In his article "The Early Army of Rome," Slingshot 360 page 10, Jim Webster writes "Another point that intrigued me recently is the fact that if you take Pythagorean number systems, the legion does fit quite nicely. In my eyes, too nicely for it to be pure chance."
What Pythagorean numbers are being referred to. I must also point out to readers that my research relating to Pythagoras and the early Roman army has been made available to Jim, in an earlier version.
Quote from: Monad on Oct 10, 2025, 05:59 AMIn his article "The Early Army of Rome," Slingshot 360 page 10, Jim Webster writes "Another point that intrigued me recently is the fact that if you take Pythagorean number systems, the legion does fit quite nicely. In my eyes, too nicely for it to be pure chance."
What Pythagorean numbers are being referred to. I must also point out to readers that my research relating to Pythagoras and the early Roman army has been made available to Jim, in an earlier version.
I've read that and the stuff on Academia edu, and I could see that there was 'too good a fit' for things to be accidental. I do wonder, that with sickness and injury, (never mind warfare) I do wonder how long units would match their theoretical structure. To me it makes sense for a historian in the 3rd century to project Pythagorean numbers backwards to work out army strengths and casualties when he's got only the vaguest of accounts of the whole campaign, but far more detail than he needs about the actions of two or three family heroes who might even have played a significant part.
After all, looking at the early picture. Is a clan patriarch going to base the number of men he has on a Greek number system, or the economics of pastoral agriculture and convoy protection?
Quote from: Jim Webster on Oct 10, 2025, 08:41 AMI've read that and the stuff on Academia edu, and I could see that there was 'too good a fit' for things to be accidental.
Can you provide the link? I believe I have been the only one claiming Rome was Pythagorean city and it's social and military systems were all Pythagorean, and actually designed for the Romans by Pythagorean himself. For that I have copped years of abuse.
I assumed it was your stuff on Academia edu
Thank you Jim. However, you could have stated that in your last posting. Those academia papers are a mere drop in the ocean of the information I have processed.
And thank you for seeing there is a connection and for standing by it. Besides the Pythagorean number system, I find the Pythagorean geometry when applied to the legion to be breathtaking. All cavalry squadron have half the frontage of the infantry units. This is done, so when the infantry creates cavalry lanes within the legion, there is good deal of safety margin. Throughout my investigation into army and unit numbers, I always apply this golden rule for the republic and it never fails.
The early legion is something unto itself. It had centuries, maniples and cohorts, just as the ancient sources tell us. Pythagorean lore is that all things must be in pairs. A century represents two Pythagorean zodiacs each of 30 degrees. A maniple has four Pythagorean zodiacs; a cavalry squadron of 30 cavalrymen represents one zodiac. Each battleline is composed of men undertaking the same campaign division. The men with the most campaigns under their belt form the front battleline of the army, and those with the least campaigns form the last battle line. So, when Dionysius states the centuries that were last stopped to loot the enemy dead, those centuries are what we would term "raw recruits."
It is the early Roman army that fought at the Allia in 390 BC, no hastati, no princeps and no triarii. Dionysius claims a veteran Roman army of four legions. Those authors that believe the early Roman army consisted of hastati and princeps have gotten it very wrong indeed. Those troops types come later, and the first mention of hastati is in 350 BC, which is close to the mark.
Dionysius' four legions at the Allia is correct, but they are not composed of veteran. The Romans did not levy the least experienced men for the Allia, and replaced them with veterans, so you still had some men of a lower campaign division forming the rear battle line, and I believe that once the Celtic cavalry got behind the Roman army, that was where the rout started, with those less experienced men in the last battle line. When Livy claims the levy was smaller than usual, that is because they did not levy any reserve legions, that were usually encamped in front of the Colline Gate. All levy examples I have explored, and there is quite a lot of them, I take the reader through the whole levy, with every property class in a tribe being processed. The Latins also have the Pythagorean tribal system, and in volume 1, I have detailed the Latin levy for Lake Regillus in 496 BC. The Latin army amounts to 23,760 men, which also includes the cavalry. The Latin army is given at 40,000 infantry and the Roman army at 23,700 infantry. By deducting the Roman infantry from the Latin infantry, this leaves a residue of 16,300. As the Romans are stated to have 1,000 cavalry, this converts to 15,300 infantry and 1,000 cavalry (actually rounded from 1,080 cavalry).
The early Roman army is my favourite period, and for too long it has been abused by too many to name.
Anyway, getting back to your article, the paragraph on the Pythagorean number system just comes out of nowhere and doesn't explain itself. Maybe, if you provided the link, it would provide a little more assistance to the reader.
I'm afraid that for any references you'll have to discuss with the editor, as my input into the article has past.
With regard to numbers, I agree that Pythagoras probably had very little to do with the early Romans. They do not seem to have taken to his philosophy. Indeed I don't remember any references from any Roman writer about Pythagoras's teaching that all souls are immortal and that, after death, a soul is transferred into a new body. Certainly a lot of his teaching, a lifestyle focused on asceticism, moral excellence, and intellectual pursuit, a strict vegetarian diet, communal living, and a rule of silence, don't seem to have had much impact on Rome.
His Number system is said by some to be the work of Philolaus of Croton, described as his student but more properly a member of his school as he was probably born after Pythagoras had died, and apparently the first person to put the numbers side of things into writing. (He may merely have formalised what Pythagoras taught) As he lived (apparent best guess,) 470 – c. 385 BC it is unlikely that his teachings would have had a major influence in Rome prior to, say, 380-350BC.
But as far as I can tell, the main influence of Pythagoras and his teachings on Rome came in the first century AD, but could well have been a little earlier. Apparently he had the advantage of being a philosopher from Italy (even if Greek) rather than just some Greek who never knew Italy. So somebody like Livy, 59 BC – AD 17, or Dionysius of Halicarnassus, about 60 BC – after 7 BC, could have been an early adopters.
So given the way the Early Roman Army was recruited, (As late as 477 the Fabii produced their own private army to fight what was effectively a private war as subcontractors to the Roman state) it's unlikely that clan patriarchs are going to worry too much about esoteric number systems when raising a force of kinsmen and dependents.
Quote from: Jim Webster on Oct 10, 2025, 03:19 PMI'm afraid that for any references you'll have to discuss with the editor, as my input into the article has past.
I am not asking for a reference to be provided now or at a later date, I am just giving feedback about that particular paragraph.
Quote from: Jim Webster on Oct 10, 2025, 03:19 PMWith regard to numbers, I agree that Pythagoras probably had very little to do with the early Romans.
Pythagoras had everything to do with the early Romans. Therefore, we disagree, not agree.
Quote from: Jim Webster on Oct 10, 2025, 03:19 PMThey do not seem to have taken to his philosophy.
Thankfully, they did not. But how much of his philosophy was written much later? The Romans were interested in his ideas of constitution. Diogenes Laertius (Pythagoras 8 1 5), "Pythagoras sailed away to Croton in Italy, and there he laid down a constitution for the Italian Greeks, and he and his followers were held in great estimation; for, being nearly 300 in number, so well did they govern the state that its constitution was in effect a true aristocracy (government by the best)."
Iamblichus (On the Pythagorean Life 130-131), declares that Pythagoras constructed three lines, representing forms of government and connected them at the end to make a right-angled triangle. Iamblichus goes on to say that "by calculating the angles at which the lines meet, and the squares on each side, we have an excellent model of a constitution."
Porphyry (The Life of Pythagoras 54): "Pythagoras and his associates were long held in such admiration in Italy that many cities invited them to undertake their administration."
Plutarch (Numa 8 9) Pythagoras was enrolled as a citizen of Rome. In his Tusculan Disputations (4 1-2), Cicero acknowledges that Pythagorean philosophy made its way to Rome, and that the Romans had adopted many Pythagorean customs.
Iamblichus (Pythagoras 34) the Romans united themselves to the Pythagoras sect. Diogenes Laertius (Pythagoras 8 14-15) and Porphyry (Life of Pythagoras 22) "the Lucanians, the Peucetians, the Messapians and the Romans remained attached to him and came to him to listen to his discourses."
Pliny (Natural History 34 12 26), in the third century, when fighting the Samnites, as part of a religious command, the Romans had to erect one statue to the wisest of the Greeks and one to the bravest. In response, the Romans erected a statue to Pythagoras and one to Alcibiades.
If anyone took the time and did a comparison of the traits and habits of king Numa, who, somehow was believed by the Romans to be a student of Pythagoras, that pattern that emerges is that they are one and the same person.
Quote from: Jim Webster on Oct 10, 2025, 03:19 PMHis Number system is said by some to be the work of Philolaus of Croton
Well, that person got that hopelessly wrong. Three ancient historians such as Ammianus, Florus and Seneca describe the history of Rome as relating to the life span of a man, starting with infancy, then youth, followed by manhood, and then ending with old age. According to Florus, the four ages of progress were Infancy, Youth, Manhood and Old age. The four ages as given by Florus amount to 900 years.
Infancy 400 years
Youth 150 years
Manhood 150 years
Old Age 200 years
I have taken the Pythagorean tetrachord, (6:8:9:12) and using only that, have produce the number of years for each age, and it reveals Rome's timetable for conquering the world, and all of those dates in which the Romans changed from infancy to youth or manhood, a major event occurred each time, and on the exact dates. In fact, this is how it works to the end of manhood
Infancy 753 BC to 613 BC 140 years
Boyhood 613 BC to 403 BC 210 years
Youth 403 BC to 263 BC 140 years
Manhood 263 BC to 53 BC 210 years
Notice those dates, 403 BC and 263 BC, war with Veii and war with Carthage. 53 BC, Crassus defeat. A Pythagorean principle is to multiply by 10 or 100. The 140 years represents the 6:8 of the tetrachord multiplied by 10. The 210 years is the 9:12 of the tetrachord multiplied by 10 (9 + 12 = 21 x 10 =210).
Ammianus: "from the very cradle to the end of childhood, a period of 350 years, carried on wars around her walls. Infancy =140 years + Boyhood = 210 years = 350 years, so Ammianus got that right.
Florus has Rome's infancy last 400 years, which has been rounded from 350 years. Florus has Rome's youth last 150 years, which has been rounded from 140 years. Florus adds that after taking nearly 500 years, Rome finally conquered Italy and had reached maturity (manhood). 753 BC minus 263 BC = 490 years, which has been rounded to 500 years. Florus has Rome's age of manhood lasting 150 years to the time of Augustus Caesar. Well, he got that wrong. Florus ends the third age with the defeat of Crassus in 53 BC. Manhood does end in 53 BC.
Are these just coincidences, or is it too hard for people to admit I could be right?
I can take the Pythagorean tetrachord, and by using the Pythagorean method of changing the inequality of number to equality, produce the number of the men in the whole Roman tribal system from tribe one to tribe 35. I can also collaborate this by applying the number of stadia in the Pythagorean cosmos system as detailed by Censorinus. Also, by applying the Pythagorean tetrachord again, I can by using Strabo's claim that a degree had 700 stadia, and when applied to the Pythagorean zodiac, the starting date of the system begins in 513 BC, during the reign of Tarquinius Superbus. And to back this up, the tribal increases of 387 BC have been calibrated on 513 BC. In the Pythagorean musical system related to the cosmos, a Pythagorean musical tone has 126,000 stadia. If you add 126 years to the year 387 BC, which is when four new tribes were created, the result is the year 513 BC (387 + 126 = 513). This means the Pythagorean cosmos is moving at 1,000 stadia a year. A tribe represents 1,200 stadia (1,000 for the juniors and 200 for the seniores). Therefore, a tribe represents 12 years, and 20 tribes makes 240 years. After deducting the 240 years from 753 BC, produces the year 513 BC.
I'm sure all my adversaries will simply ignore this or find something insubstantial in an attempt to refute it.
Quote from: Jim Webster on Oct 10, 2025, 03:19 PMSo given the way the Early Roman Army was recruited, (As late as 477 the Fabii produced their own private army to fight what was effectively a private war as subcontractors to the Roman state) it's unlikely that clan patriarchs are going to worry too much about esoteric number systems when raising a force of kinsmen and dependents.
The Romans were extremely interested in those esoteric number systems. They lived and died by them. However, I would like you to provide something more than your opinion to back up your claims. I provide evidence to back up my claims, but having debates of evidence versus opinion is unproductive. Many modern historians take the Fabi story lightly. The year before, in 480 BC, the Romans fought the Veintenes with four legions, of which Dionysius numbers at nearly 20,000 infantry and 1,200 cavalry, and just manage to defeat the Veintenes with the loss of a consul to boot. The next year, the Fabi declare to the senate "the Veientine war does not require a large force so much as one constantly in the field. Let the other wars be your care, leave the Fabii to deal with the Veientines." Can anyone take this seriously, and does anyone actually believe that 306 men can now do what 21,200 men achieved? This is Fabi propaganda. And why only 306 men when the Fabi tribe can produce over 910 juniors? Livy breaks off his narrative of the Fabi to mention a Roman army again defeats a Veientine army, then it's back to the destruction of the Fabi, and of interest, following this, the capture of the Janiculum, which I believe this what it is all about.
Whilst I suspect most people will be bored of this, I just had a quick canter through the sources. We have some late sources who mention the Romans uniting or becoming staunch adherents. They seem to be Neoplatonist philosophers more interested in claiming historical respectability for Pythagoras who influenced their thinking than they were in writing history.
Iamblichus. 245AD – c. 325AD
CHAP. XXXIV.
Foreigners also united themselves to the Pythagoric sect, viz. the Messenians, the Lucani, Picentini, and the Romans.
Diogenes Laërtius Born: 180 AD Died: 240 AD
Thus it was that they remained his staunch adherents, p335 and men came to hear his words from afar, among them Lucanians, Peucetians, Messapians and Romans.
After that he returned to Samos to find his country under the tyranny of Polycrates; so he sailed away to Croton in Italy, and there he laid down a constitution for the Italian Greeks, and he and his followers were held in great estimation; for, being nearly three hundred in number, so well did they govern the state that its constitution was in effect a true aristocracy
Porphyry; c. 234 – c. AD 305
During his travels in Italy and Sicily he founded various cities subjected one to another, both of long standing, and recently. By his disciples, some of whom were found in every city, he infused into them an aspiration for liberty; thus restoring to freedom Crotona, Sybaris, Catana, Rhegium, Himera, Agrigentum, Tauromenium, and others, on whom he imposed laws through Charondas the Catanean, and Zaleucus the Locrian, which resulted in a long era of good government, emulated by all their neighbors. Simichus the tyrant of the Centorupini, on hearing Pythagoras's discourse, abdicated his rule and divided his property between his sister and the citizens.
Then Porphyry quotes Aristoxenus, probably born about 375BC,
According to Aristoxenus, some Lucanians, Messapians, Picentinians and Romans came to him.
And this is the source of these nations apparently being guided by him. Some individual citizens visited. And the Romans were no more inportant than the Lucanians, Messapians, Picentinians who don't seem to have bothered too much.
Plutarch is worth quoting in more detail
Accordingly, when it is said that Numa was an intimate friend of Pythagoras, some deny utterly that Numa had any Greek culture, holding either that he was naturally capable of attaining excellence by his own efforts, or that the culture of the king was due to some Barbarian superior to Pythagoras. Others say that Pythagoras the philosopher lived as many as five generations after Numa, 3 but that there was another Pythagoras, the Spartan, who was Olympic victor in the foot-race for the sixteenth Olympiad 3 (in the third year of which Numa was made king), and that in his wanderings about Italy he made the acquaintance of Numa, and helped him arrange the government of the city, whence it came about that many Spartan customs were mingled with the Roman, as Pythagoras taught them to Numa.
So Plutarch doubted it was even the same Pythagoras
Cicero
https://www.attalus.org/cicero/tusc4A.html
As the doctrine of Pythagoras spread itself on all sides, it seems probable to me, that it reached this city; and this is not only probable of itself, but it does really appear to have been the case from many remains of it. For who can imagine that, when it flourished so much in that part of Italy which was called Magna Graecia, and in some of the largest and most powerful cities, in which, first the name of Pythagoras, and then that of those men who were afterwards his followers, was in so high esteem; who can imagine, I say, that our people could shut their ears to what was said by such learned men? [3] L Besides, it is even my opinion, that it was the great esteem in which the Pythagoreans were held, that gave rise to that opinion amongst those who came after him, that king Numa was a Pythagorean. For, being acquainted with the doctrine and principles of Pythagoras, and having heard from their ancestors that this king was a very wise and just man, and not being able to distinguish accurately between times and periods that were so remote, they inferred from his being so eminent for his wisdom, that he had been a pupil of Pythagoras.
You mentioned Pliny (Natural History 34 12 26), in the third century, when fighting the Samnites, as part of a religious command, the Romans had to erect one statue to the wisest of the Greeks and one to the bravest. In response, the Romans erected a statue to Pythagoras and one to Alcibiades.
My first thought was to ask whether the Roman assumption that Alcibiades considered the bravest because he seduced the wife of a Spartan King whilst her husband was still in the city? Other examples of his heroism are in short supply.
Mind you, Pliny had his doubts, quoting him in full
I also find that statues were erected to Pythagoras and to Alcibiades, in the corners of the comitium, when during one of our Samnite Wars {343 BC} Pythian Apollo had commanded the erection in some conspicuous position of an effigy of the bravest man of the Greek race, and likewise, one of the wisest man; these remained until Sulla the dictator made the Senate-house on the site {80 BC or 40 years before Pliny was born}. It is surprising that those illustrious senators of ours rated Pythagoras above Socrates, whom the same deity had put above all the rest of mankind in respect of wisdom, or rated Alcibiades above so many other men in manly virtue, or anybody above Themistocles for wisdom and manly virtue combined.
One problem is the sources, you mention three ancient historians Ammianus, 330AD to 400AD , Florus, second century AD, and Seneca, died 65AD
How could Seneca or Cicero know more than Pliny? The first Roman historian was Quintus Fabius Pictor, 270 to 200BC, and Livy himself says
"The transactions of the Romans, from the building of the city of Rome to the capture of the same city, first under kings, then under consuls, and dictators, and decemvirs, and consular tribunes, their wars abroad, their dissensions at home, I have exhibited in five books: matters obscure, as well by reason of their very great antiquity, like objects which from their great distance are scarcely perceptible, as also because in those times the use of letters, the only faithful guardian of the memory of events, was inconsiderable and rare: and, moreover, whatever was contained in the commentaries of the pontiffs, and other public and private records, were lost for the most part in the burning of the city."
So when you quote great detail from Dionysius of Halicarnassus or Livy, it struck me as being more likely that these authors, short of material, extrapolated from the teachings of Pythagoras and Philolaus of Croton. Especially as we have no contemporary evidence for the Romans basing their system on his teachings. After all, if the teachings of Pythagoras was so important to the Romans why is there no evidence of his number theory influencing land division or architecture. And why didn't the most important spiritual side of his teaching take hold?
Quote from: Jim Webster on Oct 10, 2025, 08:31 PMThey seem to be Neoplatonist philosophers more interested in claiming historical respectability for Pythagoras who influenced their thinking than they were in writing history
Jim, I am aware of all the contradictions and controversies surrounding Pythagoras, especially the connect between Pythagoras and Numa, and what Cicero and the others say on the matter.
Quote from: Jim Webster on Oct 10, 2025, 08:31 PMAfter all, if the teachings of Pythagoras was so important to the Romans why is there no evidence of his number theory influencing land division or architecture.
There are some papers floating around on the internet about Pythagorean ratios and the construction of some Roman buildings. I haven't used them in my research because I wanted to cover the specifics in relation to the tribes and the military system. However, if you look, they are there. Hyginus, when detailing his Roman camp gives dimensions of 2,400 feet long by 1600 feet wide, which creates the ratio 3/2 (the Pythagorean perfect fifth)
Unfortunately, your response is the same response I receive time and time again from my adversaries. I have shown you some examples of how Pythagoras' use of the tetrachord (6:8:9:12) have shape Roman history, of which you have failed to address. To have a fair debate, you also need to address that material instead of cherry picking what you want as a tactic to ignore it.
Will you address the tetrachord information?
Monad - This forum is usually a place for discussion in a friendly manner. Phrases like " Unfortunately, your response is the same response I receive time and time again from my adversaries ...." have no place here, surely?
Adversaries? Seriously?
Two moderatorial comments. Civil discourse is the rule of the forum. I don't think we have exceeded the boundaries yet but remember this is a debate between hobbyists, not a battle for academic reputation.
Secondly, the topic is the Early Roman army. Remember to tie back to that to keep members' interest.
Quote from: Martin Smith on Oct 11, 2025, 06:05 AMAdversaries? Seriously?
Adversary: one's opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute. There is nothing wrong with using that word. You are making a mountain out a mole hill.
I think you've missed the point of Pythagorean philosophy in that it looked for numbers in nature, and found pleasing ratios which have been used in other cultures, some of them before Pythagoras, some in parts of the world where his teachings never reached. So having peoples use these ratios is not evidence that they were followers of Pythagoras.
If a people follow a philosopher you have to look to see what they take from that philosopher's teaching. We see little in Roman culture which leads us to believe they took any notice of his core belief the transmigration of souls which states that every soul is immortal and, upon death, enters into a new body. As far as I know there is no evidence of the Romans accepting this core of Pythagoras's philosophy.
But with regard to the tetrachord, I see no point in addressing it because to do so would be to get trapped in a circular argument.
There is plenty of evidence that second and third century AD neo-Platonists believed that Rome was influenced by Pythagoras. But we also have Plutarch and Pliny who had their doubts.
There is an obvious possibility that given the fact that the teachings of Pythagoras did achieve popularity in the centuries either side of 1AD, that historians from that generation could have filled in the gaps by extrapolating back Pythagorean numerology that was fashionable in their day.
Remember that the Romans of this period disliked new cults and religions, but if anything was suitably ancient and could be connected in any way to their glorious ancestors, then it became not merely acceptable but reputable. This can actually be seen in their attitudes to Judaism and Christianity. The first they had a lot of problems, theological, social, and political with, but they accepted it as ancient and gave it more leeway that they did Christianity which had many of the same problems and a few new ones all of its own.
So the important thing is to look back to early historians who weren't potentially contaminated by this period's fashionable Neo-Platonism and Pythagorean numerology.
So we have Polybius, who takes an interest in the Roman military, has unprecedented access to very senior officers, and as an educated Greek would know about the teachings of Pythagoras as they were passed down. To the best of my knowledge he doesn't even hint that the Romans used a Pythagorean system.
Going further back we run into less and less detail, with no historians prior to Fabius Pictor who lived from about 270BC to about 200BC.
So we have no evidence as to where these detailed numbers later historians bandied about actually came from. Livy himself says "also because in those times the use of letters, the only faithful guardian of the memory of events, was inconsiderable and rare: and, moreover, whatever was contained in the commentaries of the pontiffs, and other public and private records, were lost for the most part in the burning of the city."
So until we have a route by which these detailed numbers were handed down, for example, something from the fourth century, then we're stuck with Livy. And even you regard Livy as unreliable when discussing the Fabii.
Quote from: Jim Webster on Oct 11, 2025, 09:23 AMI think you've missed the point of Pythagorean philosophy in that it looked for numbers in nature, and found pleasing ratios which have been used in other cultures, some of them before Pythagoras, some in parts of the world where his teachings never reached. So having peoples use these ratios is not evidence that they were followers of Pythagoras.
Indeed, and this has always been one of my objections; there is no great evidence that Pythagoras was actually that bothered by numbers, but rather was focused on social philosophy and theology. Worrying about numbers doesn't get you lynched, lecturing people about the perils of democracy and good living does get you lynched.
We do not know when the "numbers" stuff was tacked onto the Pythagorean legend by his later adherents, and there was not a great deal of commonality in the ascribed numerical theories, all of which make it exceedingly unlikely that anyone during the period of the early Roman army was worrying about them. We have very unreliable evidence about how that army was organised in the first place, so then thinking we can analyse said uncertain organisation and perceive Pythagorean patterns that Pythagoras himself would probably not recognise is a double helping of implausibility.
And we come back to the basic question: why would any individual experienced in military matters think a philosopher's supposed numerical patterns were at all relevant to a military force? One organises one's troops based on who you have available, how many men any one leader can command effectively, how many men one can support in the field, how many are sick and wounded, how many men the enemy might have, and how many campaign tasks one might have to undertake simultaneously. When patterns emerge, it is because experienced commanders draw roughly comparable conclusions, not because a highly controversial Greek nutter thought numbers had some mystical secret.
If anyone in second century BC Rome was likely to have Pythagorean sympathies, we might expect it to be someone like Polybius. Who never mentions him in connection with the Roman military or statecraft.
Quote from: Monad on Oct 11, 2025, 08:23 AMQuote from: Martin Smith on Oct 11, 2025, 06:05 AMAdversaries? Seriously?
Adversary: one's opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute. There is nothing wrong with using that word. You are making a mountain out a mole hill.
I fervently disagree...but I very much doubt that will influence your posts in any way.
Quote from: Jim Webster on Oct 11, 2025, 09:23 AMBut with regard to the tetrachord, I see no point in addressing it because to do so would be to get trapped in a circular argument.
Next time I am in a bind, I am going to use that line.
Quote from: Martin Smith on Oct 11, 2025, 02:53 PMI fervently disagree...but I very much doubt that will influence your posts in any way.
Martin, can you make a list of all the words that offend you, and I will make a serious commitment to not using them.
Quote from: Monad on Oct 11, 2025, 11:51 PMQuote from: Jim Webster on Oct 11, 2025, 09:23 AMBut with regard to the tetrachord, I see no point in addressing it because to do so would be to get trapped in a circular argument.
Next time I am in a bind, I am going to use that line.
And this is the reason I'm not wasting any more time on this. As a said, "So we have no evidence as to where these detailed numbers later historians bandied about actually came from. Livy himself says "also because in those times the use of letters, the only faithful guardian of the memory of events, was inconsiderable and rare: and, moreover, whatever was contained in the commentaries of the pontiffs, and other public and private records, were lost for the most part in the burning of the city."
So until we have a route by which these detailed numbers were handed down, for example, something from the fourth century, then we're stuck with Livy. And even you regard Livy as unreliable when discussing the Fabii.
"
Quote from: Jim Webster on Oct 12, 2025, 05:55 AMAnd this is the reason I'm not wasting any more time on this.
I came to that same conclusion with your response to the tetrachord question. Well, no one can claim I don't provided evidence to back my claims.
Quote from: Jim Webster on Oct 12, 2025, 05:55 AMAs a said, "So we have no evidence as to where these detailed numbers later historians bandied about actually came from.
I do. The whole Pythagorean system can be found in the book of Revelation. I never knew, until a historian who was reviewing the first volume pointed this out. My first thought was I couldn't see how there would be a connection, but further examination proved me wrong. The whole Pythagorean system is there, naked to the world. See: Egyptian Origin of the Book of Revelation by John C. Pippy, and as Pythagoras is reported to have studied in Egypt, it all makes sense. So, I guess I lot of documents did not burn during the sack of Rome. Also, Pythagorean documents uncovered (part of a plot), in 184 BC, were burnt by the senate on the grounds that they were detrimental to the wellbeing of the state. Saint Augustine provides the reason why.
Quote from: Jim Webster on Oct 12, 2025, 05:55 AMAnd even you regard Livy as unreliable when discussing the Fabii."
I never directly said that Livy was unreliable. I wrote "Livy breaks off his narrative of the Fabi to mention a Roman army again defeats a Veientine army, then it's back to the destruction of the Fabi, and of interest, following this, the capture of the Janiculum, which I believe this what it is all about."
That doesn't make Livy unreliable. Like any ancient historian, Livy is only as good as his sources, and that is what I have written in my work "Polybius or his source, Livy or his source, Appian or his source."
Quote from: Monad on Oct 14, 2025, 01:35 AMSee: Egyptian Origin of the Book of Revelation by John C. Pippy
A self published book by someone who is neither an egyptologist or a biblical scholar. Even the unexplained mysteries folk had issues with it.
https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/315823-egyptian-origin-of-the-book-of-revelation/
One negative comment from someone, and there is this one.
"I'm not saying l agree with the author of "Egyptian Origin of the Book of Revelation", that the Book of Revelation is based in it's entirety on AE texts, but the similarities between Revelation, chapter 4, verse 5-11 and the second department of the Duat are to blatant IMHO to be just coincidence. There's definitely some influence here and maybe more than just in the example from chapter 4, verse 5-11. A collaboration between a Bible Scholar and an Egyptologist specialized in AE religion might shed some light on this.
However, good or bad reviews, it does not affect me. It's the numbers in the Book of Revelation that match the Pythagorean system, and interlock with the major Pythagorean mathematical system, which is the Pythagorean five elements.
Pythagoras believed that the "universe is made from five solid figures which are also called mathematical. In relation to their geometric shape, heaven was composed of 12 equilateral pentagons, fire was composed of 24 right-angled triangles, air was composed of 48 triangles, earth was composed of 48 triangles and water was composed of 120 triangles. In total, the five elements amounted to 14,400 degrees, which is one-tenth the number in the 12 tribes of Israel (144,000 men) (Revelation 7 & 14) Each of the 12 tribes numbered 12,000 men. The 20 tribes of Rome each numbered 1,200 men, again the one-tenth system.
I would describe the five elements and the 14,400 degrees as a zip folder. Hit it with some data from the Book of Revelation and it pops right open, to reveal the whole tribal system, with heaven = Class I (6480 degrees), Class II = fire and air (720 degrees), Class III air and earth (1440 degrees), Class IV earth (2160 degrees), Class V water, and Class VI also water (3600 degrees).
Therefore, the data from the Book of Revelation, the Pythagorean tetrachord, the Pythagorean cosmos and the six musical tones and stadia, the five elements system, and changing the inequality of numbers to equality, all interlock and are part of the same system. Augustus' celebration of the saecula games in 17 BC, perfectly matches the Pythagorean saecula system, as does Polybius' census figures for the Romans in 225 BC match the tribal system of that time frame. They are not coincidences, and also disputes Jim's claim "we have no evidence as to where these detailed numbers later historians bandied about, actually came from."
Also, I have since found out that the number 666 is the Pythagorean musical string length for "G," which in the Pythagorean cosmos matches the planet Saturn. Still looking into this with a musicologist.
Therefore, if all the records were supposedly destroyed, the Romans did an extremely good job of remembering all those Pythagorean systems.
Quote from: Monad on Oct 14, 2025, 11:00 AMTherefore, if all the records were supposedly destroyed, the Romans did an extremely good job of remembering all those Pythagorean systems.
or Ist and 2nd century BC historians did a good job of retrofitting them to fill in the gaps
Quote from: Monad on Oct 14, 2025, 11:00 AMOne negative comment from someone, and there is this one.
Actually no, there were a damn sight more than one negative comment. The only 'positive' came from the original poster, who just happened to give the quote you cherrypicked.
Even he wasn't in agreement with the idea, read his first sentence, and hoped knowledgeable folks would critique the book. His last sentence.
"A collaboration between a Bible Scholar and an Egyptologist specialized in AE religion might shed some light on this."
Quote from: Jim Webster on Oct 14, 2025, 12:32 PMor Ist and 2nd century BC historians did a good job of retrofitting them to fill in the gaps
Then why did they align all the dates to coincide with the year 513 BC, which is during the reign of Tarquinius Superbus? And if Servius Tullius was supposedly the creator of the property class system, why is it that Zonaras states that nothing was done worthy of record during the reign of Servius Tullius, and that it was Tarquinius Superbus the seventh king of Rome that put forth a proposal to rearrange the tribes.
If the first and second century BC historians retrofitted the data, then why didn't they retrofit them to fit their story of Servius Tullius being the creator of the tribes and property class, introducing intercalation and so on?
With a tribe representing 12 years of time, the 20 tribes amount to 240 years, and when deducted from 753 BC, the result is 513 BC. Cicero gives the reign of the kings at 240 years, which also relate to the period from 753 BC to 513 BC. As the Pythagorean system is a micro-macro system, each tribe also represents one year, for a total of 20 years, and when deducted from Tarquinius Superbus' reign beginning in 534 BC, the result is 513 BC.
There is proof of some items being written much later. When Romulus died, Dionysius gives the size of the army of Romulus at 46,000 infantry and "about" 1,000 cavalry. Dionysius was writing during the reign of the emperor Augustus (30 BC to 14 AD), and during that time the 35 tribes of Rome amounted to 336,000 men. With the juniors representing five-fifths and the seniores one-sixth, the juniors amounted to 280,000 men (56,000 x 5) and the seniores 56,000 men. By rounding the 56,000 seniores to 60,000 seniores and then deducting the 60,000 seniores from the 336,000 juniors and seniores in the 35 tribes, this leaves a residue of 276,000 men, and when divided by six (5-parts juniors and 1-part seniores), this produces 46,000 men (one-sixth of 276,000 men).
To arrive at 336,000 men in the 35 tribes, at this time 16 Pythagorean zodiacs have past the apex. With a zodiac having 30 degrees, this amounts to 480 degrees. Strabo allocates a degree 700 stadia, so after multiplying 480 degrees by 700 stadia = 336,000 stadia and when divided by the 35 tribes, each tribe is allocated 9,600 degrees, which is converted to 9,600 men, representing two legions each of 4,800 men (minus the officers and supernumeraries).
The maximum number of Roman tribes as given by the ancient historians was 35 tribes. The creation of the 35 tribes has its foundations in the Pythagorean tetrachord (6, 8, 9, 12), and because of this the number of tribes could never exceed 35 tribes. This was because the integers of the Pythagorean tetrachord added up to 35 (6 + 8 + 9 + 12 = 35). In Pythagorean lore, two harmonic fourths (the ratio 4/3), created the harmonic fifth (the ratio 3/2). The 12 and 9 of the tetrachord produce the harmonic fourth and represent 21 of the 35 tribes. The 8 and 6 also produce the harmonic fourth, and represent the remaining 14 tribes. The 21 tribes and the 14 tribes produce the harmonic fifth (the ratio 3/2).
So, how did your first and second BC historians manage to backdate this?
According to Plutarch, although the number 35 was endowed with perfection (6:8:9:12), the Pythagoreans believed the number 36 (the sacred quaternion or the number of divinity), had been given the name "World" as it was made up of the first four even numbers (2+4+6+8 =20), and the first four odd numbers (1+3+5+7 = 16), added together (20+16 = 36). The Roman Pythagorean system consists of 36 generations. When the 36 generations are multiplied by the Pythagorean tetrachord, this produces a total of 1,260 years, which is the time line of the Pythagorean system. The 1,260 days of the Book of Revelation has been converted to 1,260 years.
No matter the evidence I can produce, and there is a ton more of the stuff, I will always be wrong on this forum, and everyone else's conjecture is right. Trying to convince me I am wrong is a pointless exercise. You guys have been doing that since the Ancmed days, and since then my research has gone from strength to strength.
Quote from: kodiakblair on Oct 14, 2025, 06:16 PMEven he wasn't in agreement with the idea, read his first sentence, and hoped knowledgeable folks would critique the book. His last sentence.
As I have stated, I don't need Pippy's research. I just employ the numbers provided in the Book of Revelation, so Pippy is irrelevant to me. However, if the Book of Revelation is believed to have been written in the first century AD, how did it become part of the Roman system for the fifth century BC, fourth century BC, third century BC, second century BC, first century BC, first century AD, second century AD, third century AD and fourth century AD?
Joannes or John Zonaras c. 1070 – c. 1140) What were his sources for 513BC?
Again with Cicero, a first century BC writer. It is for 1st Century Pythagoreans to retrofit some obscure number system into a barely known historical period for which there are no decent written sources. If there are no historical sources to give the details, it's easy to backdate.
As for the book of Revelation, I recommend you actually read into some of the commentaries. Especially soem of the academic work done on the gnostic gospels. In the first and subsequent centuries AD the early church fathers spent a lot of time trying to limit in amount of neo-platonist philosophy that was seeping into Christianity. Indeed Greek philosophy generally. Aristotle's version of Plato's forms still influence some theological discussion.
Basically any Pythagorean influence in Revelation is merely more evidence of how strong neo-Platonist thinking was at the time, and shows how it is possible for historians of the period to allow their thinking to colour their writing of history or theology
The academic system isn't really setup to evaluate quantum leaps of brilliance, especially if those leaps of brilliance come from people outside the system.
It's a more incremental system, with small steps that are subject to widespread review. And a lot of that review is based on the academic reputation of those proposing the ideas.
It's not a perfect system, but it is perhaps the least bad way of organising things for professionals.
But it can be frustrating for people outside the system. If you want your ideas to be accepted by academia, then you have to play by their rules, and that means coalition building. If you're just one voice crying out in the wilderness, then you're going to get ignored.
So the real question is whether it's more important to you that your ideas get accepted, or that everyone acknowledges your brilliance. As a non-professional historian, you can't have both, and it sounds like you actually care more about the latter. When people show any interest in your ideas, you tend to drive them away, and treat them as adverseries.
Any future ally is going to start off by asking you a lot of questions, and casting doubt on what you say, until they're convinced. If you can't take that, then you'll never build a coalition.
There's an old saying that I like "There's no limit to what can be achieved if no-one cares who gets the credit". So do you allow others to become allies, to contribute their perspectives and ideas, and to influence the ways your theories develop?
Or do you just say "I really don't care about academic acceptance that much, so I'm just going to investigate this on my own for my own interest"?
Both are perfectly respectable positions.
Quote from: Monad on Oct 14, 2025, 10:38 PMHowever, if the Book of Revelation is believed to have been written in the first century AD, how did it become part of the Roman system for the fifth century BC, fourth century BC, third century BC, second century BC, first century BC, first century AD, second century AD, third century AD and fourth century AD?
It wasn't part of the Roman system, not unless you take the round peg/square hole approach.
You're just taking stuff, beating it into your theory and claiming it's related.
I'll leave you to it.
Though helpfully offered, Mike, I think from a forum perpective, we need to focus on the military history aspects, rather than the publication side.
As I understand it, the debate from an Early Roman army perspective is was the army designed on and kept to a philosophically-based number system from the beginning or was the number system used retrospectively to fill in incomplete knowledge of early systems due to the non-existence or loss of original information?
Quote from: Erpingham on Oct 15, 2025, 02:03 PMThough helpfully offered, Mike, I think from a forum perpective, we need to focus on the military history aspects, rather than the publication side.
As I understand it, the debate from an Early Roman army perspective is was the army designed on and kept to a philosophically-based number system from the beginning or was the number system used retrospectively to fill in incomplete knowledge of early systems due to the non-existence or loss of original information?
for me that pretty well sums it up
Quote from: Cantabrigian on Oct 15, 2025, 12:57 PMThe academic system isn't really setup to evaluate quantum leaps of brilliance, especially if those leaps of brilliance come from people outside the system.
As you have not named who you are replying to, or which posting, I must assume it is me. Many years ago, after having my research evaluated, I was told "it was a quantum leap and many will not be able to deal with it." I would also add, that many will not want to deal because it challenges their sensibilities. Those who have something to protect, like those who have written papers or books on the Roman army, will, see their reputations being tarnished, and will react, and not in a supportive manner.
Quote from: Cantabrigian on Oct 15, 2025, 12:57 PMIf you're just one voice crying out in the wilderness, then you're going to get ignored.
Actually, that is an academic tactic employed when they cannot debunk your work. Say nothing, don't draw attention to it.
Quote from: Cantabrigian on Oct 15, 2025, 12:57 PMSo the real question is whether it's more important to you that your ideas get accepted, or that everyone acknowledges your brilliance.
Really, that's news to me. What brilliance? My work has correctly been described as nothing more than joining the right dots. And something I agree with. You do not know me to know my modus operandi. Some 20 years ago, after hearing at the university what I was doing, when Professor Ridley spoke to me about reading what I had done, I told him I had nothing written down. He was a little surprised and asked me why? I told him I like mysteries, and that once I unravelled a mystery I move on to something else. So, writing it down I would find tedious and boring. Anyway, he convinced me to do it, I did, and that was that. it got review, I got castigated on the grounds that I was going to destroy the reputations of historian's past and present, and that was that. Ridley has since been in touch and was concerned my work would disappear, of which I replied I was not duly concerned, as, one, no one is interested, and two, I am focused on dealing with a serious health problem.
Quote from: Cantabrigian on Oct 15, 2025, 12:57 PMAs a non-professional historian, you can't have both, and it sounds like you actually care more about the latter.
How would you know what I actually care about? This is just your interpretation. Can we stop putting words in my mouth.
Quote from: Cantabrigian on Oct 15, 2025, 12:57 PMWhen people show any interest in your ideas, you tend to drive them away, and treat them as adverseries.
I refuse to accept that. Also, adversaries is another word for opponent. Why put a negative spin on it? I know why, but I'll let it pass. The only interest shown in my work on this forum is to continuously debunk it with opposing opinions...not evidence. So, I have no idea who these allies you speak of are. The people who are interested in my work, privately contact me, and on many occasions, I respond by sharing the information, and in some cases, answering a specific question requested of me. The reason why they reply privately, is because they are not interested in posting publicly, and having to deal with all the nay sayers.
Talking about offline communication, many years ago, on Ancmed, I was trying to explain about the Pythagoreans numbers and their relation to the Roman legion as I understood it at the time. For this I was receiving my usual hammering from those who believe they know better, when I received a private email from a mathematician.
"That we are on the same road was evident to me the moment I saw your posts (on Ancmed). I was actually totally shocked by it and decided I had to write to you immediately. To be honest, I don't even have a real clue as to what the ostensible purpose of the group (Ancmed) to which you belong is. I just happened to find your posts while searching for key words (or numbers) on the Internet. ...For another thing, this is an uncommon discovery that you have made. Back in the 1940's two academics discovered that Virgil and Lucan were using Pythagorean mathematical ratios to structure their books. By the way, tell these clowns in the group (Ancmed) who are asking if number theology exists -- I know that I am being wicked and that I should be respectful and shouldn't call them clowns :-) –
This mathematician then hooked me up with Ernest McClain (now deceased), who after reviewing my material sent me this:
Dear Steven James: As an archaeomusicologist (by curiosity, unsacramented), I believe you have taken a giant step toward integrating "Pythagorean technology" as applied to ancient cosmology. The primal "calendar" of base 60's 720 "days plus nights" puts 360 within the "octave double" 2:1, so that multiplication by 4 into 2880 integrates "twinned" approximations to the square root of 2 as the wholly ambiguous "tritones" in its center, now becoming the "middle of the sun hexagon in this "matrix arithmetic." You are uncovering the "military" aspect in which 36:35 becomes an excellent "quartertone" approx in an environment that has LONG understood the cube root correction of 5:4 to 63:50. Your work MUST agree with my own, however we think about. Let's see if we can work through this together. The REVELATION choir of 144,000 is the cosmic destiny of your arithmetic. I like every sentence you report here; your methods seem exquisite to me, and I want all of my friends alerted. You are filling great gaps in our experience and the earlier influence of the Roman Army in spreading this "calculation" to the north lands and into Britain. I must try to digest your data better before I say any more. Please study the material available on the web in Richard Heath's websites and my own. His technology speeds our arithmetical understanding. I think you have done something FABULOUS for the history of science, religion, and music. Ernest McClain
Quote from: Cantabrigian on Oct 15, 2025, 12:57 PMAny future ally is going to start off by asking you a lot of questions, and casting doubt on what you say, until they're convinced. If you can't take that, then you'll never build a coalition.
I'm getting a little tired of this pattern of making me out to be the problem. I provide evidence and it gets ignored, and for this forum, that is not a problem, so it's always my evidence versus someone's opinion. That is nothing more than a kangaroo court. I knew what I was getting into subscribing to this forum, it does have a reputation for being "an elitists boys club." Funny how I suddenly become a problem when someone cannot answer any of my questions. I call it deflection, a strategy to avoid answering the question.
Quote from: Cantabrigian on Oct 15, 2025, 12:57 PMThere's an old saying that I like "There's no limit to what can be achieved if no-one cares who gets the credit".
And do you live by that? Would you be happy if someone stole your invention or pattern? Would be happy for someone to take credit for your ideas and efforts, and see them get promoted at work? No you would not.
Quote from: Cantabrigian on Oct 15, 2025, 12:57 PMSo do you allow others to become allies, to contribute their perspectives and ideas, and to influence the ways your theories develop?
From this forum you mean? If so, there is no need to. Their perspectives are wrong and are opinion based. When they show me some real evidence I will take notice. For example, the historian who read my material and told me those numbers can be found in the Book of Revelations, yes, I took his advice and investigated. I only use data in the primary sources. I let the data do the talking. The data provides the answers. I prefer the data and not opinions, as opinions are the lowest form of knowledge.
And what perspective is that? Oh, you mean the "I am wrong perspective." For evidence, take a look at David's last posting. I offer anyone to read the responses to all my posting on this forum as evidence to my lack of allies.
Quote from: Cantabrigian on Oct 15, 2025, 12:57 PMOr do you just say "I really don't care about academic acceptance that much, so I'm just going to investigate this on my own for my own interest"?
That is what I am doing, and yes, I don't care about academia acceptance, because as the song goes, I find academia "just another brick in the wall." Every time, over the past 20 years, when I tried to follow academia's line of thought, it created nothing but dead ends and frustration.
Quote from: kodiakblair on Oct 15, 2025, 01:57 PMYou're just taking stuff, beating it into your theory and claiming it's related.
Yeah, I've heard that before from this forum. Is this response from an ally? I need to be sure. Imagine the backlash if I used David's response on some here. Well, David, for one who has not even read my research, I guess that makes you an authority on what I am doing. How about David putting your money where your mouth is. Explain to me how I have taken stuff and beat it into my theory? I have no theory. The Pythagorean tetrachord existed before I was born, and Florus' description and timelines of Rome as a man also existed before my time. All I did was find the origin of Florus' timeline and how he came to those time frames. Looking forward to your enlightening response.
A reminder once again that this "elite boys club" is actually a discussion forum for hobbyists. Few of us are academics specialising in the period we are discussing.
We were, if you recall, discussing matters arising from Jim's article in Slingshot 360. Have we exhausted that line of discussion and, if so, is it time to move on?
Quote from: Erpingham on Oct 16, 2025, 09:03 AMWe were, if you recall, discussing matters arising from Jim's article in Slingshot 360.
Yes, quite correct, it was in relation to Jim's comment "that if you take the Pythagorean number systems, the legion does fit quite nicely."
If people are not interested, they don't have to read the post.
Quote from: Monad on Oct 17, 2025, 12:23 AMQuote from: Erpingham on Oct 16, 2025, 09:03 AMWe were, if you recall, discussing matters arising from Jim's article in Slingshot 360.
Yes, quite correct, it was in relation to Jim's comment "that if you take the Pythagorean number systems, the legion does fit quite nicely."
If people are not interested, they don't have to read the post.
I wasn't going to bother with this thread any more, but given my name was mentioned I'll merely point out that when people read the first 350 words of the article in Slingshot they'll see why I came to the conclusion I did.
Quote from: Monad on Oct 11, 2025, 11:51 PMQuote from: Jim Webster on Oct 11, 2025, 09:23 AMBut with regard to the tetrachord, I see no point in addressing it because to do so would be to get trapped in a circular argument.
Next time I am in a bind, I am going to use that line.
Quote from: Martin Smith on Oct 11, 2025, 02:53 PMI fervently disagree...but I very much doubt that will influence your posts in any way.
Martin, can you make a list of all the words that offend you, and I will make a serious commitment to not using them.
wow.
There is an interesting bit of psychology going on here. Humans are relentless in searching out patterns. I recall a 'Crowd Science' from perhaps last year where an Interior Designer asked the chap doing the tiling to do a 'random pattern'. Several arguments later she realised that she was asking an almost impossible thing as she kept seeing patterns. The Fibonacci sequence is an example of excellent but over-inferred sequence and of course the existence of lay-lines (Yes, they are real - put a ruler on a map and join up several pubs in a line – clearly the beer is flowing along ancient beer rivers beneath, what other explanation is possible? 8) ) I suspect that the patterns we see are determined as much by our previous background, experience and knowledge as whether the sequence is actually there.
I think Steven's research is picking up more than random pseudo-patterns. I think there is a legitimate question posed by Jim whether the pattern is there in entirety in the distant past, or whether cultural trends have cleaned up/filled in incomplete data later.
Late to this as usual . . . :-[
Within a few minutes of catching up and scanning the discussion/debate, I thought: Patrick Waterson would have loved this."
I actually think Steven's basic idea (or what I understand of it) is actually pretty uncontroversial.
Making an estimate of losses in a battle, or choosing the size of sub-units in a military formation are all cases where a human has to choose a number. And I'm happy to believe that when humans have to choose a number, that they tend to favour what they imagine are "nice" numbers. Certain numbers just seem better to humans.
So if we go back to Ancient times, for some humans their concept of what makes a "nice" number might be based on Pythagorean or similar philosophy, or it might be based on pre-existing concepts of number "niceness" that Pythagorean philosophy documented.
Does anyone disagree with that?
Quote from: Erpingham on Oct 19, 2025, 01:29 PMI think there is a legitimate question posed by Jim whether the pattern is there in entirety in the distant past, or whether cultural trends have cleaned up/filled in incomplete data later.
I've actually been down that road. Varro is hinted at being a Pythagorean, and it is Varro that was responsible for the Roman chronology of which Augustus approved. The celebration of the saecula in 17 BC by Augustus is in perfect alignment with the Pythagorean saecula timetable, which, because Pythagoras believed in reincarnation, and that he was in a previous life fighting during the Trojan War, the Pythagorean saecula timetable takes the Trojan War into its timeline.
However, my investigation into whether Varro could have rewritten the system comes to a dead end many years ago. Rome's life as a man as discussed by Florus and others, follows Solon of Athens, around the sixth century BC. Solon used the hebdomad system, as does Pythagoras. The Pythagorean system of 1,260 years is broken into six ages and also employs the hebdomad system. Rome's manhood period of 210 years is broken into 14 periods each of 15 years. At the moment I am investigating the Talmut and other Jewish religious works that follow 15-year cycles. In all honestly, I have come to the conclusion that I need to hand over my research to Jewish scholars. It is becoming too much.
Pythagoras is believed to have discovered his musical system while playing the six-finger flute, the eight finger flute, ninth and twelfth as well. However, such flutes have been discovered by archaeologist in Egypt, further reinforcing my view that Pythagoras was the great plagiariser.
There are too many Jewish and Egyptian influences in the system as building blocks that could not be replicated by someone like Varro hundreds of years later. The creation of the Roman tribes, and the time frame for the creation of the individual tribes up to 249 BC, also provides evidence of following a timeline known far before the first or second century BC. The introduction of the Aniensis and the Teretina tribes, which raised the number of tribes to 33 tribes, violated the timetable, and was done to the Roman could levy an additional two legions, thereby bringing the number of legions able to be levied under the Pythagorean system to eight legions. This is one of the drawbacks of following the Pythagorean system, it did not allow the Romans to fully utilize their available manpower. It was not until after the First Punic War that the Romans abandoned this part of the Pythagoras system. How this was done is explained by Varro "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." It was Augustus who restored this system, and with Augustus' time line being set in the fourth age, when multiplied by the hebdomad system, produces 28 legions.
Another time the Romans violated the system was in 387 BC, which is understandable, the Romans wanted more legions, and in order to do it, they needed more tribes.
According to Dionysius, Fabius Pictor claimed that there were originally 26 tribes and four urban city tribes, for a total of 30 tribes. However, on examining Polybius' levy description, this points towards Fabius Pictor relating to the levy system of his day, and the same levy system Polybius is relating to. Now, if Fabius Pictor was responsible for later insertions, why did he get his own system wrong? He, like Livy would have known that in 495 BC, there were 21 tribes. And the creation of the 21st tribe in 495 BC was a mistake, due to using the wrong calibration date. It should have been created in 501 BC, and how it happened to be created in 495 BC, shows the Romans at that time were using the Pythagorean system, and the mistake provides the evidence.
Quote from: Chris on Oct 19, 2025, 01:42 PMI thought: Patrick Waterson would have loved this
Patrick had access to my research.
Quote from: Monad on Oct 19, 2025, 11:52 PMPatrick had access to my research.
At the risk of rising to the the potential bait and getting caught in an apparent net, and? . . .
Quote from: Chris on Oct 21, 2025, 08:22 PMAt the risk of rising to the the potential bait and getting caught in an apparent net, and? . .
Sorry, what potential baiting? My comment was merely to let readers know I shared my research with Patrick, who I found more open minded than most, and yet it now gets returned as a character assassination attempt.
I think Chris just wanted to know if you had feedback from Patrick. Patrick had a way of evaluating ideas through a clearer lens than many.
Quote from: stevenneate on Oct 22, 2025, 06:45 AMI think Chris just wanted to know if you had feedback from Patrick. Patrick had a way of evaluating ideas through a clearer lens than many.
Then why didn't Chris just ask what Patrick had to say?
I think the "...and?" was his way of asking "and what did Patrick think?"
Corresponding with and reading Chris's material in Slingshot and his blog, I am quite certain Chris is not a man of malice, rudeness or smart-arsery.
Quote from: stevenneate on Oct 22, 2025, 09:39 AMCorresponding with and reading Chris's material in Slingshot and his blog, I am quite certain Chris is not a man of malice, rudeness or smart-arsery.
In the interest of transparency and full-disclosure (one and the same, it seems), I can report that on a few occasions or when it might be appropriate, friends, co-workers, and family members have commented on my "smart-arsery." :-X :-[ :P ::) ;)
I like to call it "dry wit." (Tomato, Tomahtoe.)
Are five emojis too many?
Quote from: Chris on Oct 22, 2025, 07:49 PM(Tomato, Tomahtoe.)
Or tomato, tohmaytoh. Actually, we usually say tamarta :)
Quote from: Erpingham on Oct 22, 2025, 09:10 PMActually, we usually say tamarta :)
Ah, of course. A thousand apologies for my geographical-dialectical and or pronunciation-related ineptitude! :-[
Toms for me
(Sorry)