Talk:Legio XVIII
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Legio XVIII article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I just wanted to say that XIIX means "11 + 9" as I learned in my Latin class. The Romans would NEVER write XIIX because 11+9 is 20 so they would just write "XX". In any case, the Roman numeral for 18 is on the wiki page correctly as well as XVIII which is the one and only way to write it. If somebody knows an alternate way to write 18 in Roman numerals I'd very much like to see the source information on that, thank you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legio_XIIX#cite_note-0 - 18th Legion Wiki
The problem is also on the page under the Centurion Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion) underneath the photo of the cenotaph to Marcus Caelius
Sincerely,
A concerned lover of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.221.39 (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- In Latin classes, one learns "standard Latin," but the Romans did not have a compendium of spelling rules. I added a picture of an epitaph to the article that uses the XIIX spelling, and if you get into inscriptions etc you will find that spelling variants were very common (just as they are today, with the difference however that today most languages have defined spelling rules which make certain variants actual misspellings, which is not true for non-modern languages). Skäpperöd (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Nero's alleged 18th legion, a clerical error or faulty translation? edit
O.K., according to some of his translators into English, the Roman historian Tacitus in his "Histories" (Book V, 1st paragraph) mentions that in c. AD 66 soldiers from the 18th and 3rd legions were transferred from Alexandria (Egypt) to Judea to take part in the First Jewish-Roman War. Original text: ...et adductos Alexandria duoetvicensimanos tertianosque. But according to other translators, they were soldiers from the 22nd and the 3rd. The latter makes sense, because the 2 legions based in Alexandria at the time were the Legio III Cyrenaica and the Legio XXII Deiotariana. Stephen Dando-Collins in his "Legions of Rome" says that Nero raised a short-lived 18th, but Dando-Collins, brilliant at times, is an error-prone author as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- P.S._According to the dictionaries, "duodevicensimani" means "soldiers from the 18th legion", and "duoetvicesimani" means "soldiers from the 22nd legion".
- P.S;_ If Nero's 18th legion derives from a tricky faulty translation, the 18th legion which took part in the Batavian uprising (Julius Civilis) is in fact the Legio XXII Primigeneia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- "http://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?lemma=DUOETVICENSIMANI100"
- "https://glosbe.com/la/en/duoetvicesimani" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.37.84.125 (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I propose deleting the last paragraph edit
As I've already pointed out, Nero never raised a 18th legion. It's all a faulty translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)