The Early Army of Rome by Jim Webster

[Monad]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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.

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?

[Monad]

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.

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.
 

[Jim Webster]

I assumed it was your stuff on Academia edu

[Monad]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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.

[Monad]

I'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.

With 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.

They 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.

His 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.

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.

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.

[Jim Webster]

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?

[Monad]

They 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.

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.

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?

[Martin Smith]

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?

[Erpingham]

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.

[Monad]

Adversaries? 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.
 

[Jim Webster]

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.

[DBS]

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.

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.

[Martin Smith]

Adversaries? 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.