This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To Cplakidas. Thanks for the reformatting. Actually the Strategikon of Maurice bears some resemblanes to the Tactica of Leo VI, but it cannot really be said that Leo draws heavily on Maurice. Aelian and Onassander maybe, but anyways it is a much more complete work. Nicephorus' Tactica is drawing even less (thank Gods!!!), since otherwise the wealth of information it provides would be much less... Anyways, if you deem otherwise, we can look it over. I will soon improve more articles that have to do with military treatises, so keep on checking!
Thanks
GK1973 ( talk) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry.. Phocas did not write a Tactica. He wrote "Stratigiki Ekthesis kai Syntaxis" (Praecepta Militaria), which is about the same text as Nikephoros Ouranos's "Tactica". My bad. Nevertheless, Leo's work is of course relying on Maurice's work but it would be incorrect to write that he "heavily draws on him". The text is for the most part original and quotes heavily from Aelian and Onassander. When I read your changes, I really though I read "De Velitatione" but I was of course wrong... sorry for this, I guess I rushed through the text and did not pay the proper attention.
GK1973 ( talk) 22:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
GK1973 ( talk) 23:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This article uses, as it should, the conventional English forms Nicephorus Phocas, Tactica, and (above all) Maurice. It should likewise use the conventional form Strategicon; there is no reason to represent kappa by c four times and by k once.
Our readers speak English, and may be presumed to be consulting this article because they have seen this work mentioned elsewhere. The odds are very large that they will have seen Strategicon; inconsistency will puzzle the Greekless, and do nothing for Hellenists - save perhaps to amuse them at the pointless nationalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Will it be nationalism? That depends on who says it. |
Can you please explain yourself here? My opinion is nationalistic if I am person A and not nationalistic if I am person B?
Will it be accurate? No, as is demonstrated by the dependence here on raw Google results. |
What I pointed you to was not "raw" google results but Googlebooks which at the moment is a most easily accessed database of, among others, scholarly publications. What were your arguments? Unless you can provide us with a specific academically acknowledged research on which name is most frequently used in English it is up to you to prove Googlebooks, Dennis and all other academics who use the word with a "k" a minority. My results explicitly show that in the database of Googlebooks, which is not about comics and porn, statistically from 2000 onwards the use of "k" is double than that of "c". Can you provide a better or even a similar statistic, or is it just a "nationalist" fervor that drives you? (I am insinuating here that you are a citizen of a country whose language has more apparent Latin than Greek elements) Would you accept arguments like "In my collection, the word "Strategikon" is used in 17 instances, of which 11 are with a "k"? GK1973 ( talk) 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The majority of the text is devoted to heavy cavalry. It only addresses infantry in an appendix. I marked the claim as dubious. 72.66.62.64 ( talk) 07:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I though Strategikon was the preferred English spelling. 71.191.228.51 ( talk) 23:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Strategicon of Maurice →
Strategikon of Maurice – Move back to the initial name. Both forms are about equally valid and widely used, but the "k" form has the advantage of a) rather more widespread use (GBooks gives ca. 3,800 results vs ca. 3,000 for "Strategicon"), b) wider use in the more specialist press (GScholar gives double the results for "Strategikon") and especially if one regards the more recent publications, as well as c) the fact that it is used in the work's editions in English: Dennis's Maurice's Strategikon: Handbook of Byzantine Military Strategy and Rance's The Roman Art of War in Late Antiquity: The Strategikon of the Emperor Maurice: a Translation With Introduction and Commentary.
Constantine
✍ 10:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Everything about it, such as the Latin commands, the emphasis on the Franks and Persians, but not the Arabs, as potential enemies, etc. suggests an early date, such as the traditional late-6th-century date. Does anyone have any reliable sources covering the dating? Ananiujitha ( talk) 20:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To Cplakidas. Thanks for the reformatting. Actually the Strategikon of Maurice bears some resemblanes to the Tactica of Leo VI, but it cannot really be said that Leo draws heavily on Maurice. Aelian and Onassander maybe, but anyways it is a much more complete work. Nicephorus' Tactica is drawing even less (thank Gods!!!), since otherwise the wealth of information it provides would be much less... Anyways, if you deem otherwise, we can look it over. I will soon improve more articles that have to do with military treatises, so keep on checking!
Thanks
GK1973 ( talk) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry.. Phocas did not write a Tactica. He wrote "Stratigiki Ekthesis kai Syntaxis" (Praecepta Militaria), which is about the same text as Nikephoros Ouranos's "Tactica". My bad. Nevertheless, Leo's work is of course relying on Maurice's work but it would be incorrect to write that he "heavily draws on him". The text is for the most part original and quotes heavily from Aelian and Onassander. When I read your changes, I really though I read "De Velitatione" but I was of course wrong... sorry for this, I guess I rushed through the text and did not pay the proper attention.
GK1973 ( talk) 22:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
GK1973 ( talk) 23:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This article uses, as it should, the conventional English forms Nicephorus Phocas, Tactica, and (above all) Maurice. It should likewise use the conventional form Strategicon; there is no reason to represent kappa by c four times and by k once.
Our readers speak English, and may be presumed to be consulting this article because they have seen this work mentioned elsewhere. The odds are very large that they will have seen Strategicon; inconsistency will puzzle the Greekless, and do nothing for Hellenists - save perhaps to amuse them at the pointless nationalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Will it be nationalism? That depends on who says it. |
Can you please explain yourself here? My opinion is nationalistic if I am person A and not nationalistic if I am person B?
Will it be accurate? No, as is demonstrated by the dependence here on raw Google results. |
What I pointed you to was not "raw" google results but Googlebooks which at the moment is a most easily accessed database of, among others, scholarly publications. What were your arguments? Unless you can provide us with a specific academically acknowledged research on which name is most frequently used in English it is up to you to prove Googlebooks, Dennis and all other academics who use the word with a "k" a minority. My results explicitly show that in the database of Googlebooks, which is not about comics and porn, statistically from 2000 onwards the use of "k" is double than that of "c". Can you provide a better or even a similar statistic, or is it just a "nationalist" fervor that drives you? (I am insinuating here that you are a citizen of a country whose language has more apparent Latin than Greek elements) Would you accept arguments like "In my collection, the word "Strategikon" is used in 17 instances, of which 11 are with a "k"? GK1973 ( talk) 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The majority of the text is devoted to heavy cavalry. It only addresses infantry in an appendix. I marked the claim as dubious. 72.66.62.64 ( talk) 07:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I though Strategikon was the preferred English spelling. 71.191.228.51 ( talk) 23:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Strategicon of Maurice →
Strategikon of Maurice – Move back to the initial name. Both forms are about equally valid and widely used, but the "k" form has the advantage of a) rather more widespread use (GBooks gives ca. 3,800 results vs ca. 3,000 for "Strategicon"), b) wider use in the more specialist press (GScholar gives double the results for "Strategikon") and especially if one regards the more recent publications, as well as c) the fact that it is used in the work's editions in English: Dennis's Maurice's Strategikon: Handbook of Byzantine Military Strategy and Rance's The Roman Art of War in Late Antiquity: The Strategikon of the Emperor Maurice: a Translation With Introduction and Commentary.
Constantine
✍ 10:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Everything about it, such as the Latin commands, the emphasis on the Franks and Persians, but not the Arabs, as potential enemies, etc. suggests an early date, such as the traditional late-6th-century date. Does anyone have any reliable sources covering the dating? Ananiujitha ( talk) 20:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)