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

Jan 2015
3,508
Australia
Where did Brunt give 120,000 as a flat number? Thanks.



How many soldiers do you think Cinna had waiting for Sulla?
Dude... you CITED Konrad, when YOU claimed Strabo was arrayed against a force of 120,000 legionaries. Asking me where Brunt (or Konrad) makes this claim, a claim I told you was wrong from the start, is a ridiculous question. The point isn't whether Konrad is right or wrong (I think it's fairly clear he's wrong in relying so much on Vellieus in this instance), it's that you supported his position in complete defiance of your earlier position, and you STILL haven't owned up to the fact that your two positions are irreconcilable.
 
Jan 2015
3,508
Australia
Wow. YOU were the one who claimed Cinna had 120,000 men, then I called you out on it (as being both wrong and contradictory). For you to now be asking me "where is your evidence it was 120,000 men!" is laughable. It's your position! You're asking me to provide evidence to prove YOUR argument, that I disagreed with mere pages earlier (which you cited Konrad, etc, in support of).
 
Jan 2015
3,508
Australia
You said I cited Konrad when I claimed ~120,000 legionaries, please show me where that is, because I missed it.
Whether you based your position on the stuff from Brunt/Konrad/Mickey-Mouse is besides the point... the point is you said it. Changing the topic to a semantic issue of who you relied on isn't going to work. It's your position. I can quote you again, telling us "what did you expect Strabo to do against a force of 120,000!"
 
Jul 2017
2,261
Australia
Sure, I'll let you keep spitting out factual errors like how I cite Konrad for 120,000 legionaries, or that Brunt specifically says 120,000 men. Those are... pretty important details in an academic debate. Incorrectly identifying who I'm citing and misquoting scholars, yeah nah that's not important.
 
Jan 2015
3,508
Australia
Sure, I'll let you keep spitting out factual errors like how I cite Konrad for 120,000 legionaries, or that Brunt specifically says 120,000 men. Those are... pretty important details in an academic debate. Incorrectly identifying who I'm citing and misquoting scholars, yeah nah that's not important.
Your desperation to focus on this irrelevant side issue is apparent. The issue I've been pursuing isn't whether it's wrong per se (though I think it is), and so the source you're relying on isn't that important (and whether it's Brunt or whoever, I've cited the actual primary source, so we're clear on what the evidence is, or at least I am). The issue I've been pursuing is how on earth you are able to hold these two mutually contradictory positions simultaneously. I'm no closer to getting an answer, because there is none (or rather, I know the answer, which is that your arguments aren't based on logic but convenience). Focus on THAT in your reply, not some irrelevant stuff about whether you were relying on Brunt or whoever, that can be discussed afterwards. It's not the core issue in dispute, and your desire to talk about it as an attempt to wiggle out of admitting your irreconcilable positions is crystal clear.
 
Jul 2017
2,261
Australia
You're making factual errors, misquoting myself and scholars, like blanket stating that Brunt said 120,000 men when he didn't, and claiming this isn't important "cos the larger picture". So, someone's essay can have as many factual errors as need be, as long as their conclusion is written really well? I mean, come on dude. I'm not going to let you skip over embarrassing misquotes because "muh bigger picture". Brunt suggests that 300 cohorts is not entirely impossible, and that "we are not bound to suppose that the legions were not nearly full." He also gives the forces of Octavius, Metellus and Strabo as below 60,000 men, and that Cinna "probably" outnumbered these forces 2:1. My figure of 120,000 men, using the ~ (meaning approximation) was meant to be ballpark numbers. Most of Cinna's army would be irregular probably, but there were plenty of veterans from the Social War, and manpower from the allies to draw from.
 
Jan 2015
3,508
Australia
So for the tenth time, how does your belief Cinna had "approximately 120,000 legionaries" square with your earlier claim that it was "an obvious exaggeration" that Cinna/Carbo's faction could have amassed 200+ cohorts after a further 3+ years of preparation for Sulla's return. Did their total armies get smaller with additional recruiting somehow?
 
Jul 2017
2,261
Australia
So for the tenth time, how does your belief Cinna had "approximately 120,000 legionaries" square with your earlier claim that it was "an obvious exaggeration" that Cinna/Carbo's faction could have amassed 200+ cohorts after a further 3+ years of preparation for Sulla's return. Did their total armies get smaller with additional recruiting somehow?
Looking at our discussion in this thread when this was brought up, I was not claiming this to be an "obvious exaggeration", in fact I suggested that the cited number of cohorts could very well be accurate, as I say here:

2. The actual number of cohorts may be credible, but they were never at full strength. Brunt:

"It is quite credible that they had originally mobilized 450 cohorts. But the average strength of these cohorts may never have been 500, as Appian no doubt supposed; equally the 23 SuIIan legions were probably at all times less than 5,000 strong. Commanders who raised troops hurriedly were apt to form new units which they hoped to bring up to full strength in the course of time (Appendix 27); in the conditions of 83-82 these units were flung into battle before the hopes could be realized. It would be prudent to suppose that the average cohort in the war never exceeded 400. On this basis not more than 272,000 men, mostly or all Italians,2 were ever in the field."
Brunt suggests that no more than 272,000 (mostly Italians) were ever in the field during Sulla's civil war. Cinna's war saw maybe 200,000 or so at most in Italy.
 

Similar History Discussions