Talk:Eastern Roman army

Untitled
How many legiones in 395 A.D. were on East Roman terittory & where ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AriX17 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What is a "regiment", as the term is used here? Are we talking about legions? 138.162.128.55 (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is this a separate article from late Roman army?
Is it simply because the other is too long? Or what? Ananiujitha (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It is part of the period structure regarding the Roman military: "Late Roman army" covers from the 3rd-century crisis until the end of the 4th century, while this article is supposed to deal with the army of the East Roman Empire until the 6th century, perhaps extending up to Heraclius' Persian wars (after which there comes the Byzantine army proper). It is true, however, that currently it does nothing of the sort. It provides a picture of the army in 395, and stops there.Constantine  ✍  07:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * But whose period structure?
 * I don't see this period structure in my sources, or anywhere except wikipedia. It doesn't correspond with any organizational change, like those of the late 3rd/early fourth or 7th centuries. It leaves the west stranded with no article. I can't tell if the period structure was invented to match the article division or vice-versa.Ananiujitha (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You have a good point in that we could easily extend the "Late Roman army" up to the time of Heraclius, and indeed I would say the division is one of expediency. You probably ought to contact, who is the main author and driving force behind most of our Roman army articles, for more. Constantine  ✍  16:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Why I got rid of Fortifications and Ranks, pay, and benefits
Well as I you know I tried to fill in the blanks in this educational article, but it seems that users in this website haven't done so, by which they had failed to do. In return it has been my responsibility to erase from it, as users and others can just go to the imperial roman article. What reasons why I have done it, is because no one from the past and today haven't written such just leaving them empty. I mean they have not, placed any, I mean...any information whatsoever in this. So if anyone would like to fill it in, then by all means do so. But don't leave it empty as I tried to put any but tends to be erased, especially embarrassing and unprofessional that no one with a knowledge of military history just leaves' something unwritten, including if there's a college student or anyone having interests, but doesn't know what kind of fortifications or pay did the Romans in the east had as it also seems that users are just to lazy to write any. With regrettable regards. 2 June 2014

Language
The reference to the emperor "Maurikios" is affected and obscure: all the literary modern sources such as Gibbon or Jones call this emperor "Maurice". Remember WP:NOT - "Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics. " and see MOS:FOREIGN, WP:JARGON "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do". If you want to write all the names in something that looks like the Greek alphabet, please do the job properly and do it in the Greek wikipedia. Diomedea Exulans (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)