[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: orion-list 1Chr 27 and 1QM on militia

    [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
    [Your display is set for the "ISO-8859-8" character set]
    [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: <RGmyrken@aol.com>
An: <orion@mscc.huji.ac.il>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Juli 1999 15:48
Betreff: Re: orion-list 1Chr 27 and 1QM on militia


Dierk equates
> the War Scroll line of 1000 with the chiliarchia (or thousand), but the
> Macedonian "thousand" appears to have actually consisted of 1024 troops,
much
> as their unit of a "hundred" consisted of 128.

paper strength as far as we know.
But I've tried to explain that not only the wings/sides consists of seven -
not four! - lines (brigades) but likewise the brigade here is not a brigade
merely formed by heavy armed hoplites, but as a "mixed" (parentaxis) brigade
of incorporated light- and heavy-armed foot. The width of the formation
becomes increased, for the lights need no hoplite-like shield by shield. The
next step in development of a phalanx was the decrease of superfluous
"push"-lines, the ranks from 7or 8 onwards for a strengthening of the
(vulnerable) flanks. This lesson was taught first by Hannibal at Cannae. The
answer was the echelon tactics at Zama, to be seen clearly even in the
scroll.
Now you probably ask why the some Hellenistic rulers seemingly show now
knowledge of these tactics. Well, the tradition made men like Varro, Antony,
Antiochus IV or Varus, wheras the brain formed such like Hannibal, Scipio,
Caesar or Serenas the Parthian.


> It is only by adjusting the numbers in the War Scroll (6 instead of 7
> legions, consequently 1200 instead of 1400 heavy cavalry, 4800 instead of
> 4600 light cavalry) that Dierk arrives at his reorganized army of 6000
> cavalry and 24,000 infantry, the latter adjusted figure comparing to the
> 24,000 troops from each tribe in David's army at 1 Chr. 27.

No, it is only by adjusting the numbers in the War Scroll (6 instead of 7
> brigades on each of the four wings, consequently 1200 instead of 1400
heavy cavalry, 4800 instead of
> 4600 light cavalry) that I arrive at my reorganized army of 6000
> cavalry and 24,000 infantry, the latter adjusted figure comparing to the
> 24,000 troops from each tribe in David's army at 1 Chr. 27.

> Yet with all 12
> tribes, David's army totaled 288,000 altogether, while the War Scroll
totals
> only 28,000.

"The heads of their divisions and their enlisted" of col. ii refer to
regularly service - presumably month by month like in 1Chr 27. What on earth
is the reason to believe that the scroll refers not to 12 armies (288,000
foot) like in the Chronicles. What do we make of the other (field-)camps
mentioned? Nothing but ignoring?


 It would have been helpful if 1 Chr. 27 listed cavalry
> strengths, but cavalry from each tribe, if present at all, must have been
> part of the figure of 12,000/tribe.

I've tried to explain, that the chronicles try to transform organization and
structure of  late-Hellenistic knowledge on warfare back into the
cavalry-less days of David's concentric warfare.
Are we perhaps blind?

So while I give Dierk points for
> creativity,

Now I ask for a few points more...


Cheers

Dierk

For private reply, e-mail to "Dierk" <haGalil@gmx.net>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to majordomo@panda.mscc.huji.ac.il with
the message: "unsubscribe Orion." For more information on the Orion Center
or for Orion archives, visit our web site http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.