Talk:Comitatenses

message: Assessed as "NA" because this article would be better served as a list.--Looper5920 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-assessed as Stub for the time-being.  Roger Davies talk 03:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a  Merge Proposal and / or Redirect. 
Please do not modify it. </br> 
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of [articles as discussed below] into this talk page's article was: 
Awaiting Merge and/or Article creation by knowledgeable editor. Will require additional Re-Organization of existing articles as discussed below.</br>—     —     —     —     —
==> I suggest merging both Palatini (Roman military) and Comitatenses to Palatini and Comitatenses.
Why? Because both of these articles deal with late Roman field armies; both would cover much of the same ground, and both deal with similar organizations, the main difference being that the palatini were higher-status than the comitatenses. Ananiujitha (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would only be worth doing if it added more depth to the already extensive Late Roman army.  At present none of the three do this, so just merging them wouldn't add a great deal.  Rather than dwell too much on the restructuring and size of the army as a whole (which is well covered in the main article) I'd suggest more detail on the make up and role of the field armies, plus some combat history of field army operations.  If you do merge, I'd suggest a more descriptive title e.g. Late Roman field army, with diverts from the individual names, rather than string the names together in the title.Monstrelet (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But late Roman army is (a) another article (b) too big to go through and (c) on several other topics too. "Rather than dwell too much on the restructuring and size of the army as a whole (which is well covered in the main article) I'd suggest more detail on the make up and role of the field armies, plus some combat history of field army operations." obviously, any discussion of their make up and role would have to combine these three, which is one reason I want to combine these. As for the title, I'm not sure, because the title could also describe earlier 3rd-century field armies which were structurally different. Ananiujitha (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

text: For symmetry/stylistic consistency, if we merge these to Late Roman Field Armies, we should probably move Limitanei to Late Roman Border Armies. Ananiujitha (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You could do that, although you are really covering only one named group (possibly two if you count ripenses as separate).  What you are trying for is something that works easily in search, especially for those who don't know much about the Roman army.  On the Late Roman army, I'm seeing that as the base article and these two specialist articles as more in-depth studies.  So you can rely heavily for background on the base article but ramp up the detail in the specialist ones.Monstrelet (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Although referring to "border armies" would avoid some of the special definitions people impose on the situation; some of structural history implies that Luttwak did not see the border cunei as part of the limitanei. Ananiujitha (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Unit types of the Roman Army? then you can  off non-stub topics -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to me, unit types imply different tactical roles and equipment types like, inter alia, Sagittarii and Clibanarii. Perhaps unit status distinctions? Ananiujitha (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  "type" is intentionally vague, to allow listing of various categories of unit types. Type can be classed by size, by purpose, by equipment, etc. That allows organization of the list by section for period or calvary vs infantry, or legions vs auxillae etc. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal 

message: Sacer Comitatus redirects this article, while NOTHING in the article explains what that might be ("Field Army" has a very short and casual explanation of the distinction between a normal "Comitatensis" unit and the Sacer Comitatus of the Emperor. So somebody first deleted a separate page for the different unit, then here another wikipedant deleted any trace of the redirected term.
GREAT WORK. Bravo! The eternal incessant need by some self important "editors" to destroy other people's work as "unencyclopedic" will keep Wikipedia a substandard encyclopedia until the end of time! And lead users in circles, searching for the promised content again and again! Just let things remain where they are if there is already referrals to them on another page!--5.147.206.182 (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion obsession strikes again