Talk:Lucius Artorius Castus

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

King Arthur Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject King Arthur, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.King ArthurWikipedia:WikiProject King ArthurTemplate:WikiProject King ArthurKing Arthur articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / Roman & Byzantine / Classical

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Archives

Archive 1

Armatos vs Armenios

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have been watching this debate with interest. To assist editors in making a decision I’d like to add the following from someone with some knowledge in this area along with my colleagues.

The reasons for ARMENIOS have already been given but the question is not why it’s favoured but whether it is a leading contender. Given it is supported by all the scholars mentioned the answer is clearly yes. It is, at the moment, a leading contender among the academic community.

Armatos is an interesting and imaginative suggestion albeit a little vague and an unusual word to use on such an inscription. Putting the arguments for and against to one side for a moment the question is does it have widespread support? It is accepted it is ‘new’ and the one paper to address it appears to be negative. There doesn’t seem to be support yet.

I would suggest the proponents of this new theory submit the idea to a publication that specialises in Roman studies or epigraphy.

My opinion would be the page as it stands today, with references to Armoricanos and Armenios, reflects the current academic position with the latter being the most favoured.

Armatos, when it receives more exposure and scrutiny, may receive support or it may be dismissed. It’s too early to say conclusively but early signs are not positive.

I hope that helps. Admodbodmin (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic