- Welcome to SoA Forum.
Recent posts
#11
Ancient and Medieval History / Re: James Clark lecture on Bri...
Last post by Imperial Dave - Mar 09, 2026, 05:30 AM
#12
Army Research / Re: The Hidden Legion Organisa...
Last post by Monad - Mar 09, 2026, 03:50 AMIn 168 BC, Livy (44 35) writes that after being informed that the Petra Pass was not guarded, the consul sent the praetor Octavius to sail to Heracleum with 1,000 men, while Scipio Nasica, the son-in-law of Scipio Africanus, and Scipio Nasica's son Quintius Fabius Maximus, was to march overland to Heracleum with 5,000 select troops. Livy's figures amount to 6,000 troops.
For the same incident, Plutarch (Aemilius 15-16) writes that the consul Lucius Aemilius Paullus, "gave them, not as many men as Polybius states, but as many as Scipio Nasica himself says they took, in a short letter which he wrote concerning these exploits to one of the kings, that is 3,000 of his Italians who were not Romans, and his left-wing numbering 5,000. In addition to these, Nasica took 120 cavalry, besides 200 of the mixed Thracian and Cretans with Harpalus. Plutarch's figure amount to 8,320 troops, which is a difference of 2, 320 men above that of Livy.
First red flag is Plutarch does not provide the name of the king that Scipio Nasica sent the letter to, which spells fabrication. Second is the 5,000 men making up the left wing.
Livy, whom appear to be following Polybius, and Plutarch's figures are one and the same, and belong to a standard Roman detachment. This can be proven by the 120 Roman cavalry allocated to Nasica. Accompanying the 120 Roman cavalry should be 240 allied cavalry, which has been rounded to 200 cavalry and converted to Thracians and Cretans. Now, if there are 360 cavalry, there should be 4,000 infantry, as given by Dionysius' (20 1 5) example for the battle of Asculum "reports that some of the Daunians, from the city of Argyrippa, consisting of 4,000 infantry and "some" 400 cavalry were sent to the assistance of the consuls."
Therefore, there are 2,000 Roman infantry, 120 Roman cavalry, 2,000 allied infantry and 240 allied cavalry. When broken down, Livy's 1,000 men with Octavius are Romans. The 5,000 men consist of 2,000 Romans; 2,000 allied infantry and those 1,000 Romans being double counted.
Plutarch 3,000 Italians are 2,000 Italian infantry (allies) and those 1,000 Romans again. Plutarch's 5,000 are the same as Livy; 2,000 Romans; 2,000 allied infantry and those 1,000 Romans being double counted again.
Plutarch writes that according to Polybius, Scipio Nasica's force attacked the Macedonians when they were asleep. However, Plutarch also claims that Scipio Nasica fought a sharp and perilous engagement took place for possession of the heights, and that Scipio Nasica wrote that he had himself killed a Thracian mercenary.
Someone has their facts wrong.
For the same incident, Plutarch (Aemilius 15-16) writes that the consul Lucius Aemilius Paullus, "gave them, not as many men as Polybius states, but as many as Scipio Nasica himself says they took, in a short letter which he wrote concerning these exploits to one of the kings, that is 3,000 of his Italians who were not Romans, and his left-wing numbering 5,000. In addition to these, Nasica took 120 cavalry, besides 200 of the mixed Thracian and Cretans with Harpalus. Plutarch's figure amount to 8,320 troops, which is a difference of 2, 320 men above that of Livy.
First red flag is Plutarch does not provide the name of the king that Scipio Nasica sent the letter to, which spells fabrication. Second is the 5,000 men making up the left wing.
Livy, whom appear to be following Polybius, and Plutarch's figures are one and the same, and belong to a standard Roman detachment. This can be proven by the 120 Roman cavalry allocated to Nasica. Accompanying the 120 Roman cavalry should be 240 allied cavalry, which has been rounded to 200 cavalry and converted to Thracians and Cretans. Now, if there are 360 cavalry, there should be 4,000 infantry, as given by Dionysius' (20 1 5) example for the battle of Asculum "reports that some of the Daunians, from the city of Argyrippa, consisting of 4,000 infantry and "some" 400 cavalry were sent to the assistance of the consuls."
Therefore, there are 2,000 Roman infantry, 120 Roman cavalry, 2,000 allied infantry and 240 allied cavalry. When broken down, Livy's 1,000 men with Octavius are Romans. The 5,000 men consist of 2,000 Romans; 2,000 allied infantry and those 1,000 Romans being double counted.
Plutarch 3,000 Italians are 2,000 Italian infantry (allies) and those 1,000 Romans again. Plutarch's 5,000 are the same as Livy; 2,000 Romans; 2,000 allied infantry and those 1,000 Romans being double counted again.
Plutarch writes that according to Polybius, Scipio Nasica's force attacked the Macedonians when they were asleep. However, Plutarch also claims that Scipio Nasica fought a sharp and perilous engagement took place for possession of the heights, and that Scipio Nasica wrote that he had himself killed a Thracian mercenary.
Someone has their facts wrong.
#13
Ancient and Medieval History / Re: James Clark lecture on Bri...
Last post by Sharur - Mar 08, 2026, 09:09 PMQuote from: Duncan Head on Mar 08, 2026, 08:27 PM"The Making of Medieval England" and Britishness? Something not quite matching there.
Could explain the Loch Ness connection though
. #14
Ancient and Medieval History / Carthaginian coin used as bus ...
Last post by Imperial Dave - Mar 08, 2026, 08:46 PM #15
Ancient and Medieval History / Re: James Clark lecture on Bri...
Last post by Imperial Dave - Mar 08, 2026, 08:43 PMAdmittedly not
#16
Ancient and Medieval History / Re: James Clark lecture on Bri...
Last post by Duncan Head - Mar 08, 2026, 08:27 PM"The Making of Medieval England" and Britishness? Something not quite matching there.
#17
Ancient and Medieval History / Re: James Clark lecture on Bri...
Last post by Sharur - Mar 08, 2026, 07:30 PMSo, not the Loch Ness Monster, but British Identity... Not quite so entertaining, one imagines 
.
. #18
Ancient and Medieval History / Re: The 7 greatest generals
Last post by skb777 - Mar 08, 2026, 12:56 PMQuote from: stevenneate on Mar 08, 2026, 11:48 AMThese lists are generally a bit of a nonsense because the criteria are not set out.
Alexander the great was a 'great' general undoubetedly in my mind. George Washington? Not a chance of being in the top 7, and I say that as someone who is a keen student of the AWI. He wasn't even the best 'general' of the AWI. But he had other statesman qualities.
No Genghis Khan, Hannibal, Li Yuan (Tang dynasty) even John Monash (revolutionary combined-arms tactics changed WW1). There's probably several others but but only 7 and no criteria described? Gimmicky stuff.
If they had created this list 250 years after ATG death he'd have been top due to the impact of his campaigns, let's see were Washington is in the year 3576AD.
#19
Ancient and Medieval History / Re: The 7 greatest generals
Last post by stevenneate - Mar 08, 2026, 11:48 AMThese lists are generally a bit of a nonsense because the criteria are not set out.
Alexander the great was a 'great' general undoubtedly in my mind. George Washington? Not a chance of being in the top 7, and I say that as someone who is a keen student of the AWI. He wasn't even the best 'general' of the AWI. But he had other statesman qualities.
No Genghis Khan, Hannibal, Li Yuan (Tang dynasty) even John Monash (revolutionary combined-arms tactics changed WW1). There's probably several others but only 7 and no criteria described? Gimmicky stuff.
Alexander the great was a 'great' general undoubtedly in my mind. George Washington? Not a chance of being in the top 7, and I say that as someone who is a keen student of the AWI. He wasn't even the best 'general' of the AWI. But he had other statesman qualities.
No Genghis Khan, Hannibal, Li Yuan (Tang dynasty) even John Monash (revolutionary combined-arms tactics changed WW1). There's probably several others but only 7 and no criteria described? Gimmicky stuff.
#20
Ancient and Medieval History / Re: The 7 greatest generals
Last post by skb777 - Mar 08, 2026, 10:22 AMBy impact...I mean come on.