Talk:Strategikon of Maurice

Strategikon and 2 Tactica

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)

Leo has been cited by many expert authors as relying greatly on Maurice, which is understandable, since Maurice's small and mid-level unit structure essentially remained intact until the mid-10th century. As for Phocas, you are right. I was confused by the Tactica of Nikephoros Ouranos. I corrected the reference to reflect it. As for adding to the Byzantine military manuals, I'll be glad to support the effort, if I can. PS. Phocas' works are not called "Tactica", though. The Latin titles, by which they are known, are given. The ek paradromis is the de velitatione. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 22:49, 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)

I've come across several commentators to the opposite, as far as the relation of Leo and Maurice is concerned. Perhaps "heavily" is too strong a word, but, given that Leo was the "armchair general" par excellence, drawing on earlier authors (incl. Onasander etc), the reliance on Maurice must have been pronounced. I'll try to find the sources again though. Regards, Constantine ✍ 23:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

OK!

GK1973 (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have provided the relevant citations on the reliance of Leo on Maurice in the Byzantine military manuals article. Since I have Dennis' translation of Maurice, I'll add material as I can here. Constantine ✍ 23:25, 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" if I point out that the edition fo Maurices's Strategikon by Dennis bears the name "Strategikon" and not "Strategicon"? By what standards is the word "Strategicon" predominantly used? Google shows more results when typed with a "k" and if one goes through the results, one will see that overwhelming use is made when addressing the treatise of the word "Strategikon". Google books also brings in (few more yet) more results than "Strategicon" and one can clearly see that "k" is used in most modern English publications and "c" is used in earlier texts which retain their latin titles (double as many in the 21st century). I support the use of "Strategikon", because, in my opinion, this is the most usual current academic form used when addressing matters that have to do with the book... Even the external link we offer has it written with a "k"... GK1973 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Will it be nationalism? That depends on who says it.

Will it be accurate? No, as is demonstrated by the dependence here on raw Google results. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 13 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)

A language has more apparent Latin than Greek elements. For example, English? Writing the English Wikipedia in English is not nationalism, but reader service; we are intended for English-speakers, and many anglophones [now, there's a Hellenism] can use no other Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

But to the average Anglophone, who probably has never seen the term before, is there really a difference between Strategikon and Strategicon? The term is not "English", it does not have an anglicized form nor has it exactly entered into wider usage. As in all languages, it is merely the rendering of the original form into a different alphabet. Therefore both forms are equally valid. The "k" form is even more weird in Spanish for instance, but it is used nonetheless. As GK1973 stated, a growing number of scholars use the "demotic" transliterations for Byzantine names, including Americans, British, French, Spanish and even Turks, both in native and English-language works. Are they all wrong or perhaps Greek chauvinists? I agree that when a well-established form exists in a language, it should be preferred (there is WP:ENG, after all), i.e. Thessalonica over Thessalonike, Bosphorus over Bosporos, etc, but in this case, I think you are splitting hairs. Constantine ✍ 11:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

@Septentrionalis Again no arguments... I really hoped we could work this out with logic and arguments. I do not know your background and neither do you mine. I have posed you some questions and you don't see fit to give any answers. I expect an apology on your tagging people and I really hope that in the future we can work without such outright arrogance. I have given you a statistic sample of thousands of publications as to how often "k" is used over "c" in the 21st century. Can you do the same or will you keep talking about how writing Strategikon with a "k" is Greek POV and raw nationalism????? It seems that historians around the world disagree with you and MOST use "k" when referring to Maurice's (and not Mavrikiou) work as they use "c" when referring to Frontinus' work "Strategimaticon". Now, can you really provide an answer instead of just being stubborn about this? Have you actually read this work? G.T.Dennis (Maurice's Strategikon) and E. McGeer (Sowing the Dragon's Teeth), two of the most popular books in English presenting Byzantine military manuals use "k" in their transliteration. Having read all too many books on ancient and Medieval history and warfare, my personal opinion is that although "c" is used, "k" is predominantly used by contemporary historians (as the Googlebook search also suggests). Just quoting instances would not be a proper argument since it is also written with a "c", albeit less regularly... So, are you willing to discuss the matter or not? Of course we want to help the reader and this is why both "Strategikon" and "Strategicon" should lead to this page, but the spelling we should use is THE MOST COMMON ONE and the most common one here is ith a "k". GK1973 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Combined Arms? Doubtful

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)

Why does the most accepted English spelling redirect to a less accepted spelling?

I though Strategikon was the preferred English spelling. 71.191.228.51 (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Read the discussion above. There was a user who passionately hated the transliterated forms and clung to what he perceived to be "correct" latinized forms. There was a major brouhaha about this when he began moving several biographical articles around, and it seems he's backed off. A new move discussion is probably in order. Constantine ✍ 06:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

from the above discussion: "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." Maurice is an English name, and invites confusion, and disguises the actual form, doesn't it make more sense to use Greek or Latin names for Romans? Otherwise it's harder to cross-reference between sources using English names, French names, etc. and it can be hard to identify the original Greek or Latin names. If this guy is arguing from the rendering "Maurice," clearly a bad idea, it does nothing to suggest how the use "Strategikon" can be a good idea. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

• Support, per Constantine's rationale; "Strategikon" seems to be favoured, in particular by stronger sources, and it's a more conventional transcription. bobrayner (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Does the later date have any widespread support?

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)

• early date According to George Dennis, in his introduction to his translation of the Strategikon, p.xvi: "Scholars are generally agreed that the Strategikon was composed between 575, when hostilities were renewed with the Persians, and 628, when they were finally defeated. Other enemies of the Byzantine Empire named in the text are the Lombards, who appear after 568, the Avars and Slavs, who caused trouble in the mid-570s, and the Antes, about whom nothing is recorded after 601." ... "Everything considered, it is reasonable to conclude that the Strategikon was composed during the latter part of the reign of Maurice (after 592) or during that of Phokas (before 610). Ananiujitha (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• early date Eric McGeer, in Sowing the Dragon's Teeth, repeatedly dates the Strategikon to about 600, but doesn't offer any arguments against later dates. Ananiujitha (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• early date Warren Treadgold, in Byzantium and its Army, dates the Strategicon [his preferred spelling] to the reign of Maurice. He doesn't offer any specific arguments, but he supposes several reorganizations between c. 600 and c. 900. Ananiujitha (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• late date Lynn White, in "Medieval Technology and Social Change," the source already cited for the later date, argues from the presence of "iron stirrups" in the Strategikon, and their absence from Sassanid armies before the Islamic conquest, and refers to a "respectable body of scholarship." Ananiujitha (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)