SoA Forums

Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 07:12:35 PMI have read deeply on the subject for more than forty decades. 

If the tangent be excused, I have some questions about 17th to 19th century military history you may be able to answer from personal experience

Touche, sir!  Sometimes four feels like forty...

Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 07:12:35 PMI am sorry, you really have to face the fact that only Polybios counts as a primary source for the second century legion.

Yes, he is a source, but not the only one. If I told you I have a machine that can turn anything put into it into gold, and I want you to invest in my machine, before you invest, would you want proof first? Therefore, I am asking you again, show me the proof that Polybius' legions, whatever the size, are correct. For example, can you provide a breakdown of the composition of Polybius' 5,200 infantry per legion?

Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 07:12:35 PMIf 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.

Oh, your favourite tact. This is nothing to do with Pythagoras. It's about Polybius' legion numbers. All I am asking is for you to provide evidence that can once and for all confirm Polybius is correct. So far, you just giving generalisations, and have failed to answer one question I have put to you.

Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 07:12:35 PMOne 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'

I've already stated in a previous post that the Pythagorean system was only known to the priesthood. Therefore, a mere hostage such a lowly Polybius would not have access to state secrets, nor would the Scipio family. Many ancient sources do mention the secret of the empire. Those that entered the priesthood like Caesar and Octavius, would have become fully aware of what it was all about. There actions of being involved in the Roman calendar and Octavius resenting the intervals (of time), and how correctly Octavius recorrected the saecula, tells me he knew.

Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 07:12:35 PMOh, 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.

Ok, the legion's varied according to need. So how does that play out? Can you provide examples to support Polybius' claim? Just responding that he had legions of 4,000 men, "about" 4,000 men, 5,000 men, or 5,200 men is avoiding the question. How about a precise breakdown of those legion sizes, and then comparisons with army numbers in the field in order to validate them? Surely, if Polybius is all you say he is, it should be achievable. I just want something more than Polybius said so. However, I am not disagreeing with Polybius about legion sizes varied, there was also garrison legion of 4,200 infantry and 200 cavalry. However, if Polybius believed the core legion had 4,200 infantry, and he was always coming across legion sizes of 5,000 infantry, then of course he would come to the conclusion that the size of the legion varied according to need. What is his legion of 5,200 infantry was also a mistake, and he took the legion of 4,000 infantry and added the 1,200 velites? What if the 4,000 legion had no velites, because the Romans believed that the youngest of the hastati could also act as skirmishers? What if this doctrine was found to be wrong and the Romans had to introduce velites?

No one questions anything anymore, just take the data at face value and because Polybius said so, it has to be right.

Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 07:12:35 PMProof 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.

Oh, the old numerology chestnut. That tells me how little you know about Pythagoras.

Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 07:12:35 PMThat is extraordinarily arrogant. 

You are too emotional. And your response tells me you have been "triggered" and have not collected and studied all the army data.

Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 07:12:35 PMI have read deeply on the subject for more than four decades.  I

I started collecting the data in the late 80's and categorised them into brackets of ten-year intervals (294 BC to 284 BC etc.). So, using that period for example, listed Livy's figures, Appian, Eutropius etc. It was quite revealing and some very strong patterns emerged throughout this exercise for all the periods.

Quote from: DBS on November 17, 2024, 07:12:35 PMIf 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. 

I have his book, had it for years. Funny you should mention Michael Sage. It  just so happens that I am conversing with Michae Sage at this present moment. I am about to offer him Volume I to get things rolling.

For Jim, I have no idea what your question is or what point you want to make. You have quoted from quotes taken from quotes.

Now before everyone and sundry wants to chime in, I have provided links to my papers, to present my case. These papers show the composition of the Roman legion and how they conform to the army figures given for Cannae, Publius Scipio's African campaign, and the Telamon campaign, which is also a breakdown of the census given by Polybius. And yet, everyone ignores them, and so far, not one rebuttal. However, on forums, people just counter attack with nothing more than opinions, generalisations, or provide one blanket primary source reference in the belief that is enough to prove I am wrong, isn't going to cut the mustard with me.

Quote from: Monad on November 18, 2024, 01:41:04 AMI've already stated in a previous post that the Pythagorean system was only known to the priesthood. Therefore, a mere hostage such a lowly Polybius would not have access to state secrets, nor would the Scipio family.

Hmmm, so the Aemilii, Cornelii and Scipiones, despite their domination of Roman politics in the late third and early second centuries, their regular holdings of senior priestly office, and, in the case of the Aemilii, their supposed descent from Numa, the legendary architect of Roman religion and ritual, were ignorant of this supposed state secret?  Hmmm...

And obviously equally ignorant was Cato, who tried to rid Rome of the influence of Greek philosophy.  If only he, a consul and censor, had known that Rome's big secret was Greek philosophy! 

By the way, Polybios is our only primary source for Rome in the early second century.  For earlier periods, he is a secondary source, and the likes of Livy and Dionysios, writing in the first century, are definitely secondary sources.  You keep claiming the authority of primary sources, but there simply are none before Polybios.

Quote from: DBS on November 18, 2024, 10:13:38 AMHmmm, so the Aemilii, Cornelii and Scipiones, despite their domination of Roman politics in the late third and early second centuries, their regular holdings of senior priestly office, and, in the case of the Aemilii, their supposed descent from Numa, the legendary architect of Roman religion and ritual, were ignorant of this supposed state secret?  Hmmm...

And obviously equally ignorant was Cato, who tried to rid Rome of the influence of Greek philosophy.  If only he, a consul and censor, had known that Rome's big secret was Greek philosophy!

In 44 BC, according to Servius, during the funeral games of Julius Caesar a comet was visible for seven days in the sky. The common people believed that this signified the soul of Julius Caesar being received among the spirits of the immortal gods. A haruspex (prophet) named Vulcatius went before the popular assembly proclaiming the comet heralded the end of the ninth saeculum and the beginning of the tenth saeculum, which foretold of the destruction of the Etruscan language. (4) After making his proclamation, Vulcatius immediately collapsed and died in front of the assembly. Vulcatius' death was believed an act of the gods because Vulcatius' had revealed this secret against the will of the gods.

I commend the Scipio' and Cato for keeping the saecula a secret, and didn't blab it to irrelevant Polybius, assigned to being a teacher to a Scipio kid.

Quote from: DBS on November 18, 2024, 10:13:38 AMBy the way, Polybios is our only primary source for Rome in the early second century.  For earlier periods, he is a secondary source, and the likes of Livy and Dionysios, writing in the first century, are definitely secondary sources.  You keep claiming the authority of primary sources, but there simply are none before Polybios.

I sometimes use primary source or ancient source. I'm kinda slack about using them on forums, but I do find it amusing that you have to be so pendatic to prove how wrong I am, primary or ancient, who cares on a forum...David does.

David, instead of all this huffing and puffing about the Scipio and Polybius, if you truly want to prove I am so wrong, go after my papers, and that goes for everyone else. Apparently, academics do that, a historian writes a paper or a book and the academics who believe the author is wrong, bring it to the attention of the author. They don't huff and puff about everything in sundry that has noting to do with their paper or book.

And meanwhile, while this has been going on, came upon two references to that small legion Vegetius mentions, that seriously, has again reinforced everything I have written about the so called Late Roman legion. The ancient source army data just keeps on giving.

I am instead just going to ignore you, because it has become impossible to discuss this with you in a rational manner.  By all means carry on believing all your nonsense about Pythagoras, Egyptian and Hebrew teachings, Roman state secrets, tribes as calendars, it is a free world. 

Quote from: DBS on November 18, 2024, 11:08:54 AMI am instead just going to ignore you, because it has become impossible to discuss this with you in a rational manner.  By all means carry on believing all your nonsense about Pythagoras, Egyptian and Hebrew teachings, Roman state secrets, tribes as calendars, it is a free world.

Thank you, thank you. Sorry you have wasted four decades of reading.
 

Quote from: Monad on November 18, 2024, 11:43:05 AMThank you, thank you. Sorry you have wasted four decades of reading.
 

That's uncalled for. Please be civil.

It is perhaps time to step back from this discussion, at least for a while.

Quote from: Prufrock on November 18, 2024, 11:54:22 AMThat's uncalled for. Please be civil.

But it is ok if its implied I am irrational, and told I am arrogant.