[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: orion 1QM i,1

    [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
    [Your display is set for the "ISO-8859-8" character set]
    [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]

-----UrsprŁngliche Nachricht-----
Von: RGmyrken@aol.com <RGmyrken@aol.com>
An: orion@mscc.huji.ac.il <orion@mscc.huji.ac.il>
Datum: Dienstag, 15. Dezember 1998 19:40
Betreff: Re: orion 1QM i,1

I prefer the direct speech, therefore:

I know yet a while that Cato (not a good but the best candidate!) possibly
had written a lost work about ^—de re militaria^“, but this assumption isn^“t
verifiable. But indeed the Roman must had something like that and in so far
the thesis is ok. But to postulate that this still hypothetical  source-work
would have found its way to the Orient (where numerous Greek works about the
theme are to be found) short after the Macedonian Wars doubtlessly is
wishful thinking and indeed obscure. Interestingly enough, that you need
three hypotheses (Cato, shipped and studied) when I need only one (open

The Deiotarus-reference (Cic. Ep. ad Att. VI 1,14) abou the use of Roman
armor and strategemata clearly relates (as I wrote before) only to Roman
clientele states and their claims on military help and not to a force at the
periphery or outside the Roman interests.

You write: > 1QM 5.4b-7 describes the polished metal shields of the Sons of
Light. Such shields are common to Roman armies of the second and first
centuries BCE and are not peculiar to first century cohorts.<

Sorry, but the shields of the Republican Romans weren^“t polished metal but
normally wooden with metal fittings on the edges. The use cohort tactic in
1QM indeed is still questionable; still, but I haven^“t read yet Kronmeyer^“s
standard work (1929) about Greek and Roman warfare ...

To understand the Roman traumata after the first contact with "the deadly
banners of silk" in 53 BC, you probably should read e.g. Florus Epit. De
Tito Livio, not only because silk became Roman girl^“s best friend from now
on ...  Please combine both your and my argument and that^“s it.

Kataphract ("armor-rider") is a specification for a fish-scales armored
archer riding a ^—heavenly horse^“ covered with brass and steel trappings; and
the strong bent bow (not the Roman toy - that^“s why asked for darak kaeset)
is his major evidence. And no doubt that no horse ever was armored with
spear, shield , bow or war-javelins - except in the myths of the centaurs.
That " the major weakness of your (my!) argument is that the phrase "and
their horses" [v-rekhev] is restored from lacuna" is not quite right, The
citation of col. vi,15-16 refers to line14: " ... the  horsemen of rule
(who) shall be between forty and fifty years old. They (15) and  [...] ".
Interestingly enough that Martinez^“ ignores the lacuna.
N.b.: Martinez^“ [....cu]irasses  doubtlessly are wishful thinking, for we
should read first: " [ .... ?]armor". Okay!?

You mean victories in the sense of pillaging cities in Philistaea without
contact to the enemy when referring to 1 Macc. 5:14-21, 65-68, don^“t you?

The absolute correct citation of: " ... the Horn of [Israel]" in col. i,8 is
from Johann Maier, Die Qumran-Essener: Die Texte vom Toten Meer  (The Texts
of the Dead Sea), vol.I, p. 126, UTB Munich 1995.
N.B. I have still 1En 89,13 ff. as the source of the horned ram(bo).



Dr. Dierk Vandenberg
Heinrich-Heine University
Duesseldorf, Germany