Talk:Campaign history of the Roman military

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Campaign history of the Roman military article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Campaign history of the Roman military is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Article Milestones Date Process Result February 10, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Related task forces (periods and conflicts): Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC–c. 500 AD)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of Top-importance within classical antiquity.

The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: PocklingtonDan

	To-do list for Campaign history of the Roman military:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Make sure all maps are reliably sourced Finish adding and organising cites

edit

Archives

October 2005 – September 2006

This talk page is automatically archived by EssjayBot IV. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to the current archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Contents 1 Note on footnote format 2 ID of reference 3 Nits from Dave, Part 1 4 Nits Part 2 4.1 Early Italy... 4.2 Celtic invasion 4.3 expansion into Italia 5 fac archive 6 Map Request Details 7 Map sourcing 8 Purinos Polemos? 9 Third Serville War - 120,000 or 150,000?

[edit] Note on footnote format

I am shortly going to edit the article now to replace all footnotes with the type of hovernote detailed in Template:hnote. This will remove the list of footnotes from the bottom of the article. Each footnote is accessbile as alternative text when hovering the mouse over the footnote key (N) in question. I realise this template is not widely used and may even cause problem for somone with a text-based article, but the fact is the article is getting too long with several screens worth of footnotes. This is an easy way of reducing the amount of screen estate given over to footnotes. If you have any concerns over this style and template use, please air them here. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 21:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned with this change. Wikipedia:Accessibility tells us not to use hover text because screen readers won't read it (and I tested it with Fangs, a JAWS simulator, and that seems to be true). I don't know how well our usual links-to-notes system works for screen readers, but this one you've changed to doesn't work at all.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the screen space taken up by the notes. It'd be nice to reduce them where possible (thus my previous suggestion of merging the dupes), but screen space isn't so precious (especially at the end of the article) that you should sacrifice accessibility in favor of shrinking the page. I recognize that you had to put quite a lot of work into this to make the change, but I'd recommend reverting.

And, incidentally, you didn't put the footnote markers after the punctuation as you ought to have done. You'll want to correct that, whatever you choose to do. --Sopoforic 00:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on this subject. I will have a good think about how to format these footnotes and may well revert - what would be ideal would be if I oculd format the footnotes in three shorter colukmns, but this doesn't seem to be technically possible at present. As for the placement of the footnote markers before or after punctuation, this is another example of imperial collonial differences I think! (ie the American style differs from the British style, as discussed in part here). Whilst its always good to have uniformity, its also good to allow for cultural differences - wikipedia already allows for local-language-variation spellings (ie "British English") in articles etc, I don't see that allowing "British English" punctuation style causes a great deal of problems so long as the article is internally consistent. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 09:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, if you used named refs then the list will be much shorter. There are lots of duplicates in the list that could be eliminated. Regarding the footnote markers: I'm aware that the British convention is the put the punctuation outside the quotation marks--but the footnote guidelines specifically say "Wikipedia uses American convention for the placing of reference tags." I don't especially care, personally, since I don't think it's especially important. As long as you're consistent within the article I'll be happy.

If you want, I can go through and fix all of the duplicate refs, so you can see what it would look like without dupes. I'll try it later this evening, perhaps. --Sopoforic 18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're willing to put all that effort in then I would be grateful, if you don't get a chance then this might be something I could look at tackling tomorrow - PocklingtonDan 18:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. I removed 97 duplicate refs, so the list as 3 columns is shrunk by 32 lines. I returned it to the 3-column format since that's what I was using while finding the duplicate refs. When the box is hidden, clicking on the superscripts doesn't show the footnotes, so you probably shouldn't use that again. I fixed several typos in the footnotes, too. The list is still a bit over a page, but it's not so bad, I think. Screen space at the end of an article is cheap. --Sopoforic 20:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant, many thanks for your help with this, sterling work! I'm still waiting for someone besides me to copyedit so I'm sure there are still a few typos lurking about here and there but I think I have cleared most of them from the main body of the article at least now. Thanks again - PocklingtonDan 21:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ID of reference

One of the refs listed is: Nigel Rodgers, From the Rise of the Republic and the Might of the Empire to the Fall of the West, unknown publisher, unknown date. Does that refer to this book? I didn't add the ref, so I'm not sure, but it seems likely. If so, then you you now have the info you need for publisher/date/isbn. --Sopoforic 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Heather, P., The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History, MacMillan Press, 2005, ISBN 0-330-49136-9. This indicates that is was published by macmillan press, but my research indicates that it was published by Pan Macmillan, an imprint of Macmillan Publishers. I don't have access to the book itself, but whoever added that ref should check to see who actually published it. --Sopoforic 23:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Soporific, I'll look into both of these and correct as needed. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 06:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nits from Dave, Part 1

1. city, state and empire. The term in general use is city-state. There was no city without being state. Perhaps "city-state of Italy"?

Agreed, much better phrasing, have updated this now. - PocklingtonDan 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Bolding. The bolded phrases in the intro now do not match the title. "Military history" need a link rather than bolding and the other one if linked would redirect to the same article.

Thats something I just wasn't seeing the wood for the trees over, thanks! Corrected now - PocklingtonDan 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, good point. Changed now - PocklingtonDan 21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Split from east. East what? The reader has not yet been told of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Good point, ammended now - PocklingtonDan 21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Bloody-minded. Too judgemental. In their minds they were just defending themselves not trying to kill people. They almost always allowed surrender and did not massacre. The gladiatorial games were another matter.

Bloody-minded doesn't always mean literally with blood on the mind, it means something like "stubborn","cantankerous" and "Ready and willing to accept bloodshed or to resort to violence". I wasn't trying to emphasise the Romans' killing of other peoples but rather their acceptance of massive losses themselves and not seeing that as a deterrent, ie in the punic war, or in the numerous cases where a slaughtered army was simply replaced by another one. It's hard to argue that the Romans shied away from blood, they didn't, and they were willing to pursue goals against great losses of manpower. This is what I am trying to get across - PocklingtonDan 21:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Whilst. This is archaic and is considered bombastic and oratorical. A charismatic professor in a military academy might stand up and bombast away to a delighted audience of teen-age lions but I think it looks out of place in an encyclopedia.

Yoiks. I didn't even realise until I did a find and replace just how often I used "hilst". Chalk me up as bombastic! Fixed now - PocklingtonDan 19:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

1. through towards. Awkward. I still ain't sure what it means.

yep, awkward, revised wording now. whole article could probably benefit from a copyedit - PocklingtonDan 19:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Rome apparently lacks the processs..... Too much of a conclusion. The main problem was the total destruction of Rome by the Celts, which took away all their inscriptions and books. I suppose if you razed the city now you might find fragments of inscribed stone reused (guess). Livy does mention that.

You're quite right, the religious figures at least were literate in the early years, so it is possible there are lost written histories that haven't survived. Hadn't considered this, updated the article to reflect this now - PocklingtonDan 21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

1. in the nifty blue box. "than" instead of "that."

thanks, corrected now. I keep finding more and more typos, easy to see why spellcheck missed that one! - PocklingtonDan 19:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

1. apocryphal. This is the very first time I have ever seen that word in this context; moreover, the article linked by the apocryphal title in the box does not mention it. I don't like it. This is an attempt to link in the apocryphal books of the Bible and brand them as mythological. Let's keep the two separate, shall we? Legendary will do just fine.

Must disagree with you on this one. My dictionary defines the primary definition of apcryphal as "being of questionable authenticity". I feel there is an important distinction between this and "legendary", which has unfortunate connotations of "heroic", "Extremely well known", and "entirely fictional". Apocryphal rather means questionable, but not certainly fictional. It is a useful word and I can't think of a suitable subsitute here - PocklingtonDan 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Notes. Lots of notes, not many references and not much said by the notes. Noteworthily absent are the professional articles you find online in large numbers.

I tend not to use footnotes but just references to cite facts. I find footnotes distracting even in a book (having to scan to the bottom of the page) let alone on a webpage (having to scroll down to the foot and losing your place). I don't tend to work from online sources much either since all the best ones tend only to be accessible by JSTOR and I no longer have access. The more popular, open pages I do not trust since they state facts without references and have not undergone peer review before "publication" on the web. If there are some great online secondary sources, I will gladly include them if you let me know of them - PocklingtonDan 21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Little is known. Vastly overworked phrase. You only have to use it up front once.

Good point. Removed second instance - readers already know at this point the reason for lack of detail is lack of extant information - PocklingtonDan 21:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

1. The Veii. I never heard of any tribal Veii. It is strictly a city name I believe. Many Greek and Roman cities were in the plural, such as Mycenae, Athenai. But anyway, it probably was not an Indo-european name and so its final form is only a twist.

Well spotted, my fault, the correct term for the (city-based) people of Veii should be "Veientes", will change this now - PocklingtonDan 21:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Re-established. Re-established? Not to my knowledge. What do you mean there, the interregna? But was there not a dictator?

I really meant something closer to "(restructured itself) as a republic" rather than "established itself as a republic again". Altered the wording now to make this clearer - PocklingtonDan 19:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much. More later if you still have the heart for it. Most excellent format.Dave 18:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the great feedback, I am working through the article addressing these points now - PocklingtonDan 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost done correcting these points, I'm a glutton for punishment so feel free to dish up some more problems you find - PocklingtonDan 21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

point 4 isn't always that clear some books write about the relationship between Boii and Romans that the latter did intent to kill them all. Should perhaps receive some research. Polybius account about the taking of Carthage in Spain comes to my mind. He explicitly states there that the Romans made a firxt rush and massacred the population to frighten them. Wandalstouring 19:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nits Part 2

This is pretty good, I shan't have much to say. I am definitely getting an impression of the sweep of Roman history and the critical role of the military.

• bloody-minded. This is a British provincialism not at all understood by Americans. I can't speak for our brethren in the southern hemisphere.

Ah, OK, wasn't aware this had a different meaning in the US, will change to "stubborn" or similar instead - PocklingtonDan 07:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Notes. I have a suggestion. Where you have a series of notes mentioning a series of pages in the same chapter of the same work, why not cover them in one note; e.g., blah-blah-blah pp xx-yy and have only one reference to that note at the end of the paragraph. There are some scholarly abbreviations insisted upon by professors in my youth but of which I have not seen much lately: ibid. "the same place", op cit., "the work just cited", loc. cit., "the place just cited."

I did think of doing that but it seems that Ibid and Opcit etc are explicitly advised against by wikipedia in that if someone inserts a new reference between your two references, the ibid is then thrown out of sequence and the cite points then to a different work, which is obviously a problem. I realise I have cited several items separetly in some sentences but this is because in those sentences all those points were explicitly made in the source and I feel someone might reasonably request a cite for certain of the facts in the sentence even whilst accepting the general thrust of the sentence as a whole. Better to head that off now than spend hours trying to find a cite if someone tags something as {{citation}} at a later date. What I do need to do is complete the naming of the references, which should remove duplicate references from being listed twice in the footnotes. - PocklingtonDan 07:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. But how are you going to do that if you throw the article away?Dave 02:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early Italy...

• defense for defence

The whole article is actually meant to be in British/Commonwealth english, so all the spelling should be in this form. I might have got a mix going on though because i lived in the US for a while and my spelling tends to be "translantic"! - PocklingtonDan 07:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Dan, don't take me TOO seriously. You have to assert yourself as a writer. There never lived a writer who did not nitpick other writers. I will tell myself to go to the hot place for you.Dave 02:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Suggest indent quote with : for readability.

Good idea. Done this for the large multi-line quote, left the smaller 2-3 word quotes in-line in the prose - PocklingtonDan 07:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• the capture of fidenae needs a comma before

Fixed - PocklingtonDan 07:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• verb before still minor

Fixed - PocklingtonDan 07:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• only just even - meaningless in American English. Must be a British provincialism. Maybe it is time for a Wikipedia in British English.

That was just lack of copyediting, doesn't scan well in British English either! - PocklingtonDan 07:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Period after Greeks.

Fixed - PocklingtonDan 07:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic invasion

• Too many this. Sound like Greek, but the Greek had concrete uses for this.

Not following you here I'm afraid, can you explain the problem?? - PocklingtonDan 07:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I only meant there seemed one too many "this." For the rest, no problem, forget it. Leave it if you want.

• particularly warlike. I'm against it. No more warlike than the others.

I don't know, I have two cites that they were a particularly warlike tribe. Granted, both sources are from a Roman POV, but that's not really all that relevant, since the Romans clearly considered them more warlike than other Gallic/Celtic tribes. I could change "particularly warlike tribe" to "tribe the Romans considered to be particularly warlike" if you want? My thoughts are that that would be a bit clunky - PocklingtonDan 07:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Just a thought. Leave it. When I say "I'm against" I don't mean "I oppose this horrible deadly mistake with my entire soul", I only mean "Gee Dan, I just had a tentative and transitory impression, what do you think?"

[edit] expansion into Italia

• meaningless then set off by commas.

Fixed - PocklingtonDan 08:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• to which the Latins submitted is the formerly correct way - you starting a language revolution?

Awkward phrasing fixed - PocklingtonDan 08:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dave 00:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fac archive

Withdrawn FAC archived here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map Request Details

As per the map request template, I need some help with maps please. The article has several maps in it, but all are shown in different scales, different details, different colours etc (one is even just a satellite photo). I would be looking for a unified series of maps to use in this article, each to replace the existing maps/satellite photos used, and each ideally showing invasions using arrows (I could provide all this info where it isn't obvious from the article text). Let me know if this is possible and if you are able to help out. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 14:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Map of the Punic Empire is wrong. Will create a new one within the next days. Wandalstouring 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map sourcing

• Image:English-Pyrrhus-route.png
• Image:Caesar campaigns gaul.gif
• Image:Roemischeprovinzentrajan.png
• Image:Alemanni expansion.png (in German, may have source but it isn't clear to me)

These maps are not clear about what information they use to draw their borders. They may be from reliable source but this must be marked. Their copyrights are fine but the information they contain may not be. Can users find replacements if sources for these cannot be found, or somehow find out some sources. This is separate from the new map-making request above so if replacements are made then these can be discarded. gren グレン 09:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purinos Polemos?

Assuming that the words are derived from Greek, some kind of specification would be nice (e.g. who coined the term, as Numantia wasn't a Greek-speaking region IMO). --Brand спойт 22:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed this now, not giving latin or greek names for any of the other wars, so this was an odd man out - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Serville War - 120,000 or 150,000?

Seems to be a difference of opinion between this article, and the one on the Third Servile War about the number of rebelling slaves involved - and both seems to have a supporting source. So which is it? :) - 74.13.4.220 01:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the ancient Romans didn't have census counts for rebelling slaves and were a little prone to exaggeration so in all likelihood neither figure is correct. If there is a cite for both figures though I will change to "between 120,000 and 150,000" and include both cites - PocklingtonDan (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)