Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Roman and Byzantine military history task force

To all members.
To what extent should we add tribes into this? Should we only tag an article if its a roman legion made of tribesmen or a battle, or anything war related for the romans, that is, is it anything roman military, or anything military near rome? Iazyges (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Castra vs Legionary Fort
,, , , . The issue of the definition of a castra vs a legionary fort has been raised by Cplakidas, I have checked, and the definition of a legionary fort according to Roman military engineering is a permanent fort, which differs from Castra in that castra are temporary, however according to castra, they are one in the same. How therefore should we proceed? Should we seperate the two, and have one for legionary fort under the permanent fort definition, and one for castra under the temporary fort definition? Or else allow the two to be considered the same, and merge any castra and legionary fort categories together? Iazyges (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, as I indicated at WT:MILHIST, one has to be careful with the definitions one uses, and we should avoid using Wikipedia-isms if possible. "Legionary fort" to me is a colloquialism for a castrum, but it can equally suggest only forts occupied by legions as opposed to auxiliaries, which raises several problems. While there were "legionary" forts capable of holding an entire legion, these were of two kinds, i.e. large castra erected anew and pre-existing fortifications, e.g. cities (chiefly in the East). Then again, should castra of vexillations, or smaller fortifications like milecastles etc. also be considered "legionary" if they were occupied by legions and not auxiliaries? I think that "legionary" as it is used currently is simply a synonym for "Ancient Roman", and I would dispense with it. My two cents would be to have a generic category for all Roman-built fortifications simply under "Roman fortifications [by country]", and then make a basic distinction between castra and other types of Roman fortifications like the centenaria of Africa, or the milecastles of Hadrian's wall, city walls, etc. which should be easy on the basic typology alone. In addition one might create a separate category "Bases of Roman legions" or such like, and there include the sites known to have been occupied by legions, as opposed to auxiliaries. Constantine  ✍  07:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, that seems best, where do you think this would best be discussed with the rest of milhist? Or else should we simply implement it? Iazyges (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Historic England makes no distinction based on whether a fort was temporary or permanent. What is does do is describe forts and fortresses, and the latter are much larger. Constantine's suggestion sounds good. Nev1 (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

,, , , , {{ I have taken multiple peoples ideas into accounts, With having The Roman Military fortifications category contain: roman military camps, roman legionary fortresses, roman forts, and Then having a breakdown of ___ by country in those, The military camp still needs to be broken down by country. Iazyges (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Triumphal arches?
Should the columns and arches be considered roman military and be tagged? Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  11:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)