User talk:Wandalstouring/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

working mostly on history articles.

Contents 1 Saracen crossbows 2 "... resulting in the Caracolla" 3 Crossbow and ballista 4 Citzen soldiers and Lorica segmentata 5 Warning 6 Image:Teutonic order charge.jpg 7 Nice Job on the Battle of Chalons Analysis 8 trirema/triera 9 Coordinators 10 Longbows 11 Welcome to the Military history WikiProject! 12 bookmarks 13 Re: a new toy 14 Chinese siege crossbows 15 images 16 Appraisal and Assessment of the Roman military (discussion) 17 Questions on my uploaded pictures? 18 Remark on Roman military tactics 19 Cavalry tactics reorganization 20 move 21 Article comparing bows 22 Re: Battle of Chalons 23 trireme 24 Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase! 25 Central Europe 26 Re:Central European military history taskforce 27 Re: Check 28 Re: rapid footnote system 29 Crossbow Picture 30 Intelligence 31 pictures 32 Crossbow Laws 33 Mongol Casualties 34 Possibly unfree Image:Navalzhugenu2.jpg 35 Possibly unfree Image:Navalzhugenu.jpg 36 re pictures from Indian and Pak armies 37 Assistant Coordinator position 38 Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006 39 Wants to contribute pictures 40 Marocchinate 41 Re: Second Punic War

[edit] Saracen crossbows

My source was a book called Encyclopedia of Arms and Armor. In general, it's certainly the case that the Arabs of this time used composite hand bows, so it seems very likely that if they used crossbows at all, they would have used the same composite construction for them. Still, it's possible my source is incorrect; I'll see if I can find some confirmation of that point. KarlBunker 13:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Islamic technology" says it was used from fortifications and ships and nothing about the prod material. On ships it is wet and any of these composite bows gets unglued from water. That has always been a problem. For fortifications it is OK, but I was just thinking how expensive composite materials were. Layer after layer of horn had to dry and it took a year to finish a bow. Crossbow prods are much thicker than bows.

[edit] "... resulting in the Caracolla"

What is this Caracolla you mention in Crossbow? I tried looking it up on Google, but all I found was a type of snail, a German word, and a Roman Emperor (Caracalla). KarlBunker 03:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a cavalry tactic where the heavy cavalry uses locally greater firepower in a deep formations, similar to infantry. It is a result of arming the knights with firepower such as crossbows and later pistols (with these it finally established). I looked up the article about Medieval warfare. They mention the heavily armored (more crossbow/pike resistant) in the front ranks of a triangular formation for local penetration. The next step was not to run into the pikes but use locally supreme firepower (crossbows, later pistols). But the development of this tactic to the caracole is not mentioned. Data about the caracole is a bit poor, but descriptions of this tactic can be found. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-53014

The Caracolla/caracole was abandoned by the Swedish during the 30 years war because of increased infantry firepower. The French, Prussians and Austrians still used it. But at this time crossbows were no longer a matter.

Wandalstouring 13:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Wandalstouring, do you possibly have a date for when this tactic was adopted and by whom? Ashmoo 06:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It had predecessors among the Medieval warfare tactics. These started by local penetration tactics. The next step was arming heavy cavalry with firepower (crossbows, pistols) against pikemen and moving them into deep formations, but with greater firepower on local spots of the battlefield. This resulted in the caracole, when firearms where avaiable. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-53014

Wandalstouring 13:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Except German wiki this name of the tactic is not mentioned elsewhere. But it is not German. It is Spanish or Italian and an idiomatic expression like blitzkrieg. OK, mea culpa, in English it is called caracole.

In Medieval warfare I refer to this passage: Cavalry could be arranged in several ways, depending on the situation. While a clump of horsemen was no doubt effective, cavalry in tight formations wielding lances became devastating forces. The most common formation was the line or linear form. The horsemen would arrange themselves in a long line, commonly three or four ranks deep and then charge. However, a well-trained infantry force might be able to withstand such an attack so some forces employed a wedge formation. The horses would be arranged in a large triangle, with the most heavily armored cavalry at the front. When the wedge came into contact with the infantry line, more often than not it would cave in on itself, allowing an infantry charge to move in and scatter the remaining forces.

Wandalstouring 14:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crossbow and ballista

Hi,

You could have said exactly the same thing without adding don t write nonsense. It adds nothing to the discussion and upset people who feel insulted (whether or not this was intended)

Regarding ballista, you say:

the ballista was not only a giant sized siege crossbow.

I guess you meant

the ballista was not just a giant sized siege crossbow.

If not, I don't see what is wrong with my addition (out of a missing adverb).

By the way, here is the first sentence for ballista:

The ballista […] was a powerful ancient weapon, similar to a giant crossbow,

So?

Ballista and crossbows/arbalests use the same torsion system. The quantitative difference (bigger) allows a ballista some qualitative and facultative differences (wheels, ways of transporting it, possibility to throw boulder, all of this being facultative) but they all comes from the fact that this is a big crossbow (even though knowledge on ballista was lost during Late Antiquity and crossbows first originated in Far-East, before ballista were created) .
David Latapie (✒ | @) 18:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I did not intend to insult. The article on ballista is wrong. Ballista and onager used the same torsion system. It had nothing in common with Chinese and Medieval crossbows/arbalests. The European crossbow is often referred to as an independent development in ancient Greece 300 BC. Knowledge about constructing an onager did not come out uf use, while Roman military ballistas were no longer employed. Especially late Roman ballistas were small field weapons totally out of metall. Such a construction was too expensive and comparatively inefficient for field employment in the Late Antiquity. But as it is stated the name ballista remained for the crossbow, using a different tension system.Wandalstouring 19:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, no (further) harm done :-) Could you explain me something I have big problem understanding. I cannot see how onagers are similiar to ballista. Onager throw projectiles in a elliptic curve like catapults, while crossbows throw them straight, like a ballista. Maybe the mechanics are fairly different (you are more knowledgeable than me here) but the result them similar : elliptic versus straight. Have I something wrong here? I begin to think of this being similar to hare/rabbit or rat/mouse. Does it make sense? Thank you.
P.-S.: please reply on my account, so that I can get notified of your answer.
David Latapie (✒ | @) 19:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citzen soldiers and Lorica segmentata

Wandalstouring, Regarding your comment at '02:01, 29 July 2006 Wandalstouring (Talk | contribs) (WHEN THE LORICA SEGMENTATA WAS USED THERE WAS NO ROMAN CITIZEN INFANTRY EXISTING)'.

FIRSTLY The sub-heading of the section you keep editing is called, 'What made the Romans effective versus so many skilled opponents?', not 'Equipment of the legions'. Of course, the legionary equipment had a role in the superiority of the Roman army but this is not what you are implying. If you have a view on the equipment of the legions then start a section called 'Equipment' and stop taking it off topic.

Also, The lorica segmentata was used from as early as 10ad onwards and was SLOWLY fazed out starting around the 240sAD. Citizenship was REQUIRED in order to serve in the legions as a legionary. Why do you insist this is not so? The other troops with their own uniforms and equipment were AUXILLIARIES and were not citizens, they would receive citizenship on completion of their service. Also, I have a right to edit you if i know you to be wrong.

The wiki entry for Legionary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legionary

And Go look at these very knowledgable sites: http://www.redrampant.com/ http://www.roman-empire.net/ http://www.unrv.com/military.php

I never started to write so much about equipment. But it is hard to discuss with a guestwriter inserting wrong edits if you do not show him more info than he has himself.

Your statement about the use of the lorica segmentata is not quite right. Use in the reformed Roman Army started 5-10AD. It was known to the Roman citizen army earlier, but it was not very popular. The concept of landless citizens serving in the legion dates back to Marius reforms (full citizenship was granted after the Social War to all Latin and Italian communities). After the Marius reforms and the Social War it were Italians (including Romans) hiring as professionals. It is not the same as a Roman citizen army (Militia = citizen army)-> Roman citizen infantry is the infantry of the Roman cititzen army. Wandalstouring 14:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

you forgot to login Wandalstouring 14:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

With regards to your comments on Talk:Mongols: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. --Latebird 06:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is no personal attack if I point out, that you did not read what you quote for your statements. By quoting your own sources I have shown that they contradict you. You DO not talk about content that is the point. If you talked about content, you would read the sources. I am very sure that I can express being sick of such an attitude.

[edit] Image:Teutonic order charge.jpg

The problem with this image is that it is copyrighted and we can only use it in Wikipedia under fair use. Since it's a piece of artwork, I've tagged it with {{Art}}, meaning that it can only be used in an article about the image itself (unlikely, since it's not a masterpiece or anything), or the artist (where it lives now). Hope that explains it. Regards, howcheng {chat} 17:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

OK thank you. But honestly, wiki is running very poor on accurate historic depictions.

[edit] Nice Job on the Battle of Chalons Analysis

Wandalstouring I was impressed with your pithy, and very accurate, military analysis of the Battle of Chalons, and your dissection of the historical perspectives to show how the strategic result differed from the tactical reality. Recently the question has arisen about a uniform standard for presenting contrasting viewpoints of a Battle/War - do you have any thoughts on a uniform format we could use throughout the military history program for such issues? Any thoughts you have on this would have quite helpful. Thanks! old windy bear 10:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to read the discussion first (where can I find it?). Different viewpoints usually need a bit more explanation of each others perspective. I would prefer a more tactical interpretation of the battle in the summarybox. We could state more tuned besides victory, defeat, inconclusive, also advantage, repulsed, weakened, forced to retreat, annihilated, lost supplies, disabled to forage, etc.

A strategic analysis can be part of the aftermath or of an article on the whole war.

In the prelude we can point out why the battle happened and what were the different objectives. Usually pitched battles were accepted by both sides for different reasons on a chosen ground. War was mostly marching, foraging and sieges; battles were the highlights of a campaign.

For example at Chalons Attila had lots of troops, was low on supply and as long as the enemy army was next to him he could not forage effectively - he engaged them in battle. (lost units and went home with his intact baggage train)

In the section about the battle we simply state what happened for sure (movements, tactics, troops).

Tactical defeats and victories of single units in the course of the battle can be stated and how the battle ended (nightfall, retreat).

The interpretation of a battle is mostly part of the aftermath. There we can show the discussions whether it was a victory or a defeat, especially concerning it as a part of a larger theatre. :Especially we can refer to the prelude and discuss what happened to the objectives each side wanted to achieve. Wandalstouring 11:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring Greetings my friend! The discussion is taking place on the page where candidates are being nominated for the coordinator and assistant coordinator slots for the military history project. Currently this topic, of standardizing the issues, formatting, majority/minority viewpoints, victors, et al, is taking place in Nobanga's column, though you could raise them in mine, or your own if you ran. Your ideas are outstanding. The website to read what is being raised, and weigh in on it is [1] I am running for assistant coordinator, and had just commented in Nobanga's comments section on the majority/minority viewpoint issue, and formatting, prior to when you wrote the extremely impressive analysis of why I had failed to adequately and accurately assess the strategic versus tactical impact of the Battle of Chalons. I decided to ask you to weigh in yourself rather than stealing your ideas, (though they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!). I strongly encourage you to weigh in on these elections, because your vision of what format to use is the best I have seen, and I believe we should utilize it in a format for every article on a battle, campaign, or conflict. As I wrote another editor about your work, while I was quoting historians, you were analyzing their words in the context of military history, and doing so in a forthright and highly rational format. I would really like to see you involved in this, if you are not interested in the elections personally, I would certainly beg for your assistance if i was elected! One thing I have learned in my 56 years of studying history is that only fools don't take advantage of better minds trying to show them a better way! old windy bear 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I told Nobanga about it. I do not want to run for any office. I tend to be considered rude sometimes and still train working with people here. Wandalstouring 20:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring Well, all I can say - as to the rudeness issue - is that you were quite civil to me, and explained without being condescending what I was doing wrong. To me, our discussion was the perfect example of what a talk page is supposed to be used for, and because you took the time to explain the issue, it was easy to reach consensus. If you ever change your mind, let me know, I would nominate you. If I am elected, I hope you will at least advise me when you have time, because your ideas are both effective and powerful. old windy bear 20:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What did you have in mind as a map of Chalons?--Dryzen 13:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Researching about the geography of the Catalaunian Plain I found some conflictin information, some source describ it as a "virtualy falt , featureless open plain, the only landmark being a hill that dominate Attila's left flank" - Richard Gordon (Sources, Edward Gobbon, Stuart Legg and J.F.C Fuller)- and our own article "According to Jordanes, the Catalaunian plain rose on one side by a sharp slope to a ridge. This geographical feature dominated the battlefield and became the center of the battle. The Huns first seized the right side of the ridge, while the Romans seized the left, with the crest unoccupied between them." --Dryzen 22:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a plain and a ridge descending in a sharp slope. I think the best way to make it in accordance with both sources and with some military sense is to have the troops on the slope because you can not advanced orderly on broad battlefront upon a ridge. The troops do extend from the sharp part of the slope (outflanking protection, no cavalry on this wing, infantry pack later charging downhill, will clarify with other editors). the slope continues very flat into a featureless plain. the center of both armies is still in an area that can be considered part of the slope, because it has some slight downward slope. Wandalstouring 22:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] trirema/triera

In my opinion the article should be disambiguated into Greek trireme and Roman trireme because they were completely different warships. Pages like de:Triere would link to the first one and pages like de:Trireme to another one. What do you think about it? --Man pl 16:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have it on the discussion board of the military history project. [2] Wandalstouring 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinators

Please let Karl know you've nominated him; if he doesn't accept the nomination by the deadline, there's not much we can do. Kirill Lokshin 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that he's not on the list of project members at this time. Kirill Lokshin 21:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I sent him a note. Yes I know, but he has knowledge, sources on several historic topics and he does contribute. Wandalstouring 21:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not a big deal per se, but he would presumably need to join the project formally before becoming a coordinator ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the nomination! I don't want to commit to anything that will cause me to spend (even) more time on Wikipedia right now, but I really appreciate you putting my name up anyway. KarlBunker 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Longbows

Wandalstouring To change the subject, I know you are conversant with crossbows, but how much do you know about longbows, and the Battle of Agincourt? old windy bear 23:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have Verbruggen next to me. ask. Wandalstouring 23:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, military longbow archers were trained to hold several (at least about 8) arrows in the air and shoot at least 12 accurate shots per minute. The time of a charge within effective range was too short to launch enough arrows directly. Every cavalry charge had to use a certain acceleration scheme to achieve optimum speed at the moment of impact (cavalry tactics). So archers created a hedge of arrows in the air to come down at the cavalry at the right spots during their charge. Timing and calculating the distances for the arrowfire were very important and the archers (mostly Welsh) were discipled and had a tight command structure. The vulnerable spots of heavy cavalry and knights were the chainmail at the thights and his horse (protected with armor).

The French army there is too big. France could at maximum mount 4000 heavy cavalry in battle. Divide the numbers and casualties with 5-10 and it makes sense. Any army with more than 10,000 men would have starved (reliable paylists of other campaigns provide this info).

In the crossbow article we pointed out the rate of fire, so calculate the crossbowmen divided by 3 and each team fires 8 shots per minute against 12 shots of a single archer. The crossbows are only skirmisher protecting the deployment of the heavy infantry. Heavy infantry was the French magic against the English longbow. They were better protected than the horses and withstood arrowfire while approaching slowly in closed formations.

Problem at Agincourt was the mud. The heavy cavalry charge failed because (slows down) and the heavy infantry approaching was handicapped in movement. So the Welsh light infantry used their secondary weapons, polearms and long warhammers to harrass the French infantry and using their quicker movement on muddy ground to attack and retreat at will. If you ever have the chance of watching a team of trained polearmfighters you will be impressed. Good night. Wandalstouring 23:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring Thanks a great deal for the time and the explanation. You just answered the questions I needed answered before tackling that article, so thanks. I wonder how the English longbow compared to the Mongol compound bow? I know the Mongols believed it was a superior weapon, accurate at longer distances, but I don't know. Do you happen to know what the rate of fire was on a compound bow? I do know they used it to devastating effect at the Mohi against Hungarian Knights, and at Legnica against the Teutonic Knights and the Knights Templer, as you said, aiming mostly for the horses. You spurred my interest in watching a team of polearmfighters, that would be interesting. Again, thanks for the information, it was extremely interesting. (I will add before I go, I thought of you this evening, they had a retired general on TV talking about strategy versus tactics. He said that if you started a conflict with the right strategic goals, you could screw up your tactics, and you could still win, as you learned from your losses and your tactics adapted. But he said if your strategy was flawed, you would lose, even if your tactics were right, and you were winning from the gate. You would lose in the end, he said, because your strategy mandated long term success, while tactics determined means to strategy. I thought of your analysis of Chalons while listening). Thanks again and goodnight! old windy bear 00:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Visit cavalry tactics, I wrote it. the Buryatian longbow used by the Mongols was stronger than the English longbow because they used the thumb(stronger finger, can pull stronger)(protected by a broad thumbring out of solid material) and index finger to draw, while the Welsh and English used index and middle finger protected by a leather glove. If shooting with a thumbring you shoot on the inside and otherwise on the outside of the bow. I doubt there is a "difference" in the rate of fire between a compound bow or a longbow, all were for trained archers with maximum musclepower stored. 12 shots per minute were a good archer to 24 shots per minute the best marksman. But an archer only carried about 20-30 arrows around. At Mohi the Mongols made a bad experience with the crossbow. Mongols used light cavalry for closeup shots. Crossbow archers sniped them away at a rate of almost eight hits per minute. So the Mongols used 7 large stonethrowers (siege engines, throwing 200-300 kilo rocks) to smash the crossbow archers. At Legnica the Teutonic knights had their Baltic turcopoles without stirrups and therefore weaker bows against the Mongol light cavalry with stirrups and stronger bows. Afterwards the Mongols ruled the battlefield and attacked at will. The Mongol charge is special for the use of hooks and supporting close up fire of light cavalry. Flawed strategy, look at Hannibal Barca in Italy.

Wandalstouring EXCELLENT article, cavalry tactics, thanks for pointing it out, I was unaware of it, and it is a very good resource. Good point on the number of arrows carried - look at Battle of Hastings also. The Norman archers ran out of arrows, (because in those days as you know better than I both sides depended on picking up arrows fired by the other), and in that battle, the Saxons had no bowmen, so until the Normans picked up enough ground to get arrows back, they couldn't use bowmen again till the end of the day, when Harold was hit in the eye by the flight aimed up and falling in on his position. Hannibal in Italy is a GREAT example of flawed strategy, where he won tactically over and over, but in the end, the bad strategy doomed him. (And the Romans vice versa, they had an excellent strategy, tactically they got their heads handed to them for years and years, battle after battle, but adapted, and in the end, won) Good point also on the Mongols - do you think their organization was a large factor also? They were the best disciplined army in the world, and the best able to survive off the land. They were limited more by grazing for their horses than food for the men, since they could eat pretty near anything and survive. Also good point on the stone throwers. They adapted other people's weapons with stunning speed. Ghenghis Khan got those seige engines from the Chinese, and such siege equipment as battering rams, gunpowder, trebuchets, and enormous siege bows. One reason Khwarezmia fell so swiftly - they expected the Mongols to use the typical light cavalry tactics they had in the past, before they incorporated all the weapons and tactics they picked up from the Chinese, and they used the stonethrowers you were speaking of at Mohi. Thanks again, and I will "talk" to you tomorrow. old windy bear 01:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hastings: the Normans had crossbowmen (Bavarian) and archers (Bohemian), the Saxons had few archers, but their infantry had heavy darts. The Saxon tactic is a copy of the late Roman army with Viking elements such as the Huscarl as rapid reaction infantry. Try Battle of Hastings reenactment.

What I miss always mentioned about the Mongols is the civil war prior to Ghenghis Khan. Qabul Khan had been defeated by a Jin and Tangut alliance. Afterwards the Mongols split up again in smaller groups and fought each other for several generations. The Jin diplomacy strongly supported this state of war. I think this is a central point for understanding the Mongols. Most of their conquest was done under the influence of people with first hand experience of the civil war. Afterwards the empire broke apart.

Actually Chinese siege technology was impressive, but Islamic was better. They had developed outstanding equipment at the time after the crusaders strongly relied on fortresses for their inferior numbers. The Mongols recruited several Islamic engineers and with their "Muslim phaos" (counterweight trebuchet) took the Chinese strongholds. Muslim phao has 300 metres range, Chinese trebuchet 150 metres. The longer distance makes it much harder for countermeasures of the besieged. Wandalstouring 08:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring Good morning! You are right on the Muslim equipment - I had forgotten that. Actually, the Caliph's little army put up a ferocious resistence against the invasion of the Khans, they just were too badly outnumbered. You are right on the Mongol civil war, that, combined with the constant warfare among the nomadic peoples in general, had hardened them to the horrors of war in a way few people understood. And yes, their empire self destructed, ironic, the seeds of that breakup began in the attack on the Khwarezmid Empire, with the estrangement of Jochi from his "father." Right too about the Saxons and their Housecurls, they came very close to winning at Hastings, despite the lack of cavalry - basically if they had remained in formation and under control, they would have won. old windy bear 10:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

[edit] bookmarks

http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/legionarymarch.jpg

• Various maps and statistics only link to it, no download permitted

Numerus (independent Roman auxiliary unit, occupying castles)

[edit] Re: a new toy

I suppose there might be some places where it could be linked, but only when it provides some significant information or resource that's not available in the article itself. There's no need to add it simply because it might touch on the same topics, in other words.

(Incidentally, permission doesn't really play into it. We're perfectly free to link to anything we want to, regardless of whether the other party has given us permission or not.) Kirill Lokshin 15:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese siege crossbows

Prod? Here's history of and info on how to build a double or triple-bow siege crossbow: [3], [4] and fascinating stuff on multi-shot siege crossbows [5] and the famous repeating (hand) crossbow [6]. And yes, I remember the userbox thing. :) -- Миборовский 02:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] images

Please do this edit to your image uploads to get them out of category:CSD. -- RHaworth 14:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the matter with the images?

I quote here the correspondence allowing me to use the pictures and clarifying their legal status:

Wandalstouring 14:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read my message again carefully. Your images still contain the {{db-noncom}} tag which should be removed along with the chat that precedes it. -- RHaworth 15:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. It was the first time I uploaded an image. Now I understand why there are so few. Wandalstouring 15:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Whaddya mean done? Did you change Image:Roman cavalry lg.jpg or Image:Pilum lg.jpg? Also, it might be useful to re-instate the e-mail extract you have removed from here and link to it from each of the images you have taken from etrusia. -- RHaworth 04:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop complaining. You deleted the cavalry picture yourself. I fixed things. Better start telling exactly what you mean. Wandalstouring 12:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

All I mean, and you do seem to be taking a long time to work it out, is:

if you have legitimate rights to use an image, please apply an appropriate tag to the image. Do not leave any part of {{Permission from license selector}} or {{db-noncom}} in the image description as they cause the image to be listed for speedy deletion.

That was all - do you understand? -- RHaworth 19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Are the pics OK now?

Gosh what a lot you have uploaded. Those I have looked at are fine. Now let me throw another spanner: since the images are Creative Commons licenced, it would be better to upload them to the Commons so that other language wikis can also use them. -- RHaworth 07:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appraisal and Assessment of the Roman military (discussion)

You are mistaken. I haven't written anything in that article and in fact I know nothing of Roman history. I just edited out a poorly written section; something that looked like a paper a highschool student would write. Andran 03:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

wandalstoring...'Appraisal and assessment of the Roman military - shifted to Roman legion, detailed article on the Roman military'.

Why shift it to the Legion article? It is more fitting in the Roman military article that you took it from.

Actually not. It has nothing to do with the military history and the article is already going to be oversized. The appraisal is an detailed study n the Roman military and Roman legion provides these details. Sign comments please using four (~) Wandalstouring 02:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions on my uploaded pictures?

Ask Kirill Lokshin on all questions concerning their label. Wandalstouring 02:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remark on Roman military tactics

I wasn't very charmed of your remark on Roman military tactics:

"This article is an example of how an article should not be.".

I don't know what you think, but I try my best to improve wikipedia. Roman military tactics is one of my earliest created articles, and eventhough you seem to dislike it I have put a lot of effort into it, and I don't like people effectivly calling it worthless. Gesnapt?

Rex 19:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Roman military tactics, I still consider it as an inappropriate trial. Roman infantry tactics, strategy and battle formations is currently trying to cover the same topic as your article should do. They do mention a lot more tactics.

Relabel your article Roman military equipment and I will be the last to object GA category. Wandalstouring 19:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. This isn't meant to pose as a defence of some kind for some article I created nearly a year ago. This about your rudeness to a hard working wikipedian. Rex 20:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes we need honesty. Wandalstouring 20:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Vaker zouden mensen eerbied voor hun medemensen moeten tonen in plaats van hovaardij. Rex 21:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

briljant Wandalstouring 21:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Verbeelde wijsheid en begrip is de meest grove onkunde. Rex 22:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Halverwege de Republiek bestonden de legioenen uit de volgende eenheden:

• Equites (cavalerie): De cavalerie was oorspronkelijk de meest prestigieuze eenheid, waar rijke jonge Romeinse parvenu's hun kunde en moed ten toon konden spreiden, als fundament van een eventuele politieke carrière. Hun uitrusting werd aangeschaft door iedere cavalerist zelf en bestond uit een rond schild, helm, lichaamsharnas, zwaard en een of meer speren. De cavalerie vormde een minderheid in het legioen. Op een totaal van ca. 3000 man had het legioen gewoonlijk rond 300 ruiters, verdeeld over 10 eenheden van 30 man. Deze mannen werden aangevoerd door een decurio. Legioenen van bondgenoten waren verplicht om 600 ruiters te hebben. Behalve zware cavalerie werd er ook lichte cavalerie gerekruteerd uit arme burgers en rijke jonge burgers die nog niet oud genoeg waren voor de hastati of de equites;

• Velites (lichte infanterie): De Velites waren eigenlijk speerwerpers zonder specifieke, formele organisatie of functie in een veldslag. Ze werden toegepast daar waar er behoefte of noodzaak voor was. Normaal gesproken zouden zij in de frontlinie ingezet worden om de vijandige formatie te breken, maar dit lukte maar zelden. Na het werpen van hun speer lieten zij zich terugvallen door de gaten tussen de manipels;

• Zware infanterie: Dit was de hoofdeenheid van het legioen. De zware infanterie bestond uit burger-legionairs die zich de uitrusting van een bronzen helm, schild, harnas en een korte speer (pilum) konden veroorloven. Bij voorkeur gebruikten zij de gladius, een kort zwaard. De zware infanterie was onderverdeeld volgens de legionair's ervaring in het Republikeinse legioen, tot aan de hervormingen van Marius, die de afzonderlijke klassen van troepen afschafte in het voordeel van afzonderlijke slagordes:
  • De hastati (enkelv. hastatus) waren de jongere mannen en vormden de frontlinie
  • De principes (enkelv. princeps), mannen in de bloei van hun leven (laat twintig tot vroeg in de dertig jaar), vormden de tweede linie van het legioen
  • De triarii (enkelv. triarius) waren de veteranen in de achterhoede; alleen in extreme situaties zouden zij ingezet worden in een gevecht. Zij waren uitgerust met speren in plaats van de pilum en de gladius.

Elke van de drie linies waren onderverdeeld in Manipels, de kleinste eenheid in het leger, elk bestaande uit twee Centuria aangevoerd door de oudste van de twee centuriones. Centuria waren nominaal 80 soldaten sterk (niet 100, zoals veel wordt aangenomen), maar in de praktijk kon dit dalen tot wel 60, in het bijzonder in de minder voorkomende triarii manipels. Elk centurium had zijn eigen standaard en bestond uit tien eenheden, genaamd contubernia. Een contubernium bestond weer uit acht soldaten die een tent deelden, een handmolen, een muilezel en een kookpot (afhankelijk van de duur van een missie). Omdat manipels hun belangrijkste tactische element was, zouden legioenen in de vroege republiek soms aangeduid worden als manipulaire legioenen.

Ten tijde van uitzending waren de manipels gewoonlijk geordend in een ruitpatroon genaamd quincunx. Het is echter onwaarschijnlijk dat ze ook zo het gevecht ingingen. Principes manipels bezetten de ruimte die vrijgelaten werd door de hastati, met de rugdekking weer van de triarii manipels. De twee centuria van elk manipel werden achter elkaar geplaats. Nadat de velites zich hadden teruggetrokken door de lijnen van de hastati, zou de achterste centurium naar links marcheren en daarnaa voorwaarts zodat een solide lijn gevormd werd. Vervolgens zouden de hastati aanvallen. Als zij het gevecht zouden verliezen, dan zou de achterste centurium terugkeren naar zijn originele locatie, waardoor weer gaten zouden ontstaan. Dan zouden de manipels zich terugtrekken door de gaten in de lijn van principes, die vervolgens dezelfde procedure zouden volgen om een vaste gevechtslinie te vormen en aan te vallen. Als ook de principes niet in staat waren om de vijand te breken, dan zouden zij zich terugtrekken achter de triarii en het hele leger zou het slagveld in goede orde verlaten. Dit was echter de standaard procedure die vaak aangepast werd; bij Zama zou Scipio zijn hele legioen in een enkele lijn inzetten om Hannibal's leger te omsingelen, net zoals Hannibal zelf had gedaan bij Cannae. Wandalstouring 22:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Beter goed gejat dan slecht verzonnen Rex 22:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the discussion board of an user of the English wikipedia. Stop adding Dutch proverbs or I call for you being blocked. Wandalstouring 22:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking for adding proverbs in another language? Nah, I don't think that's going to happen. But who knows;

"Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Rex is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom."

that might. Have a very nice day Wandalstouring, Rex 22:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cavalry tactics reorganization

I've added a suggestion for one possible reorganization to the Cavalry tactics article talk page. Nloth 00:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Aye aye sir. Done.

[edit] move

You have committed a cardinal Wikipedia sin: you created Roman military equipment by a copy and paste instead of a move. In doing so you concealed the work of all the previous editors. I have now merged the edit history of Roman weapons to the new title.

In future if you want to rename, always move, never copy-and-paste. If the move is not allowed, use {{Db-histmerge}} to request an admin to do the move. -- RHaworth 11:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I know and I realized my mistake too late. At least I copied the discussion page. Will try to revert this. Wandalstouring 11:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, my clever idea did not work, i screwed it. I will write a disclaimer on the discussion site of Equipment of the Roman legion. Wandalstouring 11:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Some people are really nasty and can hardly accept an apology. Wandalstouring 12:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it. You apologise and then repeat the error! You converted Roman military equipment (which had the history) into a redirect and created Equipment of the Roman legion by copy and paste!

Now read this slowly: the article with its edit history is now back at Roman military equipment. I don't see why it needs to be on a different title, but if you think it should be on a different title, then move it; do not copy and paste. Do you understand? -- RHaworth 13:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Slowly. I thought the history was still at Roman military tactics, while I had created Roman military equipment and copypasted the contend there. You told me my error. I had the idea of copying it back to Roman military tactics and was successful to move it to this time to Equipment of the Roman legion. Afterwards I checked and found out the history was missing, so I wrote my apology. Wandalstouring 13:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote you the story, sry, but there was no mentioning you already corrected it. *1* Lets hope communication improves. Wandalstouring 14:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

*1* I have now merged the edit history (above) reads like mentioning to me. In any case, having received a message about edit histories, it would seem a good idea to look at the edit histories before doing anything.

Also, what about my suggestion of uploading images to the Commons? Is the German Wiki never going to have use of these images? -- RHaworth 14:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I was bargaining a far better deal for a lot more pictures. As soon as I finished my currently running deals I will upload. Wandalstouring 15:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article comparing bows

Do you know if wikipedia presently has a comprehensive article on all the various types of bows, from the Hun and Muslim compound, to the later deadly Mongol compound bow, the longbows, and crossbows? I have found articles on each type, but not one comprehensive comparitive article. What do you think of the idea, if one does not exist? (I may just have missed it, but I figured you would know if one comparitive article existed) I was thinking of an article with a chart - distance, rate of fire, power - and compare all of them, if such does not presently exist. On the military coordinator elections, I don't know if you noticed, but I am also running for one of the assistant spots. If you feel I would do a good job, I would appreciate your support. You have mine - I think you are incredibly knowledgable, and a good writer, despite english not being your native tongue. Anyway, let me know your thoughts on the bow article idea. I am having fun researching the general topic of archery. I am also researching the role of the low countries in the HRE wars, if you have any good histories you would recommend in addition to the standards. Have a good evening! old windy bear 00:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Big poblem: bows are made to fit the physical abilities of individuals. But generally yes. we should perhaps show always in between which specifications each bow can be found. Ask Kirill perhaps for approval of such a boxWandalstouring 16:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring Greetings my friend! I will ask him - I know they are individually made, but it would be fascinating to have a box comparing them individually, as much as we generally can. Thanks, old windy bear 18:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill approved it, and asked only that we source it well - I will take care of that, and once I get the sourcing lined up, Kirill suggested using a format like Jarmann M1884#Comparison with contemporary rifles. old windy bear 19:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but simply stated in between this and that value, estimated, etc. Wandalstouring 20:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring What I was going to do, if it is acceptable to you, after I am done with a couple of projects I am literally in the middle of, is to draw up a draft, complete with box, list of sources, and email it to you. You could then critique it, et al, before we toss the article/box in. I certainly intend to use the terms "estimated" and "projected" rather than state some value as definitive. I would prefer to work on this as a draft, then when we have a version that seems moderately accurate, perhaps ask Kirill, Llywrch, Rex - get input before simply throwing it online. I honestly believe if more people did this, using drafts, seeking input, there would be less waste-of-time arguments. Thoughts? old windy bear 21:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, sounds fair. but I can`t help you on this article. I work myself on some translations and the Punic Wars, because there is actually lots of nonsense written about them, but to make people stop telling this you need a thight net of waterproof footnotes. By the way, do you know somebody on the wiki who can verify me some ancient Greek sources? (I have a scientific book on the pre-Barcid Imperial structure of Carthage and he works directly with the nuances of the original texts to make his point). Wandalstouring 21:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring THANKS! No problem on working on the article - I can do the work, as soon as I am done with the two projects I am deep into, which means in about 3-4 weeks. What I am hoping from you is your honest assessment. You are extremely knowledgable, and bluntly honest. I do really believe if we had more of a pre-posting assessment we could avoid many of the problems which routinely plague new articles. If, as in this case, editors seek out honest assessments from knowledgable minds, and address those areas of concern which come up, it again would help the article quality from day one.

Greek sourcing; I will find you someone. I have a friend who teaches Roman history, and will ask him - I will have someone for you by the end of the weekend. They will probably be willing to help you with the nuances of original texting, which is not a hugely time consuming task, as opposed to writing the article. Good luck in straightening out the Punic War articles!

Thanks again for steering me to the archery issue - the more research I do, the more fascinating the whole field becomes. old windy bear 21:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Have fun, it is one of the few issues that give us the chance to equally present technological developments and skill from Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas throughout time. Wandalstouring 21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I love the subject, L-O-V-E, the subject, and until I began this research, really had not fully realized the incredible length of time and level of technological skills that went into making a supposedly simple "bow and arrow." And your willingness to help me with critique and editing is invaluable. old windy bear 21:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Battle of Chalons

Hi Wandalstouring -- I made a few more changes in your rewriting, mostly where I felt the English was not idiomatic. The most important change was in discussing the size of the two armies: I changed the text back to assuming that the 2 sides were roughly equal. My primary reason for this phrasing was to explain the logic for the estimate of combatants. Because we can calculate a rough size of the Romano-Gothic size, if we assume that the Huns were equal in size, the total number of combatants would be twice this number. (Obviously if there is a statement that the Huns were larger in numbers at the time of the battle, then it should be added; I don't recall any sources stating this.)

I'll admit that this is the section of the article that I am least satisfied with, because it is uncomfortably close to being original research -- but I can't see any way past it. I have had to deal with contributors who come up with some of the most outrageous numbers for each side, & ignore the practical limitations of fielding armies in this period. Further, Wikipedia badly needs an article to summarize & discuss the problem of determining just how large were the armies in those days: how many warriors the average barbarian tribe like the Visigoths & Vandals might have, & how many men the Roman army could field in any single theatre of combat. I know these issues have been discussed; they just need to be collected into an article. -- llywrch 18:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

llywrch Hey buddy, I don't think you have a lot of choice in this situation. Your logic is solid, and I cannot offhand remember any source claiming any great disparity in the armies - certainly Creasy, Gibbon and Bury do not. It amuses me wryly some of the outrageous numbers tossed around - I have asked people how such a horde could have fed itself, and it's horses, and received only a "they did it somehow." I am as uncomfortable with original research as anyone on wikipedia, but on this article, I think we just have to skate close for the sake of historical accuracy. old windy bear 19:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

llywrch, army size is quite clear -> 100,000 inhabitants, max 30,000 armed men. (size of a bigger Germanic tribe, this estimation of maximum armed men per inhabitants is widly accepted). The Vandals were exactly 80,000 people when they shipped to Carthage, simply because we know their requirements for shipping over (look in this appendix to Bury). I really can not remember where I read the Huns where slightly superuior in numbers, but I do not think that matters (yes, i forgot o mention the source, will work on this). Actually more than 30,000 can hardly sustain, look at the reports of Alaric (Bury) in Italy with 40,000 men (they ran out of supply). I do not think it original research, Verbruggen supports you 100% that these numbers are exagerrated. As long as you have no lists of army-bureaucracy, you have little solid info.

Disordered units are not fleeing units. that is a tactical difference. See Zama, Carthages infantry was disordered but close to victory.

Another point is that our sources are actually very onesided. We should mention that. Wandalstouring 20:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring, You're right about the "one-sidedness" of these sources -- something that Steven Muhlberger explores in his The Fifth-Century Chroniclers. (And something that Michael babcock twists all out of proportion in his bizarre Solving the Murder of Attila the Hun.) I've been thinking a lot about how these sources might have affected just how this battle should be understood, & will post my suggestions over at Talk:Battle of Chalons.

[edit] trireme

you removed the wrong picture. the olympias is currently the most important and well-known trireme in the world. remove anything but the olympias. Wandalstouring 21:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, but Wikipedia's fair-use policy is to use copyrighted images under claims of fair use only when there are no free replacements available. Since the trireme article has three free images already, there is no need for the fair-use Olympias picture. —Bkell (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Olympias has plenty of coverage: three paragraphs at Trireme#Reconstruction, and an entire article at Olympias (trireme), which still contains the photo. —Bkell (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Put at least a very obvious link to the Olympias if this is a legal problem.

Please consider two pictures show a Roman trireme and of the same type. The guy arranging the pics had no knowledge. Wandalstouring 21:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing about triremes. You seem to be much more knowledgeable about the subject than I am. You would probably do a better job of rearranging the article to make the importance of the Olympias more clear and to clarify the subjects of the pictures. If you can upload more freely licensed images of triremes (perhaps you can draw them yourself, for example), then that would be a good idea. However, I do know that there is no need for a fair-use image in this article, since three free images already exist. —Bkell (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

delete one free use image, it is pointless and doublementions the same of the three trireme types. Wandalstouring 21:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the picture of the Olympias is much better in the Reconstruction section, where the text discusses the subject of the photograph. —Bkell (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 12:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Central Europe

Heh. I suppose you're lucky in that you haven't run into these issues before. I can say from personal experience, though, that the Polish-German relations here, while not quite as bad as the Polish-Russian ones, are still a persistent source of conflict, particularly as you get into 20th century topics.

Which is not to say that reasonable editors won't go along; merely that there are enough unreasonable editors to make a huge mess of things (and they will often regard any such proposals as deliberate provocation). Hence, it's usually advisable to approach such issues with kid gloves. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 00:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I really can not believe that things can be so childish. If I did upset the Polish and it hurts the wikiproject I will officialy apologize and promise to never smoke pot again with the Polish girl next door before writing here. But currently I want some Polish project members to respond. Wandalstouring 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Central European military history taskforce

Are you sure you have the right person? I have no idea what you are talking about (of course it may just be my memory around 3 am :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Check

It looks like he's vandalized the actual Vandalism article before. I looked at his edit to Mongol; it was probably wrong, but I'm not convinced it was done in bad faith. Since he doesn't seem to be actively editing, it's probably fine to just leave him be for the moment. Kirill Lokshin 16:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Not at all rare, actually; what you're seeing is the output of the standard {{test-n}} template used to warn vandals. Kirill Lokshin 19:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I expected a warning to flash in red or something. This is too formal and too ironic. Wandalstouring 19:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: rapid footnote system

Hi Wandalstouring,

You may want to contact User:AndyZ. He has developed a footnote creator written in JS (see User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js and you may want exchange some ideas with him on how to improve it so it will generate ref tags as well. And he's a real pro in JS, while I'm not :)

Best, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a pretty interesting idea. The cursor part may be difficult to do, and the archiving can probably only remember footnotes created before on the same page, not those created on different pages.

The script I wrote is in JS, so you can use it by (there are better instructions here) adding {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file. After that, WP:BYC and go to editing mode for any article. There should be a tab next to the "[un]watch" tab that says "footnote creater" which upon clicking springs up a box with the fields that you can use to quickly create the footnote.

Cheers, AZ _t 02:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Crossbow Picture

I updated the crossbow picture with a new photo, what do you think?

raptor 09:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks much better, I posted it already in the article. Wandalstouring 15:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligence

I'm interested in Intel issues and I have a reasonable awareness of the history of the UK agencies, and some of the US elements, but I'm less familiar with others. Nonetheless, I'd appreciate the opportunity to learn about other national agencies if people start puting them up. ALR 10:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pictures

Thanks for the information. Paul B 21:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crossbow Laws

I was actually thinking of Australia for the pistol crossbows, in some parts crossbows like mine are allowed while in other states they are not, while pistol crossbows are much more restricted with a total ban, kind of like the the difference in laws on handguns vs. laws on rifles on farms etc. Laws section is a good idea though. Are you sure that pistol crossbows are used by children? They're made to kill. raptor 10:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

depends on pullforce (some are compareable to airguns). pistol crossbow is a definition of shape. Wandalstouring 11:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mongol Casualties

Wandalstouring My oldest child is taking me to the main library in the county tomorrow, which has The Mongol Conquests, which has the best casualty estimates, and is carefully sourced. I am sorry it took so long, but I have had trouble with that drive, and it was better to get the youngster, (he is in his 30's!), to drive me. I will sum up the estimates, source them, and put an end to your unnamed person's ridiculous claims. The archery project is also churning along, and it is fascinating! You will enjoy the comparitive box I am putting together. Also, while time remains, I am confident that you will win an assistant's position, which is well earned. CONGRATULATIONS. I told you awhile back that you are a pleasure to work with, and I believe you will bring not just a vast amount of knowledge, but a scholar's ethic on sourcing and all aspects of military history. Kirill has done a wonderful job, and will keep doing one - but we can help him and take some of the incredible load off his back, literally! It was vastly important that you and Grafikm get slots to emphasize the global nature of this project - it is not just the Ugly Americans! Anyway, I will be in touch by the weekend with a list to email to you of the casualities, with the primary and seconary sources well documented. Take care my friend! old windy bear 20:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked the physics project for some assistance since I had to tell several people already that ballistics and trajectory do apply for arrows, bolts, spears, bullets, thrown stones, etc. Wandalstouring 21:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring Ha! Great minds think alike! I also thought of that, and I also wrote the Army's War College and asked them for any unclassified information they might be able to help us with regarding bows and cross bows, and the history of them in the art of war. Thank you for your help, this is going to end up being an excellent article! old windy bear 01:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Navalzhugenu2.jpg

Almost surely this is a photo of an old scroll, but we need the source to be certain. Hopefully, since it's your book you'll have it still. —LactoseTI^T 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not my book. The book belongs to the one signing the permission to use it. I can ask him. It is likely this source "Beyond Turtleboats: Siege Accounts From Hideyoshi’s Second Invasion of Korea, 1597-1598", Kenneth M. Swope, Ball State University Wandalstouring 21:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of this one, either, unfortunately, but they may have it around here somewhere. If that is the source of the photo and you (or he) cannot find that book, let me know and I'll try to help track it down. Hopefully that book will be the one that actually took the photo, and can tell us exactly of what the photo is. —LactoseTI^T 21:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Navalzhugenu.jpg

For both of these, the license is probably incorrect, too--if it's of an old scroll/picture, it would be used under expired copyright, and not creative commons (the photograph would be ineligible for copyright). I have not read this book, but if this is the kind of photo/research put into it, I definitely have to track it down--it looks very interesting. —LactoseTI^T 21:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Same problem as above. Wandalstouring 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re pictures from Indian and Pak armies

hi, i tried to contact the indian army many months back asking them to release a few pictures under the free license but it seems they wouldn't even respond, as is the norm in India where people are lax to even reply. I will try to get something from Pak Army and if they do send me the images for free to use then maybe the Indians should do something. tx for reminding me though. --Idleguy 09:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assistant Coordinator position

It gives me great pleasure to inform you that, per the result of the just-concluded election, you are now an Assistant Coordinator of the Military history WikiProject!

I would ask that you place the coordinator page on your watchlist; its talk page contains a scratch pad and discussion area that should be useful in keeping track of needed coordination work.

More generally, I'll be laying out some thoughts on potential short-term plans for the project here; you are cordially invited to comment!

Congratulations, and thank you for all of your hard work! Kirill Lokshin 00:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Congratulations on attaining Assistant Coordinator. You deserved it for all the hard work and excellent information you have donated to our community.--Dryzen 19:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wants to contribute pictures

The FriedrichFiles 11:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC) I would like to contribute... I have a database on aircraft, yet online, and am building a list of ships, I would like to add to Wikipedia, once finnished (scheduled for late 2007) Contact: http://picpage7.tripod.com/radioroom.html

• please sign your comments using 4 times "~"
• please consider the legal terms of your images, are we allowed to publish them legally or are there any other rightholders who could object? Wandalstouring 12:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marocchinate

In general each single link I have inserted, cointains all the information. Anyway, let me know the most controversial points and I will have a look=--Giovanni Giove 07:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read your suggestion. I will answer point after point, depeding of the time. I'll move the discussion in the talk page or the article "Marocchinate".--Giovanni Giove 17:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Second Punic War

Mmm, it's rather outside any expertise I might have. Might I suggest that the Classical warfare task force would be a better place to look for reviewers. In particular, Oldwindybear and Vedexent would be able to offer much more insightful commentary on the content than I could. Kirill Lokshin 19:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)