Talk:Military establishment of the Roman Empire

This article needs to touch on the reforms following the Crisis of the Third Century.

--Masamax 06:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Can this article be split?

Can this article be split into:

• Military establishment of the early to mid Roman empire and
• Military establishment of the late Roman empire ?

The two are as different as the Imperial army is different from the Republican army and this article really could be re-named as "Military establishment of the early to mid Roman empire". An article concentrating on the reforms leading to the employment of the [foederati]] etc is really needed in this framework - there are articles on the military establishment of the kings, republic and empire - I just feel militar establishment of the early empire is different enough from the later empire to deserve a different article. Thoughts???? - PocklingtonDan 17:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

See Roman_military#Branches_and_Structural_overview for hierarchy. - PocklingtonDan 17:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Can this article be merged?

I suggest merging this article with Roman army to reduce redundant information. Wandalstouring 13:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military establishment of the Roman Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160829173428/http://www.academia.edu/6339880/Augustan_Legionaries to https://www.academia.edu/6339880/Augustan_Legionaries

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible copyright infringement and other matters

I just received a notice of possible copyright infringement of this article. Apparently the investigator's selection of MY name is based on the record of my having done a heavy edit in 2006. At that time I had been on WP for one year. That was ten years ago. Since then 20 or so others have worked on it. However, I do believe I can clear up the matter and help resolve the issue.

My bottom line solution is, SPEEDY DELETE! The article was badly written and full of errors when I edited it in 2006. The main problem was lack of references. There weren't any. At the time I did not have the experience to know it needed a whole lot more than a mere heavy edit. Since that time, NOT ONE REFERENCE has been added! The whole article was written as part of scheme of articles. I don't see the point of it, never did. The topic is covered by other articles. The subject material is somewhat vague and sprawling. Since we are blanking the whole article as a possible copyright violation, I would say, diminishing returns. Not worth the effort. Dump it. It is not the kind of article I would write, so I am not going to work on it. If someone wants to revive it they can always request an undelete. So, the possible copyright violation is not really relevant, but let's consider it.

I modified in a creative fashion what was there. I never thought that what was there might be a copyright violation. Whatever I wrote was original prose. Moreover, the corrections came from my knowledge of classics. I do not copy from the Internet, unless quotes, which are quoted and referenced. Frankly from the time of its blanking I do not recognize any of its phraseology. If you ask me, as apparently you are, the Internet material was actually copied from us. We do not copyright. This is yet another attempt to steal our prose, except that it is not theft, because we do not copyright. As far as its value as a source is concenred, in my opinion, it is no more satisfactory than the WP article ever was. I would never use that as a source of anything.

I think that covers it. Since we do not publish blank articles and I got no interest in doing any such article it should be deleted. As far as any supposed copyright violation is concerned, well, either the original I edited was copied, or the supposed source was copied from us. You're welcome.Botteville (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)