Talk:Campaign history of the Roman military/Archive/2

message: Te title of this article is "Military history of ancient Rome", however its contents do not match this title. I would expect an article with this title to cover primarily an expanded walk through all the campaigns and wards in which the Roman military was involved - the article's intro even states "The core of the Military history of ancient Rome is the account of the Roman military's land battles, from the conquest of Italy to its fights against the Huns and invading Germanic tribes." - but then goes on to do no such thing! It goes on to cover only the structural development of the Roman army, which is much better covered in the (also much better cited - this article only has 4 cites) articles Roman army and Military of ancient Rome.
I propose a complete re-write based upon the actual history of the Roman military throghout its campagins. I would be willing to write at least the start article myself if it was agreed that this would be of benefit.
Anyone else think this article's title has very little to do with its contents?! Cheers - PocklingtonDan 13:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Roman_army#Campaigns for a list of campaigns that the history could be based around. - PocklingtonDan 13:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a decent idea; I recall suggesting something of the sort some time ago.  Now that we have a separate set of articles to handle the hiistory of the Roman military per se, we can probably turn this one into a narrative of its activities. Kirill Lokshin 13:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response, I'll wait to get a few more responses and see what the consensus is - PocklingtonDan 13:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Were do we put the content of this article? Before we start rewriting one article, there are several articles like Roman Navy and Roman legion connected with the subject and it is neither clear which of them is clearly about what. As for the content of this article, it does not concern campaigns, but the evolution of the Roman military over time. Wandalstouring 16:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current contents are alomst entirely uncited and are better covered in the Military of ancient Rome article. If you wanted to preserve them rather than delete them they could either be copied to Military of ancient Rome where they had value or else the exsting article renamed Structure of the Roman military. As it stands, however, this article (excepting the introductory paragraph), does NOT cover the military history of ancient Rome. - PocklingtonDan 17:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I argue more for an integration of structure development, political circumstances and campaigns. Wandalstouring 19:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Following wikipedia convention, can I point you to other comparable articles such as British military history, which deal primarily with campaign history rather than structural development as this one does. Structure development is more properly the place of Roman army, and Military of Ancient Rome. It will be necessary to touch upon structural developments, certainly, but it should primarily be a history of campaigns as per other articles on similar topics. Can you give me a breakdown of what you would expect to see here? I am thinking a much expanded prose form of Roman army#Campaigns would be very useful, working in to the text political and structural changes in each period and also linking to the main articles on those items - PocklingtonDan 19:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, British military history isn't a good example, or it is an example how the article shouldn't be restructured. Today you turned how many bulleted lists into plain prose texts? Wandalstouring 20:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if you're bitter on formatting issued from another articles but can you just clarify what you think should be under an article on "Military history of ancient Rome", Wandalstouring? UberCryxic and Kirill Lokshin seem to support the proposed idea but I'm confused as to what you think the contents should be. Nevermind formatting issues for the moment, what CONTENT do you think should be in this article? Do you agree with the consensus that, like other military history articles, the article should be primarily a history of the military's campaigns? The existing intro even states "The core of the Military history of ancient Rome is the account of the Roman military's land battles". Obviously references to changes in the military structure are important and should be built into the article, but an article summing structural alterations and nothing else cannot claim to be a military history of ancient Rome. Please clarify what CONTENTS you think the article should have. - PocklingtonDan 20:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment wasn't clear at that point. The content of the example British military history gets 100% no. It is a list of campaigns and the text is marginal. A reader must know what he wants or he can skip it. The second sentence was made to mock myself about your suggestion. You put forward an article that violates your efforts in another article today. Wandalstouring 21:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, OK I'm with you now. I wasn't meaning to follow the formatting/layou of British military history and others though, but its contents - it just seems obvious to me that the contents of the article do not match the title and that the contents should be based as described above primarily on the military's actions throughout history (its campagins), interspersed with summary of structural changes etc as appropriate? Do you agree? Please confirm if so, and then it looks like there is a consensus and I will begin work. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 21:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I argue more for an integration of structure development, political circumstances and campaigns. Campaigns develop out of political circumstances and military ability, so before we start telling about a campaign we must tell the background. In case of a military history article this means telling the whole evolution of the military and politics interconnected with the campaigns. Wandalstouring 22:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that is almost exactly what I am intending, to work in various aspects into an overall history of the military - I think we agree, it is just crazy at the moment that there is no mention of campaigns. I will work on this today - PocklingtonDan 07:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the revision will build up the detail on campaigns and make it a true history I completely agree with that. A campaign history need not go into the nuts and bolts of structure, tactics, equipment, rations etc, although these things can be lightly touched on to include context. Other sub-articles will handle these specialized areas. It is looking better already by focusing on campaigns. Enriquecardova 04:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major problem - title is a misnomer - propose complete re-write 

message: I have a question. The Roman army under the brilliant Augustus (Octavian) Supposedly brought the Roman army down to 30 legions. But it is also estimated that the Roman army consisted of 500,000 men at that time. That means that each legion is:
500,000/30 = 16,667 men. Thats way more than the traditional 4,800 that its suppose to have. Could you please clarify this, as I have a very reliable source confirming that there were 500,000 men in 30 legions.
I was thinking that the remaining 12,000 men or so would be auxiallaries, but that would be stupid becuase the auxiallaries would just rebel and overpower the legions. Or perhaps, it could include the non-conbatants, or engineers etc...
:The auxilliaries were paid mercenaries and such units rarely revolt against the one who pays them. If they killed the Romans they got no more payment. Furthermore their families lived in Roman controlled territory. I do not know of any attempted uprise of auxiliaries against legions. The number of legionary troops was never a constant, so one can estimate that there were significantly more legionaries than you suggested. Wandalstouring 17:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Roman Legion was also enlarged to around 6 000 men and counted some supporting units not meant for combat. This total includes those supporting units and Auxilliaries/mercenaries in the employ of the Empire.--Dryzen 18:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some things... 

message: Ok, you want to list the campaigns here. What structure do you use? Random categorization by geographical area, commander, enemy people, social phenomena or official names of the wars?
"Back on track" is no good name for the reconquest of the former political position in Italy and the Samnite Wars.
So first of all we need a clear system here that makes it also easier to switch to the other articles in the Roman military history section, so our reader can easier get a picture of the technology, camapigns and development of the Roman army within a limited timeframe. If I have to remember all articles as a whole it gets much harder to find out the structure and technology during a campaign, etc. Wandalstouring 17:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. As I have stated before, I will be working limited mention of structural changes in to the main narrative, and providing links to the main article on that topic, just as the links are made to Empreror's names etc. I just haven't had a chance to do this because I am still converting the list of campaigns into prose (only 1 more section to go!). Links to the structural and technological history as a whole are also ptovided on the navigation template at the top right. With regards to the battle being confusing without reference to structure etc, most properly written battle articles will contain an exact list of troop types and troop numbers as per wiki guidelines. The structure I am using for the article is a semi-chronological one, although with groupings by topic too. THis is an approach used by many authors on the subject whose books I am using to fill out the narrative, it seems to be very common and the best approach. The titles of each era are meant to sum up a small grouping of campaigns - if you think a particular title would be better please change it, but leave the date in brackets at the end please. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 18:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my point, it needs finer links, closer to the periods and this loooooooong list needs subdivision. Wandalstouring 18:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh sorry, I'm with you now - you think the current single level of subdivision needs breaking down into two levels with eg (roman republic), (roman early empire), (mid empire), (late empire) as one level, and then the existing sections as subdivisions beneath that? That sounds fine to me - good idea, feel free to go ahead and do that or let me know if you want me to do it, I don't mind either way. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 18:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Higher levels should be coherent in all daughter articles of Roman military history. So it is your choice. Wandalstouring 18:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't thought of that, that's a good idea to keep a coherent structure across all the articles.. I shall implement this now across all the history articles - PocklingtonDan 18:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have implemented this now across all the articles. Its shown that I really ned to fill int he pre-Republic campaign history - I shall do this tomorrow mainly using Livy's accounts for primary source and Grant for secondary source. I hope to finish the broad narrative of the later campaigns tomorrow too and begin working in links to structural changes etc, but all pending on free time of course! - PocklingtonDan 18:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structuring this article 

message: I note that some the section headings are "picturesque" or have a subtle bias "Back on Track", "... the  Celtic problem ..." (for the Celts their successes were not a problem ;) ). Unless there are any compelling reasons not to, some of the headings should probably be made "neutral" and "encyclopedic in tone". Not nearly as fun, probably, but more keeping with a serious historical tone. - Vedexent (talk) - 21:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sorry, I just got bored typing and made the titles a little more fun. I realise its not very unencyclopedic and one of the more obvious ones has been changed already, feel free to go ahead and make them all a bit more proper! Cheers  PocklingtonDan 21:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Neutral Headings? 

message: Wandalstouring, you mentioned you thought several key campaigns and battles were missing including the above but nothing springs readily to mind looking at those names. Since they don't ring any bells with me (apologies if these are major conflicts I really should know about!), would you be able to work these into the article yourself or provide some more info and pointers on these so I can follow these up myself and find out some info for inclusion? Additionally, if anyone else has any more campaign or battle info that I've missed out, please add that too. Cheers  PocklingtonDan 21:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Garamantes, Meroe, Arabia, North Sea, Baltic Sea) - more details? 

message: An excellent start to the article, and a lot of work put in by PocklingtonDan, for which much praise should be heaped upon him  :)
I've taken the liberty of fitting the article with the existing campaign boxes which are part of the other articles about relevant wars and campaigns. This accomplishes two things. First, it provides "quick reference" to those reading the article looking for information on a particular battle or campaign rather than having to read through large swathes of text. Secondly, it allows the existing text to be pared down somewhat. In an effort to be comprehensive - a good thing - the text incorporates many lists of battles. These lists already exist in the campaign boxes , and I think campaign boxes are preferable because they are centrally managed, easily edited, preexisting, and are shared over many articles. They also have the advantage of brevity in that entire paragraphs can be collapsed into a single "info box", and the article is already getting quite long. Campaign boxes are also the convention in the Military History wikiproject, and one the means by which articles are tied together.
Interestingly, in outfitting the article, I found several instances where the article is more comprehensive than the existing campaign box, and the article also shows up several areas (especially in the Imperial period) where campaign boxes are missing entirely! Clearly room exists for improving the existing boxes. - Vedexent (talk) - 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think the campaign boxes are another great idea I just completely didn't think about! The article is a lot more coherent and structured with the campaign boxes in place. One point though - this article has been written in just a few days by one person and its contents really could do with some checking and alteration where necessary by more minds familiar witht he subject matter if possible. I'm trying to write the comparable technological and political history articles at the moment but after that I shuold bae able to come back and start citing this article properly etc. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 21:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: One other point you raise - I'm not sure if you're talking about removing references to battles from the mainbody of the article but if so please could you just be very certain they definitely existed in the campaign boxes before removing them. Also, whereas some of the list-like paras on battles could be replaced, certain key battles surely need to remain prominent in the text, such as Cannae and Adrianapole, and in fact expanded a little bit to indicate importance and consequences etc. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 21:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely that all references to battles should not be taken out of the text. The campaign boxes simply allow the text to touch on the main point and pivotal battles (this is a summary article, with the highly detailed information being present in articles for individual wars and battles, after all), and leave the complete list of the campaign's battles to the information box - Vedexent (talk) - 21:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we use campaign boxes or something similar for the other articles (like a listing of different weapons and equipment, etc.)? Wandalstouring 22:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that templates/infoboxes for any information that can be centrally managed, and is quoted in numerous articles, is a good idea. I'm not quite sure what it is that you want to put in the infoboxes that you are proposing. - Vedexent (talk) - 04:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign Boxes 

message: I've read through Gibbon's coverage of this again, as well as Grant's History of Rome that I find very useful, and also looked at the coverage of the various battles on wikipedia and I'm still scratching my head trying to put together a coherent narative from it all, there's so many usurpers often concurrently fighting one another I can't make head or tail of it. So I apologise that this section remains uncompleted still. If anyone feels up to it, please feel free to expans this into narrative, if not I'll have a crack at it next week sometime if I can put aside more than a couple of minutes to get it straight in my head! Cheers - PocklingtonDan 21:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The usurpers themselves had some trouble keeping track. Shorten it and you get less confused. Wandalstouring 22:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be greatly shortened for simplicity I suppose but only once a campaign box or similar is set up for it containing the information on the battles or else this info is lost. I'm not sure how to set up campaign boxes or the portals mentioned either at the moment, will read up on this now - PocklingtonDan 08:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usurpers section - help! 

message: Since the other articles on Structure and Technology have been created this Article is now the oucast in naming style. I suggest renaming it to conform to the style used inthe other History articles:Structural history of the Roman military, Political history of the Roman military, Technological history of the Roman military and Military campaigns of ancient Rome. Seems strange dose it not? How about Campaign history of the Roman military?--Dryzen 18:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, will change this now. Any chance of a hand updating links??? Cheers - PocklingtonDan 19:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look of it if you haven't laready.--Dryzen 16:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename for normalisation 

message: I received a request on my talk page to have this page bot archived; EssjayBot IV has been approved for the task, and I have set it up to archive anything older than 30 days automatically. If there are objections to doing so, please raise them on my talk page as soon as possible. Essjay (Talk) 04:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: perhaps we should make a difference between an early, a middle and a later Republic. Wandalstouring 22:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sub-division structure is all bassed on the History Division, is it expected to followed by further divisions? If not it might be cleaner ot simply ignore that division, considerign the the entirety of the present article is History as presented in the Article name. Either way I shall be un-indenting the supplementary structure from History.--Dryzen 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it. Before I interfere in other articles I will let others judge. Wandalstouring 20:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indenting on the division of the Republic could help structure the leaps and bounds of the Roman History done during this periode, considering the slew of campaign during the republic shifted in character. Waht scope would you be following on dividing the Early, middleand late republics?--Dryzen 14:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The early Republic was about establishing Rome in Italy. The Mid-Republic entered the circle of great powers in the Mediterranean (Pyros was supported by the Ptolemaic Empire). The late Republic is the time of inner conflicts and excessive bribery (Jughurta). Wandalstouring 17:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar to what I had envisionned, you have my support.--Dryzen 20:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major division 

message: I'll take care of the Roman army structure. I wrote a paper once about the Roman army and I still have it on my computer.- B-101 14:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Early revisions

message: No mention of the hispanic campaings from 200 BC to the final cantabrian campaign of Augustus.-Fco
:Very true, my bad. I'll add this info now - PocklingtonDan 10:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hispanic Campaigns missing