From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger with Duce??[edit]

Not in the reader's interest. Mussolini is a single case, and not a formal title, neither military nor aristocratic. If duce remains too small to have a page of its own, it should rather redirect to Mussolini, not all kinds of duces that predate his fascism, unlikely to appeal specifically to the reader looking up duce. Fastifex 14:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Lists too long?[edit]

Is there a technical / layouting way of compacting them (like hiding the expanded 'contents' box)? [posted unsigned by ]

  • They're not, in fact deliberately limited to historically significant or otherwise notorious dukes; it's precisely because of detailed subsectioning that one can easily navigate to those data one seeks, and pass over what one isn't interested in Fastifex 10:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think an English explanation of these titles are in order[edit]

That's all I have to say. 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

King Arthur[edit]

I've included a bit about King Arthur being called dux bellorum to replace the former Dux Bellorum article, which erroneously claimed that "Dux Bellorum" was a title bestowed by Roman emperors to their supreme commanders, and which I've redirected to here. --Nicknack009 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Roman or not: 476?[edit]

I personnaly refer to the Byzantines as Romans, but I understood that wikipedia is following the majority and I was told that the majority believed the Byzantines as post-Roman. Should the small Byzantine section be moved to post-roman? Ciao grazie Mallerd (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

moved some usages to disambiguation page[edit]

I moved the material on the use of dux in educational settings and as a term of music theory to the disambiguation page, as they don't seem to belong on an SPQR page. The development of dux into the title Duke definitely does belong in the Post-Roman section, as does Mussolini's appropriation of the title (which ought to be elaborated, since it's related to the whole sphere of propaganda that debased the Roman fasces as a symbol of fascism). Cynwolfe (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)