I’m wondering of the following would be an acceptable English-Latin translation. Though I’m not aiming at a literal translation, I’m hoping the essence has been retained. (The original English precedes my Latin attempt).
Then, when the defenders were assailed by a tide of foes thrice greater than all the force that was left to them, the battle line broke, and they were scattered, fleeing this way and that.
Inde, cum defensores ab impetu hostili ter quam omnes suae copiae superatae numerato oppugnati essent, dilapsa tunc acie, disiecti huc illuc palabantur.
My main question is the use of “ter quam…superatae” in the ablative of agent, specifically, whether “omnes…superatae” should agree with “impetu hostili” (i.e. be ablative, not nominative).
Additionally, do I need to explicitly add a comparative, like “ter ampliore numero quam…” etc.? Or, would “numerato” be sufficient enough to suggest a larger number (of foes).
After thinking about it a bit more, perhaps the following revision might be better (?):
Inde, cum defensores ab impetu hostili ter magis quam suis omnibus superatis numerato oppugnati essent, dilpsa tunc acie, disiecti huc illuc palabantur.
I’m thinking that the added “magis” is more semantically (even literally) accurate, while matching “suis…superatis” with “impetu” makes more logical sense (as in, comparing apples to apples).
Magis is an adverb. You would need an adjective, and ampliore seems right to me.
Supero means “to exceed,” “to overcome” and “to be left over”. Superatis would be passive, so here it would mean “overcome”. You would need an active form to mean “left over” or “remaining.” Probably _qui supererant_would do.
And so, with your corrections (which now seem embarrassingly basic)…
Inde, cum defensores ab impetu hostili ter ampliore quam suis omnibus relictis numerato oppugnati essent, dilapsa tunc acie, disiecti huc illuc palabantur.
I was using suus substantively, as in Caesar suos a proelio continebat (Caesar restrained his men from battle). Still, I was also on the fence about it and was initially considering copiis; I now like viribus more.
Indeed, nice touch
Inde, cum defensores ab impetu hostili ter ampliore suis omnibus relictis viribus oppugnati essent, dilpsa tunc acie, disiecti huc illuc palabantur.
After recently referencing A&G for a different reason, I glanced on a rule regarding the use of quam comparative, specifically section 407 a:
The construction with quam is required when the first of the things compared is not in the Nominative or Accusative.
So, since the ablative of comparison can’t be used in this case, quam has been restored:
Inde, cum defensores ab impetu hostili ter ampliore quam suis omnibus relictis viribus oppugnati essent, dilpsa tunc acie, disiecti huc illuc palabantur.
Just popping in for a moment.
The trouble starts with ab impetu hostili, I’d say. Perhaps something like … ab hostibus ter pluribus numero quam qui sibi supererant?
My gut rebels at omnibus after quam, and omnes would surely be wrong. I’d rather just dispense with it. Best not to ask what the case of the antecedent of qui would be.
I suppose in universum could be added before supererant, but I don’t see much need.
Smoothing out the sentence structure a bit, and jollying up the ending:
Deinde ei qui (urbem) defendebant ab hostibus ter pluribus numero oppugnati quam qui sibi supererant acie fracta fusi sunt fugiebantque huc illuc.
Why so? Is it a semantic thing? Or metrical? Or perhaps it’s just not commonly used?
I’ve read about how Romans often avoided explicit nouns, like defensores, especially to enhance effect. I suppose I’m still caught up in literal translations (although not so much verbatim), and often find it difficult to step away from my English habits. The same goes for ab hostibus ter pluribus numero.
If you’re referring to palabantur, I was indeed aiming for a darker effect, to underscore the disaster of the loss. I initially considered fugio, but opted for palor to highlight that they were running aimlessly amok on the battlefield - the entire town was eventually wiped out.
Seeing as both you and Rimmik suggested qui, I’ll take this as the preferred way of expressing comparisons that involve some kind of verbal notion (i.e. survived), as opposed to ones of simple quality/quantity. I’ve recently read through a few texts, and it does seem more natural.
