Talk:Structural history of the Roman military

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is undergoing a featured article review to ensure that it meets the standards of a featured article. Please add a comment to assist the process and/or be bold and improve the article directly. If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal. When the review is complete, a bot will update the article talk page.

	Structural history of the Roman military is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 8, 2007 Good article nominee Listed July 17, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has passed an A-Class review. This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC–c. 500 AD)

The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: PocklingtonDan (talk • contribs • email) This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Threads older than 30 days are automatically archived to Talk:Structural history of the Roman military/Archives

Contents 1 Archaeology 2 Gibbon 3 Curious 4 Celeres

[edit] Archaeology

Before ca. 1000 BC, nothing is known of Rome's military arrangements. The site of ancient Rome had been inhabited in some form from as early as 30,000 BC.<:ref name="grantP9">Grant, The History of Rome, p. 9</ref> Until around 1800 BC, stone tools and weapons are evident in the area's archaeology,<:ref name="caryP8">Cary & Scullard, A History of Rome, p. 8</ref> and it is doubtful that the inhabitants of the site maintained an organised military force. Instead, individuals armed themselves when necessary with "flint daggers and stone battle-axes".<:ref>Vogt, The Decline of Rome, p. 8</ref> Post-1800 BC, bronze age culture began to spread to the region, as it did throughout much of Western Europe, replacing stone (and possibly copper) weapons with bronze ones.<:ref name="caryP8"/>

This is off-topic here; it may be a start on Archaeology of Rome; although such an article should really include Grant's assertions that the discoveries before the settlement of Rome are human and Neanderthal remains, quite possibly not from the site of Rome itself; end in 1400 BC; and are not from the [Villanovan and Italic] cultures of the settlers of Rome.

A reasonable passage would be something like Archaeological evidence suggests that Rome was first settled about 950 BC; it was first urbanized about 650 BC. There is no archaeological evidence for their military structure. But even this would only be germane in debunking the Varronian dating from 753 BC, as Grant does; and I'm not sure this article needs to do that.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

[edit] Gibbon

I am glad to see that Gibbon is being sourced for matters of consensus fact; but really a book with so many editions should be cited by chapter (and Gibbon's note if possible). Finding Gibbon is not hard; Finding a particular edition is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I take on board your point but my edition is not marked with any form of count other than chapter (which alone would make for very vague citations) - I am not sure if such is included in other editions. My only option would be to count paras but given that this would take a long time and my edition abridges certain less vital sections, this would likely be both tedious and erroneous. I agree that where possible works should be cited to standard chapter, section, verse etc, but that was not possible in this case. Many thanks, PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least include chapter; there is no reason I should have to hunt down the Penguin to use these citations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Chapter (for what use it is) I can do, will get these added in shortly. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added in the chapters now, theres only a few citations to Gibbon at present so it didn't take too long. I'm glad that you approve of the Gibbon citations - I've taken some criticism previously in this article for using him as a source, but I think its fair to use him as a reference for consensus fact - whilst some archaeology of more recent years has made some of his commentary questionable on particulars, there's no doubt that he was intimately familiar with the latin sources as few people today are and so the vast majority of his work remains relevant. I'd also prefer to cite Gibbon for consensus fact just because I would prefer more people read Gibbon as a result than many of the other cited works, I think the man was a genius and its a shame his work is very little read these days. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curious

That this article passed FA status, yet failed to make one reference to Vegetius, who wrote the sole surviving contemporary textbook on Roman military practices, De Re Militari. -- llywrch 16:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

An article doesn't have to be perfect in order to achieve FA status, it doesn't have to cite every work ever written on a topic, so long as it is comprehensive. As you will also see, the article makes use of very few primary sources in its citations. This is for three reasons. Firstly, they tend to give individual statements of fact rather than sweeping statements of trends, the latter being more useful in such an article and being the work of secondary sources. Secondly, primary sources often contradict one another and must be evaluated in light of other evidence such as other primary sources, as well as archaeological evidence - to do this as a wikipedia author would amount to original research, our place is to report the most common conclusions published by others on the topic. And thirdly, because the authorities cited, being professors of history in the main, are probably far more familiar with such sources than are you or I.

Vegetius' work in particular is also of particularly limited use here, I would argue, being a prescriptive manual rather than a descriptive history. Saying that a thing should be so is not the same as stating that it is or was so. Vegetius was also writing very late in the empire and little of his work related directly to the aspect of the military covered in this article, ie its structure.

Additionally, I would like to take issue with your removal of all the "AD" tags in the article. This was not flagged as being an issue in the article's FA despite some anal and meticulous copyditing in line with the MOS, snd was conducted without prior discussion on this talk page. Are you able to cite a MOS page saying that listing a date in the format "253 AD" is not permitted on wikipedia? If not, I will revert your prior edits on this point. many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the removal of "AD" from the dates, the MOS page reads "Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era, but when events span the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–AD 1 or 1 BCE–1 CE.". It is of course a matter of interpretation whether "when events span" means within an sentence, paragrpah or an article, but I think it is clear that when this article covers both AD and BC, such disambiguation is helpful. I will revert to the use of "AD" in the article since this wasn't commented on in FA review and seems consistent with wikipedia MOS. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Beaten to it - another editor has already reverted your edits. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

First: I'm not taking away from the article's FA status -- the article is well written -- but I am puzzled that no one else thought to mention this work. It does not reflect well on the FAC process.

Considering that Vegetius is considered a major primary source, I think it's fair to wonder over his omission -- especially when discussing the fate of the Roman legion under the late Empire. I'd expect at least a link under "See also". Stating that primary sources should be avoided because they are difficult to work with is side-stepping the issue; in this case, if nothing else, Vegetius provides interesting confirmation that the Roman legionaire was no longer heavy infantry, & even if his fanciful explanation is dismissed as speculation it does indicate that by his time how this came about was not common knowledge. Primary sources need to be introduced in some way to help the reader move past the Wikipedia article into their own research.

As for presence or absense of "AD", since AD/CE is a point of contention to many individuals (I know of one person who stated that he finds "AD" offensive), I simply removed it where I thought the era was obvious from the context. At any point of ambiguity, I left it -- per common sense & the MOS. I was far more annoyed when "AD" appeared after the year -- & I suspect the MOS mentions that putting the abbreviation before is preferable. If not, it should, since that is traditional practice.

Lastly, just because FA gives its imprint on an article does not mean that it is finished or perfect: it is simply at a better quality. The wiki way means that an article is always subject to further edits. Or would you rather that I refrained from reading through my copy of A.H.M. Jones' The Later Roman Empire & providing a cite for or elucidation of his comments alluded to in this article? -- llywrch 22:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now that I've taken a moment to look at the FA discussion on this article, I see where your anger comes from. I'd feel sensitive too after dealing with some of the "anal and meticulous" comments there. (Reading those comments only confirms my decision to never submit an article for FA review again. Really, some of the nit-picking was so trivial I wonder why they didn't fix the problems themselves than spend more time pointing them out.) So let me try to rephrase my concerns above. (1) Vegetius needs some kind of mention -- even if only under "See also". Even if his material is difficult to use, the experts use it to explain the structure of the Roman army -- for example, he is cited for the evolution of the Roman soldier from heavy infantry to light by the 5th century. The fact you had some people more concerned over the title of the article & the bibliography boxes than making useful comments on the material (e.g. that complaint over lack of literary references for the pre-3rd century BC military only shows the guy didn't know what he was talking about) shows that my comment about Vegetius should be an indictment of their failure -- not yours. (2) Yes, the "AD" after the year annoys the &%#$ outta me -- it annoys me more than the bibliographical boxes many of those reviewers whined about -- & had I been in the FA review I would have asked you to fix them. Does this mean that if you didn't fix them I would oppose the nomination? No, because there is enough good things in this article that I would be a fool to do so. (I participated in a minor way with the FAC of Ceawlin of Wessex, but withheld a number of suggestions until after the process for the simple reason I didn't think they were worth giving anyone an excuse for opposing the nomination -- it must have been the right thing to do because they were happily accepted.) Anyway, I hope you see where I'm coming from, & I'm not trying to bad-mouth something you obviously put a lot of work into -- I just want to make some trivial fixes & continue to improve this article. -- llywrch 23:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Our practice on AD/BC and CE/BCE is simple; leave them alone. Please do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The MOS reads "note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it". This is supported by such style authorities as the MLA Handbook (sections 3.5.5 & 7.2). My removal of those unnecessary AD's was only out of consideration for my fellow Wikipedians sensibilities. Your quotation is not only out of context -- it only refers to changing BC/AD to BCE/CE -- but it also comes across to me as unnecessarily aggressive. -- llywrch 05:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that anything so reputable as the MLA would condemn anything so standard as 2250 AD, to cite an actual title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• As for the MoS, it appears to have been done, as often, as part of a large rewrite; this one was chiefly aimed at quelling the Date Wars. and I doubt it has ever been considered in detail. This is one editor's opinion; and should not be used to harass a good article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• As for aggression, look in the mirror. I quoted one adage in bold; if it makes any difference to you, I can rephrase in italics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And what would I see in the mirror? Besides the fact I need a shave? -- llywrch 04:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celeres

What Livy says about the celeres is that they were Romulus' bodyguard. He discusses the cavalry, the equites, in a different chapter. What is your authority for combining the two? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have my copy of Livy in front of me at the moment but that is not my recollection - I'm sure Livy specifically mentions the celeres were cavalry. i could be wrong but I will check this evening. Whether or not this is stated by Livy, however, it is clearly the consensus view in the secondary sources, several of which are cited in this regard for that section of the article. The arguments presented seem to be (from recollection) twofold: firstly that there is evidence of prior use of chariots and a cavalry element is unlikely to have completed disappeared for a period after the abandonment of chariots since cavalry is known to have existed after this time also; and secondly that the very name "the swift" would likely indicate a mounted contingent. The closest any of my sources come to stating otherwise is (I believe, again from memory) Boak, who argues that they were not cavalry but mounted infantry. None of my sources state otherwise than that they were mounted troops of some sort, and all but one state they were cavalry. Do you have a cite for the opposite? Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me go check Boak. I am quite certain of Livy; I was just reading him for something else, and was reminded of this article; the equites (three centuries) are in I, 13; the Celeres (three hundred, who stayed with Romulus night and day) are in I, 15. It may be that Livy has gotten it wrong again; but his intention seems clear. A Latin Livy is here; there's an English one at Perseus Project. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• The first paper at Scholar.google.com describes the celeres, fron Dionysus Hal. ii.13, as "fighting as cavalry or infantry at need." It also suggests that there has been a rousing fight whether celeres and equites are the same thing; our author denies it. (Also a citation that the early equites were mounted infantry.) H.Hill, "Equites and Celeres" Classical Philology, Vol. 33, No. 3. (Jul., 1938), pp. 283-290. Quote from 284. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had a chance to look at the sources now and refresh my memory. You are correct that Livy apparently states that the celeres were formed later after cavalry already existed in the army, but doesn't seem to mention explicitly whether they were infantry or cavalry. As you say, Dionysus seems to suggest mounted infantry, which is clearly the account favoured by Boak. Keppie and Grant both mention 300 cavalry, but do not term them celeres. The argument over whether they were probably cavalry seems to depend on whether you accept they were named literally "the swift" or named for their leader (in one account) Celer. It does seem though that I have overstated the position that the celeres were definitely equivalent to the cavalry, certainly that they were definitely equivalent to the entirety of the cavalry. I'm not sure to what extent it is original research to suggest that, given that the celeres were an elite and that only the elite traditionally could afford mounts at almost all historical timepoints, it would make sense for the celeres to have been mounted. It seems very probable to me the celeres were mounted infantry at least, if not cavalry, both bases on the sources and through common sense and parallel examples. How we word this succintly and accurately is another thing! Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would interpret anyone who says simply "cavalry" as referring to the equites, who certainly had horses; mounted infantry or not. Good luck with wording this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had a stab at rewording this to reflect the range of possible positions on this matter. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)