What medieval authors actually meant in using the term 'milities' is incredibly controversial within historical circles. It's really fraught so avoid it.
-
"Angry certainty" ....yet you're certain that it was used in the way you claim when it's abundantly clear it's not. Which is more probable: unified consistent usage amongst authors who pretended to know more Latin than they did or fragmentation?
In as much as I am staring at the entry in the Lewis & Short which reads "a soldier in sea-service, a marine" yes, I am pretty confident. The thing about a philological question like this is it takes only one example to demonstrate a usage.
-
-
So, in as much as I am seeing the line in Plautus which reads, "iam maritumi omnes milites opus sunt tibi" I am pretty confident that at some point, milites had a meaning which was able to include marines. Did it have that meaning at other points? Interesting question.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
The medievalists called those mariners nautae. It's really easy to check this.
-
Latin authors in antiquity used nautae, classici, and milites, and used them together to distinguish sailors/crew from marines, e.g., Liv 21.61.2. But when not needing to distinguish, there are cases where milites seems to refer to both.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
The usage in Roman times for sailor was clearly different than what they used for ground pounder or naval infantry. So no unified term then or now. Certainly not by the medieval period.
-
Er. 1) The term is clearly unified in Plautus and consequently the (small) corpus of old Latin. 2) The Romans certainly do not have a clearly different sense of 'legions on boats' than 'legions on ground.' They have a word for 'rowers' (which is how they might use nautae)...
- 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.