Talk:Late Roman army

message: The article claims that Vegetius had no military experience whatsoever - yet Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus states that practically nothing is known about Vegetius' life other than what he tells us in his writings. I somehow have my doubts that he would write in a military treatise that he had no military experience (though strictly speaking, it's not necessary for a theoretical study). So is there any basis for this statement? --84.46.60.45 (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As G. R. Watson observes, Vegetius' Epitoma "is the only ancient manual of Roman military institutions to have survived intact." Despite this, Watson is dubious of its value, for he [Vegetius] "was neither a historian nor a soldier: his work is a compilation carelessly constructed from material of all ages, a congeries of inconsistencies." Watson, The Roman Soldier, p. 25f.  Apparently at least one expert author seems to think "Vege" was no soldier.Urselius (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Vegetius seems to have been one of the first armchair generals. He is typical of the kind of moralizing author who advocates return to hallowed old practice, even if it has nothing to do with contemporary realities. Compare Vegetius eulogy to the infantry legion with the attitude of a man who had seen actual warfare like Procopius: "Still there are those who take into consideration none of these things, who reverence and worship the ancient times, and give no credit to modern improvements". Constantine   ✍  20:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hard for people today, with ingrained ideas of "progress," to understand how powerful the concept of a bygone "Golden Age" was to the ancients.  Most people considered that what was done in their father's day was better than the present - more moral, better organised, of superior workmanship etc. - and what was done in their grandfather's day was even finer.Urselius (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So do people today... From statements like "They don't build them like this any more", "Kids in my day were respectful" and "Today's music is horrible", to ideological concepts like Fascism, the paradigm of a decadent present versus a golden past is always present, especially in moments of crisis or rapid change (and in Vegetius' case, the 4th century was both). Just have a look at the present-day political discourse in the US, references to a better, "purer" past are everywhere. Constantine   ✍  10:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegetius 

message: Somebody should really elaborate on the porphyric statue pictured at the beginning of this article. Look at the intense, bromantic hugging action!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by IronSheep ([[User 
talk:IronSheep|talk]] • contribs) 02:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tetrarchic Bromance 

message: What about Agathias' figure and Zosimus' immediately post-Tetrarchan figures? 96.231.17.131 (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ioannes Lydos' figure is the only one for the Tetrarchan army? 

message: As interesting as it is, I don't think that we need the picture of the shields from the Notitia Dignitatum to be displayed twice in the same article.--172.190.46.146 (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, I will delete one, but the Notitia figure showing shields and armour should be kept. Urselius (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture used twice 

message: The site lists the size of the late Roman Army as over 400,000 when in actuality it was much lower. In fact, for both empires it couldn't have been much larger than 250,000 men. The Italian Field Army and Limitanei only numbered less than 40,000 at its height, and looking at the army listings for Gaul and Spain+Africa were the same that gives a max of about 90,000 men. The ERE had a slightly larger force, probably more in the vicinity of 120,000 men. Both Goldsworthy and Heather state this with sources to back it up. MMFA (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Treadgold estimates 645,000. Even Strobel, a relative low-counter, estimates 450,000 in the reign of Constantine I. Are you only counting the field armies? Ananiujitha (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of the Late Roman Army 

message: I don't understand why the "late Roman army" would only go to 395. I for one, would keep using the term for the western army until, say, the defeat of Odovacer, and for the eastern army at least until the reorgnizations which Treadgold attributes to Anastasius. Ananiujitha (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why stop at 395? 

message: What is the reason for this weasely redundancy in the lead? It also goes against WP:REFERS. 14:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the soldiers of the Roman army thought of themselves as just that, they were soldiers of the Roman army. Modern scholarship sees a difference between the Roman Republican army, the army of the Roman Principate and the late Roman army. It is a label of convenience slapped on to an institution with an uninterrupted history from the legendary foundation of Rome c. 700BC to 1453AD, when Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks. Consider a soldier who joined the Roman army in the reign of Aurelian, as a veteran when Diocletian was elevated to the rank of emperor, did he say "Damn, I've just left the Imperial Roman army and joined the Late Roman army"? Of course not, he was in the same army. There are no weasels, just reality - some things are not simple, they are equivocal and this has to be flagged - WP:REFERS notwithstanding. Urselius (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Modern scholarship" is redundant. Everything in wikipedia is modern scholarship unless explicitly stated otherwise. The article also is not about the term, it is about a topic. It is absurdly obvious that someone in the Roman army doesn't use a modern English term. "Has been used" implies that now some other term is used. I still stand by my edit. Bhny (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Using language like "term used to denote" has nothing to do with showing that it is an artificial construct with debatable beginning and end. It is not equivocal, it is just redundant. Does the article on Ancient Rome begin with "The term"?  We could also say "The term elephant has been used by modern scholarship to denote a large mammal of the family Elephantidae". It adds nothing. Bhny (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that this diff addresses the concerns you have both expressed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes that is better. thanks Bhny (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some further minor alterations, chiefly adding links to the two post-295 halves, and removing the "unchanged" from the infobox re the East Roman army, as the army of Justinian, let alone of Maurice or Heraclius, was certainly not the same as that of Theodosius. In addition, shouldn't there be some mention in the lede that the "Late Roman army" is essentially the army of the Dominate, and/or that this period coincides with Late Antiquity, to tie this in the wider socio-political and historical context? Constantine   ✍  21:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We should all remember that, if the exact period needs to be debated, we need sources, not our own ideas. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term ... has been used in modern scholarship to denote 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Late Roman army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130813062403/http://2.rgzm.de/ to http://www.2.rgzm.de/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified