Hi,
Stumbled across a reference to this historical battle. Half an hour on the Internet did not turn up anything really useful (maps, orders of battle, definitive ancient account), etc.
Any suggestions on where I might find more concrete information than "the Romans won"?
Thanks in advance.
Chris
This falls in an awkward period where we don't have many detailed sources: the Wikipedia article on the battle lists the main ones. Some of the discussion and links in http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1580.0 on Thermopylae 267 AD may be useful, but I don't think it will point you at a definitive account - I suspect there isn't one.
Zosimus - http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0490-0510,_Zosimus,_Historia_Nova_(Green_and_Chaplin_AD_1814),_EN.pdf - says:
Quotethey [the "Scythians"] laid siege to Cassandria and Thessalonica, which they were near taking by means of machines which they raised against the walls. But hearing that the emperor was advancing with an army, they went into the interior, plundering all the neighbourhood of Doberus and Pelagonia. There they sustained a loss of three thousand men, who were met with by the Dalmatian cavalry, and with the rest of their force engaged the army of the emperor. Great numbers were slain in this battle on both sides, but the Romans, by a pretended flight, drew the Barbarians into an ambuscade and killed more than fifty thousand of them.
...
... the Barbarians, who survived the battle of Naissus between Claudius and the Scythians, defending themselves with their carriages which went before them, marched towards Macedon, but were so distressed by the want of necessaries, that many of them and of their beasts perished with hunger. They were met likewise by the Roman cavalry, who having killed many of them, drove the rest towards Mount Haemus; where being surrounded by the Roman army, they lost a vast number of men. But a quarrel ensuing between the Roman horse and foot soldiers, the emperor wishing the foot to engage the Barbarians, the Romans, after a smart engagement, were defeated with considerable loss, but the cavalry, coming up immediately, redeemed in some degree the miscarriage of the infantry. After this battle, the Barbarians proceeded on their march, and were pursued by the Romans.
The mentions of Naissus in the second paragraph identifies the unnamed battle of the first paragraph. So you have Dalmatian cavalry and a feigned flight - you probably won't get much more than that.
Thanks very much! :)
I saw an old post on the Armati forum by Stephen P. He mentions an old issue of Strategos which contains the scenario.
I will keep looking as it strikes me as an interesting project.
Odd that part of my message had a line through it ???
Thanks again.
Chris
If you'd like the 1982 translation of this passage from Zosimos, I can dig it out after I get back to HK.
If memory serves... there is some discussion in the academic journals as to whether or not some sources have confused Naissus with Nessos.
Quote from: Dangun on June 24, 2015, 06:14:10 PM
If you'd like the 1982 translation of this passage from Zosimos, I can dig it out after I get back to HK.
If memory serves... there is some discussion in the academic journals as to whether or not some sources have confused Naissus with Nessos.
But sadly, as Duncan said, there is no definitive account of many of the battles of this period.
The author we'd all like to have for this period is Dexippus, who has only survived in a handful of fragments and as a source for later historians.
As a result of that earlier discussion, I had a lot of fun reading the historians for this period in parallel, and it may, if I am lucky, appear in an upcoming Slingshot. Although it doesn't go up to the date of Naissus.
Here is the 1982 translation by Ridley:
Quote
1.43.1 The barbarians moved slowly on from the straits of Propontis and sailed for Cyzicus, where they were repulsed. Sailing through the Hellespont, they were swept along as far as Mt. Athos, where they repaired their ships. They then besieged Cassandra and Thessalonica, and by bringing machinery up against their walls had almost captured them when news came of the emperor's approach. Thereupon they marched inland and laid waste the whole country around Doberus and Pelagonia.
1.43.2 Here they lost three thousand men when they encountered the Dalmatian cavalry, but with those that were left they engaged the emperor's army. In the battle, although many fell on both sides and the Romans were defeated, they were still able to ambush the barbarians on lonely roads and kill fifty thousand of them. The remainder of the Scythians sailed about Thessaly and Greece, ravaging these districts, and although they were not able to attack the cities, which forestalled them by attending to their walls and other safeguards, they carried off everyone they found in the country outside the cities.
1.44.1 The Scythians were thus dispersed and lost most of their men...
[stuff about Zenobia]
1.45.1 ...The Scythians who had survived the battle at Naissus with Claudius came into Macedonia driving-their carts before them for protection: lacking provisions and oppressed by hunger, both they and their animals were perishing. The Roman cavalry also encountered them on the road, killing many and turning the rest to Mt. Haemus,
1.45.2 where they were surrounded by the Roman army and lost many men. When, however there was disagreement between the cavalry and infantry over which should engage the barbarians and the emperor decided that the latter should, the Romans were defeated in a fierce battle; although many were slain, the appearance of the horse to assist them lessened the defeat they suffered.
The translator was of the opinion that Zosimus has misplaced the event an ascribed the victory to Claudius rather than Gallienus.
Thanks to all for input. Curious that the opposing forces are called Scythians. The initial reference and consequently, germ of an idea, stemmed from a brief mention in the notes section of the Early Visigoth or Thervingi list of Extra Impetvs 2.
Lacking concrete historical source material, I do suppose there's room for scenario development.
Curious that Ridley has:
Quote"In the battle, although many fell on both sides and the Romans were defeated, they were still able to ambush the barbarians on lonely roads and kill fifty thousand of them."
while the earlier (Green and Chaplin) translation avers:
Quote"Great numbers were slain in this battle on both sides, but the Romans, by a pretended flight, drew the Barbarians into an ambuscade
and killed more than fifty thousand of them."
Someone is evidently stretching the Greek text. I got this far (http://heml.mta.ca/lace/sidebysideview2/4777568) tracking it down only to find it has a lacuna.
Es a de triskhilious apobalontes eis ten ton Dalmaton hippon empeptokotes, tois leipomenois pros ten ousan hama to basilei dingonizonto dunamin. Maches de genomenes ex ekateron te merous pesonton [lacuna]
etreponto men hoi Romaioi, dia de atripton autois odon aprosdoketois epipesontes pente ton barbaron muriadas diephterian.In essence, Zosimus and the translators have three thousand barbarians picked off by the Dalmatae, probably as a result of harassment and skirmishing, and the remainder then fight a pitched battle against the (unnamed) emperor. What there is after the lacuna gives the barbarians a clear loss of 50,000 men but is unclear about how it happened, the key phrase being 'etreponto men hoi Romaioi'.
Etreponto is the 3rd person plural (indicative medio-passive) of
trepo, which (in the medio-passive) means to turn oneself or one's steps in a certain direction and overall has the general sense of altering or changing. I would read this as the lacuna having described a hard struggle but where the text picks up again the Romans turned around the course of the battle and slew 50,000 of their opponents.
Green and Chaplin evidently interpreted 'etreponto' as a feigned flight or calculated retirement, while Ridley (erroneously) considers it a defeat, having evidently plucked that meaning from lower down in the list of possible meanings (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=etreponto&la=greek#lexicon) but without regard to context.
Quote from: Chris on July 08, 2015, 12:36:10 PM
Curious that the opposing forces are called Scythians.
One gets the impression that barbarians west of Pannonia were collectively considered 'Germans' while those east of it were considered 'Scythians'. I am not sure how much of this division was geographic and how much was cultural.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 08, 2015, 01:00:10 PM
One gets the impression that barbarians west of Pannonia were collectively considered 'Germans' while those east of it were considered 'Scythians'. I am not sure how much of this division was geographic and how much was cultural.
I found it very difficult to determine when the sources of this period were using the words Scythians, barbarians, goths etc. as synonyms and when they were being used precisely as differentiators. Its tough because the different sources are neither consistent nor individually internally consistent.
I think the issue with terminology is compounded by all sorts of cultural, historical and what we would call ethnographic considerations. For example, Anna Comnena often calls the Normans Keltoi simply because in Greek historiography, people from those lands were usually called Kelts, even though the historical reality is a little bit different by her time. Perhaps some of the same tendency is evident in Zosimus et al. In other words, the Heruls, Ostrogoths and so on are lumped into a 'Skythian' category because they come from or through an area that was originally known to the Greeks as Skythia - even though the peoples known as the Skythians are no longer evident. I suppose it's a bit like Greek writers calling the Romans 'Barbarians' - because, technically, they are...
I like that!
Paul
Such terms do have utility for the writers if the time. You can just call peopke Goths because they are Eastern Getmans, but the groups that are acting might well ve a mix of Goths, Heruls, Rugi, Gepids etc. They might call themselves by a sub Gothic name such as Tervingi and they might include non Germans such as Carpi (Dacians) and Alans and Sarmatians ( Iranians) . So calling them Scythians because they come from North of the Danube and the Black Sea may well be the best catch all term.
Roy
Concur: this looks like the way Zosimus' mind worked, at any rate.
One might note in this connection that it took the Romans at least a century to stop calling the Sassanids 'Parthians'!
Quote from: aligern on July 09, 2015, 03:35:25 PM
Such terms do have utility for the writers if the time. You can just call peopke Goths because they are Eastern Getmans, but the groups that are acting might well ve a mix of Goths, Heruls, Rugi, Gepids etc. They might call themselves by a sub Gothic name such as Tervingi and they might include non Germans such as Carpi (Dacians) and Alans and Sarmatians ( Iranians) . So calling them Scythians because they come from North of the Danube and the Black Sea may well be the best catch all term.
Roy
I think the authors - in these cases writing many centuries after the events - really didn't have much of a clue as to who they were talking about. And to be fair, there were no Heruli or Scythians running around in Syncellus day to point at, making it very easy for the authors to misunderstand their own sources.
For example, in the case of the Scythian invasion of 267CE, Syncellus uses the term Heruli, Zosimus uses the term Scythians, and the Historia Augusta uses the term Scythians and Goths. They can't all be right.
They aren't even internally consistent. The Historia Augusta in 6.2 says, "The Scythians, they are a portion of the Goths," but then later in 13.6 and 13.7 switches between Goth and Scythian as though they were synonyms.
Quote from: Dangun on July 10, 2015, 01:28:36 AM
I think the authors - in these cases writing many centuries after the events - really didn't have much of a clue as to who they were talking about. And to be fair, there were no Heruli or Scythians running around in Syncellus day to point at, making it very easy for the authors to misunderstand their own sources.
'Misunderstand' may be the wrong word. They would have a cultural continuity with period tradition which we lack, much as a 20th century Brit had a feel for the Elizabethan period even if his grasp of which Hapsburg branch subsequently controlled which territories may have been a bit hazy. My point is that there was a basis of remembered lore and popular culture these people inherited, and which is largely lost to us. It would have given them some orientation, although, that said, I do not underrate the capacity of a Christian monastic writer to blur details.
'Heruli' might even have been an honorific, 'the highborn' or 'the earls', which was taken to be an ethnic label. Egyptians similarly referred to Assyrians as 'Fenkhu' ('the lords' or 'the princes'), and we can find the same category in the northern part of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, listed as 'pankhu'. These were the nobility of the region and their ethnicity seems to have been wider than simply Assyrian. 'Fenkhu' was the common cultural element perceived by outsiders, and rightly or wrongly was more meaningful to them than identification along the criteria of discrete ethnic groups or city-states.
Quote
For example, in the case of the Scythian invasion of 267CE, Syncellus uses the term Heruli, Zosimus uses the term Scythians, and the Historia Augusta uses the term Scythians and Goths. They can't all be right.
If the Heruli were
au fond the upper layer of a Gothic culture as opposed to a completely separate tribe and Scythia was then occupied by a mix of Goths and traditional Scyths who more or less got along then one can see the thinking behind the terminology.
Quote
They aren't even internally consistent. The Historia Augusta in 6.2 says, "The Scythians, they are a portion of the Goths," but then later in 13.6 and 13.7 switches between Goth and Scythian as though they were synonyms.
As surmised above, the Scythians probably were incorporated with the Goths. There is of course the additional possibility of synedoche in the synonyms.
While our sources of the period are not of the best, perhaps we need not be quite so harsh on them.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 10, 2015, 01:29:19 PMWhile our sources of the period are not of the best, perhaps we need not be quite so harsh on them.
I definitely err towards being too hard on our source authors... :) I just never want to exaggerate what is knowable.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 10, 2015, 01:29:19 PM'Misunderstand' may be the wrong word. They would have a cultural continuity with period tradition which we lack, much as a 20th century Brit had a feel for the Elizabethan period even if his grasp of which Hapsburg branch subsequently controlled which territories may have been a bit hazy. My point is that there was a basis of remembered lore and popular culture these people inherited, and which is largely lost to us.
The point about cultural memory being different at different points and places in history is well taken, and it is often difficult to determine whether an error is a copyists or the original compiler.
But to pick on poor George Syncellus again... as much as he did well to distinguish himself from 90% of his peers by the simple fact of his literacy, many people on this forum will have read more books over their summer holiday than George did in his lifetime (possibly a small exaggeration). We will be more familiar with Elizabethan England because we are significantly better educated/read than poor George.
Growing up in Palestine, I doubt George would have had ever heard the word Heruli until he copied it out of his source (Dexipppus?).
But on balance, thank an appropriate deity he did, because he is a rare source in a sparsely sourced period.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 09, 2015, 08:31:32 PM
One might note in this connection that it took the Romans at least a century to stop calling the Sassanids 'Parthians'!
Some late Babylonian documents refer to their Seleucid overlords as "Hanaeans", after a 2nd millennium polity on the Middle Euphrates.
Quote from: Dangun on July 13, 2015, 05:58:56 AM
But to pick on poor George Syncellus again... as much as he did well to distinguish himself from 90% of his peers by the simple fact of his literacy, many people on this forum will have read more books over their summer holiday than George did in his lifetime (possibly a small exaggeration). We will be more familiar with Elizabethan England because we are significantly better educated/read than poor George.
Growing up in Palestine, I doubt George would have had ever heard the word Heruli until he copied it out of his source (Dexipppus?).
But on balance, thank an appropriate deity he did, because he is a rare source in a sparsely sourced period.
Taking a quick look at his biography, or at least Wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Syncellus), I suspect he read quite a lot of books but most were probably ecclesiastical rather than historical
per se, although as a
syncellus he would doubtless have had access to the latter. The article avers:
"
His chronicle, as its title implies, is more of a chronological table with notes than a history. Following on from the Syriac chroniclers of his homeland, who were writing in his lifetime under Arab rule in much the same fashion, as well as the Alexandrians Annianus and Panodorus (monks who wrote near the beginning of the 5th century), George used the chronological synchronic structures of Sextus Julius Africanus and Eusebius of Caesarea, arranging his events strictly in order of time, and naming them in the year which they happened. Consequently, the narrative is regarded as secondary to the need to reference the relation of each event to other events, and as such is continually interrupted by long tables of dates, so markedly that Krumbacher described it as being 'rather a great historical list [Geschichtstabelle] with added explanations, than a universal history.' "
In essence, he appears to be a more sophisticated version of the Venerable Bede of England.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 13, 2015, 10:54:13 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 09, 2015, 08:31:32 PM
One might note in this connection that it took the Romans at least a century to stop calling the Sassanids 'Parthians'!
Some late Babylonian documents refer to their Seleucid overlords as "Hanaeans", after a 2nd millennium polity on the Middle Euphrates.
Interesting: thanks, Andreas. Tradition does seem to leave a specifically-shaped hole in the mind that a later overlord or opponent can be slotted into with a minimum of difficulty - and perhaps some ready-made emotive overtones.
the emotional overtones probably rings true
Think about the 'Huns' on the western front
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 13, 2015, 03:29:04 PM
the emotional overtones probably rings true
Think about the 'Huns' on the western front
It was the Kaiser himself who called his forces 'a new wave of Huns'
Back to the discussion...
Using archaic names for people, based on where they came from, is a fundamental part of Classical literature. To the extent that I would get nervous of sources that don't do this....
Tom..
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 08, 2015, 01:00:10 PMGreen and Chaplin evidently interpreted 'etreponto' as a feigned flight or calculated retirement, while Ridley (erroneously) considers it a defeat, having evidently plucked that meaning from lower down in the list of possible meanings (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=etreponto&la=greek#lexicon) but without regard to context.
I emailed Professor Ridley and asked him to have a look at this passage (Zosimus 1.43.2) again and comment on why he translated it the way he did (an initial Roman defeat).
He must be about 70 but still has a position at the University of Melbourne.
He kindly wrote back...
Quote from: Professor Ronald Ridley on July 08, 2015, 01:00:10 PMDear Nicholas, It was nice to hear from you! I have had another look at the Zosimus passage, and the verb "trepo" means to turn, and by extension to rout. I then double-checked with the Bude translation, and Paschoud agrees: the Romans were defeated. There is certainly not the slightest indication of a 'pretended' flight. All the best, Ron Ridley
Now I don't know much about Greek, so have no opinion on the translation. But the agreeance of Paschoud (in a French translation from the 70s) appears somewhat compelling.
As an aside... it is amazing how varied the responses I get from academics that I approach with a question. In regards to Zosimus, Prof. Ridely responded briefly but very helpfully. I also had a dialogue with Prof. Christopher Jones for a (hopefully) upcoming Slingshot article about the Battle of Thermopylae and he was extermely helpful with facts, speculations and a preview of upcoming but unpublished works. But in stark contrast, when I asked Prof. Simon James to clarify a diagram he had in an article to illustrate something about Dura archaeology, (for the Dura Europos Slingshot article), he almost tore my head off in apoplectic rage.
From the experience though, as long as the question is specific and interesting, i'd always recommend asking!
Quote from: Dangun on July 15, 2015, 06:44:21 AMAs an aside... it is amazing how varied the responses I get from academics that I approach with a question. ...
From the experience though, as long as the question is specific and interesting, i'd always recommend asking!
They're as varied a bunch of individuals as the rest of us, I suppose. But I agree - always worth asking.
Quote from: Duncan Head on July 15, 2015, 09:10:59 AM
Quote from: Dangun on July 15, 2015, 06:44:21 AMAs an aside... it is amazing how varied the responses I get from academics that I approach with a question. ...
From the experience though, as long as the question is specific and interesting, i'd always recommend asking!
They're as varied a bunch of individuals as the rest of us, I suppose. But I agree - always worth asking.
I think that about sums it up Duncan. I suspect some are just delighted that people outside a small academic circle are actually interested in their work
Jim
Quote from: Dangun on July 15, 2015, 06:44:21 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 08, 2015, 01:00:10 PMGreen and Chaplin evidently interpreted 'etreponto' as a feigned flight or calculated retirement, while Ridley (erroneously) considers it a defeat, having evidently plucked that meaning from lower down in the list of possible meanings (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=etreponto&la=greek#lexicon) but without regard to context.
I emailed Professor Ridley and asked him to have a look at this passage (Zosimus 1.43.2) again and comment on why he translated it the way he did (an initial Roman defeat).
He must be about 70 but still has a position at the University of Melbourne.
He kindly wrote back...
Quote from: Professor Ronald Ridley on July 08, 2015, 01:00:10 PMDear Nicholas, It was nice to hear from you! I have had another look at the Zosimus passage, and the verb "trepo" means to turn, and by extension to rout. I then double-checked with the Bude translation, and Paschoud agrees: the Romans were defeated. There is certainly not the slightest indication of a 'pretended' flight. All the best, Ron Ridley
Now I don't know much about Greek, so have no opinion on the translation. But the agreeance of Paschoud (in a French translation from the 70s) appears somewhat compelling.
Not necessarily: I note that he omits to assess the context, particularly the lacuna just preceding 'etreponto'. 'Trepo' does mean to turn, but in the medio-passive it does not mean to rout, but rather to turn oneself or something relating to oneself (see this lexicon entry (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=etreponto&la=greek#lexicon)). I would draw particular attention to the form used when 'trepo' actually means 'to rout':
QuoteIII. turn or put to flight, rout, defeat, "trepsō d' hērōas Akhaious" Il.15.261; "etrepse phalaggas" Tyrt.12.21, cf. Pi.O.10 (11).15, Hdt.1.63, 4.128, Th.1.62, 4.25,33, etc.; in full, "phugade t." Il.8.157; "eis phugēn etrepse tous hexakiskhilious" X.An.1.8.24; "trepsai kai es phugēn katastēsai" Th.7.43 (but "etrepsan es phugēn poda" they fled, E.Supp.718):—Med., pres., X.An.5.4.16, J.AJ13.2.4, Plu.Cam.29: fut., Ar.Eq.275 (troch.): aor. 1, E.Heracl.842, X.An.6.1.13:—Pass., to be put to flight, aor. 2 "etrapēn" A.Pers.1029 (lyr.), X.Cyr.5.4.7 (v.l. etraponto), etc.: also aor. 1 "etrephthēn" Id.An.5.4.23, HG3.4.14, Cyn.12.5: aor. 2 Med. "etrapomēn" Hdt.1.80, 9.63, etc.; "es phugēn trapesthai" Id.8.91, Th.8.95; "trapomenoi katephugon" Id.4 54; "phugē allos allē etrapeto" X.An.4.8.19; "etraponto pheugein" Plu.Lys. 28, Caes.45: rarely in pf. Pass., "tetrammenou phuga genous" A.Th.952 (lyr.):—also intr. in Act., "phugad' etrape" Il.16.657 (unless it governs diphron).
Note how in Plutarch's Lysander 28.6 and Caesar's Civil War 45.3 to put to flight, to rout is: 'etraponto phugein'. 'Etraponto', the 3rd person aorist plural indicative middle voice, for the grammarians, seems to be the form of choice when describing a rout. Conversely, 'etreponto', the 3rd person plural imperfect indicative middle passive (sometimes I wonder how Greek grammarians managed to remain sane) has a self-turning significance, and here we return to the lacuna in Zosimus' text.
This lacuna directly precedes "...
etreponto men hoi Romaioi, dia de atripton autois odon aprosdoketois epipesontes pente ton barbaron muriadas diephterian. Since the 'etreponto' or turning around directly precedes the slaughter of 50,000 barbarians in unfavourable terrain, it suggests that the Romans were having a hard time during the lacuna but 'turned the battle around' and emerged the victors, catching and killing tens of thousands of barbarians in the pursuit. Note that this does not follow either Green and Chaplin's or Ridley's interpretations.
And Nicholas ... I hope your head re-attached without trouble after your chat with Simon James! ;)
I've snipped this from a draft of Chapter 2 of my book 'Eagles in the Dust', hope it helps.
'At this same time the Goths raised a huge army, a combined force of Goths, Heruli (another Gothic tribe) and Peuci (a Germanic tribe) numbering some three hundred and twenty thousand warriors. They embarked on 6000 ships (according to Zosimus (6). Even taking the usual ancient historians inflated numbers into account this was possibly the largest Gothic invasion before AD376. At this point Fate now intervened in favour of the Romans. The Gothic fleet sailed across the Black Sea and the warriors they carried attacked the walled city of Tomi. Instead of the usual storming and plundering, the Goths were unexpectedly repulsed by the defenders. The Gothic horde then marched inland and attacked Marcianople, and yet again they were repulsed by the defending troops and citizens. The Goths took back to their ships where they attempted to sail through the straights of the Propontis. However, due to the combination of too swift a current and too many ships the crews became confused and collisions occurred between the vessels, leading to a large number of ships sinking with their crews and warrior contingents. Whilst the Goths were reeling from these unexpected disasters Claudius II was proclaimed Emperor. This able man took the war to the Goths and engaged them near Naissus. Although the Romans took heavy losses at the Battle of Naissus itself, they managed to kill many Goth's afterwards in ambushes (7). Claudius was acclaimed as 'Gothicus' as a result of this victory but he did not live long to saviour it. Whilst the Romans were harrying the remaining Goths out of Greece, plague swept through the Gothic and Roman ranks, killing many including Claudius himself (8 ).'
(6) SHA Div. Claud VI-XI; Zos Bk 1, 42
(7) Zos. Bk1, 43.
( 8 ) Aur. Vic. 33; SHA Div. Claud XI-XII; Zon BkXII, 26; Zos Bk1, 46.
Abbreviations are-
Aur. Vic.- Aurelius Victor
SHA- Scriptores Historiae Augustae (Claudius)
Zon.-Zonaras
Zos. Zosimus
The 'managed to kill many Goths afterwards in ambushes' seems to be along Prof Ridley's lines, but does not appear in the Greek, which simply mentions difficult terrain. It would also be curious for Claudius to take the name 'Gothicus' on the basis of an adverse battle, and the Goths would presumably have to be terminally stupid to keep walking into ambushes for long enough to pile up a body count of 50,000. For all these reasons I read the Gothic losses as being inflicted at the battle itself, albeit the lacuna in Zosimus' text and his use of 'etrepanto' (signifying 'turning around') indicates the Romans did have to work hard for their victory, which seems to have been in doubt until the final stages.
On a completely different matter, putting a numeral 8 in parentheses in a post on this forum invariably produces a smiley in sunglasses (8). Can be annoying. I find it necessary to leave a space before the closing parenthesis, thus: (8 ). Not perfect, but it helps.
Getting back to the book, the account is clear and eminently readable, particularly for the general reader new to the subject, albeit the clause "(according to Zosimus (6)" is missing a closing parenthesis: "(according to Zosimus) (6)". And for some reason (errant spellchecker?) the 'straits' of the Propontis have emerged as 'straights'.
I must have got the ambushes part from one of the sources I quoted Patrick, might be an idea to look them up if you can, that way at least I know someone has read some of my stuff!
Bit late for proof-reading, 'Eagles in the Dust' has been in print since February! (You might have to purchase a copy and then check to see if the proof-reader picked up on the spelling etc ;) )
Quote from: valentinianvictor on August 13, 2015, 04:33:32 PM
I must have got the ambushes part from one of the sources I quoted Patrick, might be an idea to look them up if you can, that way at least I know someone has read some of my stuff!
Would suggest Ridley's Zosimus Bk 1, v.43 translation, judging from discussion above.
Quote from: valentinianvictor on August 13, 2015, 04:33:32 PM
Bit late for proof-reading, 'Eagles in the Dust' has been in print since February! (You might have to purchase a copy and then check to see if the proof-reader picked up on the spelling etc ;) )
I suppose I shall have to check it out. ;)