03-01-2014, 01:49 PM
D Campbell wrote
Why on earth would you consult a Latin text in an Anglo-Saxon translation?!
I haven’t consulted the Latin text in an Anglo-Saxon translation. I used two different sources. One was the King Alfred source in both English and Anglo Saxon, and the other source was a Latin version of Orosius. I obtained the information from two completely different sources.
D Campbell wrote
Orosius 6.15.23 (Teubner) reads "Pompey stationed eighty-eight cohorts in a triple line. There were forty thousand infantrymen, six hundred cavalry on the left wing, and five hundred on the right, and in addition many kings, very many Roman senators and knights, and a large force of light-armed troops."
This is how most translations I found read. What I was curious about is because the Anglo-Saxon version mentions a turman being 1500 men, I was curious to know if some of our modern interpretations had left out the Latin text concerning the turman being 1500 men. If this is not the case, then this leaves me puzzled as to why the King Alfred version contains the information regarding the turman?
Why on earth would you consult a Latin text in an Anglo-Saxon translation?!
I haven’t consulted the Latin text in an Anglo-Saxon translation. I used two different sources. One was the King Alfred source in both English and Anglo Saxon, and the other source was a Latin version of Orosius. I obtained the information from two completely different sources.
D Campbell wrote
Orosius 6.15.23 (Teubner) reads "Pompey stationed eighty-eight cohorts in a triple line. There were forty thousand infantrymen, six hundred cavalry on the left wing, and five hundred on the right, and in addition many kings, very many Roman senators and knights, and a large force of light-armed troops."
This is how most translations I found read. What I was curious about is because the Anglo-Saxon version mentions a turman being 1500 men, I was curious to know if some of our modern interpretations had left out the Latin text concerning the turman being 1500 men. If this is not the case, then this leaves me puzzled as to why the King Alfred version contains the information regarding the turman?
