03-01-2013, 12:36 PM
eduard wrote:
But it may not be possible to stretch the interpretation to mean that cataphractarii and archers are the same thing? Because that is the point I am trying to make.
Renatus wrote:
I don't think so. As far as I can judge, he is referring to separate units or classes of unit. Better Latinists than I may have a different opinion, of course.
Well, actually I did use this citation of Ammianus to argue a point to a claccisist from the university (Henk Singor, Leiden) and he agreed with my interpretation: Ammianus says a (singular, one) type of weapon when referring to the cataphractarii and the sagittarii. And Singor specialises in ancient warfare, so he knows all about the acceppted view of cataphracts as specialised shock troops, supposedly relying on their long lances, not on their bows.
But it may not be possible to stretch the interpretation to mean that cataphractarii and archers are the same thing? Because that is the point I am trying to make.
Renatus wrote:
I don't think so. As far as I can judge, he is referring to separate units or classes of unit. Better Latinists than I may have a different opinion, of course.
Well, actually I did use this citation of Ammianus to argue a point to a claccisist from the university (Henk Singor, Leiden) and he agreed with my interpretation: Ammianus says a (singular, one) type of weapon when referring to the cataphractarii and the sagittarii. And Singor specialises in ancient warfare, so he knows all about the acceppted view of cataphracts as specialised shock troops, supposedly relying on their long lances, not on their bows.
