Talk:Vegetius
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated fordeletion on 2 November 2010 (UTC). The result ofthe discussion waskeep. |
I thought the original Latin was:
"Si vis pacem, para bellum."
And that translates into English as:
"If you want peace, prepare for war."
The difference is slight, but if we quote, let's be correct.
--Recoloniser08:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discrepancy between the list of English texts in the body of the text:
'The most reliable modern edition is that of Michael D. Reese (Oxford, 2004)
and the 'Translations' section near the end:
'An English translation of Vegetius, with introduction, was recently published by Liverpool University Press:
Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science. Trans. N. P. Milner ...etc...'
It is true that listing translations is a good idea in the body of the article, to display the influence, longevity, etc.of Vegetius or any other author who is the subject of an article. So presenting the latest English edition of Vegetius'swork is appropriate in that section of the text displaying the influence, longevity, etc. etc. of Vegetius's work.
So I suggest at least adding the English translations listed in the text into the 'list' under the heading'Translations'.
Thanks.
Ken M Quirici
And I overlooked the 1765 English translation by Clarke listed below 'Translations' in 'External Links'.This I suggest should be added to the 'Translations' list as well.
Ken M Quirici 14:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy between the translation (of the adageSi vis pacem, para bellum , not the originalIgitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum) here and the one appearing in the entry for De Re Militari ("If you want peace, prepare for war") and the one appearing in the entry Si vis pacem, para bellum ("If you seek peace, prepare for war"). I think we should agree upon one translation, and use it throughout all articles that mention it.Chanamel11:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to know how to vote as this article contains no biographic material. As is it ought to be part of de re militari. In the future, though, it might contain more. I don't know what there is on Vegetius. I know Wikipedia expands pretty fast. I would say, let's move the de re militari material to de re militari and keep this article as a stub for future additions.Dave (talk)12:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with moving most de re militaria content to the de re militari article, and keeping any remaining biographic material in this article as a stub for future additions. -William 18 May 2009.—Precedingunsigned comment added by68.219.42.25 (talk)23:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with the above. I came to this article looking for biographical info, so a page containing such would clearly be useful, but the bulk of the page is an in-depth description of one of his two (possible) books, with not much attention being given to any other aspect. This could be better accomplished by, as suggested, moving the bulk of the information on the book to it's own page, which apparently already exists, and leaving this for what little biographical information we have. If it is felt necessary to leave so much information about de re militari, it should be rewritten as an analysis of the man, not the book.—Precedingunsigned comment added by74.140.235.83 (talk)17:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in this article are the initials BC, BCE or AD ir what ever used. Saying 4th oof 5th century is not the same. Any ideas? Einar akaCarptrash (talk)05:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
