Talk:Agentes in rebus

Untitled

It does not make sense to have the article "Agentes in rebus". it should be "Rebus, agentes in" It should be changed back.

Well, I don't understand. There are many Google hits for agentes in rebus; it is perfectly good Latin, and I would need convincing that the other order had something going for it. Charles Matthews 18:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suppose either is valid and you make a fair point. Upon further reflection and study, both terms seem to be used equally throughout my reference texts and original texts, so it was unfair of me to say "it should be changed back." I apologize for such strong words on part. Also, there are ever so slightly more Google hits for Rebus, agentes in than Agentes in rebus if that means anything. However, I would still argue Rebus, agentes in is organizationally better as it makes more sense to place the article in the encyclopedia starting with the letter "R." This is because "Agentes in rebus" is a bit like saying "agents of the FBI," or "agents of the post" literally. Saying "Rebus, agentes in" is like saying "FBI, agents of" thus bring the empahasis to FBI not agents because it is the first word. Organizationaly it makes more sense to place it under the letter "R" instead of the letter "A". If there is a disinclination to use commas in article titles then so be it. Hopefully you understand my rationale and will come to a good decision as you are more familiar with the polices of the Wikipedia than I. let me know. Argonaut

Could you cite your reference for rebus', agentes in? Agentes in rebus just means 'agents of affairs', or similar. The inversion may exist, but I don't really follow your reasoning. Charles Matthews 09:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I spoke with a latin expert and he said I was wrong. So let's leave the entry the way it is. Thanks for catching my original mistake. Argonaut 17:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comparison to frumentarii

The article claims that agentes were longer in use than frumentarii, thus showing their (increased) efficiency. Given that the agentes were founded in 319, this makes little sense, even if we acknowledge that they were used in post-Roman states, -- Zz 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

What are the historical sources about them ? Theodosian Code, Amianus Marcelinus, Procope... What else ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.59.119.77 (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)