Ok, I'm going to skip the part where I explain how academia works to produce different theories (because I already did that),
You're obviously referring to Delbruck, and embarrassing yourself in the process, because you're just claiming that Delbruck says every army in antiquity was considerably smaller, or, in other words, pulling fiction out of your ass. Delbruck has multiple chapters dealing exclusively with the Romans and their ability to out-do other peoples through sheer mobilisation potential. That the Romans could levy and maintain over 100,000 men was never even questioned by Delbruck; rather he argues that the Romans were extremely unique in history in relation to its structure and mobilisation potential - one that other states like Carthage or Pontus could not match. In fact, Rome's mobilisation rate of adult males during the Second Punic War wasn't matched until the industrial era. Delbruck notes that many of the wars Rome fought and won were not only through brilliant generalship, but also because of Rome's ability to continuously levy replacements for their field armies, the prime example being of course the Second Punic War.or the fact that you know other academics hold opposing views because the guy whose dogma you were championing early in this thread holds the opposite view to large armies being able to exist. I'm also going to skip your obvious 180 position shifts as regards this issue.
No one is claiming that all scholars corroborate with each other, though ironically this is the case for this particular issue as will be discussed further below.Instead I'm going to focus on why as critical students of history we should not treat Vetellius claims seriously (again):
I can't find anything referring to him as a 'bad source', an excerpt from livius.org:1) He's regarded as a bad source (look it up); inconsistent, with poor chronologies that don't work, not even a proper historian by ancient standards, etc.
This is where people start to laugh uncontrollably; a rant fueled by the complete refusal to acknowledge anything more than your own biased readings of Appian. This is just amateur at its finest, and demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge and use of huge assumptions in an attempt to discredit the opponent. I know, it's hard not to see 300 cohorts as insta-500 or 600 strong - Plutarch, your favorite "objective" historian, usually translates a legion from his sources as 6,000 men, automatically assuming full strength.2) None of the other sources even hint at such an army size. There is talk of a legion here, a legion there, several thousand joining, 600 dying on either side in an engagement, etc.
3) The army size makes no logical sense for a number of reasons: [deleted]
Ok. Firstly, a legion from republican times was 5000 men strong. Not 6000. NOT 6000. I must have corrected you on this point dozens of times across half a dozen threads, yet you still continue to make this mistake over and over.Plutarch, your favorite "objective" historian, usually translates a legion from his sources as 6,000 men, automatically assuming full strength.
You really have no integrity left do you?It's become largely pointless replying to you, as I explained, however I will note a few things that may benefit other readers in my selective reply of your selective reply.
Ok. Firstly, a legion from republican times was 5000 men strong. Not 6000. NOT 6000. I must have corrected you on this point dozens of times across half a dozen threads, yet you still continue to make this mistake over and over.
Sometimes sources refer to the make up of legions, sometimes they don't, but to claim that you (or anyone) will apply "an estimate" to these figures is highly problematic. It's based on nothing but speculation most of the time, albeit (sometimes) informed speculation. This is doubly problematic when the sources actually do specify the numbers. That's a general comment, not one aimed at the particular situation of Pompey.
As far as the situation of Pompey goes; if we take Orosius seriously, in conjunction with the other sources who are frankly more reputable than him, then it's rather hard to believe Pompey could have had less than 6 legions. The casualties, as I already noted in depth, would have made it impossible for him to field a viable army with a smaller army than 30,000 men (because the casualties are almost all given in numerical terms, not "a legion here, a legion there"). For me there isn't much of a conundrum, because I tend not to take Orosius too seriously anyway (and only give the 30,000 men figure credence because he cites another source directly as supporting that figure, and because such a figure fits with everything else about the war; the casualties, the events after the war, etc), but I'm not sure I see the relevance in any event. You've lost your train of thought and are now rambling about tangential points that don't support what was actually in dispute.
What was in dispute was your contradictory attitude to sources, and how you choose to believe diametrically opposed accounts depending on what suits your position at any given time. This has been pointed out explicitly numerous times. When we first discussed this you said Memnon was the best source. Then you dropped him for Appian, when you realized he actually supported Plutarch on the essentials. Once you realized he supported Plutarch too, you abandoned him, and now mock people as "Appian whores", as though Appian isn't regarded as one of the best and most reliable sources for the period. It's the same attitude for the other figures I cited in my earlier posts. You just recently supported Cinna's apparent ability to muster 30 legions almost instantly, based off a weak source, yet you were crowing at how unbelievable it was that Cinna had a mere 20 legions ready to fight Sulla at the start of the war 3+ years later. Your contradictory position shifts, which you never acknowledge, make debating with you pointless. You've already moved mostly to my position on most of these issues, you're just pretending you haven't because you're too proud to do so.
Did you even literally read what I wrote? Like did you actually do anything more than scan it? Brunt and Konrad said that these cohorts would not be full strength, because cohorts aren't recruited at full strength. It would be an estimate of the number of COHORTS in existence on Cinna's side, including local volunteer units. Brunt literally gives a fragment from Sallust of how men were recruited, with 2,000 recruits being split into two separate legions and then filled.you just recently supported Cinna's apparent ability to muster 30 legions almost instantly, based off a weak source,
Not always. Numbers varied depending upon demands and availability:Ok. Firstly, a legion from republican times was 5000 men strong. Not 6000. NOT 6000. I must have corrected you on this point dozens of times across half a dozen threads, yet you still continue to make this mistake over and over.
Livy, 29.24.14: Having said he would transport these legions to Africa, he inspected the soldiers one by one, and leaving those whom he believed to be unfit, he substituted for them men whom he had brought with him from Italy, and recruited the legions to such an extent that each had six thousand two hundred infantry4 and three hundred cavalry.
Livy, 34.1.2: The hastati of the legion, numbering 2000 men, were ordered to follow him at a distance of one mile
There are more, but that should suffice.Livy, 43.12.4: for Macedonia, 6000 Roman infantry and 6000 raised from the Latin allies, 250 Roman and 300 allied cavalry. The old soldiers were discharged, so that for each of the Roman legions there were not more than 6000 infantry and 300 cavalry.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|Gustavus Adolphus vs Philip II of Macedon vs Oda Nobunaga||Military History|
|Philip and Alexander - ancient Greek corruptions of original, native, ancient Macedonian royal names||Ancient History|
|Episode 7: King Philip II of Macedon||History Blogs|
|Philip V of Macedon||Ancient History|