What medieval authors actually meant in using the term 'milities' is incredibly controversial within historical circles. It's really fraught so avoid it.
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @marauder2048 ja @notabattlechick
"Really fraught"? Medievalists may discuss how the word was used in different eras and whether/when it signified nobility or social rank, but it *always means* someone who was performing or liable for military service.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @ProfPaul_J ja @notabattlechick
"Liable for military service" Which meant what...all able bodied men? (yes that was the statute and apparent use in many kingdoms) Nice fraught term you've found there.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @marauder2048 ja @notabattlechick
No, liability for military service was very rarely conditioned only on being able-bodied in the Middle Ages, but there is a link to "militia". No, hardly a regular usage for "milites" legally or historically. Not really, when "soldiers" comes from "armed man for hire"
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @ProfPaul_J ja @notabattlechick
It's totally untrue. The entire English state dating back to Anglo Saxon kingdoms had these provisions. Same with the Crusader states. They dominate the literature. It can be about anyone connected to the nobili that the "historians" of the period deigned to write about.
3 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @marauder2048 ja @notabattlechick
You should try to be more careful with language.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @ProfPaul_J ja @notabattlechick
You should try to familiarize yourself with the period. Unlike antiquity you can't hide your questionable analysis and conclusions behind the fragmentary nature of the sources.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
And you're totally cool with 'milites' covering armed mariners despite the fact that it rarely did in the middle ages?
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
It means exactly that in some of the Roman sources, which seems relevant to our understanding of the term. Cf. Plaut. Capt. 1.2.61 Angry certainty is almost always unbecoming in a historian.
3 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 6 tykkäystä -
When is meaningless since it's abundantly clear that the medieval authors didn't use the same way the Romans did anymore so than the medieval author used 'ballistae' to refer to torsion weapons which we know they didn't have.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä
I mean, the root question here is how the word is going to be interpreted in a modern context, right? If anything, its classical meaning is likely to dominate overs medieval usage, if just because most Latin dictionaries are classically focused. Classical use seems relevant.
-
-
Ah..but Prof Paul was explicit about the medieval period. And of course the medieval period had....sailors in a military context and they didn't used 'miles' or any variation to refer to them. So it's baseless to suggest it as unified term for the various modern forces
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
When was I explicit about the medieval period?pic.twitter.com/wgpSHKLnq5
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä - Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.