Plus �a change, plus c'est la m�me chose

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Can't even allow me the time to read it?

Speidel was an own goal for you. He confirmed that the Regii consisted of infantry.

That is not the issue.

My initial reply was in response to your remark [see below] and in that reply I noted your ignorance of Roman military units.

The extract from Speidel's paper refuted what you claimed there to be a fact.

We already knew of the later Regii Emeseni Iudaei (an all-Jewish unit of light infantry), and now it is clear that all Jewish units were not an exception and existed much earlier. Such a situation eliminates every single one of the fraud's objections.

[rogue06]

That is not the issue.

My initial reply was in response to your remark [see below] and in that reply I noted your ignorance of Roman military units.

The extract from Speidel's paper refuted what you claimed there to be a fact.

And yet somehow you once again "snipped for relevancy" an entire post which included a direct addressing of Speidel's claim in order to respond to this one.

Typical H_A.

[tabibito]

The extract I posted from Michael P Speidel is entirely relevant to this:

Which is indicative of what exactly? The extract shows there is dispute about the reading of an inscription and whether it can be a reference to either of two regiments that actually existed. It doesn't call into doubt the existence of those regiments.

[tabibito]

And ya gotta love a bishop named Lucifer.

Apparently he was a major figure back then and considered a saint in Sardinia.

Lucifer is Venus, the day star. It is an appellation for, the king of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) among others, including Christ. (2Peter 1:19) et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Which is indicative of what exactly? The extract shows there is dispute about the reading of an inscription and whether it can be a reference to either of two regiments that actually existed. It doesn't call into doubt the existence of those regiments.

As the extract illustrated that the auxilia palatina existed was not the issue. The section I posted detailed where and how it was probably raised, to wit the Epitome de Caesaribus.
.
Furthermore, I attribute more knowledge on this topic to Speidel than to a pseudonymous poster on an insignificant religious website; although I suspect you may not. Private Eye has a regular short feature that it refers to as the OBN.

[tabibito]

As the extract illustrated that the auxilia palatina existed was not the issue. The section I posted detailed where and how it was probably raised, to wit the Epitome de Caesaribus.
.
Furthermore, I attribute more knowledge on this topic to Speidel than to a pseudonymous poster on an insignificant religious website; although I suspect you may not. Private Eye has a regular short feature that it refers to as the OBN.

It seems that you may have missed the "much later" in the initial posts. It means that the units in question were later developments. It follows discussion of earlier conditions.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

A little more on that inscription from Speidel.

There can be no doubt that the letters EME SIV DE R V meant emi[t] sib[i] de r[e] v [iri] (she bought it for herself from her husband's money). In twenty-seven of thirty seven cases, military owners of coffins from this graveyard state that they bought the coffin with their own money [arcam emit sibi de proprio],hence Optata, too, is likely to have done so. The oddities of her spelling and wording parallel other Concordia coffins: sivi for sibi, eme for emit,and the phrase de rem sua. The inscription thus reads:

Flavia Optata,mili[tis]de
num[ero] Regi([orum],emi[t] sib[i] de
r[e] v[iri]. Si quis pos[t] obit[um]
me[um]) arc[am volu[erit] ap[erire] infe-
r [at] [fisci] vi[ribus] aur[i] lib[ram] una[m].


Flavia Optata,(wife) of a soldier
of the Regii unit, bought [this] for herself from
her husband's means. If anyone after my death
opens the coffin, he shall pay
the fisc one pound of gold.

As Noy also notes:

The husband/father's name was evidently omitted by accident; there are many omissions, unorthodox spellings and puzzling abbreviations in the Concordia inscriptions. [...] The only connected name in Not. Dig is Regii. It lists them as among the auxilia palatina in the East [Or.vi.49] and the legiones comitatenses stationed in Italy [Occ. v 229. vii 32]. There was a unit of auxliares Reginenses in Moesia¹ who took their title from the Moesian town of Regina.[see David Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, Vol 1. Italy [excluding the city of Rome, Spain and Gaul. CUP, 1993

¹ A Roman province in the Balkans.

[rogue06]

Lucifer is Venus, the day star. It is an appellation for, the king of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) among others, including Christ. (2Peter 1:19) et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

I'm aware of the etymology, and am commenting on the usual association.

[rogue06]

As the extract illustrated that the auxilia palatina existed was not the issue. The section I posted detailed where and how it was probably raised, to wit the Epitome de Caesaribus.
.
Furthermore, I attribute more knowledge on this topic to Speidel than to a pseudonymous poster on an insignificant religious website; although I suspect you may not. Private Eye has a regular short feature that it refers to as the OBN.

Please note the deliberate studious ignoring of the paper from David Woods, A Note Concerning the "Regii Emeseni Iudaei" since it does not support H_A's chosen narrative.

Cherry picking at it's finest from the faux historian.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It seems that you may have missed the "much later" in the initial posts. It means that the units in question were later developments. It follows discussion of earlier conditions.

The epitaph for Flavia Optata is dated to the late fourth/early fifth century. The comments by Speidel refer to the situation after Constantine including a reference to Julian [i.e. the later fourth century].

Again, for your information cavalry units were not "much later" although infantry units made up of foreigners were indeed new.

Raised first by Maximian and Constantius, the auxilia palatina were a new class of units. This is borne out by their internal structure. Their under-officers' ranks were not the traditional centurion and optio, but circitor, biarchus, centenarius,and ducenarius. For centuries to come, this rank order belonged to the newly raised palatine troops only- Scholae, vexillationes,and auxilia palatina. Late Roman auxilia thus were raised as palatine units to strengthen the court armies. For infantry auxilia, service in the elite forces was indeed new, for the imperial foot guard had until then lacked units of foreigners, it having consisted only of praetorians and elite legionary detachments. As cavalrymen, outlanders joined the guard sooner: Mauri and Osrhoeni auxilia (of unknown structure) had become part of the imperial field army by the early third century.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Please note the deliberate studious ignoring of the paper from David Woods, A Note Concerning the "Regii Emeseni Iudaei" since it does not support H_A's chosen narrative.

Cherry picking at it's finest from the faux historian.

Iudaei Regii Emeseni Iudaei mit der legio comitatensis der Regii in der Notitia dignitatum

[tabibito]

The epitaph for Flavia Optata is dated to the late fourth/early fifth century. The comments by Speidel refer to the situation after Constantine including a reference to Julian [i.e. the later fourth century].

Again, for your information cavalry units were not "much later" although infantry units made up of foreigners were indeed new.

Raised first by Maximian and Constantius, the auxilia palatina were a new class of units. This is borne out by their internal structure. Their under-officers' ranks were not the traditional centurion and optio, but circitor, biarchus, centenarius,and ducenarius. For centuries to come, this rank order belonged to the newly raised palatine troops only- Scholae, vexillationes,and auxilia palatina. Late Roman auxilia thus were raised as palatine units to strengthen the court armies. For infantry auxilia, service in the elite forces was indeed new, for the imperial foot guard had until then lacked units of foreigners, it having consisted only of praetorians and elite legionary detachments. As cavalrymen, outlanders joined the guard sooner: Mauri and Osrhoeni auxilia (of unknown structure) had become part of the imperial field army by the early third century.

Mere attempts at obfuscation.

We already knew of the later Regii Emeseni Iudaei (an all-Jewish unit of light infantry), and now it is clear that all Jewish units were not an exception and existed much earlier. Such a situation eliminates every single one of the fraud's objections.

My emphasis. rogue06 demonstrates yet again his ignorance about the names of Roman military units!

What was it he didn't know about Roman military units again? The names that were appropriate? (disproven - the name given was appropriate.)

Nothing to see here except H_A's monumental error - arising from her unfounded sense of superiority - yet again.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Mere attempts at obfuscation.

I am giving you some background information.

There is no error on my part. rogue06 made a statement that is unsupported by the known evidence.

[tabibito]

I am giving you some background information.

There is no error on my part. rogue06 made a statement that is unsupported by the known evidence.

"We already knew about THE LATER Regii Emeseni Iudaei" Later, i.e. not in the same time frame.
And you didn't object to that anyway - what you objected to was "the NAMES of the Roman military units."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

"We already knew about THE LATER Regii Emeseni Iudaei" Later, i.e. not in the same time frame.
And you didn't object to that anyway - what you objected to was "the NAMES of the Roman military units."

Precisely. As Speidel noted:

The Regii thus did not come from Emesa and were not Jews.