Philip II of Macedon: Best Captain/General Europe Ever Produced?

Jan 2015
3,508
Australia
Konrad's explanation is better, if you can find it to read it. Either way I'll give a more in-depth response when I can find the time.
Konrad's explanation is irrelevant, because you issue here isn't even whether he's right (extremely unlikely in this case), but whether your adoption of his position can be squared with your previous position. It can't. They're inherently contradictory. Quoting Konrad is just a waste of everyone's time, much like the post Sal just made.
 
Jul 2017
2,261
Australia
Konrad:

vast numbers of Italians, newly enfranchised, were ready and willing to serve in Cinna's army; Velleius' figure (2.20.4) of more than three hundred cohorts seems not so exaggerated if it is understood that most of these were small local units of volunteers.

Konrad, Plutarch's Sertorius, 65.

As I said, Konrad explains the contradiction. What you're doing is refusing to accept that these cohorts could be something other than full strength, for some weird reason. Furthermore, I've found no scholarship that disagrees with the consensus, especially in these times of civil war, that cohorts were formed simultaneously and filled up, rather than created one at a time.
 
Jan 2015
3,508
Australia
Konrad:

vast numbers of Italians, newly enfranchised, were ready and willing to serve in Cinna's army; Velleius' figure (2.20.4) of more than three hundred cohorts seems not so exaggerated if it is understood that most of these were small local units of volunteers.

Konrad, Plutarch's Sertorius, 65.

As I said, Konrad explains the contradiction. What you're doing is refusing to accept that these cohorts could be something other than full strength, for some weird reason. Furthermore, I've found no scholarship that disagrees with the consensus, especially in these times of civil war, that cohorts were formed simultaneously and filled up, rather than created one at a time.
Either you're not reading my posts, or you're being willfully blind to them. To repeat the point I just made in my previous post; the issue isn't even whether I think the use by Konrad of a dubious source like Velleius is inappropriate in this instance (it is, Velleius number isn't supported by anything else from the sources really). I don't want to talk about that right now though, because (read carefully) that's not the point. The point is that your newfound support of Konrad using Velleius to provide Cinna with an army of this size when he marched on Rome is totally incompatible with your earlier position that it was laughable that Sulla could have faced between 200 and 450 cohorts on his own return to Italy. How could Cinna, with little time or money, have had 300 cohorts 3 years earlier no trouble, but his side was not able to muster 200-450 cohorts 3 years later when his faction was master of over half Rome's Empire and had spent 3 years preparing for Sulla's return. The two positions you have taken are not compatible at all.
 
Jan 2015
3,508
Australia
Again, based on the stupid assumption that all cohorts are the same strength always....
I explained this to you also. I hate to do this, but I'm going to break it down to the simplest level so you can't misunderstand.

Duke: No way could there have been anything like 200+ cohorts waiting to fight Sulla on his return!

Also Duke: Oh, but Cinna had 120,000 men over 3 years earlier because it suits my argument.

Me: Those two positions are contradictory.

Duke: Nu-uh, cos cohorts can be different sizes.

Me: But 120,000 men is MORE than 200 cohorts, even if every one of those 200 cohorts was at full strength!!! How can you possibly doubt Cinna's faction had 200 cohorts (no matter how full they were), if you believe he had more men than 200 FULL cohorts over 3 years earlier?!!?

Whether I think the cohorts arrayed against Sulla were half full, quarter full, seven eightsies or 100% full is irrelevant, because you believe (apparently) that the manpower of Cinna's faction was already in excess of 200 full cohorts over 3 years earlier.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2017
2,261
Australia
That's irrelevant, because IIRC Brunt didn't give a flat number, but suggested that up to 120,000 may have been possible, or something along those lines. I can't be bothered looking up my books just so you can dismiss them for your own version of events.
 
Jan 2015
3,508
Australia
That's irrelevant, because IIRC Brunt didn't give a flat number, but suggested that up to 120,000 may have been possible, or something along those lines. I can't be bothered looking up my books just so you can dismiss them for your own version of events.
Brunt said 120,000 men, which was a lowered estimate of the actual source, and you supported that figure because it suited your pro-Strabo argument. You told us "Strabo was really outgunned against Marius, he had to face Cinna's 120,000 strong army!", and now that you FINALLY have cottoned on to the fact that this is contradictory to your earlier position you are trying to pretend you didn't take this new position as you hastily retreat behind some vague "may have been possible" and "can't be bothered looking it up now" rambling.

Here is the original post Duke made, which he then vigorously defended the credibility of, claiming Konrad was an expert and knew better than me.
Duke Valentino said:
I don't see where Strabo had "poor planning". Octavius fortified the city, and Strabo joined him to defend the city, because even combined their forces were twice or more outnumbered. What else was Strabo supposed to do? Take his six or so legions and take Cinna, Sertorius, Marius and Milo head on who had 120,000~ legionaries?
I guess Konrad knows better than you too, because his argument (which you now conveniently adopt) is diametrically opposed to your earlier argument that Cinna's side couldn't possibly have had anywhere near that many soldiers over 3 years later waiting for Sulla (and we know he agrees with me on that, because you quote him doing so later, totally unaware of the irony).
 
Last edited:
Jul 2017
2,261
Australia
Brunt said 120,000 men, which was a lowered estimate of the actual source, and you supported that figure because it suited your pro-Strabo argument. You told us "Strabo was really outgunned against Marius, he had to face Cinna's 120,000 strong army!", and now that you FINALLY have cottoned on to the fact that this is contradictory to your earlier position you are trying to pretend you didn't take this new position as you hastily retreat behind some vague "may have been possible" and "can't be bothered looking it up now" rambling.
Where did Brunt give 120,000 as a flat number? Thanks.

Here is the original post Duke made, which he then vigorously defended the credibility of, claiming Konrad was an expert and knew better than me.

I guess Konrad knows better than you too, because his argument (which you now conveniently adopt) is diametrically opposed to your earlier argument that Cinna's side couldn't possibly have had anywhere near that many soldiers over 3 years later waiting for Sulla (and we know he agrees with me on that, because you quote him doing so later, totally unaware of the irony).
How many soldiers do you think Cinna had waiting for Sulla?
 

Similar History Discussions