ShieldWall
Ashigaru
posted 10-26-12 11:38 AM
EDT (US)
3 / 46
I'd expect the Crusaders to win by a mile. Richard I was a better general than most of that time, which for the Romans is a pity because I think only their superior organisation and discipline could save them. That and the tendency of hot-headed crusaders to do something stupid.
The example of Carrhae is important because that shows how well the Romans of that era (okay Vespasian was a century later) could stand up to heavy cavalry. They couldn't. The Parthians simply charged through them repeatedly. Unless the Roman infantry are equipped with spears, you'd have to back the Knights to do exactly the same and for the Crusader infantry to pile into the gaps they made. If it was a straight infantry slugging match though, I'd back the Romans. Discipline, good armour, big shields and short swords count for a lot.
Would all of this stand up to crossbows though? Interesting question. Well the Parthian horse archers made a horrid mess of Crassus at Carrhae, and crossbows are much more powerful weapons. I don't know if they would penetrate a Roman shield, but if the arrows of the horse archers found a way through then so would the crossbow bolts. They would certainly penetrate armour.
Vasta
Ashigaru
posted 10-29-12 07:57 PM
EDT (US)
29 / 46
Just a few notes on source criticism.
Josephus was supposedly working with Vespasian (and I think Titus', if he did them) commentarii, for what it's worth. Presumably Tacitus would have had them as well.
From when I did work on Josephus, I seem to recall that many don't trust his numbers, but that could be mistaken. Tacitus' numbering is also likewise questionable, at least if we're considering the army that sacked Jerusalem, since that's in the missing portions of H.
Also, the Caesar passage is BC 3.93... but I don't see anything about using the pila as spears. I'll take a look around there more later... Maybe it's from Lucan?
Vasta
Ashigaru
posted 10-30-12 10:49 AM
EDT (US)
35 / 46
(Sorry, waiting for some duct work to be done at my new house and so I don't have a proper keyboard to work with. Quoting will be awkward.)
For Josephus and numbers, yes, all ancient writers are suspect, but Josephus is particularly problematic. It is, of course, always good to keep in mind the fact that the ancient historians had a very different idea of truth than we do, and rhetorical invention and manipulation is a fundamental aspect of their writing. Every one should read Woodman's Rhetoric In Classical Historiography on the topic, it's excellent. For a lesser but more accessible treatment, check out Batstone's article "Why Latin Historiography?" in the Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historians.
Per the pila as javelins, hm. I'd rate Caesar before Plutarch in military narrative, though Caesar certainly has his rhetorical tropes and can't necessary be automatically accepted. I would wonder where Plutarch got his version: I think it's Livy. Then where does Livy come from? Some Pompeian version of events? His own rhetorical adaptation of Caesar? The similarities to Lucullus suggest that it could be rhetorical (adapted from Sallust who may have used Lucullus' own commentarii?).
Vasta
Ashigaru
posted 10-30-12 11:49 PM
EDT (US)
37 / 46
I never really get the sense that Livy did oral history. However, who knows what the end of Livy was like? He could've completely switched over to a crazy Sallustian style.
And Pollio, I always forget about Pollio. It is entirely plausible that he was a major source for the battle - and Pollio did take particular relish in criticizing Caesar's narrative.
I feel like Pollio is the Holy Grail of Latin historiography, elevated into sainthood because Syme thought he was cool, despite the fact that we have essentially nothing. Pollio's history of the civil war is everything we always wanted it to be, ripping apart everyone involved, with fine style and Tacitean characterization.
I suspect Pollio is more like Gallus. Praised by all the famous Augustan poets, first patron of the movement, and, once a few of lines of his poetry were found they were... well, pretty crappy. If Pollio ever does show up, there might be a lot of disappointment.
Now, the rest of Sallust's Histories...
I digress.
Pitt, that Latin Historians book by Woodman and Kraus is fantastic. I regularly use it as a starting point, and the Sallust article is currently the best recent treatment of the author in English.
I'd still suggest looking at RICH, because while Kraus and Woodman gives an excellent overview of the various authors, the framework of modern scholarly understanding of the Roman historians is built in the older book, especially the chapter on Cicero's famous discussion of historiography in De Oratore.
Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled discussion now that it has been mildly derailed.
Vasta
Ashigaru
posted 10-31-12 12:32 PM
EDT (US)
39 / 46
We can always dream, right? Periodically, I have that exact dream, where a passage with the very quotation I need for my dissertation is magically recovered hidden in some scholiast.
Yeah, the Histories are pretty great, and you can tell why it was considered a masterpiece. If you have the opportunity, track down McGushin's 2-volume English translation and commentary. It's the most easily available full edition of the Histories, though it strangely lacks a Latin text, so you have to make due with the old Maurenbrecher edition and track down what new fragments have been discovered since the early 1900s.
The REAL one you want to find is an Italian edition by Funari (1996, I think). It's the most up-to-date and complete Latin collection, with a very good Italian commentary... however, it seems like there were only a dozen copies printed, because I can not get a hold of it. Even when I was at the American Academy in Rome, they couldn't get a copy! If you live in Europe, maybe you'll have better luck?
There is hope though - Loeb is coming out with a brand new two-volume Sallust edition. The monographs and the Pseudosallustiana will be in volume one, and a complete Histories edition in the second. In September, I had lunch with JT Ramsey, the editor/translator of the new Loeb, and he was submitting the manuscript of the first volume in the next few days, but the Histories still had work to be done (even he couldn't get Funari). Fun fact though, I actually helped some of his translation in the Jugurtha. When you read Jug. 59, you're seeing my mild input.
Vasta
Ashigaru
posted 11-01-12 10:33 PM
EDT (US)
45 / 46
Get ready for later... you'll dream about how easy those Honors and AP classes will seem in comparison.
As for the translation style, it's a bit weird when you get to the old versions of say a Juvenal or a Martial. A bunch of the Martial poems in the old Loebs are actually translated into Italian instead of English, because apparently if you know Italian, you can read masturbation jokes... What's particularly amusing is that often times, it's the same word in Latin, Italian, and English, so it's not like they're hiding anything.
Some of the Greek novels, like Daphnis and Chloe, translate the sex scenes in Latin. Quite fun. You should all try to read at least one Greek novel... they're certainly something.