Talk:Laeti

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 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)

History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Article is full of OR

This article is full of original research and fallacious conclusions. Contrast it with the French version -- which is very well done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.97 (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the main author of this article, I reject your unilateral and arbitrary gutting of this article, and have restored the text you removed. You should not remove text without first achieving a consensus for such removal on the Talk page. The fact that you consider text "speculative" or "fallacious" is irrelevant, providing that text is properly sourced. It is sourced, to heavyweight authors such as Jones, Elton, Goldsworthy and to the Notitia Dignitatum itself. Your preference for the French article is also irrelevant, and absurd, since the French article is much less detailed and fails to consider key issues. And get yourself a Username if you want to be taken seriously as an editor. EraNavigator (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laeti and foederati

I'm not a historian and from what is written about laeti and foederati on wikipedia it's quite hard for me to understand any difference between these two notions. Perhaps it would be useful for someone competent to explain the difference if there is known one (personal freedom???) VeNoo (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the article. It's stated "sources mention laeti only from the late 3rd and 4th centuries" - so there are no evidences of them before, despite policy to naturalize barbarian tribes settling them inside did existed? Does the name laeti refer to the status of the naturalized foreigner(tribe) or the tribe? Could it be tribes were serving as limitanei on the forts outside border as f.e. GERULATA fort. After completion of service they were accepted inside of the empire and contributed recruits. Does all federati becomes laeti after service? Or laeti refers to the specific f.e. Sarmatian tribe accepted to live in the empire? Norvila (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC+3)

Laeti - word origin

I'm not a professional but an amateur historian with an interest in the field. The article mentions that Laeti are not mentioned anywhere in the Eastern Empire.

Could "laeti" just be the Proto-Germanic word for "people"? Ie. modern German "Leute". Perhaps it is just the local (German) word for Foederati? The German vernacular would've had their own word to refer to themselves outside of the Latin Foederati.

Considering the barbarians on the borders of the Western Empire were mostly all Germanic (outside of Britannia), this would explain its use there, but not necessarily in the East with its mixture of tribes of different language groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.210.25 (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laeti. 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/20071021090515/http://www.roman-britain.org/military/military_menu.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/military/military_menu.htm

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) 12:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]