\"Lost\" Roman Legion in China ... Again

[Narukami]

Article giving a summation of the evidence for Roman survivors of Carrhae settling in China.

We have been down this road many times now, but some may find this article to be of interest. I did.

http://www.heritagedaily.com/2011/09/a-l...na-part-1/

http://www.heritagedaily.com/2011/09/a-l...na-part-2/

http://www.heritagedaily.com/2011/09/par...-in-china/

:wink:

Narukami

[Nathan Ross]

This article may or may not be interesting. However, it's so exceptionally badly written that I found it impossible to read beyond the third paragraph :x

[Narukami]

D'oh!

:oops:

Narukami

[Robert Vermaat]

This article may or may not be interesting. However, it's so exceptionally badly written that I found it impossible to read beyond the third paragraph :x

I couldn't agree more. After a totally inept image of a cavalryman from Comitatus (did he ask permission for that, as well as the other images used?) there's a flowery start:
"Before the age of the Emperors, when the Republic of Rome was beginning to show the cracks of exploitation and exceedingly unable to feed from it's bosom the power hungry hyenas that were laughing at the gates" (Oefff..)
it went on with sentences like:
"the politics of empire danced their dangerous dance around the Vestal flame" (Argh)
But then, an immediate start of unproven 'facts':
"Now, the Parthians’ usual practice for captured enemy soldiers was to indeed utilise them, to strip them of all their own military equipment and re-supply with indigenous weapons.".
I beg your pardon? How do we know this? Or is it an assumption necessary to build the ensuing theory on? I'll probably read through it later, but for now this goes in the pidgeonhole or Atlantis, Alien pyramids and other good bedtime stories. :wink:

[Narukami]

D'oh D'oh!

:oops: :oops:

:|

Narukami

[Nathan Ross]

D'oh D'oh!

Don't worry, David - it's not your fault! (unless you wrote it...)

I had another go, and got to paragraph four:

This Roman military machine, it’s (sic) engine emitting the throaty roar of impending conquest and the jewel encrusted prospect of unimaginable riches, invaded the heartlands of it’s (sic) mortal nemesis, the Parthian empire.

Leaving aside the apostrophe problem, can an engine emit a jewel encrusted prospect? Can a prospect be 'unimaginable'? :-o

[Titus Marius Secundus]

haha, I liked the pictures most! I would read a page and to the next for the next picture. I found it somewhat interesting, taking everything with a pinch of salt, and I'm so used to reading our boring local Herald newspaper, I didn't rant and rave on the mistakes and bad examples.

[Titus Marius Secundus]

Now, I watched a history program about the Chinese Han dynasty, and talked about several others, and it mentioned that, I think it was the Han which built the known worlds greatest naval fleets, and were going to be sending expeditions to far-away countries! Unfortunately the Emperor died, and his successor decided that China should be excommunicated from the world and burned the fleet. This means, because of this "dude" aren't speaking Chinese today! :-P

Sam

[Narukami]

D'oh D'oh!

Don't worry, David - it's not your fault! (unless you wrote it...)
:-o

I am guilty of many crimes against the English Language, but not this one.

:?

Narukami

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

But then, an immediate start of unproven 'facts':
"Now, the Parthians’ usual practice for captured enemy soldiers was to indeed utilise them, to strip them of all their own military equipment and re-supply with indigenous weapons.".
I beg your pardon? How do we know this? Or is it an assumption necessary to build the ensuing theory on? I'll probably read through it later, but for now this goes in the pidgeonhole or Atlantis, Alien pyramids and other good bedtime stories. :wink:

'caus he said so, ..... :roll: :lol:

[Dr Philip Stokes]

Robert Vermaat wrote:

But then, an immediate start of unproven 'facts':
"Now, the Parthians’ usual practice for captured enemy soldiers was to indeed utilise them, to strip them of all their own military equipment and re-supply with indigenous weapons.".
I beg your pardon? How do we know this? Or is it an assumption necessary to build the ensuing theory on? I'll probably read through it later, but for now this goes in the pidgeonhole or Atlantis, Alien pyramids and other good bedtime stories.


I came across this when I was reading the article to which you are referring to. I hate to be rude Mr.Vermaat but I must correct you on a couple of things:

Although I agree, the writing of the article needs some polishing, I enjoyed it. The research is to a very high standard and the authors supposed knowledge is evident. This I feel is more a matter of preference. Having studied this at some length myself (20 years). However, the main part of the piece you question is thus: '"Now, the Parthians’ usual practice for captured enemy soldiers was to indeed utilise them, to strip them of all their own military equipment and re-supply with indigenous weapons."' You replied with: I beg your pardon? How do we know this?.....

Well, I shall tell you, Pliny in his account of the battle tells us exactly that the Parthians were using the Roman prisoners as guards in Margiana (Plin. Hist. Nat. 6. 18). The use of Roman prisoners being used as mercenaries and other such acts is also mentioned by Horace and Tacitus in subsequent centuries. Yes, the fact that the author of the article mentions 'stripping them of weapons and re-equipping them' is calculated assumption, however, it is an academic assumption held by revered scholars. So yes, that is generally considered a 'fact'. If this is the bar you use to set a fact at, shall we place the entire written and archaeological record of the entire Roman Empire into your pigeonhole of bedtime stories also?

[Nathan Ross]

Pliny in his account of the battle tells us exactly that the Parthians were using the Roman prisoners as guards in Margiana (Plin. Hist. Nat. 6. 18).

Pliny doesn't actually give an account of the battle itself, of course, but mentions in his description of Margiana (Hist.Nat.6.16) that 'Orodes, after the slaughter of Crassus and his army, brought his Roman prisoners' to the city. He doesn't mention what was done with them once they arrived though - holding them as hostages would perhaps be a more sensible option than using them as guards!

The use of Roman prisoners being used as mercenaries and other such acts is also mentioned by Horace and Tacitus in subsequent centuries.

I'm unaware of the note in Tacitus about this - could you give a reference?

The Horace mention is, I'm guessing, the one from Odes III.V:

Didn’t Crassus’ soldiers live in vile marriage
with barbarian wives, and (because of our
Senate and its perverse ways!) grow old,
in the service of their hostile fathers?

Marsians, Apulians ruled by a Mede,
forgetting their shields, Roman names, and togas,
and eternal Vesta, though Jove’s shrines
and the city of Rome remained unharmed?

But the context here is Regulus and the ransoming of prisoners - although the prisoners are stated to be 'in service', it's not clear that they're being employed as soldiers, and the note about forgetting shields implies that they were put to civilian occupations.

There's also the mention in Justinus's History of the prisoners and standards taken from Crassus and Antony being returned to Rome in c.20BC. This would imply that any of Crassus's men still alive at that time were still being held in Parthia. There's still no implication that I know of that they were used as soldiers during the period of their captivity.

- Nathan