User talk:Wandalstouring/Archive 4

Hello, crossbow

"Hi, could you name some sources for your edits in the crossbow article otherwise the information is not valid and can be deleted. Thank you. Wandalstouring 09:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)"

Which part are you refering to? It was a long time ago so I don't remember. Intranetusa 21:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle of Cape Esperance

There's a new peer review request for Battle of Cape Esperance that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Wandalstouring 15:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's me, cla68, that submitted that article. I changed my signature recently. CLA 22:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Aviation history of Bangladesh

You wrote, "Wikipedia is an anarchy. You can't order people to expand sth. If you want work done, then do it yourself." And, I guess, you have a little misunderstanding here. If you don't mind, I'd like to differ on few points here.

1. Wikipedia is not an anarchy. (see: Wikipedia is not an anarchy)
2. Rather, Wikipedia is collaboration of a community of volunteers like you and I, and 4 million other people. (see: Wikipedia community and Wikipedia:Wikipedians)
3. Asking for expert attention or a collaboration is standard practice at Wikipedia.
4. You'll be surprised at the level of help articles can get if you ask for it.
5. And, finally it's favor for favor community. For every help request I post, I receive two. And, at least half of the times I get to respond to the requests.

Saying all that, I can see where you are coming from - the article you are talking about is in pretty bad shape, and you may be are irritated to have such a badly shaped article on your plate. Sorry, I guess, I need to work more on the projects/articles I'm getting myself into. Thanks for opening my eyes. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 13:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI

AfD 69.150.51.11 18:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks, WT, for the cool userbox, which I've added to my user-page. semper fictilis 12:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

contact

Since I am not very good with the code, can you help me fit the contact userbox onto my userpage? Thanks. Beit Or 13:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: userbox contact

By "shortcut", do you mean a shorter template name (e.g. {{WPMILHIST Contact}}), or something else? Kirill 18:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, done. I think I fixed Beit Or's page too, although I'm not quite sure if it was the effect he was looking for. Kirill 18:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Third Punic War

Please check before accusing others of vandalism. From Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum: "When Cato insisted "Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed), Corculum responded that Carthage must be saved." From Scipio: "Ironically, another Scipio (Scipio Nasica) had opposed any further war with Carthage, arguing that Rome needed a strong rival to keep her older values." From [1]: "Scipio Nasica held the contrary opinion that Carthage ought to be spared so that the Roman discipline, which was already relaxing, might be preserved through fear of her." From [2]: "Thereupon without fail, Scipio Nasica, in his turn, would make answer: 'And I, for my part, think that Carthage should be left standing!'". This is just a quick search on Google. GhePeU 12:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Review of Structural_history_of_the_Roman_military

Hi Wandalstouring, since you are an editor interested in the Roman military but have not contributed to this particular article I was wondering if you were able to assist in the A-class review of this article please located at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Structural_history_of_the_Roman_military. Any suggestions you can make for approval would be appreciated - I plan to take the article to FA but given how tough that process is I would like to get as many problems sorted out in the A-class review prior to submitting it for FA - the more suggestions you can make for imrpvoement the better! Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)

Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), an article reviewed by you for the A-class of WP:MILHIST, is now a Featured Article Candidate. You may want to see how it has changed since then, suggest further improvements, address current comments and vote.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:crossbow

Hi, Unfortunately I don't have any information about warfare and weapons. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 19:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Selby's Chinese Archery (ISBN 9622095011) has a good chunk of his book devoted to the use of the crossbow. I suggest you look the book up to help greatly expand the meager Asia section of the crossbow article.(Ghostexorcist 01:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

Much busyness

Thought I'd let you know, I'm not very active at the moment because I've recently started a new job. Lots of travel, four hours a day, so I'm not in a position to pay much attention here. ALR 20:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, good luck with the new job. Wandalstouring 09:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: early muslim military history

I can go ahead and do it today; does that work for you? Kirill 13:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we were considering this as essentially being a history of the "Muslim states" during the period, not necessarily the period as a whole. (I don't really care all that much either way, to be honest; but I think that listing it under periods might be more confusing.) Kirill 13:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, okay; that's fine with me. Kirill 16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, definitely not my area of expertise. :-) Kirill 16:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Language in Council House Fight

Kirill Wandalstouring One of our contributors had some concerns about the neutrality of the language in my new article Council House Fight. He, and several other good folks, such as Jonashart and Ewulp, who I asked for help, worked hard on it, and I think the language is certainly now extremely neutral. Would you two be kind enough to review it, and see if it is appropriate to remove the tag? I have asked all editors involved in the review to do so also, but it never hurts to have you looking also! I have significantly more information to add to the article from my last trip to the Library of Congress, but want to make sure the neutral tone issue is settled before fleshing it out. (Once that is completed, the Texas series is pretty much up to snuff -- all 5 new ones I wrote are up to B status! -- and I am switching to all the Mongol series existing articles, with 7 new ones I am adding) Thanks!old windy bear 23:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: wikistress hotline

I'd really have preferred a bit more reaction from people before we set anything up, since this is an effort that will really need wide participation to work. In the absence of any objections, though, I suppose we can set up something light-weight and informal in a few days or so, and see where we can go from there.

Are you generally okay with the two-sided approach I had proposed (i.e. a combination of central discussion area with more personal outreach), or did you have some other setup in mind for this? Kirill 17:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Punic War

I have been working on a structure for all the battles of the Second Punic war. My idea is that there are three theaters and three phases. The Theaters are Western-, Central- and Eastern Mediterranean and the phases are from 219 until 213, and from 212 until 207 and from 206 until 202. What's your opinion, is this an acceptable approach? Wandalstouring 06:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that in broad terms this is the right way to go at it, but I'd suggest the periods need a little adjustment. This is how the Cambridge Ancient History (1st ed.) breaks this down:

I Hannibal's Invasion of Italy

i) Outbreak of war

ii) The rival war plans

iii) Hannibal's march to Italy

iv) The Ticinus and Trebia

v) Trasimene

vi) Fabius Cunctator

vii) Cannae

II The Roman Defensive

i) The invasion of Spain (218-215)

ii) The war in Sicily

iii) The advance and defeat of the Scipios (The Roman disaster in Spain)

iv) The Roman resistance in Italy after Cannae

v) The taking of Capua

III Scipio and Victory

i) Nova Carthago

ii) Baecula, Iliipa, the conquest of Spain

iii) The Metaurus

Hope this helps. semper fictilis 19:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kyriakos 12:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't you running for reelection? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:RJASE1

You left a note for him on his talk page. He has permanently left the project. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 13:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 09:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sino-Indian War

As requested I'll be very happy to take a look over the article this weekend. Flat out at work at the moment so not before then I'm afraid.

Regards

ALR 21:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves

By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your long and dedicated service as a project coordinator and your many contributions to the structure and operations of the project. For the coordinators, Kirill 14:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fall Blau

Fast service. Thanks. Trekphiler 12:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Islamic military jurisprudence

Thanks for letting me know. I have commented on it. Beit Or 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:LacusCurtius.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:LacusCurtius.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

about punic

hallo! there is a stub among the battles of the second punic war called "po valley raid". the subject of the article is not made clear although there is a request for expanding. i'm asking for confirmation: is it about mago barca's campaign in Liguria and Cisalpine Gaul in 205-203 BC? Dobrin 21:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Href

Hi. Am working on the uncategorised templates. Please can you let me know if Template:Href is still needed ? thisisace 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Listed?

I'm pretty sure we are listed on the appropriate page(s) in the directory (probably under History and Society, unless someone's rearranged things since the last time I looked). Kirill 16:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

History coordination

So you want to be a coordinator? Well, I could use some help because I'm very busy right now. What I really need help with is getting the task forces back on track. I'll put your name down as a coordinator if you're sure. Bear in mind that once the project gets larger there'll be some sort of election and you may lose your position, though I doubt it--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 13:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the first thing that needs to be done is to get the task forces in order. Could you have a look and see what needs to be done? thanks--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 14:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I already suggested that here but it was decided to keep them. They really need to be organised though--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 14:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've written to some of the projects but others still need to be contacted--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 15:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

History Project

Sure thing. I'm also way ahead of you, in that I've already been assessing tons of articles, adding banners to their talk pages, and improving them from stub to start class, or close to B.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Wandal, thanks for the invitation. I was wondering if you would like me to begin assessing high class WP:MILHIST articles with a WP:History banner. Kyriakos 07:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

New material in Horses in Warfare

Hey, could you pop over to Horses in warfare and check out the new subsection Horses in warfare#Cavalry in Central Asia? The editor who created this section is very sincere and has many sources, but his contributions are kind of a mess and I could use a little help with the cleanup. I took the whole section and created Talk:Horses_in_warfare#Central_Asia_Cavalry_Sandbox, where you can see I cut the length, tried to make some sense of the edits, etc. I really appreciate the efforts of this editor, as the article did need more info on Asia, but it's sort of a jumbled recitation of names and events, without a real clear notion of why it matters. I have been giving him some suggestions on how to edit and getting appropriate responses, but there is still some confusion. You are pretty good at cutting to the chase and pinpointing problems and I would appreciate your feedback and help (but PLEASE BE NICE to this editor, OK?? He appears to be working VERY hard!!) And let's keep the edits in the sandbox until we have it fixed, I don't think the article will have its GA status threatened if there is a wordy subsection in there for a couple of weeks. I did recommend he also consider starting a new article, as he obviously has tons of material. Montanabw^(talk) 06:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 01:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Roman auxiliaries

Hi Wandalstouring. I'm getting template error messages on notes (k) and (y) in this article and I don't understand what's wrong. Can you take a look? Best wishes EraNavigator 18.30 24/11/07 —Preceding comment was added at 17:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Roman auxiliaries

Hi Wandalstouring. (1) to reduce the size of Roman auxiliaries, I propose to transfer subsections 1.8 (4th century) and 1.9 (5th century) and their related footnotes (o to s inclusive) to a new page I've just created Late Roman army. I think the subsections would form a good basis for this topic. The problem is that I have no idea how to move chunks of text from one article to another. Obviously you could do it, but I think I should learn. I find the HELP pages almost incomprehensible. Could you leave me step-by-step instructions? Thanks (2) I have made List of Roman auxiliary regiments much more reader-friendly. The tables were obviously far too long and over-detailed. I have managed to drastically reduce the Table sizes while still retaining essential data, cutting overall page size by 50%. (NB I have decided to reimport discussion of deployments into Roman auxiliaries) I have done the same process for the Table of early Empire legions which I compiled a while ago for List of Roman legions: by reconfiguring the table, I have succeeded in getting rid of c50 footnotes, while still keeping the Table to one line per legion. Please take a look and tell me what you think. Best wishes EraNavigator 1 Dec 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wandalstouring. (1) I think I know where the 512 figure comes from. It's in Adrian Goldsworthy's Complete Roman Army p57. I think the problem is that noone knows exactly how large a turma (the ala 's subunit) was, except that it was circa 30 men. It is known that there were 16 turmae per ala. On p57 text, Goldsworthy suggests that a turma contained 32 men: that would give 512 total. But he contradicts himself on the same page in the caption to the illustration showing a quingenary ala on manoeuvres: there he says it contains 30 men, which gives 480 total. In view of the fact that the latter figure is the same size as a quingenary cohort, and that it is the figure given in Cambridge Ancient History, I think it is best to accept the lower figure. (2) So can you tell me how to move the text I mentioned in the previous message, above? Best wishesEraNavigator (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Salve Wandalstouring. Nice to hear from you again. I've almost finished Roman auxiliaries: check out expanded structure and everydaylife sections. Have you seen the other articles I've written: Peregrinus (Roman), Laeti, Roman roads in Britain, and a start on Late Roman Army? Please tell me what you think of these. Outside the Roman era, I've written (wholly or mainly) Battle of Navarino, Cape Sounion, Paros, and Via Aemilia. Please don't leave me alone for so long. Best wishes EraNavigator (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Salve. I don't believe Caesar's recruits were Latin citizens: Gallia Cisalpina contained a large number of Roman colonies, all of which received full citizenship after the Social War, if they didn't already have it. In any case, Roman auxiliaries is concerned with the professional Augustan army, rather than the Republican levy army. During the Principate it was definitely the rule that legions only admitted citizens. cf Goldsworthy Complete Roman Army 78 where he mentions the case of an optio who was court-martialled accused of having lied about his citizenship. Or Mattingly An Imperial Possession 168, where he suggests the legions in Britain were obliged to recruit outside the province because there were not enough citizens in Britain to satisfy the legions' annual recruitment needs. Having said that, it is likely that during times of emergency, when large numbers of troops needed to be raised, that the rule was bent by simply awarding citizenship on enlistment: the evidence for this is discussed in note (m). But these were just exceptions. In general the rule was strictly enforced. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(2) You're right the Roman law/customary law interaction needs more research. I will look into it.
(3) "Paved" means with an artificial surface, also called "metalling" i.e. not just beaten earth. "Trunk road" means highway or main road. I agree that these terms are not well-known outside Britain. Maybe I should use the term "surfaced highway"? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Salve. I hope you had a nice Christmas. About those troop numbers. Have you seen the note I attached a while ago to the Unit Strength Table pointing out the possibility that the ala had 512? The evidence is not conclusive either way. Where there is dispute about facts, I prefer to use the Cambridge Ancient History version, since this is widely regarded as the most authoritative work. It is also more recent than Breeze and others: Volume XI was published in 2000. It seems to me that there are 2 good reasons for preferring 30 rather than 32 (let alone 42) for the size of an ala turma: (1) 30 is the size of a turma in the old Roman cavalry of the Republic and the Romans were extremely conservative in their military institutions; (2) 30 is generally regarded as the size of a turma in a cohors equitata of the Principate, implying that the old size remained standard. I am happy with the table figures as they stand , with the note. If you feel strngly otherwise, you are of course free to change the figures, but you should also add a note pointing out the alternative view. ValeEraNavigator (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Salve. It would be amusing to ask your prof for his views on the whole Roman auxiliaries article. He would probably think it's all rubbish! Still, I think it's better that an article generates some controversy than to just be a boring parrotting of established views. It makes life more interesting. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Mercenary War image

It seems to have been created by es:Usuario:RedTony. His babel box says he can speak English fairly well, so I'll leave you to contact him. -Oreo Priest 15:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Reactivate publication departement

Certainly possible, but we'd need some reasonable plan for how we'd actually get it to do anything productive. Simply leaving it open didn't really produce results the last time around, unfortunately.

(There was a brief discussion, at one point, regarding using something like Veropedia as our main "publication" venue, since it would simplify our aspect of the work to just selecting the appropriate high-quality articles. I'm not sure whether this option is worth pursuing.) Kirill 16:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding

Wandalstouring, thanks for your input on the RfC for the Waterboarding article. I encourage you to express "support" or "oppose" for the new lead proposed by Shibumi2 on the Talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waterboarding#Shibumi2_second_attempt_at_new_article_lead

Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek. That user was blocked for sockpuppetry. Lawrence Cohen 19:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Phoenicians and market theory

Not really my area, but I'll look into it. Ifnkovhg (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and Happy New Year

Firstly, let me wish you a very happy New Year and thank you for your help in the Milhist Tag & Assess 2007 drive.

Secondly, although the Tag & Assess 2007 drive is now officially closed, you are very welcome to continue tagging and assessing until 31 January 2008. Any articles you tag and assess during this time will be credited fully to your tagging tally for further award purposes.

Thirdly, if you can find the time, it would be great to have your feedback/comments and participation in the recently-set-up Tag & Assess workshop The idea is to see what lessons we can learn from the 2007 drive to make the 2008 one more efficient and enjoyable.

Thanks again for your help, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Crossbow vs Catapults/Ballistas

The Ballista is a form of catapult that shoots stone weights or balls. It does not shoot bolts. The "Roman ballista" or scorpion, is the variant that shoots bolts. Catapults/Ballistas use torsion in the animal sinews/ropes for energy, whereas a crossbow uses the tension in the arch of the frame for energy. Intranetusa (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you, but literature has it that the scorpion is a ballista. You seem not familiar with wikipedia editing. Please answer at the bottom and not on the top of a talk page. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said. I said "the scorpion is a variant of the ballista." The scorpion shoots bolts while the ballista shoots stones. A scorpion is a ballista, but a ballista is not always a scorpion. Intranetusa (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army

Salve, Wandalstouring. Happy New Year. Check out my latest additions to Late Roman army: I think your professor will like this even less than Roman auxiliaries. I demolish every single traditional view of the 4th century army: that it was much larger than the 2nd century army; that limitanei were poor-quality troops; that cavalry became more important than infantry; that barbarian recruits ruined the Roman army. Tell me what you think. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Salve. Thanks for the prompt response. I know about the "no original research" rule: mostly I do not violate it, as my text is largely based on published books. The only thing that could (perhaps) be regarded as original is the table on the field army numbers, drawn from the Notitia Dig. But similar analyses have been published in the past. I think you are right about publishing my own work: I have always wanted to write my own books on history and archaeology, and other subjects. I am using my contributions to Wikipedia as training in research and writing techniques. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Roman military assumed many Germanic customs in the 4th century, such as dress and the barritus a German war-cry. But my point is that this barbarian influence in no way reduced the effectiveness of the army, or contributed to the fall of the western empire. On the contrary, the barbarian-born recruits probably delayed the fall by providing the army with badly-needed first-class soldiers. I have Heather's book (I quote from it in the article): as you say, some of his views are different from my guru Goldsworthy. But I follow Goldsworthy because he is thorough and ruthlessly objective: he will not accept a theory unless it is supported by hard evidence. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Salve. Thanks for the editing. You're right about the citations needed. Well, this article is only at its starting point: I intend to expand it considerably. But at least it has already highlighted some key issues. Heather's views about the impact of barbarians on army discipline do merit further research. In an ideal world, I would read 100 books on the subject: unfortunately, in the real world, time is very limited. Anyway, I value your input. Vale EraNavigator talk) 22:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Salve. I haven't finished the section yet. I intend to restore mostly the same points as before. The aim of the restructuring is to put the issues more precisely. I have a habit (irritating to others) of constantly rejigging paragraphs & sections until I'm fully satisfied the points are clear and consistent. So please wait until you see the final version Vale EraNavigator (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I really shouldn't sic you on anyone, but (grin)

This article (Military animal) may have escaped your notice and perhaps it needs your tender touch. But be nice, OK? I added a couple minor things, but don't have the time to devote to it. Could become a nice summary to lead into the other assorted article, though. Montanabw^(talk) 04:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Externalimagestest

A tag has been placed on Template:Externalimagestest requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you spam

		My RfA
		Thank you very much, Wandalstouring, for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

Late Roman army

Hi Wandalstouring. Following your advice, I've added an external link to FECTIO, a Dutch re-enactment group which is the biggest for the late Roman army. Best wishes xxxx EraNavigator (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Salve Wandalstouring. I found an image of our own (from Wiki Commons) showing a late army infantryman (re-enactor). So I've used it to replace the external images you inserted. The external officer is much the same as the Commons infantryman, and the external picture of the two external foot soldiers, which I believe are inaccurate: their helmets are wrong. If you don't agree with this, fell free to reinstate the external images. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Salve. Check out the two more images I've uploaded from Wiki Commons, and the captions I've written. The main thing missing now are images of late Roman cavalry: normal, cataphracts and mounted archers. Can you help with this? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Salve. Thanks for the suggestions: one or two of those images would be useful. However, before we resort to external links, it would be much better if we can find images we can upload directly. I'm still looking through the Wiki database if there is anything. It might also be possible to get one of our contributors who knows how to produce our own tailor-made images with computer graphics? I'll get back to you if I find anything interesting. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Salve. I've found a Roman cataphract re-enactor. I've added the image to your list of external images. Check it out. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Salve. I've added more images of the same reenactor. I've removed the image of "late Roman archers" because this is actually a still from the Gladiator movie, which was set in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (2nd century). I'm also going to upload more images from Wiki Commons relating to cataphracts. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Salve. Yes, I agree. Once the text is complete, I will reorganise the image layout. At the moment, I'm just uploading relevant images. That cataphract re-enactor has some impressive kit, don't you think? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Salve. Are you sure about removing the Khazar picture? It is the only internal image I can find that portrays cataphract armour. The armour is accurate: you can see the mixture of scale armour (main body) and lamellar plates on the legs. The Khazars were the successors of the Alans in southern Russia and adopted their military equipment. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 08:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Salve. I would prefer it if the peer review (whatever that is!) could wait until I have finished writing the article: I'm only about halfway. Amor EraNavigator (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Salve. Sorry, ignore the above. I thought you were talking about Late Roman army. Roman auxiliaries is essenbtially complete, so it's fine to submit it. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Salve. I must object to the inclusion of the graph on Roman military manpower, as it directly contradicts what I say in my text about army size, both for the 2nd century and the 4th century. The graph is based on the views of some older scholars. In the text, I discuss, and reject, the view that the army was 600,000 or more. It is clearly inappropriate to have a graph next to the text that says the opposite . I propose to remove this graph, and ask someone to draw a revised graph giving the modern figures for army size. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Salve. I have a suggestion: why don't you ask the cataphract reenactor to donate some of his pictures to Wiki Commons? (Category:Roman legion|Reenactment) His armour (which he made himself, it appears he is a professional armourer) seems to be

unique. He can be contacted at whitelionarmoury@hotmail.com That way we can use his pictures directly in our articles. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Salve. I explained why above. I think the graph should be consistent with the text, otherwise it will confuse the reader. I plan to produce my own graph, which will illustrate what I say in the text (that the 4th century army was no greater than the 2nd century army), but I will set it against the traditional view (that the 4th century army was much greater, perhaps double, the size of the 2nd century army). EraNavigator (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Salve. My text is not original research. It is based on data from Holder, Innes, Goldsworthy, Mattingly and Heather, all works produced since 2000. Your "sourced graph" is based on out-of-date authors, whose views have been superseded (but which I discuss in the text). The basic argument is simple: the 2nd century army was c400,000 (Holder, Innes) and the 4th century army

was (at most) 450,000 for a brief period under Constantine. If you read the text, you will see that it is all properly referenced. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Salve. I have revised my text on Army Size to take into account your comments (without changing my basic point). As you will see, there is no original research: everything is referenced to published sources. I hope this meets your objections. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on MilHist

Howdy Wandalstouring. Just to clarify, your last comment on WP:MilHist was not directed towards me, correct? The positioning makes it somewhat difficult to tell. Oberiko (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, that's what I figured but just wanted to confirm. Thanks for the rapid update. Oberiko (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army

Salve. Can you please explain to me what these peer reviews are for? And who are the peers? Also, despite what you said, I think it would be a useful exercise to produce an updated version of the graph: this time, based entirely on estimates in recently published works: i.e. published within the last 10-15 years. The problem with the graph as it stands is that most of the estimates are from works published 25-50 years ago and therefore did not benefit from the emnormous amount of archaeological evidence accumulated since. I'll let you know once I've got some recent estimates together. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army

Greetings, Wandalstouring.

I will try my best to help with the "Late Roman army" article. However, most of my books are about the History of the Late Roman army. There isn't much on tactics, equipment, or strategy. However, I shall try my best to find something. Thank you very much! --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Salve. Frankly, I didn't like the tone of your last message: it was rude and arrogant. I appreciate your input, but you must be polite, as I am with you. As regards the image I added, I cannot see what I did wrong: when I tested it, the image came up promptly. Would you please explain what was wrong? (The reason I added it was because the reenactor image you chose shows him without his lance, which was the cataphract's main weapon). N.B. I see from the message above that you have invited someone else to get involved in writing the article. Since I started this article, and am still in the middle of writing it, I think you should have asked my permission before doing this. I would much prefer to have time to complete the article myself before others get involved: otherwise, there is a danger that the end product will be incoherent and contradictory. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously other editors can get involved. But I am asking, as a matter of courtesy, that I be allowed to complete the article myself first. Once it's complete, you can bring in whoever you like, and they can make whatever changes they see fit. As I see it, we are doing fine together, with me as the writer and you as consultant. We don't need anyone else at this stage. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Talking of which, I would like to change the "please help expand" message with the "under construction" message, but I don't know the protocol. Can you tell me what it is? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

About my added external image: I really don't get what you mean about the lance being really a sword. I just checked it on the edit history, and if you click on "cataphrsact reenactor (1): with lance", you get exactly that. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Second Punic War

I assume you mean the sections in the first half of the article? Those look quite fine. In my experience, the prohibition on OR isn't really applied to the decision of how to break the material into sections; and an obvious chronological and geographic breakdown should be fine regardless. So long as the sections aren't being organized so as to push a particular point of view, nobody should complain. Kirill 14:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: template external images

I don't think it makes much difference, from our perspective, whether the template links purely to images or to other forms of media as well. Some stuff will be of such poor quality that it won't be worth linking to—but that's true regardless of the format. Kirill 16:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be pretty easy to create copies of the template for other media types. Do we only need two (audio & video), or is there some other type we need to be concerned with as well? Kirill 16:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist awards

Did you mean to wipe out Bedford's nom with this edit? By the way I was thinking about nomming Kirill as well though I was going to wait until the end of the elections. No person can deserve it more. Regards Woody (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Speak of the Devil, he has reinstated Bedfords nom. Woody (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army

The section on barbarians is still only half done. I'm trying to finish the other sections first. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Template: Externalimages

Sure. I've found these ones.

File:Nuvola apps package multimedia.png .

There are more icons here. Hope that helps =D. Armando.O ^{talk ● Ev ● 3K} 20:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army

Hi. You're looking at the wrong Goldsworthy: my reference is to his 2000 work Roman warfare (p164-5). The point is that over the centuries and generations of soldiers in the same family, the Illyrians worked their way up the ladder: first, as non-citizen shepherds to Roman citizenship by service in the auxilia, then to equestrian rank by becoming prefects (or tribunes in the legions); finally to senatorial rank. In the 2nd century, the evidence shows that the majority of auxiliary regimental prefects were still Italians. But this changes in the 3rd century. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. By the above, I didn't mean that individuals could not work their way up. In fact many did: the Illyrian emperors Decius, Claudius II, Aurelian, Probus and Maximinus Daia all came from very humble backgrounds, joined the army as common soldiers and worked their way up to senatorial rank. Because the top commands were reserved for members of the aristocratic orders, these officers would be granted admission to those orders on promotion: to equestrian rank on being promoted to praefectus of an auxiliary unit or tribunus militum of a legion and to senatorial rank on becoming a legatus legionis. The point is that these men were elevated to the artistocratic orders by meritorious military service rather than by inheritance as with the Italian aristocratic officers of the 1st/2nd centuries. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've modified the wording of the paragraph to take account of your comments. I hope it's clearer now. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My remarks

• I don't like the two last stubby paragraphs of the lead.
• It is the first time I see the primary sources at the top. Why not with the references? And why not with full data?
• "Events leading to the war" is too stubby. I understand you just want to give the general idea with a sentence, but personally I prefer prose. Couldn't this be an introductory paragraph of the next section? But, on this issue, take further opinions from more Wikipedians.
• Wikilinking needs some improvement. For instance, "Iberia", "Ebro" are not linked. Unless they are somewhere else before linked and I missed it. Massalia is linked twice. You link Etruria, after it is already mentioned quite a times etc.
• Note one needs fixing. Use one of the templates: Template:cite web, Template:cite encyclopedia, Template:cite book, Template:cite journal.
• Why do you use italics in the second par of "Naval raids and expeditions". I am not sure this is in accord with MoS. And I see this trend in other sections as well (e.g "Gaulish uprise"), as well as when you quote. Again there is no such provision by MoS.
• "Naval raids and expeditions" looks like a calendar. As a matter of fact, pars 3-4 are introduced as if they are a chronlogy page-calendar ("217 BC the Carthaginians" not "In 217 ...") as in the first two paragraphs - Why this difference?). If you ever go to FAC stubby paragraphs like these two (3 and 5) of your section are often criticized. In general, choosing a prose-structure like the one in "Naval raids and expeditions", you put in danger the smoothness of your prose.
• "His exact route is disputed.". You could enlighten us a bit in a note.
• "as Adrian Goldsworthy puts it, "a classic of ancient generalship, finding its way into nearly every historical narrative of the war and being used by later military manuals"." Uncited.
• "217 Battle of Ager Falernus 217 Battle of Geronium" I am not sure how it helps mentioning these battles at the end of the section (as you do in other sections as well) out of the main text. Creating a table with all the battles of the war or a chronological map is another issue.
• "So in spring 217 BC Hannibal decided to move farther south.". Sometimes you link the years, sometimes you don't. Per MoS we do not link them, unless they are full dates.
• "Hannibal had failed to obtain a following among the Italics; in the following year ". Maybe the prose could be a bit reworked here.
• "Due to these brilliant tactics". Maybe POV. Who calls the tactics brilliant?
• "Depending upon the source, it is estimated that 50,000–70,000 Romans were killed or captured at Cannae." Estimated by whom?
• Again the same "calendar problem" in "Eastern Mediterranean and Ionian Sea (218 BC - 213 BC)", which is listy and stubby as well, at least IMO. Same with "Second Roman expedition to Iberia".
• "Climax of Carthaginian expansion" is another stubby section. And the problem is that the reader gets the impression that after a detailed analysis in the previous sections, now the writing gets a bit hasty. "Let's get over with these battles! I had enough!" Not a good balance in the article! And a repetition of the same forms of expression. No variety: "This Battle of Tarentum (212 BC) was ...", "The Battle of Capua (212 BC) was ...", "The Battle of Herdonia (212 BC) was another ...". The same sense in "Fall of key cities" as well.
• Naval raids and expeditions" and "Eastern Mediterranean and Ionian Sea (212 BC - 207 BC)" are again stubby and with no prose. The same remarks as above in similar sections. And the same remarks stand for further, similarly-structured sections after the one above-mentioned.
• "These records have been quoted by Polybius. " Where exactly?
• "Carthage and Numidia after the war" is stubby again.
• I am not sure you need "See also", since most of its links are already linked within the text.
• I think Polybius' history is a reference; not an external link.
• At the and of the article you could make an overall assessment of the overall tactics and strategies of both sides based on secondary sources.

I don't have a problem with the article's division in three stages and regions, as long as it works well for the reader and the prose flows nicely. The article is undercited per Wikipedia's standards. More inline citations would help you also against arguments for OR. As for the structure itself, have in mind that your prose is about 50 kbs I think, and that you already have divided the article in many sections and sub- or sub-sub-sections. Maybe some mergers would help. Think also about the "balance issue" I mentioned above: Do not overexpand but also keep a good balance between all the sections of your article.

These are are my remarks for an already well-worked article. Feel free to place this review wherever you like. Cheers.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

For me as a reader your structure works fine. My concern is that the article is already long. So, if you further expand the prose it will get even longer, and you may have to create sub-articles, but this is something you'll see. As far as OR, personally I am not so concerned: since you use verifiable sources, and contre-examine primary and secondary sources, I don't think that anybody can accuse you of OR because of the structure of the article.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

externalvideo template use

Hey Wandalstouring, I refined the example on Our Song (song) a bit so that it has some sort of description as to what the link is (as well as reusing an identical citation for the reference). Let me know if that looks better to you. Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, don't you think it's a bit unnecessary to require references for an external link (and often redundant)? We've never used references for external links before on Wikipedia. I could understand if the description is especially detailed, but generally I would think it was unnecessary, as the link and description themselves would typically provide sufficient information about the link. Kaldari (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need the date of retrieval? We've never used retrieval dates for external links before. Does Wikipedia:EL not apply in this case? Kaldari (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Koordinator Wahl (Für WP:History)

Wie kann ich Deutsch schreiben ein wenig, ich möchte Deutsch schreiben für Sie, damit es für Sie einfacher ist. Ich weiß nicht, wo sie wählt den Koordinatoren und ich kann sie nicht finden. Sie erzählte mir, dass es zu den Wahlen. Dann wenden Sie sich bitte geben Sie mir die Stelle, wo ich gehen kann, wie zu wählen. Danke.

P.S. Sie bitte akzeptieren meine Deutsch-schriftlich. --Passawuth (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Guten Abend, Herr (oder Frau :D) Wandalstouring. Könnten Sie mir bitte erklären, was die Privilegien bis 3 Koordinatoren haben und was sie zu tun haben? Danke ! --Passawuth (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army

Salve. What do you think of the expanded strategy section? Are there any points you think I should add to it? P.S. I've been reading your article on the 2nd Punic War. It's a good summary so far. I've noticed a number of English spelling and syntax errors as well as some non-idiomatic phrases (i.e. phrases that are grammatically correct but would not be written that way by a native English speaker) Would you like me to make the appropriate corrections? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Lake Trasimene

Why does the number of troops in the Carthaginian Army have to be more than 50,000? Hannibal could have certainly drawn troops from towns or tribes in Cisalpine Gaul, Apulia, and elsewhere to beef up his army between Trasimene and Cannae. Besides, Livy, Polybius, and Appian have vastly different numbers. Livy says Hannibal crossed the Alps with 50,000 infantry and 9,000 horsemen and lost half in the crossing. Appian says he crossed with 90,000. so it seems it would be rather impossible to say. Figures for Hannibal's army at Cannae are about 35,000 troops and 10,000 cavalry, of which 19,000 were Gallic mercenaries who could have been levied in Cisapline Gaul. So it doesn't seem that the numbers for Trasimene have to be 50,000.--Mcpaul1998 (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

External media

WikiThanks

Thanks for addressing my input on your {{externalimages}} template.

Billscottbob (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army

Thanks for the invitation. But I think Late Roman army will be my last contribution to Wiki, at least for a while. My next step is to do what you suggested and publish my own papers on the Net. (That way I can do original research and say what I like!) I have no idea how to set up my own website etc. (perhaps you can give me some advice). Anyway, I have still a lot do on Late Roman army and I need your continued support. Did you read my last message above? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: family tree

Nope, no idea offhand. You might try poking around WP:WPME; I recall they use(d?) family trees quite extensively. Kirill 14:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army

(1) Thanks for your kind offer of assistance with my internet publishing. I greatly appreciate it. (2) I've gone through about half your Second Punic War article. I have not changed the text in any way- just made the meaning clearer for an English reader. Remember when writing in English to keep the sentences short, clear and simple. i.e. subject, verb, object. (It is not like German or Latin, which love long, complex sentences with lots of subordinate clauses). What I like about this article is that it gives a clear strategic overview of a complex conflict, with good linkages between the various theatres. Well done so far. (I'll finish the corrections tomorrow). (3) I will put in a paragraph in the strategy about the usurpation point. (4) I hope you are not going to disappear from the Net soon. I still want your input in Late Roman army. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Lake Trasimene

re: your remarks, Hannibal wasn't necessarily "in enemy territory" once he crossed over to Italy. The Gauls in Cisalpine Gaul and other tribes in Italy had been fighting the Romans up to the time of Hannibal's crossing of the Alps and we know that some of the Gauls joined Hannibal. In 232, the Boii and Insubres opposed Roman plans to build colonies on their land and were openly hostile to Rome. In 225, they defeated a Roman army in Etruria, and two consular armies surrounded the Gauls just 100 miles from Rome and defeated them in 225 BC. In 219 BC, the Romans founded the colony of Placentia in the Po valley, which the Gauls captured the next year. The Samnites were also hostile to the Romans and continued as such until Sulla slaughtered them after the Battle of Colline Gates in 82 BC.

Appian wrote that just after crossing the Alps, Hannibal "...advanced to the river Eridanus, now called the Padus [Po], where the Romans were at war with the Gallic tribe called the Boii, and pitched his camp." It is clear that he got no help from Spain or Carthage, but there is no reason to believe he could not have gotten Gallic mercenaries from Italy. Furthermore, as I wrote previously, the numbers are rather sketchy to begin with with both primary and secondary sources giving numbers ranging from 50,000-100,000 crossing the Alps.--Mcpaul1998 (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

THANKS

Hey, thanks for making Siege of Sardis, also could you comment on my talk page and tell how not just make an article , tell me how I can do it myself, or if Wikipedia has directions to do so, thanks! --Ariobarza (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk hey its me agian your really fast in responses but I typed in the Siege of Sardis and it was there but no new special thing came up saying how to expand or keep creating it, agian if you could tell what steps I need to take so I don't need to as anyone how to make a new page or article for battles all those blue lines and references I have to put I'm new and I wish if there was a manual step by step of who to make an article put in all the stuff I think I Kinda know, sorry if I'm probably stupid, or I missed something. HEY IM BACK AGAIN I TYPED IN A PROPOSED NEW ARTICLE I THINK I KNOW HOW TO MAKE A NEW ARTICLE THANKS ALLOT ANYWAYS 12:20 P.M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariobarza (talk • contribs) 08:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC) HEY PLEASE CHANGE OR DELETE SIEGE OF SARDIS, OR CHANGE IT TO Siege of Sardis (547 BC), because I know and want to make this new article myself,thanks mil!

Second Punic War

Hi. My understanding is that "Gaulish" refers to the language of the Gauls, and that the adjective for Gauls is "Gallic". Thus Caesar's conquest is called the Gallic War. There's also an important factual error: you twice state that the consuls were appointed by the Senate. In fact, they were elected (as were the other Republican officers: praetors, quaestors and aediles) by the Roman people in the annual comitia centuriata (electoral assembly). I'm still working on improving idioms. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As you wish. It's your article. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've finished the revisions. I hope they have helped. I know there's still a lot to do, but I think you should make the effort to complete it: it's really good so far. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The postwar naval base at Carthage is a fascinating puzzle. I am not convinced by the privateer explanation. For the simple reason that I cannot see how the Romans would ever have tolerated a large pirate base on their own doorstep, preying on their own sealanes and traders. I think it is much more likely that the base was built by the Romans themselves. The Carthaginians were probably forced, as a condition of peace, to accept a large and permanent Roman naval presence in their own city to keep an eye on the their naval activity. (the siting of Roman army and naval bases on client-state territory was a common practice during the Republic). What do you think?

The other big question is whether Hannibal should have attacked Rome itself after Cannae. The Romans certainly thought he should have done, as Livy demonstrates. But it is very doubtful whether such an attack was in reality a feasible option. Rome had massive walls (built shortly before the Second Punic War: a portion is still visible inside Rome's central railway station, Termini Station - you can see them from the main resturant windows. This should not be confused with the Aurelian Walls, which were built 500 years later and much further out from the centre). Rome also had tens of thousands of potential defenders. It is hard to see how Rome could have been successfully taken by assault. Even less by siege: the surrounding regions were full of Roman colonies and Latin allies, who could have raised relief armies. The siege cold have turned into a giant trap for Hannibal's army. My own view is that it is better to trust Hannibal's strategic judgement and see a direct attackon the City as impossible at that stage. Letme know your views Vale EraNavigator (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Most likely, the issue of whether to attack Rome was discussed by the Carthaginian generals after both battles. But I doubt that the 30-40,000 men under Hannibal were even sufficient to impose (and maintain) an effective siege on such a long perimeter as the walls of Rome, let alone hold off relieving armies from the hinterland. I agree about Nola. But overall, I don't think that Hannibal and the Carthaginians ever stood a chance of defeating Rome: the Roman military confederation was simply too strong in manpower and organisation, even after the Greeks had defected. I think the best analogy here is with the American Civil War: the South had the best generals and won many more battles than the North. But the North was an unstoppable juggernaut with vastly greater resources of manpower and industrial production. Like the Romans, the North also had command of the sea. No matter how many battles he won and Romans he killed, Hannibal would see even more Romans fielded against him the following year until he was literally crowded out of Italy. He might as well have not bothered with his invasion and devoted himself to business from the start! P.S. You mentioned using a "Wikipedia clone" for publishing: ewhat is this exactly? (I'm a complete illiterate when it comes to technology). Vale EraNavigator (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would Veropedia be advantageous to me as an author? I would not control the copyright on my work, and others would make money out of it. Surely it is better to launch my own website(s): that way all the content is copyrighted so if others want to copy it, they would have to do so on my terms? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just discovered that there are some sites, such as Answers.com (as well as Veropedia), that use Wikipedia content to make money from advertising. I find this wrong in principle: contributors' work, which is submitted on the understanding that Wikipedia is a non-profit organisation, should not be used for commercial purposes without their permission. Why does Wikipedia allow this? Doesn't Wikipedia own the copyright to its own content, or are these sites paying fees to Wikipedia to use the content? Either way, it seems this is a serious issue. Do you know anything about it? EraNavigator (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

re: re: Trasimene

Thanks for your comments. Let me get to the point. You’ve made two arguments that are mutually supporting. 1) Hannibal crossed with about 50,000 troops and 2) he had not reinforcements in Italy and therefore the army at Trasimene had to have been about 50,000 because that was the size of his army at Cannae (you haven’t given exact figures, but that’s the gist of your argument. I question both those claims.

If you look at Billau and Gracyzk, “Hannibal: Father of Strategy,” they address both points. they give the usually accepted figure of 50,000 troops that crossed the Alps. (Appian and others give much larger figures, but we can go with the figure of 50,000.) Billau and Gracyzk also say that Hannibal lost half that number in the crossing and then recruited 5,000 Gauls in Cisalpine Gaul (essentially the Po River Valley) (p. 36) and thus had a force of 30,000 foot after receiving reinforcements in Italy. Livy, however, gives a figure of 14,000 Gauls who volunteered to fight with Hannibal around Turin, so while the figures are uncertain, it is clear Hannibal was getting reinforcements in Italy. Furthermore, The Lacinian inscription that Polybius cites and which was allegedly erected by Hannibal in southern Italy in 205 BC gives a figure for Hannibal’s army as low as 20,000: 12,000 Africans and 8,000 Spanish foot (Polybius 3.56.4). I believe that's for Cannae, but in Polybius 2.24.17, he claims Hannibal crossed the Alps with only 20,000 men. Livy says at one point that Hannibal had 80,000 infantry in Italy and that this included figures of Celts who joined Hannibal after he entered Italy (Livy 21.38.3-4.)

So, in summation, to say that there “had to be more than 50,000 for the Carthaginians since they did fight Cannae without receiving additional troops” is not necessarily supported by the evidence – you say Polybius' figures are the most accepted, and he gives figures ranging from 20,000 to 50,000; if the figure is 20,000 than he didn't have to have 50,000, but he could have received reinforcements as some of the ancient sources claim. So while we can't be certain, but the sources suggest that Hannibal crossed the Alps with about 50,000 and did, in fact, receive reinforcements in Italy. That is the crux of my argument and my evidence to support it. If, however, you have much better sources than I do, please do let me know. Thank you again for your well-reasoned arguments.--Mcpaul1998 (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia spin-offs

I have no problem with capitalism. Nor with Wikipedia having paid employees, or even advertising revenue, so long as the organisation overall is non-profit making. But it does seem to me unethical to use contributors' freely-submitted work for commercial gain. In this respect Citizendium is OK, as they are not commercial. But Veropedia is a commercial organisation that aims to make a profit from advertising revenues, as is Answers.com. The fact that the content is free for the viewer is irrelevant: if they are making money out of contributors' work, they should pay fees to the contributors. So I think I would be more interested in participating in Citizendium. But better still, to set up my own website: the model I have in mind is www.livius.org, which I'm sure you know about. This contains articles by just one author (Jona Lendering). The problem is that I have no idea how to set up a website, what software to use etc. Do you have any suggestions about this? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) Thanks for your kind offer of assistance with a website- I might well take you up on it.
(2) What you said about "stealth advertising" is quite shocking. But this activity is taking place without Wikipedia's approval, right?
(3) You didn't comment on my point about the ethics of making money out of other people's work without their permission.
(4) What do you think of Citizendium? This seems to me an ethical and worthwhile project. EraNavigator (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) No, Late Roman army isn't finished: there are some sections still to be done. I'd say it's 70% done. I'm doing my best to finish it, but there's a lot of material to read and assimilate.
(2) I take it Big Jimbo is Jimmy Wales? Ok, so at least he disapproves of stealth advertising. But it seems that Veropedia is operating with Wiki's full approval (indeed collaboration) and that Answers.com has, correct me if I'm wrong, some kind of license from Wiki to use Wiki content? If so, it's disappointing that Wiki is ignoring the obvious ethical objections to allowing commercial sites to use its content. You say who cares about ethics when it's happening anyway? But this is a key question I'd like you to answer: does Wikipedia have legal copyright over its own content? If it does, then Wiki could presumably defend that copyright from abuse by commercial sharks?
(3) That was interesting what you said about setting up a Military Project version of Citizendium. Maybe at some point you might be interested becoming a partner in my website? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

help me

HI WATS UP YOU REMEM YOU MADE SIEGE OF SARDIS FOR ME THANKS AGAIN, OH COULD YOU, YOU KNOW on Cyrus the Great make a Wars of Cyrus the Great for Cyrus, because he needs one just like if you look at Alexander the Great he has a smaller box right under his box that says who was hes succesor consort childern.....etc. He has a smaller box with all his battles and I DONT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A SMALLER BOX LIKE THE BOX ABOVE IT IN SHAPE, AND CYRUS HAS PART OF THE PERSIAN WARS OF CYRUS THE GREAT SO IF YOU PUT IN WARS OF CYRUS THE GREAT AND IT GOES RED OR SOMETHING DONT WORRY I CHANGE IT BUT AT LEAST MAKE SURE YOU MAKE THAT BOX WHICH IS AGAIN, THE SMALLER BOX LIKE Alexander the Great has at the top of the page you cant miss has all his battles in it with the dates, so if you can do that for me i will cherish, and appreciate it ,THANKS A GALAXY!!!--Ariobarza (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

morehelpy

also i think you or someone has done it for me but when i go to edit the box it is literally blank in the edit part, when i want to edit it, so i dont want to save that it ll erase everything, see if you can redo or make the box agian jsut put this battle , Pasargadae (550 BC) –, and ill put the rest of battles but put the ending of the box to make the box, okay, and thats if you dont have allot of time to put in all the battles, if you do have time do it cuz im a reall busy dude currently, and comment in my talk, thanks baby!

Wikipedia spin-offs

OK. So the Wiki content (apart from some pictures) can by used by anyone. So I guess Answers.com and others like it don't need a Wiki license. But presumably the Wikipedia operating software can only be used with a license? So the clones like Veropedia etc must be operating with a license from Wiki, am I right? If so, I think Wiki should seriously consider granting such licenses to non-commercial clones like Citizendium only. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Do you know anything about www.123.reg.co.uk as a website setup package? Do you have any such sites that you would especially recommend? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

BW

I'm comfortable with the subject, and even had some past experience with actual weapons programs before the BWC. Some of the things that bother me are the overemphasis on cultures, underemphasis on production-quantity equipment (fermenters, continuous centrifuges, lyophilizers, mills) and the extreme underemphasis on the actual weaponization. Building systems to generate militarily useful aerosols is hard and tends to need both massive chamber tests and open-area tests.

In such things as Iran-Iraq, I'm looking for ways of countering the shock over the Riegle Report, identifying cultures sent by ATCC, and ignoring the French and Russian production equipment. From ProMED and Emerging Infectious Diseases, getting a culture of Bacillus anthracis isn't going to be hard, given how endemic it is in the Middle East. It is going to be hard to find a fermenter with capacity over 100L, which is also safe at BSL-3. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Website design

Hi. Thanks for responding. For my first site, the content will be simple: just a collection of articles written by myself on historical/archaeological subjects- i.e. something like www.livius.org There will be no contributions from the public and it will not be commercial. It will be just a platform for publishing my work. You must forgive my total ignorance of the technicalities, but what kind of software is recommended for such a site? Can the Wiki software be copied? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. So if I wanted to implement wikisource I would have to construct my own website? EraNavigator (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. In return for your help on the images for Late Roman army, I've uploaded some relevant images to Second Punic War. I hope you like them. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You were right to question this one: I wish people downloading pictures in Wiki Commons would write accurate captions with full refs! The coin is a silver Punic dishekel (double shekel) in Jenkins & Lewis Group XII (Barcids in Spain). It is dated 221-218 BC. As it is accompanied by a similar elephant coin showing a unbearded man, it has been suggested that the latter is Hannibal(only 27 in 220 BC) while the bearded man is his father. Still, the date range is just when Hannibal succeeded his father as commander in Spain, so the bearded version could be Hannibal. The elephant also supports this, as Hannibal was known to be a strong believer in elephant warfare. I think you are right about the deity, although it is impossible to be certain. It is probably Melqart assimilated to Hercules. I'll change the caption accordingly. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Are you happy with the revised caption? It is a puzzle though why Hannibal would issue a coin with his father's head several years after the latter's death (228 BC). It just occurred to me that the unbearded man could be Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal rather than himself. In which case, he would be the bearded man. (2) One thing I would suggest you add to this article is an introductory section summarising the political structure and military organisation and resources of each side at the start of the conflict. For the Romans, this should include some information about the Roman military confederacy and the Latin allies (see the first section and the 3rd note in Roman auxiliaries). That way, the reader can much better understand what follows. (3) You didn't reply to my question about Wikisource, above? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've finished with the pictures for Second Punic War. Now all you have to do is finish writing the article. Good luck! Vale EraNavigator (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Elephants

I was taught at school that African elephants could not be tamed and that therefore the Carthaginians imported Asian elephants from Syria (where they no longer exist today) Vale 86.85.44.73 (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) OK, the elephant on the coin is definitely an African forest elephant. But take a look at this Punic AR shekel dated 213-211 BC: [3] This is surely an African savanna (bush) elephant (two-fingered trunk, large fan-shaped ears)? Since these cannot be tamed, I guess this coin is just decorative and does not imply that the Carthaginians were able to use them in war.

(2) There is evidence that the Carthaginians used Asian elephants too. Hannibal is on record as calling his favourite elephant Sarus meaning "the Syrian". This makes sense, as the Carthaginians' Phoenician relatives lived under the Seleucid Greek kingdom, which used Asian elephants for war.
(3) As you rightly point out, there is no evidence that the Carthaginians used howdahs (the Indian word which is used in English for what you call towers). However, I have read on a couple of websites that as well as a mahout (another Indian word, meaning the elephant's driver) the Carthaginian elephants often carried an archer and a lancer, who would squat on the animal's back. I have not been able to verify this from an authoritative source. Do you know about this? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You say that the African forest elephant may have been interbred with the Asian elephant by the Carthaginians. But this is surely not possible, as they are from different species and so cannot, by definition, successfully interbreed. Unless, maybe, they were able, like horses and donkeys, to produce a sterile hybrid. EraNavigator (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally, I don't understand why the Barcas were so keen on war elephants. From the accounts in Livy, it is clear that they were almost impossible to keep under control in a battle situation. In virtually every encounter they were involved in, they caused as much damage (or more) to their own side as to the enemy e.g. Metaurus, Zama. I suppose their real value as for prestige. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

MILHIST coordinator election

It's my pleasure to inform you that you have been elected to serve as an Assistant Coordinator of the Military history WikiProject for the next six months. Congratulations!

If you have not already done so, please visit the coordinators' talk page, where you'll be able to find some open tasks as well as reference material and discussions relevant to you. You might also be interested in a bit of advice that I have to offer.

Again, congratulations, and good luck! Kirill 00:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject,
February 2008 — August 2008

Congrats on your re-election as an Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Limited edition election gift. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done Wandalstouring. I wish you another six months of happy military mopping, more good times reading articles at WP:MHR and success with your own article writing. And hopefully another big period of growth for WP:MILHIST. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on your election Wandal. I wish you all the best for this term Kyriakos (talk) 12:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:please check grammar

Sure, I'll get back to you ASAP. Kyriakos (talk) 13:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The plural in English is ballistae. I'll get back to you soon with the Greek. Kyriakos (talk) 13:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject elections. I went into it expecting to just keep my seat and was astonished to end up with the lead role. I anticipate a rather busy six months :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Haut-Koeningsbourg castle, Alsace.

Thanks

		Milhist Coordinator election
		Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject election. I'm more than happy to serve the project for another six months! --Eurocopter (talk) 15:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Russian-Circassian War

A belated personal thank you

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		As a thank you for your coordination services to the Military history WikiProject, from February to August 2007, please accept this belated barnstar.--ROGER DAVIES talk 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Wandalstouring/Archive 4: I wish to thank you for your support in my unsuccessful bid at becoming an Assistant Coordinator for the Military history WikiProject. Rest assured that I will still be around, probably even more than before, and I have the utmost confidence in the abilities of the current and new coordinators. I might also mention that I am already planning on running again in August. As always, if you need anything, just get in touch. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman auxiliaries

I've added a subsection on religion to the section "Everyday lives of auxiliaries". Also I've uploaded several more images to this article, including 4 tombstones as examples of the careers of auxiliary troops. I hope you approve. PS Why do you want Massachusetts to join the EU? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)