SoA Forums

The frontage I have calculated for the Roman army at Cannae, which includes the Roman and allied cavalry comes to 1,400 yards. I've followed Polybius' description that the depth of the maniple was greater than its frontage, and I also have managed to keep the continuity of those batches of infantry with the least campaigns being stationed at the back of the maniple, and those infantry with the most campaigns, stationed at the front of the maniples. Here I am applying Polybius' description of the levy in which he mentions the infantry being levied in batches of four men, which I have found out, are campaign batches, which is obvious, because if the men serve for 16 campaigns and Polybius has batches of four, then 16 divided by four equals four.

The frontage of 1,400 yards allocates the Roman and allied cavalry as having cavalry gaps between the squadrons equal to the frontage of the cavalry as per Polybius' standard description of how the cavalry were arrayed. I cannot see how they could function with no squadron gaps, and they would not even be able to rout successfully with no gaps. I think Livy means the space for the cavalry to operate was small, so restricted manoeuvre space, which does not mean no space to manoeuvre.

The 14 legions that faced Hannibal's army at Cannae conform to the Pythagorean ratio of 4/3, that is 8 legions to 6 legions. Following Livy that 2/3 of the Roman army were raw recruits, this would indicate that the Romans are going to take those men with the most campaign experiences and place them into eight legions (2 consular armies), leaving the six remaining legions as flanking legions (3 per flank). The more I examine the Cannae deployment, the more I am certain that the Roman strategy has been influenced by the Trebbia.

I also believe Hannibal had predicted the Roman strategy and formed a wedge to blunt those eight legions.

I am confused by your reference to fourteen legions.  There were eight at Cannae, plus, it is presumed, eight allied alae, so Pythagorean ratios seem wholly irrelevant.  What are these six "flank" legions to which you refer? I would further observe that Polybius states that the eight legions were deliberately raised overstrength, 5000 infantry each rather than 4000.  Whilst the speech that Polybius credits to Aemilius Paulus is doubtless less than verbatim, it is interesting that he supposedly blames Trebbia and Trasimene on lack of training/experience of the legions, with the implication that the Romans are not going to make that mistake again in 216. 

Interesting, this will I expect continue to be discussed for many years yet but I heartily approve of folks doing their own estimations. Did you see the videos posted a little while ago by Chuck, I think the link here should work.

https://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=8786.msg112025#msg112025

Quote from: DBS on February 03, 2025, 09:04:53 AMI am confused by your reference to fourteen legions.  There were eight at Cannae, plus, it is presumed, eight allied alae, so Pythagorean ratios seem wholly irrelevant.

During the battle, two legions were involved in the attack on Hannibal's camp. Polybius' has 70,000 infantry killed and when divided by 14 legions results in each legion having 5,000 men. Polybius also has 10,000 infantry captured in the camps and another 3,000 escape. Therefore, Polybius has presumed that everyone in the 14 legions was eliminated.

Quote from: DBS on February 03, 2025, 09:04:53 AMWhat are these six "flank" legions to which you refer?

Part of the 14 legions that faced Hannibal's army. I have eight legions as being the driving force, or the force allocated to break through Hannibal's lines. Therefore, the more experienced troops were placed here.

Quote from: DBS on February 03, 2025, 09:04:53 AMWhilst the speech that Polybius credits to Aemilius Paulus is doubtless less than verbatim, it is interesting that he supposedly blames Trebbia and Trasimene on lack of training/experience of the legions, with the implication that the Romans are not going to make that mistake again in 216

Well, according to Livy, the Romans did make the same mistake. Livy claims that at Cannae two-thirds of the Roman army were raw recruits.

https://www.academia.edu/52383876/A_Breakdown_of_the_Roman_Army_at_Cannae_216_BC

I am sorry, you have not answered the question of how you come up with fourteen legions.  The sources are consistent in saying eight.  "Roman" casualties would come from those eight, plus the eight allied alae, which would have numbered, if Polybius is right about overstrength recruiting, up to 80,000 infantry and up to 12000 cavalry. So Polybius' figures, whilst undoubtedly guesstimates to some degree, are perfectly plausible.

Livy is probably exaggerating "raw" recruits to explain away the disaster.  Apart from teenagers just coming of age and mostly serving as velites or hastati, there probably were not that many who had not racked up a few campaigns before being levied in 216.  The key point is that they would likely be rusty compared to the Carthaginians.

Edit: I should have said up to 9600 cavalry, not up to 12000.

Livy affirms, with cautious circumspection, that 16 legions were raised and the number of men in each legion was augmented by 1000, raising the legion's strength to 5000. That means a total of 80,000 men, or two double-consular armies.

QuoteThe armies also were augmented. But how large were the additions of infantry and cavalry I should hardly venture to declare with any certainty —so greatly do historians differ in regard to the numbers and kinds of troops. Some say that ten thousand new soldiers were enlisted as replacements; others that four new legions were enrolled, so that they took the field with eight. Some assert that the legions were also increased in the numbers of their infantry and cavalry, and that each received an additional thousand foot and a hundred horse, bringing up the total of every one to five thousand foot and three hundred horse; and that double the number of horse and an equal number of foot were furnished by the allies. - History of Rome, 22:36

Polybius confirms this:

QuoteFor the Romans, as I have stated before, habitually enrol four legions each year, each consisting of about four thousand foot and two hundred horse; and when any unusual necessity arises, they raise the number of foot to five thousand and of the horse to three hundred. Of allies, the number in each legion is the same as that of the citizens, but of the horse three times as great. Of the four legions thus composed, they assign two to each of the Consuls for whatever service is going on. Most of their wars are decided by one Consul and two legions, with their quota of allies; and they rarely employ all four at one time and on service. But on this occasion, so great was the alarm and terror of what would happen, they resolved to bring not only four but eight legions into the field [and an equal number of allied legions]. - Histories, 3:107

The 70,000 Roman dead were the infantry on the eastern bank of the Aufidus. The 10,000 men on the western bank managed to retreat to their camp where some later escaped and the rest surrendered to the Carthaginians.

QuoteOf the infantry ten thousand were taken prisoners in fair fight, but were not actually engaged in the battle: of those who were actually engaged only about three thousand perhaps escaped to the towns of the surrounding district; all the rest died nobly, to the number of seventy thousand - Histories, 3:117

Edit: OK, I see the confusion. Monad is talking about the 14 legions on the east bank of the Aufidus, with the implication that the 10,000 men on the west bank were the remaining two legions.

Quote from: Monad on February 03, 2025, 09:28:02 AMPart of the 14 legions that faced Hannibal's army. I have eight legions as being the driving force, or the force allocated to break through Hannibal's lines. Therefore, the more experienced troops were placed here.

According to Livy, the Roman legions on the east bank of the Aufidus were deployed in the right half of the line whilst the allied legions were deployed in the left half. No mention of better legions deployed in the centre. The uniform extreme depth of the Roman deployment suggests the Romans intended simply to steamroll over the Carthaginians in front of them.

QuoteOnce across, they joined to their own the forces which they had kept in the smaller camp, and marshalled their battle-line as follows: on the right wing —the one nearer the river —they placed the Roman cavalry, and next them the Roman foot; the left wing had on the outside the cavalry of the allies; and nearer the centre, in contact with the Roman legions, the infantry of the allies. The slingers and other light-armed auxiliaries were formed up in front. - History, 22:45

My take on the wedge (FWIW) is that it was a delaying tactic. The whole point of a wedge is that you concentrate your best troops at the tip. These are the first to engage the enemy and hopefully will have enough time to shatter the centre of the enemy line and then begin to roll up both halves before the enemy has time to engage and break the rest of the wedge. The wedge at Cannae was defensive rather than offensive and was crescent-shaped, i.e. its tip was flattened. My surmise is that the best Gallic and Hispanic troops were stationed there, delaying the Roman infantry advance whilst the cavalry did its work on the flanks.

The wedge eventually broke and fell back to the second line at its rear (Livy is clear there was a second line). That second line began to give way in its centre whilst standing firm at its flanks because the Libyan infantry on the flanks had wrapped around the Romans' own flanks, stopping their advance. The Romans between the flanks and the centre needed to stay connected and not create breaks the Carthaginians could exploit, so - a bow-shaped line.

Just to clarify things in my mind:

What was the make up of the two legions that end up in the camp? Two Roman, two allied or one of each?  Did they keep their integral cavalry?

How many cavalry were there in total? I have a vague recollection that allied legions had more cavalry than Romans normally but  don't know what the boosted numbers do to this equation.

Quote from: Erpingham on February 03, 2025, 11:44:46 AMJust to clarify things in my mind:

What was the make up of the two legions that end up in the camp? Two Roman, two allied or one of each?  Did they keep their integral cavalry?

How many cavalry were there in total? I have a vague recollection that allied legions had more cavalry than Romans normally but  don't know what the boosted numbers do to this equation.

According to Livy the Roman boosted their cavalry per legion from 200 to 300 whilst the allied boosted their contribution to double that per legion. So 300 x 8 + 600 x 8 = 7200 cavalry.

QuoteSome assert that the legions were also increased in the numbers of their infantry and cavalry, and that each received an additional thousand foot and a hundred horse, bringing up the total of every one to five thousand foot and three hundred horse; and that double the number of horse and an equal number of foot were furnished by the allies.

Nothing is explicitly indicated in the sources, but if one presumes the Romans did their standard 50/50 split, then there were 7 Roman and 7 allied legions with attached cavalry on the east bank and 1 Roman and 1 allied legion with attached cavalry on the west bank. So 70,000 infantry, 2100 Roman cavalry and 4200 allied cavalry on the east bank and 10,000 infantry, 300 Roman cavalry and 600 allied cavalry on the west bank. The numbers of course are susceptible to a little more-or-less.

Quote from: DBS on February 03, 2025, 09:58:24 AMI am sorry, you have not answered the question of how you come up with fourteen legions.

I'm assuming that Steven is simply including the allied contingents as "legions".

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 03, 2025, 11:23:35 AMNo mention of better legions deployed in the centre.

I have made that interpretation, that is eight legions formed the centre and on each flank of the eight legions were three other legions, of which I have termed the flank guard legions.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 03, 2025, 11:23:35 AMThe uniform extreme depth of the Roman deployment suggests the Romans intended simply to steamroll over the Carthaginians in front of them.

And that is why I have arrived at a frontage of 1,400 yards for the whole Roman army, of which the infantry has a very small frontage.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 03, 2025, 10:26:46 AMThat means a total of 80,000 men, or two double-consular armies.

I prefer two consular armies and two proconsular armies.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 03, 2025, 10:26:46 AMThe armies also were augmented. But how large were the additions of infantry and cavalry I should hardly venture to declare with any certainty —so greatly do historians differ in regard to the numbers and kinds of troops. Some say that ten thousand new soldiers were enlisted as replacements; others that four new legions were enrolled, so that they took the field with eight. Some assert that the legions were also increased in the numbers of their infantry and cavalry, and that each received an additional thousand foot and a hundred horse, bringing up the total of every one to five thousand foot and three hundred horse; and that double the number of horse and an equal number of foot were furnished by the allies. - History of Rome, 22:36

Four new legions would amount to 20,000 men, so the figure of 10,000 men is as Livy mentions "replacements." However, the two consular armies raised by Paulus and Varro had not been on campaign so therefore, being newly raised do not need replacements. This leaves the two proconsular armies already in Apulia that required replacements, and 10,000 replacements (rounded up) is right for two proconsular armies. There is enough data in Livy's later books alone to be able to work out how the replacement system works.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 03, 2025, 10:26:46 AMFor the Romans, as I have stated before, habitually enrol four legions each year, each consisting of about four thousand foot and two hundred horse; and when any unusual necessity arises, they raise the number of foot to five thousand and of the horse to three hundred.

Notice how Polybius states "about" 4,000 foot, so let's keep that in perspective before everyone runs about claiming 4,000 infantry increasing to 5,000 infantry.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 03, 2025, 10:26:46 AMEdit: OK, I see the confusion. Monad is talking about the 14 legions on the east bank of the Aufidus, with the implication that the 10,000 men on the west bank were the remaining two legions.

You are describing the forces in relation to the rive whereas I am describing those forces (14 legions) that actually engaged Hannibal's main army and those that attacked Hannibal's camp (2 legions).

Quote from: Duncan Head on February 03, 2025, 12:05:05 PMI'm assuming that Steven is simply including the allied contingents as "legions".

Correct.
 

Pardon me for expecting some precision in language, especially when used in connection with a fallacious extrapolation to a supposed Pythagorean ratio.

No mention of "raw recruits" in Livy, given, as I say, that most of the newly levied troops probably had served in past campaigns. Rusty, maybe. Lacking optimum cohesion as a legion, maybe. Raw? Very doubtful.

Quote from: DBS on February 03, 2025, 01:48:16 PMPardon me for expecting some precision in language, especially when used in connection with a fallacious extrapolation to a supposed Pythagorean ratio.

No mention of "raw recruits" in Livy, given, as I say, that most of the newly levied troops probably had served in past campaigns. Rusty, maybe. Lacking optimum cohesion as a legion, maybe. Raw? Very doubtful.

Given previous casualties and the sheer size of this army, I do feel that Raw could well be justified. I've not time to check Livy but from memory the last big campaign was Battle of Telamon in 225BC .
Also we do know that the Romans were happy to take volunteers and we also know (from a little later than this) that men do seem to have made a career of military service. So it could well be that the proportion of 'volunteers' was quite high in those legions raised in 'quiet' years. So it could be that a lot of these had been lost in previous battles against Hannibal

Quote from: Monad on February 03, 2025, 12:21:37 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 03, 2025, 11:23:35 AMNo mention of better legions deployed in the centre.

I have made that interpretation, that is eight legions formed the centre and on each flank of the eight legions were three other legions, of which I have termed the flank guard legions.

Sure, but an interpretation based on what?

Quote from: Monad on February 03, 2025, 12:21:37 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 03, 2025, 11:23:35 AMThe uniform extreme depth of the Roman deployment suggests the Romans intended simply to steamroll over the Carthaginians in front of them.

And that is why I have arrived at a frontage of 1,400 yards for the whole Roman army, of which the infantry has a very small frontage.

I disagree. A mid-republican legion deployed about 200 yards wide. In this case a legion deployed 100 yards wide, i.e. at twice its habitual depth for half its habitual width. My take is that the frontage of the battlefield at Cannae was a little under 3km, allowing infantry and cavalry to deploy deep, the depth of the latter hopefully negating the Carthaginian numerical superiority in cavalry. But we can argue about this.

Quote from: Monad on February 03, 2025, 12:21:37 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 03, 2025, 10:26:46 AMThat means a total of 80,000 men, or two double-consular armies.

I prefer two consular armies and two proconsular armies.

If you like. The point is that 4 standard-sized armies each of around 20,000 infantry were combined into a force of about 80,000 infantry.

Quote from: Monad on February 03, 2025, 12:21:37 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 03, 2025, 10:26:46 AMThe armies also were augmented. But how large were the additions of infantry and cavalry I should hardly venture to declare with any certainty —so greatly do historians differ in regard to the numbers and kinds of troops. Some say that ten thousand new soldiers were enlisted as replacements; others that four new legions were enrolled, so that they took the field with eight. Some assert that the legions were also increased in the numbers of their infantry and cavalry, and that each received an additional thousand foot and a hundred horse, bringing up the total of every one to five thousand foot and three hundred horse; and that double the number of horse and an equal number of foot were furnished by the allies. - History of Rome, 22:36

Four new legions would amount to 20,000 men, so the figure of 10,000 men is as Livy mentions "replacements." However, the two consular armies raised by Paulus and Varro had not been on campaign so therefore, being newly raised do not need replacements. This leaves the two proconsular armies already in Apulia that required replacements, and 10,000 replacements (rounded up) is right for two proconsular armies. There is enough data in Livy's later books alone to be able to work out how the replacement system works.

OK, and we get to 80,000 infantry which is the important number for this battle.

Quote from: Monad on February 03, 2025, 12:21:37 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 03, 2025, 10:26:46 AMFor the Romans, as I have stated before, habitually enrol four legions each year, each consisting of about four thousand foot and two hundred horse; and when any unusual necessity arises, they raise the number of foot to five thousand and of the horse to three hundred.

Notice how Polybius states "about" 4,000 foot, so let's keep that in perspective before everyone runs about claiming 4,000 infantry increasing to 5,000 infantry.

Nobody is claiming exact numbers. Elsewhere in his History Livy gives numbers for legionary strength as 4,000, 4,200, 5,000, 5,200 and 6,000. About 4,000 means the legions were augmented by about 1,000 men each which is all we need to know.

Quote from: Monad on February 03, 2025, 12:21:37 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 03, 2025, 10:26:46 AMEdit: OK, I see the confusion. Monad is talking about the 14 legions on the east bank of the Aufidus, with the implication that the 10,000 men on the west bank were the remaining two legions.

You are describing the forces in relation to the river whereas I am describing those forces (14 legions) that actually engaged Hannibal's main army and those that attacked Hannibal's camp (2 legions).

OK. Comes to the same thing.

Quote from: Jim Webster on February 03, 2025, 02:38:52 PMI've not time to check Livy but from memory the last big campaign was Battle of Telamon in 225BC .

Oh, the campaigns against the Gauls in northern Italy continued for several years after Telamon, the Romans never missing the opportunity to kick an enemy when they were down, and 220-219 of course saw the Second Illyrian War with trans-Adriatic expeditionary fun.  Not massive forces - standard consular armies it would seem - but still meaning up to four legions and four alae in the field each year in all probability, so the usual annual tempo of Republican state violence visited on the neighbours.

Cannae - the battle that just keeps on giving! This would make the Punic Wars Republican Roman army the army that just keeps on giving?!

Enjoying the discussion gentlemen. Whilst we can use the old adage to respectively agree to disagree, I love that we are not only still discussing it but that we are still so passionate about it.

Hannibal would be so proud that we are still talking about him. Even Varro's ghost might take some comfort that he is still remembered?!

Quote from: DBS on February 03, 2025, 01:48:16 PMPardon me for expecting some precision in language, especially when used in connection with a fallacious extrapolation to a supposed Pythagorean ratio.

Oh what is your problem now? Many a scholar and musicologist are well aware of the two basic Pythagorean ratios, so they are not what you describe as "supposed." David, can we have an agreement not to communicate with each other.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 03, 2025, 08:06:49 PMSure, but an interpretation based on what?

Based on my research. I do believe I am entitled to form my own conclusions. Based on some of the replies here, I am doing nothing out of the ordinary.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 03, 2025, 08:06:49 PMI disagree. A mid-republican legion deployed about 200 yards wide. In this case a legion deployed 100 yards wide, i.e. at twice its habitual depth for half its habitual width. My take is that the frontage of the battlefield at Cannae was a little under 3km, allowing infantry and cavalry to deploy deep, the depth of the latter hopefully negating the Carthaginian numerical superiority in cavalry. But we can argue about this.

We don't have to argue. We just disagree.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 03, 2025, 08:06:49 PMNobody is claiming exact numbers. Elsewhere in his History Livy gives numbers for legionary strength as 4,000, 4,200, 5,000, 5,200 and 6,000. About 4,000 means the legions were augmented by about 1,000 men each which is all we need to know.

If I said to you, I want you to financially invest in a machine that I have invented that no matter what you put in it, even your household garbage, it will turn it into gold. Logically, before making such a financial investment, you would want proof. And yet, when it comes to Polybius and his various sizes for the legion, there has been no proper investigation into the matter. It is not like there is a paucity of data available to use.

Does Polybius' legion sizes hold up? Have you actually tested to see if the additional 1,000 troops are actually 1,000 troops? What if the number was 1,200 troops. What if the figure of 4,000 troops is also a rounded number? What period of Rome's military history has Polybius acquired such numbers from? Could Polybius' legion of "about"4,000 infantry could belong to a garrison legion? Could Polybius' legion of "about" 4,000 infantry be related to the camp guards being omitted?

I have meticulously examined all of Polybius' legion sizes and have compared with the mass of data we have available at our fingertips, and what I found is it shows that Polybius is very confused about the machinations of the Roman legion, especially in regard to Roman military procedures.

His legion of "about" 4,000 infantry is missing a detachment that generally are assigned to garrison duty. His legion of 5,200 infantry is his legion of 4,000 infantry, which omits the camp guards, having the 1,200 velites added to it. His legion of 5,000 infantry has been rounded from 5,040 infantry. As to the legion of 6,000, can you provide a reference, as I'm not sure if you are referring to the Third Macedonian War period or something else.

Quote from: stevenneate on February 03, 2025, 11:36:51 PMCannae - the battle that just keeps on giving! This would make the Punic Wars Republican Roman army the army that just keeps on giving?!

Steven, sorry about not quickly replying to your message on academia. I wanted to ask you if I could send to you (electronic), Volume I of my research. I can also send you the full Cannae section, which explains or shows how Livy arrived at 45,500 infantry causalities for the Romans and other numbers I purposely left out of my paper on the Roman army at Cannae. I am keeping somethings tight.

My problem is when you think that numerical ratios ascribed on a rather dodgy basis to Pythagoras had anything, anything, to do with military organisation and deployment. Armies comprised the number of men that were available and thought necessary for the task in hand, recognising that there were severe penalties to having too many men in arms, let alone in the same spot.

That is the whole point of Cannae; the Romans had been humiliated in the previous two years, so broke all the rules by raising an eight legion army to destroy Hannibal. And failed.

There were eight legions at Cannae. The allied alae were not legions; the Romans did not class them as such, and did not call them that. To then claim that there was a Pythagorean ratio between eight legions and six legions is palpable nonsense as a) the six "legions" were not legions, and b) there were eight alae anyway.

Furthermore, no general is going to think that he ought to put two of his formations the other side of the river to align with mathematical precepts attributed to a long dead Greek, who probably had never come up with such precepts anyway but had simply had them foisted on his memory by later generations...

Returning to the question of frontage, Justin makes some excellent points. I would further observe that we do not know how the alae were organised or deployed. We cannot simply assume that they matched the Roman legions in this regard, since all we are told is that they matched approximately the Romans in terms of numbers of infantry levied, and triple cavalry. The number of cavalry, necessarily drawn from the better off, alone suggests that maybe, maybe, the infantry was less well equipped and that concepts such as triarii and principes were not necessarily observed. We just do not know. My point is that this uncertainty is going to be a significant qualification on any calculations of frontage.

Quote from: DBS on February 04, 2025, 06:35:43 AMMy problem is when you think that numerical ratios ascribed on a rather dodgy basis to Pythagoras had anything, anything, to do with military organisation and deployment.

Would you like me to send to you Volume 1 of my research?
 

No thank you, because the very idea that Pythagoras had anything to do with military organisation and deployment is self evidentially nonsense.  Look at enough numbers, discarding those you do not like, from enough different sources without regard to the context in which those sources were written, and you will see ostensible patterns.  Those patterns are likely false, or at best driven by other factors.  Throughout mankind's history of violence towards mankind, the manner in which armies have been organised has been driven by a lot of different, but often fairly constant, factors: availability of manpower; availability of equipment; competing demands (such as agriculture); social classes and structures; environmental considerations; authority of leaders; practicalities of command and control.  Unit sizes are dictated by what is achievable and what works for your style of warfare.  Mathematical principles do not come into it.  Furthermore, you must be well aware that considerable doubt has been cast as to whether Pythagoras was actually that interested in mathematics, as opposed to more general and rather wierd social philosophy, and the suspicion that a lot of his supposed mathematical precepts were actually conjured up by later generations and posthumously attributed to him.

Quote from: Monad on February 04, 2025, 05:24:32 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 03, 2025, 08:06:49 PMSure, but an interpretation based on what?

Based on my research. I do believe I am entitled to form my own conclusions. Based on some of the replies here, I am doing nothing out of the ordinary.

You mistake me, my good sir! This is a free discussion forum and conclusions are welcome within the normal bounds of common courtesy. But evidence for those conclusions is also welcome so don't feel shy about giving it.  ;)

Quote from: Monad on February 04, 2025, 05:24:32 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 03, 2025, 08:06:49 PMNobody is claiming exact numbers. Elsewhere in his History Livy gives numbers for legionary strength as 4,000, 4,200, 5,000, 5,200 and 6,000. About 4,000 means the legions were augmented by about 1,000 men each which is all we need to know.

If I said to you, I want you to financially invest in a machine that I have invented that no matter what you put in it, even your household garbage, it will turn it into gold. Logically, before making such a financial investment, you would want proof. And yet, when it comes to Polybius and his various sizes for the legion, there has been no proper investigation into the matter. It is not like there is a paucity of data available to use.

Does Polybius' legion sizes hold up? Have you actually tested to see if the additional 1,000 troops are actually 1,000 troops? What if the number was 1,200 troops. What if the figure of 4,000 troops is also a rounded number? What period of Rome's military history has Polybius acquired such numbers from? Could Polybius' legion of "about"4,000 infantry could belong to a garrison legion? Could Polybius' legion of "about" 4,000 infantry be related to the camp guards being omitted?

I have meticulously examined all of Polybius' legion sizes and have compared with the mass of data we have available at our fingertips, and what I found is it shows that Polybius is very confused about the machinations of the Roman legion, especially in regard to Roman military procedures.

His legion of "about" 4,000 infantry is missing a detachment that generally are assigned to garrison duty. His legion of 5,200 infantry is his legion of 4,000 infantry, which omits the camp guards, having the 1,200 velites added to it. His legion of 5,000 infantry has been rounded from 5,040 infantry. As to the legion of 6,000, can you provide a reference, as I'm not sure if you are referring to the Third Macedonian War period or something else.

It is Livy who gives the legion sizes although Polybius details how a legion was numerically expanded. Here are the references from Livy:

4,000 twice (History: 21.17; 28.28),
5,000 four times (23.34; 26.28; 39.38; 41.21),
5,200 five times (40.18; 40.36; 41.9; 42.31; 43.12),
6,000 twice (42.31; 43.12),
and 6,200 once (24.34).

Polybius makes clear that a legion was expanded by a proportional increase in the numbers of hastati, principes (and by implication velites), but not of triarii. The smallest size for a legion was 4000 men:

QuoteThe division is made in such proportions that the senior men, called triarii, should number six hundred, the principes twelve hundred, the hastati twelve hundred, and that all the rest as the youngest should be reckoned among the velites. And if the whole number of the legion is more than four thousand, they vary the numbers of these divisions proportionally, except those of the triarii, which is always the same.- Histories, 6:21.

That means 1000 velites in a 4000-man legion. A legionary occupied a frontage of one yard. If the legion was 200 yards wide that meant 6 ranks of hastati, 6 ranks of principes, 3 ranks of triarii and 5 ranks of velites. The velites were divided amongst the other three types, which suggests 2 ranks of velites with the hastati, 2 ranks with the principes and 1 rank with the triarii.

A veles was in effect a peltast, which meant he was capable of hand-to-hand combat at a pinch, and if he occupied the rear of each of the three lines that would bring the hastati and principes up to 8 ranks - the minimum depth for a typical infantry line, (necessary to prevent cavalry charging right through it amongst other reasons).

The triarii were in a shallower line but they were the line of last resort and in any case would have the depth of the hastati and principes behind them.

5000 men would be achieved by adding 2 ranks of hastati, 2 ranks of principes and a rank of velites (attached to the triarii), bringing up the depth of the hastati and principes (including velites) to 10 ranks - which incidentally was the depth of the first two lines of the later Marian legion.

5200 men would be achieved by adding another rank of velites.

6000 men would be achieved by adding another 2 ranks of hastati and 2 ranks of principes.

6200 men would be achieved by adding another rank of velites.

All very practical.

Not particularly wanting to get too moderatorial but I think the side discussion of the historicity and relevance of Pythagoras might be generating more heat than light. Steven has a well-developed and densely argued thesis on this elsewhere and it doesn't directly impact a discussion of frontage. 

All seem agreed that 14 legion-sized bodies are lined up next to each other.  We know the formation is deeper than usual, partly through tactical preference but also perhaps to fit in the space available (see the epic discussion on "Where the hell was the Aufidius in 216?" elsewhere on the forum (short answer we don't know but we can make some guesses).  The discussion, for those interested, is here (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=5065.0) but it meanders a bit (sorry, couldn't resist  :) ) before really getting into the mapping part.

Justin has laid out his rationale for his version of the frontage. Steven has given his but in less detail.  They give very different estimates. I note from the Aufidius discussion (yes, I refreshed my memory) that Goldsworthy also makes an estimate similar to Justin's (and put the river in a similar place).  As this battle has been discussed by many, many historians there may well be other estimates (with rationales) out there that can be considered and critiqued to help us scope the problem better.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 04, 2025, 09:40:44 AMPolybius makes clear that a legion was expanded by a proportional increase in the numbers of hastati, principes (and by implication velites), but not of triarii. The smallest size for a legion was 4000 men:

First time inserting an image. Don't know how to control the size. I calculate a legion of the Second Punic War has having 4,800 infantry made up of 1,200 velites, 1,800 hastati, 1,200 princeps and 600 triarii, arrayed five maniples wide by six maniples deep:

Legion Array.jpg



Princeps and triarii belong to Class I. Each battle line has 600 infantry organised into 10 centuries each of 60 infantry, and all under the command of a military tribune. Well, Polybius does tell us that there were six military tribunes to a legion, that is why I call them tribune cohorts, so as to stop any confusion. And in my legion, they are not glorified messengers are many academics like to tell me. Now of the 1,200 velites, I allocate 200 to each tribune cohort (20 per century), so each tribune cohort amounts to 800 infantry. And then I have the triarii tribune cohort guard the camp, and hello, I am left with a legion of 4,000 infantry.

What about Polybius' legion of "ABOUT" 4,000 infantry. Well, I am now going to cut the legion horizontally. I want a detached to go and do something else, and like Napoleon's corps system, to be a mini army, so let's cut up the legion horizontally. Now in order not to upset some, I will avoid the Pythagorean principle that governs what I am doing, and that is by now employing the 10-cohort organisation, I am deducting two cohorts of 480 infantry, which in the time of Augustus would be called a vexillation and take it away from the 10 cohorts of 480 infantry, leaving me with 8 cohorts of 480 infantry or 3,840 infantry, consisting of:

 
Following the premise that a century had 80 infantry, 3,840 divided by 80 equals 48 centuries. Now to my many admirers that claim I cherry pick information, let's go for check mate. In 209 BC, Livy writes that the consul Quintus Fulvius Flaccus ordered his son to give the proconsul M. Valerius Laevinus in Sicily a body 4,344 men, taken from the consular army of Quintus Fulvius Flaccus. Now what happens when we add the officers, musicians and cavalry, the result is:

 
All of you have no idea of how prevalent the 48-century legion is in the ancient sources. I have tons of evidence and all supporting each other about the Roman army. Masses of data has been examined, processed, examined again and again, and all the pieces continually show the same thing. The end result is there is no legion of 5,200 men, which I am able to prove countless times via Livy's mass of data relating to the replacement system, which no one has bothered to examine. And there is no legion of 6,200 infantry. However, there is a legion of 5,400 infantry. And to support all this, I have studied all the data concerning the Roman navy and again, it all interlocks. Oh, and there is a period when the Roman legion had no light infantry. They believed that role could be performed by the hastati of Class IV, which being the youngest, would be suitable. Well, later the Romans realised their mistake. The Class IV hastati are the same age bracket as the velites, and that is why Polybius omits them, he just got confused between them.

Justin, you have produced a book and will go to great lengths to defend it, and your reputation, which means we will never agree. However, I believe I have got it right. I provide far greater detail than any other academic, and this is partly due to uncovering the internal structure of the Roman tribes, which has allowed me to reconstruct the Roman levy system from 513 BC to the end of the republic. That is my advantage over many. Join the list of people who hate me for it.

My overall impression is that this construct requires essentially a rejection what major sources like Livy and Polybius say about the size and organisation of the legion. Size - they give a variety of sizes except 4800 men. Organisation - nowhere does anyone affirm there were more hastati than principes, and above all that the legion consisted of 6 lines of hastati, principes and triarii. The earlier legion had 5 lines if you include the rorarii and accensii but that was a different beast.

My own approach is to assume the sources knew a great deal more about their subject matter than we do and so I try to reconcile their apparent contradictions as much as possible, only conceding a source is wrong if it is clearly demonstrated to be so. When it comes to the legion, I'm quite happy that the sources give enough coherent information to enable us to reconstruct the legion without us having to reject whole swathes of what they affirm.

Oh yes, my book - I don't in the least mind being proven wrong (I've already abandoned a few assumptions I made in it) but you're going to have to prove me wrong by reference to the sources, not by an appeal to Pythagorean mathematics, sorry.

That figure of 4344 men piqued my interest. I found the reference in Livy: "The consul Fabius ordered his son Quintus to take to M. Valerius, the proconsul in Sicily, the remains, so far as they had been got together, of the army of Fulvius. They amounted to 4344 men." - History, 27:8.13. This is the remnants of an army, not a regular structured legion!

There is no mention whatsoever of Classes in the Punic Wars.  Nor should there be; the distinction between velites and the heavy infantry is by age and wealth, and then within the heavy infantry the three types are distinguished by broad age bands.  What Steven is proposing is a hopeless melange of the supposed "late monarchy" army (leaving aside the question of whether Servius Tullius ever existed and whether Livy had any reliable basis for his description five and a bit centuries later) with the contemporary description by an experienced military observer, Polybius, of the mid second century BC legion.   There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for a 48 century legion.  Just dividing supposed strengths of forces by a number to come up with 48 is not evidence, because it completely ignores the fact that throughout military history, hardly any unit has maintained its theoretical establishment once on campaign, even assuming that it was raised to theoretical establishment in the first place.

As Justin says, just ignoring sources like Polybius (or worse, as Steven does, dismissing him as a fool) is a very poor method and would be laughed out of court in any academic environment.

Just running through this again, I've noted that, for all there differences, Steven and Justin assign the same frontage to the legions at Cannae (100 men).

Justin, using Polybius' narrower frontage (I believe), equates this to 100yds, giving 1400 yds. He switches to km for the battleline length, but 3km is about 3,300 yds, so 1,900 yds for the cavalry.

Steven hasn't given a frontage figure for his legions but it must be less than the figure used by Justin.  In order for a 1400 yd battle line, the cavalry must also be at a narrower frontage than Justin allows.  Or have I just misunderstood the proposed deployment? Perhaps Steven can confirm the figures he has used for his calculation, so we can compare the two better?

The problem of course is that we have no idea, as far as I know, of how Republican cavalry formed up. One line?  Two lines?  How many ranks per line?  Any idea at all about spacing...  Polybius implies, and Livy states, that the wing of Roman cavalry in particular were so squashed between their infantry and the river that there was no room to manoeuvre and that was why the cavalry fight on that wing was especially bloody.  It certainly does not sound as if there was much space for flex within the formation per se.

I did an article on this 4 (!) years ago for Slingshot. I can reproduce the relevant bits here or, if the SoA High Command doesn't mind, link to a pdf of it. In brief, my take is that the Roman cavalry deployed about 8 deep - Polybius affirms that deploying cav any deeper doesn't help as the horses in the rear cannot take part in the fight in any way. But I'll give the numbers later.

OK, let's do it.

QuoteAt the most cavalry in a regular engagement is drawn up eight deep, and in the midst of [μεταξύ – metaxu] each of the squadrons there is need for a space equal to the fronts [of the squadrons] inasmuch as it is equivalent to [squadrons] wheeling [left/right] and caters for [squadrons] wheeling about [to their rear]. Therefore eight hundred will cover a stade [200 yards] of front; eight thousand, ten stades; three thousand two hundred, four stades; and so eleven thousand two hundred would cover the whole of fourteen stades [of the Greek cavalry]. – Polybios: 12.18.

What does one make of this passage? My own interpretation (lock 'n load, boys!) is that Polybius describes a formation in which the cavalry files are in the infantry equivalent of open order, i.e. 2 yards per file. The tacticians describe wheeling: the infantry formation first closes up from intermediate to close order, halving its width, wheels around one of its front corners, then spreads out in intermediate order again. The closing up is necessary so that the square-shaped subunits do not bump into each other during the wheel - wheeling being a way for a line to convert into a column or to turn to face its rear, both by subunit. It's clear from all this that the space in a formation in intermediate order is equivalent to the width of the formation in close order.

Applying this to horses one gets the same thing. The horses are in the infantry's version of open order and will close up before wheeling, halving their frontage. This can be done since there is a space in each squadron equivalent to the width of the squadron when it closes up to wheel. This means that each horse normally has two yards of frontage of which only one yard is physically occupied by the horse.

This is important as this extra space allows the horses to turn about in situ and if necessary retire down the spaces between the files, i.e. it allows the horses to countermarch. Countermarching was very much a cavalry thing. Aelian in his manual describes how Roman cavalry would advance, throw javelins, then retire using countermarching. Cavalry of course could also simply turn individually and then all head straight back, turning to face the front again after they had retired a sufficient distance. This is quicker and safer than wheeling 180 degrees by subunit. The horses of a cavalry rhombus habitually turned in place in 90 degree increments. The point is that for the cavalrymen to turn, advance and retire necessitated file spaces of at least two yards.

The Roman cavalry in the era of Cannae practised all this as Polybius describes:

QuoteBut as soon as the Iberian and Celtic cavalry got at the Romans, the battle began in earnest, and in the true barbaric fashion: for there was none of the usual formal advance and retreat.... - Polybios: 3.115

That being the case, the 2000-odd Roman cavalry on the Roman right, if deployed 8-deep (the maximum practical depth for cavalry) would have occupied a frontage of about 500 yards. The 4000-odd allied cavalry on the Roman left would have occupied a frontage of about 1000 yards. That brings the total frontage of the Roman army up to 2900 yards - a little short of 3km.

My own impression is that the Roman deployment was pretty smart. They deployed on the southern bank of the Aufidus rather than in the natural place on the northern bank opposite the Carthaginian camp - which was much more open ground allowing the Carthaginian cavalry to manoeuvre freely. They deployed their cavalry deep enough that if the numerically superior Carthaginian cavalry deployed any deeper it wouldn't help them. The infantry were deployed deep but also as wide as was manageable for a line that needed to advance whilst retaining its cohesion (very long lines cannot advance and remain intact). I'll give the Romans 8/10.

That is entirely possible, but equally Polybius is strongly implying that the cavalry fight, at least on the restricted Roman wing, was a more brutal, head-on affair than the, for want of a better word, etiquette of the Hellenistic norms described by him in your first quotation.  Indeed, if one believes Livy, a of the fight ended up dismounted because there was no room in which to move the horses.  This perhaps suggests no or far fewer gaps in the Roman cavalry deployment, more a solid front to try to blunt the superior numbers of the Iberian and Gallic horse.

Now, that might not be the same on their left wing.  Supposedly three times the number of allied horse to start with, a more open flank without the river, and up again Numidians who are assumed to be more interested in skirmishing.  The Romans cannot foresee the Gauls and Iberians beating one wing then spinning over to the other, so a more orthodox deployment might well have been used there, to allow manoeuvre versus the Numidians.  The allied cavalry's job (indeed likewise the Numidians') is to pin their opponents, not necessarily seek a decisive outcome; leave that to the infantry.

By the way, did not like to say so before, but I am a tad mystified by the earlier assertion that the Romans had two alae on the other side of the river.  Both Polybius and Livy (who admittedly is very likely using Polybius as his source) state that whilst the two Roman camps were divided by the river, when they marched out for the battle, one camp's troops crossed the river to join the other's troops and formed a single battle line.  So, eight legions, eight alae.  Which is rather important for frontage guesstimates!

Quote from: DBS on February 06, 2025, 09:15:36 AMThat is entirely possible, but equally Polybius is strongly implying that the cavalry fight, at least on the restricted Roman wing, was a more brutal, head-on affair than the, for want of a better word, etiquette of the Hellenistic norms described by him in your first quotation.  Indeed, if one believes Livy, a of the fight ended up dismounted because there was no room in which to move the horses.  This perhaps suggests no or far fewer gaps in the Roman cavalry deployment, more a solid front to try to blunt the superior numbers of the Iberian and Gallic horse.

That was Hannibal's ace in the hole. At first sight it seems pointless deploying the bulk of his cavalry against the Roman cavalry wing with the much shorter frontage. The 6000 Gauls and Spanish if deployed 500 yards wide would be 24 ranks deep!

But Hannibal never intended to fight a cavalry battle on that wing. The Gauls and Spaniards dismounted almost immediately on engaging the Romans, obliging them to dismount in their turn or be pulled off their horses. Now the extra depth did tell. The dismounted Roman horsemen, at one yard per man, formed a line 4 ranks deep. The Gauls and Spanish deployed 12-deep. An infantry line 12 deep would have no problem driving a 4-deep line back, which is what happened.

Quote from: DBS on February 06, 2025, 09:15:36 AMNow, that might not be the same on their left wing.  Supposedly three times the number of allied horse to start with, a more open flank without the river, and up again Numidians who are assumed to be more interested in skirmishing.  The Romans cannot foresee the Gauls and Iberians beating one wing then spinning over to the other, so a more orthodox deployment might well have been used there, to allow manoeuvre versus the Numidians.  The allied cavalry's job (indeed likewise the Numidians') is to pin their opponents, not necessarily seek a decisive outcome; leave that to the infantry.

For this battle there were twice as many allied cavalry as Roman cavalry according to Livy. The Numidians pretty much matched the allied horse in numbers. As you say the Romans were there as flank guards and didn't try anything adventurous - it was the legions who were supposed to win the battle. The horsemen on both sides were deployed quite deep in 8 ranks. My guess is that the Numidians deployed in two lines since some of them got around to the rear of the Roman infantry whilst the rest were still engaged with the allied cav. But that's just a guess.

Quote from: DBS on February 06, 2025, 09:15:36 AMBy the way, did not like to say so before, but I am a tad mystified by the earlier assertion that the Romans had two alae on the other side of the river.  Both Polybius and Livy (who admittedly is very likely using Polybius as his source) state that whilst the two Roman camps were divided by the river, when they marched out for the battle, one camp's troops crossed the river to join the other's troops and formed a single battle line.  So, eight legions, eight alae. Which is rather important for frontage guesstimates!

Polybius is clear that 10 000 men were kept back at the Roman camp, ready to assault the Carthaginian camp if the occasion presented itself:

QuoteThe ten thousand Romans who were captured had not, as I said, been engaged in the actual battle; and the reason was this. Lucius Aemilius left ten thousand infantry in his camp that, in case Hannibal should disregard the safety of his own camp, and take his whole army on to the field, they might seize the opportunity, while the battle was going on, of forcing their way in and capturing the enemy's baggage; or if, on the other hand, Hannibal should, in view of this contingency, leave a guard in his camp, the number of the enemy in the field might thereby be diminished. - Histories: 3.117

10 000 men equates to 2 legions, meaning that 14 legions, or 70 000 men, took part in the actual battle. This ties in nicely with Polybius' estimate of 70 000 Roman infantry killed.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 06, 2025, 11:25:38 AMPolybius is clear that 10 000 men were kept back at the Roman camp, ready to assault the Carthaginian camp if the occasion presented itself:

Fair enough, I had forgotten when rereading Polybius that he tacks them on as an afterthought, after the breakdown of casualties.  Apologies.  That said, we of course do not know if they formed from a couple of alae, or, say, were part of the extraordinarii or the triarii.  Given the very unusual depth of most of the Roman line, ten thousand might be missing from the rear ranks without affecting frontage, or, if two whole alae, with an effect on the frontage.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 06, 2025, 11:25:38 AMThe horsemen on both sides were deployed quite deep in 8 ranks.

We do not know that.  At 12.18 Polybius states up to eight ranks with respect to a consideration of the frontages at Issus.  In fact, he seems to be saying that eight is the maximum, not necessarily the norm.  That does not mean that eight was necessarily standard for the Romans (after all, Polybius is somewhat critical of Roman cavalry anyway, at least in terms of kit, until they adopted Greek equipment without being clear when that happened, so they may not have met his high standards for tactics either) and it certainly does not follow that they were necessarily eight deep at Cannae.  By all means use it as an educated guess for the frontage, but we have to be careful to recognise where we have an explicit statement from someone like Polybius, and where we are inferring general principles that might or might not be true in the absence of such explicit statements  :)

Fair enough.

DBS wrote: No thank you, because the very idea that Pythagoras had anything to do with military organisation and deployment is self evidentially nonsense.

Me: And still no proof to back up your claims. More mindless rhetoric.

Plutarch (Numa 8 9) claim that Pythagoras was enrolled as a citizen of Rome. Cicero (Tusculan Disputations 4 1-2) acknowledges that Pythagorean philosophy made its way to Rome, and that the Romans had adopted many Pythagorean customs. Iamblichus (Pythagoras 34) writes that the Romans united themselves to the Pythagoras sect. Diogenes Laertius (Pythagoras 8 14-15) and Porphyry (Life of Pythagoras 22) 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. According to Pliny (Natural History 34 12 26), 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. In response, the Romans erected a statue to Pythagoras and one to Alcibiades, a testament to the high veneration the Romans held for Pythagoras.

DBS wrote: Look at enough numbers, discarding those you do not like, from enough different sources without regard to the context in which those sources were written, and you will see ostensible patterns.

Me: I don't cherry picking and I don't care what you believe. I give your opinions no value.

DBS wrote: There is no mention whatsoever of Classes in the Punic Wars. Nor should there be; the distinction between velites and the heavy infantry is by age and wealth, and then within the heavy infantry the three types are distinguished by broad age bands.

Me: Well after four decades of reading, you seem to forget that the wealth of a soldier is determined by his property class.

Polybius (6 21 6) "these being the names among the Romans of the four classes in each legion distinct in age and equipment."

Polybius (6 24 1) "from each of the classes except the youngest, they elect 10 centurions.

Polybius (6 29 4) "because as a rule the triarii number only half the strength of the other classes."

I can throw in Dionysius and Livy is you want.

DBS wrote: What Steven is proposing is a hopeless melange of the supposed "late monarchy" army (leaving aside the question of whether Servius Tullius ever existed and whether Livy had any reliable basis for his description five and a bit centuries later) with the contemporary description by an experienced military observer, Polybius, of the mid second century BC legion.

Me: I love the way you now switch to now addressing the members of the forum. David must warn every one of the boogey man, "danger, danger Will Robison." As you have never examined my work you are in no position to make such a judgement.

How can you claim that from all the data in the ancient sources, none of them relate to a 48-century legion or a consular army made up of 48-century legions? Tell me how you can do that without seriously examining and understanding the data? How about providing proof to back up your outrageous claims? My bet is you will not and cannot. All I will get is more rhetoric. Maybe the 48-century legion is tied in with the Roman fleet organisation. Can you categorically claim it is not?

DBS wrote: Just dividing supposed strengths of forces by a number to come up with 48 is not evidence, because it completely ignores the fact that throughout military history, hardly any unit has maintained its theoretical establishment once on campaign, even assuming that it was raised to theoretical establishment in the first place.

Me: How about you break these numbers down for me. Show me how good you are? After four decades of reading, it should be child's play for you.

Eutropius (2 21 4) and Orosius (4 9 3) give the Roman army that landed in Africa at 32,000 men. Appian (The Punic War 8 3) gives the size of the Roman army that landed in Africa at 30,000 men. After the departure of the consul Lucius Manlius Vulso, Polybius (1 29 8) allocates the consul Marcus Regulus, with an army of 15,000 infantry, 500 cavalry and 40 ships. Warning, some rounding is involved.

Here's the challenge, you break down the army whatever size legion you come up with, you then match those numbers to the Roman fleet of Lucius Manlius Vulso and Marcus Regulus, of which Appian and Polybius provide a wealth of detail.

Did I say Polybius was a fool? Make sure you quote me properly. If you want to trigger David, say something derogative about Polybius, because Polybius is David's precise pretty.

And you believe I would be "laughed out of court in any academic environment." My work has been vetted by academic circles, and one is Emeritus Professor Ronald Ridley (Melbourne University), highly regarded and even given access to the Vatican Library. In conjunction with Melbourne University and Sydney University, none, not one faulted my research, except to correct commas or grammar. I was even given a lecture (by members of Sydney University) about how my research "is going to destroy the reputation of many academics past and present." One comment made by Professor Ridley was what I uncovered had been "hidden by its simplicity." A Napoleonic historian, who loves the Pythagorean research, stated I had "simply joined the right dots." Why would Professor Ridley (now 84 years old) waste his time with me since 2005, give me access to the professor's library, digital journals and help me with translations and such if I am this laughing stock?

And as for my research, I have two offers from two publishing houses. And also, I was recommended to one of those publishing houses by an academic (name not given to me), who was an assessor for another publishing company. After he read my work, he recommended the publishing house grab it, but in the end the publishing house declined due to nature of the research being "highly academic" for their market. This unknown academic, then approach another publishing house, and this publishing house then approach me. To this day I still do not know who this academic is.

Justin wrote: My overall impression is that this construct requires essentially a rejection what major sources like Livy and Polybius say about the size and organisation of the legion. Size - they give a variety of sizes except 4800 men.

Me: I wrote 4,800 infantry, not men. Now by adding the 60 centurions, 60 optiones, 60 artificers and 60 musicians, this produces 5,040 infantry, which gets rounded to 5,000 infantry. I purposely left the officers and musicians out of the discussion to keep it clean.

Justin wrote: - nowhere does anyone affirm there were more hastati than principes, and above all that the legion consisted of 6 lines of hastati, principes and triarii.

Me: Reading your book, you take things at face value to fast without questioning, you jump before you leap. You impose your own logic into what you read in the ancient sources, and do not stop to seriously question or understand what the ancients are trying to say. Does three lines actually mean three lines or do the ancients consider that each line has two parts. Vegetius (3 15) writes that if the army numbers are sufficient, the lines can be drawn up 10 deep or more." Could each line mean two parts each of five ranks? In order to better understand the ancient sources, such questions need to be investigated. That requires critical thinking.

Justin wrote: The earlier legion had 5 lines if you include the rorarii and accensii but that was a different beast.

Me: Yes, the Dionysius' five property classes in five lines. Maybe Dionysius has confused the property class arrangement for the voting procedure with the deployment of the army. Just asking for a friend. When fighting the Volscians in 459 BC, Livy (3 22) has the Roman army arrayed in a triple formation." You failed to mention that in your chapter "Introduction of the Double Line." However, taking your view that the infantry was arrayed in five lines, and by including the cavalry in the triple formation, this would amount to six lines, which could have been converted by Dionysius or his source to three lines (with each line actually having two lines). So, how do you know if this was not a practice used by the ancient historians?

Justin wrote: - nowhere does anyone affirm there were more hastati than principes.

Me: Well, I am really surprised that you have asked that. For one, in your book you are well aware of Livy's reference to 15 maniples and on page 237, you claim that each maniple of hastati and princeps consists of 120 men, so 15 maniples of hastati multiplied by 120 men per maniple equals 1,800 hastati, which is 600 more men than the 1,200 princeps.

Livy (8 8), "the foremost line consisted of hastati, formed into 15 companies, drawn up at a short distance from each other. 15 maniples x by 120 infantry per maniple = 1,800 hastati.

Livy (42 34 5) mentions that the hastati were organised into 10 ordines and that an ordo (singular) had 180 soldiers (I omit the officers). 10 ordines multiplied by 180 equals 1,800.

I read what you have to say on ordines, I don't buy it, so no need to do a cut and paste.

Livy (33 1) "the hastati of the legion, numbering 2,000 men, were ordered to follow him. With a century of hastati having 60 men, 1,800 hastati would have 30 centurions, 30 optiones and 30 musicians, giving a total of 1,890 men. So, either the 1,800 hastati or the 1,890 men has been rounded to 2,000 hastati.

Livy's reference (33 1) "the hastati of the legion, numbering 2,000 men, were ordered to follow him," I could not find in your book. Can you provide the page number?

When it comes to the legion, I'm quite happy that the sources give enough coherent information to enable us to reconstruct the legion without us having to reject whole swathes of what they affirm.

Actually, you omit "swathes of what they affirm." Your theories are based on a selective selection of the ancient sources. For example, in your section of "The Early Roman Hoplite Phalanx" it is completely devoid of a lot of data to be found in the ancient sources. You go off on your own mathematical tangent. You fail to incorporate or examine this data in relation to your Roman army of 85 centuries, or is it 11,800 men or 12,800 men. If you had done so, your 85-century army would not hold up, but maybe you already knew that.

In 487 BC, Dionysius (8 64) writes that: "the senate voted that the youth already enrolled should be divided into three bodies." The consul Gaius Aquilius was to campaign against the Hernicans. The other consul, Titus Sicinius, with the second army marched against the Volscians, while Spurius Larcius, (city prefect), with the remaining third part, defend that portion of the country that lay nearest to the city. Those who were above the military age (the seniores) that were still capable of bearing arms were arrayed under their standards and guarded the citadels of the city and the walls, to prevent any sudden attack by the enemy while all the youth were in the field."

Again, in 462 BC, Dionysius (9 69) has the Roman army again divided into three bodies, with one army remaining behind to defend Rome, while the other two armies marched out with the consuls to face the Aequians and Volscians. In 459 BC, after the levy had been completed, both consuls marched against the Aequians and Volscians, and left a third part of the army to guard the city. (Dionysius (10 20) In 458 BC, after completing the military levy, the Romans again divided the army into three parts, with one part left to in the city, while the other two parts were allocated to the consuls. (Dionysius (10 22)

There are more references to the Roman army being divided into three parts, and also there are other distribution patterns for the Roman army. 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 indicates that the Roman senate had other selection alternatives besides the three-part divisions, and indeed they do, but I could not find any investigation by you into how this could be accomplished. Can you direct me to the correct page?

Your Roman army of 85-centuries, numbering 8,500 men, how does this divide by the army being organised into three separate armies? Page 218, Rome can field an army of around 10,000 or 11,000 infantry and 1,800 cavalry, giving a grand total of 11,800 men or 12,800 men. How to you reconcile that at the battle of Silva Arsia, according to Plutarch (Publicola 9), the Romans lost 11,299 men. Taking your largest figure of a Roman army of 12,800 men, the Romans had 1,501 men left, but according to Plutarch, the Romans managed to capture 5,000 Etruscans.

Your 85 centuries of juniors when divided into three armies would allocate each army 28 point 3 centuries. Even your army of 11,800 men or 12,800 men also do not divide equally by three. Dionysius claims the Roman army at Lake Regillus has 23,700 men and when divided by three equals 7,900 men. So, 23,700 Romans divided by 85 centuries equals 278 point 88 per century. Is that right? However, 85 centuries of juniors and 85 centuries of seniores makes 170 centuries divided by 23,700 men means each century had 139 point 4 men. Maybe you need to read my paper on this:

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

I do believe you won't read it.

In 478 BC, the senate resolved to send three armies into the field, and that each consul had two legions of Romans. (Dionysius (9 16)

How do you allocate each army two legions? How are they organised? How many legions in your army of 11,800 men or 12,800 men?

In 508 BC, while Rome was under siege by the Etruscan king Lars Porsena, Plutarch (The Parallela Minora 2F), mentions Mucius, a Roman noble took "400 men of his own age" to infiltrate the Etruscan camp and assassinate Lars Porsena. However, both Dionysius (5 29) and Jordanes (Romana 121) mention 300 men (not 400 men) as being sent to kill Lars Porsena. So, which is right, 300 or 400 men? Was the 300 or 400 men a legitimate Roman military organisation?

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." In 449 BC, when fighting the Sabines, Livy (3 62) reports that the cavalry of two Roman legions amounted to 600 cavalry. In 495 BC, while fighting the Aurunci, Dionysius (6 33) writes that the Roman cavalry commander Aulus Postumius Albus commanded a body of 600 cavalry.

Three references to 600 cavalry. Why are Dionysius and Livy on the same page?

At the battle of Lake Regillus, 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. No explanation of this in your book Battle Formations. I thought that would be very important.

In 464 BC, during an engagement between the Romans and the Volscians, Dionysius (9 63) mentions that two cohorts not exceeding 1,000 men made a sortie against the Volscians. How does this interlock with your Roman army of 8,500 men, 11,800 men or 12,800 men or the 23,700 Romans at Lake Regillus?

In 462 BC, Dionysius (9 69-71) states that four cohorts numbering 600 men were stationed in front of Rome. Do you mention and explained this reference in your book?

In 446 BC, two consular armies engaged the Aequi at Mount Algidus. On the day of battle, Dionysius (11 25) has a cohort of 800 volunteers who had already completed their regular term of service. Can you provide any information about these 800 volunteers? Is it a single cohort or two cohorts?

Justin wrote: Oh yes, my book - I don't in the least mind being proven wrong (I've already abandoned a few assumptions I made in it) but you're going to have to prove me wrong by reference to the sources, not by an appeal to Pythagorean mathematics, sorry.

Me: I don't believe you mind being proven wrong, small items of little irrelevancy maybe, but not your whole opus on the Romans. As for appealing to Pythagorean mathematics, I don't need to.

Justin wrote: That figure of 4344 men piqued my interest. I found the reference in Livy: "The consul Fabius ordered his son Quintus to take to M. Valerius, the proconsul in Sicily, the remains, so far as they had been got together, of the army of Fulvius. They amounted to 4344 men." - History, 27:8.13. This is the remnants of an army, not a regular structured legion!

Me: Well, how about proving the 4,334 men is the remnants of an army. My claim is they are replacements, and there is plenty of references to be found in the ancient sources that support my claim.

That being the case, the 2000-odd Roman cavalry on the Roman right, if deployed 8-deep (the maximum practical depth for cavalry) would have occupied a frontage of about 500 yards. The 4000-odd allied cavalry on the Roman left would have occupied a frontage of about 1000 yards. That brings the total frontage of the Roman army up to 2900 yards - a little short of 3km.

Justin wrote: How can 2,100 Roman cavalry for the seven Roman legions be arrayed eight deep? 2,100 divided by 8 = 262.5 horse frontage by 8 horses deep. How can a Roman cavalry squadron of 30 horse be arrayed 8 deep?

Again, referring to your comment "When it comes to the legion, I'm quite happy that the sources give enough coherent information to enable us to reconstruct the legion without us having to reject whole swathes of what they affirm."

Your section of the Early Hoplite Legion, the Roman maniple legion, Marius legion does just that, omits hundreds of pieces of data. You make claims and fail to back it up with any serious investigation. Page 255 "The Roman Soldier" concerning the speech by Spurius Ligustinus, which details his promotions as an officer, no detailed breakdown of diagram highlighting his promotions. You also claim he was given the command of the tenth maniple of hastati, which most translation have "the tenth ordo." If you believe that an ordo is another term for a maniple, how about providing proof, and you opinion is not proof.

The title of the book is "Ancient Battle Formations" and yet I cannot find anything on the cavalry lanes in relation to the Roman battle formation. This is well documented, and examples can be found from the early republic to the battle of Turin in 312 AD, between Constantine and Maxentius, Constantine left lanes for the enemy cavalry to pass through. Panegyric 4 (Nazarius 321 AD) Panegyric 12 (Trier, 313 AD). Arrian (The Expedition against the Alani 4-6) writes that, because the Roman cavalry was arrayed behind the infantry, Arrian instructed the infantry that when the Alanni cavalry was routed, "the infantry units must clear lanes and the horsemen should advance." I thought this would be important to include when examining battle formations.

In 297 BC, the scouts of Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullinius detected a Samnite army near Tifernum, that had concealed themselves in a secluded valley, and were waiting to ambush and attack Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullinius from both sides of the rising ground when the Romans entered the valley. Livy (10 13-14) After informing his men of the Samnite ambush, the consul Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullinius had the baggage placed in a safe position and left a small guard to protect it. In preparation for the ambush, Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullinius had the Roman army arrayed in a solid square formation. When the Roman army entered the valley in the solid square formation, the Samnites, realising they had lost the element of surprise, moved down to the lower ground and began arraying for a set piece battle. In response, the Romans changed formation from the solid square to battle formation.

As your book is about ancient battle formations, and as the back cover states "is a detailed study of the battle winning formations of the ancient world" and "examines how these formation operated and how effective they were," you have completely ignored this battle and fail to detail how a consular army changed from column of march to a solid square formation and then into battle formation. This whole movement can be done in accordance with Polybius' comment about a Roman army being able to do it in one movement.

In his account of the battle of Asculum in 279 BC, Plutarch (Pyrrhus 21 9) remarks that because the second day's battle at Asculum was fought on level ground, the Romans had no opportunity to conduct "sidelong shifts and counter-movements, as was done on the previous day."

You make no mention of this manoeuvre and how it was used in other battles, which is strange, because it appears to have been a concern for Pyrrhus.

When describing the Roman order of march, which was conducted at times of danger when the army was moving through open ground, Polybius (6 40 10-14) writes:

"For in this case the hastati, princeps, and triarii form three parallel columns, the pack trains of the leading maniples being placed in front of all, those of the second maniples behind the leading maniples, those of the third behind the second and so on, with the baggage trains always interspersed between the bodies of troops. With this march order, when the column is threatened, they face now to the left now to the right, and getting clear of the baggage confront the enemy from whatever side he appears. So that very rapidly, and by one movement the infantry is placed in order of battle (except perhaps that the hastati may have to wheel round the others)."

There is no explanation of how this is done in your book, that is changing from march to order of battle "in one movement." You just have a simple diagram of the legion on the march in parallel columns and then have the troops do a counter march to get into position instead of a wheel. Livy (3 27) also mentions that the Roman formation was equally adapted for marching and for fighting. (4) In the same manner as Livy and Polybius, Tacitus (Annals 2 16), writes that when facing the Germanic tribes at the battle of Idisiaviso in 16 AD, the Roman army was arranged so that the column of march could come to a halt in line of battle.

In 109 BC, the consul Metellus, while advancing through Numidia to seek an engagement with the Numidia army under the command of Jugurtha, the Roman army, while in march order, Metellus had light-armed cohorts and a picked body of slingers and archers forming the van, while the rear of the column was protected by the cavalry under the command of Gaius Marius. As a further counter measure against being attacked from the Numidian cavalry, Metellus stationed on the flanks, auxiliary cavalry intermixed with light infantry. While coming down the mountain and into the plain, Metellus become aware of the Numidian army positioned on a hill to Metellus' right. Now aware that he was walking into a trap, Metellus halted his army, and changed its march order formation. Sallust reports that the right flank, which was nearest the Numidian army, Metellus strengthen with three lines of reserves, and between the maniples he placed the archers and slingers, while on both wings he stationed the cavalry. Sallust (The Jugurthine War 49-50) then writes that Metellus then advanced into the plain, "in the manner he had drawn it up, with those who had been in the van now forming the flank." Later Sallust writes "then, as the circumstances and situation demanded, he advanced slowly in the same order in which he had come down from the mountain, keeping Marius behind what had been the front line, while he himself was with the cavalry on the left wing, which had now become the van."

This is a detailed and important battle formation, and you have omitted it from your book.

In 53 BC, Plutarch (Crassus 20-23) has Marcus Licinius Crassus invading Mesopotamia with seven legions, nearly 4,000 cavalry and about the same number of light troops. At the battle of Carrhae, to prevent the Parthians from surrounding his army, Marcus Crassus at first extended his infantry as far as possible across the Carrhae plain, and placed the cavalry on each wing. Plutarch reports that in this array, because the Roman army did not have much depth, Marcus Crassus changed his mind and arrayed his army in a hollow square. In this formation Marcus Crassus hoped to advance to the attack with equal protection everywhere.

How did Crassus' army change from an extended battle order to a hollow square? And what did the hollow square look like? Your book does not cover this, and yet, it is about ancient battle formations.

I have from the Ancmed day to now being accused of cherry-picking information; accusations made by people who have never examined my work. Well, to my accusers, everything I have listed here that Justin has failed to investigate, I have done so, and in great detail, and with supporting evidence from the ancient sources.

Too many authors writing on the Roman army have begun, first, with a theory, and then have omitted (a technique called bricking out), any information or data that threatens their theory. Academic journals and books are full of it, and Justin's book is no different. Justin's choice of references is extremely selective. My methodology first involved taking all the data relating to unit sizes and army sizes for a particular period (for example, the First Punic War), and then investigating how this data correlates to each other. I had no preconceived theory to begin with because I had no true idea what a legion actually was, I wanted the ancient sources to speak back to me. I wanted the ancients to tell their story.

However, there are traps along the way. All the ancient historians have made categorical mistakes. No one is exempt or more reliable than the other. The methodology of academic having favourite ancient historian based on their reliability is the most flawed and damaging approach to understanding the Roman army. For the last 400 years, it has modern historians going around in circles, the proverbial dog chasing its tail.

Some of the mistake made by the ancient historians (or their sources I might add), are horrendous. Justin allocates the early Roman army as having 85 centuries of juniors (aged 17 to 46 years) and 85 centuries of seniores (aged over 46 years). I made this mistake also, because like Justin, that is what the ancient sources tell us. However, many an academic has stated no population has an equal number of juniors to seniores, and they are correct.

After discovering the internal organisation of the Roman tribe, I also organised the tribes into an equal number of junior and seniores centuries, and after two years I still could not reconcile this arrangement with the army numbers found in the ancient sources. In a discussion with Professor Ridley, I declared that I was going to interpret that the 20,000 men (200 centuries) in the Roman army as claimed by Dionysius were all juniors and go from there. To me, it seemed the logical approach as there are 200 artificers and 200 musicians mentioned being in the Century Assembly and as the seniores are always mentioned as guarding Rome, 10,000 seniores seemed too high a figure.

It worked, and two years of frustration came to an end, I was able to reconcile the 20,000 juniors with the army data in the ancient sources, and the distribution patterns of the Roman army as found in the ancient sources. Some years later, I was able to find the reason why there was 85 centuries of juniors and 85 centuries of seniores. It had been staring back at me the whole time. At first, I simply didn't see the connection. In one of the Roman army distribution patterns, that is dividing the army into three parts, it was the third part of the army left at Rome had made some ancient historian, and I believe Fabius Pictor, to believe there was an equal number of centuries of juniors and seniores. The 20 tribes of Rome amount to 240 centuries consisting of 200 centuries of juniors and 40 centuries of seniores. This works out to each tribe having 12 centuries (10 junior and 2 senior). When divided into three divisions, each division has 80 centuries. This means the 240 centuries are divided into six legions each of 40 centuries (5 juniors and 1 seniores). The two consuls are allocated 80 centuries, thereby leaving 80 centuries at Rome, consisting of 40 centuries of juniors and 40 centuries of seniores. Dionysius' lists six legions for Veii in 480 BC, but he has confused the 40 centuries of seniores as juniors. So, the two legions left at Rome (1 junior and 1 senior), and their century structure has been converted into the Century Assembly because each Roman military century has 85 infantry (40 Class I, 10 Class II, 10 Class III, 10 Class IV and 15 Class V). What happens next is the men in a single century has then been multiplied by 200 centuries, so the 40 infantry of Class I is then divided by 200 to arrive at 8,000 Class I infantry consisting of 4,000 juniors and 4,000 seniores. The end result is 8,500 junior and 8,500 seniores, both infantry.

I have posted this information on academia some years ago

https://www.academia.edu/12646553/The_Roman_Tribes_A_New_Perspective

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

When Justin mentions the Roman army at 23,700 infantry and 1,000 cavalry at Lake Regillus, as Dionysius mentions the Roman army totalled 20,000 infantry, the 23,700 infantry at Lake Regillus is incorrect. As the Roman army for Lake Regillus was portioned into four parts, 240 divided by 4 = 60 centuries. With three commanders mentioned at Lake Regillus, and one remaining at Rome, each of the three Roman commanders at Lake Regillus commanded 60 centuries of juniors, leaving Rome with 60 centuries (20 junior and 40 seniores). This can all be supported. The 180 centuries at Lake Regillus, at 85 infantry per century amounts to 15,300 infantry, and when the 23,700 Roman infantry is subtracted from Dionysius' figure of 40,000 Latin infantry, this leaves a residue of 16,300 men, which consists of 15,300 Roman infantry and the 1,000 Roman cavalry as listed by Dionysius. Therefore, the 23,700 Roman infantry is in fact the Latin infantry, and has been rounded from 23,760 Latin infantry.

The mistake made by the ancient sources are quite numerous but have proven to not be insurmountable.

Erpinham wrote: Steven hasn't given a frontage figure for his legions but it must be less than the figure used by Justin.   In order for a 1400 yd battle line, the cavalry must also be at a narrower frontage than Justin allows.  Or have I just misunderstood the proposed deployment?

I only provided a diagram of the standard array of a 60-century Roman legion. For Cannae, Polybius states that the depth of the maniple was greater than its frontage, so the Cannae legion has a smaller frontage.

Quote from: Monad on February 07, 2025, 11:56:32 PMHow can you claim that from all the data in the ancient sources, none of them relate to a 48-century legion or a consular army made up of 48-century legions?

OK.  Give one quotation where an ancient author says there are 48 centuries in a legion.

Quote from: DBS on February 08, 2025, 02:39:47 AMOK.  Give one quotation where an ancient author says there are 48 centuries in a legion.

Come on David. Be a good boy. Stop deflecting and answer my questions.
 

How is it deflecting?  You keep asserting that there is a lot of data that supposedly proves that some legions had 48 centuries.  I am merely asking you to give a single quotation that backs up that claim, a single instance where a reputable ancient source says that a legion in this or that period had 48 centuries.  A perfectly reasonable challenge.

Monad, can I give some genuinely friendly advice? Don't take it personally if people disagree with you. People disagree with me and somehow life goes on. None of us are going to be the New Thing in military history; we are and will continue to be relative nobodies. But one can survive that. :)

I'll come back to your points later.

Quote from: Monad on February 07, 2025, 11:56:32 PMI only provided a diagram of the standard array of a 60-century Roman legion. For Cannae, Polybius states that the depth of the maniple was greater than its frontage, so the Cannae legion has a smaller frontage.

Thanks for the clarification, Steven.  I would assume the simplest version of this would be 6 x 10, so a 60 man front, or would you go narrower (and deeper) still?

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 08, 2025, 08:41:12 AMI'll come back to your points later.

You may wish to consider a separate topic on the "composition of Roman legion pre the so-called Marian reforms*" , as a great deal of the detail under discussion is not related to Cannae specifically?

* I take no position on this, I just know you Romanists have doubts  :) 

I have asked you David to back up your claim that Pythagoras had anything to do with military organisation.

I have asked you to back up your claim that there is no mention whatsoever of Classes in the Punic War.

I have asked you to back up your claim that there is no evidence whatsoever for a 48-century legion.

I have asked you to give a break down of the army numbers for the invasion of Africa. Eutropius (2 21) and Orosius (4 9 3) gives the Roman army that landed in Africa at 32,000 men. Appian (The Punic War 8 3) gives the size of the Roman army in Africa at 30,000 men. After the departure of the consul Lucius Manlius, Polybius (1 29) allocates the consul Marcus Regulus, an army of 15,000 infantry and 500 cavalry.

A perfectly reasonable challenge and yet you refuse to answer. And yet you are trying to make out I am some kind of villain for not answering your question, which is deflecting.

But so as not to be on your level, I know and you know there is no single quotation of a source saying a legion had 48 centuries. A 48-century legion is a 60-century legion with 12 centuries missing (1 vexillation). If you want to know where the information is for a 48-century legion, examine the data. From what I have found out, I am the only stupid bastard that has done it.

In 14 AD, in order to conduct raids against the Germanic tribes, the Roman commander Germanicus crossed the Rhine with four legions the 1st (Germanica), the 5th (Alaudae), the 12th (Valeria Victrix), and the 21st legion (Rapax), amounting to 12,000 legionaries, plus 26 allied cohorts and eight alas of cavalry. Tacitus (Annals 1 49) 12,000 divided by four legions = 3,000 infantry per legion. Where in the primary sources does it say how many centuries in those four legions of 3,000 infantry?

Here's another question David, where in the primary sources does it say that a legion had 60 centuries each of 70 infantry?

Answer my questions David, or do as I have asked, and stop communicating with me.

Justin wrote: Monad, can I give some genuinely friendly advice? Don't take it personally if people disagree with you.

No Justin, no need to go down that road. David has been making it personal. And where were your words of wisdom to David then. No, two peas in a pod. I'm not taking it personally; and it's not about people disagreeing with me. It is how it is done. I am getting a little frustrated (of which I apologise) because I am sick of the hypocrisy directed at me. Forums are not about discussion and learning anymore, they are about shutting people down that do not conform to some world view, or they are threatening some precise person's sensibilities on the Roman army. There are a lot more people on this forum, haven't they anything to say?

I have found, through many years of extensive study of the data, has uncovered the many, many military doctrines the Roman conduct that alter the size of the standard legion of the time. Everything I present is new, but it is all backed up to the high heavens. The 48-century legion comes into its own during the First Punic War. As I told David, it is a 60-century legion with a vexillation removed. That vexillation mans the ships that protect the harbour. For Ecnomus and the whole First Punic War, in 256 BC, when the two consular fleet arrived in Sicily, every legion left one vexillation to protect the harbour (8 vexillations in total), and their allocated ships, while the rest of the fleet sailed to Africa. That is why there a differing Roman fleet numbers for the First Punic War. For example, in 260 BC, Polybius gives the size of the Roman fleet at 120 ships, Florus 160 ships. Notice how Regillus is left with 40 ships in 256 BC, and notice the difference is 40 ships between Polybius and Florus. Polybius claims that a quinquereme can convey 120 soldiers so Florus' 160 ships x 120 infantry = 19,200 infantry divided by four legions = 4,800 infantry per legion and 40 ships per legion. Polybius' 120 ships x 120 infantry per ship = 14,400 infantry = four legions each of 3,600 infantry. Using other data from the First Punic War Polybius' figure of 120 ships has been rounded from 128 ships x 120 infantry = 15,360 infantry = four legions each of 3,840 infantry.

For Polybius to arrive at the Roman fleet in 260 BC as having 120 (infantry) quinqueremes instead of 128 infantry quinqueremes, the 32 infantry quinqueremes per legion have been rounded to 30 infantry quinqueremes and then multiplied by four legions, to produce 120 quinqueremes.

For Mylae, Diodorus numbers the Roman fleet at 120 quinqueremes, while Orosius numbers the Roman fleet at 130 quinqueremes. Diodorus' 120 Roman quinqueremes has been rounded from 128 quinqueremes, and Orosius 130 has been rounded from 128 ships.

In 253 BC, Eutropius and Orosius have the consuls Cnaeus Servilius Caepio and Caius Sempronius Blaesus sailed to Africa with 260 ships, which has been rounded from 256 quinqueremes, or two consular fleet of 128 infantry ships x 2 =256.

With the omission of the officers and supernumeraries, the eight legions that landed in Africa amounted to 31,920 men (30,720 infantry and 1,200 cavalry), consisting of:

  7680 velites
11520 hastati
  7680 princeps
  3840 triarii
30720 infantry
  300 Roman cavalry
  900 allied cavalry
31920 men

The 30,720 infantry when divided by 120 infantry per ship amount to 256 ships. Eutropius and Orosius give the Roman army that landed in Africa at 32,000 men, which has been rounded from 31,920 men. Appian gives the size of the Roman army that landed in Africa at 30,000 men, which been rounded from 30,400 infantry, which has been arrived at by rounding the 3,840 infantry in a legion to 3,800 infantry, and then multiplying this by the eight legions for a result of 30,400 infantry, which has then further been rounded to 30,000 men.

With the omission of the officers and supernumeraries, Marcus Regulus' consular army amounted to 15,960 men (15,360 infantry and 600 cavalry).

  3840 velites
  5760 hastati
  3840 princeps
  1920 triarii
15360 infantry
  150 Roman cavalry
  450 allied cavalry
15960 men

The 15,360 infantry when divided by four legions gives each legion 3,840 infantry organised into 48-centuries each of 80 infantry (20 velites, 60 hastati, or 60 princeps or 60 triarii). I've seen articles and papers giving Regillus three legions each of 5,000 infantry, which is wrong.

Notice how the 600 cavalry has been rounded to 500 cavalry. This is one of the many classic examples of the sub-totals being rounded that I have in my collection. The 150 Romans have been rounded to 100 Roman cavalry and the 450 allied cavalry to 400 allied cavalry, thereby producing 500 cavalry. I am 99% convinced that the original sources for the army numbers that the ancient historian is looking at lists everything in infantry centuries and cavalry centuries. In the end, the ancient historian has to do his own calculations so as to arrive at number of infantry and cavalry.

I have so much confidence in my research, and what I have uncovered that I do not feel threatened by anyone.

Justin wrote: None of us are going to be the New Thing in military history; we are and will continue to be relative nobodies. But one can survive that.

I have to disagree. I have come across quite a few who want to be somebodies or the new thing in military history. I am not one of those. I guess if I was, I would have this opus of mine published a lot sooner. This project is not a priority of mine, far from it.

OK, I don't want to come over heavily moderatorial but the tone of this discussion is edging it toward a lock out. Disagreeing with one another about the evidence is fine, aggressively and personally doing it isn't.  And that applies across the board - I'm not singling out individuals.

My personal viewpoint is we want the forum to be a discussion space for theories and evidence that does not exclude the non-expert. The people participating here (me excluded) are seriously knowledgeable about the sources on the Roman Army of the Cannae period, so I hope the focus can be on enlightenment.

Steven

If you post on here, expect others to respond.  Do not tell me not to communicate with you.  As Anthony says, this is getting really unpleasant.  I am not looking for a fight, but I do expect people who advance such radical theories to be prepared to defend that position, not just assert that they are the only person ever to have been clever enough to work things.  Justin gave you some friendly advice.  Let me also give you some friendly advice; your posts are far too long, poorly structured, and because of that very difficult to read.

Now, I have said my piece, and offered above my qualifications on Justin's thoughtful thesis on the frontage of Cannae.  I do not agree with all he says, but I respect him for presenting his logic rationally and clearly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the Mighty Ones don't mind, here (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5aoof7a0zypup7eg0epeo/Roman-Tactical-Acumen-at-Cannae.pdf?rlkey=8y4zxzhh1kxc09i7jib542l2c&st=wm2bqi21&dl=0) is a link to that Cannae article I did some time back.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 10, 2025, 04:33:36 AMIf the Mighty Ones don't mind, here (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5aoof7a0zypup7eg0epeo/Roman-Tactical-Acumen-at-Cannae.pdf?rlkey=8y4zxzhh1kxc09i7jib542l2c&st=wm2bqi21&dl=0) is a link to that Cannae article I did some time back.

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

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

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 10, 2025, 04:33:36 AMIf the Mighty Ones don't mind, here (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5aoof7a0zypup7eg0epeo/Roman-Tactical-Acumen-at-Cannae.pdf?rlkey=8y4zxzhh1kxc09i7jib542l2c&st=wm2bqi21&dl=0) is a link to that Cannae article I did some time back.

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

Which benighted corner of the world is that?

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

A little pimple on the bottom of China

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

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

A little pimple on the bottom of China

You're where it's at.

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

Perhaps not a good choice of words there, Justin.

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

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

Perhaps not a good choice of words there, Justin.

Oh I use them in S.A. all the time and nobody minds. I appreciate that in the UK using certain words - regardless of context - can get the police knocking on your door, a judge passing sentence, and you sitting in a jail cell. None of that occurred to me when I wrote the post - for me it was just a harmless joke. But fine, I'll try to be careful next time. Vive la liberté. Jonathan Pie (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2bVS40cz0) sums it all up nicely.

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

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

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

Politicians using WhatsApp excepted.

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

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

Quote from: Denis Grey on February 10, 2025, 12:15:29 PMPoliticians using WhatsApp excepted.

There is no reason for us to descend to MPs level.  :)

Quote from: Denis Grey on February 10, 2025, 12:15:29 PM

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

Politicians using WhatsApp excepted.

Which ones?  :)

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 10, 2025, 12:20:07 PM

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

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

Thank you for the permission Justin.  I have edited it out.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 10, 2025, 12:26:01 PM

Quote from: Denis Grey on February 10, 2025, 12:15:29 PM

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

Politicians using WhatsApp excepted.

Which ones?  :)

The background story is here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1lv1gqgmdzo

However, at is straightforwardly political, we have no need to discuss it further.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 08, 2025, 08:41:12 AMI'll come back to your points later.

Needing more time?
 

Quote from: Monad on February 21, 2025, 07:38:04 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 08, 2025, 08:41:12 AMI'll come back to your points later.

Needing more time?
 

Motivation. I'm focussed on getting Optio ready for publication right now. Also really need to do an article for Slingshot as I've promised one for so long. I will get back to this eventually.

Before the main engagement at Cannae, Livy (22 41) reports that in a skirmish between the Carthaginians and Romans, the Carthaginians had 1,700 men killed, while the Romans and allies lost 100 men. In a naval engagement in the Second Punic War, Livy (21 50) mentions that the Romans captured seven Carthaginian ships and 1,700 soldiers and sailors. In a preliminary engagement with Publius Scipio before the battle of Zama, Valerius Antius claimed that Hannibal's lost 12,000 men killed and 1,700 men captured. (Livy 30 29)

I must say it is quite convenient for the Carthaginians to die or be captured in batches of 1,700 men. Maybe the Carthaginians got the idea from the Romans, who also like to die in batches of 1,700 men. At Sentinum in 295 BC, Livy (10 24) reports that the consul Publius Decius Mus had 7,000 Romans killed while the consul Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus lost 1,700 Romans. Livy then goes on to say that the consul Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus, marched into Etruria and killed 4,500 Perusians and captured 1,740 Perusians.

Returning to Cannae, Polybius (3 117) has 10,000 men attacking Hannibal's camp, and after Hannibal's men killed 2,000 of them, the remainder escaped to the camp and later were taken prisoner. With 2,000 killed, this would mean that 8,000 men escaped to the camp and later were taken prisoner. Cicero (De Officiis 3 33 114), writes that the consuls, Paulus and Varro left 8,000 men behind in the camp. However, Valerius Maximus (Memorable Doings and Sayings 2 7 15e) gives the number of Roman prisoners at 6,000 men, which has been incorrectly been arrived at by deducting Polybius' 2,000 killed from the 8,000 infantry that escaped to Hannibal's camp.

So, what really happened? Polybius' claim of 10,000 men attacked Hannibal's camp is wrong as is his claim 2,000 were killed. When corrected, 8,000 attacked the camp, and 2,000 remained to protect the camp. The 2,000 men that remained in the camp are Livy's 1,700 Carthaginians killed before the main battle of Cannae. The actual number is 1,900 men, so the figure of 1,700 omits 200 men from the list that some ancient author did not feel inclined to include, which is a common practice in the ancient sources. However, Livy does say that 100 Romans were killed, so this brings Livy's total to 1,800, which is still short 100 men.

The two legions (10,000 men) that attacked Hannibal's camp and the 9,600 triarii (that would be rounded to 10,000) that guarded the camps has caused some confusion with Polybius and others.

Livy's (22 41) comment that "two thirds of the Roman army consisted of recruits," has been allocated to the thoughts of Hannibal by Livy, who apparently knew everything going on in the Roman camp, even the arguments between the consuls. Livy does not explain how Hannibal was so well informed. I have interpreted Livy's comment that two thirds of the Roman army were recruits as being Roman propaganda. And I have good grounds for this.

In 217 BC, the army of Fabius Maximus was sent 8,000 infantry and 500 cavalry. Livy (22 24) These are the replacements for the time expired veterans, so the normal Roman replacement system is being maintained. In 216 BC, Polybius (3 106 6) has the consul Aemilius Paullus enrol replacement soldiers. As these soldiers were enrolled by a consul, they are Roman soldiers. Livy (22 36) mentions 10,000 recruits were levied to make up for any losses, which is incorrect as they are Polybius' replacement soldiers. The difference between the 8,500 replacements in 217 BC, and the 10,000 replacements in 216 BC is due to some troop types being omitted and the rounding of the numbers. Livy's books from the end of the Second Punic War to the end of the Third Macedonian War are littered with an almost yearly account of the Roman replacement system, as is Appian and a few others, but not on the scale of Livy.

Now, if the Romans could still afford to let those troops that had completed their maximum number of campaigns be released from the military oath before the battle of Cannae, then the Roman army could not have 66% of the army consisting of recruits. Also, as there is no mention of veterans being recalled to the standards, the Roman army at Cannae followed the standard replacement system, of which Livy (40 39-40) provides how it was done:

"on his arrival in his province in Iberia, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus was to disband Quintus Fulvius Flaccus' old soldiers, that had been transferred to Iberia prior to 186 BC, and then incorporate the replacements brought over by Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus into the various centuries, maniples and cohorts, and reorganise the whole army."

OK, looking at part of an earlier post.

QuoteJustin wrote: My overall impression is that this construct requires essentially a rejection what major sources like Livy and Polybius say about the size and organisation of the legion. Size - they give a variety of sizes except 4800 men.

Me: I wrote 4,800 infantry, not men. Now by adding the 60 centurions, 60 optiones, 60 artificers and 60 musicians, this produces 5,040 infantry, which gets rounded to 5,000 infantry. I purposely left the officers and musicians out of the discussion to keep it clean.

I would suggest including all the men to keep it clear since Livy and Polybius do not make any provision for legion numbers that exclude officers and other specialist troops.

QuoteJustin wrote: - nowhere does anyone affirm there were more hastati than principes, and above all that the legion consisted of 6 lines of hastati, principes and triarii.

Me: Reading your book, you take things at face value to fast without questioning, you jump before you leap. You impose your own logic into what you read in the ancient sources, and do not stop to seriously question or understand what the ancients are trying to say. Does three lines actually mean three lines or do the ancients consider that each line has two parts. Vegetius (3 15) writes that if the army numbers are sufficient, the lines can be drawn up 10 deep or more." Could each line mean two parts each of five ranks? In order to better understand the ancient sources, such questions need to be investigated. That requires critical thinking.

My approach is to take the sources at face value and assume they are true in what they affirm unless they are clearly proven to be wrong. Works for me. So I don't speculate that by 3 the Romans actually meant 6 and that by a 10-deep line they meant two 5-deep lines. Feel free to adopt another approach but that's the one I take.

QuoteJustin wrote: The earlier legion had 5 lines if you include the rorarii and accensii but that was a different beast.

Me: Yes, the Dionysius' five property classes in five lines. Maybe Dionysius has confused the property class arrangement for the voting procedure with the deployment of the army. Just asking for a friend. When fighting the Volscians in 459 BC, Livy (3 22) has the Roman army arrayed in a triple formation." You failed to mention that in your chapter "Introduction of the Double Line."

Monad, with all due respect, do you properly read the sources you quote? Livy makes clear that Fabius divided his mixed Roman and Allied army into three sections - with one section composed of the Roman legions in their entirety - that assaulted the Volsci camp from three sides. Nothing about the individual legions, Roman or Allied, being organised into three lines.

I'll come back to the rest later.

QuoteJustin wrote: - nowhere does anyone affirm there were more hastati than principes.

Me: Well, I am really surprised that you have asked that. For one, in your book you are well aware of Livy's reference to 15 maniples and on page 237, you claim that each maniple of hastati and princeps consists of 120 men, so 15 maniples of hastati multiplied by 120 men per maniple equals 1,800 hastati, which is 600 more men than the 1,200 princeps.

Livy (8 8), "the foremost line consisted of hastati, formed into 15 companies, drawn up at a short distance from each other. 15 maniples x by 120 infantry per maniple = 1,800 hastati.

Livy (42 34 5) mentions that the hastati were organised into 10 ordines and that an ordo (singular) had 180 soldiers (I omit the officers). 10 ordines multiplied by 180 equals 1,800.

Another example of reinventing what the sources actually say. The reference to Livy 42 34 is a speech by Spurius Ligustinus, a soldier who affirms that Flaminius gave him "the command of the tenth company (ordinem) of the hastati." This does not even remotely suggest that the Hastati had only ten ordines. Monad, you may not agree with the sources but you at least have to reproduce what they say.

I can carry on like this and will do so.

QuoteLivy (33 1) "the hastati of the legion, numbering 2,000 men, were ordered to follow him. With a century of hastati having 60 men, 1,800 hastati would have 30 centurions, 30 optiones and 30 musicians, giving a total of 1,890 men. So, either the 1,800 hastati or the 1,890 men has been rounded to 2,000 hastati.

Livy's reference (33 1) "the hastati of the legion, numbering 2,000 men, were ordered to follow him," I could not find in your book. Can you provide the page number?

Why? 2000 hastati (10 ranks) plus 2000 principes (10 ranks) plus 600 triarii (3 ranks) plus 600 velites (2 ranks per line) would bring the legion up to a standard 5200 men, but we are just speculating on the legion's size in this case (it had spent some time on campaign and its size may well have changed since its original muster) and my book covers stated legion sizes.

QuoteActually, you omit "swathes of what they affirm." Your theories are based on a selective selection of the ancient sources. For example, in your section of "The Early Roman Hoplite Phalanx" it is completely devoid of a lot of data to be found in the ancient sources. You go off on your own mathematical tangent. You fail to incorporate or examine this data in relation to your Roman army of 85 centuries, or is it 11,800 men or 12,800 men. If you had done so, your 85-century army would not hold up, but maybe you already knew that.

In 487 BC, Dionysius (8 64) writes that: "the senate voted that the youth already enrolled should be divided into three bodies." The consul Gaius Aquilius was to campaign against the Hernicans. The other consul, Titus Sicinius, with the second army marched against the Volscians, while Spurius Larcius, (city prefect), with the remaining third part, defend that portion of the country that lay nearest to the city. Those who were above the military age (the seniores) that were still capable of bearing arms were arrayed under their standards and guarded the citadels of the city and the walls, to prevent any sudden attack by the enemy while all the youth were in the field."

Again, in 462 BC, Dionysius (9 69) has the Roman army again divided into three bodies, with one army remaining behind to defend Rome, while the other two armies marched out with the consuls to face the Aequians and Volscians. In 459 BC, after the levy had been completed, both consuls marched against the Aequians and Volscians, and left a third part of the army to guard the city. (Dionysius (10 20) In 458 BC, after completing the military levy, the Romans again divided the army into three parts, with one part left to in the city, while the other two parts were allocated to the consuls. (Dionysius (10 22)

There are more references to the Roman army being divided into three parts, and also there are other distribution patterns for the Roman army. 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 indicates that the Roman senate had other selection alternatives besides the three-part divisions, and indeed they do, but I could not find any investigation by you into how this could be accomplished. Can you direct me to the correct page?

I affirmed in my book that the original Roman kingdom could muster 20,000 men or more, according to Dionysius, drawing recruits from the 198 centuries of the male population. Presuming the early Republican legion had something around 4,000 men, the three divisions could each have consisted of 2 legions for a total of around 24,000 men. What is the problem?

QuoteIn 508 BC, while Rome was under siege by the Etruscan king Lars Porsena, Plutarch (The Parallela Minora 2F), mentions Mucius, a Roman noble took "400 men of his own age" to infiltrate the Etruscan camp and assassinate Lars Porsena. However, both Dionysius (5 29) and Jordanes (Romana 121) mention 300 men (not 400 men) as being sent to kill Lars Porsena. So, which is right, 300 or 400 men? Was the 300 or 400 men a legitimate Roman military organisation?

Eh? This is the beginning of the Republic for heaven's sake! The Roman army was a loosely organised affair with a variable number of men raised from each century. Mucius took 300-400 men because he needed a force that size. The sources give an approximate number because it was an ad hoc muster. What's to discuss?

And so on. I can cover all the other references later but for now looking at this:

QuoteJustin wrote: That figure of 4344 men piqued my interest. I found the reference in Livy: "The consul Fabius ordered his son Quintus to take to M. Valerius, the proconsul in Sicily, the remains, so far as they had been got together, of the army of Fulvius. They amounted to 4344 men." - History, 27:8.13. This is the remnants of an army, not a regular structured legion!

Me: Well, how about proving the 4,334 men is the remnants of an army. My claim is they are replacements, and there is plenty of references to be found in the ancient sources that support my claim.

Livy affirms they were the remnants of an army. Livy was 2000+ years nearer the events than you are. Until you can supply the "plenty of references to be found in the ancient sources that support my claim" I'll go with him.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 27, 2025, 06:13:43 AMMonad, with all due respect, do you properly read the sources you quote?

I will confess Justin, that I am a blonde. There, now you have it.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 27, 2025, 06:13:43 AMLivy makes clear that Fabius divided his mixed Roman and Allied army into three sections - with one section composed of the Roman legions in their entirety - that assaulted the Volsci camp from three sides. Nothing about the individual legions, Roman or Allied, being organised into three lines.

All I wrote was that "Livy has the Roman army arrayed in triple formation." Where have I written about "individual legions?

"The cavalry were stationed behind their respective divisions. In this triple formation he assaulted three sides of the camp." Translated by Rev. Canon Roberts. Latin: "populorum tres separatism acies circa uallum hotium instruxit." He drew up three separate lines of people around the enemy's rampart. Three separate lines can also be described as "triple." The actual point is, however you want to interpret it, on page 227, on the section "Introduction of the Double Line," you fail to mention this incident. All references are to two lines. Does three separate lines upset the apple cart?

Also, and I find this amusing, I have been castigated on this very forum for describing the allies as a legion instead of socii, and yet in your book you do the same. I am redeemed.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 27, 2025, 08:10:56 AMAnother example of reinventing what the sources actually say. The reference to Livy 42 34 is a speech by Spurius Ligustinus, a soldier who affirms that Flaminius gave him "the command of the tenth company (ordinem) of the hastati." This does not even remotely suggest that the Hastati had only ten ordines. Monad, you may not agree with the sources but you at least have to reproduce what they say.

It's not a matter of "reinventing what the sources actually say," it is a matter of better understanding the data as found in the sources. Mathematics has a language all of itself. Turning to the Latin, it reads "tertio anno uirtutis causa mihi T Quinctius Flamininus decumum ordinem hastatum." Academics also in their papers that I have read over the years translate it as "the tenth ordo of the hastati."

Justin, in a previous post, you asked me why I believe the hastati were organised into 10 ordines. I supplied those references. I will restate my position again. Livy claims that an ordo had 180 infantry and six officers. As I have stated, I have 1,800 hastati in a legion of 3,600 infantry and when divided by 180 infantry in an ordo, that means there are 10 ordines of hastati, each of 180 hastati. The remaining 1,200 princeps and 600 triarii make 1,800 men, and divided by 180 infantry to an ordo makes 10 ordines each of 180 men. The 180 men represents three centuries each of 60 men as per Livy's vexilla. The mathematics is easy to see. So, a legion of 3,600 infantry, which omits the light infantry can be organised into 20 ordines each of 180 infantry. From that, I refer to those 20 centurions that command an ordo as a centurion ordinarii, a term found in the sources.

The crutch of the problem here is I know what an ordo is, and if you look at my legion array, it does become noticeable if, just once, people are willing to trust Livy.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 27, 2025, 11:28:58 AMI affirmed in my book that the original Roman kingdom could muster 20,000 men or more, according to Dionysius, drawing recruits from the 198 centuries of the male population.

I haven't found a translation that has Dionysius' claiming 20,000 or more. In fact, at page 217 you quote Dionysius:

"For instance, whenever he had occasion to raise 10,000 men, or, if it should so happen, 20,000, he would divide that number among the 193 centuries and then order each century to furnish the number of men that fell to its share." Dionysius 4 19

Then on page 218 you write "presuming that each century supplied an upper limit of about 100 men, Rome could field and army of 4,000 hoplites and an additional 2,000 or 3,000 heavy infantry and 1,000 or 2,000 skirmishers troops, with 1,800 cavalry, and a reserve army of older men at Rome with the same number of infantry and the field army.

The sources say the juniors, made up the field army, while the seniores were assigned to garrison the walls of Rome. That means of the 170 centuries mentioned in the Century Assembly, the 85 of juniors went on campaign and the 85 centuries of seniores stayed at Rome. You allocate the juniors 85 centuries or 8,500 men as per the Century Assembly. So, of the 20,000 men, how many are juniors and how many are seniores. You avoid being very specific about this in the book.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 27, 2025, 11:28:58 AMPresuming the early Republican legion had something around 4,000 men, the three divisions could each have consisted of 2 legions for a total of around 24,000 men. What is the problem?

Well, the problem is you are "presuming," and do not provide a detailed breakdown. And if the army is given at 20,000 men, how do you get 24,000 men, which is not in keeping with the primary sources.

How do the 8,500 men in the Roman army get organised into three armies, or four armies as claimed in the sources? 8,500 men is only divisible by four armies (8500 by 4 = 2125). However, 85 centuries does not divide by three or four, and for me, this would be a major red flag.

Do 8,500 juniors stack up? Dionysius has four cohorts of 600 men stationed in front of the Collin Gate. Unfortunately, 8,500 juniors do not divide by 600 men per cohort. The four cohorts give a total of 2,400 men, and when deducted from 8,500 men this leaves 6,100 men, but with your army organisation, who are these 6,100 men? And who are the 2,400 men? The Romans lost 11,300 men at the battle of Silva Alsia. Why would the Romans say they lost 11,300 men when they only had 8,500 on campaign. Maybe they took the seniores. Can you explain this?

Also, there is no reference in the sources to the Romans fielding 1,800 cavalry when on campaign. The number given is 1,200 cavalry at Veii in 480 BC, and 600 cavalry for two legions under the command of a consul, thereby allocating each legion 300 cavalry. Therefore, two consular armies would have 1,200 cavalry.

In two campaigns, the Romans claims to have 10 legions. You did not cover this. Are the 8,500 men organised into 10 legions each of 850 men?

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 27, 2025, 11:28:58 AMEh? This is the beginning of the Republic for heaven's sake! The Roman army was a loosely organised affair with a variable number of men raised from each century.

You tell us that "a variable number of men raised from each century." Why can't you provide numbers? Was it 95 men per century, 68 men per century, or what. How many men were raised from each century? Why make claims you cannot support? This is the problem I found with your book, a stream of unsubstantiated claims. Under scrutiny, your Roman army of 8,500 men does not align with the rest of the data in the sources, and yet it is I who has been accused of cherry picking the numbers to suit my agenda, and such accusations have been made by people who have never even looked at my research.

I have on academia shown a window into my research on the early Roman army. I will provide the links as to how I have worked in conjunction with the sources:

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

https://www.academia.edu/12646553/The_Roman_Tribes_A_New_Perspective

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 27, 2025, 11:28:58 AMMucius took 300-400 men because he needed a force that size. The sources give an approximate number because it was an ad hoc muster. What's to discuss?

I envy you. You do not have to provide any evidence. For me, I took the figure of 400 men and processed it with the other date in the primary sources. The reference to four cohorts each of 600 men for a total of 2,400 men when divided by those 400 men, it made six units of 400 men, so I put that information away for further keeping. I also took the 40 centuries of Class I for the juniors and when I divided those 4,000 men of Class I by 400, I had 10 units of 400 men, so I put that information away for further keeping. Those 4,000 men of Class I, which you also have in your Roman army, what if they were organised into 10 cohorts of 400 men? A cohort of 800 men is mentioned by Dionysius, two cohorts of 400 men maybe? In a battle, Dionysius does say that two cohorts not exceeding 1,000 men were killed. You claim the 400 men were an ad hoc unit. That is the major difference between our investigative styles.

Dionysius gives the maximum size of the Roman army at 20,000 men. In 495 BC, Dionysius and Livy give the Roman army has having 20 tribunes, hereby referring to military tribunes. In the days of Romulus, a tribe had 10 centuries commanded by a tribune. So, 20 tribunes in 495 BC indicates there were 20 tribes. In Romulus day, the 10 centuries in each tribe made up the army, so they would be juniors. This shows that the 20,000 Roman army were all juniors. Let's stay with this premise for the time being. The 20,000 men would be organised into 200 centuries each of 100 men. When describing the voting procedure in the Century Assembly (Rome's voting system), Dionysius and Livy have two centuries of artificer and two centuries of musicians eligible to vote. This would allocate one artificer and one musician to each of the 200 centuries of juniors, thereby leaving 98 men in a century unaccountable. However, by dividing the number of men in Classes I to V and the cavalry by the 200 centuries of juniors, this will produce a heterogenous century of 96 men:

Cavalry    18 centuries    = 1800 men ÷ 200 centuries =  9 men
Class I    80 centuries    = 8000 men ÷ 200 centuries = 40 men
Class II    20 centuries    = 2000 men ÷ 200 centuries = 10 men
Class III    20 centuries    = 2000 men ÷ 200 centuries = 10 men
Class IV    20 centuries    = 2000 men ÷ 200 centuries = 10 men
Class V    30 centuries    = 3000 men ÷ 200 centuries = 15 men
Artificers      2 centuries    =  200 men ÷ 200 centuries =  1 man
Musicians      2 centuries    =  200 men ÷ 200 centuries =  1 man
Total      96 men

Following Dionysius claims there were six property classes, the four missing men belong to Class VI (the capite censi), thereby increasing Class VI to five men (4 capite censi and 1 artificer). The 100 men in a tribal century now consist of:

Cavalry      9 men
Class I    40 men
Class II    10 men
Class III    10 men
Class IV    10 men
Class V    16 men
Class VI      5 man
Total    100 men

The 16 men in Class V consists of one musician. Dionysius records the size of the Roman army in 480 BC was "about 20,000 infantry and 1,200 cavalry." After Tarquinius Superbus got the boot, the 9 cavalrymen per century was reduced to 6 cavalrymen, and the three exiled cavalry were added to Class VI. A century now looked like this:

Cavalry      6 men
Class I    40 men
Class II    10 men
Class III    10 men
Class IV    10 men
Class V    16 men
Class VI    8 man
Total    100 men

In this arrangement, the century system has returned to its original status as defined by the five elements system:

Heaven 6480 degrees
Fire 720 degrees
Air 1440 degrees
Earth 2160 degrees
Water 3600 degrees

The five elements are the creator of the whole tribal system, so I always have that to fall back on. Let's assume that Rome had 20 tribes and each tribe had 12 centuries, consisting of 10 centuries of juniors and 2 centuries of seniores. This gives a total of 240 centuries (200 junior and 40 seniores). For some campaigns, the Romans create three armies, two on campaign and one stays at Rome, so 240 centuries divided by three means each army has 80 centuries. That means two armies are of 80 centuries each are on campaign, while the third army of 80 centuries (40 centuries of juniors and 40 centuries of seniores), remained at Rome. In all, the Romans actually have six legions (5 junior and 1 senior) each of 40 centuries.

Dionysius writes that each consul at Veii in 480 BC had two legions of juniors, and a third army stationed before the city consisted of two legions of juniors standing in readiness of an unexpected hostile attack. Those men above the military age but still had strength to bear arms were left in the city to guard the citadel and walls of Rome. Dionysius records the size of the Roman army at "about 20,000 infantry and 1,200 cavalry, attached to the four legions at Veii." In Dionysius' account, the Romans had at their disposal six legions of juniors. Dionysius' mistake is in believing the third army stationed at Rome had two legions of juniors, as opposed to one legion of juniors and one legion of seniores. When corrected, the Roman army amounted to five legions each of 40 centuries of juniors, and one legion of 40 centuries of seniores. Of the five legions of juniors, four legions were at Veii, while the fifth legion of juniors remained stationed in front of the Colline Gate at Rome, leaving 40 centuries of seniores to garrison the walls of Rome.

To find out the composition of a consular army of 80 centuries, the property classes in a century are multiplied by 80 centuries. This produces 7,280 men (6800 infantry and 960 Roman cavalry).

3200 Class I infantry
800 Class II
800 Class III
4800 infantry
800 Class IV
800 Class V
400 Class V ascriptivi
6800 infantry
480 Roman cavalry
7280 men

Can this be verified? In 464 BC, Livy writes that the Roman historian Valerius Antias reported the number of men killed in the consular army of Spurius Furius amounted to 5,800 men. However, for the same battle, Dionysius claims that two Roman cohorts not exceeding 1,000 men, were eliminated. Dionysius' 1,000 Romans and Valerius Antias' 5,800 men make 6,800 men consisting of two legions each of 40 centuries (3,400 infantry and 240 cavalry). Therefore, Valerius Antias has confused the infantry that survived as being the infantry that were killed.

Page 217, following Dionysius, Justin writes: "the Roman field army numbered 23,700 foot and 1,000 horse, which probably represents the greater part of available Roman manpower since many disillusioned Latins had defected to the Romans and supplied troops for guard forces near Rome and its outlying fortress."

Sorry Justin, sometimes the sources can be misleading and cruel. For Lake Regillus, the army was divided into four, so 240 divided by four means each army had 60 centuries, and as three commanders (180 centuries of juniors) were present at Lake Regillus, this means Rome was allocated 60 centuries (20 centuries of juniors and 40 centuries of seniores). The 180 centuries at Lake Regillus amounted to 16,380 men (15,300 infantry and 1,080 Roman cavalry), consisting of:

1 Tribal
Class    Century    180 Centuries
Class I    40 infantry    7200 infantry
Class II    10 men    1800 men
Class III    10 men    1800 men
Total    60 men    10800 infantry
Class IV    10 men    1800 men
Class V    15 men    2700 men
Total    85 men    15300 infantry
Cavalry      6 cavalry    1080 Roman cavalry
Total    91 men    16380 men

Dionysius' figure of 1,000 Roman cavalry has been rounded from 1,080 cavalry. From a force of 1,200 cavalry, the 20 centuries of juniors at Rome have the missing 120 Roman cavalry.

In complete contradiction to a Roman army of 16,380, Dionysius emphasises the Roman army at Lake Regillus amounted to 24,700 men (23,700 infantry and 1,000 cavalry). This exceeds the 20,000 juniors in the 20 tribes by 4,700 men. Dionysius gives the size of the Latin army at 43,000 men (40,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry). After deducting Dionysius' 23,700 Roman infantry from the 40,000 Latin infantry, this leaves a residue of 16,300 infantry, which consists of 15,300 Roman infantry and 1,000 Roman cavalry. The 23,700 Roman infantry are actually Latins and has been rounded from 23,760 men, that figure also includes the Latin cavalry.

In 462 BC, Dionysius states that four cohorts numbering 600 men were stationed in front of Rome. This is the fifth 40-century legion that remains in encamped in front of the Colline Gate as a reserve legion. So, by multiplying the 85 infantry in a century by 40-centuries produces the following:

1 Tribal
Class    Century    40 Centuries
Class I    40 infantry    1600 infantry
Class II    10 men    400 men
Class III    10 men    400 men
Total    60 men    2400 infantry
Class IV    10 men    400men
Class V    15 men    600 men
Total    85 men    3400 infantry

From the above, Dionysius' total of 2,400 men applies to property Classes I to III and there is a reason for this. When the 2,400 infantry are divided into the four tribune cohorts, each tribune cohort amounts to 600 men consisting of 400 Class I infantry, 100 Class II infantry and 100 Class III infantry.

So, Justin, do you still think those 400 men sent to kill the Etruscan king are some ad-hoc unit?

But there's more. A different distribution of the army raises its head. In 505 BC, the Romans "marched with all their forces," to confront the Sabines. In 504 BC, to oppose the Sabines, the Romans "led out all their men of military age." In 498 BC, the consul, Quintus Cloelius Siculus, with one half of the army was to guard against any sedition that might arise, while the other consul, Manius Tullius Longus marched against the Fidenates, with a well-equipped army. In 449 BC, Dionysius also reports that the consul Lucius Valerius Potitus, marched with half the army to face the Aequian and the Volscians. These army distribution patterns are extremely different to the other distribution pattern of the army being divided into three bodies.

In 495 BC, while fighting the Aurunci, Dionysius writes that the Roman cavalry commander Aulus Postumius Albus commanded a body of 600 cavalry. In 449 BC, when fighting the Sabines, Livy reports that the cavalry of two Roman legions amounted to 600 cavalry.

With a tribal century having six Roman cavalrymen, for a consular army to have 600 Roman cavalry, this means that a consular army would have to have two legions each of 50 centuries (50 centuries x 6 cavalrymen = 300 cavalry), taken from a consular army of 100 centuries. (8) This means those references to "all the army" amounts to 200 centuries of juniors and "half the army" amounts to 100 centuries of juniors. At 91 men per tribal century, the 100 centuries of juniors in a consular army amount to 9,100 men (8,500 infantry and 600 Roman cavalry), consisting of:

1 Tribal
Class    Century    100 Centuries
Class I    40 men    4000 infantry
Class II    10 men    1000 infantry
Class III    10 men    1000 infantry
Total    60 men    6000 infantry
Class IV    10 men    1000 infantry
Class V    10 men    1000 infantry
Class V      5 men      500 ascriptivi
Total    85 men    8500 infantry
Cavalry      6 cavalrymen      600 Roman cavalry
Total    91 men    9100 men

Therefore, a 50-century legion had 4,550 men (4,250 infantry and 300 cavalry), consisting of:

1 Tribal
Class    Century    50 Centuries
Class I    40 men    2000 infantry
Class II    10 men    500 infantry
Class III    10 men    500 infantry
Total    60 men    3000 infantry
Class IV    10 men    500 infantry
Class V    10 men    500 infantry
Class V      5 men    250 ascriptivi
Total    85 men    4250 infantry
Cavalry      6 cavalrymen      300 Roman cavalry
Total    91 men    4550 men

In 406 BC, Cnaeus Fabius Ambustus, set out to capture the hill town of Anxur. Livy reports Cnaeus Fabius Ambustus would attack Anxur from one direction, while at the same time four cohorts under the command of Servilius Ahala (rank unknown), but possible the legate, attacked Anxur from the high ground. With a cohort in a 50-century legion amounting to 425 infantry, Servilius Ahalas' four cohorts, would amount to 1,700 infantry, consisting of:

800 Class I infantry
200 Class II
200 Class III
1200 infantry
200 Class IV
200 Class V
100 Class V ascriptivi
1700 infantry

After deducting the 1,700-infantry belonging to Servilius Ahala, a 50-century legion of 4,250 infantry (Classes I to V), is reduced to six cohorts numbering 2,550 infantry, consisting of:

1200 infantry
300 Class II
300 Class III
2550 infantry
300 Class IV
300 Class V
150 Class V ascriptivi
2550 infantry

Livy writes that the Romans captured Anxur with 2,500 Volscians prisoners, which has been rounded and converted from the 2,550 Roman infantry belonging to the six cohorts.

In 495 BC, Dionysius writes that the Roman senate convened to deliberate what forces were to be taken into the field to fight a Volscian army. As I have shown they certainly had more than one option. Due to trying to keep the short, I have omitted the other distribution options.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 27, 2025, 11:28:58 AMUntil you can supply the "plenty of references to be found in the ancient sources that support my claim" I'll go with him.

I have shown where to look. Livy's books after the Second Punic War. I'm surprised you would ask me that, and it makes me think you are not that familiar with the sources. Here are a few.

The praetor for Sicily, Marcellus Claudius was to enrol 4,000 allied infantry and 300 allied cavalry. Livy (32 8)

The proconsul Quintus Minucius Thermus was ordered to bring his army up to full strength by raising 4,000 Roman infantry, 150 Roman cavalry, 5,000 allied infantry and 250 allied cavalry. Livy (35 20)

The consuls were each to levy 4,000 Roman infantry, 200 Roman cavalry, 8,000 allied infantry and 400 allied cavalry. Livy (37 47)

The consuls Lucius Porcius Licinus and Publius Claudius Pulcher were permitted to enrol 4,000 Roman infantry, 300 Roman cavalry, 5,000 allied infantry and 500 allied cavalry. Livy (39 38)

Livy has Iberia allocated 4,000 Roman infantry and 200 Roman cavalry, plus 7,000 allied infantry and 300 allied cavalry. (40 16)

And then we have these. The two praetors in Iberia Marcus Helvius (Farther Iberia) and Gaius Sempronius Tuditanus (Hither Iberia) were each allocated 8,000 allied infantry and 400 cavalry, which were to take the place of the old army which was to be sent home. Livy (32 28)

The consuls were each to levy 4,000 Roman infantry, 200 Roman cavalry, 8,000 allied infantry and 400 allied cavalry. For Iberia, the praetor Lucius Baebius Dives was allocated 1,000 Roman infantry, 50 Roman cavalry, 6,000 allied infantry and 200 allied cavalry. The praetor Lucius Plautius Hypsaeus was allocated 1,000 Roman infantry, 2,000 allied infantry, and 200 allied cavalry. Livy (37 50)

This stuff goes on until the end of Livy's last book. Just for the record, the last refence, the 4,000 Roman infantry is 3,840 infantry, the 200 Roman cavalry is 240 Roman cavalry. The 3,840 Roman infantry replacements for a consular army consists of 960 velites, 1,440 hastati, 960 princeps and 480 triarii. The 960 velites when divided by the 120 Roman centuries for two Roman legions, allocates each century 8 velites. The 1,440 hastati, when divided by the 60 centuries of hastati for two legions allocates each century of hastati 24 hastati. The 960 princeps when divided by the 40 princeps centuries for two Roman legions, allocates each century 24 princeps. The 480 triarii when divided by the 20 centuries of triarii for two Roman legions, allocates each century 24 triarii. In all, each century received 32 replacements (8 velites and 24 heavy infantry), all undertaking the lowest campaign divisions. An infantry century of 80 men (20 velites and 60 heavy infantry), when the 32 replacements are separated leaves 48 men, and when proportioned to 16 produces the ratio three to two (the ratio known as the Pythagorean perfect fifth). May I recall you to Polybius' levy description in which he mentions four batches each of four men, which amounts to 16 men. That is because the whole Roman military system is interlocked with the incorrectly labelled "Servian Constitution.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 27, 2025, 08:10:56 AMI can carry on like this and will do so.

I'm looking forward to it.
 

With the best will in the world all I can do is give up in despair. Until you accept that the sources say what they plainly and obviously say, there simply isn't any point in continuing the discussion.

OK, I'll give one example: You affirmed that the force of 4,344 mentioned by Livy was a properly constituted legion. I looked up the source and Livy affirms categorically that it was the remnants of an army. If you want to refute Livy you'll have to come up with something like this:

"My name is Sursus Primus Optimus and I did verily serve as centurion in the legion of 4,344 men, transferred by the son of Quintus Fulvius Flaccus to the proconsul M. Valerius Laevinus. They that say it was the remnants of an army are liars and traitors!"

Never mind the general observations on legion sizes. Until you can produce that, I'm sticking with what Livy said.

It seems to me that we are reaching an obvious conclusion here. We are way beyond the original discussion point and Justin seems to have said his piece.  I don't think either of you with convince the other to change their research methods, from what I've read above.

Quote from: Erpingham on February 28, 2025, 10:59:24 AMIt seems to me that we are reaching an obvious conclusion here. We are way beyond the original discussion point and Justin seems to have said his piece.  I don't think either of you with convince the other to change their research methods, from what I've read above.

I'm not desiring to change Justin's research methodology, but to highlight its shortfalls. Justin cherry picks the sources to protect his theories, and I have provided my research to show how easy it is to destroy those theories. Justin has himself to blame, he failed to incorporate all the data relating to the early Roman army in an effort to see how his theories stand up. In response, Justin's counter point is to divert this in order to get bogged down in a word game from a previous old posting about the word "remnant" or my counter point "replacements" and make a big show about it, and also to grab the high morale ground that I don't follow the sources, thereby justifying Justin to end the debate and avoid any further discussion on his book. Basically, getting out of the kitchen when it gets too hot, and making me out to be the bad guy again.

I happy to end the discussion with Justin. In my last post, I put forward a lot of my research relating to the early Roman army and I am more than happy to discuss that further with members of the forum if they feel inclined. Is there no one interested in discussing (not attacking by the usual suspects) my array of the Roman legion? However, saying that, from my experience with forums, many do not like having their perceived reality of the Roman army being challenged, which is a pity.

Unlike some, I do give my research to academics to pull apart, and it has stood up to more knowledgeable critics that can be found on most forums. I have posted papers on Academia, and if I am found to be wrong, then good, because it will save me the embarrassment of finding out when published. So far not one rebuttal. However, the standard unsubstantiated attacks via private messages still goes on, like "you don't know what you are talking about." When asked to elaborate, there is not answer. Another told me that the Roman army had 25,000 men, and supplied the reference, of which I am aware. My reply was to ask for a breakdown of the 25,000 men, of which no answer was forthcoming. Providing a breakdown of the 25,000 men and then determining this to see how it stands up to other data is the key to my research methodology. Most just take the data at face value without question, and only question or smear the data when it eats into their theory. This academic practice has been going on long before I was born. Much of our understanding of the Roman army has been based on mistakes made by the ancients that have not been properly scrutinized. One such mistake is the ancients have incorrectly outlined the Servian constitution or Century Assembly based on the two 40 century legions (1 junior and 1 senior) that were left to protect Rome. This has resulted in 85 centuries of juniors and 85 centuries of seniores. The Roman army of 20,000 (200 centuries) as given by Dionysius, are all juniors. That is why they are the Roman army; they take to the field while the 40 centuries of seniores guard Rome. This can be confirmed by all the remaining data relating to the early Roman army, the 20,000 infantry at Veii should be the give away, but no ignore it and then tell us the Roman army had 8,500 men.

It is beyond my understanding as to why people ignore critical data in the sources.

Oh my - a visit and I see a rehash of lots of RAT between 6 and 10 years ago!

FWIW - I believe the frontage of the Roman Infantry (given a legion most probably deployed with a frontage of 500ft (Roman)) and at Cannae they were constrained by the gap between the river (old course) and the hill to half that (maniples not deployed); ie 250ft; and assuming 2 of the 16 legions/alae in the camp, leaving 14 x 250ft = 3,500ft.

Because Hannibal knew how the Romans 'always' deployed, he was able to oppose them with his 40,000 infantry against, effectively, only 35,000.  He feigned 'giving way' under the pressure, but never let them deploy as the 'gap' widened - and the rest is history.

My personal opinion is that the Romans fought in a completely standardised manner and tactics, which is one reason it often didn't matter who was notionally in charge!    ;D

Quote from: Mark Hygate on March 01, 2025, 11:40:44 PMMy personal opinion is that the Romans fought in a completely standardised manner and tactics, which is one reason it often didn't matter who was notionally in charge! 

Hello Mark, long time no hear. Hope all is well. If the Romans did deploy in "a complete standardised manner" this cancels out Polybius' comment (3 113) "placing the maniples closer together than was formerly the usage " irrelevant.