SoA Forums

Quote from: DBS on November 13, 2024, 03:08:09 PM270 rowers for a quinquereme. That is why it is a supremely inefficient transport.

That is not my quote. David wrote that. David's name did not appear when I hit the quote button. Having problems with the quotes system lately.

Quote from: DBS on November 13, 2024, 03:08:09 PMThe reason that people might dismiss your Pythagorean numerical theories is because they have studied the sources as much as you have, but are not situating their appreciation on a preconceived theory, but also applying pragmatism and common sense.

This posting was about the Roman fleet. Never mentioned Pythagoras for the Roman fleet. Also, in other posts I use Pythagoras because I standby my research, and quite truthfully, I am not concerned if people dismiss it.

Quote from: DBS on November 13, 2024, 03:08:09 PMYou are entitled to your opinion but please do not get snippy.

It is a well known fact that electronic communication causes a lot of arguments due to the lack of emotional signs that are portrayed during a face to face conversation. Please do not tell me I am getting snippy when I am not. That is your (incorrect) perception. Quite seriously, I could same the same thing about your response.

Quote from: Jim Webster on November 13, 2024, 04:19:28 PMWhen you say all these numbers are taken from the late Roman army (which I might have highlighted in red) what actually do you mean by that.

Sorry, what I mean is my research into the Late Roman army. I used the primary sources and the tribal system of the time (my research) and from that formulated what a Late Roman legion was. Then to prove if it holds up, collect all the data relating to the period and then make comparisons. The data found in The Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus concerning the killed and captured Christians conforms of fits in quite well, or just damn accurate, because those numbers have been based on the vexillation organisation of the Roman army. That is my finding.

The Second Book of Chronicles also uses the number 7,700 for the size of a flock of rams and goats. My personal take on this is that it could be that the original author recognised the similarity to the biblical number of 7,700 rams and goats, and therefore, partition those taken prisoners and wounded to closely recreate that figure.

Also, the historian Macarius, mentions 1,104 soldiers were stationed at Melitene. I also get 1,104 soldiers.  Same result with Saint Meletius' example of 252 Christian soldiers killed. Both Macrius and Saint Meletius omit the artificers. During his time, Livy, Polybius etc. also omit the artificers on many occasions. So take the 252 soldiers multiply by four, result is 1,008 soldiers, deduct from Macarius' 1,104 soldiers leaves 96 soldiers, cavalry maybe?

Many of the accounts of the martyrdom of the Christian saints, such as the Passion of Saint Florian and the Passion of Saint George, make reference to units of 40 soldiers. So Saint Meletius' example of 252 soldiers, taking the premise that a cohort still had six centuries, 40 x 6 = 240, deducted from 252 leaves a residue of 12, divided by 6 centuries per cohort allocates each century 2 officers.

The Passion of Saint George mentions 2,408 Christian soldiers were executed by the order of Dadianus the governor of Bithynia. So, 1104 x 2 = 2,208 minus 2,408 leaves 200, cavalry maybe? Synesios gives the various sizes of the Unnigardae cavalry at 40 men, 160 men and 200 men. At the battle of Strasbourg Zosimus mentions the poor performance of 600 of Julian's schola cavalry. Also at the same battle, Ammianus reports that Julian had with him 200 schola cavalry. 600 is divisible by 200.

Returning to the 40 soldiers, Vegetius cites that from each century four infantry were selected for sentry-duty. The Passion of Saint George also mentions four quaternions (a set of four) of soldiers. The Passion of Luxurius, Camerinus and Cisellus also has four groups of four soldiers.

As I said in a previous post, I don't need to bash squares into round holes in order to fit a theory. My premise has always been to let the data do the talking. I don't need to reshape it or bend it. I have powerful resources at my fingertips, that is the Pythagorean system and the internal organisation of the tribal system, which is a calendar. The Late Roman legion came into existence during the reign of Diocletian. Early Christian writings support this also, with centuries of 100 men mentioned during Diocletian's persecution of the Christians and also units of 40 soldiers during Diocletian's reign, which I know are juniors because the seniores have been removed. Seniores are part of the legion, seniores get detached legion becomes smaller, so different legion or unit sizes. Then the reserves are detached, legion becomes smaller again.

So Jim, my modus operandi is the determine the size of a legion via the tribal system of that time frame, then break it down into centuries, maniples, cohorts, ordines, vexillations, arithmos, tagma  and numerus and then compare it to the data in the ancient sources. Twenty years later, it still holds up. 

Quote from: Monad on November 13, 2024, 11:49:37 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on November 13, 2024, 04:19:28 PMWhen you say all these numbers are taken from the late Roman army (which I might have highlighted in red) what actually do you mean by that.

Sorry, what I mean is my research into the Late Roman army. I used the primary sources and the tribal system of the time (my research) and from that formulated what a Late Roman legion was. Then to prove if it holds up, collect all the data relating to the period and then make comparisons. The data found in The Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus concerning the killed and captured Christians conforms of fits in quite well, or just damn accurate, because those numbers have been based on the vexillation organisation of the Roman army. That is my finding.

The Disputation of Archelaus was in 278AD, so I'm not sure it was 'Late Roman'. Diocletian didn't come to power until 284AD

Quote from: Monad on November 13, 2024, 11:49:37 PMThe Second Book of Chronicles also uses the number 7,700 for the size of a flock of rams and goats. My personal take on this is that it could be that the original author recognised the similarity to the biblical number of 7,700 rams and goats, and therefore, partition those taken prisoners and wounded to closely recreate that figure.

We know that The book of Chronicles was translated into Greek and divided into two books in the Septuagint in the mid-3rd century BC. It was written in Hebrew at some point after 539BC and before the 3rd century BC. So perhaps 600 years before Archelaus

Quote from: Monad on November 13, 2024, 11:49:37 PMThe Passion of Saint George mentions 2,408 Christian soldiers were executed by the order of Dadianus the governor of Bithynia. So, 1104 x 2 = 2,208 minus 2,408 leaves 200, cavalry maybe?

Even if one believes such sources accurately record numbers, and one believes that a Roman governor would execute as many as 2408 of his provincial army, a rather high percentage of his available forces to put it mildly, why would one assume that he was executing by unit, rather than individuals?  Even decimation, the most severe Roman military punishment, was carefully designed to leave 90% of a unit intact.  So I really do not think one can draw any inferences for unit size from such numbers.

Quote from: Jim Webster on November 14, 2024, 06:14:55 AMThe Disputation of Archelaus was in 278AD, so I'm not sure it was 'Late Roman'. Diocletian didn't come to power until 284AD

Well, Jim, thank you so much for that. I'm still polishing Volume 3 so haven't gotten to start polishing Volume 4 yet. The Pythagorean system has three major time intervals, and I have used the right time system that the Romans should have used. I went back and looked at the time interval systems and bang, one of the intervals of time produces 276 AD. This time system uses Rome's date of conception as the starting point and not Rome's founding date. And it has cause a lot of confusion with the Roman priesthood. Too many time systems in the Pythagoras' system.

For the year 401 AD, Claudian relates that after cutting open two wolfs that attacked the emperor's cavalry escort, who at the time was accompanied by the Roman general Stilicho: "In each animal, on its being cut open, was found a human hand, in the stomach of one a left hand, in that of the other a right was discovered, both still twitching, the fingers stretched out and suffused with living blood."

One interpretation of the omen as given by Claudian believed that the might of Roman was to be unimpaired. However, another interpretation of the portent believed the portent threatened destruction on Rome and her empire. Claudian goes on to say: "then they reckoned up the years and, cutting off the flight of the twelfth vulture, tried to shorten the centuries of Rome's existence by hastening the end."

The 12th vulture is the Pythagorean saecula system of time. It should be the correct system to follow as it is the most sacred. However, the Pythagorean tonal/zodiac combined system and its time intervals have been employed. I do not know how to truly thank you Jim, except to say I am extremely in your debt. Happy to make a note in this section of the volume thanking you for pointing this out, if that is ok with you.

Quote from: Monad on November 14, 2024, 09:03:05 AM

Quote from: Jim Webster on November 14, 2024, 06:14:55 AMThe Disputation of Archelaus was in 278AD, so I'm not sure it was 'Late Roman'. Diocletian didn't come to power until 284AD

Well, Jim, thank you so much for that. I'm still polishing Volume 3 so haven't gotten to start polishing Volume 4 yet. The Pythagorean system has three major time intervals, and I have used the right time system that the Romans should have used. I went back and looked at the time interval systems and bang, one of the intervals of time produces 276 AD. This time system uses Rome's date of conception as the starting point and not Rome's founding date. And it has cause a lot of confusion with the Roman priesthood.

Not half as much as it has caused me. I cannot see why the book of Chronicles, written in Hebrew by people who might have been influenced by Babylonian thought, should be interested in Pythagoras?
Given he started his school in Italy about 530BC it would make the Jews very early adopters indeed!

Note that if Pythagoras had been such an influence on Jewish thought, Jewish philosophers like Philo of Alexandria who majored on Judaism as comparable with Greek thought would have picked up on it.Instead he got caught up with Plato and Neoplatonism 

Quote from: DBS on November 14, 2024, 08:57:51 AMEven if one believes such sources accurately record numbers, and one believes that a Roman governor would execute as many as 2408 of his provincial army, a rather high percentage of his available forces to put it mildly, why would one assume that he was executing by unit, rather than individuals?

I didn't put that number in the primary source, so I cannot answer you question. Maybe the author used a army unit size as it was convenient and they wanted to exaggerate the crime.

Quote from: DBS on November 14, 2024, 08:57:51 AMSo I really do not think one can draw any inferences for unit size from such numbers

I can, and I have, and I have done it because it can be corroborated with other data.

Quote from: Jim Webster on November 14, 2024, 10:26:20 AMNot half as much as it has caused me. I cannot see why the book of Chronicles, written in Hebrew by people who might have been influenced by Babylonian thought, should be interested in Pythagoras?

I'm lost here Jim. The author of The Disputation of Archelaus was using the 7,700 figure, not Pythagoras.

Quote from: Jim Webster on November 14, 2024, 10:26:20 AMGiven he started his school in Italy about 530BC it would make the Jews very early adopters indeed!

Ah, now I see. You are not aware of the written history of Pythagoras' life. Pythagoras supposedly gained his knowledge in Egypt and from the Jews living in Egypt. All of Pythagoras' teaching are taken from the Jews and Egyptians. He studied there for 22 years before moving to Croton in Southern Italy. Pythagoras' just plagiarised the knowledge gained in Egypt and utilised it when designing the Rome Pythagorean system. That is why the Roman Pythagorean system can be found in the Book of Revelation, which in turn can be found in the Amduat, the Book of Aker, Book of the Dead, Book of the Devine Cow, Book of Gates, Book of Caverns, Books of Heaven, Book of Night, plus text and painting on the ceilings and walls of the pharaoh's tombs. See "Egyptian Origin of the Book of Revelation," John H. C. Pippy.

Quote from: Jim Webster on November 14, 2024, 10:26:20 AMNote that if Pythagoras had been such an influence on Jewish thought, Jewish philosophers like Philo of Alexandria who majored on Judaism as comparable with Greek thought would have picked up on it.Instead he got caught up with Plato and Neoplatonism

Other way around. Jewish philosophy influenced Pythagoras. The Pythagorean cosmos was influenced by the mystical meaning of the Jewish tabernacle (place of worship), Clement of Alexandria writes there were seven circuits around the temple, the motions of the seven planets were outlined, and the seven eyes of God were the seven spirits. This highlights that many of Pythagoras' concepts, especially concerning the hebdomad system. In the Book of Revelation, each of the 12 tribes of Israel number 12,000 men, for a total of 144,000 men. Pippy's investigation is again, too large to reproduce here. However, by dividing the 144,000 men of the 12 tribes by the Pythagorean sacred integer 10, we coincidentally arrive at the Pythagorean five elements amounting to 14,400 degrees.

Heaven    6480 degrees
Fire    720 degrees
Air    1440 degrees
Earth    2160 degrees
Water    3600 degrees
    14400 degrees

That is what the whole Pythagorean system is built on, 14,400 degrees. From that, one can create the 35 tribes and the whole Roman system.

Quote from: Jim Webster on November 14, 2024, 06:14:55 AMThe Disputation of Archelaus was in 278AD

Some claim 262 AD and even 440 AD. Always controversy. However, seems the emperor responsible could be Aurelian or Probus. Compared to the other emperors, both had a decent amount of time to undertake a reform, Aurelian in power for five years and Probus six years. Although Probus is closer to the mark, I will mention both, with Probus being the most likely candidate, based on the timing of most other reforms, which occurs within a year or on the year prescribed. Imagine designing a system to cover over 1,200 years with a number of differing calendars and expecting everyone overtime to get it right. What was Pythagoras thinking.

Quote from: Monad on November 14, 2024, 02:33:34 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on November 14, 2024, 06:14:55 AMThe Disputation of Archelaus was in 278AD

Some claim 262 AD and even 440 AD. Always controversy. However, seems the emperor responsible could be Aurelian or Probus. Compared to the other emperors, both had a decent amount of time to undertake a reform, Aurelian in power for five years and Probus six years. Although Probus is closer to the mark, I will mention both, with Probus being the most likely candidate, based on the timing of most other reforms, which occurs within a year or on the year prescribed. Imagine designing a system to cover over 1,200 years with a number of differing calendars and expecting everyone overtime to get it right. What was Pythagoras thinking.

Imagine designing a system to cover over 1,200 years and expecting people to care?

I do wonder how many legions were actually raised to their formal full strength. I can see in the early republic there were times when things could be done with proper formality, but even in the republic we come across legions that were raised understrength and in some haste

Same with Late Roman army where we have actual returns for military units, down to how many men were off sick etc. The actual number of men in a military unit seems to have had very little connection with any official order of battle. Indeed some units may have been overstrength, or were perhaps examples of units we have incorrectly categorised.

Quote from: Jim Webster on November 16, 2024, 08:47:19 PMImagine designing a system to cover over 1,200 years and expecting people to care?

But care they did, and it was extremely important to acknowledge it. Zosimus writes that while the Romans celebrated the Secular Games:

"The Roman Empire was safe and Rome remained in control of virtually all the inhabited world, but once this festival was neglected after Diocletian's abdication, the empire gradually collapsed and was imperceptibly barbarised. "

Zosimus believed that the decision by the Christian emperors, especially Constantine I to abolish the Secular Games and other religious pagan rituals would result in the pagan gods withdrawing their protection of Rome. This same sentiment can be found in the Suda, which details the Christian emperor Theodosius I (379 AD to 395 AD), appeal to the Senate to abandon the pagan gods and embrace the Christian religion.

"None of the senators obeyed the injunction nor chose to denounce their ancestral traditions, which dated to the founding of the city, in favour of honouring Christian beliefs. The senators said that by protecting their ancestral customs, they had inhabited a city that had been free from destruction for nearly 1,200 years and, exchanging new beliefs for these, they were uncertain of the future...Therefore, traditional sacrifice was suspended and the Roman Empire was progressively weakened."

If the saecula was not honoured, the gods would remove their protection.

Quote from: Jim Webster on November 16, 2024, 08:47:19 PMI do wonder how many legions were actually raised to their formal full strength. I can see in the early republic there were times when things could be done with proper formality, but even in the republic we come across legions that were raised understrength and in some haste

I am not sure how academia or anyone can come to that conclusion when most cannot really define what a legions is. If the benchmark is Polybius' legion, that means there can be no reconciliation with the primary sources because Polybius got it wrong. His legion is 600 hastati short, and than means a consular army will be 2,400 hastati short. All primary source data is based on full strength legions, which includes officers, cavalry and supernumeraries. Other figures omit officers and supernumeraries, while others omit officers, cavalry and supernumeraries. Other examples mistakenly add the consular armies' replacements for that year to the size of the consular army, while other examples have deducted that year's replacements.

The evidence that has created the theory that consular armies were ad hoc has been based on Livy's example of the campaign of 296 BC, in which the consul Appius Claudius had under his command the first and the fourth Roman legion and 12,000 allies, while the other consul Lucius Volumnius Flamma had under his command, the second and third Roman legion, and 15,000 allied troops.

This is what annoys the jeebees out of me about academics. They make judgements on face value, and continually fail to dig deep when it comes to raw date. The difference between Appius Claudius' 12,000 allies and Lucius Volumnius Flamma's 15,000 allied troops, is because Flamma has been given all the allied cavalry for both consular armies.

Quote from: Jim Webster on November 16, 2024, 08:47:19 PMSame with Late Roman army where we have actual returns for military units, down to how many men were off sick etc. The actual number of men in a military unit seems to have had very little connection with any official order of battle. Indeed some units may have been overstrength, or were perhaps examples of units we have incorrectly categorised.

Well, my take is "incorrectly categorised."

Quote from: Monad on November 17, 2024, 06:48:26 AMIf the benchmark is Polybius' legion, that means there can be no reconciliation with the primary sources because Polybius got it wrong.

Polybios, for the second century legion, IS the primary source.  As a member of the Scipionic circle, he witnessed them being mustered.  He almost certainly accompanied them on campaign.  He was an experienced soldier himself.

Polybios is certainly not infallible, but you would need mighty strong evidence to argue that on the legionary structure of the first half of the second century BC he was wrong.  What "primary sources" can you offer against him?

Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 11:40:58 AMPolybios, for the second century legion, IS the primary source.  As a member of the Scipionic circle, he witnessed them being mustered.  He almost certainly accompanied them on campaign.  He was an experienced soldier himself.

Doesn't mean he is right. Can someone show me an investigation into Polybius' legion that proves Polybius is correct? Anyone!

Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 11:40:58 AMPolybios is certainly not infallible, but you would need mighty strong evidence to argue that on the legionary structure of the first half of the second century BC he was wrong. 

Well, you said it, "Polybius is certainly not infallible," so why presume his breakdown of the legion is correct? If his legion of 4,200 men is correct, then it should match the masses of army data available to us. Oh, that's right, Polybius has a few numbers for the legion, so it could be 4,000, 5,000 or 5,200 infantry. So far, all I have ever read, or received as a reply is excuses for Polybius' legions not matching anything.

Could Polybius, by looking at a legion, and as an eye witness tell what property class each soldier belonged to? Does Polybius tell us how the troops were organised into their specific campaign divisions? He mentions military service. Why doesn't Polybius tell us during his description of the levy why the troops were organised into brackets of four men? Why doesn't Polybius tell us how many tribes were levied in his description of the four legions being levied?

Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 11:40:58 AMWhat "primary sources" can you offer against him?

Well, all I have to offer against him is all the army data in the primary sources dealing with the republic. I have uploaded some papers on academia, which are a mere drop in the ocean of what I have to offer.

https://www.academia.edu/15833849/225_BC_Polybius_Account_of_the_Telamon_Campaign

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

At Cannae, Plutarch gives the size of the Roman army at 88,000 men. My research arrives at 88,320 men. My research is based on 1,800 hastati in a legion, and not Polybius' 1,200 hastati, which is a dead-end road to go down. In my Cannae paper, I have left out information pertaining to how Livy arrived at 45,000 infantry killed. Keeping some things under wraps.

https://www.academia.edu/43836283/THE_ARMY_AND_FLEET_OF_PUBLIUS_SCIPIOS_AFRICAN_CAMPAIGN_204_BC

Have you or anyone else amassed all the army data in the primary sources dealing with the republic and then examined it? I can confidently say no you have not. So far, seems I am the only one that has done this. That data is one continuous stream of collaboratingd data...that is once you understand the data.

In 209 BC 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. Can someone show me an investigation into the 4,344 men and what they are? Is this Polybius' legion of 4,200 infantry? Did Polybius' legion of 4,200 infantry included the cavalry by mistake?

Without any investigation into Polybius' legion, no one can answer the question, and yet, Polybius is blindly followed, because the masses blindly follow the popularist view, and woe to those who question it.

Quote from: Monad on November 17, 2024, 06:48:26 AM

Quote from: Jim Webster on November 16, 2024, 08:47:19 PMI do wonder how many legions were actually raised to their formal full strength. I can see in the early republic there were times when things could be done with proper formality, but even in the republic we come across legions that were raised understrength and in some haste

I am not sure how academia or anyone can come to that conclusion when most cannot really define what a legions is.

Quote from: Jim Webster on November 16, 2024, 08:47:19 PMI can answer that one. If Caesar or Mark Anthony called it a legion, it was a legion. Same with Cicero or Sallust. They know one when they saw it.
We have Sallust on about Cataline

"56  While this was taking place in Rome, Catiline combined the forces which he had brought with him with those which Manlius already had, and formed two legions, 2 filling up the cohorts so far as the number of his soldiers permitted.�91 Then distributing among them equally such volunteers or conspirators as came to the camp, he soon completed the full quota of the legions, although in the beginning he had no more than two thousand men.  But only about a fourth part of the entire force was  provided with regular arms.� The others carried whatever weapons chance had given them; namely, javelins or lances, or in some cases pointed stakes."

On the other side we see forces raised, not by legion but by cohort. Also from Sallust "Petreius placed in the van the veteran cohorts which he had enrolled because of the outbreak, and behind them the rest of his army in reserve."

But then throughout the civil wars, people were raising legions all over the place, (the insistence on citizens seems to have been watered down somewhat) deploying them well under strength.

Quote from: Monad on November 17, 2024, 01:36:32 PMWell, you said it, "Polybius is certainly not infallible," so why presume his breakdown of the legion is correct? If his legion of 4,200 men is correct, then it should match the masses of army data available to us. Oh, that's right, Polybius has a few numbers for the legion, so it could be 4,000, 5,000 or 5,200 infantry. So far, all I have ever read, or received as a reply is excuses for Polybius' legions not matching anything.

Could Polybius, by looking at a legion, and as an eye witness tell what property class each soldier belonged to? Does Polybius tell us how the troops were organised into their specific campaign divisions? He mentions military service. Why doesn't Polybius tell us during his description of the levy why the troops were organised into brackets of four men?

I am sorry, you really have to face the fact that only Polybios counts as a primary source for the second century legion.  His is the only surviving contemporary account.  There are no other comparable primary sources.  If you claim that a primary source is wrong, simply because it does not match your Pythagorean fantasy, then you should not be surprised not to be taken seriously.  Polybios was a close friend of the Scipios, men who conducted these musters.  He is not some gormless tourist staring at a muster, but trying to describe for his fellow Greeks the detail of how the Romans raised and equipped their forces, and tended to defeat Hellenistic forces.  One might add that if there was even the faintest whiff of Pythagoras associated with it, then he, a Greek, would probably have highlighted it to his fellow Greeks as an example of how the Romans were exploiting Greek philosophical concepts, even barking ones like Pythagoras'.

Oh, and note that Polybios specifically states that the size of the legion varied according to need, with numbers adjusted upwards except for the 600 triarii.  Proof that the Romans exercised sensible military pragmatism, not enslaved by the numerology of a long dead foreign philosopher who, it might be added, may not have been that interested in numbers at all, if the theories about Philolaus are at all accurate.

Quote from: Monad on November 17, 2024, 01:36:32 PMHave you or anyone else amassed all the army data in the primary sources dealing with the republic and then examined it? I can confidently say no you have not.

That is extraordinarily arrogant.  I have read deeply on the subject for more than four decades.  If you want published works, there is always Michael Sage's Roman Republican Army: A Source Book, which has all the meaningful references on the organisation of said army.  Sat on my book shelf a few feet away...