Re: [tied] countries, languages , XX! centuries

From: Christopher Gwinn
Message: 12714
Date: 2002-03-17

Is it just me, or do A. Moeller's posts give others a headache as well? It
is very hard to understand such mutilated, misspelled English.

- Chris Gwinn



>I do not forget them. I just would like to remeber that the romas were very
>strict on the componence of the legions.
>And they put together the people from the same region. The iberiasn in
>legion Iberica, the Italians in legion Italica and so on
>Just wery fe legions were made from mixed people. If i am not wrong, one of
>them was Gemina made from two legions.
>Moreover the cohortes used to use their own language and they used they
>national weapons in fight.
>Just the comnader of the cohortes must know latin language. These are
>proven facts.
>Adn because we know the components of the roman armie which were in Dacia,
>this is why there are
>questions ( among others).
>In Dacia after 118 there were just one Lgeion and this is Gemina. in 170 (
>i guess i a not wrong) the romans brought an another Legion called
>Macedonica.
>Gemina componence was of mixed people. Iberians, sirians, italians and so
>on.
>Macedonica wwas with thracians and macedonians soldiers. If dacians were
>thracians and their langauge were likely, the soldiers from theye last
>legion could understand each other with the dacians in their own language.
>We have no idea about any translator within Dacia. Bu we have an
>acheological evidence found in Budapest in old Panonia about a certain
>person who worked as dacain translator . That means, even there were some
>dacians around and we learn from the componence of the panonian legions
>that the soldiers there were not coming from thrace..
>Is not that easy.. but i guess we will find the right point one day:))
>
>Best regards
>
>A. Moeller


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx