"Companion to the Roman Army"

[Graham Sumner]

Caius Fabius wrote:

so, does anyone really believe that auxiliaries got 1/6th the pay of the regular legions

I have not read the book but M. Spiedel quoted 5/6 or 2/3 was the rate of Auxiliary pay, which was an increase on the 1/3 previously believed.
See

M.P. Speidel. 'The Pay of the Auxilia'. JRS 63, 141-7
and
M.A. Speidel. 'Roman Army Pay Scales'. JRS 82, 87-106

Graham.

[Praefectusclassis]

The question of auxiliary pay has been discussed on and on, but the amount Graham quotes above is now usually accepted, ie 5/6th of normal legionary pay. Maybe the sentence should've been "1/6th less than..."?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Not hte first sloppy mistake in a historical reference book....

I recently re=read a book and discovered the author believed that caesar and pompay fought a battle at Alexandria :lol: :lol: :lol:

Now I find I cannot trust the veracity of the author or his subject, being a layman, no matter how appealing it seemed at first! :roll:

[Kate Gilliver]

Peter Herz, who wrote that chapter, must have meant to say "1/6th less than" since he gives the relative pay as 750 to 900 HS, meaning aux get 750 and legs 900. Then in the next sentence says "each of the 120 cavalrymen in a legion received one sixth more than soldiers serving with the legionary infantry (900 to 1050 HS). But, as Jasper says, even bearing in mind that the missing "less than" didn't get picked up in the proof-reading, the sentences are not as clear as they could have been.

[Now someone's going to find a similar mistake in my chapter!!!]

[D B Campbell]

Would be a sloppy mistake to make though.

Don't be mean, Jasper. I think we should forgive Prof. Dr. Herz for making a mistake when writing in a foreign language!

btw I thought his speciality was Roman religion. Any idea why he's writing about army pay?! :?

[Praefectusclassis]

Don't be mean, Jasper.

Yes, you're right Duncan, especially since I've caught myself with such mistakes more than once. Edited out.

[Caius Fabius]

:roll:
sorry, ex-school teacher / proof reader. I only mention the ones that tickle me, or are possibly going to be quoted as "proof" that something is true. which is one good thing about writing for an expensive book. :lol:

I make more mistakes in writing than I could ever complain about, even in my first language. But one day, someone will write a paper about Roman Pay, and this will be quoted as proof that Auxiliaries got 1/6th the pay of the citizen soldier.

I have seen some other articles in this tome with glaring comments that make me wonder about the author's sources, but I am just highlinghting them, I'm too lazy to quote them all!

[Alexandr K]

Well, mistakes happen, it's almost impossible to avoid them. But it's good to let readers know about them.
"Roman Military Equipment" by Bishop and Coulston has a Corrigenda web page. I really like the idea. It's on the net, everybody has access to it and everybody can report mistakes. More books (especially the scholarly studies) should have something like this.
Alexandr

[philsidnell]

Many publishers, (certainly most commercial ones, I have no experience of academic university presses) use freelance copy-editors and proofreaders who are not necessarily even interested, let alone specialists in, the subject and could never pick up an error of fact like this. This is compounded by the fact that even many commissioning editors have no particular personal interest in the subject they commission on. There is a shortage of competent specialised proofreaders, so perhaps some of you should be touting for business.

[D B Campbell]

... freelance copy-editors ... are not necessarily even interested, let alone specialists in, the subject and could never pick up an error of fact like this

... which is why publishers like Blackwell commission "expert" editors, who are supposed to invite trustworthy contributors on board.

Well, mistakes happen, it's almost impossible to avoid them.

Indeed. This is why most conscientious authors attempt to have a colleague read over their work prior to publication! (Not always possible, I know ...)

[Caius Fabius]

I used to proof, when I was in university, but now I have no connections and way too many books to read for my own enjoyment, plus I make enough errors doing email and RAT posts to make up for any I catch in someone's book

[philsidnell]

... freelance copy-editors ... are not necessarily even interested, let alone specialists in, the subject and could never pick up an error of fact like this

... which is why publishers like Blackwell commission "expert" editors, who are supposed to invite trustworthy contributors on board.


That's why I was careful to make it clear that I wasn't referring to academic publishers.

Well, mistakes happen, it's almost impossible to avoid them.

Indeed. This is why most conscientious authors attempt to have a colleague read over their work prior to publication! (Not always possible, I know ...)

Absolutely, most do. Errors can creep into any lengthy piece of text, sometimes at typesetting stage, which could be after the expert friend/colleague has seen it, or, in a commercial publisher, the period allowed after typesetting for corrections may not allow the author time to pass it around friends. I wasn't being complacent about errors. All I was really saying was that it would be really useful to have people who had a good foundation in the subject area to do the final proofreading stage. I hope nobody thought I was being sarcastic when I said some RAT members should think about doing it.

Phil

[Vincula]

Reviews?

First Impressions?

Worth The Price?

Is the book more for the Military Historian or the Reenactor or Both?

This thread just sorta died, sorta.

[Caius Fabius]

what did you want to know? hock:

It isn't cheap. it isn't for casual reading, it is sitting in one of my shelves, finally finished and I liked it. Depending on what information you are seeking, it might be of interest

[D B Campbell]

Just wondered if anyone has read Clifford Ando's chapter ("The Army and the Urban Elite. A Competition for Power").

Is it just me, or is this chapter totally unintelligible? (It could just be me. In fact, it probably is ... Hmmm.)