User:Rlippitt19/sandbox

= Notes on Ancient Rome Wikipedia PageNotes =
 * I felt as if not all the facts presented in this article where cited appropriately. I am pretty bad at distiguishing what is a fact that needs citition, or what is a well known idea that needs no citing.  That being said, I felt as though the opening section of the article had some great overview and facts that were cited, but it felt like some more of the over view portions should have been cited as well.
 * I thought that the the article was very well structured actually. While some sections of the Wiki article felt a little off topic, such as the Founding Myth section, they were placed in there with careful consideration on what is most relevant in a relevant order.  The "Founding Myth" section of the article appears at a perfect spot after the opening section of the page, and then the article dives into the republic, punic wars, and the beginning to end of the ancient rome saga.  The article is extensive, and does a great job in telling us so much about the history of rome, that this Wiki article almost needs to be summarized as well.  While all sections of this article are relevant to ancient rome, some depth of certain leaderships, time periods, wars, and politics can take away from the overall goal of the article, which is a summary of ancient rome history.
 * I thought that all the facts were as neutral as they could be, even though they all were facts about incredible achievements of the roman empire. I felt like this was still a neutral view of the Ancient Rome civilization because they really were amazing and accomplished so much.
 * as far as I can tell from clicking on some of the source links in the article, they are pretty reliable sources. I would say out of the couple I have clicked on, they all seem to have the same neutral and somewhat factual boasting tone that the wiki article inherently has.  I also found no sign of plagiarism from the Wiki article form their sources, but I also did not read as much from the sources as perhaps I would have to need to spot this.  There was some sort of bias in sources about wars, such as the Punic and Trojan wars, because little was said to the devastation that the romans caused on their part, but emphasis on ships being burned by the Trojans showed that the ancient history was really told by the victors.  I found that portions on ancient myth were scarcely cited, with little to no factual evidence in their sources.
 * There is a clear difference in encyclopedia writing than in persuasive writing. While this wiki page tells you a complete story about Ancient Rome, it does it in a non bias and very structural, fact driven way.  While there is order to the encyclopedia's structure similar to that of a persuasive essay,  it is only because it is going through a systematic history and relevant events in roman history.  This gives just a factual representation of what happened, where a persuasive essay would use certain facts and certain pieces of information, and have a bias writing style, to attempt to persuade you to have certain feelings.

= Notes on Campaign History of the Roman Military =
 * I noted that each fact is cited with an appropriate, reliable source through the article. However, I did notice that there was a lot less cites in the beginning section of the Wiki article than there was in the Ancient Rome article.  I found that for the most part (in the opening section) there was only a quick descripteve overview of what the military's start and early conquests into the power it became to be known for.  The only facts that were cited seemed to be ones with historical relevance to certain battles, such as if it started as a counter defense or an offensive attack.
 * I felt that the section "Kingdom" was slightly out of place being in this article. The article mentions "Empire" several times, and i feel like the idea of empire is well imbedded in military conquest, and has relevance being in this article.  Kingdom, however, does not.  The section talks about where Rome stands in history as a great kingdom, and how great kingdoms have enevitable demises, and gives a brief overview of the greatness of the "kingdom" of rome.  This is completely out of place in this article, especially when it is followed up by "Empire"
 * The article does have good citations with links that work and bring you to good reliable sources. I feel as if the tone of the article and the tone of all the sources are neutral, however, because the nature of the sources we are looking at, the sources must have been written from the side of the Romans.  The sources that are linked to the citing facts related to certain wars, battles, campaigns, and plunders of the Roman empire were sources written by the romans.  I believe that in first hand sources, and most second hand sources that are written about this topic have some skewed bias towards the Roman empire, and that is why I think that the viewpoint of the Roman army is the only viewpoint these sources and Wiki article can have.
 * This Wiki article is still very different from a pursuasive piece of writing. The article still kept to just giving the facts that are out there in typical encyclopedia fashion.  The article did lack points of view, however, because it was just a factual and historical account of the military campaigns of the Roman empire.  This would lead to only one viewpoint, because the Romans purely dominated and created one of the most impressive military empire the world has ever known.

= Notes on Gladiator =
 * Yes, each fact is cited with a reference that does come up to a source when you click on it. The article does not have a single citation in the opening section, this may be because it only gives a brief overview of what a gladiator is, some origins, and some broad timeline of the games held in Rome and the Gladiator's involvement.  These are pretty broad statements and could pass without citation.  The factual pact sections, such as "Origins" is jammed packed with citations
 * I think that every section and topic is relevant to the gladiator topic. I also think the article is laid out in a great way, by giving us the history of the gladiators, and the evoltution of them in roman culture is a great way to present this.  It also provides a good amount of historical information in these subsections and topics about certain times and emperors who's time leading had some significance on gladiators.  Most interesting, Some emperors even preformed in the great arena themselves, but risked little injury to themselves.
 * The wiki article does lack a great deal of point of view. The point of view of the article, while understandably factual, only shows gladiators as what they were, slaves that were forced to entertain the crowds in gory ways.  However, it would have been nice to have some perspective on the conditions that the gladiators where kept under, and forced to do, or even backstories of famous gladiators, or certain traders to the Roman empire that were sold into slavery or forced into becoming gladiators.  In this way, I think that the article is skewed in a way that only focuses on the Empires use for gladiators.  While I know that the Wiki article is attempting to create as unbiased and present a historical representation of the facts of topic of the article (In this case gladiators) as best as possible, there is a lack of facts and information out there to draw on in terms of the negative side to the gladiators, which accounts for the one-sidedness of the article.
 * The links and sources attached are pretty neutral in the same respect to the points I made above. I think that the article page does a great job drawing the actual facts out of these sources to be able to make an information based writeup about this interesting topic.
 * This article has been rated as B-Class, and has been listed as a level 4 vital article in Life. The wikipedia community has the same feelings towards sources and says that the article has great sources.
 * This article has been rated as B-Class, and has been listed as a level 4 vital article in Life. The wikipedia community has the same feelings towards sources and says that the article has great sources.

= Notes on Evaluation Process = I learned that in order to write a great encyclopedia article, I need to be more focused on the absolute facts that occurred. I think that I will like to write in this way because These topics are in the ancient history, and I will be writing more on a factual historical article about what the topic is, and how it was relevant. I also learned that these articles are in great factual detain, and draw upon a ton of different sources in order to create a complete factual understanding about the topic and all relevant informations and topics that stream off of it. I also realized in this evaluation process that it is imperative to structure your article in a very logical way, giving a brief, not to fact heavy overview, into a possible history which dives deep into factual evidence. This should continue on into all other relevant parts to your topic and article.

= Improving and Existing Article: Gladiators = I noticed that there were two parts of the Gladiator wiki page that I would like to add to it, to ensure that the article has all necessary and relevant information surrounding this topic. The two sections that I think need to be added/expanded/improved on would be: To start, the article does have a section called "The Gladiators", which does name a couple of key gladiator figures from Roman history. I would like to expand on this idea, and have a good size section devoted to several famous gladiators, their background, why they were famous, and the impacts they had on Roman society. I think that these slave gladiators having the ability to affect Roman history is incredible, and needs to be looked at more closely.
 * Notable Gladiators
 * The Business of the Gladiator

Secondly, In the section about the business of the gladiators, I will add information about the slave trade, and more specifically the gladiator trade. The current wiki article has little to nothing on this part of the gladiator history as well. I think that this is a big part of the historical importance of gladiators, and should be explained more in depth on the gladiator page in Wikipedia. I believe that the dark underbelly of the slave trade in Roman history is enormous, and shows us much about the culture and society of that time. I would like to get more information about how much gladiators were worth, how they chose which gladiators to bring to the colosseum, what made one gladiator more valuable than others, where do they originally find gladiators and how, and lastly, How profitable and prominent was the gladiator slave trade in ancient Rome?

= Bibliography for Military History of Ancient Rome =
 * 1) Mackay, Christopher S. Ancient Rome : A Military and Political History. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
 * 2) https://trincoll.on.worldcat.org/search?queryString=military%20history%20of%20ancient%20rome&submit=Search&scope=#/oclc/54024144
 * 3) Reviewed Work:  by J. ROTH  Review by: Karen Pickford  Vol. 101 (2011), pp. 265-266
 * 4) http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.trincoll.edu/stable/41724902?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=military&searchText=history&searchText=of&searchText=ancient&searchText=rome&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq4%3D%26amp%3Bq0%3Dmilitary%2Bhistory%2Bof%2Bancient%2Brome%26amp%3Bq2%3D%26amp%3Bc6%3DAND%26amp%3Bf2%3Dall%26amp%3Bc3%3DAND%26amp%3Bc4%3DAND%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone%26amp%3Bed%3D%26amp%3Bq5%3D%26amp%3Bf3%3Dall%26amp%3Bisbn%3D%26amp%3Bsd%3D%26amp%3Bf1%3Dall%26amp%3Bc1%3DAND%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bc5%3DAND%26amp%3Bq6%3D%26amp%3Bf5%3Dall%26amp%3Bf6%3Dall%26amp%3Bc2%3DAND%26amp%3Bpt%3D%26amp%3Bf4%3Dall%26amp%3Bla%3D%26amp%3Bq1%3D%26amp%3Bf0%3Dall%26amp%3Bq3%3D&seq=1#
 * 5) Richards, Dean, and Edward Toby Terrar. “Race, Gender & Class.” Race, Gender & Class, vol. 20, no. 3/4, 2013, pp. 359–364., www.jstor.org/stable/43496951.
 * 6) http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.trincoll.edu/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%28military+history+of+ancient+rome&prq=%28military+history+of+ancient+rme+%29&wc=off&acc=on&fc=off&hp=25&so=rel
 * 7) War, History Of. "Roman Leaders: The 10 Greatest Generals behind the Empire." History Answers. History of War, 20 Jan. 2016. Web. 06 May 2017.
 * 8) https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/ancient/roman-leaders-the-10-greatest-generals-of-ancient-rome/

= Draft of Military History of Ancient Rome = The Military History of Ancient Rome is one that is tied in deep political roots, and is storied to be one of the most successful empires of all time. Rome was able to conquer all of Italy, give themselves manpower that was unmatched, and was able to conquer the Mediterranean in only five hundred years. From the early military conquests of Rome, such as the conquests of Gaius Marius and Sulla, the military actions and its political entity were indivisible. From this time on, in Rome, two consuls were elected each year to head the government of the state, and in the middle to late part of the Roman Empire, were assigned to be Consular Army, and an area in which they were aloud to campaign. This only made the military conquests and political power only have a tighter relationship, as many rulers to come use this power to their advantage.

The Political relationship with the Roman military made way for the ambitions of individuals to control and manipulate one of the greatest land army in history. The connection between individuals in political power and the army is dangerous, and gives an incredible amount of power to those who rule. This lead to the first triumvirate, where three of the most powerful men in Rome (including Julius Ceasar) were able to take the stronghold the Roman Senate had over the rule of the people, by aligning and taking control of the military, political stage, and land and wealth in the state. This Triumvirate lead to a great civil war in the first century B.C.E., and was responsible for the Republic's collapse. This was not the only time that the Roman Military was used for the advantages of a few. The Empire that followed the Republic was plagued with these usurpations which were almost always connected to military conspiracies. These outbreaks and attacks on the Empire lead to the Crisis of the 3rd Century (A.D. 235–284), and the eventual demise of the Empire as a whole.

Structural History of Ancient Rome
The structural history of ancient Rome is important in understanding how the Roman Military was able to operate so successfully. the Roman Military is "the most effective and long-lived military institution known to history". The structure of the Roman military shifted thought its history, due to positive military reform and organic structural evolution. The evolution of the structural changes happened in four distinct phases. the first phase of the military was made up of people serving their duty to their homeland, and conquests were seasonal and opportunistic. the second phase of the military included many territories falling to the conquests of Rome, and salary based pay for soldiers was now able to invent the professional soldier. This created a structural difference between the professional soldiers and the non-salary soldiers, who now needed to serve even longer terms. This lead to legions and auxilia, which helped overpower surrounding territories and speed up the growth of Rome. The third phase was during the height of the Empire, where massive amounts of forces were needed to guard borders and protect provinces in far way lands under Roman rule. At this point in Roman history, the army was more focused on maintaining the acquired land and power, and so the military shifted into more of a defensive and protective structure. The fourth and final phase of the shifts in structure in the Roman Military was when the empire was beginning to collapse. The military still paid salaries, but now also paid allied and mercenary groups in addition to the army. At this point these special groups held a large portion of the army's power.

However, throughout its history, one crucial part of the Roman military structure did not change, the highest forces were split between two branches of military, the army and navy. The ancient Roman army and navy were not like your typical military branches today, which are stressed far less than they were in Ancient Rome. This aloud Rome to have the advantage on the battlefield in elite forces in both the land Army, and the Navy, creating strategic advantages for the Romans to conquer the Mediterranean.

Campaign History of Ancient Rome
The military campaign history of Ancient Rome is inseparable from Roman history, and its close to 13 centuries of being in existence. The core of the campaign history of Rome is based on the land battles that Rome campaigned in. From the conquest of Italy and Carthage, to the invasion of the germanic tribes, and even to the fight against the Huns, Rome had epic battles which shaped the history of the entire Empire. Naval battles surprisingly had a less profound effect on Roman history, although naval battles such as the Punic Wars are examples of very important naval campaigns.

Technological History of Ancient Rome
The military history of ancient Rome begins in the Iron age, as Rome was first founded and attempted to conquer the entire Italian peninsula. This was made possible by technological advances that occurred throughout the military history of Ancient Rome. From sticks and stones, to advanced ballistics and smelting of metals, Rome seemingly always held the technological advantages on the battlefield. Through carburization, the Roman military had armor and weapons made from components of iron, bronze, and brass to create stronger metals and give advantages to their men. Through advances in architecture, the Roman Army was able to build, and reach any land, and eventually developed cement, which gave their army a great advantage on military campaigns. Due to the constant and rapid growth in military technology the Roman Empire experienced over their centuries as a state, the Roman Empire was able to lead so many successful campaigns.

Famous Roman Generals
The advances made by the Roman Empire, and their ability to take over so much of the known northern hemisphere was tied up deeply in the successes and military campaign stratagies of the generals that commanded the legions. The ability of massive land-grabbing, and enormous ability to "Romanisation" did not come from the successes in politics that were deeply tied to the military, but the commanding general's strategies and successful campaigns. Not every roman general ruled and commanded great legions with success and the good of the state in mind. the heavy defeat Augustus faced against the Germanic tribesman at the battle of Teutoburg Forest in the 9th century CE, showed that even great generals could be defeated, where Agustus lost three legions and an estimated 20,000 soldiers in the singular battle. This battle alone ended the military campaign in Germany. Some roman generals, such as Scipio Africanus, Cornelius Sulla, and Julius Ceasar had some of the most influential effects on roman history.

Scipio Africanus (236-183 BCE) commanded leasions while he was only 25 years of age. This did not stop him from being one of the first roman generals to lead his army to greatness. Scipio had already set up some of the greatest defense systems in history set up around Italy, and was known for the protections of the roman state. His greatest feat came when he decided to take down the Carthaginians and their leader Hannibal in Spain. Because of the impenetrable defense in Italy, Scipio decided to attack Hannibal in his base in Spain, which had previously been attempted, and resulted in a heavy loss. Scipio was able to conquer the base and eventually all of Carthage and Spain by using changing his military statagy. Scipio hid his heavily armed and well armored troops behind a front screen of light infantry. This military adaption lead to the eventual end of the 17 year long Punic war, and great expansion of the Roman Empire.

Cornelius Sulla (138-78 BCE) came from modist roots, but gained military support in his successes in the Jugurthine War. His success as a military officer and eventual general of the military led to the defeat of the Namibians, and the end to one of the bloodiest wars in Roman History. Sulla, however, was best known as general for a different reason as general. Sulla was the first general of Rome to have his military march on rome. At first, his march did not work, and mounted a campaign in Asia. Upon his return, Sulla marched on Rome for a second time, giving him control of the senate, which effectively made him the first "dictator" or Rome, and close to limitless power. Sulla's reign as general of Rome is one that changed the history and set new precedences for rulers to come.

Julius Ceasar (100-44 BCE) is probably the most famous roman general of all time. The fame and historical aura is well deserved, because the actions and strategies that Ceasar used while general of the military shaped the history of Rome, and modern society today. In the political arena, Ceasar had become the first emperor of Rome, as he changed the Roman republic to the Roman Empire as it grew to become. This never before political standing gave Ceasar the power to do what he pleased with the military, which lead to unprecedented growth and success. Ceasar's first conquest of Gaul, lead to the expansion of Roman territory to the English Channel. Ceasar did not stop there, as he was the first general to not only cross over the Channel, but also into Brittan. Ceasar built bridges to allow the expansion of his military campaign to invade British territory. Ceasar was able to expand the Roman Empire at such an alarming rate with his ability to create bridges and quickly mobilize his military without the checks and balances of a republic.