Talk:Postumus

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

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. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n Associated task forces (general topics): Military biography task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Death date 269 instead of 268?

This article shows that Postumus was murdered at 268. But a lot of authors of several books describe date spring 269? (Chris Scarre; Chronicle of Roman Emperors 1995, Pat Southern: Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine 2001, Alaric Watson: Aurelian and the third Century 1999) --Barosaurus Lentus (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Introducing Drinkwater

I'm about to undertake some revisions of this article using JF Drinkwater's The Gallic Empire. This is the first—and as far as I know only—book-length monograph on its subject, and conveniently I now have my hands on a copy. While this is an authoritative treatment, it's obviously not the final word, and scholarly perspectives since 1987 will need to be woven in. Still, it's a synthesis much closer to the sources—and to the work of other modern scholars—than a more informal reference like De Imperatoribus Romanis is. One major difference I see between Wikipedia's current treatment and Drinkwater's is leaving room for doubt. Many things asserted in this article are little more than plausible conjectures, and as much as possible, we should distinguish between a modern scholar's plausible conjecture and what is directly attested by ancient texts, coinage, the archaeological record and so on (and even they can't always be taken at face value). You'll see what I mean when I get started, but I thought I would leave fair warning about what I'm doing. Q·L·1968 ☿ 01:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)