The Early Army of Rome by Jim Webster

[Monad]

We 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.

[Jim Webster]

We 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.

[skb777]

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.

wow.

[Ian61]

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? ) 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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[Chris]

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."

[Cantabrigian]

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?

[Monad]

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.

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.

I thought: Patrick Waterson would have loved this

Patrick had access to my research.

[Chris]

Patrick had access to my research.

At the risk of rising to the the potential bait and getting caught in an apparent net, and? . . .

 

[Monad]

At 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.
 

[stevenneate]

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.

[Monad]

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.

Then why didn't Chris just ask what Patrick had to say?

 

[stevenneate]

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.

[Chris]

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.

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."         

I like to call it "dry wit." (Tomato, Tomahtoe.)

Are five emojis too many?

[Erpingham]

(Tomato, Tomahtoe.)

Or tomato, tohmaytoh.  Actually, we usually say tamarta