Are these pictures really reenacted auxilliaries or legionary soldiers?11:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
(Tiberius 17)
Tiberius 16 contains the comment about the Illyrian war being the most difficult since the Punic wars "Illyrici defectione...quod gravissimum omnium bellorum post Punica". Dio Cassius LV.30 states that an invasion of Italy by the rebels was feared.
The purpose of comparing Illyricum to Yugoslavia is to give readers who are not familiar with ancient provinces a clear idea of the geographical area we are talking about.
So, unless you have some other objections, I propose to re-instate my previous text. Since it contains a mix of Dio Cassius and Suetonius, I propose to give the whole section on the Illyrian revolt a single reference with both authors quoted.
Apart from this, since you are listed as a co-ordinator of Roman military affairs, I would appreciate your comments about the whole Roman auxiliaries article, which as you will have seen, I have completely rewritten and expanded. Do you think anything needs to be added? Best wishes Andreas 26/7/07
Yugoslavia gives no clear idea since it is a shrinking state, better use a wikilink [[Illyria]] and you don't have to translate the Latin texts, I understand them. Greetings Wandalstouring 11:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I strongly favour to delete the reference to recent countries, instead you can use sections of rivers to describe in where legions where(for example: Upper Danube region). some of your coding needs a legend to be understandable. Wandalstouring 11:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
#Note 2 needs a more precise reference. (Livy 21-40 must be almost 800 pages).
semper fictilis 17:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
::(2) Fair point: I shall endeavour to provide more accurate Livy references Andreas 26/7/07
(1) If you think it would be useful, please do scan Cheesman's tables.
(2) I understand your point. But the term "subject" is not a good substitute, as it implies that the entities in question were under direct Roman rule, which of course many were not (we are using the same term to define peregrini remember). The reason I like the term "client king" is that it's familiar to most readers and fairly describes the amicus relationship: but I've added "subject provinces" and "protected city-states of the East" to cover your point. As you will see, I've revamped the whole Roman Republic section to bring in a paragraph on the Italian allies and explain the deficiency in legionary cavalry. I think we now have a section that has more precision, clarity and coherence.
(3) What about the demerger of the table? I take it you are going to move it to an article called something like "List of Roman auxiliary regiments"? Regards Andreas 27/7/07
(2) I accept your point about the treaty situation, so I have removed that part of the sentence altogether.
In general, I think your input is VERY useful. Keep up the good work. Vale, frater! Andreas 27/7/07
Hey, Semperfictilis (what does that name mean by the way?) I've added some more context on the relationship of the Augustan auxilia with the earlier Latin forces of pre-Social War, and on the growing role of indigenous cavalry in Republican warfare.
I think the article hangs together better now, with each paragraph linked to its predecessor and a common thread throughout. Do you have any more comments on the article as a whole? Andreas 28/7/07
I object the section auxiliaries in Britain since it requires such sections for all Roman provinces, making the article completely unreadable. My solution is to branch it out as seperate article. Wandalstouring 09:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Are these pictures really reenacted auxilliaries or legionary soldiers?11:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
(Tiberius 17)
Tiberius 16 contains the comment about the Illyrian war being the most difficult since the Punic wars "Illyrici defectione...quod gravissimum omnium bellorum post Punica". Dio Cassius LV.30 states that an invasion of Italy by the rebels was feared.
The purpose of comparing Illyricum to Yugoslavia is to give readers who are not familiar with ancient provinces a clear idea of the geographical area we are talking about.
So, unless you have some other objections, I propose to re-instate my previous text. Since it contains a mix of Dio Cassius and Suetonius, I propose to give the whole section on the Illyrian revolt a single reference with both authors quoted.
Apart from this, since you are listed as a co-ordinator of Roman military affairs, I would appreciate your comments about the whole Roman auxiliaries article, which as you will have seen, I have completely rewritten and expanded. Do you think anything needs to be added? Best wishes Andreas 26/7/07
Yugoslavia gives no clear idea since it is a shrinking state, better use a wikilink [[Illyria]] and you don't have to translate the Latin texts, I understand them. Greetings Wandalstouring 11:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I strongly favour to delete the reference to recent countries, instead you can use sections of rivers to describe in where legions where(for example: Upper Danube region). some of your coding needs a legend to be understandable. Wandalstouring 11:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
#Note 2 needs a more precise reference. (Livy 21-40 must be almost 800 pages).
semper fictilis 17:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
::(2) Fair point: I shall endeavour to provide more accurate Livy references Andreas 26/7/07
(1) If you think it would be useful, please do scan Cheesman's tables.
(2) I understand your point. But the term "subject" is not a good substitute, as it implies that the entities in question were under direct Roman rule, which of course many were not (we are using the same term to define peregrini remember). The reason I like the term "client king" is that it's familiar to most readers and fairly describes the amicus relationship: but I've added "subject provinces" and "protected city-states of the East" to cover your point. As you will see, I've revamped the whole Roman Republic section to bring in a paragraph on the Italian allies and explain the deficiency in legionary cavalry. I think we now have a section that has more precision, clarity and coherence.
(3) What about the demerger of the table? I take it you are going to move it to an article called something like "List of Roman auxiliary regiments"? Regards Andreas 27/7/07
(2) I accept your point about the treaty situation, so I have removed that part of the sentence altogether.
In general, I think your input is VERY useful. Keep up the good work. Vale, frater! Andreas 27/7/07
Hey, Semperfictilis (what does that name mean by the way?) I've added some more context on the relationship of the Augustan auxilia with the earlier Latin forces of pre-Social War, and on the growing role of indigenous cavalry in Republican warfare.
I think the article hangs together better now, with each paragraph linked to its predecessor and a common thread throughout. Do you have any more comments on the article as a whole? Andreas 28/7/07
I object the section auxiliaries in Britain since it requires such sections for all Roman provinces, making the article completely unreadable. My solution is to branch it out as seperate article. Wandalstouring 09:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |