03-07-2013, 04:47 AM
Eduard wrote:
Ammianus says a (singular, one) type of weapon when referring to the cataphractarii and the sagittarii.
Renatus wrote:
Let me see if I understand your argument correctly. Ammianus mentions cataphractarii and sagittarii in the same sentence and also in the same sentence refers to a single genus of weapon (or, perhaps, soldier depending upon how you translate armorum). You conclude from this that cataphractarii and sagittarii are the same thing or, at least, similarly armed. I do not think that this follows. Ammianus appears more likely to be referring to two different types of unit, the cataphractarii and the archers, and seems to be separating them further by inserting the verb erant between them. Logically, therefore, formidabile genus armorum relates to the last type of unit mentioned and would indicate that the archers were particularly effective.
While those cataphractarii were actually no good at all? You see, I do not mean similarly armed, it could be a whatdoyoucallit, two words for the same thing. Julianus is writing literature, not a battle report. It seems to me it could very well be a very old literary clichée, of which I cannot come up with the name, where you give superfluous different words that mean the same thing, or superfluous descriptions for something that already encompases those descriptions. You know, a commander mobilises his heroes and daring men, or he asks for a wel equipped and fierce unit of guardsmen. It does not mean he mobilises two kinds of people, heroic people and daring people, because that's the same difference. And he doesn't ask for those guardsmen because the last time they sent him badly equipped, sissy guardsmen, it just looks better to add something to just guardsmen. So it could perhaps mean that, flippant use of the term notwithstanding, to Julian cataphractarii and sagittarii were one and the same thing.
Ammianus says a (singular, one) type of weapon when referring to the cataphractarii and the sagittarii.
Renatus wrote:
Let me see if I understand your argument correctly. Ammianus mentions cataphractarii and sagittarii in the same sentence and also in the same sentence refers to a single genus of weapon (or, perhaps, soldier depending upon how you translate armorum). You conclude from this that cataphractarii and sagittarii are the same thing or, at least, similarly armed. I do not think that this follows. Ammianus appears more likely to be referring to two different types of unit, the cataphractarii and the archers, and seems to be separating them further by inserting the verb erant between them. Logically, therefore, formidabile genus armorum relates to the last type of unit mentioned and would indicate that the archers were particularly effective.
While those cataphractarii were actually no good at all? You see, I do not mean similarly armed, it could be a whatdoyoucallit, two words for the same thing. Julianus is writing literature, not a battle report. It seems to me it could very well be a very old literary clichée, of which I cannot come up with the name, where you give superfluous different words that mean the same thing, or superfluous descriptions for something that already encompases those descriptions. You know, a commander mobilises his heroes and daring men, or he asks for a wel equipped and fierce unit of guardsmen. It does not mean he mobilises two kinds of people, heroic people and daring people, because that's the same difference. And he doesn't ask for those guardsmen because the last time they sent him badly equipped, sissy guardsmen, it just looks better to add something to just guardsmen. So it could perhaps mean that, flippant use of the term notwithstanding, to Julian cataphractarii and sagittarii were one and the same thing.
