Why were the Triarii differently equipped?

[Renatus]

I like building kits of wooden ships, like Nelson’s Victory. If the kit fits together well without me doing excessive amounts of sanding, and the manual is easy to follow, then for me it is a good kit. I don’t need a review of the kit to tell what I know from my own experience. You either know or you don’t if something has merit or not.

But suppose I read a review of the kit that says that it is not the Victory but the Temeraire and the manufacturer challenges that identification. Both point out details of the original ships that they say supports their argument. What do I do? I have a perfectly good model of a ship but is it the one I want? Do I accept one identification without question, ignoring the other, or do I consider both arguments, perhaps do a little research of my own and then reach my conclusion? If I have any sense, I do the latter.

Pursuing this analogy into the grammatical sphere, as a model maker I might have to make some minor adjustments but, if I have to make too many alterations to make the pieces fit, I may just give up and build an aeroplane instead.

Bad grammar can be easily correct.

I don't want to make a cheap debating point but is this what you meant to say? Are you saying that bad grammar can be right or that bad grammar can be correctED? You are, of course, right to say that it is the content that counts but, if poor writing gets in the way of comprehension or if it makes the reader doubt the abilities of the writer, the content may not get a chance. As I have said, I am a lawyer. Legal documents are not punctuated. Why? Because something like a misplaced comma can change the whole meaning of a sentence and thus of the deed itself.