+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Why were the Triarii differently equipped? (/showthread.php?tid=24250)
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Renatus - 10-04-2014
Quote:I have in my collection a (scientific work) that claims Connell “does not pay sufficient attention to two fundamental distinctions: that between the literary and the historical value of annalistic historiography and that between its value as a source for the history of archaic Rome and its value as a source for traditions and beliefs valid in the late Republic.”You quote Raaflaub's criticism of Cornell (in the work that you kindly sent me). However, he offers three quotations from Cornell, noting that 'he attributes considerable weight to the fact "that the Romans of the later Republic thought they knew a great deal about their own history, a claim that would be very hard to understand if there were not some sound basis for it" ' and that 'Cornell finds it "reasonable to assume that if a certain piece of evidence is not inherently improbable and was believed by the Romans themselves to be the truth, the burden of proof must lie with those who wish to disbelieve it" '. He also notes that Cornell 'criticizes " the attitude of some skeptical historians, who are inclined to argue that all information about early Rome is to be rejected unless it can be independently corroborated or shown to be derived from a reliable source".' Raaflaub allies himself with the "skeptical historians" but the other two quotations evidently encapsulate Cornell's position. It seems to me that your approach is closer to that of Cornell than to that of Raaflaub.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - antiochus - 10-05-2014
Renatus wrote:
While deferring to the wisdom of Prof. Ridley, I hope that this does not mean that, apart from the copies that you distribute personally, the rest disappear into the maws of the libraries, never to be seen again.
Whether it is seen again I do not know. As most books are bootlegged nowadays, I’m sure it will find its way into mainstream.
Renatus wrote:
I would like your book have as wide a circulation as possible and to be properly reviewed in respected academic journals and I wonder if they would trouble to do this, if it were not available on the open market.
I do not think for a minute that the book will get a fair and favourable review. As I made the comment before in another thread, those who will be reviewing the book will be academics…meaning….competitors! Hypothetically, would Ross Cowan, Duncan Campbell, Catherine Gilliver on this forum write a favourable review if I have proven they have written science fiction? And it’s not about being paranoid; I’ve seen firsthand accounts of such actions. And if anyone believes an academic will walk up to you and shake your hand saying “thank you for debunking my theories, damaging my reputation, and advancing our knowledge of the roman army,” that person is well and truly delusional.
There are many ways to discredit a book without actually bringing the reader’s attention to what the book is really about. I read one review that tore apart a book based on highlighting incorrect grammar, and missing commas etc. It finished the review by stating after finding these mistakes on the first ten pages, reviewing the rest of the book would be a waste of time. The academic writing the review was deflecting the reader from the real issue, the author had proven the reviewer’s theories were wrong. There’s nothing like academia regulating itself.
Renatus wrote:
There may well be reviewers who do not accept your thesis but I want to see the arguments for and against and to assess the merits and demerits of each, before reaching my final conclusion.
Are you saying that rather than come to your own conclusion, you will wait and jump on whatever is the popular bandwagon?
Renatus wrote:
You quote Raaflaub's criticism of Cornell (in the work that you kindly sent me).
Yes I was letting Max known that not all agree with Cornell.
Renatus wrote:
It seems to me that your approach is closer to that of Cornell than to that of Raaflaub.
Yes and no. Yes, I believe it is unproductive to be highly critical of the primary sources, which is today’s trend. However, I find Cornell to quick to dismiss the primary sources when it does not conform to his theory. I have a problem with academics who easily dismiss information without first conducting an intensive and serious investigation. One such example is Oakley “A Commentary on Livy.” When Livy mentions the raising of 10 legions on two occasions, Oakley dismisses Livy’s claim by stating that it is exaggerated or corrupt. There is no further investigation into the matter, which is generally how empirical data is treated.
You have my work Renatus to know how I approached Livy’s claim of 10 legions. It was properly investigated and showed it conformed to the Roman system as dictated by the Servian constitution. It showed that from their available manpower as dictated by the Servian constitution, the Roman created smaller legions to accommodate the increase in commanders. This shows a flexibility of the Roman system not understood by today’s academics.
And in the second section of the book (Rome’s Youth), you will find the reason behind why there are only 600 triarii. The feedback I want from those I sent it to question, query or debunk what is written. Sorry I am frustrated because I am receiving it through intermittent postings on this forum.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Renatus - 10-05-2014
Quote:Renatus wrote:Certainly not. You forget (or did not know) that I am a lawyer brought up in the adversarial system. I do not want to reach my conclusions based on only one side of the argument, yours or theirs. I want to hear both and then make my judgement. For the avoidance of doubt (as we lawyers say), I should make it clear that I am not at all opposed to ideas that challenge received wisdom nor do I shy away from unpopular causes. I have remarked elsewhere (possibly not in this forum) that I have in my time risen in the defence of Pontius Pilate, Macbeth and Richard III, and I am sure that there is much that can be said in favour of William Bligh.
There may well be reviewers who do not accept your thesis but I want to see the arguments for and against and to assess the merits and demerits of each, before reaching my final conclusion.
Are you saying that rather than come to your own conclusion, you will wait and jump on whatever is the popular bandwagon?
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Renatus - 10-05-2014
Quote:There are many ways to discredit a book without actually bringing the reader’s attention to what the book is really about. I read one review that tore apart a book based on highlighting incorrect grammar, and missing commas etc. It finished the review by stating after finding these mistakes on the first ten pages, reviewing the rest of the book would be a waste of time. The academic writing the review was deflecting the reader from the real issue, the author had proven the reviewer’s theories were wrong. There’s nothing like academia regulating itself.I will not attempt to defend the reviewer because I do not know the instance that you refer to (or, more correctly, "to which you refer"!) but the fact is that, if you get your reader's back up in the first few pages, you risk losing him or her before you are able to make your point. I read a thesis once that had a mistake on virtually every page: miscited references, misspelt names, the title of Arrian's Ectaxis rendered partly in transliterated Greek and partly in Latin and, most unforgivably of all, a reference that, when checked, did not support (or even mention) the point that it was supposed to evidence. As far as I could discern it through the red mist, the author's argument did not stand up anyway but, by then, I had completely lost faith in his scholarship. If an author wants to make his case to its full advantage, he owes it to his readership and to himself to present it in readable, grammatical English, French, German or whatever the language may be, so that the reader (particularly if he is likely to be critical) is not distracted and is compelled to concentrate on the force of the argument.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Urselius - 10-05-2014
I have proof-read so many PhD theses that I have lost count; I once read about ten pages of one before I handed the whole thing back, along with a copy of a book on basic English grammar. It is insulting to the reader to present something that is not competently written from a structural viewpoint.
William Bligh was a remarkably fine navigator, incidentally.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Renatus - 10-05-2014
Quote:William Bligh was a remarkably fine navigator, incidentally.3,600 miles in 48 days in an open boat without charts - remarkable indeed.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - antiochus - 10-06-2014
Renatus wrote:
I do not want to reach my conclusions based on only one side of the argument, yours or theirs. I want to hear both and then make my judgement.
I like building kits of wooden ships, like Nelson’s Victory. If the kit fits together well without me doing excessive amounts of sanding, and the manual is easy to follow, then for me it is a good kit. I don’t need a review of the kit to tell what I know from my own experience. You either know or you don’t if something has merit or not.
Martin
I have proof-read so many PhD theses that I have lost count; I once read about ten pages of one before I handed the whole thing back, along with a copy of a book on basic English grammar. It is insulting to the reader to present something that is not competently written from a structural viewpoint.
Bad grammar can be easily correct. It is the content that counts. How do you know that after the ten pages the author could have found the secret of life if you don’t read all of it? When I was in the USA, I found that the script readers who approved of a new script were the secretaries. One actually told me she rejects scripts that have long dialogue, which in her case amount to three syllables. This is the same secretary who thought the American Civil War was started by Martin Luther King.
Martin
William Bligh was a remarkably fine navigator, incidentally.
And he was not a coward hiding under the bed as Minchin claims.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Renatus - 10-06-2014
Quote:I like building kits of wooden ships, like Nelson’s Victory. If the kit fits together well without me doing excessive amounts of sanding, and the manual is easy to follow, then for me it is a good kit. I don’t need a review of the kit to tell what I know from my own experience. You either know or you don’t if something has merit or not.But suppose I read a review of the kit that says that it is not the Victory but the Temeraire and the manufacturer challenges that identification. Both point out details of the original ships that they say supports their argument. What do I do? I have a perfectly good model of a ship but is it the one I want? Do I accept one identification without question, ignoring the other, or do I consider both arguments, perhaps do a little research of my own and then reach my conclusion? If I have any sense, I do the latter.
Pursuing this analogy into the grammatical sphere, as a model maker I might have to make some minor adjustments but, if I have to make too many alterations to make the pieces fit, I may just give up and build an aeroplane instead.
Quote:Bad grammar can be easily correct.I don't want to make a cheap debating point but is this what you meant to say? Are you saying that bad grammar can be right or that bad grammar can be correctED? You are, of course, right to say that it is the content that counts but, if poor writing gets in the way of comprehension or if it makes the reader doubt the abilities of the writer, the content may not get a chance. As I have said, I am a lawyer. Legal documents are not punctuated. Why? Because something like a misplaced comma can change the whole meaning of a sentence and thus of the deed itself.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Urselius - 10-06-2014
I handed the draft thesis back because I knew it would have been instantly rejected by the examiners, due to the quality of the English. The original was in 'note to self' or 'text-speak' mode with few meaningful sentences and very few instances of such important words as "the", "that" and "is". The student, having absorbed some elements of grammar, gave me a second draft, which I read through - the final thesis was successful. Grammar is important if you are trying to communicate effectively; if your message is complex and challenging then good grammar is even more important
Bligh commanded ships at the major battles of Camperdown and Copenhagen, both commanding admirals, Duncan and Nelson respectively, commended Bligh's conduct.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - antiochus - 10-06-2014
Renatus wrote:
But suppose I read a review of the kit that says that it is not the Victory but the Temeraire and the manufacturer challenges that identification.
Now I know I am debating with a lawyer. We’ve moved from a well manufactured kit to historical accuracy. :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Renatus wrote:
Are you saying that bad grammar can be right or that bad grammar can be correctED?
Bad grammar can be corrected as Martin has shown in his lastest posting.
We have moved off topic, so I think we better cease before the green word brigade makes their presence felt. Apologies to all about the intrusion.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Corvus - 10-06-2014
I would like to go back a little bit to the topic.
The Apulo-Corinthian Helmet is kinda associated with the Triarii of the earlier period.
My question is, why soldiers choose this helmet? It seems to me its more heavier and not so compact as other helmet types. Does the helmet offered more protection?
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - tiberius aemilius naso - 10-07-2014
Max, as far as i know, the association of Apulo-Corinthian helmets with the triarii is just a reenactorism. No evidencie of it at all. In fact, if Polybius is describing the Roman army of the second half of the 3rd c BC or beginning of the 2nd c BC, A-C wouldn't be in use anymore. The later ones are from the 4th c BC. And not found in Roman context, but south Italian.
PS. someone in contact with the Egadi battle excavations said a while back that he had heard that among the finds where some A-C helmets, what would push them to the middle of the 3rd c BC. But it is just rumors for the moment!
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Youngster - 10-08-2014
I don't think it offered any more protection than a montefortino. In fact, I suspect that the eye-holes, which were often left open, would be something of a weak point. In contrast, the shape of the montefortino is better suited to deflecting thrusts and encouraging slashes to glance off. I suspect that the enduring popularity of the the apulo-corinthian (which is probably depicted in the 2nd cent BCE Ahenobarbus relief) is more due to its appearance than its function. The form consciously recalled the older corinthians, and romans probably felt it made them look heroic.
That said, we don't really know if triarii really did wear it all that much. the Ahenobarbus relief appears to be showing the central figure wearing one, so it may be a higher status helmet. And therefore the veteran triarii may be more likely to own one. But there is not any hard proof.
That's pretty speculative, but it's my best answer.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Corvus - 10-08-2014
Quote:Max, as far as i know, the association of Apulo-Corinthian helmets with the triarii is just a reenactorism.
I think you are right, its just that also a lot of Illustrations to this subject show them with the helmet.
What helmet would they wear instead? Except montefortino of course. Were Greek helmets and armor popular during the 4-3 centuries BC?
Quote:I don't think it offered any more protection than a montefortino. In fact, I suspect that the eye-holes, which were often left open, would be something of a weak point. In contrast, the shape of the montefortino is better suited to deflecting thrusts and encouraging slashes to glance off.Yes, that's what I also think, the A-C Helmet seems pretty unpractical.
And I cant understand why soldiers would prefer something "fancy" above something practical like a montefortino helmet.
Why were the Triarii differently equipped? - Youngster - 10-08-2014
Well, there are more and less solid versions. Some of them are even fully closed, with the eye hole merely incised patterns. In such cases they were probably fairly protective. But I don't know as to whether those were the versions most favored by the Romans.
I think it just comes down to a matter of fashion. The fact that the AP helmet recalled the the pushed-back corinthians shown on red figure pottery probably made the soldiers wearing them feel heroic. And the Romans, throughout their history, always seemed willing to sacrifice a bit of practicality and cost effectiveness if it looked good. Tall crests look good, but they are handholds for enemy soldiers. The same can be said of the balteus of the principate. Likewise, there was no need to have richly decorated scabbards; but they did. I think that we often forget, as modern folk inclined to scientific thinking, that the ancients had sometimes "irrational" values. Maybe they knew the helmets were less effective, but thought that the intimidation benefit outweighed the weakness. Maybe the protective difference was never really discovered because the helmets were not subjected to a controlled test (though I think they had enough experience to figure this out). Maybe the purchase of AP helmet was just something senior soldiers did, and they never questioned why.