This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Structural history of the Roman military article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Structural history of the Roman military is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 3, 2009. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of relief/sculpture of a Roman soldier from the Marian period be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This is off-topic here; it may be a start on Archaeology of Rome; although such an article should really include Grant's assertions that the discoveries before the settlement of Rome are human and Neanderthal remains, quite possibly not from the site of Rome itself; end in 1400 BC; and are not from the [Villanovan and Italic] cultures of the settlers of Rome.
A reasonable passage would be something like Archaeological evidence suggests that Rome was first settled about 950 BC; it was first urbanized about 650 BC. There is no archaeological evidence for their military structure. But even this would only be germane in debunking the Varronian dating from 753 BC, as Grant does; and I'm not sure this article needs to do that.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
This Featured Article had its last review in 2008 and since then has fallen a bit out of standards. Issues spotted:
Needs tune-up; if the issues above are not corrected, the article can be nominated for Featured Article review. RetiredDuke ( talk) 11:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
In the quote table within "Professionalisation during the Republican period", Polybius is said to write "...four thousand foot and two hundred horse..."; however, reading Histories 1 16:2 he states "...four thousand foot and three hundred horse...". This is made even more strange by the fact that the quote table follows up with "when any unusual necessity arises, they raise the number of foot to five thousand and of the horse to three hundred". Maybe I'm not searching thoroughly enough, but I can't even find a mention of any such clause either in the original Greek or in LacusCurtius.
What is it really even citing? Where does "1:268-70" make an appearance in Histories?
Apalsnerg ( talk) 06:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Seek (hard enough) and ye shall find,
Apalsnerg -
[1] It's Polybius 3.107 and the next few lines, and it's accurate. But whover copied and pasted it rather scrambled the numbers. The 268 tallies with the pagination of the original paper edition. Quite apart from being wrong, it's also a good argument against the truncation of page numbers (as in 268-70), rather than giving whole page numbers (as in 268-270).
Nice find on your part though... this one got right through the first
Featured Article assessment process with that mistake intact. But not this time.
I'll leave the correction to you! Haploidavey ( talk) 09:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I suspect it has simply been an automatic replacement process and not vandalism, but the Pilum made from "Popular imagination" feels misplaced... poplar wood maybe? -- 84.118.56.83 ( talk) 00:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm WP:BOLDly merging Military establishment of the Roman Kingdom (poorly sourced since creation in 2005) and Military establishment of the Roman Republic (unsourced since creation in 2005) into this article. There is so much WP:OVERLAP that we can regard them as WP:REDUNDANTFORKs but without added value. In January 2010 someone suggested something should be done about it, and then... nothing happened. Both pages seem to have nothing unique that is valuable enough to be preserved and migrated into this article, except for 3 sources that we might be able to reuse if anyone's interested:
@ Botteville, Monstrelet, and Cynwolfe: pinging original creator, and two users who discussed it in 2010, as all three have been active in the past several days and might like to know. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Structural history of the Roman military article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Structural history of the Roman military is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 3, 2009. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of relief/sculpture of a Roman soldier from the Marian period be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This is off-topic here; it may be a start on Archaeology of Rome; although such an article should really include Grant's assertions that the discoveries before the settlement of Rome are human and Neanderthal remains, quite possibly not from the site of Rome itself; end in 1400 BC; and are not from the [Villanovan and Italic] cultures of the settlers of Rome.
A reasonable passage would be something like Archaeological evidence suggests that Rome was first settled about 950 BC; it was first urbanized about 650 BC. There is no archaeological evidence for their military structure. But even this would only be germane in debunking the Varronian dating from 753 BC, as Grant does; and I'm not sure this article needs to do that.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
This Featured Article had its last review in 2008 and since then has fallen a bit out of standards. Issues spotted:
Needs tune-up; if the issues above are not corrected, the article can be nominated for Featured Article review. RetiredDuke ( talk) 11:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
In the quote table within "Professionalisation during the Republican period", Polybius is said to write "...four thousand foot and two hundred horse..."; however, reading Histories 1 16:2 he states "...four thousand foot and three hundred horse...". This is made even more strange by the fact that the quote table follows up with "when any unusual necessity arises, they raise the number of foot to five thousand and of the horse to three hundred". Maybe I'm not searching thoroughly enough, but I can't even find a mention of any such clause either in the original Greek or in LacusCurtius.
What is it really even citing? Where does "1:268-70" make an appearance in Histories?
Apalsnerg ( talk) 06:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Seek (hard enough) and ye shall find,
Apalsnerg -
[1] It's Polybius 3.107 and the next few lines, and it's accurate. But whover copied and pasted it rather scrambled the numbers. The 268 tallies with the pagination of the original paper edition. Quite apart from being wrong, it's also a good argument against the truncation of page numbers (as in 268-70), rather than giving whole page numbers (as in 268-270).
Nice find on your part though... this one got right through the first
Featured Article assessment process with that mistake intact. But not this time.
I'll leave the correction to you! Haploidavey ( talk) 09:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I suspect it has simply been an automatic replacement process and not vandalism, but the Pilum made from "Popular imagination" feels misplaced... poplar wood maybe? -- 84.118.56.83 ( talk) 00:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm WP:BOLDly merging Military establishment of the Roman Kingdom (poorly sourced since creation in 2005) and Military establishment of the Roman Republic (unsourced since creation in 2005) into this article. There is so much WP:OVERLAP that we can regard them as WP:REDUNDANTFORKs but without added value. In January 2010 someone suggested something should be done about it, and then... nothing happened. Both pages seem to have nothing unique that is valuable enough to be preserved and migrated into this article, except for 3 sources that we might be able to reuse if anyone's interested:
@ Botteville, Monstrelet, and Cynwolfe: pinging original creator, and two users who discussed it in 2010, as all three have been active in the past several days and might like to know. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)