Talk:Hastati

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Hastati has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 1, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
November 9, 2016 WikiProject A-class review Not approved
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-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.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Name[edit]

There is no point to the name of the Hastati. They were named after the long spear "hasta" they originaly carried as main weapon, while they stood in the second line between the principes which (as the name clearly says formed the first line) an the triarii in the third line. The flanks were normaly covered by socii.--84.129.237.207 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No the Principes stood in the second line, the hastati in front, look up the references in the article.--Serviam (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

some additions[edit]

Good articles. I just ran through your articles about the Triarii and the Hastati and will now read the ones about the Principes and Velites. Good work! Just don't get confused with the BC dates, 219 BC is 3rd century BC not 2nd. I also added to the use of the velites that their objective was to also throw the enemy line into confusion and in the Triarii article that they were sometimes used outside the battle. An additional reference could be made to the battle at Cynos Cepahlae, where they assaulted the back of the right wing of the Macedonian phalanx which was hard pressing the Romans in front of it while the first lines dealt with the still unformed left wing.

GK1973 (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, the century needs to be changed. I didn't revert the edit but some of the stuff in there isn't very clear, for example you replaced "lanes" wih "intervals", which isn't the right word really - though "large gaps at intervals" is the right usage; nearly every book I've read about the battle used the word "lanes", though one used "openings". "In an effort to throw the enemy line into disorder" - no doubt this is true but unsourced. Don't woryr htough it's only a simple matter of finding a reference. Also, Velites isn't one of my best articles, I wrote it when I was a "noob", and I had a new reviewer too. It could do with being reviewed again, though you inserted that there were 1,200 velties per legion. This is contradictary to the references in the article, and all my information. I have seen this figure in numerous places, though almost all were unreliable by wikipedia's standards.--Serviam (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at my changes. I know that they were reverted, we had a discussion and everything is OK.

1. "lanes" is actually not the correct word . It is "intervals". I can quote you many works, especially military treatises ancient and modern, that use the word. "gaps" is also used but in a more informal way.

2. actually "to throw the enemy line into disorder or confusion" is the phrase used in historical translation as your "harass", which is exactly the same thing. They are complete synonyms when it comes to pitched battle for disorder and confusion are the point of harassing the enemy line. The ancient Greeks called this "thorivos" which means noise, confusion. This vocabulary is also used in all translations of ancient and medieval texts on the matter discussed.

3. As for the 1.200 Velites, this is actually also what John Warry, one of your sources gives and is also completely sourced by Polybius and all other historians. I am very inerested in where you found the 1.000 men number. We know that the number o the Velites, the Hastati and the Principes were 1.200 in a legion (double that for a complete legion) and could come up to 1.500 when in great need (this should also be added). I can give you sources for all of these and will tomorrow when I return home. I also think that futher on in the same article you also give this number for the Velites (1.200), so look into this again to be certain.

If your interest lies on these matters I can provide you with many primary and secondary sources. You should of course read Polybius, Frontinus, Vegetius and Livy, especially Polybius has a very detailed account on the legionary selection, if I am not mistaken, in his 15th book. This is a must read and a must quote, you will love it!

I will tomorrow be able to reoccupy myself with the changes I did earlier today. If you wish me to propose them first here and let you make any changes I have no problem!


thanks

GK1973 (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

1. No either lanes or gaps is the correct word, intervals means something else completely.
According to wiktionary:
  1. A distance in space. (eg. there were lamposts at intervals along the street)
  2. A period of time. (eg. the man has a break at regular intervals throughout the day)
Ie. it would be correct to say "there were gaps at intervals along the line", but not "there were intervals along hte line"
2. Yes that's true, they're the same thing exactly, and I'll say again I didn't revert it.
3. I've read polybius, and seen the legionary selection bit, but I'm a bit hessitant to put that in here, in my opinion it belongs in an article about the army of the time as a whole, not just different troop types. I don't see John Warry anywhere. I got the velties figure from William Smith. Vegetius hasn't written anything about this period of Roman history, I've read all of his books. He wrote about the army around the time of Augustus. There are some interesting things in Livy.--Serviam (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hastati/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this aricle for GA status, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry but my internet is having problems at the moment so I might not be able to reply in a timnely manner.--Serviam (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole article, and therefore should have no new information (and so no need for references).
    • Prose issues:
    • Lead, "and were the lighter infantry in the legion with large shields and light armour" Should this maybe be "lightest infantry". It could just be the way this sentence is worded, it feels awkward to me.
    • Well, they weren't the lightest infatry, they were light, but not lightest, and I don't think I could say light because that would imply they were skirmisher type infatry...is there anotehr way we could word it?
    • Hmmm... Maybe "and wore light armor with large shields as some of the lighter infantry in the legion." Or something like this... Basically "and were the lighter infantry" just sounds...weird...to me.
    •  Done
    • The lead says that the hastati were some of the poorest men in the legion, but the Camillan system section says they were the second wealthiest. I see that you explain that the organizational reform made them into some of the youngest (and therefore assumably poorest, except that the groups weren't based on wealth?), but you may want to add a couple of sentences to the lead giving a general summary of how the use and composition of these troops changed.
    • It says they were the wealthiest after the principes, but the principes weren't the wealthiest. They were richer than the rorarii etc though. I will clarify this in the article and mention the stuff in the lead too.
    • Is this extra sentence satisfactory?--Serviam (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
    • The first section of the History and deployment section is unclear as to how the decline of the phalanx led to the creation of the hastati. Perhaps add another sentence or two describing how the Romans learning of the inadequacy of the phalanx led to the creation of the hastati.
    • They weren't "created" per se, they sort of evolved from a part of the old army, Hastati appear to have been remnants of the old third class of the army under the Etruscan kings. I had better make this clearer in the article...--Serviam (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I guess my main questions was basically how they went from fighting at the back of the phalanx to the front of the quincunx. If you have any more sources on this evolution, it would be great.
    •  Done
    • If you are going to italicize the names of the different groups of troops, do it all the time. Otherwise, never do it. Just make sure it is consistent.
    • They are supposed to be all italicised accoridng to guidelines....where are they not italicised? Sorry I'm having trouble spotting where but they should all be italicised, sorry.--Serviam (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • The main place I noticed it was the second paragraph of the Polybian system section, especially the (on my computer) third and fourth lines. There may be other locations, but this is where it really stood out to me.
    •  Done
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Have you thought about using a combined short ref/full ref format for your references? What I mean is using a short ref (author, book title since some of your authors have written more than one, page) in text, and then having the full ref in a separate section? This would reduce the amount of information in the in-text references and make that section easier to read, IMO. This isn't a requirement for GA, just a question/suggestion.
    • That could work. I'll address the other concerns first though, then maybe introduce the new ref format.
    • Two of your refs need page numbers.
    • This is hard...I read those books on the gutenburg project and there were no page numbers, and I don't know where I can find out what the page numbers were.
    • I see. In that case, could you note that they were from the Gutenburg site and perhaps provide a link? I would say link the book title, if possible.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    • It looks like there was some discussion going on about content issues after you nominated the article. Have these been resolved? It looks to me like they were a minor glitch, but I wanted to check.
    • That was prose issues mainly. The prose could be much better, and I intend to improve it. In a related article there is a disputed figure and a user made a comment on it above. His edits were reverted by someone else for being unsourced...I'm not exactly clear as to why, they were mainly prose improvements and nothing to reference...--Serviam (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Allright, just checking.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • Are there no images that could possibly be placed in this article? No image of the spear that they were named after, or any of the other equipment they used, or a drawing of a battle that they were in? This is not a requirement for GA, just another question/suggestion.
    • There is a hand drawn free image of the hasta, but I didn't want to include it because of its dimensions; it's really wide and not tall enough. I could include it if you insist. All of the images on commons are of later imperial legionaries, and I did find a few paintings elsewhere that were copyrighted, but I'm having trouble finding them again.--Serviam (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not insisting on there being a picture, just saying it would be nice if there was one. If you find one, great, if not, oh well! It's definitely not something that will hold up the GA.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

A few issues with prose/MOS, and a couple of questions regarding other stuff, but overall a nice article. I am going to place it on hold in order to allow you time to deal with the concerns I have raised. If you have any questions, please let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a problem if I have to keep the review open for a while longer than is usual. RL (and bad internet connections) do sometimes get in the way of all things Wiki! I've responded to your comments above. Dana boomer (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for this I made all the necessary changes last night clicked save page and and got "network error - connection timed out". I rang my ISP they say there's something wrong with internet in my area should be fixed shrotly but its been this way for a week so far...I will make the changes now anyway.--Serviam (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 Done I've addressed most of the conerns above I'd like your feedback on the article now.--Serviam (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking good. I've made some more tweaks, so please check those out and let me know if there's anything wrong with what I changed. It was mainly copyediting, spelling and italicizing - minor stuff, but I changed some wording around and I'd like your opinion on it before I pass the article. Other than that, I'd just like to see the links to the Gutenberg project put in before I move the article to GA. Dana boomer (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to pass this article to GA, as I think it meets the criteria. However, I would still like to see the Gutenberg project links placed in the article at some point if you have time. IMO, they would improve an already good article! Dana boomer (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Camillan Era equipment[edit]

I don't think the Hastati were armed with the Hastae in the Camillan era, rather the gladius. Is their a source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.141.160 (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Leves[edit]

I've viewed multiple sources from this article, and related articles, and not one of them clearly states that there were 20 leves attached to the 60 hastati of a maniple. Rather, the 20 leves were part of the 60 hastati.

Echo 48 (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)