Assessed as "NA" because this article would be better served as a list.--Looper5920 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Re-assessed as Stub for the time-being. Roger Daviestalk 03:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
"However, historically it became the accepted (substantivated) name for those Roman imperial troops (legions and auxiliary) which were not merely garrisoned at a limes (fortified border, on the Rhine and Danube in Europe and near Persia and the desert tribes elsewhere) — the limitanei or ripenses, i.e. 'along the shores' — but more mobile line troops; furthermore there were second line troops, named pseudocomitatenses, former limitanei attached to the comitatus; palatini, elite ("palace") units typically assigned to magistri militum; and the scholae palatinae of actual palace guards, notably under the magister officiorum, a major court official of the Late Empire." - That was probably the most complex sentence I've ever read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The beginning sentence-paragraph is so obscure and convoluted that it is impossible to copyedit for clarity. The original author, or someone else with knowledge on the subject, should rewrite in clearer language. To meet minimum Wikipedia quality standards, I would suggest the article should begin with an overview of what precisely Comitatenses were, and hold off on etymology and other peripheral info until later in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Why? Because both of these articles deal with late Roman field armies; both would cover much of the same ground, and both deal with similar organizations, the main difference being that the palatini were higher-status than the comitatenses. Ananiujitha (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it would only be worth doing if it added more depth to the already extensive Late Roman army. At present none of the three do this, so just merging them wouldn't add a great deal. Rather than dwell too much on the restructuring and size of the army as a whole (which is well covered in the main article) I'd suggest more detail on the make up and role of the field armies, plus some combat history of field army operations. If you do merge, I'd suggest a more descriptive title e.g. Late Roman field army, with diverts from the individual names, rather than string the names together in the title.Monstrelet (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
But late Roman army is (a) another article (b) too big to go through and (c) on several other topics too. "Rather than dwell too much on the restructuring and size of the army as a whole (which is well covered in the main article) I'd suggest more detail on the make up and role of the field armies, plus some combat history of field army operations." obviously, any discussion of their make up and role would have to combine these three, which is one reason I want to combine these. As for the title, I'm not sure, because the title could also describe earlier 3rd-century field armies which were structurally different. Ananiujitha (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
For symmetry/stylistic consistency, if we merge these to Late Roman Field Armies, we should probably move Limitanei to Late Roman Border Armies. Ananiujitha (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
You could do that, although you are really covering only one named group (possibly two if you count ripenses as separate). What you are trying for is something that works easily in search, especially for those who don't know much about the Roman army. On the Late Roman army, I'm seeing that as the base article and these two specialist articles as more in-depth studies. So you can rely heavily for background on the base article but ramp up the detail in the specialist ones.Monstrelet (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
True. Although referring to "border armies" would avoid some of the special definitions people impose on the situation; some of structural history implies that Luttwak did not see the border cunei as part of the limitanei. Ananiujitha (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, to me, unit types imply different tactical roles and equipment types like, inter alia, Sagittarii and Clibanarii. Perhaps unit status distinctions? Ananiujitha (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
"type" is intentionally vague, to allow listing of various categories of unit types. Type can be classed by size, by purpose, by equipment, etc. That allows organization of the list by section for period or calvary vs infantry, or legions vs auxillae etc. -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.
Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. GenQuest"Talk to Me" 15:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)