Talk:Great Conspiracy

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

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

Associated task forces:
/
	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.

Ammianus' Report

I include below a link to an online translation of Ammianus' report of the 'Great Conspiracy'. I think it would improve the quality of the article if a few direct quotes were given in the stead of select paraphrases. If no one beats me to it, I will eventually get around to it myself. Aryaman (☼) 01:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ammianus Marcellinus on the Great Conspiracy

Hello Aryaman, you might want to have a look at this external link (in Latin), which has slightly different information than the web page that you cite ... some of the web text (in the various copies on the web) is taken from old translations where the authors have "massaged" the original, which looks to be the case with the version you cite (although it's not too bad). I came to this page indirectly, after reading the article on Attacotti, which is terrible ... so I've been going through old references and sifting them for information and misinformation ... I hope to update the article soon, and that will likely have a cascading effect on other articles (such as this one). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Conspiracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304125309/http://british-history.net/roman-britain/the-barbarian-conspiracy-in-britannia-353-368/ to http://british-history.net/roman-britain/the-barbarian-conspiracy-in-britannia-353-368/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fullofaudes

I'm unclear on this, wasn't Fullofaudes killed during the fighting? If so, shouldn't we label him as KIA? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]