User talk:Wandalstouring/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Roman auxliaries[edit]

Hi. Well done with the correction to Goldsworthy. As for the refs, I put the full title (and date) in the first ref and then just the date in the subsequent refs: this is normal practice otherwise it's too repetitive. Just scroll up the refs to find the title. I'm generally doing some final tidying up to Roman auxiliaries: eliminating original research and my own speculations (I'm sure you'll approve!) and removing irrelevant or over-technical material. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) I think you are unfair to Goldsworthy: he has good academic credentials (PhD at Oxford and experience as a prof in British univs) and mostly I find his output reliable and insightful. But it's true that it's best to use him in conjunction with other works.
(2) I've finished improving Roman auxiliaries. The main problem was the figures for auxiliary regiments and deployments: when I first wrote it, I used two sources plus my own research so the end result were somewhat inconsistent figures. I've now taken figures from just one source, the most authoritative and recent: Paul Holder (2003). I've revised the table on deployments using just his figures so all the figures in the text match precisely: check out also the commentary on the table in the Auxiliary Deployments section. Check out also the new army strength table in Later Principate subsection.
(3) Next stop: a major push to finish Late Roman army. Vale —Preceding unsigned comment added by EraNavigator (talkcontribs) 18:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

expanding Muslim military history task force[edit]

Hi Wandalstouring, I am glad you have been reelected coordinator. I wish you all success. As you notice I am busy at this moment with expanding the history of the Mamluk Sultans. But I will be glad to help. Please let me know what is needed. Regrards Samsam22 (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Salam, thanks for your comment. At present I'm too busy and can't help. However I've focused on the The Prophet battles and First and Second Fitna(7th CE). For modern wars, the wars happens after 1500, you should follow the issue in country wikiprojects. For example in the case of Iran, most of the guys who are active in those articles aren't active in Muslim military history task force.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you to read this discussion to Reducing the period of this task force and this one to Extending the scope.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army[edit]

Salve. Have you seen the note on Late Roman army saying that the External Images template has been proposed for deletion? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman auxiliaries[edit]

Hi. In a bid to reduce the size of Roman auxiliaries, I have eliminated the notes. I have integrated the short and more relevant notes into the text; the longer ones I have either transferred to other articles (see revamped Roman military diplomas or spun off into two new stubs: Roman military confederation and Economics of the Roman army (the same as I did previously with Peregrinus (Roman) and Late Roman army. This has brought the size down to a manageable 100,000 bytes. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re expanding Muslim military history task force[edit]

I have been reelected coordinator and brought up the old discussion about expanding Muslim military history to the present day. This has been an issue raised by Muslim editors when the task force was founded. It would be great if you could help expanding the articles that present what makes Islams treatment of war effect especially the Muslim warfare. I have been reading a bit on the topic and can help you with advice, but feel myself not confident enough with my limited knowledge. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your reelection Wandalstouring. I remember it was your suggestion that led me to join the WPMILHIST and i am still grateful to you for what i have learned there. I definitely must again accept your above suggestion. Do you have any topic on mind?
P.S. I am not well-knowledgeable enough in this area but i can still provide my limited help. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Leo J. Meyer[edit]

Please have a look at the DRV for Leo J. Meyer (currently seen at User:Meyerj) located at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March. Its my opinion that the article met the standards for verifiability and notability. I would appreciate your input into the matter. Mrprada911 (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman military confederation[edit]

Hi. Check out my expanded Roman military confederation stub. Some of this might be useful for your article, especially the Military Organisation section. Any comments so far? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: translation of German terms[edit]

I took a look, and the only mention I can find in my books is this passage from page 26 of Charles Oman's History of the Art of War in the Sixteenth Century:

There is a curious note in Montluc's account of the battle of Ceresole (1544) in which he says that the difference between the landsknechts and the Swiss is that the former hold the pike very low down, and always keep the point slanted somewhat upwards, while the Swiss grasp the weapon nearer its middle, and keep the point down, which is much better in 'push of pikes' when the staves are crossed.

Personally, I expect that the typical English terminology will probably be either purely geometric ("point up", "point down") or literally translated ("German style", "Swiss style"). Kirill 03:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find anything more useful; my instinct is to either translate them literally, or to leave them untranslated (as we do with many other technical terms). Carom (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)[edit]

The February 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) 08:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman military confederation[edit]

Thanks for the edits to Roman military confederation. You are always generous with your time, which I appreciate. Good point about the socii navales, which I missed. One question: you say Hannibal was never defeated on the battlefield in Italy. That's what I thought, until I saw in Livy that there were a number of engagements that he lost: (1) the engagement with Minucius, which I think was much more substantial than you say in your article: it was a full pitched battle, with ca. 6,000 Punic dead and Hannibal forced from the field (Livy XXII.24); (2) 3 battles in 3 successive years at Nola, where Hannibal was beaten in the field each time by M. Claudius Marcellus. Two of these were relatively minor (2,000 Punic dead in each), one more substantial (5,000 Punic dead) (Livy XXIII.16; XXIII.45-6; XXIV.17). In addition I believe there one or two later encounters where Hannibal was beaten in the field. In view of this, I think "Hannibal was rarely defeated on the battlefield" is an accurate statement. Vale —Preceding unsigned comment added by EraNavigator (talkcontribs) 10:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. (1) Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency of the cavalry figures. I suspect that Polybius' total of 70,000 cavalry excludes the Campanian and Greek cavalry. The way I arrived at the Roman, and other socii cavalry figures is by applying the to the totals the same percentage of cavalry as applied in the individual military units. Thus in a Roman legion, the cavalry contingent of 300 was c7% of the total effectives of 4,500. In the allied alae, there were 900 horse out of a total of c5,400 (17%). Here I have made one error, because the cavalry proportion of socii other than Latins would be higher (20%) than the overall 17% if the Latin contingent was only c6%, as Polybius suggests. Revising the figures, this gives: Romans 200,000 (14,000 cavalry); Latins 85,000 (5,000 cav: Polybius' figures) and other socii 300,000 (60,000 cav). This adds up quite neatly to Polybius' figure of 70,000 cavalry overall. I've made some revisions to the text to take account of this. But I am still looking into the numbers issue, and might make some further revisions later.

(2) I am aware that many scholars have expressed doubts about Hannibal's alleged reverses in the field, starting with De Sanctis, the "grand old man" of Roman Republican history. But I am not sure it is wise to dismiss a primary source like Livy without producing hard evidence to the contrary. If we take the Minucius incident: not only is there a detailed account of the sequence of military clashes, but the casualty figures given are 6,000 Punic dead and 5,000 Roman. If this was a Roman propaganda exercise, then far smaller Roman casualties would be given, say 500, not a figure close to the Punic one. The enemy dead on the field were often carefully counted, because of the need to ensure a fair distribution of the spoils, which represented the most important part of the soldiers' reward for service: armour, weapons, valuables, money etc. As for the Marcellus incidents at Nola, if we take the more substantial one in 215 BC, casualties are give as 5,000 Punic dead and 1,000 Roman. But even if we accept that the Punic figures are inflated by 2 or 3 times, that still means 1,500-2,500 dead, which is a significant setback for an army of c20,000 men. Overall, I think it is clear that Hannibal did suffer some reverses on the battlefield, but his genius was to know when and how to retreat in good order before his losses became critical, as before Capua in 211 BC, when his relief attempt failed with the loss (allegedly) of 8,000 men (plus 3,000 Campanians) (Livy XXVI. 4-6). Vale (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC) EraNavigator (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I realised the cav didn't add up and changed it accordingly. I would like "Socii" and "Latin allies" to redirect to Roman military confederation, but I don't know the appropriate template. Would you be so kind? ValeEraNavigator (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

McCain assessment[edit]

If you are assessing John McCain articles from the military history perspective, you should really assess Early life and military career of John McCain, which goes into much more depth regarding his military service and its historical context. And any comments on that article from the military perspective are welcome. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

message notice[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Wandalstouring. You have new messages at Bellhalla's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiProject Germany Invitation[edit]

Coat of arms of Germany.svg

Hello, Wandalstouring! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 06:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi. Check out my revised, and more sophisticated, analysis of Polybius' figures for Roman military manpower in 225 BC in Roman military confederation. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

expanding muslims military history....[edit]

Asalamualikum, i have been working on muslim military history under Rashidun Caliphat since last year. But reciently due to my university classes i am on a short break, i am going home in comming weak on holidays and will insahallah work on it again. What i need from you is if you could provide me any book (western book i mean) so that i could know both eastern and western view points on the Byzantine -Rashidun caliphat wars, to make my articles neutral and more reliable, because as you may be awear of the fact that our sources are muslim bias where as western sources are more pro-byzantine, therefore a neutral article can only be writen by keeping in view the view point of both. As it is almost impossible to get the western writers book here in pakistan so i hope u will help me by providing any book if you have as e-book. Or you could just help me by answering me some of my questions, which are. 1-} why they say byzantine empire was weaken by long byzantine-persian wars, although it was finally byzantine who came out victorious from this long war when heraculas conquered back what they lost a decade ago ? i mean an empire fought back whn it is in it form to fight.

2-) beside, franks, salvs, armenians, christian arabs people of which which ethnicity were there in byzantine army in 7th century A.D ? where there any copts ( as there was a dispute on a fundamentalist christian belive between cpots and regim of heracular) and who formed the bulk of byzantine army ? greeks or armenians ?

3-) the population of byzantine empire was about 20 million in 7th century A.D before mmuslim invasion. how large was the standing byzantine army that time ? i mean the regular byzantine troops.

if you kindly can answer me these questions then it will gonna help me in my future plans of writing , actually re0writing the articles of muslims conquest of roman-Syria and muslim conquest of egypt (both the articles are quite badly writen + the info is not satisfactory). hope you will answer soon. Bye Mohammad Adil (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


I don't know where this idea that circa can only be used for dates is coming from. Circa (a Latin word) means "around" or "approximately" and I have always seen it used in general English for any figures: dates AND numbers and (less commonly) with places also. As for the Wiki standards, I can see no suggestion in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Abbreviations) that circa should be restricted to dates. Please get back to me on this. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Circa[edit]

[1] works as well as anything else, I suppose. I was under the impression that this was a standard usage rule in English; is there some debate on this point that I'm not aware of? Kirill 17:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary says much the same thing, incidentally—"used only before dates"—but it's not much of a source. ;-) Kirill 17:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


I think you are right: it is an Americanism. Which is something I wanted to ask you about generally: Wiki is operating on Standard (i.e. true) English and NOT American English, right? I ask, because I have seen people edit Standard spelling/usage with the American version e.g. "labor" instead of "labour" and "normalcy" instead of "normality" and other such deviation. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked the Oxford English Dictionary, the most authoritative source. This confirms that circa is used with dates AND amounts. It also says it can be abbreviated as either "c" or "ca." However if just "c" is used it should not carry a "." as "c." is the abbreviation for "century" as in "4th c." So my original use, as in "c10,000 men", was entirely correct. Sorry to go on about this, but it's an important point: the vast majority of figures in a ncient history are approximate and it would be a real bore to have to spell out "approximately" each time. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring![edit]

Hannibal map[edit]

Hi. I asked one of the French boys to translate the much superior French map of Hannibal's invasion route into English for Second Punic War. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I've asked for revisions from the author. I've asked him to remove the route arrows in S Italy (which are inaccurate and simplify the complex series of movements) and to alter the route arrow from L Trasimene to Cannae so it goes via Capua. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't find the map you mean in my copy of Complete Roman Army. What page is it on? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ive got it now : Roman Warfare p69.

  1. It's detailed, but virtually impossible to follow the sequence, especially the spaghetti-like jumble of arrows in the south of Italy. I think this shows that it is pointless to try and represent movements after Cannae as they are too numerous (over 13 years) and often overlap. After Cannae, it is better to simply place dates of Hannibal's operations next to the names of cities where they took place.
  2. Goldsworthy has another map in the same book (p63) which shows all the movements (Roman and Punic) of the war all over the Mediterranean, as well as the battle sites of the 1st Punic War. Ironically, this has a much clearer route for Hannibal in Italy up to Cannae. But it also shows how speculative these routes are. The map on p69 suggests that after Trebia, Hannibal entered Etruria by a coastal route through Liguria, reaching Arretium by following the Arno river from Pisae. In contrast the p63 map shows him crossing the Appenines on the Bologna-Pistoia route in central Italy. There simply isn't sufficient evidence from the sources to be sure which one it was: there are half a dozen good passes from Aemilia to Etruria. The sources mention Hannibal crossing a major swamp region, but this could be either at the mouth of the Arno (the Pisae route) or along the Arno's length: the area where Florence is today was at this time a huge marsh (which is why the main town in this area was Faesulae (Fiesole), on a hillside overlooking Florence: the latter could not become significant until the swamp was drained).
  3. The same uncertainty applies for passes in the central and southern Italian mountains e.g. where did Minucius' skirmish with Hannibal occur? So I think it is not possible to portray exact routes for Hannibal's progress and approximate arrows must suffice.
  4. I think it is time that I mastered the art of online mapmaking: I am fed up with relying on others who have little or no knowledge of the facts. Do you have any suggestions where I can start? Does Wiki have its own mapmaking software? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Something for you[edit]

CRM.png The Content Review Medal of Merit  
In recognition of your much appreciated reviews of military history articles, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Milhist contest[edit]

Thanks for scoring those, I was in the process of doing them as well and we mirrored each other perfectly. Why did you remove the score from Borg Sphere? He put in one for scoring this month and it was the first time he has done it? Thanks again. Woody (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks. Woody (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army[edit]

Check out new ranks and pay & benefits subsections in Late Roman army and reorganised and expanded auxiliary ranks and pay section in Roman auxiliaries. The fascinating point that emerges is how badly paid 4th c. soldiers were compared to their 1st/2nd c. counterparts. this has big implications for the Economics of the Roman army which I recently launched. Late Roman army will be complete in a few days. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)[edit]

The March 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) 03:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi, sorry to write it here, I dont know how to create a new topiC or send private message. I am curious about one thing - there was a discussions about appearance of Hannibal some time ago and some guys mentioned Hannibal coin located in Museo Kircheriano in Rome which had clearly African features. You replied that you checked it and that this coin was a hoax, montage or something like that. So I would like to ask how did find it out, I ddint find any way to contact this museum. THANK YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanatos2 (talkcontribs) 00:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Roman auxiliaries[edit]

Hi. In response to one of the comments in the review of Roman auxiliaries, I have scrubbed the Unresolved Issues section. However, I don't think a separate article for this is justified, so I have integrated its key points into the main text. In addition I have expanded the Recruitment, Ranks and Pay subsection. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army[edit]

Hi. Late Roman army is provisionally complete. I would be grateful if you could read it through from the start (there's been a lot of changes) and let me know your views. In order to keep the size down to c100k bytes, I've eliminated the Sources section and transferred the points on the Notitia Dignitatum to the relevant article. Best wishes EraNavigator (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Please take a look[edit]

Okay, dealt with it. :-) Kirill 15:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Roman auxiliaries[edit]

Hi. Forgive me, but I'm not clear what point you are trying to make. Which specific section in Roman auxiliaries are you referring to? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Operation Energize[edit]

Just a short note to thank you for signing up to so many. Very much appreciated, --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army[edit]

Sorry, but I've revised some sections I wasn't satisfied with. Please see again: Evolution, Regiments, Ranks, Pay & Benefits, and Strategy. Please also tell me what you think of the article overall. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


I see your point. I propose the following amendment: By the end of the 1st century, Italians had largely been replaced in the legion ranks by provincials, especially Illyrians, who dominated the Roman provinces of Pannonia, Dalmatia and Moesia Superior, and included warlike shepherd tribes such as the Dalmatae and Breuci from the Bosnian mountains. From the days of Augustus, the Illyrian nation had provided a major share of recruits for the auxilia and, later, the legions. Is that OK? EraNavigator (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Early thermal weapons[edit]

While I was keen to get A-Class recognition for Early thermal weapons, I was also keen to get constructive critcism, so any comments or suggestions you can make would be welcome. The article grew organically from the sources I had, so I am sure there are other angles which can also be considered. I have a few more sources now to work from, so I will continue to improve the article as time allows. I am unsure what it is about my approach you do not like; this seems a more general criticism than a note of specific ommissions. If you could outline your concerns, or offer some suggestions at the article's talk page, that would be helpful. In the meantime, I will continue improving the article in line with my own ideas and existing format (which has received support from a number of people).

On a separate topic, the WWI ballistae comment was only an interesting aside in a "what happened next" section, and is not essential to the topic (although fully verifiable). The article covers the classical and medieval periods, and aims to give only a quick overview of later development (with a few interesting examples or illustrations), to provide continuity/context; this section should not grow to a size or level of detail out of proportion to the rest of the article. I am sure there is plenty that could be said about thermal weapons over the Early Modern and Modern periods, but it would be best to spin that out into another article. The development of incendiary bombs, thermobaric weapons, rocket technology, flamethrowers, and so forth could then be discussed in more detail. Individual weapons pages exist, of course, but no analysis of the overall development. Gwinva (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army[edit]

Hi. Here's my latest wording for the shepherds controversy:

"The close connection between the Italian aristocracy and military command was gradually severed during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The last Julio-Claudian emperor Nero (r.54-68) was also the last member of an old Roman noble family to hold supreme power. By the end of the 1st century, Italians had largely been replaced in the legion ranks by provincials. The 3rd century saw the replacement of the Italian aristocracy in the senior officer echelons of the military by provincial career officers many of whom had risen through the ranks from common soldier, and were granted admission to the equestrian order for military merit: outgoing chief centurions (primipilares) of a legion were normally elevated to equestrian rank.[1][2] At the same time, equestrians increasingly replaced the senatorial order in the top commands. Septimius Severus (r. 197-211) placed equestrian prefects in command of the 3 new legions he raised and Gallienus (260-8) did the same for all the other legions, giving the prefects the title pro legato ("acting legate").[3][4]

The Illyrian-speaking tribes that dominated the Roman provinces of Pannonia, Dalmatia and Moesia Superior, and included mountain tribes of semi-nomadic pastoralists such as the Dalmatae and Breuci, had a fearsome reputation as warriors.[5][6] They were seen as excellent soldier material. From the time of Augustus, the Illyrian provinces had been a major recruiting ground of the auxilia and later the legions, especially from the time of Domitian onwards, when over half the Roman army was deployed in the Danubian regions. In the 3rd century, Romanised Illyrians came to dominate the army's senior officer echelons.

Finally, the Illyrian officer class seized control of the state itself. The first Illyrian to hold supreme power was Decius (249-51), whose defeat by the Goths at the Battle of Abrittus (251) started the military crisis of the mid 3rd century. Then in 268, the emperor Gallienus (r. 260-8) was probably overthrown by a coup organised by a clique of Illyrian senior officers, including his successors Claudius II Gothicus (r. 268-70) and Aurelian (270-5). They and their successors Probus (276-8) and Diocletian (r. 284-305) and his colleagues in the Tetrarchy formed a sort of military junta of Illyrian officers who were born in the same provinces (several in the same city, Sirmium, a major legionary base in Moesia Superior), had served in the same regiments and in most cases knew each other personally.[7]" Best wishes EraNavigator (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Yarmouk[edit]

Hi, i wrote this article last year and from then to now it has been subjected to various stuff, like neutrality etc etc though it has been re-edited by me and many other users to make it sound more like encyclopedia article and more neutral, still some users on discussion forum raise questions about its neutrality, i would request you to please read the article once and suggest me what to be done more in it to improve its standard. As far as numbers are concern, then they are very confusing in the info box, and i am currently having discission on it with an other user, we will inshallah fix them to some reliable and modest modern estimates. Mohammad Adil (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  • hey thanks for helping, i will edit it soon. Actually what primary sources says, is that there were 5 byzantine armies, with there own commanders, and mahan was appointed there commandewr in cheif.

and about the european armies, they says that All europeans i.e franks, greeks and romans were made in to two corps and were putted under the command of Dairjan and Gregore. They were to move seperately from each other and were given there own objectives in levant. but when muslims retreated from levant in yarmuk, the armies were forced to gather at yarmuk to eliminate the threat once for ever. what is a common misconception in understanding this battle is that they fail to understand what events made this battle to happen, as byzantine usually use to avoid major pitch battles. Heraculis, even for this battle planed a different strategy which was to deal with muslim armies seperately, in northern syria damascus and palestine and he sent his armies accordingly. Mohammad Adil (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Sources says it was a mixed army, which implies that it must an asian and europian army under their own commanders, with mahan(vahan) as there commander in chief, must be heraculis's favorite man !. And yes i realize the disputes in the number of casualties on muslim sides in various battle of byzantine-arab wars and also persian conquest, once i got free from this yarmouk battle, i will fix them, in most of the battles the causalties were unknown or not recorded, so it will be fine to replace the number by "unkown". i will do it soon. And as for wounded soldiers, so its totally "unknown" how many wounded, it was not a tradition of arab historians to record numbers of wounded men, for yarmuk it was said "hardly any one left who was not wounded" .. it will sound more modest if "several hundered wounded" or any thing like that would be added.

And about that massive byzantine buildup... so i will quote one of the turkey's muslim historian Ibn Rais who explained it on the basis of intelligence reports that heraculis got. he says as muslim army was almost undefeated from the begining of the invasion, the rapid and astonishing conquest by the nomads must have been related by routed byzantine soilders that reached heraculis, to the fact that they were greatly outnumbered by muslims, and a larger muslim army would have been reported by them and other raw estimates by the local spies must have reported the large muslims army, perhaps twice the size of actuall muslim army, for example if they were 30,000... they might be projected to as many as 50,000-60,000. He further mentions that the strategy of byzantine for recapturing Levant seems to have been planed to tackle a larger army.....and many more ..Any ways it was the view of one historian it can be true it can be wrong. It is possible that they gathered large armies to tackle there lack of cavalry and experienced men, after all whatelse Heraculi could do except for that ? i dont think he would risk his victory. what do you think ? Mohammad Adil (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

heraculis was already 61 by that time and is said to be ill. He was in Antioch, from where he could monitor the campain. Mohammad Adil (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki search function[edit]

Do you know what's happened to the search function? Until today, if I wanted to get Late Roman army, I only had to type in "l" and all my previous searches starting with "l" would show up. Now suddenly I'm getting an alphabetical list of all articles starting with "l", so if I want Late Roman army, I have to type it fully, instead of just scrolling down. Is there some way of reverting it to its former state? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

News! Tag & Assess 2008 is coming ...[edit]

Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Auxiliary regiments[edit]

Hi. I need your expert advice. I wrote a new article, Cohors II Gallorum veterana equitata, which is supposed to be an experimental launch for an individual entry for each auxiliary regiment, as there is for each legion. No sooner did I save it, when someone slapped a "proposed for deletion" notice on it, on the grounds that it is not "notable". I can see no valid reason for this. The text is based on the known attestations of the unit as set out and commented upon by a reputable secondary source. What do you think? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. OK, the issue has been resolved now, and the deletion notice withdrawn. What do you think of the individual entries for the regiments? I've just completed a second one: cohors IV Gallorum equitata. Vale (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Map request ("Now, where was I?")[edit]

Hey, Wandalstouring. You had asked for a map concerning some aspect of the Punic Wars and had even put together a crude map (as you called it). I recently returned from an unexpected Wikibreak and am trying to remember my promises. Could you tell me exactly what you're looking for, including the article where the map is to appear?? I can't seem to find the original request. Thanks, and sorry for the confusion, and the delay. MapMaster (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I have the basic Mediterranean map ready and can start laying troops movements on it. However, I see that someone has already added a decent-enough map to the Second Punic War article (Image:Hannibal route of invasion-en.svg). I think that the arrows and the lettering is too small to be seen (and it doesn't go as far as Pergamon), but I'm wondering whether that suffices. If not, what else would you like? Regards, MapMaster (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Battle icon (crossed swords).svg
I have uploaded Image:Blank Map - Mediterranean 1.svg for your use. I did not include the southeastern coast of the Mediterranean, but can if you wish. Is this what you wanted? Just a blank (SVG) map? The verbiage was a bit unclear. I also uploaded the crossed swords icon at left. It's not coloured, but I can do that as well. Let me know if you need something further. MapMaster (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am unclear whether you or I am creating the maps. You recently posted "Do you need any help for the map?" on my Talk page, which implies that I will be creating the maps. However, your earlier posts said: "I intend to make a series (preferably 3) of maps for the Second Punic War." and 'I want to draw a map of the troop movements and battles of the second Punic War with gimp." which implies that you were creating the maps once I uploaded the basic outline map. I would be happy to create them, just let me know. Thanks, MapMaster (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for all the misunderstandings and my tardiness. I have been working outside of Wikipedia, as well as on Image:Languages of Bangladesh map.svg. I will address this next. Sorry, MapMaster (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Roman auxiliary regiments[edit]

Hi. I've completed a dozen or so unit entries. I would appreciate your views on the format and content. You can find clickable links on List of Roman auxiliary regiments. Cohors I Raetorum gives a good idea with the often thorny unit identification problems involved. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There are about 50 units that existed before or after Hadrian's time, but not during it (or cannot yet be proven to have existed during it). I was planning to list these in a separate section to the article. I understand the copyright point, though the tables include identifications from another source also (Spaul). What I can suggest is to re-arrange the unit lists under their tribal names, and include the non-Hadrianic names. This would then act as an index for the individual articles on each unit. What do you think? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
On reflection, I think tabulation by province is more useful to the reader, who is likely to want to see the regiments in his own country or area of interest than by name (if he knows the name of the regiment he wants, he can go direct to the individual article). To include non-Hardianic units, I have now said the tabulation is by main base. I have revised the article to deal with the copyright objection. Please tell me whether it is now acceptable from a copyright point of view.Vale EraNavigator (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correctios to cohors I Raetorum. What do you think of the entries generally? PS You seeem uncommonly well-informed about Raetia/Germania Superior. Are you from that region? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a very beautiful city. In Italian (I'm Italo-British) we still call it Augusta. So, can you speak Romantsch? If not, you should learn it. You can't be a proper Raetian if you don't speak Romantsch. (just joking) Vale EraNavigator (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Illyrian shepherds[edit]

Hi. I think I've finally nailed the Dalmatae as shepherds. Check out cohors I Delmatarum Vale EraNavigator (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Auxiliary cohorts[edit]

For many of these regiments there is only enought data fo fill one short paragraph. I think it might be better to combine them all the regiments of the same name in one article e.g. see Raetorum auxiliary regiments. What do you think? EraNavigator (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I mean Raetorum auxiliary cohorts EraNavigator (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now arranged Raetorum auxiliary cohorts in the form of a table, which is much easier to read. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)[edit]

The April 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) 02:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What size for Byzantine army?[edit]

Check the discussion section of battle of yarmouk. Respected User:Wiki is acting childish and sticking to his opinion that the size of army should be 20,000 for byzantine and 7400-15,000 for muslims ! he claims that kegri mentioned it, but when i did a bit googling i found this:,000+Byzantine+army+at+yarmuk&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=pk this suggest otherwise. Kegri, depending on early byzantine sources says that they gave lower ends of arabs numbers around 40,000-80,000 and which he think might be twice the size of real arab army, and suggest 15,000-20,000 for arabs and avoid any estimates for byzantine ans says "Byzantines probably outnumbered arabs". Any ways, beside this he claims that even david nicolle says 25,000 bnyzantine army, which is wrong (nicolle says:25,000 for muslims and 40-50,000 for romans). Now the thing is that he tends to deny every historians by arguing that they are ameture or not credible, as we are not here to judge historians and add our own estimates, so what can we do now ? most of the modern historians estimates are:

  • History of palestine, by Gil and Broido (1997): 100,000.
  • Donner (1981): 100,000.
  • David Chandler: 100,000
  • Kennedy (2006, p. 145): 80,000.
  • Mango, Cyril (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium. 80,000
  • David nicolle, Yarmouk 636. 50,000
  • Kindersley, 80,000
  • Andre Corvisier 80,000
  • Dr.Saeed Abdulrehman, Yarmouk university, department of history, jordan. says; 125,000
  • Agha Ibrahim Akram: 150,000
  • M. Athar Zaidi (Expansion of Islam, Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University Dehli): 100,000-120,000
  • Ibn Rais ( Rise of Caliphate from BOĞAZİÇİ UNIVERSITY, department of history, Turkey.): 100,000

most of them places it around 80,000-100,000. Which should be added in the info box of the battle for byzantines. Your opinion is need. Regards Mohammad Adil (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


I've expanded the last section, Historical cohesion, of Roman military confederation. What do you think of this article so far? PS You added a correction that drachmae were not used in Rome. Actually, they were minted by Rome, and were the main silver coin until 211 BC, when the denarius was launched, with a similar value (4.5 grams of silver). Vale EraNavigator (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Which Latin colony turned traitor? Do you have a reference in Livy please? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced that my text as regards the Latins needs significant modification.
  1. The incident of the betrayal of the grain store to Hannibal by a Latin commander (Livy XXI.48) is, correct me if I'm wrong, completely isolated, the only clear case of Latin treachery in Livy's entire account of the war. The person concerned, described as from Brundisium (a recently-established Latin colony) has an Oscan name, Dasius (another Dasius is mentioned by Livy XXVI.38 as from Salapia, also in Apulia, which defected to Hannibal): it is likely that he was an Apulian, not a Roman/original Latin. The newer Latin colonies included some non-Latins in order to make up numbers, and these were likely to be less reliable politically. In any case, Dasius (and those of his men who collaborated with him) were clearly motivated by money, not political dissent. For these reasons, one cannot read too much into the grain-store incident.
  2. The case of the 12 renegade colonies who refused to produce more men in 209 BC (Livy XXVII.9) It is interesting that these are mostly the older colonies (pre-300) clustered around the edges of Latium, rather than the newer colonies further away from Rome. These colonies had much smaller territories than the newer ones on average. It is therefore likely that their plea that they did not have the resources to contribute more men to the confederate army was genuine, and the fact that the Senate made no attempt to coerce them was an implicit acknowledgement of this. Instead the Senate in effect granted the 12 colonies a 5-year moratorium on military contributions, presumably to allow their pool of men fit for service to be replenished by children reaching military age. In 204, however, the Senate reimposed the draft on these colonies, demanding twice the annual number they had contributed before the moratorium (Livy XXIX.15). What is interesting is that at no stage did any of the 12 defect to Hannibal.
  3. My point about the ethnic solidarity of the Latins with Rome is confirmed by Livy XXI.49, where the Consul remonstrates with the delegates from the 12 that "you are not Campanians (i.e. fake Romans) but Romans, sprung from Roman stock and sent out to from Rome to found settlements on conquered soil to increase the roman race." Hannibal's attempt to gain the Latins' support was thus as unrealistic as, say, the Germans attempting to persuade the Australians and New Zealanders to desert Britain and join them in World War I and II. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The main evidence that Hannibal hoped to get the Latin colonies to defect was that he adopted a policy of freeing prisoners "of the Latin name" without a ransom, unlike Roman prisoners (Livy XXII.7), who had to be exchanged or paid for. Although Livy uses the "Latin name" to mean the socii in general, not just the Latin colonists, there is no doubt that the latter were included in the amnesty: this is specifically stated by the delegates of the 12 striking colonies (Livy XXVII.9). As for Hannibal's war aims, I cannot accept that he was prepared to allow Rome to continue to rule much of the Italian peninsula. If he had won, there is no doubt that Rome would have been reduced to the same client-state status that Carthage had to endure (and most likely, Rome would eventually have shared the same fate as Carthage - to be razed to tthe ground). Vale EraNavigator (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You made a number of useful points in your edits to the Historical Cohesion section, which I have expanded on a little. Check out also the new paragraph in the Manpower subsection. PS: Do you intend to send Late Roman army to review? The article is ready as far as I am concerned. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army[edit]

Hi. A few points about your recent edits.

  1. In the summary, I think it is important to state that the "increased cavalry" theory really has no hard evidence to support it. Also, the "defence-in-depth" theory is still supported by some, as you rightly point out, but again the article shows that the archaeological evidence provides little support for it. Check out my revised edits to these paragraphs.
  2. "Select" is the correct adjective when you mean "special". "Selected" is only used as part of a verb e.g. "I've selected some tomatoes" but "select tomatoes".
  3. Vexillationes in the late army were purely cavalry regiments (Elton p.89). (In the Principate army, vexillatio meant any detachment from any unit, infantry or cavalry).

I'm dealing with the references required. What do you think of the article as a whole? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how I violate NPOV by pointing out that a certain theory lacks evidence to support it. The latter is fact, and not fact established by myself, but by reputable scholars. What do you mean by tiresome? Do you mean "too long" or "boring" or "difficult to follow"? If is split up into smaller articles, what titles do you suggest for those articles? And what should remain in the main article? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Who is Hanson, and which work(s) by him are you referring to? EraNavigator (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Roman auxiliaries, are the two comments submitted all we are likely to get? It seems the comments are generally positive, since criticism has been limited to presentational points. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need a style review? You should know that I was educated at a top English private school and at both Oxford and Cambridge universities. I can probably write in English better than most of the Wiki style reviewists. PS: can you get a B-grade for the following articles, which are still on Start-grade: Laeti, Peregrinus (Roman), Raetorum auxiliary cohorts, Alpinorum auxiliary cohorts? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Undertow (webomic)[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Undertow (webomic) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JohnCD (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Wandalstouring. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE: Late Roman Army[edit]

Will be glad to, I will let you know how it goes. SGGH speak! 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I free to make edits or would you like me to just comment on it? SGGH speak! 16:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army[edit]

I noticed that you sent Late Roman army for review, which is good since we need some opinions. Did you see that a comment has already been posted at WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Late Roman army? I would like to respond to some of the points made. Should I do that on the same review page, or separately on the commentator's own talk page? PS: (1) Is the communication above about a style review? If so, any editing should surely wait until we have seen the results of the peer review (and made consequent changes to the text). (2) Did you see my question about re-grading some small articles I wrote(above)? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll put my points on this page: User:SGGH/Late Roman army. SGGH speak! 07:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with this, but how do I add my comment to the peer review page? I am not familiar with the procedure. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Check out my responses to the comment on the review page. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have left my own comments on the article talk page. It is a very good article. It doesn't have any major CE problems, but as with all articles it can always do with a copy edit, as there are some issues, many of which I have highlighted. The short answer is: yes it could use a copy edit simply because there is always refining to be done, but no major problems that I can see. SGGH speak! 13:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Peregrinus (Roman)[edit]

I've fixed the problems in this article. PS: peregrinus currently redirects to a disambiguation of peregrine. Can we redirect straight to Peregrinus (Roman)? Regards EraNavigator (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army[edit]

I see that you have again scrubbed my statement in the summary of Late Roman army that there is little archaeological evidence for defence-in-depth. I understand your point about interpretation, but the fact remains that for Luttwak's thesis to to be confirmed, one would expect the frontier provinces' hinterland to be dotted with 4th c. forts to provide the "depth". Instead there is almost nothing. Take the Danube frontier. If you look at the Barrington Classical Atlas (the most authoritative and up-to-date such atlas), you find that all but one the forts confirmed as occupied during the 4th c. are situated on or close to the river (or beyond it): see also map of Pannonian forts in Elton (1996) 159. This is exactly the same positioning as in the 2nd century. It is therefore more likely that the strategy was also the same. In the East, defence-in-depth has been torpedoed by Isaac, who shows that the forts in the interior of Syria/Palestina were designed to keep internal order, not external defence. You also say that late forts were designed to hold fewer troops: but this is only because legions had been broken up and limitanei units were similar in size to Principate auxiliary regiments (or smaller). The revision you made means that the summary does not reflect what is stated in the main text, which is obviuosly undesirable. So I am going to reword the paragraph again. Vale (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC) EraNavigator (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Another objection to defence-in-depth is the fact that cross-border operations (often major ones) continued in the 4th century as much as, or even more so, than in the Principate (Elton (1996) 221). This point, which I need to state more clearly in the text, seems consistent with continued forward defence. Anyway, I think you will find my revised wording of the summary paragraph is a reasonable statement of the current position. PS: (1) I am pleased SGGH finds the article satisfactory. His suggestions for style improvement seem sensible. (2) Is Peregrinus (Roman) now set for B-grade? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Are articles that are rated "A" protected from editing? EraNavigator (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Numbers for yarmouk[edit]

hi, your idea there is good, so you should procede..... do it on the battle's article. I dont know if i may do it then what will happen, you know what i mean....! Mohammad Adil (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the invitation. But I'm not really interested in editing other people's work, rather in creating my own i.e. I want to be an author, not an editor. Separately, there are a few questions I would like to ask you:

  1. How can you tell how frequently an article is viewed? Would I be able to access this information, or is it restricted?
  2. I have been thinking about ideas for my own Wiki clone, as you know. I'd like your opinion on this: The site would use the Wiki operating system, with some modifications. It would be a site devoted to history and archaeology. Anyone could contribute, but unlike Wikipedia: (a) only the original author would be able to edit his own article(s). Anyone wishing to contribute to or debate an article would be limited to the discussion page; (b) original research would be permitted; (c) the original author would retain the copyright of his article, which could not be copied without his permission, and would be able to withdraw his article from the site at his discretion. The site would thus be a publishing platform for anyone who wants to display his work, including serious academics who would be reassured that their copyright is safe. But it would mainly benefit starters and amateurs who might find it difficult to get their work published elsewhere. The site could pay its costs by advertising, which in this case would be ethical, as it would be based on the authors' consent. What do you think?
  3. Is it possible to know your real first name? Mine is Andrea (that's a boy's name in Italian). Hi.
  4. You still haven't told me why you want Massachusetts to join the EU, or if you can speak Romansh? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Spotlight[edit]

In what way? The massive tag at the top of the talk page will become a tiny one below all the other banners next Saturday and all the templates on WikiProject pages are simply to notify parties with knowledge of the topic. Do you want it without the border?...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Well, it's nice to know your real name. No offence meant, but I was convinced I was dealing with a female! That's probably because you put that picture of a girl on your user page. That's why sometimes I have been deliberately provocative (I like getting girls angry) , for which I apologise. The stats on viewings make amusing reading, with "sex", "masturbation", "vagina" and "anal sex" right up there in the top rank. I don't see why you think my idea is going nowhere. Don't you think contributors would appreciate a forum where they can display their work without losing copyright or being subject to revisions? Again I must decline your invitation to edit Julius Caesar. I have other fish to fry. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest[edit]

I notice you posted at the Milhist talk page just as I did, & I wondered something (which has been a question for awhile). Could you see what I'd put up in the edit box, or not? I hadn't managed to save yet. Trekphiler (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC) (BTW, I think you have to be in Europe to join EU =]...but we're trying to get the Turks & Caicos to join usCanada, so I could be wrong.)

I notice yours in an "edit conflict". That must have been why. Thanks. Trekphiler (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


How much does it cost typically to run your own independent website (i.e. not through a webhosting service?) EraNavigator (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I can easily afford that level of cost. So it does not really matter whether it makes any money, as that is not the central aim of the site, which is to provide a platform for my work and others'. EraNavigator (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
What I need is a partner who is technically capable of setting such a site up (I certainly am not). Do you have that capability? EraNavigator (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I already have a hosted site set up. But what I really want is an independent site which incorporates the Wiki source code, with the modifications I mentioned. Do you know anyone who might be interested in helping me set it up? EraNavigator (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Need some help, advice[edit]

I started the article for Operation Killer a while ago and have had trouble expanding it. As you are the coordinator for Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Military history, I was wondering if you could recommend anyone who could help me with building this article. Thanks! --SharkfaceT/C 19:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --SharkfaceT/C 22:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: CE check[edit]

Yep, I'll get right on it. SGGH speak! 08:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Roman auxiliaries[edit]

Hi. You promised you would ask your Roman history/archaeology prof to give you his opinion of this article. Also you could ask him what he thinks of Late Roman army. It would be nice to hear what a professional thinks of them. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't like Wikipedia, all the more reason to show it to him. We'll get more of a reaction (good or bad)! Anyway, why does it take so long to do this? You just have to print out a copy of the articles and give it to whoever you are asking for comments (you could even say it's your own work - if you dare). You know, Kurt, it's funny that you have such a negative opinion of Late Roman army: to me, it's by far the best article I've written for Wikipedia. That's why a professional opinion would be interesting. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You coward! You're just scared of offending your profs. Seriously, we need an expert in Roman history, not industrial technology. There must be a lecturer in the subject in your faculty. PS: you're not quite right about my schedule: to editing, you can add managing my stock portfolio (that's how I earn my living: it takes at least half an hour a day!) and sitting in the sun reading books. And watching Latin soap operas on the internet. (I am currently following a Catalan series called El cor de la ciutat which I strongly recommend. It's really passionate. For an example, go to YouTube and enter El cor de la ciutat 1584, the episode where the girl who leads a group of squatters falls in love with the owner of the block they are occupying, and who has been battling them in the courts to get them evicted. Don't worry if you don't understand Catalan: the person who posted the clip provides a summary in English and anyway, the action is graphic enough). Best wishes EraNavigator (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you try. If you tell them it's someone else's work that you are helping to edit, I don't see why your reputation should suffer. PS: If you want to be an academic, I would recommend you come and do your research doctorate in England, preferably Oxford or Cambridge, which have the best research libraries in the world. Also if you are qualified in England, you can teach all over the world (America, Australia etc), whereas with German degrees, you are stuck with Germany. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Early thermal weapons[edit]

Thanks for those detailed comments about Early thermal weapons. I've always planned to work the article towards FA, but stalled a bit following the A-class review. Great to have some pointers and constructive criticism. I've been distracted lately by a couple of other projects, but I will get back to it! Many thanks, Gwinva (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army[edit]

Check out my revamped critique of Luttwak in the strategy subsection of Late Roman army, in the light of the comments you made. Vale EraNavigator (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I already have access to the widest research base in the university library. As for Late Roman army, I do not intend to make any more significant changes, not of course because it can't be improved (it always can be) but because I do not want to devote any more time to it. What does interest me is to hear your prof's opinion of it, so as to have an idea of how good it really is from someone who is qualified to judge. That will help me when I write my own articles on my website. So I take it you will give it to your prof tomorrow? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The points you make are reasonable. But I don't think the discussion in Late Roman army should get too detailed: it's not a PhD thesis. The Fortifications and Strategy sections just aim to set out the basic issues and debate. The topic could be discussed in more detail (and with more sources) in the spin-off article I launched Defence-in-depth (Roman military). Perhaps you might be interested in expanding the latter? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: article rating[edit]

Hi there, I have just looked at the article, and after looking it over, I think that it does in fact meet MILHIST's B-class assessment. The only condition that it is currently failing on is enough in-line citations. But, after looking at the notes section I see that it has over 110 inline citations and I think that is a lot more than most MILHIST B-class articles have, but I have not bumped up the rating on the article yet because I wanted to talk to you before raising the article to B-class. I would appreciate your input on this before deciding to bump it up to B class :). All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that for me :). I do agree that some of the major points are in need of some citations and I understand why it is still a start class article as opposed to a B-class. Thanks for clarifying the reason for the start class rating for me :). All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Roman legion frontage[edit]

The previous assessment was totally unsupported since it gave a frontage of a mile for what army? A legion? A consular army of two legions? "a line as long as one mile" is too abstract when not accompanied by the size of the army. For example at Cannes, the frontage of the Romans was over 3 kms... Of course it was an exception, since it was one of the few times that they used more than the typical consular army. And in Zama, Scipio used Numides who greatly extended his line as well as at a time post his principes alongside his Hastati effectively doubling the frontage... So, a saying like that is not helpful and too abstract to use in an article like that. Maybe it was taken out of context, since I do not possess the original, so maybe Goldsworthy, who for some reason appears to be the main source used for this part of the article, wrote that along with some other details here missing...

As far as the usual frontage of a Republican full legion of the 2nd Punic War is concerned (Roman and allied together), we have to keep in mind that the given number of the Hastati was 2.400 men (1.200 Romans and 1.200 allies) usually posted 6 men deep. This allows for a frontage of 400 men who were usually arrayed in open order, which accounts for about 1 m for each soldier. Thus, we arrive at the number of 400 m for the infantry line only (since the line was indeed uninterrupted and even when in quincunx order, the legions did not widen their frontage but posted the posterior centuries behind). As you saw, I did not include cavalry because there is a big controversy as to how the turmae were posted. Most theories have it arrayed 10 men deep (although this would make them only 3 men wide and most ancient and medieval tacticians propose to array cavalry up to 4 men deep, but there is much confusion here too), others even 3 men deep. Furthermore, the intervals between the turmae are sadly unknown and only assumptions can be made as to their exact size, by studying works that define the array of cavalry in greater detail, although sadly not the one in question. Having in mind that the legionary cavalry included 1.200 men in 40 turmae, each turma could have a frontage of 4 - 10 meters, which gives a total of 160 to 400 meters not including the necessary intervals for the usual retreats. Most possibly, Goldsworthy has assumed that the cavalry frontage was 400 meters (a number that with intervals would average the above calculations) and thus calculated the frontage of a full legion at 800 meters. Given that the usual campaign army of the time was the consular army, consisting of two full legions he may have thus arrived at the number of 1.600 meters. But, as history stands, this was in no way a maximum, as Goldsworthy seems to suggest by his wording (as long as...). I can give you contemporary sources if you would like to certify that the frontage of the Romans in Cannes was really much more than 1.600 meters and about the rest of my claims, but in my opinion, it is much preferable to give the ancient sources as well.

I hope I have persuaded you for the reason I found the specific comment inadequate and would like to add this kind of analysis (with sources of course) to such an article. If you are interested in ancient tactics as I assume you are, I would welcome any conversation on such issues.

GK1973 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you ever thing of just taking out the quote since it is oibviously problematic???? You are right about the quote but it still is wrong. So, how do you propose to work on that? Should I post other "quotes" or proposals underneath this one, providing other data? Should we discuss this in the dicussion area of the article?

GK1973 (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


As to the numerical strength of the legion I think no more sources should be given at the time, since it is already documented in the relative article (Roman Legion).

As to the depth of the cohorts in array

"With 60 heavy infantry to a century there are only three practical formations, 3 deep, 6 deep and 12 deep. These are each formed by doubling the previous formation. This 6 x 10 basic formation seems to be confirmed by the marching order of 6 abreast." Peter Conolly, Greece and Rome at War, p.142 As to the space occupied by each man in the line

"The maniple could be drawn up in open order allowing for 6 feet per man or close order with 3 feet per man." Peter Conolly, Greece and Rome at War, p.142

"Every man held a frontage of 0.9 m (in close order)" John Warry, Art of war of the Greeks and Romans, p.112 (I have the German translation of this book)

"One thousand paces (*) contain a single rank of one thousand six hundred and fifty-six foot soldiers, each man being allowed three feet. Six ranks drawn up on the same extent of ground will require nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-six men. To form only three ranks of the same number will take up two thousand paces, but it is much better to increase the number of ranks than to make your front too extensive. We have before observed the distance between each rank should be six feet, one foot of which is taken up by the men. Thus if you form a body of ten thousand men into six ranks they will occupy thirty-six feet. in depth and a thousand paces in front." Flavius Vegetius Renatus, Li III, Proper Distances and Intervals (a very good text for Roman infantry, although Vegetius writes in the 4th century)

(* one Roman foot is (almost) 1.5 m)

As to the disposition of the turmae

"The 300 cavalry were divided into ten turmae, each 30 strong. Each turma had three decurions selected by the tribunes and three rear rankers (optiones). These ten-strong units must be interpreted as files and one must therefore conclude that the cavalry lines up either ten or five deep depending on circumstances." Peter Conolly, Greece and Rome at War, p.133

The rest is mathematics. I just usually prefer combining texts than using citations. So, what do you propose I do?

GK1973 (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for that. I managed to find another person with full access, so you can take it easy. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi. Check out expanded Organisation section of Laeti. PS: Any feedback from your profs yet? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Size of byzantines at yarmuk[edit]

Dacid nicolle in his book Yarmouk 636 wrote on page no 65 that muslims were outnumbered by 4 to 1. Which implies around 100,000 byzantine troops at yarmouk. Now all argues should be stoped imediately and info box should be edit. Nicolle was considered the best source for this battle and it mentioned 25,000 muslims and 100,000 byzantines. if any one have any doubts then gimme your email address i will sent you the page of that book. Mohammad Adil (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder you didn't knew about this book, Well its Yarmouk 636 Muslim conquest of Syria, by David Nicolle. Search it its easily available on net. Mohammad Adil (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army[edit]

I thought that was your own feedback, not your prof's. Did you really ask him? Yours (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC) EraNavigator (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for trying. What was the overall verdict? Good or bad (as an encyclopedia article, of course)? PS. I can read German, with the aid of a dictionary (although I can't say that I ever enjoy the experience, as I find it a very formal, grammatically complex and long-winded language compared to English). I think English was created for me. Although I'm not of English origin, I learnt to speak it fluently in just 3 weeks (admittedly I was only 6 years old: at that age you learn incredibly fast). I just find it so expressive and flexible. It's amazing how it combines grammatical simplicity with an unrivalled ability to express complex ideas clearly and concisely. I guess it's for that reason that it's triumphed as the international language. PS: check out my expanded Battle of Navarino article, especially the Relative Strength of the Powers and Battle sections. Amicus tuus EraNavigator (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. In the light of the comments you got from your department, I have amended the wording of the Fortification and Strategy sections of Late Roman army to make it more neutral between forward/defence-in-depth. One of the comments was that the sections did not reflect the scientific evidence (presumably the archaeological evidence?). Are they saying, therefore, that forts were built in the hinterland as well as the on the rivers themselves? I think it would be useful if you added a paragraph or two to Defence-in-depth (Roman military) summarising the archaeological evidence from those German papers you mentioned for defence-in-depth, which i can then use for Late Roman army also. Also, I'm thinking of transferring most of the Strategy section of Late Roman army to Defence-in-depth (Roman military), leaving just a brief summary. What do you think? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've slimmed down the Strategy section. Would you mind editing and grading Defence-in-depth (Roman military) and maybe adding one or two paras of your own? I see this article as a starting-point, which people can expand. But it's already 20k, so it can stand as an article. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope that doesn't mean I have to do without your company for months (can you at least get Defence-in-depth (Roman military) a B-grade?). I've transferred the detailed account of the battle of Strasbourg to the eponymous article. This brings Late Roman army down to 115k (from 130k before the transfers). I don't think I can shrink it much further without losing essential content, as it's a big subject. PS: If I succeed in getting my copyright-protected site going, would you be interested in contributing to it? tuus EraNavigator (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that concision is desirable. But it must not be taken too far, especially in an encyclopedia for the general reader. The danger is that clarity can be sacrificed if you are too brief and make assumptions about the reader's background knowledge. I noticed that you have a tendency to this when I was editing your Second Punic War article. What may be obvious to you as an expert in the field can be impenetrable to an average reader. In my articles I have deliberately assumed no knowledge in the reader and spelt things out even at the cost of extra length and some repetition. PS: Your archaeological contributions would be very welcome. (By the way, is it archaeology you are studying or history? And what level are you at? Are you doing research for a PhD or German equivalent)? You are right to make the point about reputation. I think my site will have no difficulty in attracting contributions, but quality control will obviously be critical. The rules will be simple: all statements must be referenced, as in Wiki. Original research will be welcome, but would also require full references. Any contribution that is not properly referenced will simply be removed by the Site Administrators. The aim is to attract contributions from the whole range of writers, from established academics to talented amateurs. The hope is that the former will see it as a convenient platform for giving their papers a wider audience than just academic journals. Lower down the scale, students such as yourself will see it as the opportunity to get published. Anyway, nothing ventured, nothing gained, as the saying goes. PPS: I am glad your contributions will be translated. In fact, on my site only contributions in English will be accepted. Actually, I think academia worldwide should switch to English as the medium for all publications. At the moment, if you want to research, say, the Sarmatians, you have to struggle with works in German, Hungarian, Russian and even obscure Caucasian languages such as Georgian and Ossetian. This is absurd. Tuus (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC) EraNavigator (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)[edit]

The May 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) 02:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Strasbourg[edit]

Hi. Check out the Battle of Strasbourg, which I have expanded (partly with material transferred from Late Roman army) from a stub ibto a full article. Can you upgrade this to B-class from stub? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that it should be Battle of Strasbourg. Could you please change it back, as I'm not sure how to jiggle redirects? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

nicolle's work.[edit]

hi, where did he contradict himself ? on muslims numbers ? he just mentioned the number of muslim army at one place and it is under the heading "size of muslims armies" on page 43, which says 25,000. where have you seen 15-20,000 ? check again bro .... and about the sources nicolle have used ... then check at the end of the book, he have mentioned them... for the byzantine information he have used "kaegri" and for the arms of muslims soldeirs he have used a work of some muslim historians (i forgot the name) for the event related to yarmouk he have used Yousaf Ghawwami's markat-ul-yarmouk (battle of yamrouk) from yarmouk university jordan, where even nicolle have tought for years. for the invasion of syria, ajnadyn fahal, damascus and maneuvors at yarmouk he have used Akram's sword of Allah.

I think over all he have done a great job and i admire his hard work, as for accuracy, i doubt that western historians cant achieve it in muslims military history, as they dont generally have the primary muslims sources with them, translated and interpreted. Like, i was laughing when i saw, the images of muslim solderis in the book who were wearing traditional arab dress of two piece garment known as "Azar" (like muslims wear during Hajj) ... he may never know that this "Azar" was forbidden in Islam and Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) advised muslims not to wear it but wear a shirt and trousers so that they dont resemble the non-muslim arabs. Muslims never wore that dress, and nicolle was unawear what was the tradition that time !

any ways no book is perfect, even i read kaegri mentioned khalid was 18 in battle of yarmouk, though he was 44 that time !.

Akram's work has already been declared by some unwise dudes as not authentic ... if rights in religious way then whats the problem.... take the fact from it and ignore the religon from that ... similarly take the facts from nicolle's work and ignore the contradictions. kindly tell me where else is contradiction in nicolle work ? Mohammad Adil (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Check out the revised first 2 paras of the Background section; and the expanded Aftermath and Roman Order of Battle sections of Battle of Strasbourg. I didn't much like the Italian pictures, so I imported a couple from Late Roman army. So, does this qualify for B-class? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the sources I used for Late Roman army and they all refer to it as the "Battle of Strasbourg". I think you should change it asap. Thanks for the input. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Numbers at the Battle of Yarmouk[edit]

Regarding your conversations with Mohammad adil on this talk page, where you specify the numbers, I would like to notify that you had misquoted some figures. On page 65 of Nicolle's book, he specifys the army that Vahan commanded to be of 15,000 to 20,000 troops. That's just one regiment. Now Vahan was an Armenian fighting for Byzantines and on page 43, he provides the numbers to be anywhere between 20,000 and 40,000 for the Muslims and settle in for a probability of 25,000 Muslims. Hope to hear from you soon. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Ya i was here to tell you the same thing that USEr:arunregianald has said.

on page 43 he gave "his" esatimates for the muslim army, which is 25,000 "soldiers" not women included. read the pages again you will get what our point is n what we are trying to say. regards. Mohammad Adil (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Primary sources says 6 to 1 some says 5 to 1, and of course they exaggrate it.

I personally suggest 40,000 for muslims as most of the muslim sources states that and becoz of the muslims system of 'divan" in which the names of every soldier of every regiment and his profile was mentioned, it was easy for muslims to estimates accurately that how much they exactly were. and front of 11 miles is even mentioned by other historians too, and probably it is from a primary source. and that 15-20,000 was the regiment of Vahan, probably the elite byzantine force from the capital constantinopole. other regiments were under there own commanders. Mohammad Adil (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I think i have written about it in Rashidun army, and in the yarmouk's article i dont feel that it will help, as the article purely deals with the battle.

As for the byzantine troops, the troops gathered at yarmouk were byzantine troops, what do you actually mean by "only minority was byzantine's original army" ???? i mean, salvs, armenians, arabs, greeks, franks etc etc were the people who formed the byzantine forces, they all were there, and defeat was for all of them and for the empire as well. The magnitude of the defeat can easil be understand that after yarmouk, byzantine were never able to field an other large army against Rashidun Caliphat, and lost armenia, eastern anatolia, mesopotamia and offerred little resistance. most importantly Egypt, which was conquered with out fighting any pitch battle at all ! What do you say ? as for me, hsitory speaks for its self, byzantine never recovered from yarmuk in near future. Mohammad Adil (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Well to correct you again, nicolle says that at the eve of muslims invasion of syria byzantine had atmost 50,000 fighting force against them. and he further mentions that during umar's caliphate, he at its peak might had 50,000 troops.

and surely bring a regular army of 100,000 from all over the empire for one battle is quit silly ! and the bulk of the army at yarmouk were new recruits and allies from franks, salvs, armenians, greeks, arabs, and might be some copts as well. He also mentioned that elite troops of 25,000 from capital were also sent to yarmouk. Mohammad Adil (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi. Check out new Tactics section and expanded Prelude and Roman order of battle sections. PS You have enough support to change the title? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Where have you been these last few days? I miss our regular messages. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the input. I'll check the points you made. PS: I notice that Roman legion has been awarded B-class even though hardly any of its statements are referenced. Also the text seems pretty insubstantial for B status. Perhaps it should be downgraded? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi. What are the benefits of getting A grade for an article (other than just vanity) and do you think Roman auxiliaries, Late Roman Army and Battle of Strasbourg would qualify? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

JSTOR request[edit]

Would you mind getting me this article, on the pacification of the Liberian hinterland: Really appreciate it. Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 11:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Wandelstouring, look forward to it. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 09:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou Wandelstouring, it looks like Woody has actually managed to get it. Thanks for your help anyway, Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 00:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


What I am primarily interested in is whether an A-class article has more protection from casual editing or vandalism than other articles? PS: Regarding vandalism, has Wiki management considered restricting editing to signed-up contributors only? Surely this would cut vandalism dramatically? tuus EraNavigator (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is no special protection, I do not wish to devote the time and energy to getting A-class for these articles. B-class is a sufficient quality grading. That does not of course mean they cannot be improved. But I leave that to others (perhaps you would care to get them through an upgrade?) PS: I am wondering whether dealing with legions and auxilia in separate main articles makes sense. Roman auxiliaries contains a lot of information about legions which is not present in Roman legion. The latter, however, gets 800 hits a day (because everyone has heard of legions) while auxilia gets only 25 a day. Do you think it would be better to merge the two, dividing by period rather than by corps i.e Republican Roman army and Imperial Roman army, to complement Late Roman army. Each would deal with both legions and auxilia together. Any views on this? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: B-Class Reviews[edit]

I have to say that these articles are very well done and that they thoroughly cover the topic. Nice job!

Of these three articles (Late Roman army, Roman military confederation, and Auxiliaries (Roman military)), I believe the article on Auxiliaries is the best. The amount of pictures and diagrams was excellent, and the topic was well convered.

The article on the Roman military confederation was also very good, but it could use a few more pictures. However, I doubt that any more pictures other than maps can be easily found.

The Late Roman army article was also very well done. The amount of pictures and diagrams were adequate. However, there is an area named "External Images". I think that the link to the images were listed in the wrong order. When I pressed "Reenactor as Late Roman archer", it gave me a staff slinger. When I pressed "Reenactor as Late Roman staff slinger", it gave me a reenactor with a saxophone-looking instrument.

Other than these tiny problems, these articles were very well done and do deserve B-class status. I even recommend a GA or A-class status if it were possible. Nice job, and Happy Editing! --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


I've revised the Roman Order of Battle section of Battle of Strasbourg, since I realised that the Celtae regiment, which was described as a legion in the Ammianus translation I was using, was actually an auxilium. I also expanded the Tactics section. PS: It's nice praise in the para above. But I thought you might get these articles assessed for A-class, not B-class! By the way, Roman military confederation has not been given a rating yet. Amor EraNavigator (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it's worth getting some review feedback on Battle of Strasbourg? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A class[edit]

Unless and until there is extra protection for A-class articles, I don't think I will bother to apply for it. But a general review of the kind you already asked for auxilia and Late Roman army could be useful for Battle of Strasbourg. PS: Are you going to grade Roman military confederation? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see the benefit of pursuing these vanity prizes (like those virtual medals you editors awared each other!). But of course you are free to submit them for whatever review you wish. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Greco-Persian War[edit]

Premature?! Firstly, the review was open for six days and no coordinator extended the review time after the first four days. Also, the nominator did not request an extension of the review time and didn't respond to reviewers' comments. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A class[edit]

We'll see what happens, although I doubt the response will significantly differ from a peer review. What does mystify me is why you do not think auxilia and Late Roman army are on the same level as Battle of Strasbourg, since I think they are better. Although I don't care whether they are awarded A-grade, I am interested in how you guys rate quality.

For example, let's take Structural History of the Roman military. You awarded A-class, indeed featured article class, to this error-ridden jumble of quotes from a disparate group of historians, many of them hopelessly out of date (there is especial reliance on Santosuosso's Storming the Heavens: I don't think even the Roman army could do that!). It is clear that the author(s) don't know Latin: mistakes include numerii, auxiliae, auxiliae palatini etc. Worse, the authors are unaware of the fundamental distinction between Roman citizens and peregrini, and the fact that the auxilia were manned by the latter (they appear to confuse peregrini with barbarians. Indeed before I wrote auxilia, they clearly thought that the latter were manned entirely by barbarians and that every inhabitant of the empire was a Roman citizen). The Roman republic section has virtually no mention of the Latin allies even though they provided half the army (the one brief paragraph on these was added after A grade was awarded). The article is riddled with discredited theories of the past e.g. the statement that the Romans "had never taken readily to the sea": the same Romans who utterly crushed the Punic navy, the most powerful of its day, in the First Punic War and went on to clear the entire Mediterranean of pirates.

I think the fundamental problem is the Wiki edit culture: there is an assumption that if something is referenced, it is therefore valid, regardless of how ancient the comment is. Surely the author should discriminate between sources depending on their quality and date. Also the policy of neutrality. Putting both points of view is fine, but in my view the author has a responsibility to point out which view is best supported by the evidence. I look forward to your viws on this. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

rashidun caliphate army[edit]

hi,thanks forworking on that article i really appreciate your efforts. inshallah i will try to improve my english spellings and style etc etc. regards Mohammad Adil (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A class[edit]

Just for the record, I am a fluent French speaker, and, as I mentioned before, I can read German pretty well. Also, I have studied for a part-time diploma in archaeology (and taken part in several weeks' excavation), so I'm not illiterate in the subject. Obviously, the research for the articles I have written for Wiki has been superficial, and limited to a few key English works in the subject. But that's precisely because OR is not appropriate and a Wiki article is not supposed to be a PhD thesis. At the end of the day, there are only so many hours in each day (even for me). There is no alternative (for Wiki articles) but to rely on broad syntheses of the available evidence such as Elton, providing that they are academically reputable and up-to-date. These syntheses in turn are based on the literature in scholarly journals e.g. Elton has plenty of references to German works. (It is true that I generally find the Continental syntheses inferior to the English ones: much less thorough, lacking in insight and/or full of pompous verbosity e.g. Le Bohec, whose works on the Roman army are pedestrian and a joke compared to Elton). But it is absurd to suggest that Wiki authors should read all the articles on a vast subject like the late Roman army in obscure German academic journals. That really would be OR, and I would only do that if I was producing my own copyrighted work.

My overall point is that an article should take a position on key issues, where the modern consensus is clear, and not just be a jumble of contradictory statements. The latter does not serve the reader. For example, the traditional idea that cavalry was much more important in the late army than in the Principate. There is not a shred of evidence to support that view and it has been dumped by most modern authors. In my view, the Wiki article should make this consensus clear. Same for the nonsense of the idea that barbarian recruits ruined the Roman army. But that is why I am keen to set up my own site, which will be free of the Wiki editorial tyranny and could become a lively forum for debate of these issues. PS: One way to protect A-class articles is to restrict edits to members of editorial teams such as yourself. Any contributor wishing to make changes would have to propose them on the Discussion page, and it would be up to people like you to decide whether to incorporate them. What do you think? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


Check out new sections on Alamanni and Alamanni forces in Battle of Strasbourg PS: Regarding protection for A articles, Wiki could learn from Citizendium. These guys have a class they call Approved Articles, that are vetted by editorial teams that include academics to ensure quality. If you want to make changes to an approved article you propose your changes in a "draft page", and then the proposed change has to be approved by the editorial team. Another feature of Citizendium is that everyone writes under their real names, which has virtually eliminated vandalism. Citizendium is a really good concept. If it can acquire critical mass, it could eventually eclipse Wiki because of the quality guarantee. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


I have thinned out the text of Battle of Strasbourg a little. I have also rearranged some paras into Tactics (now renamed The Adversaries Compared) to make it more coherent. I have reduced the Alamanni section, but I think we do need to keep this brief introductory section to lead the reader into the article: all its paras are now relevant to what follows. By "armour" I meant "metal armour" but you are right to point out that leather was also used for body protection, so I have amended the text to specify "metal armour". Yours EraNavigator (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not much has changed actually. Tactics got a new title and a couple of paras that were dotted around moved to it. Besides, I didn't want a review, remember? Thanks for your input anyway. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC) PS: Am i not supposed to respond to the comments as they are made? EraNavigator (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I meant respond by incorporating suggested improvements in the text? Yours

Are you happy with the revised para on armour/weapons (para 4 of The Adversaries Compared) in Battle of Strasbourg? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my wording. I was saying exactly the same as you: that swords were rare and limited to the higher class, while axes and saxes were common among the ranks. I didn't mean (and nor did Elton) that they carried only spears. But your wording is obviously clearer. Interesting point about weapons imports from Asia. I didn't know that was taking place on a large scale. PS: what's this term Germania libre? Surely that's French, not Latin. In Latin it's Germania libera? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC) PPS: I notice you cut out some other tectical points drawn from Elton, such as the Germans fighting in a dense mass without clearly defined units and Julian having more control over the way the battle proceeded. I see these as relevant and suggest we reinstate them. PPS: your modifications generated an error message in the Citations which I don't understand. Could you deal with it? Thanks EraNavigator (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Having checked through Ammianus' account of the battle, I realise that I missed statements implying that many Alamanni had swords, unless he uses the terms gladius to mean saxes, but this is unlikely in the context: Amm XVI.12.44: ... barbari...nostros in modum testudinis...scindebant ictibus gladiorum adsiduis and 46: ...comminus mucro feriebat contra mucronem et loricae gladiis findebantur... It occurred to me that the Alamanni probably captured many swords, and other equipment, from the limitanei troops whose forts they overran during the Magnentius rebellion and that this may be why many more had swords at Strasbourg than would normally be the case. So I propose the following amended wording for the paragraph in question:

Most of the Roman troops wore metal body armour (usually in the form a chain mail cuirass), helmets and carried swords (spathae), as well as shields and spears.[8] In contrast, Alamanni foot soldiers were mostly armed with just a shield, a spear and at least another close-combat weapon. Forging technology, capacity and personnel were limited in Germania libera. Sophisticated forge-artefacts such as metal body armour and helmets were thus rare and expensive and thus probably owned by the optimates class only.[9] It is not known how widespread swords were among the Alamanni, but Ammianus' report on the battle implies that many were armed with them.[10] (It is possible that many of these swords were captured from Roman limitanei when the Rhine forts were overrun). Barbarian weapons seem to have been often made of simple iron, although steel-making was known in Germania libera. In contrast, Roman weapons were mostly made of a type of steel known as chalybs Noricus, which, although relatively low-quality, was much superior to unhardened iron. Generally superior equipment gave the Romans an advantage in close-quarters combat. Any comments? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A fair point about the Alamanni formation shift, although Ammianus talks of a globus (which means a round mass) of optimates coalescing, rather than a wedge shape (cuneus). Also there is no evidence in Ammianus that this was a disciplined manoeuvre, as opposed to a spontaneous action: he uses the verb exsilere ("to spring up"). But to refine my point about manoeuvrability, the Romans were much better able to carry out reactive, as opposed to pre-planned, manoeuvres. From his detached command point (presumably in the space between the two Roman lines), Julian would be able to control his units (e.g. telling the auxilia on the rear right to move forward and support the front right), by trumpet signal or by messages borne by his staff officers, in a way that Chnodomar, fighting in the thick of the action, could not. The fact that Chnodomar did not keep a detached vantage point shows that, once he had given his initial dispositions, he had no intention, or ability, to control or react to events. He would have to rely on his chiefs' powers of initiative. Which brings me to unit discipline. Granted that the Alamanni were divided into contingents, probably pagus - based, as mentioned in the Section Alamanni Forces. But these were just loose bands of warriors that could (at most) follow their chiefs where they led them. But they were in no way the same as the disciplined units of the Roman army. Roman soldiers were trained to stand in lines and at set intervals and to move in formation. They could respond accurately and separately to relatively complex orders. To put it simply, the Germans were playing at dice, while the Romans were playing at chess. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Military History Wiki[edit]

Dear Wandalstouring, you are a member of Wikiproject Military History, and I would like to notify you that a new Wiki has been made for Military History. If you are interested in participating in this project, please follow the following link. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me!


Ammianus himself makes the point about the Romans' superior training in the battle: Alamanni robusti et celsiores, milites (nostri) usu nimio dociles... (Amm. XVI.12.47). It is clear from his narrative that in the final phase of the battle, which was one of attrition with close-quarters combat, that the Alamanni were no match for the Romans, which is why they ended up in headlong flight. That must be due to superior equipment and training. Anyway, I think this discussion has been very useful. Thanks EraNavigator (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC) PS: I still have this error message in the Citations of Battle of Strasbourg. Can you help please? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating info about archers. The bows sound identical to the famous longbow used by the English to devastating effect in battles in the Hundred Years War. But are we sure Raddatz is right that these existed in 4th c. Alamannia? If they did, they would surely have had a major impact on the battle, and the Romans would have suffered far higher casualties. I notice that Raddatz is a very dated source (1967). Since there is no evidence that they were present at Strasbourg, I am wondering whether we should mention them in this article? Also the point about a move to a more open kind of warfare. Again, there is no evidence of it at Strasbourg, which was close-quarters struggle. Perhaps this article is not the right place to discuss this trend? PS: you talk about the topos of superior Roman training. Should it not be the typos? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I know it's a Greek word (I studied Greek also), but I'm wondering whether it's the correct one for what we are talking about. Even if it's correct, I have never seen it used in this way in English. We generally use stereotype or "convention" for this meaning. Anyway, I feel that the Adversaries section has now become almost too balanced. When all is said and done, the Romans inflicted a crushing defeat on superior numbers with negligible casualties of their own. Since they did not deploy (or were not able to deploy) any clever plan or stratagems, and the battle resolved into an attrition struggle, that can only be due to much superior equipment and/or training. The point has been rather lost by overplaying the Alamanni's resources. Although you're right to refine my generalisations, the latter are broadly accurate. The Alamanni were, in the main, an "undisciplined rabble of part-time levies" (wording you removed) which stood little chance in a set-piece pitched battle against the Romans. Also I don't think it's legitimate to question Ammianus' account, since it's the only detailed source we have. When he says the Germans relied on an initial charge and that the final phase was attrition in which superior Roman training prevailed, we have to accept that this is what happened and not just say it's a stereotype (which implies it's inaccurate). So I propose to sharpen up the wording of the section a little to bring this out. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a real problem with disregarding Ammianus, because if you do that, you might as well not write about the battle, since he is the only source. Check out the revised section. I've kept most of your material. But I have organised the section better, and removed speculation, focussing on what Ammianus actually says. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that A-grade might deter some casual editing. While you are at it, you might as well submit Late Roman army also. PS: Adversaries Compared section in Battle of Strasbourg is looking good now, would you agree? I regret my superficial research on this topic: I was too focused on describing the overall campaign strategy. So thank you very much for your input. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Defence in depth[edit]

I notice that Defence-in-depth (Roman military) remains ungraded. Could you please take a look at it? PS: I'm aware that this article needs some expansion. But I think there's already enough there to be graded. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Milhist reviews March-May 2008[edit]

CRM.png The Content Review Medal of Merit  
In recognition of your contribution in improving Military history articles through A-Class and Peer Reviews, during the period March-May 2008, please accept this Content Review Medal of Merit, --ROGER DAVIES talk 02:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Defence in depth[edit]

We did talk of you adding a few paragraphs to Defence-in-depth (Roman military) summarising the current state of archaeological evidence on this topic. Are you still intending to do so? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds nice. Where are you traveling to? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Both are great countries. I liked Romania especially (I was there in 1996). Are you staying with people, or back-packing around? PS: If I were you, i would leave J. Caesar alone. It's a huge subject and the existing article is good enough for Wiki purposes. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


The commentator is quite right. The first part of Roman auxiliaries needs a LOT more references. It's because I wrote it before I was used to Wiki ways. I'll deal with it ASAP. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

thermal weapons[edit]

Thanks for the note. I keep meaning to get back to the article, following our discussions. It'd be great if you had a look. I'll be offline for some of Jul/Aug, but keen to hear your thoughts after that. Gwinva (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


For the welcome. · AndonicO Engage. 11:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but I'm still struggling with the Roman auxiliaries refs. I must admit I was quite negligent about entering these, so I'm having to do a lot of checking. I'm making good progress (over 50 refs added so far) but I have some way to go. So I think it's best I leave this article in your capable hands. But I agree with you it's not good enough for A-gade as it stands. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)[edit]

The June 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) 20:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


How did Roman legion get grade B? It's almost entirely unreferenced, has a very skimpy text with a number of inaccuracies and poor illustration. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought only editorial team members such as yourself could award grades! You know, I'm convinced that unless Wiki management get to grips with quality control, the whole project is doomed. I think there should be special codes that can write in grades and are given only to team members, so people cannot just award themselves grades. Also, I think B should be the maximum grade that team members can award, and B should be set at a high standard, at the same level as A now. In future A-grade should only be awarded if an article is approved by a consultant academic expert in the field, as I believe Citizendium does. In other words, A-grade has to be really good and academically respectable. Once A-grade is awarded, the article should be locked, and only the main author, and editorial team members, allowed to edit it.

Otherwise you get the problem you mentioned already, that a good article will actually deteriorate over time, as successive "improvements" are made which gradually turn it into an incoherent mess. I think the real menace for Wiki are not vandals, as it is relatively easy to identify their changes. Rather it's the well-intentioned but clueless contributors who do not know what they are talking about. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The references for Roman auxiliaries are now complete at last. It's been quite a sweat: over 100 extra refs. I took the opportunity to trim and rationalise the text, without making any major changes. The end-product I think is looking good. It must be the most comprehensive coverage of auxilia you can find in one 100k work. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Again, I must regretfully decline. As I explained before, I don't want to become an editor. One overall comment I would make: I don't think it's worthwhile to have a separate article on each component of an organic unit such as a manipular legion. You should suggest to the author that he combines his articles into a single Polybian legion or Manipular legion article, so that the interaction between the components can be discussed in a holistic way. PS: I still think academic input in classifying the best articles is important, since readers need a gold-class of articles that they can trust. This is especially useful for school students who might want to use Wiki articles as sources for their assignments. Wiki should consider paying academics for their time if necessary. As for B being the lowest grade, you simply create a new C-grade to take its place. I'm not saying Wiki should become a clone of Citizendium, simply that some of Citizendium's ideas are useful. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Auxiliaries (Roman military) copyedit[edit]

I've got a couple more days on Sri Lankan Tamil people, and then I can focus on Auxiliaries (Roman military). Thanks for inviting me to help out with the project! --AnnaFrance (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we limit AnnaFrance's input to just the footnotes/other minor stylistic points and not have the text mangled? Previous "copyedits" (what in normal English we call text revisions) that you arranged have not been encouraging: in many cases the changes made the text less clear or lost the point entirely and I have had to revert them. I have already tightened up the wording considerably. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Your beloved copyeditors and I don't agree on style. My prose, as you have probably noticed, consists of short, simple sentences with the focus on precision and clarity, even at the expense of some repetition. Because this is what readers need. In contrast, your copyeditors seem obsessed with avoiding repetition and eliding sentences. The result is often a mess, where two clear points become one unclear jumble. Perhaps the best thing is to ask her to make suggestions for text improvements, but leave me to decide which ones to adopt (the same as SGGH did). Yours EraNavigator (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no sign that my prose style is unpopular (except with your copyeditors). None of the comments contain any criticism of the prose: on the contrary, the original proposer says it's "clearly written". The comments only relate to minor points of style such as dates and footnotes. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: triarii[edit]

Yes, I would be happy to join you in improving the article Triarii. Just tell me what you would like me to do, and I will be happy to do so right away. :) Happy Editing! Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The traditional rfa thank you message[edit]

AFA Graduates.jpg Thank you for the support!
Wandalstouring, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 02:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


Well, I beg to differ with R. Davies' view. And his prose style preferences are no more valid than mine. But this is all getting a bit silly. The article is written in perfectly good English, so why not leave it at that? I'll obviously listen to what AnnaFrance has to say. But there's a limit to the amount of time I want to spend on this. I'm keen to move on to research and write my own pieces. PS: I'm in the process of tidying up Late Roman army. It should be ready for submission on Monday. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Specify level of copy-editing[edit]

 Done RC-0722 361.0/1 12:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Because I don't think American teenagers can teach me anything about how to write good English prose (rather the other way round!). As for the argument that if I don't change it, someone else will, it has no validity, since anyone can change the article as they please. And no doubt will, mainly for the worse. I dread to think what it will look like, say, a year from now! But anyway, as I said, I don't want to devote any more time to it. PS: Your English is very good, but not native-quality or even near-native quality. That's inevitable, as you did not grow up in an English-speaking country. In Second Punic War my corrections were not just idiomatic: there were plenty of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. But that's not important, as you will improve with practice (e.g. by reading my wonderfully-written articles!). More relevant, if I may be permitted to comment on your own prose style, is your tendency to assume that the reader is as clever and knowledgeable about the subject as you are. This often leads to a failure to make your point in a clear way. Most of my changes to 2nd Punic War were aimed at making opaque statements easier to follow. I think the best policy is to assume that the reader is an ignorant fool, and to spell things out. Encyclopedias are about explaining things. You have to admit that noone who reads my work can ever be in any doubt about what I mean to say. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman equestrians[edit]

Have you seen the article Equestrian (Roman)? It's a real mess. Unreferenced, confused and full of factual errors. If you agree, I propose to erase the entire text and replace it with a 2-3 paragraph stub which can be the starting-point of a proper article. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Since writing the above, I've discovered that the text of this article is copied (although not attributed) word-for-word from This is actually a good site, but contains no references either. It is copyright material, but I believe the author does not mind people using it. Nevertheless, I'm sure you'll agree that it's not a good idea for a Wiki article to simply reproduce a copyrighted site. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It's definitely copied from, as Livius is cited under "External links and sources" and its text is longer than Wiki's (i.e. Wiki has copied only parts of Livius' version). But I understand and accept your instructions. For now, I'll leave this article alone. I'm not sure I want to write a full replacement at this point, though it certainly is needed. Yours (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC) EraNavigator (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Having checked again, the whole Livius article has been copied. Jona Lendering, the owner of the site, claims authorship and copyright over the Eques article. Does this not make Equestrian (Roman) a candidate for erasion? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that the text contribution for 14 July 2005 is virtually identical to the Livius article. But I'll leave any action to you, as I don't want to screw things up. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Tank task force[edit]

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


I've rewritten the intro for Equestrian (Roman) so as to provide a sound platform for expansion. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Adriatic campaign of 1807-1814[edit]

Hi, I'm a little confused with the above article. It says on the talk page that this has passed as GA, but it has not been added to WP:GA or been removed from WP:GAN, where it says you are still reviewing it. Can you clarify this for me?--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of Julian the Apostate (again)[edit]

I am contacting you because you participated in a recent discussion at Talk:Julian the Apostate about changing the title of the page. That discussion closed, and immediately afterwards a new proposal was created to move the page to Julian. Please give your opinion of this new proposal at Talk:Julian the Apostate#Requested_move_2. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Late army[edit]

I'm happy for Late Roman army to go to review, but I'm still working on refs/tidying up. Give me till Friday, and then please do submit it. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Some problems with IP editors[edit]

I've just semi-protected the page for 72 hours and newly registed and IP editors won't be able to change it. Let me know if that still doesn't work. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Vimy Ridge GA Review[edit]

I have added responses to you GA review comments of Battle of Vimy Ridge. Please review at your earliest convenience and let me know if additional information need be provided.Labattblueboy (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Level 4 copyedit[edit]

I'll do what I can. RC-0722 361.0/1 16:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class articles & reviews[edit]

I'm finding the Military History WikiProject much more fascinating than I had anticipated. Whenever EraNavigator (or anyone else) has an article that needs another pair of eyes, I'll be happy to put it on my schedule. Just send me the title of the article. I generally consider myself more on the side of the reviewed than the reviewer :), but I will check out the A-Class reviews when I have some extra time.

  1. ^ Goldsworthy (2005) 65
  2. ^ Tomlin (1988)
  3. ^ Goldsworthy (2000) 164
  4. ^ Tomlin in Wacher (1988) 108
  5. ^ J. J. Wilkes The Illyrians (1992)
  6. ^ J. Boardman The Illyrians in Cambridge Ancient History Vol VI (1923) 428
  7. ^ Tomlin in Wacher (1988) 109
  8. ^ Elton (1996) 110-2
  9. ^ Elton (1996) 69
  10. ^ Ammianus XVI.12.44 and 46