In My Defence

[Monad]

Ian Piper wrote:
Am I missing something here, the text keeps mentioning the size of Hannibal's army and then crunching numbers for Roman/Allied forces. I consider myself a fairly numerate person but this has left me baffled.

Unfortunately, the problem with my papers on academia is those reader outside the circle have no idea of what has been previously written, you are coming in half way through a movie. My target audience on academia is mostly centred within that circle. Before Hannibal's invasion, there are two volumes (Rome's infantry and youth), that show all ancient historians have based the enemy army numbers and causalities on the Roman army that opposed it. This practice remains constant from the republic and still can be found in "The Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus (1-2)." Archelaus was offered for a sum of money for a large number of Christian prisoners (men, women and children) by the soldiers of the camp. Those Christians amounted to about 9,000, consisting of some 7,700 prisoners, of which 500 were wounded and about 1,300 killed. These figures have been based on a Roman force, and match my numbers for the Late Roman period. The total figure of about 9,000 comes works out to be 8,967 men.

Before Hannibal invaded Italy, in the war against the Transalpine Gauls, that ended in the Gauls being defeated at Acerrae in 222 BC by the consuls Marcus Claudius Marcellus and Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Clavus, Livy (Periochae 20) says that "the authors say that the Roman people had 80,000 soldiers of their own and the Latin and Italian allies." I believe this is where Alimentus got his figure of 80,000 infantry from. That paper has been revised and has eliminated Polybius' rounding by 2,160 men, due to Polybius allocated of some men to Africa should stay in Iberia. My case just got more watertight.

By the time a reader arrives at reading the Second Punic War, that person would have experienced a few hundred examples of enemy causalities and prison numbers matching the Roman army of the day. First one is the battle of Silvia Arsia in 509 BC, with 11,299 Romans dead and 11,300 Etruscans dead. The method used here to arrive at these figures, and this method is common by ancient writers, is to take the Roman army, which is some examples, includes the officers and supernumeraries, in other examples, they are omitted. From the size of the Roman army, the camp guards are deducted, which usually become the number of enemy captured. To get the number of enemy killed, the camp guards are then deducted from the size of the Roman army after the camp guards are deducted. The 11,300 Etruscans killed as been arrived at by rounding the camp guards and then deducting them from the rounded figure of the Roman army at full strength.

After reading through the First Punic War, the reader will be shown that Carthaginian elephants have been converted from Roman ships numbers (fleet size), and that many of the Carthaginian cities captured have also been based on Roman ships numbers. The last example I have of this occurring is in Pompey's engagement with the pirates. I thought it had ended with the Second Punic War but no, it popped up again.

The breakdowns I have done of the data in the ancient sources is not a generalisation. I list all troop types and if they include officers and supernumeraries, their numbers are given. For example, in 209 BC, Livy (27 claims that the consul Quintus Fulvius Flaccus ordered his son to give the proconsul Valerius Laevinus in Sicily a body 4,344 men, taken from the consular army of Quintus Fulvius Flaccus. That figure I have easily identified every troop type and I do not have to round the number as 4,344 is the exact number, and includes cavalry, officers and supernumeraries. The Romans follow a standard system of replacements. As all figure in the ancient sources employed paper strength figures, there are no real causality figures, all standardised numbers and organisation. The Romans follow a strict formulae.

One of the greatest failings by literally everyone, is all have failed to understand what Varro means when he claims a cohort is a grouping of maniples. Notice Varro does not say how many maniples. Therefore, everyone has failed to understand that a legion has both a horizontal organisation and a vertical organisation. Say cohort, and everyone jumps to the conclusion there are 10. The 10 cohorts are the smallest cohorts in the legion, there are other cohort organisations. Later, in the period of the principates, their correct names appear in the ancient sources.

Anthony wrote:
Well, it has the typical Steven James love of numbers I think a fundamental issue is he doesn't explain why a Roman author would assume Hannibal's army mirrored Roman army structures or why they would think it reflected a set number of legions. Perhaps this is explained in another extract from this multi-volume work?

Yes, that is correct Anthony, as I stated, you are reading at the half way point. Well, this love of numbers is driven by a curiosity as to what those numbers are saying. Back in the 90's I started compiling a data base on all the ancient numbers relating to Roman armies. I compiled them in 20-year brackets and found some astonishing patterns occurring, like the numbers 4,000 or 8,000 men repeating themselves over and over again. When I discovered that the ancient writers were using Roman army numbers for enemy causalities, the increase in the figure of 4,000 and 8,000 escalated rather dramatically. Basically, 4,000 and 8,000 are replacement numbers, so 4,000 has been rounded from Livy's 4,344 replacements by omitting officers and supernumeraries, and then a little rounding. The figure of 8,000 is 8,688 and ends up with 8,000 with omission of officers and supernumeraries and then rounding down. However, many ancient writes also omit the cavalry, which makes it easier for the ancient writer. Livy' books from the end of the Second Punic War to the end of the Third Macedonian War are littered with such examples, that this has now caused Volume III to be split into two volumes. Anthony, my offer for you to examine my work still stands.

Cantabrigian wrote:
I haven't read the paper, but the idea that army strengths might have been inaccurate or deliberately inflated doesn't sound like breaking news. What am I missing?

No, not inflated or inaccurate. They are accurate, and so are the enemy causality numbers which have been based on the size of the Roman army. One common mistake is sometimes the numbers for one consular army are based on two consular armies. This is due to another consular army being present nearby, like Aquilonia in 293 BC. Therefore, this gave me a mountain of figures to work with which ended in providing more evidence confirming I was on the right track.

David Stevens wrote:
All I could conclude is an assumption that Polybius and his Roman mates could only work in legion equivalents. And anyone credible would not call allied forces "legions"...

This sort of response I find unjust. In Volume II "Rome's Youth" I write "The term for an allied legion was 'alae,' a military formation composed of allied infantry (socii)." I then explain "allied legion" would be the termed used. I am aiming my focus on people new to Roman history.

I have found in all the criticisms I have experience over many a year, is that no one addresses the numbers, and how they up. If two and two make four, then that is ignored. A few weeks ago, I was having a discussion with some people, one of which was a psychologist. The conversation turned to what is a person's greatest fear, and the psychologist believed "being wrong, people are afraid of being wrong." She even went on to say that even when they find they are wrong, most will still protect the lie.

Many years ago, my research was examined by members from Sydney University and Melbourne University. In fact, I remember the day I handed it to professor (1), when he had it in his hand, he said "we should have no trouble in destroying it." On the day I was summoned before them, professor (1), handed my work and said "hidden by its simplicity". Oh, and professor (2) from Sydney University) wanted to see me in the professor's library. When professor (1) went, I skipped through my paper and found he had corrected some grammar, that was all. When I saw professor (2), her opening comments, and in a bitter manner were "do you realise young man, you are going to destroy the reputations of a lot of professors past and present." And then it was something like, I hope you can live with that. Then she was gone. The rest of the other professor who had examined my work had no interest, non-wanted to meet me. I found out from a researcher at Melbourne University that professor (2) from Sydney University that gave me both barrels, had studied under Lily Ross Taylor, and was her mentor. Lily Ross Taylor is supposed to have written the definitive book on the Roman tribes.

I have learnt from my journey into the Roman army, is that the only truth people want is their own truth, and if that truth is nothing more than a lie, they prefer to keep it that way. And then there is resentment. Oh, I have copped that, people resenting and cursing your discoveries, wishing it was them and not you, and why you. This has come from academics who entered the profession to make a great discovery, which for me, is the wrong reason for entering any profession. These people are saying I want to be famous, rather than entering a profession because they love it.

What most know about the Roman army is no more that what most academics know, nothing more or nothing less. However, academics have not explained to you why the Romans describe their history as relating to the growth of a man, or why there are only 35 tribes, and when did the Romans double the size of a century to 200 men or can explain what Varro means when he writes "when the century of 100 men was doubled, it was still referred to as a century, and a tribe still kept its name, even when their numbers had been multiplied."

They can't tell you because they don't know and have not bothered to find out. Most of our understanding of the Roman army has been based on errors made unknowingly by the ancient sources. Too many of these errors have been accepted without question or examination. Eutropius and Orosius have arrived at many of their inflated figures due to adding subtotals to the total. However, the errors made by many an ancient historian have turned out to be mana from heaven. Polybius has failed to understand a legion had 4,800 infantry and not 4,200 infantry. His error has come about my confusing the youngest hastati with the velites, who have the age as the youngest hastati. Livy's legion suffers from Livy double counting the troop types. In fact, it is the easiest legion to correctly understand.

A Napoleonic historian, when commenting on my work, comments that "the genius of my work is in my ability of joining the right dots." He could not be more accurate, that is all I have done.

[Ian61]

I am terribly sorry to be so stupid but after reading all this I feel no more enlightened. It seems that the Snarks need to be counted as if they are Bojums. Glad I took up the simple science of Chemistry for a career.

[Erpingham]

Thanks Steven for the insight into your thinking and your kind offer to explain to me further.  Romans are not really my specialist thing and it would probably not be worth it.  However, I am interested to observe and question where I don't understand as we go along.  Others more Romano-specialist might wish get more in depth.

[Cantabrigian]

I love being wrong, because it means that I'm learning something new.  But then I don't have a reputation to protect.

I can't really comment on whether your theory is right or wrong because it would take a lot of data analysis.  But I would say that it's easy to see correlations in data that aren't there (see ley lines...), so what would be more convincing is a statistical analysis with some confidence values.

[Monad]

Cantabrigian wrote:
I can't really comment on whether your theory is right or wrong because it would take a lot of data analysis.  But I would say that it's easy to see correlations in data that aren't there (see ley lines...), so what would be more convincing is a statistical analysis with some confidence values.

Can you elaborate on "a statistical analysis with some confidence values." I have eleven papers on academia.
https://independent.academia.edu/StevenJames1

I'm not sure what more I can do. If we just focus on one paper, like the equites legionis and equites singulares, what are people's conclusions? Have I got it wrong? If so, how?