Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EraNavigator (talk | contribs) at 19:20, 14 November 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

òè

D) NEW PROJECT: Plan of Battle of Strasbourg

A user in the Italian Misplaced Pages translated my article Battle of Strasbourg and added his own plan of the initial dispositions in the battle. (That user has since been banned from Misplaced Pages!) His plan is good so far, but it needs much more information. Can you improve it, or, if you prefer, make your own plan from scratch?

== Battle of Strasbourg ==Battle of Argentoratum1.svg|thumb|right|200px|Initial order of battle-Static map]]

TOPOGRAPHY corrections:

1. North arrow should be pointing WNW not E
2. Road does not cross battlefield, but delimits its edge. Draw the road from a point on the S edge (i.e. S from our pioint of view) of the map directly below the M of Most probable location to a point on the N edge directly above the right end of Severus' separate legion. All the ground to the left of the road should be wooded.
3. Redraw the altitude lines. The battlefield is sloping gently downwards from top left to bottom right.

ROMAN DISPOSITIONS:

We are going to assume the scenario that Severus' division of 2,000 men is additional to the 13,000 under Julian Severus' separate force on the left should consist of 4 auxilia infantry units, one of them archers (add symbol to unit denote archers). They should be drawn up in 2 lines: front: 3 auxilia infantry units rear: 1 auxilia archer unit

Julian's forces:

1. INFANTRY FRONTLINE: 4 legions in the centre (named, left to right, MOESIACI?, PANNONICIANI?, IOVIANI?, HERCULIANI?) 2 auxilia on each wing. Name those on the right wing (left to right) CORNUTI and BRACHIATI. Name one on the left PETULANTES?. 2 auxilia archer units immediately behind the line
2. INFANTRY REAR LINE: 1 legion in the centre, 2 auxilia on each wing. Name legion PRIMANI. Name auxilia units on right wing, BATAVI, REGES, left to right
3. CAVALRY: Front: (left to right) 1 vexillatio light cav (named DALMATAE); 1 vex. mounted archers (named SAGITTARII); Rear: (left to right, wedge shape (units on wing slightly behind front units): 1 vex normal cav (GENTILES), 1 vex cataphract cav, 1 vex cataphract cav, 1 normal cav (SCUTARII). NB we need in the KEY to distinguish between light (inc archers), normal and cataphract cav (maybe colours?)

GERMAN DISPOSITIONS:

1. The Right extremities of the Alamanni infantry lines should bestride the highway, reaching to the edge of the woods. The Alamanni infantry should be drawn up in 2 lines, each of 8 pagus units of ca. 1,000 men each - show the same size as a Romanb legion. Behind the Alamanni Rear Line place one large mass of 5,000-strong of allied Burgundi warriors. The German cavalry of ca. 3,000 was probably divided by kingdom i.e. 9 Alamanni squadrons of ca. 300 men each - show them as half the size of the Roman cavalry vexillationes). They should be arranged in 3 lines of 3 squadrons each. In the woods on the right, 2,000 men hiding in the woods. In front of the units, place the names of the Alamanni kings in command:

In command of the right (woods division, and 2 pagus units on the right wing): SERAPIO. From there left to right: WESTRALP?, URIUS?, URSICINUS?, SUOMARIUS? HORTARIUS? WADOMAR? In commmand of the cavalry on the left wing, CHNODOMAR.

OK. See what you can do with this. Then we can refine it. Tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, good progress, I see! OK some points:

1. SCALE: If we assume the Roman lines are 10 ranks deep each (the typical figure was 8-9 ranks), then, allowing 1 metre per man in line, the length of each legion equals 100m.
2. Move the woods a bit further back from the road - they would have been cut back to no closer than 50m to avoid ambushes by robbers etc.
3. The N arrow is pointing NW: it should be pointing WNW i.e. halfway between W and NW. The road is almost East-West
4. Move Severus' division back from the frontline to about halfway between the front and rear lines. Turn it 22.5 degrees anti-clockwise so that it faces the Germans in the woods.
5. Move the Romans back a bit from the Germans. The gap between the two frontlines should be at least 500m at the start.
6. I've decided it's best to place the Roman archers BEHIND their frontlines (this is where they would be stationed during the battle - but sometimes they could be sent in front at the start to harass the enemy from a distance). We are not told anything about the archers' activity by Ammianus. In practice, during the action, the archers would form the rear two ranks of the Roman frontline, shooting over the heads of the front ranks. So can you show the archer units as long, thin rectangles rather than squares?
7. Place infantry interspersed among Chnodomar's cavalry, as in the article
8. Add a ? to BURGUNDIANS -their location is uncertain
9. In the key, we need to specify the different types of Roman unit and their strength - Infantry: legion (1,000), auxilium (500); cavalry: vexillatio (500). We should also specify that the units shown on the German side, both infantry and cavalry are "Alamannic pagus contingent".
10. Add some unit names I forgot: on the frontline left, the auxilium next to PETULANTES? is HERULI? On the rearline far left, name the auxilium CELTAE?
11. Some of the unit names are difficult to read. Can you put them all in bold?
12. In the key, we should explain that a name with a ? mark means the unit is attested as being part of Julian's comitatus, but that its exact position in the line is uncertain
13. In the key, we need to distinguish light (unarmoured) cavalry from the regular cav. All the German cavalry was unarmoured. On the Roman side, jut the DALMATAE and the mounted archers were unarmoured. The regular cav was armoured and even more so were the cataphracts.

How you do the action sequences I leave to you, as I know nothing about animation. But I will summarise the sequence of key events for you:

1. Roman light cavalry (Dalmatae and sagittarii) carry out harassing attacks on German cavalry. Thee latter does not respond.
2. Roman heavy cavalry charges German cavalry. If possible, this should be shown in this wedge formation:
3. XXXXXXXX CATAPHRACTI CATAPHRACTI
4. GENTILES XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX SCUTARII DALMATAE SAGITTARII
5. Roman cataphracts are routed and flee to behind Roman rear line (other cav units return to station on Roman right wing)
6. Infantry frontlines collide. Severus' division stays put, facing woods
7. Germans break through centre of Roman frontline
8. Germans pour through Roman breach but are driven back by Roman rear line - Roman breach is sealed
9. Roman line, reinforced by rear line and Severus' division push back the Germans up the battlefield
10. German line collapses and Germans flee battlefield

I look forward to see what you make of this Saluti tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yes, well done, the order of battle is good. The problem is that I have miscalculated the German numbers. I want them to add up to 25,000, but at the moment they are 28,000 +. I've double-counted the 2 pagi contingents hidden in the woods. Also, my placing the Burgundians in a separate division at the rear (Ammianus gives no indication of their position) is probably unrealistic: as honoured allies, they would have been outraged not to be given a place in the main battle line. I put them separately because Ammianus does not mention them in his line-up. But Ammianus' account is very patchy. In fact, what position to give them in the line would have been a tricky decision for Chnodomar: on the one hand, he would not fully trust them as non-Alamanni and would want to avoid giving them a crucial position such as a wing or the centre. On the other hand, he would have to pander to their self-esteem. Most likely, he would have placed them under the overall command of his trusted nephew Serapio. Also I've become unhappy with overall Alamanni numbers. As you know from the article, there is a lot of debate about this, with Ammianus' figure of 35,000 regarded as way too high and the most recent estimate by a historian at 15,000, the same as the Romans. I took 25,000 as the midpoint between the two. It assumes that the Burgundians were 20% of the total (after Drinkwater). But this is just a guess, and for the purposes of this plan, I'm (arbitrarily) reducing Burgundians to just 2,000 (so that the Germans add up to 23,000). So they can take the place of the 2 pagi contingents that I double-counted. CONCLUSION: Eliminate the blob of Burgundians and make the pair of pagus contingents second-to-last on the German right wing (excluding the woods contingents) Burgundians (can you show that they are Burgundians, either by labelling or colouring?).

Can you shift the names of the Alamannic kings one contingent towards the German right wing, since I forgot that Wadomar was in charge of two royal contingents (i.e. 4 pagus contingents) as he took over his murdered colleague Gundomad's also. Thus show Wadomar in charge of a double contingent on the German left wing.

Also, I've decided to reduce the German cavalry to 2,400. As explained in the article, only the wealthiest stratum in society could afford horses and therefore cavalry probably did not exceed 10% of the total force. The cavalry contingents are actually royal, not pagus-based (i.e. 2 pagi combined), so the German cavalry should now be 8 royal contingents of 300 men each.

You know, the Trebia pseudo-animation is so unimpressive (and slow) that I am wondering whether it would not be better to just make 3 or 4 static images to show the sequence of events. We should only use pseudo-animation if it makes it easier for the reader to follow the sequence than static images, not simply because it's flashy. But I leave you to decide which is best.

Although in the initial line-up we are showing the units as separate blocks for convenience, in practice, the troops would have formed a continuous line. Therefore subsequent images, whether mobile or static, should show the lines as continuous. PS: Is there any way of showing the troops as little men, rather than just square blocks - with each little man representing a set number of of troops say 20, or 50? Same for cavalry, little men on horseback? I don't know what kinds of graphic software Wiki will support (not much by the sound of it).

Sorry about all these changes. There's nothing like making a plan like this to force one to think through all the issues. Tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Another change, to the geography of the battlefield. Looking at A. Goldsworthy's diagram of the battle in Roman Warfare, I was wrong to put woods the whole length of the road. You should eliminate the woods south (i.e south from our point of view - not the cardinal direction) of a line running SW to the map's right edge from where the S of SERAPIO is now. Adjust the Germans in the woods so they are hidden behind this line. Goldsworthy's plan makes more sense.

PHASES: I would say 4 Phases: (1) Initial; (2) cavalry action (3) German infantry breakthrough (4) Final: German line hemmed in and forced back by Roman crescent-shaped line. But do whatever you think is most practical from an illustration point of view.

Everything's fine now, except a detail about the Germnan commanders' line-up. I've just realised that WESTRALP,as co-president of the Alamanni confederation, would probably have held the German centre. So: move WESTRALP? to where SUOMARIUS? is now. Move BURGUNDIANS (+ a ? mark) to where WESTRALP is now. And place SUOMARIUS? in front of the extreme right contingent (not the one in the woods) EraNavigator (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

SERAPIO was in overall command of the German right wing. So you have shown him OK. Perhaps you could move his name to rear to make way for the smaller names EraNavigator (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to amend point 6 of the summary of events as follows: Severus' division crosses over road and halts facing woods.

An important point is that SEVERUS' division was not the Roman left wing, but a separate force. So I think you should spread out the units in the Roman frontline so that the latter covers the whole length of the German frontline, otherwise they could be outflanked. EraNavigator (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The archers should be integrated into the frontline (of which they formed the rear couple of ranks) and not shown separately in the action phases. EraNavigator (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In practice, because the Romans were outnumbered, they would have been obliged to reduce the depth of their line (from 8 ranks to say, 5) to cover the enemy line. You can show this if you want, or alternatively, for the initial picture, which is schematic, just increase the spaces between the units (in the rear line also - keep the rear line centred behind the front line). One point I missed: the archer unit in Severus' division should be stretched to cover Severus' frontline - but here we keep the archers in front, as they would have been used to target any Germans emerging from the woods). EraNavigator (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the position of the BURGUNDIANS? I did not make myself clear. I said move them to where WESTRALP is now, I meant where WESTRALP? was originally i.e. in front of the second-to-last contingent of the German right. Please note the BURGUNDIANS are not forming two frontline contingents, but one front, one rear. WADOMAR was OK before. EraNavigator (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)!

Sorry, but the sequence of German commanders is now screwed up. From left to right (excluding the woods contingent) the sequence should be (one contingent each unless otherwise specified): SUOMARIUS?, BURGUNDIANS?, URIUS?, URSICINUS?, WESTRALP?, HORTARIUS?, WADOMAR (2 contingents). You've shown SERAPIO as commanding the woods contingent only, but he actually commanded the whole right wing. I suggest the best is put his name in the rear, like CHNODOMAR, covering the woods contingent and 2 main line contingents. EraNavigator (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In the order of battle map, you can just use wider spacing. In the action maps, the line must be stretched. EraNavigator (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, why does it take ages for the changes to appear? EraNavigator (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's come up now: but you are still not following the sequence I gave you above. What's the problem, amico mio? By the way, don't bother to space the order of battle wider, it's OK as it is EraNavigator (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to go out now. I look forward to seeing the finished product. Ciao tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think for the order-of-battle map it is better to have wider spacing than to stretch the units themselves. This is so that it is easier to compare sizes between units and sides (e.g. the fact that legions are the same size as pagus contingents etc). PS: Why have you stopped work on the phases? EraNavigator (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the Dacia relief is fantastic! Really professional. The only thing is, I think we should shift the map eastwards a little so that we get a bit of Black sea coast in, although it need not include the whole Danube delta - we can afford to give up the Tisza plain. I am more interested in showing the Dacian and other tribes in Moldavia Wallachia and some of Moesia Inferior than the Tisza plain, which contains only the Iazyges. The western edge of the map should be (at leastr) where the leftmost longitudinal line is now, or even further if we need it to get Constanza in. The other point is - I don't think it's a good idea to show every little stream, as that will clutter the map horribly once you start to enter other data. Can we thin out the streams, to just show the main rivers? Once the physical map is ready, the next step is to use GIS to enter the modern equivalents of all the places (towns/forts/etc) that are going into the map so that we get the precise locations.

Regarding the Strasbourg battle phases, I take it from the arrows that you have given up the animation idea. That's fine, but even for static maps I don't like arrows. They are ugly, artificial and often confusing. I strongly recommend we have a series of static plans showing a snapshot of the situation at a particular moment, with commentary to explain developments. Also, is there ayny way of turning the impersonal blocks of troops into something that more resembles a group of individuals? The best way to explain this is if you could find Adrian Goldsworthy's Roman Warfare (2000) book and look at his plans of the battle on pages 176-7. (There might be a copy in your college library or alternatively look in Dillon's bookshop in Malet St. -you don't need to buy it, you can just look at the plans in the shop. I've used his plans (partly) as the basis of our own plan. He has used computer graphics to turn his military formations into a series of dots, and to arrange the lines in a more ragged, natural way. It would also be nice to improve on Goldsworthy by showing the cavalry in a distinct way. It's a question of getting the right battle graphics software. Can you do something like this? In general, it would be a good idea if you experimented a bit with software to improve presentation of battle field information. I like the way Goldsworthy shows battle field relief, with a cross-sectional cut-away (although, unlike us, he shows the field as mildly undulating, not sloping).

The snapshots that I suggest are:

1. Battle Engaged (not shown in Goldsworthy): The frontlines have clashed, and are shown stuck together. The routed Roman cataphract cavalry is shown behind the Roman rear line, with JULIAN and his escort with them, encouraging them to return to the fight. The rest of the Roman cavalry is shown on the Roman right wing holding off the German cavalry assault. Severus' division is shown over the road facing the woods at a distance. The forest Germans are still hidden in the woods
2. Barbarian breakthrough (same as Goldsworthy plan 2): The Roman frontline is shown with a breach in the centre (by the way, the breach you have shown is much too large - it was just a small gap right in the centre of the ROman line) and Germans pouring through it, with their vanguard engaged with the Primani in the Roman rear line. Over the road, Severus' division is shown as engaged with the forest Germans, who have advanced out of the woods
3. Final phase (not shown in Goldsworthy): All the Romans now form one thick line, in a crescent formation, hemming in the Germans, shown as a large incoherent mass. This is further up (i.e. North from our point of view) than where the two frontlines clashed in Snapshot 1. The forest Germans have disappeared. Severus' division has become the left extremity of the Roman crescent.

PS: Do NOT copy the individual unit formations in Goldsworthy plan 1 (his order of battle plan). They are completely wrong, as they are not based, as are ours, on a detailed analysis of the units involved.

PPS: In the Order of Battle map, can we please return the Roman units to their unstretched sizes as you had them before, as it is easier to compare them with the German units. Just go back to your previous order of battle, don't wrry about spacing. Tuo amico fedele

PPPS: On the order of battle plan, we should enter the late Roman names for the city directiins on the road. i.e. Argentoratum (Strasbourg) and Mediomatrici (Metz). It would be a good idea to add the modern names underneath and the distances (Strasbourg 4km - Metz I'm not sure). EraNavigator (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ciao, Andrei. Do you have any response to my comments above? Regarding the sequence of snapshots above, whether you can replicate Goldsworthy's graphics or not, we don't need arrows. For example, to show the charge of the Roman cavalry units, you can just show them mingled with the German ones in a melee. Their movement is understood by comparison with the previous position, and you don't need to indicate it by arrows. Any development that is difficult to follow can simply be explained by textual commentary, as in Goldsworthy's plan. Did you get a copy of Goldsworthy, and do you think you could produce something similar? Tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Roman Empire 125 map, I think we must remove the ANTES rubric, as I have been unable to find a reference supporting its presence here during the 2nd century. EraNavigator (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Also on the Empire map, I suggest that we make some much-needed improvements to the Rhine frontier rubrics. The problem here is that, because we have entered the lettering of Roman forts/legions in the barbarian zone, the location of German tribes is inaccurate, forced to fit in gaps between the lettering. For example, HERMUNDURI, MARCOMANNI and QUADI are all shifted well to the East of where they should be. If we could bring the lettering onto Roman territory, we could remedy this, while also permitting the entering of a few more tribes. Of course, moving the lettering onto the Roman side creates overcrowding of its own. The way to deal with this, apart from your ingenuity in fitting names in, is (a) eliminating a couple of internal rubrics: I think DUROCORTORUM and GERMANIA INFERIOR would have to go (only the names, not the city symbol or the provincial boundary). BELGICA would need to be moved. (b) abbreviating the rubrics where needed e.g. XXX ULPIA VICTRIX could be shown as just XXX ULPIA. Once you have cleared Germania Libera of Roman rubrics, you should make the following changes:

1. Show the river Saale, a tributary of the Elbe, which is useful for demarcation
2. The HERMUNDURI should be shifted West, to occupy the region between the Roman border and the Saale.
3. The MARCOMANNI should move NorthWest, to occupy Bohemia E of the Saale. The NAHARVALI should be shifted NE into Silesia, along the W bank of the Oder. Reverse the VANDILII (LUGII) rubric to LUGII (VANDILII)
4. The QUADI should also move West to where the MANNI of MARCOMANNI is now. Move the COTINI to where the QUADI are now
5. The CHERUSCI should move South, to where ULPIA VICTRIX is now
6. The CHATTI should move SW, so the C is where the NN of BONNA is now (reduce the size of the CHATTI lettering to same as CHERUSCI
7. Enter the LANGOBARDI, between the CHAUCI and the CHERUSCI along the West bank of the Elbe river
8. Enter the CHAMAVI, between CASTRA VETERA (symbol) and the CHAUCI
9. Enter the TENCTERI, along the Rhine between COLONIA symbol and where the Roman border leaves the Rhine
10. Having checked this, I've decided that DESERTUM AFRICANUM was the more common term for the Sahara desert at this time

Well, that really should be final! Ciao EraNavigator (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Strasbourg

Can you replace barbarians in {File:Battle of Argentoratum1.svg with Alamanni because barbarian is a Roman POV and thus violates WP:NPOV. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Roman Empire 125 AD - inaccuracies

As already pointed out, that map has several issues and it should get all its elements checked against reputable sources. Consequently I'll be mentioning only those few issues which were already remarked:

• Roman Egypt (refs: CAH and ANWC), here the projection looks weird (e.g. notice the gulf of Aqaba or the course of Nile), but it looks there's some misplacement as well (Heracleopolis should be more to the north)
• Balkans (refs: SOLTDM and Miller): Perinthus is misplaced (should be a bit more to the east on the shore), and several roads are inaccurately drawn: Via Egnatia, Via Militaris and also Scythia Minor main roads.

I'm not living in Britain, but here I prefer to use English ;) Regards Daizus (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ciao

Ehi, ciao. Perchè sei stato fuori contatto tutta la settimana? Hai nessuna risposta a quel che ti ho scritto sopra? Scrivi presto. Tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Spero che non mi abbandoni completamente. Considero che per noi la cosa migliore è di stabilire il nostro proprio sito. Ma questo si può fare solo se chiediamo aiuto ad un perito d'informatica. Ti ho suggerito di chiedere nel tuo college, perchè non lo fai? (puoi anche mandare un email al gestore di www.livius.org per chiedere consigli a come edificare un sito come il suo).

Regarding what you said to me:

1. I wouldn't know where to start with Inkscape. You'll have to continue making alterations until I learn to use Inkscape myself properly (maybe you can teach me when I get back to London?). On the Roman empire map, the changes you have made are not quite accurate, because you have not moved all the Roman text onto the Roman side of the frontier. I know it's not easy, but the thing to do is abbreviate where necessary e.g. XXII PRIMIGENIA could become XXII PRIM and XXX ULPIA VICTRIX could be shown as just XXX ULPIA (or even just XXX, since there was only one legion with that number). Also change the location of the wording relative to its dot e.g. move ARGENTORATE to below the Argentorate dot (and shift GERMANIA SUPERIOR down too), so it can all be on Roman territory. Same for MOGONTIACUM, which could be moved from above to below the dot, and pushed E into Roman territory. If there are any rubrics you can't squeeze in, they should go in the key, as you've done with GERMANIA INFERIOR.
2. Did you check out the Strasbourg graphics in Goldsworthy Roman Warfare? Can you produce something similar? Even if you cannot, I strongly suggest that we convert the arrow-based plans to snapshots without arrows. So, for example, to show the Roman cavalry charge, we show the Roman cavalry mingled with the German cavalry in a melee, with the caption: "Roman cavalry has charged Chnodomar's horse and are fighting in melee. Then, to show the rout of the cataphracts, the next snapshot shows that cataphract regiments behind the Roman rear line with the caption: "Roman cataphract cavalry has been routed and has taken refuge behind Roman infantry lines" etc etc. Can you do this?
3. There's no hurry with the Dacia map. I agree that you definitely need extra RAM. Inadequate operating memory is clearly causing bottlenecks in the programme running

Spero che stai bene e felice. Tuo amico Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the recent changes to Roman Empire 125, please carry out the following:

1. Remove all Roman rubrics from Germania Libera completely (as suggested above)
2. The CHAMAVI should be relocated so that the C is near the CASTRA VETERA dot and the I near the C of CHAUCI
3. The CHERUSCI should be moved so that the C is where the U of Ulpia is now and the rubric runs West to East, as far as the Elbe
4. The LANGOBARDI should be shown between the CHAUCI and the CHERUSCI and between the Weser and Elbe rivers
5. The TENCTERI rubric should be entirely along the Rhine, between the COLONIA dot and where the Roman border turns East from the Rhine
6. The CHATTI should be shown directly East of the TENCTERI, but only as far as the Weser river
7. The HERMUNDURI should cover all SW Germania Libera between the Roman border and the Saale river - it's best to show them as a West-East rubric where the -IGENIA of PRIMIGENIA is now, but as far as the Saale
8. The MARCOMANNI rubric should be reoriented so that the initial M is where the -URI of HERMUNDURI is now and the final I is near the -ALI of NAHARVALI
9. The QUADI should move further West, so that the Q is N of where the first U of CARNUNTUM is now
10. The BASTARNAE rubric between the TYRAS and BORYSTHENES rivers should be removed. The other BASTARNAE rubric should be moved slightly eastwards so that the B is where the S is now and reading Eastwards so that the final E is near the T of SCYTHAE. The PEUCINI should be shown between the I of CARPI and the Danube delta, running between the ROXOLANI and SCYTHAE rubrics
11. I've now found the necesaary ANTES refs. Please reinstate the ANTES rubric where it was before but with a ? mark and also a second ANTES? North of the AORSI
12. Remove the TAURI (which should be on the S side of the Crimea). Replace them with the BASILAEI (Royal Scyths)
13. We can add back the GAETULI, further into the desert South of the MUSULAMII and GARAMENTES

Tanti auguri e abbracci Tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Empire 125 map

Ciao. I'm not saying you should remove the Rhine placenames, but that you should accommodate them all inside Roman territory. PS: Il tuo insegnante è uno storico, no? Che ne sa dell'informatica? OK, forse ti potrà dare un'introduzione ad un insegnante d'informatica. Ma penso che la cosa migliore e di contattare un postgraduate student del Dipartimento di Informtica, per esempio, questo: ~. Puoi andare alla common room del Department of Computer Science e semplicemente chiedere in giro (ask around) se c'è qualcuno che sa costruire i websites. Tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Empire 125 map - Crash-o-Rama?

Terrific map, excellent work and I love looking at it... but every time I try to open it full-size, my computer crashes. Any idea why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.251.205.134 (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Importing VMap-0 data in GRASS

Hello Andrei nacu, and thanks for your support.
Congrats for your great map of Slovenia, as well as the one of Dacia I saw too, I'm glad to see that contributors from other WPs find my tutorials helpful.
May I give you an advise about the shaded relief layer ? In order to get a much lighter file weight you could, instead of using three separate layers of shading, one for each light direction, make a fusion of them after exporting them from GRASS: using for example The Gimp, open the shaded relief with a NW illumination, then open as a new layer above it the one with a W illumination and change its fusion mode for “Multiply” (in the box where are shown the layers) so it reinforces the shadings. Do the same with the third shading from the N and save the whole as a PNG. Before using it in Inkscape, export first a PNG view of the vectorized topography you created with this software, open it in The Gimp and then open as a layer the shaded relief created by fusion before. Select the gray color corresponding to flat areas and send it to an “Alpha channel”, do the same with the white and modify the transparency of the shaded relief layer until the topographic layer below can be easily read. Delete the topographic layer and save this semi-transparent shaded relief in PNG with a specific name. This should spare hundreds of ko in the final SVG file.
About importing VMap-0 data in GRASS, user:Future Perfect at Sunrise gives on my talk page a very helpful link here. Sorry not being able to give you more information about this for now as I seldom use GRASS (I only used GRASS for the tutorials because it's a free multi-OS software) and I still have to re-write some pages talking about these additional data and the bathymetry.
Good work! Keep it up! Greetings. Sting-fr (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Global Mapper is an excellent choice for a GIS software: versatile, friendly-to-use, opens almost all file formats we can encounter, has many projection possibilities and is not very expensive. Some call it the “Swiss knife” of the GIS software. Sting-fr (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Maps etc

Ciao. Stavo proprio pensando a te quando è arrivato il tuo messaggio.

1. I take it you mean the Dacia map, rather than Strasbourg, when you are talking about GIS problems. So, are we getting any nearer to adjusting the Dacia map? Have you got the extra memory?
2. Talking of Strasbourg, did you check out Goldsworthy's plans in Roman Warfare? (that's the 3rd time I've asked you that). Any chance of replicating his style?
3. Please could you carry out the latest instructions on tribes in Roman Empire 125?
4. Hai parlato con qualcuno nel tuo college riguardo al nostro sito?
5. La materia del tuo saggio è molto interessante. Per decidere se gli Americani hanno "vinto" la guerra, è prima necessario constatare quali erano i loro obbiettivi. Secondo me, quel che interessava i veri padrini (godfathers) della guerra (Cheney e Rumsfeld - Bush era solo un burattino) era di stabilire un client-state petrolifero come l'Arabia Saudita, ma ancora più succube (subservient) agli ordini americani - cioè uno stato che non ritornasse (would not return) a far parte dell'OPEC, che pompasse sufficienti quantità di petrolio tali da tenere basso in perpetuo il prezzo della benzina e che permettesse agli Americani di mantenere basi militari nel suo territorio ad infinitum. Questa presenza militare avrebbe permesso agli Americani di dominare la regione politicamente e di neutralizzare i paesi ostili all'egemonia USA - la Persia e la Siria. Sono interamente d'accordo con te che non è ancora possibile constatare se questi obiettivi sono stati realizzati. Secondo l'accordo firmato entro USA e il governo di al-Maliki, gli Americani devono ritirare tutte le loro truppe dall'Iraq entro il 2011. Però dubito che questo succederà. Sono sicuro che i generali americani vogliono mantenere almeno 50.000 soldati in Iraq per sempre. Si vedrà solo in futuro se questo accadrà (will happen). Tu cosa pensi?

Please answer all my questions one by one. Tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: Check out my new article Tacfarinas EraNavigator (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if you could make 3-D plans for Strasbourg (it would also help you develop techniques for battle plans that you can use for other battles also). I don't know anything about Rome Total War. How does that work? tuo EraNavigator (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Why ironic? The image looks great. Tuo EraNavigator (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC) PS: I saw one of those Time Commanders episodes. I didn't think much of it. The movements of troops did not look good. But the static images are quite good. PPS: the canal shown in Goldsworthy is based on the dubious source of Libanius' funeral oration for Julian. In any case, it is irrelevant to the action, so we should ignore it. EraNavigator (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right - Tacfarinas' Numidians remind me of the Taliban. Actually, the first parallel that sprung to my mind were the Fremen in the Dune sci-fi novel, my favourite sci-fi book since I was a small child. It's not impossible that the author Frank Herbert modelled his Fremen on Tacfarinas' Numidians, as his book is a medley of historical/cultural elements. So, what do you think you can do for the Strasbourg plans? PS: I know the Tacfarinas is almost entirely based on Tacitus - but that's because his is the only account extant by an ancient author of Tacfarinas' career. tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Roman Empire 125

Ciao. On the basis of what I've learnt in writing Tacfarinas, I would like to modify the location of the desert tribes in N. Africa a little.

1. The MUSULAMII should not extend further West than the border between AFRICA PROCONSULARIS and MAURETANIA CAESARIENSIS. So please reduce the size of the lettering so that it fits between the border and the GARAMANTES.
2. The MAURI should extend along the whole border of the two MAURETANIAS
3. The GAETULI should be moved further East, behind the MUSULAMII and GARAMANTES - push the DESERTUM AFRICANUM rubrice S to make room
4. In Germany, the CHAMAVI are still in the wrong place. Move the CHERUSCI rubric a little South so that the first C is where the second A of CHAMAVI is now, (and use slightly bigger lettering for the CHERUSCI, as before). The CHAMAVI should then be placed in the space between CHAUCI, LANGOBARDI and CHERUSCI. PS: I think the CASTRA VETERA rubric should go - you can replace it with a numbered ref to the legend.
5. You missed my instruction to place the PEUCINI from the I of CARPI to the Danube delta, going through the gap between ROXOLANI and SCYTHAE (and widening that gap by moving the SCYTHAE a little further along the coast)

PS: Whatever people say (and whatever the geographical inaccuracies), this remains a fantastic map, by far the most detailed available online.

Auguri tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone's spotted another error. EraNavigator (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ehi, che succede? Mi scrivi, per favore? Tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

File:American Civil War - Map Overview 1863.svg

Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Misplaced Pages over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:American Civil War - Map Overview 1863.svg. The original version of the image uploaded to Misplaced Pages has been tagged with WP:CSD#F8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ciao

Ciao, Andrei. Sento la tua mancanza. Perchè non scrivi più? Come vanno gli studi? Tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I find your hadrian map of circa 125 ad fascinating. how do i save this as jpg file so i can look at it at larger scale size. http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Roman_Empire_125.svg Joshua user:amovrvs thanks. :).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ciao

Ehi, sono felice di sapere che sei ancora vivo! Senti, anche se (even if) vuoi fare pausa dall'editing, non capisco perchè non stai in contatto. Almeno rispondi quando ti scrivo, d'accordo?

Le correzioni per la carta Impero Romano:

1. The MUSULAMII should not extend further West than the border between AFRICA PROCONSULARIS and MAURETANIA CAESARIENSIS. So please reduce the size of the lettering so that it fits between the border and the GARAMANTES.
2. The MAURI should extend along the whole border of the two MAURETANIAS
3. The GAETULI should be moved further East, behind the MUSULAMII and GARAMANTES - push the DESERTUM AFRICANUM rubrice S to make room
4. In Germany, the CHAMAVI are still in the wrong place. Move the CHERUSCI rubric a little South so that the first C is where the second A of CHAMAVI is now, (and use slightly bigger lettering for the CHERUSCI, as before). The CHAMAVI should then be placed in the space between CHAUCI, LANGOBARDI and CHERUSCI. PS: I think the CASTRA VETERA rubric should go - you can replace it with a numbered reference in the legend.
5. You missed my instruction to place the PEUCINI from the I of CARPI to the Danube delta, going through the gap between ROXOLANI and SCYTHAE (and widening that gap by moving the SCYTHAE a little further along the coast)
6. In Britain, II AUGUSTA and XX VALERIA VICTRIX are in each other's bases: II AUGUSTA should be in ISCA and XX VALERIA in DEVA
7. I asked you to remove the road going N from Turin to the Alps via the Val d'Aosta and the Great St Bernard pass to join the road from LUGDUNUM to Vindonissa at Lake Geneva. Actually I was wrong, as it was a major route. So can you reinstate it please?
8. In BRITANNIA, enter the Fosse Way road from EBORACUM to ISCA DUMNONIORUM
9. In Italy, add the VIA APPIA NOVA, branching off the VIA APPIA VETUS just N of NEAPOLIS crossing to the ADRIATIC Sea at Barletta and then following the Adriatic coast to BRUNDISIUM
10. We should also enter the bases of the main imperial fleets (classes). Can you get a symbol like a Roman galley (ship with oars) and put it in the appropriate places: MISENUM (just W of NEAPOLIS), RAVENNA and GESORIACUM. Then explain the symbol in the LEGEND.
11. I'll respond to the comment on the Map discussion page. But we're not changing anything.

We can talk about Battle of Strasbourg when you've done the corections above.

Penso di tornare a Londra entro un mese. Per quanto riguarda il sito, vai pure avanti con tuo cugino. Però penso che è essenziale integrare nel sito il software della Misplaced Pages. Credi che tuo cugino è capace di fare questo?

Vedi il mio ultimo articolo Alpine regiments of the Roman army.

Che hai fatto tutto questo tempo che sei stato incommunicado? E gli studi come vanno? Abbracci tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Roman Empire 125

I see that you have made most of the alterations above, but not all.

1. You still have not switched bases for II AUGUSTA and XX VALERIA VICTRIX in Britain
2. The Alpine road you have now entered through Alpes Graiae (1) should join the LUGDUNUM road on the East side of Lake Geneva, not West. Also, I did not say remove the road through Alpes Cottiae (2) - please reinstate it, as it was the main route from Italy to Gaul, through the Col de Montgenèvre, the lowest Alpine pass, thus usable year-round unlike the other passes (see Alpine regiments of the Roman army
3. In the LEGENDS, can you add PROBABLE to BARBARIAN LINGUISTIC GROUPS; and MAJOR to NAVAL BASE (there were many smaller bases). Also change ALPES POENINAE to ALPES GRAIAE (the more usual name)
4. One detail I did not notice before: The ALPES MARITIMAE boundaries should run all the way to the Mediterranean Sea and include a stretch of coastline - the provincial capital was at Cimiez near Nice.

I see that someone has made a German version. That's good as it widens the potential audience. We could also make French, Italian and Spanish translations of the LEGENDS if you want.

Allora, non mi dici niente di che fai a Londra? Ciao tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I just got your last message. You can add ALEXANDRIA as a naval base. But the others were less important. I am just going on the ones mentioned by Tacitus as the main fleets - there were also important fluvial flotillas on the Rhine and Danube rivers: but it would crowd the map too much to show these. EraNavigator (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sul serio non hai fatto altro che studiare? Perchè non sei tornato in patria? Tuo EraNavigator (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Strasbourg

Regarding the plans of this battle, you said you were going to try to reproduce the graphics in Goldworthy's pictures (in Roman Warfare (2000) pp 176-7)? Tuo EraNavigator (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Roman Empire 125

I see your point about alterations. But I think we should make this session the final one as regards this map. Before we close it, I would like to enter a few more bits of road to complete the network:

1. Enter a road from ARGENTORATE to AUGUSTA VINDELICORUM. This was the main benefit to the Romans of occupying the Agri Decumates (Black Forest region, SW Germany): creating a short-cut between Raetia and Germania Sup.
2. In Britain, enter Stane Street, from LONDINIUM to Noviomagus (Portsmouth - not marked).
3. Enter a road from EBORACUM to Hadrian's Wall (the border between BRITANNIA and CALEDONIA. Also enter a road along the whole length of Hadrian's Wall - this was the main military road linking the many forts along the Wall (whhich was still under construction in 125 AD: it was built in the period 122-132).
4. Spelling correction: XXII DEIOTARIANA not Deiotraiana tuo EraNavigator (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Can we make a special symbol for Hadrians Wall - like a crenellated line? Then we could add in the lower LEGEND: HADRIAN'S WALL (under construction AD 122-28)

Now you have the whole lot. Hope this helps. Tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I can speak French fluently- I did French at school up to the final year. Spanish I can speak and read well - it's really easy for Italians. As you can see, the three languages are pretty close. The main problem is remembering the little differences. But as the saying goes, French is just badly-spoken Spanish, and Spanish is badly-spoken Italian (but don't tell the French that!). Portuguese I find much more difficult. Written it's very close to Spanish and easy to read, but spoken I can barely follow a word. It's the accent and the way that they chop the words in half. Catalan is even closer to Italian than Spanish, so it's very easy for me. Ciao EraNavigator (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I read somewhere that proto-Romance, the language spoken all over the Western Roman empire and from which all modern Romance languages descend was probably most similar to a hybrid of modern Spanish and Italian. So it would have been easily comprehensible to me. EraNavigator (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it was spoken in all the Latin zone, including Illyria and Thracia. Unfortunately, no substantial example of proto-Romance exists, as it was never written, only spoken (only classical Latin was written). The closest texts to proto-Romance that survive are two texts from ca. 800 that are actually classified as proto-French. Here is one, the Oaths of Strasbourg:

“Pro Deo amur et pro Christian poblo et nostro commun salvament, d'ist di in avant, in quant Deus savir et podir me dunat, si salvarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo et in ajudha et in cadhuna cosa, si cum om per dreit son fradra salvar dift, in o quid il me altresi fazet, et ab Ludher nul plaid numquam prindrai, qui, meon vol, cist meon fradre Karle in damno sit.”

Italian: "Per amor di Dio e per il popolo Cristiano e nostra comun salute, da questo dì in avanti, in quanto Dio sapere e potere mi dona, così salverò questo mio fratello Carlo e in aiuto in ciascuna cosa, così come un uomo per diritto suo fratello deve salvare, in quanto egli a me altresì faccia, e di Ludher nulla promessa prenderò, che, di mio volere, a questo mio fratello Carlo faccia danno."

English: "For the love of God and for the Christian people and our common salvation, from this day on, insofar as God gives me wisdom and power, I shall protect my brother Karl and give him aid in all things, as a man should protect his brother, as long as he does likewise for me, and I shall accept from Lothair no pledge that, of my will, shall be of detriment to this my brother Charles."

Quite close isn't it? Tuo EraNavigator (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been reconstructed. As I said, it's like a hybrid of Italian and Spanish, but with many archaic elements. Taking the example above, Spanish is closer in some cases e.g. numquam (Latin for "never") is nunca in Spanish, but in Italian mai is used (with the negative - otherwise it means "ever"). Probably, if we were both transposed into the roman empire in a time-machine, at first we wouldn't understand a word, but we would probably pick it up really quick. EraNavigator (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The evidence of Vulgar Latin is too thin to be sure. Inscriptions in Pompeii show many features of simplification of grammar and presage Romance. It is likely that by Julius Caesar's day, the average man-in-the-street would have found it very difficult to follow the elaborate speeches in classical Latin given in the Senate by people like Cicero. To use that example again, like the average Englishman trying to follow a debate in Anglo-Norman in the English Parliament after 1066. But the real changes came with the growth of the empire and the establishment of a professional imperial army. The latter was a multiethnic force that needed a Latin with 2 features: simple grammar and universality i.e. a language spoken by the army everywhere. Army Latin must, I think, be the origin of proto-Romance. EraNavigator (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's intriguing that, if one removes the Slavic elements, the Romanian version actually looks closer, in some respects, to the original. Proto-Romanian must have been very close to proto-Romance. But maybe Spanish is closest overall:

“Pro Deo amur et pro Christian poblo et nostro commun salvament, d'ist di in avant, in quant Deus savir et podir me dunat, si salvarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo et in ajudha et in cadhuna cosa, si cum om per dreit son fradra salvar dift, in o quid il me altresi fazet, et ab Ludher nul plaid numquam prindrai, qui, meon vol, cist meon fradre Karle in damno sit.”

"Por amor de Dios y por el pueblo cristiano y nuestro comun salvamiento, d'este dia en ante, en cuanto Dios me dona saber y poder, así salvaré a este germano miyo Carlo y en ayuda y en cada una cosa, así como hombre por derecho a su germano debe salvar, en lo que el a mi lo mismo hiciera, y a Ludher ninguna prometida nunca tomeré, que, de mi voler, a este germano miyo Carlo sea de daňo."

I think this wins the contest don't you? EraNavigator (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your question about whether Balkan Romance is descended from proto-Romance, I found this tree-diagram in Romance languages:

What I call "proto-Romance" is called "Continental Romance" here - an odd term, presumably to distinguish it from Sardinian. The table shows that all the Romance languages (except Sardinian) descended from proto-Romance, but the Balkan branch diverged from the Western at an early stage. The Oaths of Strasbourg, lying somewhere between Gallo-Romance and French, are thus quite a distance from proto-Romance. Nevertheless, it's surprising how similar Italian and Spanish are to the Oaths - and to each other. The problem with this kind of table is that it does not explain mutual intelligibility. According to the table, Spanish is much closer to French than to Italian - and, no doubt in terms of linguistic theory (lexicality, structure etc) it is. But the fact remains that a Spaniard can understand Italian far more easily than French, or even Portuguese, which is even closer to Spanish linguistically. Also, I don't like the term "Vulgar Latin" - because it is not specific enough, either in time (it stretches from ca. 200 BC to AD 400) or in place: does it refer to the colloquial Latin spoken in the City of Rome, or the Italian peninsula or other Roman provices? I think "Imperial Army Latin" would be a much more useful term. EraNavigator (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The translations look good: I didn't spot any spelling mistakes. You should get foreign students in your College to translate into Russian, Chinese, Arabic, Hindi and Japanase to reach a global audience! PS: I have now finally reached the conclusion that ancient Dacian (and Moesian) was Balto-Slavic, related to Lithuanian and Latvian and that it was completely different from Thracian and Illyrian. Therefore, modern Romanian is not descended from Dacian at all. This is consistent with my view that Romanian is Illyro-Latin. Tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

My view that Dacian is related to the Baltic languages is based on the comparison of Dacian plant names, the only reliable corpus of Dacian words surviving (if one discounts the infamous gold tablets!), with Lithuanian equivalents. I posted this table on your page in February, but you didn't comment at the time:

Looking at the Dacian plant names, apart from personal and place-names, there are a few parallels with Lithuanian, although mainly in genera, not species:

Also, the Dacian plant names often end in -DILA, -DULA or -ZILA, which is close to the Lithuanian word ŽOLĖ, which means a grass or herb e.g. Dac. STIRSO-ZILA Lith. ŠIRDA-ŽOLĖ (Centaury). If Dacian was connected to the Baltic languages, it is further evidence that the Romanians are not descended from the Dacians at all, but from Romance speakers from South of the Danube. OK, this is pretty thin, but that's inevitable, since the evidence is very thin. But the Baltic connection is not my own theory. It has been proposed by linguists, also based on some Dacian placenames.

Regarding the other points that you made:

1. I don't think the Dacians came from the Baltic, rather, the other way round: the Baltic peoples came from Dacia, which was one stop on their migration from Asia Minor (part of the Indo-European migrations into Europe). In other words, the dacians were Baltic-speakers who stayed while other groups moved northwards to the Baltic
2. The lack of dialectal variation in Romanian is strange, but there is plenty of variation if one takes into account the other Vlach languages in the Balkans. It must mean that the original Romanians were a single, clearly defined group of Vlachs from a relatively small geographical region, most likely in the Balkan mountains, who crossed the Danube at some point in the post-Roman era and gradually spread their language all over Dacia.
3. Lithuanian and Latvian are not as distant as you think. Their core vocabulary is quite similar. The two languages are not mutually intelligible, but then, nor are Swedish and English, although they are both classified as Germanic. The relationship between Baltic and Slavic languages is controversial. Some scholars claim they were separayte branches from proto Indo-European, while others claim they were originally a single branch Balto-Slavic, which split (around the time of our map, according to one view). I tend to believe the latter, because I met some Lithuanian students and when they speak to each other, their tongue sounds quite similar to Russian. EraNavigator (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Romanian version of the Empire 125 map, it's pretty close to the other Romance languages, aside from a few curious features like the definite article at the end of the word and the pseudo-genitive case. (I say pseudo-genitive because it's not, as in Latin, a morphing of the noun itself, but just a pronoun, -lui ("of him") or -lor ("of them") stuck on the end. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but adjectives attached to nouns in the pseudo-genitive are not also in the pseudo-genitive e.g. imperiului roman "of the Roman empire", whereas in Latin the adjective always must agree with the noun in case, as well as gender and number e.g. imperii Romani not imperii Romanum). NB: Naţiune/trib barbar - should't it be barbarǎ: aren't naţiune and trib feminine as in Italian? EraNavigator (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering whether we - or rather, I - screwed up on the translation of the linguistic legends. Unlike in the English version, I entered the rubrics as nouns, not adjectives e.g. celti not celtica in the Italian version. It's not a very important point, as in most cases the meaning is clear, but strictly speaking, the rubrics should be adjectives, reflecting the title "linguistic classification". If you want to modify them, I can give you the adjectival forms. I say in most cases, because in the case of the Iranians, there is ambiguity. If you say "Iranian" it implies that they come from Iran; but the Sarmatians originated in central Asia, not Iran. The correct term is "Iranic", because their language is of the same family as the languages of Iran. I notice that even in the English version, we have "Iranian". But I leave you decide whether we should change these rubrics.EraNavigator (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

1. OK, we'll leave the translated rubrics as they stand (although saying they are "ethnic" groups as well as linguistic is of course a wildly imprecise). What about the English version? Are you going to change those to nouns also? If not, you should make the current forms consistent i.e. change "Iranian" to "Iranic". PS: It's irritating that the guy who translated it into German has taken it upon himself to change some of the rubrics. Can you correct this?
2. I find your reconstruction of Vlach movements into Dacia very convincing. You should write a Wiki article on this basis. So you agree that the Romanians are not a continuing Daco-Roman population?
3. I didn't pick the Dacian plant names at random. I checked each one to see if I could find a convincing Lithuanian isonym. But I didn't do a thorough or professional job. I didn't use the most extensive Lithuanian dictionary available nor a good Lithuanian etymological dictionary. There may well be other good equivalents.
4. The reason I suggested that the Dacians migrated from Asia Minor is that the people called "Moesians" by the Romans, inhabiting the S bank of the Danube are described by the ancient authors (Strabo, Dio Cassius etc)) as both Dacian-speakers and the same people as the ancient Mysians of Asia Minor. That they were Dacian speakers is confirmed by the -DAVA placename evidence. Tuo EraNavigator (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to the original German version - I hadn't seen your revised version. But I agree you should translate it exactly. What about the Chinese and other versions? EraNavigator (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You've changed your mind about the adjectives? OK, I'll modify the translation table above. EraNavigator (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

One possible explanation of the -DAVA/-PARA distribution is that the Dacians occupied Thrace first and were then pushed North by the Thracians coming in after them from Asia Minor. This would also account for the existence of a couple of -DAVA placenames in central Thrace - perhaps groups of Dacians survived in the mountains, much as the Vlachs did in later times. Dio Cassius states that the Getans may have been "Thracians of Dacian race" who were driven North of the Danube. Tuo EraNavigator (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought I would advertise the map a little on the other wikipedias so that people become aware of its existence and it doesn't just languish in the Commons unused. What would be much more useful than the Diocletian/Constantine map is a detailed map of each province, like the Dacia map (still in 125). So readers could zoom in from the main map. Have you bought your RAM expansion units? We need to use the GIS so that you can generate physical maps fast. What other projects are you working on? Tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to sound inisistent, but we do need some decent graphics for battle plans (not only for Strasbourg). I hate the usual line-diagrams, and I love the Goldsworthy graphics. There must be some software package out there that enables you to reproduce these easily. Do you have any ideas? EraNavigator (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is actually an objective reason for dating the provincial maps 125 (or thereabouts): it is at this time that the locations of most (80%) auxiliary regiments are known, as the majority of surviving military diplomas date from Hadrian's rule. It's not entirely clear why. By 180, most auxiliary troops had Roman citizenship (all after 212), so diplomas (which were certificates of citizenship), were no longer issued. Earlier, it is possible that diplomas were normally issued in paper form (unless the recipient specifically requested, and paid, for a metal one?), rather than as a metal tablet, and so were eliminated by organic decomposition. Also, before 107, the empire did not include Dacia and so was not at its fullest extent (ignoring the two-year occupation of Mesopotamia under Trajan).

Of course, the auxiliary issue is only relevant to the provincial maps (where we would show the auxiliary regiments) and not to the overall empire map (where we don't). Ideally, we would have the same map as 125 for 30 BC (Augustus start), AD 14 (Augustus end), 54 (Claudius end-annexation of Britannia, Thracia, Mauretania), 75 (new Flavian legions) 211 (Severan legions) and 284 (loss of Dacia and Agri Decumates). These maps would not take long to make, as most of the details would be the same as the existing one - the only substantially different one would be Augustus start (30 BC), when the empire was much smaller.

If you can reproduce Goldsworthy's graphics using Inkscape, then it really would be worth the effort to learn how to do it. Because then we could produce some really attractive maps of all battles, not just Strasbourg, instead of the ugly line-diagrams that we have to put up with now.

Your other projects look interesting. I trust that they will all be physical maps - I think we have traveled a long way from the useless political maps that you used to make! Tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely we want to make maps of provinces that the Romans held for a considerable time - say, over 100 years - not regions which they occupied for tiny periods. It's actually the Devil's Dykes, a series of earth ramparts of varying length, 4-deep in places, surrounding the entire Tisza Plain from Aquincum (Budapest) in Pannonia to Viminacium (Kostolac) in Moesia Sup. The Penguin Atlas of Ancient Rome (p87) says they were built by Constantine to protect the Roman tributary tribes in the Plain (i.e. the Iazyges presumably) from the Goths (presumably the ramparts were manned by Roman troops and the Iazyges themselves). The same was done for the Wallachian Plain by the Brazda Lui Novac de Nord along the edge of the Carpathians from Drobeta-Turnu Severin to as far as Buzau. So it seeme the sarmatians were at this time under Roman suzerainty. Tuo EraNavigator (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Presumably, Constantine had defeated the Sarmatian tribes and forced them to pay tribute - and wanted to protect his new taxpayers. In addition, he may have seen these regions as useful buffer zones against Gothic raids. The most detailed discussion of Constantine's transdanubian policy I could find online (when I researched Late Roman army) is on this Romanian site: EraNavigator (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought the same when I saw the nationalistic slogan at the head. But the article itself is sound. It's properly referenced and signed by a professor, and the conclusions seem reasonable on the evidence. EraNavigator (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the author goes too far to say that Constantine annexed those regions; but it's clear that he established a kind of military protectorate. On the Hungarian Dyke, check out this academic paper (go to page 550) Tuo EraNavigator (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry, misspelt address EraNavigator (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you read Hungarian? In Magyar, the Devil's Dyke is known as the Csörsz árka ("Csorsz ditch") and there is an article on it in the Magyar wikipedia. EraNavigator (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so interested in the Devils Dykes? PS: I think you have enough information to expand your stub-article. PPS: There is an important mistake in your text. The Dykes were not along the bank of the Tisza, but along the edges of the plain of the Tisza i.e. along the edge of the Carpathians in the North, and roughly along a line from Debrecen-Arad-Timisoara-Kostolac to the East. Also the dating, according to the Christie paper above, is not entirely clear. Some elements appear to date from the 2nd century AD, and were presumably constructed at the time of the Marcomannic wars of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (ruled 161-80), when the Tisza plain was apparently occupied by Roman troops. But the main bulk of the fortifications appear to date to ca. 330, constructed by Constantine I (ruled 312-37). Tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Devil's Dykes

Hi. I've amended Devil's Dykes a little to improve accuracy and detail (I hope that you don't mind). I agree that the ramparts are a little puzzling. Either the Sarmatians learnt to fight on foot (or perhaps there was a class of Sarmatians, probably the pre-existing indigenes subjugated by the Iazyges when they occupied the Tisza plain, that provided foot soldiers?) or the ramparts were manned by Roman troops (or both). Somewhere (unfortunately I can't remember in which book), I've seen a photo of a modern reconstruction of a section of Devil's Dykes in Hungary. In front of the rampart was a deep ditch filled with cross-hatched sharpened stakes - quite an impressive barrier. Tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Roman roads

Hello Andrei nacu. I would like to use the Roman empire map for the article Roman roads in Africa. I would like to ask you if you could help me by editing it (removing the upper part of the map (above Gibraltar) and moving the legend from the upper right corner to the lower left) for this purpose. Thanks S711 (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Vicksburg_battle_map.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Vicksburg_battle_map.svg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

Hi Andrei,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:2008 South Ossetia war en.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 7, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-08-07. howcheng {chat} 08:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Roman Roads in Britannia.svg

File:Roman Roads in Britannia.svg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Roman Roads in Britannia.svg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Simplified Languages of Europe map.svg

Hello Andrei, could you please provide specific sources for the map that you have created? Thanks. --Ahnode (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrei, could you please cite sources for the map? Thanks. --Ahnode (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ciao, amico

Ehi, Andrei. Come va? Gli esami sono andati bene? Sono tornato in England un mese fa e sto a Cambridge dove vive mio fratello Luca con la sua familia. Se vuoi, possiamo incontrarci. Quando torni in Romania? Il mio numero di telefono mobile e 07941981663. Mi lasci il tuo? Abbracci tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

File Greater Romania

This is an excellent map that you have uploaded. It must have been quite some work to craft it! Very good one! I would like to point you to one minor mistake: the borders between Botosani, Iasi and Balti counties. Namely, the former two counties had some areas in Bessarabia. That was the administrative division of the country at the time. The names given to the regions, while widely accepted by everyone, were not official, but the borders of counties were. You can keep those areas with the same color as Bessarabia, but pls do draw the border bewten those counties. Thank you very much. Dc76\ 20:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your replay and explanation. You know, I just checked the data of the 1930 Census, and you are totally right! (I found Ungheni, Costesti and Sculeni in Balti County). I thought that redrawal happened earlier, before the census. But now I see this, and I do believe you that it was done later. (Just curious, do you know who and why?) You know, this is an excellent news! Because, I can add the numbers for the 9 counties and get the population of Bessarabia! I couldn't do that before, because I was looking for the results for Iasi and Botosani counties and those are nowhere to be found on the web. Thank you very-very much!! Dc76\ 07:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I knew, and was using (mostly for my own information so far) the Austrian (?) maps of the 1930 Romanian census (those uploaded by Olahus). Your maps are more recent, but are catchy. I know that other editors are also very fond of them. About your other 2 maps: yes I noticed both of them, but before today I looked at the details only about the first one. Excellent work! I will use it in several article! The second is also very good, but you have used too many colors. It becomes somewhat difficult to follow them. May I have a suggestion: use a color to denote each ethnic group (it's not so important 50-75% or >75%), and let it be white where there is no majority (regardless who is plurality). Also, grey, brown, cardovan are not the best color choices. Use blue, green, red, yellow, pink. These 5 colors can be distinguished easily, and they are available in darker/light (so you can actually do the 50-75%, >75%) But if you use light cardovan and dark grey - it is very difficult to follow. To me, it is easy to follow you, b/c I actually know who and where live(d), but imagine an Australian or a Brazilian.

I have a question for you: how did you know the ethnic composition at sub-county level? You must have had some access to some census results. I am asking because the links I have are incomplete. They are scanned by somebody, but sometimes they missed small parts of pages.

BTW, if you are interested, you perhaps could join Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Moldova, which is in clinical death, but we have revived already a couple times in the past (and then it slept into comma again). Dc76\ 08:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact I just said "sub-district level" generically. I did not even attempt to translate "plasa" :) But yes, I agree, district would be correct. I would greatly appreciate if you could share with me the 1930 and 1941 census results. There is absolutely no rush, as I am not going to use these data on a larger scale any time soon (we still don't have pages for all localities once occupied by the Soviets, we are still making up lists of them and starting them up. I mean Biruitorul and me.). If you have .pdf files, you can send them to me by email (even if it is after 1 or 2 months). My email feature is permanently activated. (I'd rather not write my email address here, as it contains my name, and I prefer to be on the safe side.) If you incur some costs in getting the census data, perhaps I can share some.

I wish so much I could give you a positive answer to at least one the your questions. But unfortunately I can not; you are well ahead of me with your search. I did not even attempt to find yet maps that reflect changes at different times after 1918 and before communism. (BTW, I am not surprised you did not find Transnistria, because it was actually never annexed, it was governed as a territory in the hope of exchanging it for Northern Transylvania. IMHO, WP maps should reflect that real state of things, not suggest a country with borders it never had.) May I suggest you to draw a 1941 ethnic map using circles of varying size to reflect the size and ethnic composition of the population. For example, like here: File:Harta etnica a Republicii Moldova - 2004.jpg You can set the center of the circle at the district's main locality. I am sure you have thought about that. If you ever are in difficulty to locate some locality, I am pretty sure I can help you if it is in Bessarabia. (Eventually, I will have a full list, including cases when names were changed.) I don't know about the Library of the Romanian Academy. I only was there once to make a permit, but never actually got to use it in practice. I can promise you a common-sense thing: I will be careful to watch for any 1940-1945 Romanain maps, and if I see one, I'd let you know at once. Also, if I find out some additional details about info that was mentioned in our discussion, I will let you know. Dc76\ 09:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

About WikiProject Moldova, what we miss is people who can improve the quality of existing articles. (Setting up and organizing category-wise we got covered, it's slow but it will be done.) For example, if you are interested in the 20th century history, there are a lot of articles there that need help. If you help bring 2 such articles per year to B or A class (with the rest of us also editing them), that would be more than excellent. Dc76\ 09:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If I may, here are a few suggestions about this map. If you like them, you might try to make an alternative version to see who it looks:

1. Give to each ethnic group one color: if and only if it represents >50% in the plasa / oras
2. Assign a light yellow or light blue color to all remaining areas without a majority.
3. For example, you can use Blue for Romanians, Green for Ukrainians, Red for Germans, Pink for Gagauzians, Bright Yellow for Bulgarians, and Indigo for Russians.
4. In the caption, use county for judet, district for plasa, and city for oras.

Obviously, these are nothing more than my suggestions.

Would it be difficult for you to draw a map of Bessarabia before 1918? I would like to use one here. It should show the 9 counties, for example on some geographical background; and maybe with 10-20 largest cities/villages. (nor more than 20 for the whole of Bessarabia). Use both Romanian and Russian names, like this: Judeţul Hotin Хотинский уезд one under the other with shrift of equal size (doesn't matter which one is on top).

Could you also do a similar one for Bukovina, but with Romanian and German names? And finally one of Moldovan counties for 1998-2003 (the existing one has serious errors)? Sorry, I am asking so much. But, then, you draw so nice! How can I abstain from asking you? :) Dc76\ 17:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Every other day I find more and more very good maps by you. You have a talent. Dc76\ 22:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Bucharest metro map

Hello. I see in the picture description at File:Bucharestmetro2009.svg that you were the original author. Would you mind updating it to incorporate a few changes (see below), and maybe the remarks given at ro:Discuţie:Lista staţiilor de metrou din Bucureşti? My own suggestions are:

• fix typo at "1 Decembrie" (which, fwiw, should be "1 Decembrie 1918");
• use yellow for the M3 line and red for the M1 line;
• you should probably use diacritics, especially for "Râul Doamnei".
• could you maybe extend the M5 line from Universitate to Iancului and Pantelimon?
• perhaps add (back) the "Zarea" station on M4, but between Bazilescu and Laminorului.

Thanks. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ciao

Ehi ciao. Perche non ti fai sentire? Per favore lasciami il tuo numero mobile o di casa o il tuo indirizzo e ti contattero io. Ciao, tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Your Atlanta Campaign map

Andrei: I have incorporated your very nice Atlanta Campaign map in the revisions I have made to the Army of the Tennessee article. Yesterday, I noticed that the map gives an incorrect date for the Battle of Kennesaw Mtn; it should be June 27, rather than June 22. Also, the map does not show the June 22 Battle of Atlanta. That seems unfortunate because, to my understanding, that battle was "the largest of the campaign." I thought I should pass these thoughts along, in case you want to make revisions. (McMurry, Atlanta 1864, p. 155.) Hartfelt (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ciao

Ciao, caro. Mi ha fatto molto piacere sentire le tue notizie. Chiamami quando torni a Londra. Abbracci tuo Andrea. EraNavigator (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Inkscape

Hi Andrei. When editing the 'fill', is there a way to generate custom stripe patterns, with different colours, apart from the standard black and white vertical stripes ? Hxseek (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:General map of slovenia.svg

Hi Andrei! Just wanted to thank you for this great .svg map of Slovenia. Keep up the good work! Regards, --Eleassar 07:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! I've spotted some erroneous spellings on the map that should be corrected:

• Grintavec should be Grintovec
• Škofjelosko hribovje should be Škofjeloško hribovje
• Jesenece should be Jesenice
• Juliske Alpe should be Julijske Alpe
• Kamniško Savinjske Alpe should be Kamniško-Savinjske Alpe
• The river Idrija should be Idrijca, while the name of the town is spelled correctly.

The legend should say "Urban area (only for the settlements with over 25,000 inhabitants)" - using comma instead of the period as a thousands separator per WP:MOSNUM.

Also, due to the bilinguality of the region, Muggia should be Muggia/Milje, Gorizia should be Gorizia/Gorica, and Trieste should be Trieste/Trst (in the same manner as Koper is Koper/Capodistria)

Trdinov vrh should be put exactly on the Slovenian-Croatian border and should be named as Trdinov vrh/Sveta Gera, see Sveta Gera and its related talk page for an explanation.

Finally, if time permits, you may also update the expressways according to this map made by DARS (Motorway Company in the Republic of Slovenia), dated to 16 July 2009.

Thank you very much and regards, --Eleassar 07:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You may also use Geopedia as a great source of geographical data about Slovenia. --Eleassar 07:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Germania 70.svg

Hi, nice map, some hints for corrections:

• The limes in The Netherlands extended northwards to the Rhine (Katwijk, Leiden, Alphen aan de Rijn)
• FECTIC is FECTIO,
• AD TRAIECTUM is TRAIECTUM
• The limes road ends in Lugdunum Batavorum (Katwijk)

see for a detailed limes map in the netherlands, http://www.limes.nl/assets/downloads/locations.pdf Hans Erren (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just done the edits Hans Erren (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

good job

Just wanted to say: Great work on those maps! Omegastar (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Map translating etc

Dear Andrei,

Can you enlighten me how I can edit the maps you so wonderfully created to create further derivatives? E.g in other languages? How can i access the texts and create other alternative texts?

Thansk so much Refdoc (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

topographic map

Hello,

I am interested in overlaying an accurate topographic map (png) on the boundaries of the Roman Empire in 117AD and surrounding areas -- the map that you created. I can't find any maps that have the same geography stretching as your maps. I like your 125AD map and it does have some topographic information, but I would like more detail. Could you tell me how I could create such a map or where I could possibly find it? Thanks. --Agamemnus (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Or even your source for the 125AD map geography. :] -- Agamemnus (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Romania senate 2008 results even colours.svg missing description details

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Source for File:RomanEmpire_117.svg

This is a great map, unfortunately a user upset with the boundaries of Armenia has just gone through removing it from the English Misplaced Pages. The one valid concern that has been raised is that the file has no references. Do you remember what source, or sources you used in creating the map? If you could add those, it would make things easier in dealing with this issue. - SimonP (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear "user" (SimonP), I'd like to ask you not to misinterpret the issue and mislead in what the case was in.Aregakn (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The map of the Roman Empire

Dear Andrei, First of all I'd like to thank you for all your contributions. I'd also like to ask you to help me understand where the Image RomanEmpire 117.svg "appeared" from and what was the goal of making it. As I can see, it is not made as a map but as an image that can show the provinces of the Roman Empire at it's greatest extent and what kind of provinces those were. Can you please comment? Thank you.Aregakn (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Map

Hi

I think it is a little mistake on this map http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Hungarian_language_in_Transylvania.svg

It is written that "Hungarian has a co-official status", but the single official language in Romania is the Romanian language. Maybe it is better to write "Hungarian has a special status" (Umumu (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Colonisation maps for 1959 and 1974

Sorry for randomness/rudeness/impatience, but I would like to redirect your attention to: Talk:Colonization#Germany_and_USSR_in_1959_and_1974_maps.2C_Singapore_and_Italy_in_1974_map. Hope things might get done faster this way, conisdering how frequent people acually bother seeing talk pages :(. KPUFFERFİSH 15:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The June 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Greater_austria_ethnic.svg

The map file uploaded by you, titled Greater_austria_ethnic.svg lists ethnic groups among which "Serbians". The correct name should be "Serbs". --94.250.79.31 (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agincourt

Hello,

I've used your map of the Battle of Agincourt in a critique of a comic-strip adaptation of it; Is that all right? http://www.tcj.com/hoodedutilitarian/2010/08/strange-windows-someone-had-blunderd-kurtzman-at-the-charge/

I'm admittedly very isolated here. Do you know of any forums or blogs dedicated to the Hundred Years' War that could give me useful feedback on my theories?

Sorry to bother you. Rhinoracer (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

One of your maps

Hey. Are you the creator of File:Colonisation2.gif? If so, does the map have a source? Swarm 00:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Andrei nacu! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 28 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Mircea Hava - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

File:United States in 1865.svg missing description details

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies 21:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Messilla on the Map, File:TRANS-MISSISSIPPI CIVIL WAR.svg

On your map

the town of Mesilla is on the west bank of the Rio Grande River. It should be on the east bank.Asiaticus (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Looked at some period maps, seems the Rio Grande has moved west after the 1870s. Asiaticus (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ciao, carissimo!

Actually, it's me who should apologise. I've been back in Britain for 18 months and I didn't even contact you. The reason is that I've been desperately trying to buy a house to live in and it's dragged on and on. It's no excuse of course, but I've been avoiding old friends until I can get myself sorted out.

I didn't understand from your message: are you still studying at King's, or have you abandoned your course and returned to Romania for good? If you're back in London for the new academic year, give me your mobile no. again and this time I will call you for sure. Mine's 00 44 789 650 7489. I definitely want to see your latest maps. By the way, we still need to make the ultimate Dacia map! Preferably one that angers the Geto-Dacian faction!

Actually, the lad I'm debating with at the moment is very intelligent - he's asking some tough questions. Unfortunately, he is tied to the old ways of thinking. Still, he's playing a useful role as inquisitor in making sure that the points I make in the article are logically rigorous. I've had to make several changes in response to his critique. What do you think of the article in its revised form? It still needs some more work on the archaeology, however.

Since I last communicated with you, I have been working on several articles on the Roman army: Roman army itself, which was previously a pathetic collection of disjointed facts like from a children's book; Early Roman army, Roman army of the mid-Republic, and Imperial Roman army are all 80% complete, take a look. The idea is that with Caesarian Roman army (still to be written) and Late Roman army (which you've seen, I think) and East Roman army (semi-complete) there will be full coverage on Wiki for the army from ca. 550 BC to AD 641: over a thousand years.

Spero di udire le tue notizie presto. (How's your Italian these days)? Abbracci tuo Andrea 16:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC) EraNavigator (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My email is: daydream_artiste@yahoo.co.uk However, I'm not sure it's operational at the moment, as I missed some communications. Try it anyway, but you'll have to use Wiki if it doesn't work (if there is a problem, tell me, so I can tell yahoo). I'm glad you decided to switch to cartography - I think everyone should follow their interests and talents. But I am really sad I missed you here in England (I'm based in Cambridge mostly, but I travel around a lot). Are you planning to return for a visit in the near future?. What do you mean by "I didn't like being in the top half at King's"? Is this a Romanian expression?

What you said about the Carpi is fascinating. It may well be true. But the mystery still remains: what is the origin of the Romanian language? And why is it spoken over such a wide area? The most likely scenario is that it was brought into Dacia by waves of Balkan Vlachs fleeing Byzantine oppression in the period 500-1100 AD. But while this might explain how Romanian became prevalent in Wallachia, it is less clear how it became the prevailing language in Transylvania, Moldavia and Bessarabia.

Hey! What about the ultimate Dacia map? tuo Andrea EraNavigator (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You are full of interesting facts. The early Romanian princes were Catholic? I never knew that. Which ones? However, I think you are wrong about the Iazyges. All the ancient sources concur that these were Sarmatian, not Finno-Ugric. More interesting are the indigenous population of the Hungarian plain. The Iazyges were the overlords of the region, but a minority, like the German tribes were later overlords of the conquered Roman majority after the c ollapse of the western Empire. The majority on the hungarian plain, presumably the indigenous population, were called the LIMIGANTES, who rebelled against their overlords in ca. 360 and then some invaded Roman territory, only to be crushed by emperor Constantius II.(Ammianus Marcellinus XVII.12) It has always been assumed that this people were Illyrians, like the indigenous inhabitants of Pannonia. But maybe instead they were Finno-Ugric, and the basis of today's Hungarian people. This raises the question of who were the majority population in the Wallachian plain, where the overlords were the Iazyges' Sarmatian cousins, the Roxolani. The traditionalists will tell you it was (yes, you've guessed it!) the Geto-Dacians. But the Getae name, who were very much in business at the time of Augustus (30 BC - AD 14), disappears from ancient sources in the early 1st century AD, presumably because the Romans started calling them just Dacians. Of these, I think, many were killed or deported by the Romans during Trajan's conquest of Dacia. Many more perished during the successive waves of invasions of the Wallachian plain by transdanubian tribes such as the Bastarnae, Carpi, Goths, Taifali etc. So that by 360, the Dacians no longer existed as a distinct group in Wallachia.

Roman Empire Map

Hi,

Thanks for the reply. I'm using your map borders for a game: http://merchantsofpower.com/screenshots/screenshot%2007-29-2010%2002-40-33.png

I want to add terrain but I can't because I could not find any terrain with the projection of your map.

So, if you say that the map is distorted, I'd like to know where you got the source for the borders, since that is mostly what I am interested in from your map. Is the source available on the internet, or is it from Atlas of the Greek and Roman World? (what page, if you know/remember?)

It would also be interesting to know what program you used to change the central meridian... I don't know much about mapping tools.

Thanks! --Agamemnus (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Dacians etc.

Maps: Very impressive. Are you doing commercial work for the media? But, as you know, I like physical maps. I really like your map of Moldavia under Stefan cel Mare. That's yours, right? Do you call yourself Andrein on the Rom site?

Dacians: Your question of whether the Dacians survived as an ethnic group in 360 is a very interesting one. On balance, I would say yes, because of Constantine's Dacicus Maximus title in 336, which is attested in a reliable inscription. Also there is Zosimus' Carpo-Dacae in ca. 400. OK, this is not reliable (you saw the torpedo I fired at Zosimus in the Carpi debate?). But, on balance, I think it's likely that Zosimus was using a source that said "Karpatón Dakai" in Greek ("Dacians of the Carpathians"), which he abbreviated to Karpodakai. So there is sufficient evidence of substantial numbers of "Free Dacians", both indigenes and refugees from the Roman conquest, living in the Carpathian valleys until AD 400 if not beyond. But I don't think the Carpi or Costoboci were part of them.EraNavigator (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Map of Dacia

One option you could consider is to produce a map of "Dacia according to Ptolemy" (which is probably similar to Decebal's kinggdom) for Wiki, with names of cities that he gives (with modern names also) and tribes, both inside and outside Dacia. The asdvantage would be that it would show people that classical Dacia only extended as far as the Siret in the East and the Timiş in the West.

Naturally the map itself would be a modern physical projection, NOT a reproduction of Prolemy's data, which contain a bizarre omission. Ptolemy was clearly unaware of the "horseshoe" shape of the Carpathian range. What he calls the oros Karpatis is actually the northern Carpathians on the Ukraine/Romania border. Ptolemy ignores the eastern and southern Carpathians, and a projection of his data show Dacia as flat from the Danube to the northern Carpathians. Most likely, he is confusing the Carpaţii Meridionali with the northern range. This is strange, since by the time he was writing, Dacia had been a province of the Roman empire for about 40 years. It probably means he was using a source from earlier (may be 1st century) and clearly had not visited the country himself. See this 15th century projection (not the best one): EraNavigator (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Another thing you could do is to translate my Carpi (people) article into Romanian. If you look at the Rom Wiki article as it stands, it's pathetic. EraNavigator (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we do the Roman Dacia map we once planned? That would have to be in ca. AD 125, since that is when there is the most extensive knowledge of disposition of auxiliary regiments. As for the historical atlas of Romania, that sounds an exciting idea. But it's a huge undertaking and you need to be sure you have the time for it. As for Ptolemy, how about a modern projection of his entire world map? It could be titled "The Known World in Roman times", showing a modern map of just the then known world surface, with all of Ptolemy's captions (and modern equivalents). See

Getans: Your question assumes the Dacians and Getae were different peoples. This of course is possible, although flies in the face of orthodox Romanian historiography. This has a strong basis on ancient sources. Strabo says their language was the same and Pliny implies the two are alternative names for the same people (Getae being the Greek name, Daci the Roman one). But as you saw from the Carpi debate, this view is under some challenge. Since Burebista's kingdom fragmented into 5 pieces after his death, maybe 4 were in Wallachia and 1 covered Transylvania. But obviously this is just speculation.EraNavigator (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Getae:Hi. I agree with what you said about the Getae.

Dacia map: Don't you want your atlas to contain a map of pre-Roman Dacia? i.e. Decebal's kingdom, including key cities, fortresses and archaeological sites? As regards the Roman Dacia map, obviously you don't have to include the auxiliary forts if you don't want to. I just thought it would be a nice touch - since as far as I know, no other map shows those details. I agree that the map should include the whole lower Danube stretch, including the fluvial parts of Pannonia Inferior and Moesia Superior and Inferior. It should also show the Black sea coast. I sugges that the area covered should be the same as in the map opposite, extended eastwards to include Panninia inferior.

Free Dacians: See my upgrade of Free Dacians. Still more work to be done, but it's coming together, don't you think?

EraNavigator (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Haven't heard from you for a while. By the way, my email is working, I think. 19:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Dacia

Hey. Can you do me a favour? I need to get hold of a book published in Romania: C.H. OPREANU Dacia romana şi Barbaricum (1998) Editura Mirton (Timisoara). I can't find it anywhere in the UK, not even in the top libraries (Cambridge, British Library). Nor on Amazon. Can you buy a copy and send it to me in England? To this address: Andrea Leone (c/o 23 Westcroft Square, London W6 0TD ENGLAND. Thanks, Andrei EraNavigator (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's great you found it! I think this is the work (mentioned in Niculescu's online paper) that torpedoes the Geto-Dacian paradigm. If you want, I can send money to you by Western Union - so if you can buy a copy, I'll reimburse you for it plus postage. Otherwise, a scan will be fine. EraNavigator (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll look for maps and atlases on my next visit to Cambridge University Library (their Map room is amazing - did you ever go there? they've got maps from the 16th century onwards). The Barrington Atlas covers the period, I believe, 100 BC - AD 400. PS: If Opreanu's book really does challenge the orthodoxy, it's ironic indeed that it's won the Pârvan prize, since Vasile Pârvan is the Grand Old Man of the Geto-dacian paradigm: I'll look forward to the scan - let me know if you need any cash.

EraNavigator (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Opreanu books

Ciao. Both books sound very interesting and I'd like to get both, if you have the time to scan them. Tell me if you need any money. PS: See my latest contribution to the Costoboci Discussion Page where I expose some of the flagrant fact-distortion practiced by the Geto-Dacianists, in this case by the "high priest" of Carpic studies, the archaeologist Gh. BICHIR. I think it will make you laugh.

Regarding the historical atlas, are you planning to just copy information from other atlases/maps, or are you also going to do your own original research? EraNavigator (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it's high time to make maps challenging the Daco-Roman continuity paradigm. It would make you instantly famous, although you might have to hire bodyguards to protect against attacks by nationalist thugs! Joking apart, I see no point in making a new historical atlas unless you introduce new data, features and theories. The more different it is, the better it will sell. I am also fascinated by medieval history and the author and book you mention sound very interesting indeed. It is certainly true that for centuries, the Vlachs were considered the best soldiers in the Balkans, much as their Thraco-Illyrian ancestors were the best soldiers in the Roman Empire - and for the same reason: that their poverty-stricken life as pastoralists in the Balkan mountains made them extremely tough.

Regarding Opreanu's theory about Latin-speaking continuity, it sounds convincing, up to a point. My own view is that small, isolated pockets of Latin-speakers probably survived scattered in various parts of Dacia, especially in the mountain regions (e.g. your idea about the Roman mining region). But I don't think these were decisive in Romanian ethnogenesis (I hate that word!) This, I am sure, was caused by migrations of Balkan Vlachs into Wallachia (hence the region's name). I think there were numerous waves of these, from the 6th century onwards, starting with regular Slavic raiding based in Wallachia, where large numbers of Vlachs were abducted over the Danube and forced into slavery as peasants to cultivate the rich lands of the Wallachian plain- later the Bulgars also deported large numbers of Vlachs to Wallachia, which they then controlled; but I agree with your author that by far the largest migrations were in the period 1000-1200. After the defeat of the Vlacho-Bulgarian empires, probably hundreds of thousands of Vlachs fled North of the Danube to escape brutal Byzantine reprisals. Maybe I should write a book about this?

Don't you think it's funny the way that the Geto-Dacianists pretend that black is white? The ludicrous conclusion about the funerary rites is only one of several glaring contradictions in Bichir's book. I agree that the tide is turning in Romanian academia. but I detect a continuing reluctance to challenge the orthodoxy and to explore alternatives. Above all, analysis is still heavily conditioned by the paradigm i.e. data is always tested against the paradigm, even if the paradigm is ultimately denied. Exploration of alternative scenarios is still timid.

I agree that you need to line up some heavyweight academics to advise on your atlas. This will give you credibility with publishers. But it will also free you to be more adventurous in your approach. Regarding Dacia, you need a strong anti-paradigm figure.

Opreanu's Christian-based theory is fascinating, although novel, as I thought that Christianity in that part of the world was entirely Greek-based. I definitely need this book, and Tiplic also. So, get scanning! Alternatively, if it's easier, you can photocopy these works.

I agree that the data on Vlach migrations is very fragmentary. Still, that makes it a challenge to collate it and present a convincing picture. How about this as the title of my book: "Wallachia: The Making of the Vlach Nation"? I don't think it will win any Romanian Academy prizes, do you?

I thought you would be amused by the title. Ironically, it would probably be the most truthful book on Romanian origins written in a long time. No, i haven't written a book before. But I really want to be an author. That's the reason for my activity on Misplaced Pages. To practice my research and writing skills. I am interested in archaeology, history and, above all, legends and myths. I am fascinated by legends about King Arthur. Anyway, it's time to start writing. I hope to complete a book by the end of 2011. The trouble is deciding what to write about. But I am warming to the idea of writing the Wallachia book. It's an interesting subject, and it will undoubtedly cause controversy if it's published. And for authors, all publicity is good publicity. Chapter 1 could contain a total demolition of the Geto-Daco-Roman continuity thesis, for which I am already well-prepared. What do you think?

I did not know of the bishopric of Iustiniana Prima. This is really fascinating stuff. I can't wait to get a hold of Opreanu's books. EraNavigator (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, do you have time to make a few changes to the Roman Empire 125 map? On the basis of what I've learnt, I want to add a few more barbarian tribes and change the position of a few other barbarian tribes. I think we should also add an "uncertain" category to the probable barbarian linguistic groups - and move the Carpi into it. It's no big deal, but it improves the map's accuracy. By the way, it rem\ains by far the best map of the empire on the Net, and its level of detail is unsurpassed. EraNavigator (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if I undertook a work of this kind, I would have to live in Romania for a period to do the necessary research - even in the fabled British Library, the holdings of Romanian works is inadequate. Modern works on archaeology are essential. OK, much less of the Wallachian Plain was cultivable than now. But there must have been some drained/cleared areas, and of course there are the foothills of the mountains. Another problem is translation of non-English works. I'm OK with Romanian - I find it quite easy to read (with a dictionary, of course). But Slavic (Serbo-Croat and Bulgarian) is foreign territory for me. It's annoying that after 60 years that English has been the international language, so many scholars continue to write in their own native language and fail to provide an English translation (I think this should be compulsory for anything published in an academic journal). But, overall, I think it's a feasible project. I'm optimistic that enough evidence could be found to prove the basic hypothesis, despite what Triplic says. And if not, well it's fun doing this kind of research anyway. I think the best way to proceed is to do preliminary research using sources available in London/Cambridge. If the results of this are promising enough to justify it, then I could move to Bucharest for in-depth research. EraNavigator (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your kindness in scanning the books. Regarding Empire 125, I will over the next few days make a list of desirable changes and then post it here. About the projection - I thought it was necessary to distort it in order to fit the whole empire in? Of course, you could make a professional computer-generated projection now that you know how. But I guess it would take too much time to re-make the whole map? EraNavigator (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Cluj-Napoca it is, then. But first, I need to carry out preliminary research here as I said. As for the 125 map, we can just amend the existing one for now. Then, if you find the time, you can think about a new projection. Now, I must leave you. I'll be in touch soon. Best wishes EraNavigator (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Empire 125 map

NB: For all these changes, adjust the size of the lettering of the tribal names as you see fit.

1. "AD" (which stands for Anno Domini - "In the year of the Lord") should properly go before, not after, the year e.g. ROMAN EMPIRE IN AD 125
2. Add UNCERTAIN category to list of PROBABLE BARBARIAN LINGUISTIC GROUPS and remove DACIAN
3. In bottom left legend-box, add heading: BARBARICUM IN AD 125. Under heading, add: Main Sources: Tacitus' Germania (ca. AD 100) and Ptolemy's Geographia (ca. AD 140) (to make room for larger box, shift DESERTUM AFRICANUM eastwards)
4. Transfer RUGII, CARPI (etc.) rubric from top right box to bottom left box, in position above PROBABLE BARBARIAN LINGUISTIC GROUPS
5. Shift CALEDONII to North of the line of the Antonine Wall (this was not yet built in 125). Between line of Antonine and Hadrian's Wall, enter Celtic tribe SELGOVAE. Add I to HIBERNI: HIBERNII
6. Show Hadrian's Wall with a crenellated line. Name the Wall, by placing similarly coloured rubric "Vallum Hadriani" over the sea on the East end of the Wall
7. The FRISII should run as far as NOVIOMAGUS. The CHAUCI should stop at the river ALBIS
8. The CASTRA VETERA rubric is a problem, as it takes up room in Germany. Remove it, and shift XXX ULPIA as far West as possible.
9. The CHAMAVI should be where CASTRA VETERA is now.
10. Add a second, smaller SUEBI rubric alongside the West bank of the ALBIS river, in the gap between HERMUNDURI and MARCOMANNI.
11. The GEPIDAE should be entirely East of the VISTULA, directly underneath the small VENEDI rubric.
12. Shift the GOTHONES westwards so that they inhabit both sides of the VISTULA.
13. The northern FENNI? should inhabit a wider area than shown now. Start with the F on the Baltic coast of Latvia and finish with the ? near the top right corner of the legend box.
14. Remove the western ANTES? rubric (they prob. did not get there until the 3rd/4th c.)
15. The main VENEDI rubric should extend over a much wider area than shown now: Start with the V North of the final I of AESTII and make a wide arc, with the final I where the A of the removed ANTES? rubric is now.
16. Remove the SCYTHAE (they had been pushed out of this region by the Sarmatians by this date). Replace the BASILAEI by SCYTHAE (these were the remaining Scythins, the so-called Royal Scyths - Scythae Basilaei in Greek).
17. Make the DACI Balto-Slavic (speculative, I know) and move them from the northern to the eastern Carpathians, squeezed into a thin strip between the eastern border of the Roman province DACIA and the river Siret (not shown).
18. The CARPI (Uncertain linguistic aff) should likewise be squeezed into Moldavia between the Siret and Prut (currently shown but not named). Add the COSTOBOCI (Uncertain) from where the the C of DACI is shown now, extending East as far as the TYRAS. I know this region is overcrowded - do the best you can.
19. Rename the PEUCINI as BASTARNAE and re-orient them so that they run along the PONTUS EUXINUS coast from the Danube delta to the mouth of the river TYRAS.
20. Name the rivers Prut (PORATA) and Bug (HYPANIS).

I think that's about it. Hope it doesn't take too much of yout time EraNavigator (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Moldavia history map.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Moldavia history map.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Transylvania region.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Transylvania region.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

125 map etc

1. Thanks very much for your transfer. I am looking forward to reading the book.
2. The modifications to the 125 map look more than they really amount to. They are just a few points of historical accuracy. (Then again, I don't know how long it takes to make such modifications). Anyway, take your time, there's no hurry. It just seems a pity to leave any inaccuracies at all on the leading internet map of the Roman empire. PS: If you prefer, we can keep the DACIAN linguistic group, but only for the DACI themselves. The COSTOBOCI and CARPI should be placed in the new UNCERTAIN category. Best wishes and love EraNavigator (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: I see that usage of the 125 has spread to Wikis worldwide. Most, though, appear unaware that you've made French, Italian, Spanish, German and Romanian versions and are using the English version EraNavigator (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Books

Mille grazie per i libri. Unfortunately, I've been so busy putting the finishing touches to the Carpi (people), Costoboci and Free Dacians articles that I have not had time yet to examine them in detail. Actually I wanted to ask you: my main source on the Carpi is Gh. Bichir's History and Archaeology of the Carpi, 2nd-4th centuries AD (1976) which, despite his highly dubious conclusions, is very detailed and informative. However, it was written 35 years ago, and there must have been a lot of archaeological excavation in Moldavia since then. What I need ideally is an updated work on the archaeology of Moldavia AD 100-300, which brings all the new knowledge together (i.e. I don't have to look through dozens of different articles in journals). Do you know of any such work?

I think making a new map of Empire 125 is great and very exciting. The ideal thing would be to combine much greater accuracy with the same colourful and attractive presentation of the current map. Also, I think we should still aim to make a map thast can be viewed whole, not one that can only be viewed in parts. EraNavigator (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: Check out my new note (b) in the Costoboci article concerning modern archaeological interpretation of ethnicity EraNavigator (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

125 map

Personally, I don't think we need the marine relief. It would be an irrelevant distraction, and I'm worried about over-burdening the map with detail: so a plain blue sea would do fine. For the same reason, I think we should show only the rivers that are on the current map: any more and the map could turn into a spaghetti-like mess. EraNavigator (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

How are things progressing? I can't wait to see the base projection. PS: I,ve sharpened note (b) in Costoboci on material culture and ethnicity. It seems to have silenced my critics on the discussion pages of Costoboci and Carpi (people). Check it out. EraNavigator (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)