Talk:Campaign history of the Roman military

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)

Working on a major revision, for what its worth. I hope to remove this from cleanup and stubs in the next week. Maastrictian 21:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Formatting of the battle list is poor. Do the notable players really belong in sublists? Doesn't take formatting clues from the main list of Roman battles. It also just repeats battles that are "major", without explicitly mentioning what makes a battle major. It could instead detail formative aspects of military history for every "major" battle, perhaps with articles per century if the main article gets too big. The current list has some added value, but not much. Unfortunately, pesky RL concerns prevent me from undertaking this project for at least another week, and even then it'll be slow (plus, of course, I have zero knowledge of Roman military history, but that can be overcome. :-) If anyone feels inspired? JRM 15:46, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

A couple of points that need to be added to this article:

. The early imperial & the later imperial armies were 2 very different organizations. By the 4th century the legionary structure of the Roman army had vanished for a number of reasons. The later imperial army was based on the existence of an elite group, the Comitatus, who were directly under the Emperor's command, & accompanied him with him as he travelled across the Empire.
. However, the individual legions did not all go away. One, Legio V Macedonica, is best known for being the military unit with the longest attested existence in history! -- llywrch 20:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

General Discussion

Someone rewrote my section on the early army. I have no problems with this, and I'd want to check my facts before debating anything they put forward in what I read. However, their discussion of battle tactics and weapons in the Marian army was unfortunately lacking in accuracy. No one, especially not battle-armored legionaries, could chuck a pilum 100 yards. Further, artillery was only rarely used in the field, and automatic ballistas were more novelty toys than effective battlefield weapons. I'd like to straighten this out when I get a chance.

Bonjour, bonjour. It was I. I did it. But, it is not as bad as you think. First of all, this is a big subject and there are a lot of questions in it. Please see my suggestion of breaking this up below. Second, I am trying to get some info from "The Roman Legions" by H. M. D. Parker in there. It is a very scholarly work. Third, I haven't even started on the reforms of Marius, so if that has changed it was not I. As for the 100 yards, that is a maximum throw downhill. I read that I forget where now. I believed it because Roman soldiers worked out every day 4 hours doing things like throwing pila. As for the machines of war, I believe you are wrong there. Caesar sometimes used them on the flanks. If you want I can get the passage from de Bello Gallico. Neither of us has even touched the subject of Roman machines of war, which is a big one. They were in fact very effective, especially in a seige. As another example, there were plenty of bowmen, but none of us has said a word about it. And lastly, I would say this. Parker has footnotes on every page citing primary and secondary references. We could get to that level but I suspect it would take up too much space. Nevertheless there ought to be some of it in there. Your opinion or my opinion ought to come only after checking the source detail. There are quite a few different opnions, you know, even among the ancients. So, although I appreciate your toleration, statements like "lacking in accuracy" do indeed need to be verified against the sources. Do you know what is accurate? If not, you need to have some basis for generalization. I have a certain amount of time to spend on it. I will be glad to check anything out or work anything out with you. Go ahead, rewrite! But, unless we get some more space, not too much more can be done. We can revert and that is about it. Please do consider my suggested reorganization below.Botteville 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I have the answer to the 100 yards. The second rank threw over the heads of the first, often lanceae instead of pilae, and with the lanceae they used a throwing sling, the amentum.Botteville 00:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, and I'm glad that we have two people on this because it forces us to check our facts rigorously. I tried to find my primary sources in this (some Polybius and a good deal of Peter Connoly's work) but I may have left Connoly behind in London during my 6-month stay there one year ago. My email is: fabius.maximus@gmail.com - do email me and I'd be happy to, as you suggest, work with you on rewriting this and comparing our sources, their trustworthiness, and so forth in the event that they disagree. I very much look foward to undertaking this project, and I apologize for my delayed response - I've been extremely busy of late.

Plumbatae or Mattiobarbuli

Could someone familiar with the area have a look at this new page? I did wonder whether to redirect it here, but thought I'd leave it to the experts. Thanks PubLife 12:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I heard you, brother, and fixed it. Scholarship is great, I love it, but you need the books. The Internet alone just doesn't do it.Botteville 05:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, I'm not the only one to pick up the eagle you let fall. Gaius Cornelius has taken a hand. Aren't you pleased? Now we find out something closer to the truth. My verion is getting significantly changed. If you have something to add, please chip in.66.30.94.153 20:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Up Is Hard To Do! But Should Be Done. Yes?

The name is not really appropriate, is it? We have included the Roman Kingdom and the Roman Republic as well. A breakup seem warranted.
Suggestion 1. Create three articles. But then, that would break up the list of wars, which is very neat.
Suggestion 2. I notice that the section on Roman army is disproportionately blown up, which is partly my fault. There is so much to say on the Roman army! If we just have summary sections, Roman Army, Roman Navy, and have different modules on each discernable topic, then we all can have something to work on that can be more easily discussed and verified and we would get a lot more space. If we are keeping one overall article, this one, then "of the Roman empire" needs to be just "of Ancient Rome".
Suggestion 3. Revert out botteville. In that case I will concentrate on small subsidiary articles explicating some things, and that will give me a chance to bring in the sources. But, I dare say, I thought the former Roman Army part didn't really say much and also there were things in there that did not jibe with Parker, "The Roman Legions." That doesn't necessarily mean they were inaccurate, as all we have are ancient sources from which different conclusions can be drawn. Classicists spend quite a few words on this sort of thing.

What do you think?Botteville 01:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

salvete omnes: On the subject of breaking up an article, this needs to be done with some care, but generally YES. I think good articles are those that serve the reader best and we might hope that there will be many readers coming to an article on Roman military history with no preconceptions. The most important 'fact' about any topic of Roman history is simply that there is a lot of it - a thousand years or so in round numbers. It seems to me that the uninitiated reader is best served by a general article that gives a panoramic view that infoms and possibly corrects the myopic Hollywood leather Cuirass and coal scuttle helmet image. The reader, if still interested, should be led to more detailed articles covering the kingdom, republic, empire and (I would add) late empire.

It is a common failing of Wikipedia that articles with general titles have specific content. For example, before I did something about it, the article on fishing was really an article on angling and sports fishing - and mainly in the USA at that. Ironically, this article seems to be an example of exactly the reverse: content more general that the title.

Gaius Cornelius 08:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]