10-16-2013, 04:18 PM
Evan,
These are my comments on your latest draft. Some are new; some are points I missed the first time. Where you have not adopted my previous suggestions, I have generally made no further comment; as I have said, it’s your article, not mine. However, there is one that I could not let pass.
Page 1
“The Battle of the Catalaunian Plains is one of the few” – in your earlier draft, you gave the date of the battle, which I think is a good idea. I suggest, “The Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, fought on the 20th June 451 CE, is one . . .”
“were of gothic ancestry” – capital G for “Gothic”, I think.
“Both of these men may have expected a high opinion towards the Goths” – would “Both of these men might be expected to have had a high opinion of the Goths” be better? I appreciate that it changes the emphasis of your sentence slightly.
Note 2 – “Arthur Ferrill” should be “Arther Ferrill”. Unusual spelling but that’s how it is. I think that you should give page references for their accounts of the battle, if you can.
Page 2
“many barbarian groups; the Visigoths” – should be a colon, rather than a semi-colon.
“requirement of military service; except for” – should be a comma, rather than a semi-colon.
“an altar found in the fort” – should be “outside the fort”. It was actually found in Coventina’s Well, outside the fort.
Page 3
“suggested that the Liticians were an error, and that it was meant to say laeti” – “suggested that ‘Liticians’ was an error and that laeti was meant” is better, I think.
“somewhat legendary” – rather an odd phrase. Something like “famous” may be more acceptable to the editor, if an adjective is necessary at all.
Page 4
“or freedmen, and are described as” – I would start a new sentence, “They are also described as”.
“bucellarius” – should be “bucellarii”.
Page 6
“If assumed is the usual 2/3 strength to account for” – this doesn’t read right at all. Would “If it is assumed to be two-thirds of its usual strength to account for” be better?
Page 9
“isn’t nearly steep enough” – this is the point I mentioned earlier. Contractions are not acceptable. Substitute “is not”.
Page 10
“Theodoric is slain” – who is he? Presumably the Theodoric I previously mentioned but you have not introduced him or explained his role in the battle. Is his death associated with the collapse of the Alans or merely coincidental?
“Thorismund then charges” – the same applies; who is he and what is his role? From this, I cannot work out whether he is a Goth or an Alan.
Page 11
“a prestigious case” – is “prestigious” the right word? I would try to think of an alternative.
“Thorismund . . . is on the left flank with the Alan cavalry” – do you mean “Gothic cavalry”? I thought that the Alans were supposed to be in the centre and elsewhere it seems that Thorismund is a Goth. If it is the Alan cavalry, how does that fit in with Jordanes’ claim that the Goths effectively won the battle?
“assuming a Roman center” – would “expecting” be better than “assuming”? I don’t suppose there is a great deal in it.
“and having to commit all their forces” – I think “and had to commit” is better.
Page 12
“the Visigothic right wing arrived last . . . Thorismund and the Alans holding the center. Theodoric I led the charge on the right flank . . . the Alans retreated and Thorismund and the Goths also rallied” – I can’t make head nor tail of this, especially when read with what has gone before. A much more coherent account is required, I think.
“The Battle of Chalons is not the only instance of Alans behaving in an untrustworthy manner” – but your thesis is that the Alans staged a feigned and possibly planned retreat which led to the victory. This is not “untrustworthy” behaviour, surely.
“nearly slew Attila, he whom prudently took flight” – is this what your translation says? It doesn’t look right to me. I would substitute “who” for “he whom”.
Page 13
“a similar style to the Huns utilizing mostly cataphracts and horse-archers” – are you suggesting that the Huns used cataphracts? You seem to contradict that on the next page.
Page 14
“On the contrary” – this seems to suggest that you are contradicting what you have previously said, when you are actually contrasting the practices of the Alans and the Huns. I would suggest, “On the other hand”.
“Thorismund noticed a crisis point in the battle” – this implies that Thorismund spotted an opportunity and took it, not that he was executing a pre-planned manoeuvre following a feigned retreat by the Alans. On this basis, it does not matter whether the Alans’ retreat was feigned or genuine.
“Jordanes 165,000 is impossible” – I suggest, “Jordanes 165,000 is also impossible”.
“the Frankish king then consulted Aetius” – “then” is superfluous and should be deleted.
“how to proceed, who tells them to head home” – the past tense is required. I suggest, “how to proceed and he told them” or “how to proceed; he told them”.
These are my comments on your latest draft. Some are new; some are points I missed the first time. Where you have not adopted my previous suggestions, I have generally made no further comment; as I have said, it’s your article, not mine. However, there is one that I could not let pass.
Page 1
“The Battle of the Catalaunian Plains is one of the few” – in your earlier draft, you gave the date of the battle, which I think is a good idea. I suggest, “The Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, fought on the 20th June 451 CE, is one . . .”
“were of gothic ancestry” – capital G for “Gothic”, I think.
“Both of these men may have expected a high opinion towards the Goths” – would “Both of these men might be expected to have had a high opinion of the Goths” be better? I appreciate that it changes the emphasis of your sentence slightly.
Note 2 – “Arthur Ferrill” should be “Arther Ferrill”. Unusual spelling but that’s how it is. I think that you should give page references for their accounts of the battle, if you can.
Page 2
“many barbarian groups; the Visigoths” – should be a colon, rather than a semi-colon.
“requirement of military service; except for” – should be a comma, rather than a semi-colon.
“an altar found in the fort” – should be “outside the fort”. It was actually found in Coventina’s Well, outside the fort.
Page 3
“suggested that the Liticians were an error, and that it was meant to say laeti” – “suggested that ‘Liticians’ was an error and that laeti was meant” is better, I think.
“somewhat legendary” – rather an odd phrase. Something like “famous” may be more acceptable to the editor, if an adjective is necessary at all.
Page 4
“or freedmen, and are described as” – I would start a new sentence, “They are also described as”.
“bucellarius” – should be “bucellarii”.
Page 6
“If assumed is the usual 2/3 strength to account for” – this doesn’t read right at all. Would “If it is assumed to be two-thirds of its usual strength to account for” be better?
Page 9
“isn’t nearly steep enough” – this is the point I mentioned earlier. Contractions are not acceptable. Substitute “is not”.
Page 10
“Theodoric is slain” – who is he? Presumably the Theodoric I previously mentioned but you have not introduced him or explained his role in the battle. Is his death associated with the collapse of the Alans or merely coincidental?
“Thorismund then charges” – the same applies; who is he and what is his role? From this, I cannot work out whether he is a Goth or an Alan.
Page 11
“a prestigious case” – is “prestigious” the right word? I would try to think of an alternative.
“Thorismund . . . is on the left flank with the Alan cavalry” – do you mean “Gothic cavalry”? I thought that the Alans were supposed to be in the centre and elsewhere it seems that Thorismund is a Goth. If it is the Alan cavalry, how does that fit in with Jordanes’ claim that the Goths effectively won the battle?
“assuming a Roman center” – would “expecting” be better than “assuming”? I don’t suppose there is a great deal in it.
“and having to commit all their forces” – I think “and had to commit” is better.
Page 12
“the Visigothic right wing arrived last . . . Thorismund and the Alans holding the center. Theodoric I led the charge on the right flank . . . the Alans retreated and Thorismund and the Goths also rallied” – I can’t make head nor tail of this, especially when read with what has gone before. A much more coherent account is required, I think.
“The Battle of Chalons is not the only instance of Alans behaving in an untrustworthy manner” – but your thesis is that the Alans staged a feigned and possibly planned retreat which led to the victory. This is not “untrustworthy” behaviour, surely.
“nearly slew Attila, he whom prudently took flight” – is this what your translation says? It doesn’t look right to me. I would substitute “who” for “he whom”.
Page 13
“a similar style to the Huns utilizing mostly cataphracts and horse-archers” – are you suggesting that the Huns used cataphracts? You seem to contradict that on the next page.
Page 14
“On the contrary” – this seems to suggest that you are contradicting what you have previously said, when you are actually contrasting the practices of the Alans and the Huns. I would suggest, “On the other hand”.
“Thorismund noticed a crisis point in the battle” – this implies that Thorismund spotted an opportunity and took it, not that he was executing a pre-planned manoeuvre following a feigned retreat by the Alans. On this basis, it does not matter whether the Alans’ retreat was feigned or genuine.
“Jordanes 165,000 is impossible” – I suggest, “Jordanes 165,000 is also impossible”.
“the Frankish king then consulted Aetius” – “then” is superfluous and should be deleted.
“how to proceed, who tells them to head home” – the past tense is required. I suggest, “how to proceed and he told them” or “how to proceed; he told them”.
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)
