Unknown Ancient sources of Byzantine military treatises

Alexander Nefyodkin
{"title":"Unknown Ancient sources of Byzantine military treatises","authors":"Alexander Nefyodkin","doi":"10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-64-82","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is a preliminary attempt to attribute two lists of sources from Byzantine military treatises: the first one comes from the “Taktica” by the Byzantine emperor Leo VI the Wise (886-912), and the second — from “Taktika” by Nicephorus Ura-nus, the Byzantine strategist and dux of Antioch (1000s). A num-ber of these sources are clear enough — they are the military treatises of Arrian (“Techne Taktike”), Aelian (“The Tactical Theory”), Onosander (“Strategikos”), Polyaenus (“Strategems”), Syrianus Magister, Maurice (“The Strategikon”), Nikephoros II Phokas (“The Praecepta Militaria”), as well as the unpreserved work of the great Carthaginian commander Hannibal. Also, there is no particular doubt about Uranus's use of the writings of the moralist Plutarch of Chaeronea. Mena, mentioned in the list of Leo's “Taktica”, can be compared with a participant of the dia-logue “Menae patricii cum Thoma referendario: De scientia po-litica dialogus” (first half of the 6th century). A further compari-son of this “Dialogue” with Leo’s “Taktica” can bring some clar-ity to this issue, because Uranus made only minor changes to the text of its original source. Uranus himself made extensive use of historical sources, and brought them into the title. In general, Uranus used the historical works of Diodorus Siculus (“Histori-cal Library”), Dio Cassius Cocceianus (“Roman History”) and Polybius (“The Histories”), as well as the works (letters, diaries) of Alexander the Great or a novel about him. A separate article will be devoted to the attribution of the work of Artaxerxes. Three sources from the lists are still unclear: Pelops, Alcibiades, and Heraclides. Some light on their attribution can be cast after the publication of the “Taktika” by Nicephorus Uranus, which is yet to be done, although the first 14 chapters were published four centuries ago (in 1617).","PeriodicalId":32993,"journal":{"name":"Hypothekai","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hypothekai","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32880/2587-7127-2021-5-5-64-82","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article is a preliminary attempt to attribute two lists of sources from Byzantine military treatises: the first one comes from the “Taktica” by the Byzantine emperor Leo VI the Wise (886-912), and the second — from “Taktika” by Nicephorus Ura-nus, the Byzantine strategist and dux of Antioch (1000s). A num-ber of these sources are clear enough — they are the military treatises of Arrian (“Techne Taktike”), Aelian (“The Tactical Theory”), Onosander (“Strategikos”), Polyaenus (“Strategems”), Syrianus Magister, Maurice (“The Strategikon”), Nikephoros II Phokas (“The Praecepta Militaria”), as well as the unpreserved work of the great Carthaginian commander Hannibal. Also, there is no particular doubt about Uranus's use of the writings of the moralist Plutarch of Chaeronea. Mena, mentioned in the list of Leo's “Taktica”, can be compared with a participant of the dia-logue “Menae patricii cum Thoma referendario: De scientia po-litica dialogus” (first half of the 6th century). A further compari-son of this “Dialogue” with Leo’s “Taktica” can bring some clar-ity to this issue, because Uranus made only minor changes to the text of its original source. Uranus himself made extensive use of historical sources, and brought them into the title. In general, Uranus used the historical works of Diodorus Siculus (“Histori-cal Library”), Dio Cassius Cocceianus (“Roman History”) and Polybius (“The Histories”), as well as the works (letters, diaries) of Alexander the Great or a novel about him. A separate article will be devoted to the attribution of the work of Artaxerxes. Three sources from the lists are still unclear: Pelops, Alcibiades, and Heraclides. Some light on their attribution can be cast after the publication of the “Taktika” by Nicephorus Uranus, which is yet to be done, although the first 14 chapters were published four centuries ago (in 1617).
拜占庭军事论文的古代来源不详
这篇文章是一个初步的尝试,将两个来源列表归因于拜占庭军事论文:第一个来自拜占庭皇帝明智的利奥六世(886-912)的“Taktica”,第二个来自拜占庭战略家和安提阿公爵Nicephorus Ura-nus(1000年代)的“Taktika”。这些来源中有许多是足够清楚的——它们是阿里安(“Techne Taktike”)、埃利安(“战术理论”)、奥诺山德(“战略”)、波利埃努斯(“战略”)、叙利亚总督、莫里斯(“战略”)、尼基弗罗斯二世·福卡斯(“Praecepta Militaria”)的军事论文,以及伟大的迦太基指挥官汉尼拔的未保存的作品。此外,毫无疑问,天王星使用了Chaeronea的道德家普鲁塔克的著作。在列奥的“Taktica”列表中提到的Mena,可以与对话“Menae patricii与Thoma referentiario: De scientia politica dialogus”(6世纪上半叶)的参与者进行比较。将这种“对话”与狮子座的“Taktica”进行进一步的比较,可以使这个问题更加清晰,因为天王星只对其原始来源的文本进行了微小的修改。天王星本人广泛使用了历史资料,并把它们纳入标题。一般来说,天王星使用了狄奥多鲁斯·西库鲁斯(“历史图书馆”)、狄奥·卡修斯·科西安努斯(“罗马历史”)和波利比乌斯(“历史”)的历史著作,以及亚历山大大帝的作品(信件、日记)或一本关于他的小说。另一篇文章将专门讨论阿尔塔薛西斯作品的归属。名单中的三个来源仍然不清楚:珀罗普斯、亚西比德和赫拉克利德。在尼斯弗鲁斯·乌拉努斯(Nicephorus Uranus)出版《塔克提卡》(Taktika)之后,可以对它们的归属有所了解,尽管前14章在四个世纪前(1617年)出版,但这一工作尚未完成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信