The bigger picture

[Sparko]

Don't ask him to parse it!

Parsley on bacon?

[tabibito]

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

also

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.

Others have argued that the "Roman" is self evident, and you have ridiculed them for doing so. Now you say that the Roman is self evident.

As to whether he had been a Roman soldier, people who know Latin well enough to produce a translation most commonly state that Spartacus had been a mercenary and had been a soldier, viz:

florus forster.jpg
So unless you can cite a translation that says otherwise, your claims can be dismissed as the usual self aggrandising drivel to be expected from you.

[shunyadragon]

This thread has nothing to do with Natural Science.

Bacon stuffer and silly cartoons?!?!?!?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

also




Others have argued that the "Roman" is self evident, and you have ridiculed them for doing so. Now you say that the Roman is self evident.

As to whether he had been a Roman soldier, people who know Latin well enough to produce a translation most commonly state that Spartacus had been a mercenary and had been a soldier, viz:

florus forster.jpg
So unless you can cite a translation that says otherwise, your claims can be dismissed as the usual self aggrandising drivel to be expected from you.

As I have already provided that Latin text several times, what point are you endeavouring to make?

I have also stressed that neither the phrase civis Romanus nor civis Romanus erat appear in that text. This simple fact appears to have completely escaped both your own attention and that of rogue06.

I have likewise noted that by utilising all the extant sources, as they have come down to us, it must be concluded that Spartacus was a Thracian auxiliary soldier [tributary] fighting alongside, and in support of, the Roman army.. He then appears to have deserted, become a brigand, was captured, sold into slavery, and thence sent to a gladiatorial school in Capua from where he later organised a break-out in 73 BCE.

The point at issue is that no matter how hard you and your pal try and distort the known facts he was not a Roman citizen.

[tabibito]

As I have already provided that Latin text several times, what point are you endeavouring to make?

I have also stressed that neither the phrase civis Romanus nor civis Romanus erat appear in that text. This simple fact appears to have completely escaped both your own attention and that of rogue06.

I have likewise noted that by utilising all the extant sources, as they have come down to us, it must be concluded that Spartacus was a Thracian auxiliary soldier [tributary] fighting alongside, and in support of, the Roman army.. He then appears to have deserted, become a brigand, was captured, sold into slavery, and thence sent to a gladiatorial school in Capua from where he later organised a break-out in 73 BCE.

The point at issue is that no matter how hard you and your pal try and distort the known facts he was not a Roman citizen.

The text as translated states that Spartacus, having been a mercenary, had become a soldier: self evidently, a Roman soldier. You have provided no evidence that a person could have, at that stage in history, been a Roman soldier without being a citizen.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The text as translated states that Spartacus, having been a mercenary, had become a soldier: self evidently, a Roman soldier. You have provided no evidence that a person could have, at that stage in history, been a Roman soldier without being a citizen.

I have provided several posts giving such evidence. Go and find them on this thread.

[tabibito]

I have provided several posts giving such evidence.

You have done nothing of the sort. What you have done is demonstrate that an auxiliary was not a Roman soldier. What translators have done is demonstrate that Florus identified Spartacus as first an auxiliary, then a soldier.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You have done nothing of the sort. What you have done is demonstrate that an auxiliary was not a Roman soldier. What translators have done is demonstrate that Florus identified Spartacus as first an auxiliary, then a soldier.

And Spartacus was not a Roman citizen. It has been noted that a stipendiarius should be understood in its civil rather than military sense, hence as a tributary, he became a solder.

Both yourself and rogue06 are assuming the text indicates a sequence from A to B. It does not.

[rogue06]

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

More than that. You had the Gallic Campaign by Caesar taking place at the same time of the Third Servile War.

Just like you claimed Caesar never invaded Gaul (even if you don't count the narrow strips of territory already controlled in the south), apparently thinking he simply asked them to be subjects of Rome.

Just like you accused me of making up the divisions used by actual historians to separate the Republic period.

And so on.

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.

So says the fraud who got all the above oh so woefully wrong

ETA: Been reading about Marcus Cassius Scaeva, who served under Caesar in Gaul and in his fights against Pompey, where he was named Primus Pilus, and served with Octavian at the Battle of Actium.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

:More than that. You had the Gallic Campaign by Caesar taking place at the same time of the Third Servile War.

Where did I write they took place "at the same time"? This is simply more of your mendacious caricaturing.

Just like you claimed Caesar never invaded Gaul (even if you don't count the narrow strips of territory already controlled in the south), apparently thinking he simply asked them to be subjects of Rome.

Did you read those opening pages from Drinkwater to which I directed you? Judging from that comment it would appear not.

ETA: Been reading about Marcus Cassius Scaeva, who served under Caesar in Gaul and in his fights against Pompey, where he was named Primus Pilus, and served with Octavian at the Battle of Actium.

Is that somehow meant to impress me with your erudition?

[tabibito]

And Spartacus was not a Roman citizen. It has been noted that a stipendiarius should be understood in its civil rather than military sense, hence as a tributary, he became a solder.

Both yourself and rogue06 are assuming the text indicates a sequence from A to B. It does not.

Stipendiarius is either a mercenary or a person paying cash as tribute. The latter seems not to be applicable for a private individual. The translations that I have seen do in fact show a progression. So, if a translation showing that he was, for example, a mercenary soldier - rather than having progressed from mercenary to soldier, as the translation I cited does - then there would be a disagreement between translators about the meaning of the text. If there is disagreement, it is a matter of considering what the line of best fit might be. No-one here seems to be conversant enough in Latin to provide an independent definitive opinion.
However, no alternative translation has been provided, so a progression stands as the only opinion on offer.

[Sparko]

Where did I write they took place "at the same time"? This is simply more of your mendacious caricaturing.

Did you read those opening pages from Drinkwater to which I directed you? Judging from that comment it would appear not.


Is that somehow meant to impress me with your erudition?

Well I watched the movie Sparticus and the mini-series!

[rogue06]

Is that somehow meant to impress me with your erudition?

Coming from someone who typically loads her posts with irrelevant information in an attempt to show you "know stuff" whenever you cannot address a point that was raised, this is hilariously ironic.

Look him up. He had quite the impressive career. Particular that battle where they were outnumbered something like 12 to 1 and where he became Primus Pilus was awarded a pile of cash and any of the men in his cohort that survived were given double pay for life.

He makes Rambo look like a pussycat.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Stipendiarius is either a mercenary or a person paying cash as tribute.

From where do you get such fanciful notions? As a tributary of Rome his region would have supplied soldiers to fight alongside the legions. As did many other [later] provinces of Rome.

The latter seems not to be applicable for a private individual.

Where do you get the notion Spartacus was a private individual signing up as an auxiliary?

The translations that I have seen do in fact show a progression.

No they do not. That is your interpretation.

Nec abnuit ille de stipendiario Thrace miles, de milite desertor, inde latro, deinde in honorem virium gladiator.

"Thrace miles- a Thracian soldier who along with other young men was supplied as part of the tribute from his area. Again Thracians were noted to be exceptional horseman and it is therefore possible he was in a cavalry division.

Spartacus therefore became a soldier [miles] in the army [i.e. the Roman army] That does not make him a Roman citizen. He and his fellow auxiliaries fought alongside [with/in] the Roman army.

Or do you think the Gallic and German troops who fought within Caesar's army in Gaul were also Roman citizens because they too were "in the army"?

[tabibito]

From where do you get such fanciful notions? As a tributary of Rome his region would have supplied soldiers to fight alongside the legions. As did many other [later] provinces of Rome.

Which means that Spartacus would not have been the tributary - that would be some kind of governing official who provided auxiliaries/maniples, and Spartacus would have been one of their number.

Where do you get the notion Spartacus was a private individual signing up as an auxiliary?

I was pointing out that Spartacus, on the basis of the text, could not have been included in the second definition (as explained above.)

No they do not. That is your interpretation.

It is an interpretation that fits the provided translation, "a mercenary soldier" does not.

Nec abnuit ille de stipendiario Thrace miles, de milite desertor, inde latro, deinde in honorem virium gladiator.

"Thrace miles- a Thracian soldier who along with other young men was supplied as part of the tribute from his area. Again Thracians were noted to be exceptional horseman and it is therefore possible he was in a cavalry division.

The dictionary definitions that I have seen for stipendiarius do not extend to far enough to accommodate that reading. Feel free to provide a citation from a dictionary that does.

Spartacus therefore became a soldier [miles] in the army [i.e. the Roman army] That does not make him a Roman citizen. He and his fellow auxiliaries fought alongside [with/in] the Roman army.

Feel free to provide an academic source which shows that a mercenary could be termed "miles."

Or do you think the Gallic and German troops who fought within Caesar's army in Gaul were also Roman citizens because they too were "in the army"?

Were those Gallic and German soldiers referred to as miles?





The translation provided states that Spartacus progressed from mercenary to soldier. Feel free to provide a citation of a translation that says otherwise.