It is the Latin language that takes a real beating here; misuse of terms is rampant:

* Pila and Pilum are talked about as two separate things. They are not: pila is simply the plural of pilum.
* There is no such thing as a gladius hispanicus; the correct term is gladius hispaniensis.
* There is no such thing as a loricum; perhaps the author was thinking the feminine lorica was instead plural, and so attempted to make it singular and neuter, but this is incorrect.

It seems odd to leave the Carthaginians out of the story as the Romans' initial inability to overcome these foes, and the subsequent adoption of many Carthaginian tactics, equipment, etc. was what the Marian reforms were all about. Additionally the Romans initially encountered the Celtiberians as members of the Carthaginian forces, which is how they adopted the gladius hispaniensis--which some would say is the original incarnation of the gladius with exclusively xiphos-like swords being used to that point---and arguably the falcata (and here it is probably also worth noting that this word is a Latin neologism for this sword, meaning something like "sickled").

Lastly, it feels a bit incomplete to not bookend this tale of the rise and spread of the gladius with a discussion of how it was eventually eclipsed by the spatha.

Write a better one.

M.

Mr. Eversberg, that's not very nice. This was Stieg Hedlund's first post on the forum. While I'd much prefer to receive corrections emailed to us directly so that we may consider integrating them into our articles, I suppose I appreciate his willingness to share with us. I don't know...

Wasn't meant as an attack; it should have read more as a request. My appologies.

M.

I admit reacting similarly (i.e. as negative) to this response initial, but then seeing it as an actual request (tone unfortunately gets lost in writing, and I've certainly been misinterpreted myself often enough).

I really don't see myself as necessarily possessing the type of knowledge to write this type of article (nor the time, unfortunately), though I am happy to give what I feel is constructive criticism. If emailing such feedback is the preferred method, I will certainly do this in the future.

No worries from me Stieg and I wrote the thing. ;)

I'm an american so some would claim I have a less than adequate grasp of english let alone latin. :D

Frequent, yes, Jean, but you're always saying something, not just filling up space.

I theory I could create a more detailed one, but I'm not quite sure I'm good enough for that job. Still a novice and all.

M.

I suppose I should also have mentioned that for the most part I thought the article was quite good--I wouldn't have offered any critique at all if thought it was completely off base. I know I started out with the negative stuff, I'll have to work on that.

Why should Stieg have to write a new article when a few tweaks to Patrick's submission would be as good or better?