Talk:Military of ancient Rome/Archive 1

initial article
Created initial article to remove redirect from roman military to roman legion, logically flawed, since the roman military had a naval element independent from the legions, and the roman legions were not the entirety of the roman army either. A minimal article at the moment, probably a stub, so have flagged it as such - PocklingtonDan 11:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * see talk page for Roman legion for discussion of the revision of superstructure of articles for the roman military - PocklingtonDan 17:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

next on my to-do list!
I know the article is barely a stub at the moment, its next on my to-do list, will completely overhaul it in next 48 hours - PocklingtonDan 21:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

overloaded
you overloaded the disambiguation Wandalstouring 13:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you just clarify what you mean by this please? Cheers - PocklingtonDan 14:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

look at it now. Wandalstouring 14:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

redirect of roman military structure to roman military
Good idea - the older roman military structure article was a historic dog-end that I was trying to fit into the new superstructure but it had little content and most of it questioable value anyway. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 14:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not get the difference
Roman army field units

[edit] Military establishment of the Roman kingdom

* Army of the early Roman Kingdom:

* pedites (infantry) * celeres (cavalry)

* Army of the late Roman Kingdom:

* Hastati * Principes * Triarii * Rorarii

[edit] Military establishment of the Roman Republic - the manipular army (based on five classes of citizens):

* Maniples

* Equites * Velites * Hastati * Principes * Triarii

What is the difference between the late Roman kingdom and the Republic? Didn't the kingdom have any mounted units? What are the Roarii? I thought it worked like a phalanx with javelin units supporting from behind and on the flanks during the kingdom and the first years of the Republic. Perhaps we should make the difference clear. The crucial point is maybe the Gallic invasion and close capture of Rome. Wandalstouring 14:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. The armies of the late Roman Kingdom and early Roman Republic were indeed similar, but not identical. In the late Roman Kingdom, there were around seven social classes - the first three of these were classed as the "hastati", "principes" and "trirarii" according to social status, whereas in the Roman republic these classes were based on age and military experience - it does seem a bit confusing, I know - perhaps I should change this to Livy's terms of 'First Class', 'Second Class' etc, I'll do this now - PocklingtonDan 14:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, done this now. As you can see, approximate splitting of troops was on same lines as later maniuplar arm, and the terms hastati, principes etc do seem to be used for this earlier army of the kingdom, but as you say it is confusing. The terms and numbers I've entered here are from Livy, The Rise of Rome, Book 1, Chapter 43

removed stub flag
As per wiki guidelines, article is now too full to be considered a stub. May want to flag as needing expansion, expert help, cites, etc etc if wanted though - PocklingtonDan 17:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comitatenses Palatini should be under comitatens section, not no-field unit
Hi wandalstouring - seems to be just you and me working on this series of articles at the moment. I dont want to revert an edit without discussion, but I think the Comitatenses Palatini should be a subheading of the comitatens section, rather than as a non-field unit, because in the later Empire, after it had developed fromt he earlier Scholae Palatinae, it was a very rreal, quite large field army, with the sole difference that it was under the direct command of the Empreror. I would have to look for a cite, but they were a very real, active field force. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 18:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is under special forces Wandalstouring 19:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, not a huge issue - it could go in either place I suppose. - PocklingtonDan 19:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

missing aspects
artillery (onager, ballistae) and Roarii are not explained here. The late Roman army relied heavily upon those, also light units shooting bolts from handheld ballistae played an increasingly important role in the late Roman army, as well as increased missile capability of all sorts. Wandalstouring 19:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If anywhere, I supose they should be mentioned somewhere under Roman legion but the bulk of this article is a disambiguation of terms for various branches of the Roman military throughout its history. I think its stating to do an exceptional job of that as it is edited and improved upon, but I'm not sure it is the place for listing equipment such as artillery - if you note it also doesn't mention personal equipment such as the gladius, whilst the Roman army and ROman legion pages do. I don't necessarily think there is a problem there but if anything I would argue that legion could be broken down into "regular line troops" and "immunes" - the latter describes a vast swathe of specialists from engineers, intelligence officers and translators, to artillery operators etc. Perhaps we should add and pad out an immunes subsection of the legion subsection for this??? Thoughts? Cheers - PocklingtonDan 19:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * immunes would be a good idea to add there some links to this topic and check where you link.
 * There could be more info on the development of the composition of the Roman navy, so it is easier to compare with the Roman army, while the listing of the differnt places where a fleet was stationed doesn't really belong here. Wandalstouring 19:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, yes. Not got time to do this today, will have a go later this week if you don't beat me to it. Agree that where the fleets were stationed probably aren't so important but they do surely form a part of the structure of the Roman Navy as per subsection header - if the Roman army had maintained a fixed number of 6 legions in its history, with no change in structure, would we not least them here as bullets under "legin" in the superstructure?? Cheers - PocklingtonDan 19:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Scope of this page
This is an expanded disambiguation page in my perspective, so we should keep a low profile in the entry sections about Roman history and move academic discussions elsewhere while providing massively links and some texts to give a short intro what the link is about. Wandalstouring 20:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree 100% - PocklingtonDan 20:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Expenditures
Could you just cut that part to three sentences. You present here highly controversial material on the decline of Rome and not even all historians do agree on this. Ask oldwindybear before you start pushing one author and his theory on Rome. Wandalstouring 21:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC) You can use perhaps some external links from this history lecture, but be careful, your statements are very POV. http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/EU/EU08-00.html Wandalstouring 21:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi wandalstouring - we've interested on enough pages that you must know by now that I watch the pages I contribute to - if you flag something as citation needed, I'll go and do exactly that. I have no objection to changing "X is the case" to "Y argues that X is the case (cite)" in any instance. Perhaps if you flag up anything you think needs a cite and then let me know here, or on my talk page, I can add cites to anything you find implausible. The way to achieve an accurate article isn't to cut out something you find doubtful, but to bury it in a perponderance of opposite viewpoints. ie, from "X says Y" to "Although X says Y, A B C D E F G and H all say M". Cheers - PocklingtonDan 21:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not sure which author's views I'm meant to be pushing - the expenditure subsection has one cite each from Gibbon, Hadas and Jones :-) Cheers - PocklingtonDan 21:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Funding chart
This is sort of a work in progress so if you have any information that is additional or contradicts what is there at the moment let me know and I will revise it - there is frustratingly little info on most of these taxes and revenue forms and some seem to wink in and out of existence over hundreds of years! - PocklingtonDan 16:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not logical
Expenditure

The cost of maintaining up to 30 legions and a dozen fleets without revenue coming in from plundering and invasion was astronomical and provided a "crushing burden"[11] on the finances of the Roman state[12].

how does it happen such a big empire is not able to defend its borders if most of them are naturally protected? We should first state what the problem of Roman financing was (corruption and then that the army upkeep was not possible. We have this corruption already mentioned earlier when dead soldiers got paid in the late Empire army. Sorry, I will read some books in time, but not now. Wandalstouring 17:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, a lot of the sources indicate that the Roman military was entirely funded by plundering initially and that it was in effect a self-perpetuating steam-roller - money from plunder wsa used for Roman armies, who plundered, which paid for more Roman armies etc. The Roman army provided a net benefit to the public purse for quite some time, and it was only later when the borders were fixed that funding became a drain on the Imperial purse. As you say, this shouldn't have created a problem given the size of the Empire, but as in the article, there were several reasons why the state was unable to raise the money from the populace. As you note, corruption was also a big problem. Perhaps it should be made clearer that there were no funding problems while the empire was expanding, but that funding became at least an issue (if not a problem) after that, exacerbated by corruption. Althogh it seems crazy that a huge empire of 60 million couldn't fund a military of, say, 500,000 - look at the contemporary situation - the UK has 56 million people and armed forces of just 160,000. Sure, it costs a lot more to trin and upkeep a 21st century soldier plus aircraft carrier and satellite, but then the population is several orders of magnitude richer too. I think its misleading to assume a stable situation too - in a stable situation I'm sure a funding problem could have been overcome. However, the problems of funding the army seem to have been tied in to the problems with the economy - namely the massive inflation, which sometimes reached 1500% - it made the wages of the soldiers worthless almost overnight and created huge problems so they had to be supplemented by massive donatives, or provided instead with goods directly instead of pay which, given the massive inflation, cost the state even more. The bigger picture is massive and complicated - I'm sure there must be an article somewhere in wikipedia dealing with this. Beyond doubt, they DID have trouble funding the military, the reasons why are just complicated! As recently sa the 20th century we were still having trouble controlling runaway inflation. I think maybe some of the info here might need working into the article section but its such a huge larger issue I'm a bit afraid to tackle it. If you can find something on wikipedia on this wider economic problems and link to it with "the wider economic problems made it difficult to effectively tackle the problems of military funding in isolation" or similar, that might be best :-) Cheers - PocklingtonDan 17:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I should point out that the armies of the late Roman empire were larger than they would ideally have been because of historical circumstance - that is, they were unfortunate to have another strong Empire on their immediate borders (Persians), plus they were hammered by successive waves of migrants caused by population displacements as far away as China. It was dumb bad luck in that respect. - PocklingtonDan 17:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Persians also had to fund their army somehow and all the other enemies as well. your numbers are too high, you give 700,000 max for 120 million people - 350,000 max for 60 million. 350,000 are not fully field armies and also serve as police forces. Comparing this soldiers/civilians ratio it is equivalent to France (300,000) or Germany (450,000) during the Cold War, both with about 60 million civilians. While you mention our ressources, you also have to consider that our armies are more expensive, etc. higher degrees of militarization with less population are also possible, such as Prussia or the France under Napoleon have proven. We should mention complex financial problems and not weight down all on an army. It is also of interested why the army was so inflated. A smaller army had priviously been able to kick butts. Wandalstouring 20:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * At least this financial system of the Romans reminds me very much of the Nazi financial system, where it was an absolute requirement to make oneself owner other people's property within a limited timeframe in order to avoid a finacial collapse due to a hidden inflation that helped the state to finance the military buildup. Mefo bills Wandalstouring 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"originally consisting of an army and small navy"
Hi wandalstouring, I didn't want to revert your edit without speaking to you, but text as it stands is not accurate - there is no evidence of a Roman Navy until the time of the Roman Republic, tot he bext of my knowledge. There may have been a (very) small fleet or similar prior to the first Punic War, but certainly not back to the Roman Kingdom (or at least there is no evidence of such that i'm aware of). Therefore it is not correct to say that the Roman military "oringinally consisted of....small navy". It needs to read "originally consisted solely of an army. A small navy was added int he early ROman Republic, and substantially expanded during the First Punic War" or similar - I added this text but it was removed in one of your edits - not sure if this was inadvertent or not so didn't want to revert without discussion. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 18:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to revert it. Yup, we have to add that there was a Roman navy prior to the Punic Wars. I'm not sure whether it didn't exist during the late kingdom already. Needs some research. Perhaps say an army and later a small navy which was significantly expanded in the First Punic War. Wandalstouring 19:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks wandalstouring, you're doing a grand job of hammering this article into shape. I have to confess I know very little about early Roman navy, I haven't read anything about it existing pre-Republic, but then again I haven't read anything baout it not existing pre-Republic either. - PocklingtonDan 20:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Template
Roman military seemed a large topic to not have a template for easier navigation around the superstructure - I've set up a basic template but ony included it on this page for now - I could do with some input from as many people as possible on which articles should be listed in the template please - PocklingtonDan 14:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Total manpower?
this diagram needs some explaining. In the battle of Cannae fought more than 80,000 Roman soldiers + there was a simultaneous fight in Northern Italy and troops stationed in Spain + there was a fleet of over 200 quinqueremes to man, while in the diagram there are not more than 50,000 Roman soldiers. Does this perhaps mean troops under arms in peacetime? Furthermore the value can never reach zero, simply because the Eastern Roman Empire did not vanish or you make a clear sign at which date you only count Western Roman troops - then the Notitia Dignitatumm can not be used as a source. Wandalstouring 22:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi wandalstouring, I've tried to use sensible estimates for periods of time of 10 years, and discounted both peak figures in a single year for a single battle, and also low figures representing hige losses (hadrianapol, cannae etc) except where the losses represented a long-term drop in troop numbers. Otherwise, you'd have to show say 100,000 in 216 BC, and then 40,000 in 215 BC etc, which wouldn't really reflect trends and would also be diicult to plot on a graph covering 1000 years or more. I don't think troops rush-raised for a single battle really reresent general trends. However, just as text can be edited by anyone on wikipedia, these images should be edited and corrected with new or corrected data too, so I can change this if you think I should. The 0-550,000 range at the fall of the western roman empire I take your point but I wasn't sure where to plot the minimal value since I can't find ANY estimates of the size of the roman army after about 400 AD - the plot does show the average or most likely figure being about 350,000 troops, but I take your point. Do you have any sources stating the size of the roman military in 400 AD or later? Trouble is all my sources concentrate on western rome, perhaps I should look instead for some estimates of easter roman empire about this time? I'll see what I can find - PocklingtonDan 09:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded a revised diagram now - I haven't made the minimal plot drop off to zero, and I also noticed that I plotted the Notitia Dignitatum figure about 100 years too early - it should have been around 400-420 AD but I had typoed a '3' rather than a '4' - corrected this now. There's still a massive different in the late figures though and nothing at all after 400 AD. - PocklingtonDan 10:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The last values are completely unsourced, to be correct they are not allowed in this graph if they do not follow a prior established tendency, which is not the case. There are two possibilities:
 * a)mark clearly after which date you refer only to the Western or Eastern Roman Empire military or split their graphs. (I favor this version for it makes the difference between the empires more clearly, of course you need some data for these estimates.
 * b)count the Eastern Roman Army only when the Western Empire collapsed. (I think it was about 200,000-150.000 men, although a very limited number was capable of expeditionary tasks such as in the times of Julian. Wandalstouring 12:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi wandalstouring - I agree the diagram probably does need revising in one of the ways you suggest, I will try and find sources for data on split between east/west empires and upload a revised diagram probably tomorrow/monday - PocklingtonDan 13:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For the early Roman Republican non-professional army state perhaps the number of regular peacetime troops, the number recruited during wartime and the total recruits available (census). This may also work for the Late Roman Empires by taking the federati seperated from the regular forces. If you have lot of spare time you could even make a difference between skirmishers, heavy infantry, light and medium infantry and light and medium cavalry and heavy cavalry. Wandalstouring 13:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I will be able to find anything like enough data to break down the numbers reliably into troop type etc but it looks like there is enough info on east vs west in latter empire etc. There's huge periods though with only sketchy estimates. I need to do some more research - PocklingtonDan 14:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I have literally flicked through every single source I could lay hands on speedreading for anything ending in "000"! I've re-plotted the graph and also made it very clear now what constitutes figures for the east and west - this was made a lot easier by Luttwack, who had a summary of other historians estimates of military size in east and west. Just uploading the new image now - aim to update this as and when I come across more data too - PocklingtonDan 22:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I will look up Polybius in time. I think this is a fine work of yours, some minor bulks up and down like before and after the Second Punic or after the Cimbri and Teutoni perhaps. Wandalstouring 23:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks wandalstouring, I could only plot the data I had to hand - as I say if anyone else can provide any other figures from any other sources for anyof the periods I would be very happy to add them in. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 08:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I started to find out an error from yesterday until this morning, the numbers are Roman army, not Roman military at least in the starting period. It has to be mentioned that the navy rowers didn't tend to carry much weapons. Wandalstouring 13:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested Peer review
Added template on talk page to bring it under scope of Military history WikiProject and requested initial peer review. - PocklingtonDan 09:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Going to delete History section
The HIstory section is a little redundant since, ancient Rome no longer existing, ALL of the article is history - the contents are thin in any case and it is impossible to separate history out from eg its sttructural development lower down the article - this is an artifical separation and the structural changes only make sense and can only be described within historical content. The "Branches and Structural overview" section may need renaming "Historical Development" or similar?? - PocklingtonDan 11:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just wantd to point out that this latter section whilst containing some history is still only going to contain history relating to its structural development, not a history of campaigns etc. - PocklingtonDan 11:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over Roman Navy section
This hasn't yet been raised int he peer review surprisingly, but I think the Roman Navy section needs completely reworking - the equivalent section on the army shows clearly the structural development over time, whereas the Roman Navy section barely mentions structure or development but rather lists all the equipment and ship types. I realise listing ship types and equipment is analogous to listing troop types and weapon types for troops as in the army section, but the navy section doesn't put any of this in the context of their historical structural development. Does anyone agree or have proposals for re-working this section or is it fine as-is?? - PocklingtonDan 11:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a structure of the Roman navy analogus to the army in military history of ancient Rome it can be expanded by mentioning the use of different ship types and scopes. Wandalstouring 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Scope?
What is the scope of this article now? Wandalstouring 13:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What started off as listing the branches turned into a full article in its own right - the structural history article. The contents that remain now nicely match other "military" articles such as "US military" and "British military", giving a summary of their command structure, expenditure, etc, etc, and allowing drilling down into more details topics. I'd really like to work more on the template and build it into a good navigation tool for the whole ROman military topic - I have started to add the template to other articles but this topic has a huge number of unlinked files often covering the same or similar topics. Trying to sort it out is going to be a headache but I feel we've already hammered some discipline into the superstructure. - PocklingtonDan 16:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The British and US military are no role models, they are essentially stubs or starts. They do mention the campaigns there or the branches, was is clearly missing, but constitutes major parts of these articles. I see no discipline and miss any superstructure, perhaps you could reword the intro so that it is clear what this article should be about. I don't quite get it. Is it about funding? Is it about the development of the command structure? Is it about the development of manpower? Essentially you created new articles where all of the mentioned topics would fit into, but the structure here with its content of a little bit this and that, no scope, no direction is messy. I can add anything on the Roman military here like "Roman military kitchen: they ate lots of beans" and none can say this is vandalism. Wandalstouring 17:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi wandalstouring, I disagree that this article is a stub. It does not contain campaign history because that is such a huge topic it is put in a separate article linked to from this main article. I don't see that as a problem. All the other "Miliary of XYZ" article I can find do the same thing - give a summary of funding, manpower, etc, and then give links to articles drilling down into topics in more detail. I don't think this makes the article a stub but rather an invaluable top-tier page that gives an overview and, along with the navigation template, allows exploration within the topic. I do agree that the intro needs re-wording. I would like to develop the page further into a really good top-level factbook on the Roman military, leading to strong articles on individual topics. I think it already does a good job giving a summary, but obviously you disagree. What would you like to do to improve the article? Cheers - PocklingtonDan 18:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Who said this article is a stub? I listed what your praised examples contain and pointed out the difference - these examples are no good examples.dot. First I would like to know what should be the content (in detail). Wandalstouring 18:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to tie the sections together better and am open to ideas. I do think there is very valid content here though that doesn't belong in any of the other articles. I suppose it does need tying together better though into a coherent overall article. I am open to ideas :-) - PocklingtonDan 18:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Organization by Theme or Organization by Date?
I was working on the Structural History of the Roman military and I'm concerned about issues (like tactics) which fall through the cracks between "campaign history" and "structural history." Anyway, I copied the section over to a new page titled Late Roman military. I plan to copy the appropriate section from the other articles. I suggest discussing appropriate ways to divide the history and creating new period-based articles. Jacob Haller 03:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this page creation. The issue you have raised is not valid, since pages covering these topics already exist at Strategy of the Roman military and Roman infantry tactics, for example - both linked in the main Roman military navbar at the top of each page. By creating this page, you are duplicating work from other articles and over-populating the category of articles on the Roman military - all the content in this article that you have created is already available in other articles. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that you have reverted my revisions to the "Structural History" article that is no longer true. I have other articles which need to reference the Late Roman military (including its organization, tactics, equipment, campaigns, etc.) and should not reference any earlier Roman military material. I have had to write extensive sections on Roman military equipment for non-Roman articles because of these organizational issues. Jacob Haller 11:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreover, if you do not wish me to add the relevent material, documentation, etc. to the various existing Roman military articles, I shall avoid adding it there, and I will instead add it to the "duplicate" article. Jacob Haller 11:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jacob, pelase stop and read in-depth response at User talk:Jacob Haller - PocklingtonDan (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to add here that these sections in articles on non-Roman military seem totally out of place and make little sense. Wandalstouring 19:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the organizational section. Not the weapons section, IMO. I'd like to trim down the Roman weapons section in G&VW but expand it on another appropriate page. Jacob Haller 02:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But the logical place to expand it would be Roman military personal equipment - it currently has a focus on weaponry from the early empire but oculd easily be split into period sections - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Roman military of each period was an organic whole; we cannot seperate its organization/administration from its political implications and logistical requirements, and we cannot seperate its tactics from its weapons. On the other hand we can more easily seperate the military of the Roman Kingdom from that of the Late Roman Republic/Early Roman Empire than we can seperate that of the Late Roman Republic/Early Roman Empire from that of the Early Byzantine Empire. And in fact the articles already seperate the 'Roman' military from the 'Byzantine' military. Jacob Haller 02:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see that you are saying, Jacob, that it would be possible (and you say preferable) to have master articles by period rather than by theme. I think the problem with such an approach is that it breaks up the sweep of history to a much greater extent and makes it more difficult to relate eg structural changes from one period to another. I appreciate that splitting the articles thematically isn't perfect either, but it can work - the point is that each article will make slight mention of points covered in far greater depth in the other articles. For example, the structural history article can make some mention of weapons and armour in mentioning hoplite formations of the roman kingdom, but doesn't go into the same detail on personal equipment that the full partner article does. I think the main problem with changing all the articles to be organised by date rather than theme ((quite apart from the mammoth amount of work that would entail) is that you would either have to create eg "personal equipment" articles in triplicate (one for each period) or else pack the main article on each period with mind-numbing detail on tactics and personal equipment that is at far too great a level of detail for an article summarising that period of history. I think essentially, what i'm saying is that neither approach (date or theme) is perfect, buta lot is invested in the current theme organisation, and we have really just got to stick with it! Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes/Citations
Hello Dan, si vales valeo. It looks as though you are wrestling with some plan concerning the footnotes and citations. The "citations" are of course the footnotes. If they are under "citations", what will go in "footnotes"? I think the system allows for only one autogenerated sequence does it not? Should not this problem be faced at some point?Dave 13:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word "decimate."
I would urge contributors to use the word "decimate" more carefully in Roman history. It appears throughout various article all through out wiki. It is being used with its modern definition (i.e. to destroy, obliterate), of course, but the word decimation had a different, specific meaning to the Roman military. It punished inflicted on disloyal Roman Legions where 1 out of every 10 legionaires was executed and the rest banished. Dissento 21:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Error on chart for 'Military Command of the Roman Republic'
The chart states that the Consuls were elected by the Senate. This is wrong- they were elected by the Comitia Centuriata —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.156.121 (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 04:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Military of ancient Rome → Military of Ancient Rome –
 * Capitalization per main article Brand meister  t   10:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here, "both the above" means the pages Military of ancient Rome and Military of ancient Egypt. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Both the above requests are contradicted by the contents of their respective main articles, which quite consistently use the lower case "ancient". Favonian (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The contents should be corrected after the moves. Both main articles are titled with capitalized words (especially since we are not referring to the city of ancient Rome itself, but to the whole civilization). Brand meister  t   11:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The first word of the title is automatically capitalized, unless we jump through hoops using lowercase title or suchlike. It does not necessarily imply that it should be done elsewhere. Favonian (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is a longstanding style issue, and as far as I know there's currently no consistency of style on "ancient Rome" vs. "Ancient Rome": see for instance Women in Ancient Rome but Clothing in ancient Rome, Sexuality in ancient Rome, and so on. A look at scholarly style for "ancient" should be based on body copy, not titles or headings that follow the usual rules of English capitalization for adjectives in a title. I write on ancient Rome often, and prefer lower case because I don't see this as a proper noun, in contrast to "Archaic Rome," "Regal Rome," "Republican Rome," or "Imperial Rome," which refer to specific time periods that can be dated with some accuracy. (I would also argue for "ancient Greece," but "Archaic Greece" and "Classical Greece" as proper nouns referring to delimited time periods.) I don't think that "Ancient Rome" makes any more sense than "Modern Rome"; if we don't capitalize the latter, why the former? I've heard good arguments to the contrary, however, and don't feel strongly about it. Therefore, I would gently suggest that without a MOS dictate on this point, there are better things to spend your time on. The article's internal consistency is more important, I'd think: if the article consistently uses lower case, the title should. And the body copy should not go back and forth between "Ancient" and "ancient." Cynwolfe (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copy/paste plagiarism
http://www.crystalinks.com/romemilitary.html- Direct plagiarism present in the supply section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.22.170.30 (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)