Talk:Imperial Roman army

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 met

Associated task forces:
/
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Classical Greece and Rome High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lead and infobox[edit]

This article's very long lead section is likely to be offputting to readers - I'd strongly suggest trimming it to three or so medium-length paragraphs. I'd also suggest adding the Template:Infobox military unit infobox to summarise the article's content. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Class and assessments[edit]

Why is this article only rated C-class? And what has happened to the 20-odd quality-ratings, which averaged 5.0?

Rank Comparisons[edit]

It would seem to me that the rank comparisons in Section 10 are somewhat in error. For example, the men in charge of a Century (80 men) or a Cohort (480), more-or-less comparable to a Platoon or Battalion respectively, are stated as being commanded by Senior NCOs (who serve in advisory/discip roles to their Commanding Officer) rather than the actual officers that command them (Lieutenant and Major respectively). The 'coming from the ranks' idea is not comparable for the most part because that was how the Roman Army worked, unlike our own which specially trains its officers. The rank comparisons should be more in-line with the unit-sizes as the simplest comparison is often the easiest. On that note the Legatus would be more comparable to a Brigadier than a full General. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imperial_Roman_army&action=edit&section=3#

I don't think the average reader knows enough about modern military ranks to understand the nuances you highlight. In any case, in Wikipedia, content sourced to a published academic authority (as is Michael Grant) must always be used. You are not an published academic authority on the Roman military (correct me if I'm mistaken) and thus your own invented rank comparisons, whatever their validity, are inadmissible.EraNavigator (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would question how much use these comparisons are, except as irritators. Anyone who has an idea of the meaning of the modern ranks will find enough difference to be annoying, and anyone who doesn't will find the modern ranks of no use at all. Even though we do have a reliable source, I suggest removing them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I think the rank comparisons are helpful to readers who have no familiarity with Roman military ranks.EraNavigator (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, why is Michael Grant referred to? The reference in the text is to: Based on data in Goldsworthy (2003), pp.95-105; Holder (1980), pp.86-96; CAH Vol XI. Does any of these scholars actually state that a centurion was the equivalent of modern sergeant major? Does Grant know anything about a modern army? His comparisons are very much like the one done in the 17th century, when centurions were seen as sergeants, due to not being of nobility. When in fact both Roman knights and senators where of a comparatively much higher standing than the ordinary Continental nobleman of early modern Europe.

The basis for the Grant comparison is the faulty assumption that a commoner today (more likely in the 19th century or earlier) was the same as a commoner in Imperial Rome. Why state that it is modern rank comparison; today a commoner can become a general, even in the British Army? At best this is a comparison with the situation in Europe before the French Revolution.Creuzbourg (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imperial Roman army. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20031217153331/http://www.roman-britain.org:80/ to http://www.roman-britain.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 00:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imperial Roman army. 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/20130813062403/http://2.rgzm.de/ to http://www.2.rgzm.de/

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 11:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dubious – discuss[edit]

See above under Rank Comparisons. Creuzbourg (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]