The work is just a fragment as there is not the beginning, which an aim of the work was, and the end. The uniqueness of the fragment is it that only one shows the Roman tactics of the 2nd century AD in detail. The first part of the work has a concrete character. Arrian names the names of commanders, knows who, in the time, led the troops, it is not necessary those which should be according to a "list of staff". The description of the fight is more abstract, i. e. there have not neither the names of districts, nor specific description of arms and tactics of the Alans. It is the descriptive phrases (§ 10; 15; 16; 23) which, in principle, are not necessary in a military disposition. All this speaks us that the specific campaign underlay the work. Certain plan of actions and disposition were worked for the campaign. They then were literary dressed. Probably, the Disposition originally was a separate work of Arrian which then, in an overworked form, might be a member the lost Alanica or it was the separate work. The Disposition might be a member the lost Arrian’s Tactics of Roman infantry in which, as Art of Tactics, the personal military observations of Arrian were put.
6. Литература
1. Блаватский, В.Д. 1949. О боспорской коннице // КСИИМК 29: 96-99.
2. Блаватский, В.Д. 1954. Очерки военного дела в античных государствах Северного Причерноморья. М.
3. Горончаровский, В.А. 1993. Катафрактарии в истории военного дела Боспора // Скифы. Сарматы. Славяне. Русь (Петербургский археологический вестник 6): 79-82.
4. Горончаровский, В.А., В.П. Никоноров. 1987. Илуратский катафрактарий (К истории античной тяжелой кавалерии) // ВДИ. 1: 201-213.