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"
-
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)...
...but 'rowers' or 'sailors' are not marines. If the question is 'does milites cover sailors in the ancient world' - by and large no? But actually stay tuned for some interesting research by @marquanimous on the Greek context at some point.
-
-
But the question was 'does it cover marines.' It does cover marines. Again, the reference is provided and the matter settled. In the medieval context, I have a hard time imagining at a king's milites become much lower status nautae the moment they're on a boat?
-
The question was does it cover 'armed mariners' not naval infantry..not marines. Why to switch the context to come to an incorrect conclusion.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
They are still militarized. Try telling a modern sailor he's not part of the armed services because he's not naval infantry
-
M'kay. Buddy, I'm sorry, but your goal-posts are moving so fast you could mechanize them. I think we're done here.
- 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.