06-30-2014, 11:10 PM
Macedon wrote:
and no one can deny the fact that he has his Romans fight in a battle-line formed like a phalanx
and before that:
Also keep in mind that in the era of Polybius, the normal "Greek phalanx" had nothing to do with hoplites anymore, it was a continuous line of pikemen.
So from these two statements, you'd think that in his Histories, Polybius would have made it a point to describe the similarities between the Romans and the Macedonians in the manner that they fought instead of writing paragraphs specifically addressing their differences. See Book 18, 27-32
I'd like to add this quote from Livy:
'The king's army was a motley force drawn from many nations and presented the greatest dissimilarity both in the men and their equipment. There were 16,000 infantry in the Macedonian fashion. known as the "phalanx." These formed the centre, and their front consisted of ten divisions; between each division stood two elephants.' (Livy Hist. 37:40)
So here we have a description of the Seleucid forces at the battle of Magnesia. Apparently, there were gaps between each "division" that had been filled with elephants. But its still described as a phalanx. Did Livy make a mistake in using the word to describe such a formation since it clearly was not a continuous line? Or did he just mean a fighting line of a specific infantry troop class?
This is just one example of was I was attempting to state before, that words have different meanings, to different people. Phalanx sometimes just meant infantry in a fighting line. I'm sure I could find plenty of other examples but I'd rather not just make this topic about linguistics.
Speaking of, in multiple other recent threads that delve into topics revolving around ancient Greece and/or Rome, I've noticed that the debating strategy shifted to linguistics with the new argument being that unless you are able to decypher the language yourself, you will lack a true understanding of the nuances of the words. While I agree in principle, multiple other translations are available and most differ greatly from one another, meaning no two historians seem to be able to agree. Many others who also are able to read the original text in ancient Greek, here in RAT, do not seem to agree with one another on definitions and translations. So I'd appreciate if the topic can stay on track and stick with historical sources and not the subtle differences in linguistics and word choices.
and no one can deny the fact that he has his Romans fight in a battle-line formed like a phalanx
and before that:
Also keep in mind that in the era of Polybius, the normal "Greek phalanx" had nothing to do with hoplites anymore, it was a continuous line of pikemen.
So from these two statements, you'd think that in his Histories, Polybius would have made it a point to describe the similarities between the Romans and the Macedonians in the manner that they fought instead of writing paragraphs specifically addressing their differences. See Book 18, 27-32
I'd like to add this quote from Livy:
'The king's army was a motley force drawn from many nations and presented the greatest dissimilarity both in the men and their equipment. There were 16,000 infantry in the Macedonian fashion. known as the "phalanx." These formed the centre, and their front consisted of ten divisions; between each division stood two elephants.' (Livy Hist. 37:40)
So here we have a description of the Seleucid forces at the battle of Magnesia. Apparently, there were gaps between each "division" that had been filled with elephants. But its still described as a phalanx. Did Livy make a mistake in using the word to describe such a formation since it clearly was not a continuous line? Or did he just mean a fighting line of a specific infantry troop class?
This is just one example of was I was attempting to state before, that words have different meanings, to different people. Phalanx sometimes just meant infantry in a fighting line. I'm sure I could find plenty of other examples but I'd rather not just make this topic about linguistics.
Speaking of, in multiple other recent threads that delve into topics revolving around ancient Greece and/or Rome, I've noticed that the debating strategy shifted to linguistics with the new argument being that unless you are able to decypher the language yourself, you will lack a true understanding of the nuances of the words. While I agree in principle, multiple other translations are available and most differ greatly from one another, meaning no two historians seem to be able to agree. Many others who also are able to read the original text in ancient Greek, here in RAT, do not seem to agree with one another on definitions and translations. So I'd appreciate if the topic can stay on track and stick with historical sources and not the subtle differences in linguistics and word choices.
