Talk:Roman military engineering

message: Initial article written, may need stub flag - PocklingtonDan 12:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: initial article

message: The Roman engineering article is rather bleak and could gain much form the intergration of this military article. Much of the lasting works done by the military where or could be considered civilian engineering.  Currently I beleive the global article would suffice to house both civilian and military worksmanships. The military was by far Rome greatest construction body, yet its permenant forts, roads and other systems as capably designated Roman engineering. I'm not sure if my point of view is making its way accross, thus should you have questions please do ask away. I`'m simply atempting to reduce clutter, overlap and paint a clear picture.--Dryzen 15:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Roman engineering article as it stands is hopeless. However, I wrote this Roman military engineering article from a very particular perspective to demonstrate the importance of engineering to the Roman army in warfare, and how engineering was used as a military tool - I think if it was subsumed into a large Roman engineering article perspective might be lost and visitors redirected to Roman Engineering confused. I can see that if the Roman engineering were developed further it could be more than sufficient for an article in its own right - how about the development of concrete and the civil construction of the Pantheon, the Roman use of the arch, construction of the Colisseum and smaller arenas, construction of massive civil harbours etc etc - I agree the current article needs massive expansion to be worthwhile but I'd far rather tag it with an expansion flag and/or work on it myself than have it rob content from Roman military engineering which I think definitely deserves its own article. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 16:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently 3 of this article sub-sections are ubiquitous Roman engineering feats (roads, Bridges, Civillian). As to people being redericted that hapens alot with many an article and I doubt they would be confused as few people start with military engineering (no other precedence). I do undertsand the divisionary purpose of this article, yet seeying as its mostly links to other specific articles, a Miliary and civilian sectionning of the mother Roman engineering article would be best. As well it would reduce confusion in wandering readers, Roman Engioneering elludes to all levels of roman engineering therefore including the military. Sections need not have the same tonality as they are diverging specifications of a similar startign point or base. Also under a mother article, the sub-sectiosn are better able to share universial information sections, such as materials and tools.--Dryzen 16:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, if this information wsa moved to a subsection of the main roman engineering article, would it be possible at least to have a redirect from roman military engineering straight to that subsection?? - PocklingtonDan 17:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could be done.--Dryzen 18:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engineering