The bigger picture

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Only in your toxoplasmosis addled imagination.

Perhaps you would like to cite the historical sources that confirm the ludicrous fancy of rogue06 that Florus' readers in the late first/early century CE would somehow have "understood" that what he meant by the following actually referred to Spartacus being a "Roman citizen":

Nec abnuit ille de stipendiario Thrace miles, de milite desertor..

[Sparko]

Perhaps you would like to cite the historical sources that confirm the ludicrous fancy of rogue06 that Florus' readers in the late first/early century CE would somehow have "understood" that what he meant by the following actually referred to Spartacus being a "Roman citizen":

Nec abnuit ille de stipendiario Thrace miles, de milite desertor..

Non solum non possum tibi molesti esse et mores tuos molestos.

[Cow Poke]

Non solum non possum tibi molesti esse et mores tuos molestos.

You outta wash your mouth out with bacon!

[Sparko]

You outta wash your mouth out with bacon!

image.jpg

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You outta wash your mouth out with bacon!

Don't ask him to parse it!

[tabibito]

Nec abnuit ille de stipendiario Thrace miles, de milite desertor..

So he went from being a Thracian mercenary to soldier and if you were to be believed, we would have no idea of the army in which he served. Florus, if you were to be believed, was careful to provide the reader with no information about that issue.

Dismissed.jpg

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So he went from being a Thracian mercenary to soldier and if you were to be believed

If certain ancient sources are to be believed. I would also remind you that the sources, as they have come down to us, are few and at times fragmentary.

It is generally accepted [utilising existing sources] that he was a Thracian tributary, given that Plutarch writes "He was a Thracian from the nomadic tribes". We also know that Sulla had contributed to re-organising the fiscal arrangements in the Eastern provinces and that would, quite possibly, have included an increased number of "tributaries" to Rome.

As has also been pointed out [several times]; during the Republic Rome utilised its conquered peoples, its allies, and "mercenaries" [in the Latin meaning of that word] to fight along-side its own citizen legions. However, at the cessation of hostilities those auxiliary troops would have returned to their own lands and homes.

It seems probable [premised on the accounts by Plutarch, Appian, and Florus] that Spartacus deserted from that auxiliary army, operated for a period against Roman forces [Florus uses the word "latro" and Appian tells us that he fought against Rome] was captured, sold as a slave, and thence sent to a gladiator school in Capua, from where in 73 BCE he organised a break-out.

was careful to provide the reader with no information about that issue.

As Florus mentions Spartacus in his Epitome of the Histories of Titus Livius what army do you imagine he was referencing? The US?

[rogue06]

As Florus never uses the word Romanus provide some textual and/or historical evidence [not delusional flights of fancy] to support your contention that his audience would have "understood" his omission.

An objection that doesn't hold water as has repeatedly been explained ad nauseam.

[rogue06]

As has been pointed to you Hegemōn was the Greek general term for a governor.. The phrase civis Romanus is quite specific.

Regardless, not one NT author found it necessary to explain to their readers that Pilate was the Roman governor. They merely mention his name or simply say "governor." They figured that the audience would already know and understand that.

So not exactly what you wrote here One decade is "decades apart"

Being cavil does not erase the fact that you had Caesar in Gaul (where according to you he wasn't invading and was only apparently asking the Gauls to be subjects of the Roman Republic) and the same time Spartacus was revolting.

Not the sort of mistake an actual historian would be expected to make.

You do not understand the word, do you? My emphasis.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contemporary

Definition of contemporary

(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: marked by characteristics of the present period : MODERN, CURRENT contemporary American literature contemporary standards
b: SIMULTANEOUS
2: happening, existing, living, or coming into being during the same period of time. The book is based on contemporary accounts of the war.

contemporary

noun
plural contemporaries

Definition of contemporary (Entry 2 of 2)

1: one that is contemporary with another Petrarch and Chaucer were contemporaries.
2: one of the same or nearly the same age as another

And Caesar and Spartacus were most definitely contemporaries.

More fluff and nonsense.

You were saying that Caesar's "vacation" in Gaul took place when Spartacus was rebelling. Those were, according to you, contemporaneous events.

You are confusing that term with this:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synchronous

Definition of synchronous

1: happening, existing, or arising at precisely the same time
2: recurring or operating at exactly the same periods
3: involving or indicating synchronism
4a: having the same period also : having the same period and phase

All nothing but an attempt to shift attention from the fact that Caesar's Gallic campaign and the Third Servile War took place at the same time.

You've yet to explain just how Caesar conquered Gaul (aside from the strips of it they already controlled) without invading it. Do you care to explain that particular miracle that flies in the face of the archaeological and written record?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

An objection that doesn't hold water as has repeatedly been explained ad nauseam.

Your deluded flights of fancy do not constitute any form of "explanation". Nor do you have an iota of textual evidence to support them.

Your parroting of the Greek general term for a governor [Hegemōn] that is found in the NT texts is not equivalent to the precise phrase civis Romanus however, hard you try to pretend that it is.

[rogue06]

You have claimed that translators of ancient texts insert words for "clarification" into those texts. Now where does any accredited translation of Florus' actual words as they appear here include the word "Romanus"?

Nec abnuit ille de stipendiario Thrace miles, de milite desertor, inde latro...

Once again it is clear that you very good at proffering your deluded fancies but very reluctant to substantiate them with any actual textual, or other source, evidence.

You really have made a complete idiot of yourself over this, haven't you?

You should have taken my advice some pages back, admitted your initial error and stopped digging.

Examples were provided earlier in this thread which you summarily dismissed and subsequently ignored.

[rogue06]

The conditional word "if" affects the rest of his statement, HA. Even you know that.

But by ignoring it she can construct another of her straw men to do battle with, given that she cannot deal with the actual argument and the evidence.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

But by ignoring it she can construct another of her straw men to do battle with, given that she cannot deal with the actual argument and the evidence.

I am not the one presenting my deluded flights of fancy as some sort of explanation.

And you have never presented any cogent argument on this topic. You even managed, in an earlier post, to confuse my quote from Appian with the comments by Florus!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

But by ignoring it she can construct another of her straw men to do battle with, given that she cannot deal with the actual argument and the evidence.

What "evidence" would that be?

The only "evidence" you have offered is what exists in your deluded fantasies that have convinced you to maintain that if Spartacus was in the Roman army he was a citizen.

To wit:

If he was in the Roman army at the time, he was a citizen.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Regardless, not one NT author found it necessary to explain to their readers that Pilate was the Roman governor. They merely mention his name or simply say "governor." They figured that the audience would already know and understand that.


Being cavil does not erase the fact that you had Caesar in Gaul (where according to you he wasn't invading and was only apparently asking the Gauls to be subjects of the Roman Republic) and the same time Spartacus was revolting.

Not the sort of mistake an actual historian would be expected to make.


More fluff and nonsense.

You were saying that Caesar's "vacation" in Gaul took place when Spartacus was rebelling. Those were, according to you, contemporaneous events.


All nothing but an attempt to shift attention from the fact that Caesar's Gallic campaign and the Third Servile War took place at the same time.

You've yet to explain just how Caesar conquered Gaul (aside from the strips of it they already controlled) without invading it. Do you care to explain that particular miracle that flies in the face of the archaeological and written record?

You are still confusing synchronous/synchronously with contemporary/contemporaneous and as I noted Spartacus and Caesar were definitely contemporaries.


As to the situation in Gaul and given your lamentable ignorance on that period of history, I recommend you read the opening pages of Drinkwater's Roman Gaul: The Three Provinces 58 BC - AD 260 - they are available on Google Books although the extract only goes up to just before the end of page 21.

The rest of that first chapter deals with the on-going situation in those regions under Augustus [Octavian] and later Tiberius.