SoA Forums

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 , "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. ( 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

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!