Talk:Battle of Bedriacum

Military history: Roman & Byzantine / Classical

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

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

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

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

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

Untitled[edit]

Thanks to SimonP for the redirect. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

error in map[edit]

The map shows Arabia as a Roman province - however Arabia was only added under Trajan about 40 year after the battles of Bedriacum.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, Look again.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To see what exactly? Arabia is still displayed as a part on the Roman empire, so i'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Note, i'm talking about Arabia Petraea and not the Arabian peninsula.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly said Arabia above, not Arabia Petraea. So, being a reader and not a mind reader, how was I to know your meaning. I suggest you take the matter up with the map's creator. The reason I added it to this article was to illustrate which provinces supported which Imperial candidates. Towards that end I think it serves the purpose of the article.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I said "Arabia as roman province", i.e. the roman province arabia, which is well defined term. Moreover what matters here is not really whether my first comment might have been misleading or ambiguous to you or in general (miscommunication happens). What matters here, is that we have an factual error (in the map) and the discussion page of the article is exactly the place to inform about that and to discuss it. Also it should be clear despite the current map being clearly beneficial, that in the long run this needs to fixed (by whoever) - factually false information has no place in WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: Another problem with the map the or its thumbnail is, that it doesn't say anything regarding the red area. Was it neutral territory? Or did it simply cite with whoever was in Rome at the time? Or just undefined? What's with allegiances that switched (Vespasian for instance and his supporters entered the game late)?--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my friend, you have two options: Either fix it yourself or (as I stated) get in touch with the creator. Those red areas, I presume, are Armenia and Mesopotamia, which swayed between being aligned with Rome and Parthia.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]