Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Batavian legion?
#16
The apparent random use of technical terms is one of those things sent to try us and what makes research and analysis so enthralling.

If I may offer a possible modern parallel based on the British Army:

The Royal Regiment of Wales (when it still existed) was not really a Regiment but an infantry batallion (the infantry term for a unit formation) of about 600. The sub groups of this "regiment" are companies, then platoons.

The Royal Regiment of Artillery (RRA), however, is a generic term for all Royal Artillery Regiments (5 Regt 16 Regt, 32 Regt etc). Their sub untis are called batteries, and then troops (A Regt used to be about 400 men-ish). The RRA is therefore the sum total of ALL artillery Regiments, and would be in the 1000s not 100s like an individual regt.

The Household Cavalry Regiment is an armoured regiment (recce not tanks) and the sub units are Squadrons, then also divided into troops.

The point is that Regiment can be 600, 6000, or as little as 250 (can't remember the manning for a Recce Regt, although I am sure someone will put me right! It is used for illustrative purposes only). They can be three totally different functions (infantry, artillery and armour), but the term is correct in all cases.

(And HM The Queen still owns more horses than tanks...)
Moi Watson

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
Reply
#17
Quote:The apparent random use of technical terms is one of those things sent to try us and what makes research and analysis so enthralling.
If I may offer a possible modern parallel based on the British Army
Excellent example Moi. Indeed, technical terms and their use make studying this both interesting and infuriating! Big Grin

If you compare Zosimos to Ammianus, the latter is supposed to know infinitely more about military matters than the former. But even Ammianus mixes things up, uses different names and terminology in some occasions.

I don't think that Zosimos knew more than what the 'common man' knew, I think he copied his terminology from his sources, perhaps even without understanding what was actually meant. Offering a comparison of my own, I repeatedly come across journalistic blunders where it comes to military terminology. And these people are supposed to know more than the common man, or at least more able to look it up when they don't know what it means! :dizzy:
Ancient historians were not asked for factual correctness. We should not treat their writing as if they represent factual truth or factual expertise as a rule.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#18
Of course he did copy his terminology from his sources! Isn't that intriguing? His accounts in the last two books are obviously taken from a better-versed source regarding military matters and this bears an interest on its own. This fact makes the terms he uses more contemporary to the actual events, although of course it still cannot speak of the initial quality of the primary sources. So, the question that needs to be studied, not in Zosimus alone but in all sources, is how random or consistent the terminology used is. The less randomness there is, the higher the value and the trustworthiness of the terminology of the source. This is a side of ancient sources, that, to my opinion, is not yet studied as thorough as I would like and consists a major part of my interest in source srudying.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#19
Quote:Of course he did copy his terminology from his sources! Isn't that intriguing? His accounts in the last two books are obviously taken from a better-versed source regarding military matters and this bears an interest on its own. This fact makes the terms he uses more contemporary to the actual events, although of course it still cannot speak of the initial quality of the primary sources. So, the question that needs to be studied, not in Zosimus alone but in all sources, is how random or consistent the terminology used is. The less randomness there is, the higher the value and the trustworthiness of the terminology of the source. This is a side of ancient sources, that, to my opinion, is not yet studied as thorough as I would like and consists a major part of my interest in source srudying.
You a certainly correct there, but there's a trap door involved. Altough we can see that an author uses other sources (sometimes they even plainly tell us so), we can't see how these sources are used. Sometimes they are copied, but sometimes the author mixes them up or rewrites them. And this, I hasted to add, is only known when we can compare the sources involved directly.

In the case of Zosimos and unit names, I agree that he most probably gets them from his sources, and that 'arithmos' signifies a younger source. But as a historian I can't come to the conclusion that he uses his military term 100% correct or even copied them directly from his source(s), because I can't identify these. :-(
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#20
Quote:The point is that Regiment can be 600, 6000, or as little as 250

Imagine how much fun historians of the future will have arguing about how many battalions there were in the 20th century British infantry regiment! (and just when they think they've sorted it out, somebody brings up the 38th Battalion Royal Fusiliers...) Wink


Quote:technical terms and their use make studying this both interesting and infuriating!

Yes! I get the impression that, in late Roman terminology, the word numerus (which Zosimus translates as arithmos) could be used quite properly to refer to a military unit of almost any size, from a body of local militia to a full palatine legion. (The english word 'unit' is similarly fungible, of course!)

But there was apparently a particular unit officially called a numerus, which may be the same (according to the Concordia inscriptions) as an 'auxilium' of the auxilia palatina, and presumably also had a regular paper strength... whatever that might have been.
Nathan Ross
Reply


Forum Jump: