Talk:List of Roman battles

Confrontation at Jaxartes[edit]

I'm wondering, does anyone have information regarding a curious battle: a confrontation at the river Jaxartes in Parthia of Roman and Chinese expeditionary forces, the only such clash in history? It was in the middle of the II century AD, I think, and as far as I remember, the Chinese were victorious.

Silencer

Yes, I heard about it, although I think there are differnt version on whom was victorious. As far as I know the remnant of Crassus campaign against Parthia, all POW at that time were made military units to fight in the East and encountered the Chinese (whose empire went far more west at these times into the Fergana valley). This is no battle of the Roman military as they were Parthian troops fighting the Chinese. Ask the Chinese military history task force more about it. Wandalstouring 22:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

grouping by wars[edit]

while in articles we usually have battles grouped by wars or camapigns we should also indicate to which chain of events these belonged here. Wandalstouring 22:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think grouping by date on this list, and then grouping by war on the article is a good format. However, I do think we could adjust the format of this list, see my topic below. Andersao (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign in Judea[edit]

Why, in AD 69, is the defeat of Jewish rebels that led to the destruction of the Temple not mentioned? I recall a certain Titus building his reputation on that campaign, as well as the Roman mint striking coins commemorating the defeat and renaming of the region to Palestinia. Is this inconvenient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.149.246 (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating new list for sieges and naval battles?[edit]

I think it might be useful to seperate Roman battles from Roman sieges, and possibly even those from Roman naval battles. So, instead of one long list of Roman battles, we could shorten it, and have three three lists: Roman battles, Roman sieges, and Roman naval battles. What do people think? Or perhaps a better question, do people think anyone would be willing to do the extensive editing of this page and the creation of two new lists that this proposition involves? Andersao (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC) and hello ladies im smart ![reply]

Greek Battles[edit]

Why are there some greek battles with out any roman involvement? I want to get rid of them but I feel like I should not just delete them — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImVeryAwesome (talk • contribs) 00:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I think this list should be merged with List of wars involving Rome, in a way that each battle has a context and not just date and location. E.g.:

Third Punic War (149-146 BC)

Please let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lophostrix (talk • contribs) 18:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yuck! Seconded! Let's get this done! --Akhenaten0 (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I started doing the merge in my sandbox. User:Lophostrix/sandbox#3rd century BC is an example of a final section. Help is very welcome.. Lophostrix (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't know if the hidden descriptions are the best. It compresses space, but the [show] buttons are awfully hard to notice. Also, do we need the descriptions, as this is mostly a list page? Finally, what are we to do with the battles that aren't collected in a war? Perhaps a heading like "Gallic Battles" for the 4rd century BC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhenaten0 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the [show] buttons are hard to see, but I still think it's much better than having the non-collapsed list, which is awfully long... You are welcome to try removing the "hidden" template from the Second Punic War and see what happens... I would much prefer if the [show] buttons would be more to the left, but I don't know how to do it or if it's technically feasible. I am open to suggestions how to do it better, but I do think we must collapse it, otherwise it would be extremely difficult to read.

I don't think we need descriptions, or just minimal ones (e.g. Battle of Allia River (390 BC) - Gauls sack Rome), however I'm trying to make minimal changes from the original list, and removing only truly redundant text at this stage. I would prefer finishing the merge first, and then removing much of the text from the new article, as I wouldn't like the merge reverted on this ground. I especially don't like descriptions such as "Etruscan resistance is finally crushed" which would even be considered POV if they weren't ancient history...

I will try to fit most of the battles into wars, however I see no problem with having some "isolated" ones like the battle of Allia.Lophostrix (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Seems like moving the [show] button to the left was easier than I thought.. I think it's much better, you are welcome to have a look (corrected only the 3rd century BC). Lophostrix (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man yeah--much better! I'll see if I can do the rest. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, have you tried it on the right instead of the left? I noticed that setting the titlewidth to a percentage makes text overlap, especially as the window size changes. I'll try the right side for the 3rd century to show the comparison. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. I still prefer the [show] buttons on the right, with width 35%, it seems better (having them on the left of the text really bothers reading). Seems like we're making progress :) Please have a look at Germanic wars, it's a very comprehensive list, but way out of scope (I didn't know Muhammad was either Roman, or Germanic...). Lophostrix (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I like the lack of collapsing (in a list page, I'd rather have long and obvious rather than short but obscure), and I especially like the maps, I agree that Germanic Wars seems to have a bunch of stuff that involves neither Germanic tribes nor Wars. Why is "A Roman emperor died of natural causes" on the list? --Akhenaten0 (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the draft good enough to replace List of wars involving Rome. Any subsequent changes and additions can be made after the merger, and more people may have a say on the collapsed/non-collapsed list issue. Since there are many missing battles in the list (that weren't on the original list either), it may be better to add them first, and also clean-up the text of the list, before revisiting this issue in a few months. Should I complete the merger? Lophostrix (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody else seems to care, so sure. I second. Motion passed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhenaten0 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]