Talk:Notitia Dignitatum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated B-class, 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Missing section[edit]

I'm puzzeled by this statement

Depending on the strength of units, the late 4th century army may, at one extreme, have equalled the size of the 2nd century force (i.e. over 400,000 men);[2] at the other extreme, it may have been far smaller.

and especially its citation of Heather's book because in my copy of that book he first gives the size during the 2nd century as 300,000 and then goes on to argue that by the 4th century it had been increased by maybe as much as one third Fornadan (t) 15:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


Is it worth adding any info on the workshops listed, fo you think? Salvianus (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Various versions available[edit]

Hi, the commons:Notitia Dignitatum images seem to come from a different version than the "Bayerische Staatsbibliothek: Notitia Dignitatum Clm 10291", 1542 manuscript scan. According to this archaeology site it comes from a 1436 version made in Basel and available in Paris: "Illustration from Notitia Dignitatum imperii romani (Basel ?, cca. 1436): Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France. Manuscripts. Latin 9661 (fol. 101 verso). See the catalogue L'Or des princes barbares. Du Caucase à la Gaule Ve siècles après J.-C., Musée des Antiquités nationales, château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye (21 septembre 2000 – 8 janvier 2001)/ Reiss-Museum Mannheim (11 février – 4 juin 2001), Éditions des la Réunion des Musées nationaux, Paris, 2000, p. 21.". If that's true, the statement in the lead: "All the known and extant copies of this late Roman document are derived, either directly or indirectly, from a codex (Codex Spirensis) that is known to have existed in the library of the cathedral chapter at Speyer in 1542 but which was lost before 1672 and cannot now be located" might be incorrect. Also, can we bring images on commons also from the "Bayerische Staatsbibliothek" version? They have some copyright statements there but do they make sense for a medieval document reproducing an ancient one? It would be great to have a section describing all these version available and later books interpreting the document. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)