteJustin 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.
QuoteJustin 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.
QuoteJustin 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.
Quote from: Monad on November 05, 2024, 12:50:01 PMSorry, 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.
Thank you Erpingham.
Quote from: Monad on November 05, 2024, 12:50:01 PMSorry, 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.
Quote from: Monad on November 05, 2024, 12:50:01 PMJustin 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.
Quote from: Monad on November 05, 2024, 12:50:01 PMJustin 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.
Quote from: Monad on November 05, 2024, 12:50:01 PMJustin 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.
Quote from: Monad on November 05, 2024, 12:50:01 PMJustin 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.
Quote from: Monad on November 05, 2024, 12:50:01 PMWith 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?
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).
Quote from: Monad on November 05, 2024, 11:03:13 AMQuoteJim 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
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.
Quote from: Mark G on November 05, 2024, 06:00:25 PMSo 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!
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 05, 2024, 04:36:28 PMThe 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.
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 05, 2024, 04:36:28 PMand 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.
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 05, 2024, 04:36:28 PMWhat 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.
Quote from: Monad on November 06, 2024, 12:36:04 AMQuote from: Jim Webster on November 05, 2024, 04:36:28 PMThe 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?
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 06, 2024, 10:57:42 AMThen 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.