Talk:Defence-in-depth (Roman military)

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

Military history: Technology / 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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

critical disscussion reads like an essay written against the thesis. neutrality disputed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.70.106 (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this has pretty massive violations of NPOV. Stuff like concluding "As regards Luttwak's defence-in-depth theory itself, there appears to be insufficient clearcut evidence to support it and massive evidence against it", really? And where did all the arguments come from? Most of the paragraphs, making many different claims and rebuttals to Luttwak, have 1 or no citations at all, which is inadequate even if I assume everything is drawn from the cited papers. (Most of this seems to be coming from EraNavigator's original edits, so it's not a matter of anons inserting opinion but there from the beginning.) And the 2016 edition may have replies in it worth integrating. --Gwern (contribs) 23:29 4 September 2017 (GMT)

Merge?

Shouldn't this article be merged with Defence in depth? That one is better formatted, anyways. This one reads like a history book or a dissertation. 84.121.143.1 (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]