The Early Army of Rome by Jim Webster

[Monad]

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.

Next time I am in a bind, I am going to use that line.

I 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.

[Jim Webster]

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.

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."

[Monad]

And 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.

As 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.

And 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."

[kodiakblair]

See: 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/

[Monad]

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.

[Jim Webster]

Therefore, 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

[kodiakblair]

One 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."

[Monad]

or 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.

Even 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?

[Jim Webster]

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

[Cantabrigian]

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.

[kodiakblair]

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?

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.

[Erpingham]

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?

[Jim Webster]

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?

for me that pretty well sums it up

[Monad]

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.

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.

If 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.

So 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.

As 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.

When 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

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.

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.

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".

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.

So 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.

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"?

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.

You'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.

[Erpingham]

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?