10-11-2013, 09:42 PM
Evan,
I set out below my comments on your article. They are quite extensive and you may think that some are rather pedantic. However, it is important to get things right and not to give the editor too much work to do. My comments are largely on the presentation, rather than the content; it is your article, not mine. However, I have picked up on a few matters of detail. I do not pretend that my comments are exhaustive and I expect that others may have further points to make. They may also disagree with me on some issues. I have taken the article page-by-page.
Page 1
Title – you may need to explain the title. You could consider beginning your article by setting out the relevant passage from Sidonius.
“The day is . . . the plain below.” – I suggest you delete these two sentences. They make it look as if you are writing for a popular magazine, not a learned journal. You could substitute a short sentence noting the importance of the battle or simply pitch in with your third sentence, which I think would be perfectly adequate.
“a decent account” – “decent” is too colloquial in this context. A word like “reasonable” would be better.
“like Thompson, Hughes and Ferril” – I suggest that you delete this and take the names and full references to the relevant pages of their works to a footnote.
“Ferril” – should be “Ferrill”.
“the sources that left their brief accounts” – should be “the sources that have left . . .”, I think.
“hypothetical” – the wrong word, I think. “Plausible” might be better.
“a writer named Jordanes” – “a writer named” is superfluous. The readership will know who you mean.
“the Origins and deeds of the Goths” – either capitalize the initial letters of “the” and “deeds” or de-capitalize “Origins”.
“both he and his customer were of gothic ancestry” – not “customer”, he is not selling groceries. Substitute something like “patron” for “customer” or, maybe better, recast the sentence to something like “he and his brother Castilius, for whom he wrote, were of Gothic ancestry” and delete “His brother” from the next sentence.
“a notary for” – “a notary to” is better, I think.
“The intention is to look” – “The intention of this article is to look” is clearer.
“primary theory; the use” – a point of punctuation: a colon, rather than a semi-colon is correct, I think.
Page 2
“drop off the map” – this seems a bit colloquial, unless you really mean that they literally disappear from maps, and even then it doesn’t read well. I would think about substituting another phrase.
“in that area” – in what area?
“Tribunis Prima Cohors Frixagorum” – the tribune is the commanding officer, not part of the title, and the other words are in the wrong order. It should read “Cohors Prima Frixagorum”.
“at Vindobala” – I would suggest adding “on Hadrian’s Wall” to make its location clear.
“Scholars have suggested . . . Frisiavonum” – I think references are required.
“a tombstone . . . Frixiavorum” – this is all wrong. Carrawburgh, where the inscription was found, is certainly not “next door” to Rudchester (Vindobala) and it was not a tombstone. This should read, “an altar found outside the fort at Carrawburgh dedicated by a member . . .”.
Note 1: “1st ed. (South Yorkshire, Pen & Sword Books Ltd.), 2012, 144” – there is no need to refer to the edition, if there is only one, and the format of the rest of the reference is wrong. It should, I think, be “(Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books, 2012), 144”. The comment about editions applies equally to other notes but I will not mention it again.
Note 5 – I am not familiar with this work but the format of the reference does not look right.
Note 6: “Not. Dig. In Partibus Occidentis 40.21” – I think that convention requires further abbreviation and the reference is wrong. It should be “Not. Dig. Oc. 40.36”. This comment about abbreviation applies to other references to the Notitia but I will not repeat it.
Note 7: “RIB I p.485” – this is not the way to cite RIB. It should be by inscription number, in this case “RIB 1523”.
Page 3
“the trips by Germanus” – “trips” seems rather colloquial. “Visits” might be preferable.
“adamant to support” – is “adamant” the right word? Another might be better.
“Aetius’ army is not actually recorded” – what does this mean? Does it mean that his army is not mentioned or that its constitution is not given in detail or something else?
“Sidonius Apollinaris 7.329” – I don’t think that you need include this in the text, when you give a detailed reference in the footnotes. The same comment applies to other similar instances later in the piece.
Page 4
“The olibrones are likely a corruption” – “Olibrones is probably a corruption” reads better, I think. The choice of “likely” or “probably” is largely a matter of personal preference but, to my mind, “likely” is too colloquial and colloquialisms should be kept out of academic articles.
“or biscuit eaters” – I don’t think this is necessary.
“The Placidi valentiniani felices . . . Notitia Dignitatum” – I don’t understand this. These three units seem to be separate units. What does “a unit proposed by Jones” mean? If you are suggesting that he was proposing that the three units should be regarded as one and the same, he certainly does not say so on the page that you have cited. The correct names for the three units, according to the Notitia, are Placidi Valentinianici felices, Valentinianenses iuniores and Valentinianenses felices or Felices Valentinianenses.
“Sidonius remarks . . . sparse auxiliaries” – a reference for this is required, I think.
Page 5
“The Notitia, however, was written in 395 CE” – do we know this?
“we know who participated . . . Strasbourg and Adrianople” – do we? Some units, perhaps, but not all, surely.
“Sambida is settled” – “Sambida was settled”, I think.
“Alans in the area of Paris and possibly Aurelianum” and Note 19 – Not. Dig. Oc. 42.64-70 lists six settlements of gentiles Sarmatarum in Gaul. Are these necessarily Alans? If you are satisfied that they are, the two settlements mentioned by you are, presumably, Oc. 42.66 and Oc.42.70 (assuming the incomplete “Au . . .” is Aurelianum) and Note 19 should read “Not. Dig.42.66, 70”.
Note 16 – this needs a page number.
Page 6
“who did extensive research into the Goths in the 90’s” – “90’s” should be “1990s” but is this clause necessary?
“the Roman side probably couldn’t” – contractions such as this are absolutely forbidden. Substitute “could not”.
“did not come back until 443 CE” – this is ambiguous and probably colloquial. Do you mean that they returned to their homes or that their numbers were restored? Is 443 CE a definite date or an approximation? I suggest that this passage be redrawn.
Page 7
“in his work A History of Attila in the Huns” – I don’t think that this is necessary, as the work is cited in the footnotes. If you decide to keep it, you will need to correct the title.
“the amount of men Attila could feed” – “the number of men . . .” is more correct.
“than what Thompson suggests” – delete “what”.
Page 8
“Aetius died in 454” – would “Aetius was murdered in 454” be better?
“Other sources . . . Campus Mauriacus” – references are required, I think.
“once thought to be Theodoric I” – should this be “once thought to be from the grave of Theodoric I”?
“very interesting for a few reasons” – “for a number of reasons” is better.
Page 9
“meaning that Alan activity” – “meaning” seems too definite. “Suggesting” might be better.
“isn’t nearly steep enough” – another contraction. Substitute “is not”.
Note 38 – I think that the convention is that, when a website is cited, the date the site was accessed should be stated.
Page 10
“events of the battle played out” – “played out” is colloquial. Another phrase should be used, I think.
Page 11
“uses the phrase testudineque” – substitute “word” for “phrase”.
Page 12
“whom but a little while before were no earthen walls would withstand” – delete “were”.
“the Alans could lure the Huns into a feigned retreat” – this reads as if the Huns were lured into staging a reigned retreat. It should be redrawn.
Page 13
“very difficult to discern from an actual rout” – substituting “distinguish” for “discern” would be better, I think.
“heavily armored horsemen called Catafractarii and Clibanarii” – you know my views on this terminology, that these terms should only be used in relation to Roman forces. That aside, while catafractarii may have been equipped on the Sarmatian model, I don’t think that there is any evidence that the Alans were as heavily armoured as clibanarii. Personally, I would rather that you simply referred to them as “heavily armoured horsemen” and left it at that. Alternatively, you could use the generic term “cataphract”.
Page 14
“forgotten to the annals of time” – I know what you mean but I don’t think that this is the way to express it. “Annals of time” seems a bit odd and I would suggest that you consider rewording it.
“one monumentous battle” – I don’t think that “monumentous” is even a word. “Momentous” would be appropriate, if you mean “important”; “monumental”, if you mean “stupendous”, but you use that in the next sentence.
Generally, I would have a close look at your footnotes. I think that several of them fail to meet the requirements of the journal.
I set out below my comments on your article. They are quite extensive and you may think that some are rather pedantic. However, it is important to get things right and not to give the editor too much work to do. My comments are largely on the presentation, rather than the content; it is your article, not mine. However, I have picked up on a few matters of detail. I do not pretend that my comments are exhaustive and I expect that others may have further points to make. They may also disagree with me on some issues. I have taken the article page-by-page.
Page 1
Title – you may need to explain the title. You could consider beginning your article by setting out the relevant passage from Sidonius.
“The day is . . . the plain below.” – I suggest you delete these two sentences. They make it look as if you are writing for a popular magazine, not a learned journal. You could substitute a short sentence noting the importance of the battle or simply pitch in with your third sentence, which I think would be perfectly adequate.
“a decent account” – “decent” is too colloquial in this context. A word like “reasonable” would be better.
“like Thompson, Hughes and Ferril” – I suggest that you delete this and take the names and full references to the relevant pages of their works to a footnote.
“Ferril” – should be “Ferrill”.
“the sources that left their brief accounts” – should be “the sources that have left . . .”, I think.
“hypothetical” – the wrong word, I think. “Plausible” might be better.
“a writer named Jordanes” – “a writer named” is superfluous. The readership will know who you mean.
“the Origins and deeds of the Goths” – either capitalize the initial letters of “the” and “deeds” or de-capitalize “Origins”.
“both he and his customer were of gothic ancestry” – not “customer”, he is not selling groceries. Substitute something like “patron” for “customer” or, maybe better, recast the sentence to something like “he and his brother Castilius, for whom he wrote, were of Gothic ancestry” and delete “His brother” from the next sentence.
“a notary for” – “a notary to” is better, I think.
“The intention is to look” – “The intention of this article is to look” is clearer.
“primary theory; the use” – a point of punctuation: a colon, rather than a semi-colon is correct, I think.
Page 2
“drop off the map” – this seems a bit colloquial, unless you really mean that they literally disappear from maps, and even then it doesn’t read well. I would think about substituting another phrase.
“in that area” – in what area?
“Tribunis Prima Cohors Frixagorum” – the tribune is the commanding officer, not part of the title, and the other words are in the wrong order. It should read “Cohors Prima Frixagorum”.
“at Vindobala” – I would suggest adding “on Hadrian’s Wall” to make its location clear.
“Scholars have suggested . . . Frisiavonum” – I think references are required.
“a tombstone . . . Frixiavorum” – this is all wrong. Carrawburgh, where the inscription was found, is certainly not “next door” to Rudchester (Vindobala) and it was not a tombstone. This should read, “an altar found outside the fort at Carrawburgh dedicated by a member . . .”.
Note 1: “1st ed. (South Yorkshire, Pen & Sword Books Ltd.), 2012, 144” – there is no need to refer to the edition, if there is only one, and the format of the rest of the reference is wrong. It should, I think, be “(Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books, 2012), 144”. The comment about editions applies equally to other notes but I will not mention it again.
Note 5 – I am not familiar with this work but the format of the reference does not look right.
Note 6: “Not. Dig. In Partibus Occidentis 40.21” – I think that convention requires further abbreviation and the reference is wrong. It should be “Not. Dig. Oc. 40.36”. This comment about abbreviation applies to other references to the Notitia but I will not repeat it.
Note 7: “RIB I p.485” – this is not the way to cite RIB. It should be by inscription number, in this case “RIB 1523”.
Page 3
“the trips by Germanus” – “trips” seems rather colloquial. “Visits” might be preferable.
“adamant to support” – is “adamant” the right word? Another might be better.
“Aetius’ army is not actually recorded” – what does this mean? Does it mean that his army is not mentioned or that its constitution is not given in detail or something else?
“Sidonius Apollinaris 7.329” – I don’t think that you need include this in the text, when you give a detailed reference in the footnotes. The same comment applies to other similar instances later in the piece.
Page 4
“The olibrones are likely a corruption” – “Olibrones is probably a corruption” reads better, I think. The choice of “likely” or “probably” is largely a matter of personal preference but, to my mind, “likely” is too colloquial and colloquialisms should be kept out of academic articles.
“or biscuit eaters” – I don’t think this is necessary.
“The Placidi valentiniani felices . . . Notitia Dignitatum” – I don’t understand this. These three units seem to be separate units. What does “a unit proposed by Jones” mean? If you are suggesting that he was proposing that the three units should be regarded as one and the same, he certainly does not say so on the page that you have cited. The correct names for the three units, according to the Notitia, are Placidi Valentinianici felices, Valentinianenses iuniores and Valentinianenses felices or Felices Valentinianenses.
“Sidonius remarks . . . sparse auxiliaries” – a reference for this is required, I think.
Page 5
“The Notitia, however, was written in 395 CE” – do we know this?
“we know who participated . . . Strasbourg and Adrianople” – do we? Some units, perhaps, but not all, surely.
“Sambida is settled” – “Sambida was settled”, I think.
“Alans in the area of Paris and possibly Aurelianum” and Note 19 – Not. Dig. Oc. 42.64-70 lists six settlements of gentiles Sarmatarum in Gaul. Are these necessarily Alans? If you are satisfied that they are, the two settlements mentioned by you are, presumably, Oc. 42.66 and Oc.42.70 (assuming the incomplete “Au . . .” is Aurelianum) and Note 19 should read “Not. Dig.42.66, 70”.
Note 16 – this needs a page number.
Page 6
“who did extensive research into the Goths in the 90’s” – “90’s” should be “1990s” but is this clause necessary?
“the Roman side probably couldn’t” – contractions such as this are absolutely forbidden. Substitute “could not”.
“did not come back until 443 CE” – this is ambiguous and probably colloquial. Do you mean that they returned to their homes or that their numbers were restored? Is 443 CE a definite date or an approximation? I suggest that this passage be redrawn.
Page 7
“in his work A History of Attila in the Huns” – I don’t think that this is necessary, as the work is cited in the footnotes. If you decide to keep it, you will need to correct the title.
“the amount of men Attila could feed” – “the number of men . . .” is more correct.
“than what Thompson suggests” – delete “what”.
Page 8
“Aetius died in 454” – would “Aetius was murdered in 454” be better?
“Other sources . . . Campus Mauriacus” – references are required, I think.
“once thought to be Theodoric I” – should this be “once thought to be from the grave of Theodoric I”?
“very interesting for a few reasons” – “for a number of reasons” is better.
Page 9
“meaning that Alan activity” – “meaning” seems too definite. “Suggesting” might be better.
“isn’t nearly steep enough” – another contraction. Substitute “is not”.
Note 38 – I think that the convention is that, when a website is cited, the date the site was accessed should be stated.
Page 10
“events of the battle played out” – “played out” is colloquial. Another phrase should be used, I think.
Page 11
“uses the phrase testudineque” – substitute “word” for “phrase”.
Page 12
“whom but a little while before were no earthen walls would withstand” – delete “were”.
“the Alans could lure the Huns into a feigned retreat” – this reads as if the Huns were lured into staging a reigned retreat. It should be redrawn.
Page 13
“very difficult to discern from an actual rout” – substituting “distinguish” for “discern” would be better, I think.
“heavily armored horsemen called Catafractarii and Clibanarii” – you know my views on this terminology, that these terms should only be used in relation to Roman forces. That aside, while catafractarii may have been equipped on the Sarmatian model, I don’t think that there is any evidence that the Alans were as heavily armoured as clibanarii. Personally, I would rather that you simply referred to them as “heavily armoured horsemen” and left it at that. Alternatively, you could use the generic term “cataphract”.
Page 14
“forgotten to the annals of time” – I know what you mean but I don’t think that this is the way to express it. “Annals of time” seems a bit odd and I would suggest that you consider rewording it.
“one monumentous battle” – I don’t think that “monumentous” is even a word. “Momentous” would be appropriate, if you mean “important”; “monumental”, if you mean “stupendous”, but you use that in the next sentence.
Generally, I would have a close look at your footnotes. I think that several of them fail to meet the requirements of the journal.
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
