Talk:Numerus Batavorum

British Spelling of "connection" ?

This article uses "connexion" which is apparently a british spelling of "connection". Didn't want to step on any toes by changing it myself... but it shows up on the main page in the "Did you know?" section. RobI (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh fun. I just found that we should respect the original poster's wishes here (Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#National_varieties_of_English and American_and_British_English_differences). So never mind, it's great. Should I be deleting this section then? RobI (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I changed connexions to connections, prior to reading this, based specifically on the source material which is used to support the sentence. The source material, specifically uses the spelling "connections". Isn't connexions just a trade mark or technical term, rather than some odd British spelling? Gulbenk (talk)

I believe "connexion" is the original and more correct spelling because it derives from the Latin "connexio"; hence I prefer it. It is not all that common nowadays, but is correct nevertheless. It's been used in the past in both US and Britain, but British usage has lasted longer. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Bermicourt for that explanation. Quite interesting. Is the spelling "connexions" still used as the primary in the UK, or is it now listed as the secondary/archaic version? Gulbenk (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, which is international, "connexion" is listed as British variant spelling with no mention of it being archaic, so they think it's still current. You don't see it very often though, except e.g. in brand names (The Connexion newspaper, Connexion IT, Business Connexion and Baptist Connexion) where ironically it seems to be seen as trendy ! Personally I like it, but that's not a British thing - I also prefer the US "-zation" to British "-sation" and US "dove" to British "dived"... Bermicourt (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent move

I'm not clear why this has now been moved from "Germanic bodyguard" to "German bodyguards? The sources I came across used "Germanic bodyguard", which is a better translation, since the soldiers were Germanic tribesmen, not German nationals. That's why German Wiki calls it the Germanische Leibwache ("Germanic bodyguard") not the Deutsche Leibwache ("German bodyguard"). And the phrase "German bodyguards" is easily confused with the modern era, which is why it needs a disambiguator. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"German Bodyguards" is the exact translation of their official Latin title Germani corpore custodes. I think readers can be assumed to understand that we are not talking about citizens of the modern German state (which was founded in 1871, not in 30 BC).EraNavigator (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: You notice I use the version corpore (ablative case) custodes, rather than corporis (genitive). This is because this version appears in some inscriptions relating to members of this unit (CIL VI 4340, 4342, 4343, 4437, 21068; AE (1976) 750, (1923) 73). It appears both versions were used. I think the reason for this that in Latin both versions could mean "bodyguard". corpore custos has the sense "guarding (the emperor) with your body"; corporis custos means "guarding the emperor's body". It's a fine distinction, hence the confusion even among the Romans.EraNavigator (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about the Latin for bodyguard, except that, in English, it should be singular, not plural because we are talking about a single unit of formed men - as in "the Emperor's bodyguard" - not a collection of separate individuals as in "five bodyguards were killed". However, I don't see how Germani can possibly be translated "German" since a German nation didn't exist in Roman times. There was, however, a people called (by the Romans) the Germani, for which the adjective is "Germanic", not "German". German Wikipedia is spot on (and they ought to know) with Germanische Leibwache which, very logically, is "Germanic bodyguard". --Bermicourt (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Having checked out how this unit is called in English (as opposed to German) publications, it appears we are both right: "bodyguard" should be in the singular, as you say, but "German" not "Germanic" is the usual form. I suggest we use the term "Imperial German Bodyguard" as per Rankov "Praetorian Guard" (Osprey). So I have changed the title to "Imperial German Bodyguard (Roman)" for more clarity. I trust this meets your approval.EraNavigator (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair compromise. Thanks for investigating further. Bermicourt (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Since there is currently no other article named "Imperial German Bodyguard", and since the Guards of the German Empire were not actual bodyguards (barring perhaps the Gardes du Corps (Prussia), is the "(Roman)" part necessary? Context in the articles that include this term, as well as the article itself, should demonstrate that this is a Roman-era unit either way. Constantine ✍ 05:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 10 September 2022

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Numerus Batavorum → Imperial German Bodyguard – Most straightforward and comprehensible title, if in doubt use English. PatGallacher (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as "Imperial German Bodyguard" seems to imply German Empire, could lead to confusion. Bayonet-lightbulb (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reason given by Bayonet-lightbulb. Not sure if the current title is the best, but the proposed title would certainly be confusing. I would have assumed this referred to the German Empire, had I not arrived here from Classical Greece and Rome article alerts. P Aculeius (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.