"The great work of Polybius ?" Topic

Hello All,

The Histories are are the great work of Polybius. Only five of the original forty volumes have come down to us in their entirety, "passed down by handwritten tradition."

Books I to XXIX (the Roman expansion between 264 BC and 168BC) were written in Rome during the exile of the author, who was hostage there between 167 BC and 149BC.

Polybius describes the equipment of the Roman soldiers whom he saw with his eyes during his exile between 167 BC and 149BC and after.

Alas what Polybius writes about the outfits of the Roman soldiers of his time does not correspond to the archaeological testimonies which are contemporary with him, as shown by the frieze of the monument of Paul-Émile to Delphe for 168 BC.

TMP link

"I would beg my own readers, whether of my own or future generations, if I am ever detected in making a deliberate misstatement, and disregarding truth in any part of my history, to criticise me unmercifully; but if I do so from lack of information, to make allowances" (Polybius; xvi.20)

+1 to ochoin. This topic was posted yesterday, so I guess we're trying again. Conventions of sculptors and artists must be taken into consideration, along with other evidence. And as I stated yesterday, Polybius is hardly consistent in his military terminology. I'm not sure if you're looking for a definitive statement on a piece of equipment or simply discussing philology. I have read Polybius in Greek versus translations. I have read Livy in Latin. I can tell you there are tons of discrepancies with other sources, archaeological evidence and even themselves.

From a gaming perspective, make your choices and enjoy. The earlier the source, the more uncertainty there is.

His writings on Raphia are invaluable – strengths, troops type, etc. Only wish there were such detail for other engagements.

No what he describes I think he really saw it – which was not difficult for him given his situation – it is the same for the artist who made the frieze of the monument of Paul emile to Delphe, but the outfits and equipment of the Roman soldiers represented by this sculptor are ahead of Polybius' descriptions …

Note that the soldiers shown on the frize belong to five cohorts and 4 Allied Turms:

the Marrucina provided by the Marrucins, the Paeligna provided by the Paelignians, and two turmes provided by the Samnites all on the front line commanded by the legate M.Sergius Silus with in support and commanded by the legate C. Cluvius, 3 cohorts, the Firmana supplied by the Picentines, the Vestina supplied by the Vestins and the Cremononsis supplied by Cispadane Gaul with two turmes, the Placentina supplied by Cispadane Gaul and Aesernina supplied by the Samnites …

Can this explain this?

Can this explain this?

Easily. Polybius was writing history not a book on wargaming. The things that mattered to him may well be different to things that matter to you.

His task was to explain a world transformed.
" For who is so worthless or indolent as not to wish to know by what means and under what system of polity the Romans in less than fifty-three years have succeeded in subjecting nearly the whole inhabited world to their sole government -- a thing unique in history?" Polybius 1.1.4-5

I would think what some milites was wearing is of little consequence in terms of such goals.

+1 again to ochoin.

Sculptors did not always sculpt for accuracy. They sculpted according to artistic conventions and patron's whims.

Ochoin is correct in stating that Polybius was writing for his own purposes. And ancient historians were not all practitioners of modern historical research methodologies. It's anachronistic to attribute attention to accuracy to them.

Yes, Polybius' writings are invaluable for general information. The deeper detail? Not so much. There has been much scholarship on his use of 'cohort' and 'maniple.' He is not consistent and often uses the term interchangeably.

So feel free to paint and organize your soldiers as you wish. You will be no more accurate or less accurate than anyone else who is gaming this period. Enjoy.

see page 368 for diagrams and identification of all the figures.

link

Spot on, ochoin, but quite why you bother I cannot imagine.

Spot on, ochoin, but quite why you bother I cannot imagine.

I like talking to people about Polybius? And thanks for your approval. It goes to show you can avoid pointless discussions and say something of worth.

willamb – I read the entire article. So much of the monument's reconstruction is based on assumptions, I'd hardly use it as solid evidence for weapons. Even on the parts not requiring reconstruction, the author notes that 'Rather than simply illustrating the variability of Roman armor, I postulate that the cuirasses on the monument were intended to distinguish wearers as Rome's Italian socii; like the Romans in mail, they represent the wealthiest class of infantry.'

In other words, the sculptor(s) were using conventions to represent the battle, not accurately portraying gear. QED.

Precisely for me what counts is what certain militias wore and that is what I wanted to talk about as Nicolas secunda talked about in the M.A.A.N°191 and his book on the Seleucid and Ptolemaic reformed armies 168-145 BC.

The rest I don't care …

And what we're trying to tell you is that there is no certainty in what certain militias wore because the ancient sources had different priorities than accuracy. So if you have a source you like, follow it. You will be no more right or wrong than anyone else.

Yes alas, you are right…