Jump to content

Talk:Quintus Sertorius

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ifly6 (talk | contribs) at 02:06, 29 July 2024 (→Page image, July 2024: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled, May 2011

This article is a bit gossipy - could do with some of the facts being clarified (e.g. what happened to Sertorius from 87 to 83? Why exactly did he go to Spain?). The language of optimates/populares needs to be cleaned up - it's very 19th century to think in these terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.43.45 (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled, Jun 2004

After having added a lot of patent nonsense and having been reverted and warned, 207.162.58.10 has changed the description of Quintus Sertorius' death. I have reverted that, too—I have not found any corroborating external sources for this version, but lots for the assassination. The only Battle of Ravenna I know of was in 432, not 72 BC. Looks like "stealth vandalism" to me: deliberately adding wrong information in a way that makes it hard to detect because it appears plausible at first glance. Lupo 08:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article is in places unclear--"He now declared for Marius and the populares party, though of Marius himself as a man he had the worst opinion. He must have been a consenting party to the hideous massacres of Marius and Cinna in 87, though he seems to have done what he could to mitigate their horrors". Perhaps this should be reworked. --24.251.168.56 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I amended that. Sertorius supported the Populares, who were led by the consul Cinna, and resented Marius taking part in their siege of Rome, but relented when Cinna said he invited Marius, and Marius did not show up on his own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Jackal God (talk • contribs) 14:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Party Politics"

The article takes as granted, and indeed infers, that the Roman Republic was dominated by two political parties (in the modern style) when, in fact, this idea has been widely discredited. At best they can be considered loose political groupings, but the very nature of Late Republican Roman society was means that any political party, in the modern sense, could never exist. Political alliance was temporary, self centered and ultimately aimed for ones own political ends, as soon as a relationship ceased to meet these ends, it was terminated. Furthermore, the individualism of Roman politics precludes any assertion of a unified set of goals/aims among political allies - Roman society cannot be rendered through the prism of modern political organisation. I move that the article should be rewritten to take into account modern scholarship with relation to Roman politics, or at the very least make it clear that no "party" system existed in the modern sense.Derekpatterson (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, no actual political parties as we know today existed. However, there were a common group of principles held by ppl mostly depending on their social background. That cannot be denied. The fall of the Republic came about by powerful men utilizing the distinct aims of the Populares and Optimates and their servants. For the sake of clarity, faction could replace the word party, and that way distinguish between the modern institution of political parties, yet still express the common political aims, and social groups that existed back then. Completely disagree w/ your sentence "individualism of Roman politics precludes any assertion of a unified set of goals/aims among political allies" for this time period. Is this a joke or sarcasm? The Jackal God (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence 'individualism of Roman politics precludes any assertion of a unified set of goals/aims' perhaps does suggest that there weren't factions - but it's broadly on the right lines. The language of optimates and populares needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.43.45 (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously very late but I too will echo that the "populares" and "optimates" need to go. They were not parties, they were not factions. Some scholars think they were ideologies but aristocrats did not form concrete alliances on such bases in the late republic. The tendency to fluid ad hoc political factionalism should not be obscured by party labels. "Factions" of the late republic should be discussed in terms of their leaders – eg Scipionic, Marian, Cinnan, Caesarian, Catonian, and Pompeian – and not in terms of an overarching label that implies something akin to a corporate or persistent existence. Ifly6 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hirtuleius

if Quintus Sertorius and Sertorian War are going to share the same article page, it might be a good idea to incorporate something about Sertorius' ablest lieutenant, Hirtuleius, who cleared out, if i'm not mistaken, Hispania Citerior, ousting the Sullan governor as well as defeating Manlius, the governor of Transalpine Gaul who came to his assistance. Quite an asset to Sertorius' cause, Sertorius was not a little sadden upon news of his death, and his death played a major role in Sertorius' diminishing fortunes as the decade waned. The Jackal God 21:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename article

I suggest that the article be renamed from 'Quintus Sertorius' to simply 'Sertorius'. It is WP:CONCISE and he is one of the few Romans in history with that surname, and doubtless the most famous of them. His WP:COMMONNAME is often simply given as Sertorius, with the given name omitted, as is the case with Sulla, Julius Caesar, Pompey, Cicero and others. Aforst1 (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First things first, thanks for your invitation. My personal preference when talking about republican Romans is to use two (or more) of their nomen; like Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, Scipio Africanus, Gaius Marius and Aemilius Paulus. This to distinguish them from their many namesakes. Therefore, I would prefer Quintus Sertorius, but having said that I have to admit you have got a point, there are no other famous Quintus Sertoriuses, so Sertorius is quite unique. This would put him in another category; the category of the likes of Cicero, Pompey, Sulla, Lucullus, Crassus etc. So I am torn. Again my personal preference is Quintus Sertorius so I don't see the need to move the page. I think other users will have to weigh in. Is it Sertorius like Pompey or Quintus Sertorius like Gaius Marius?LuciusHistoricus (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that Wikipedia also has a number of non-canonical figures of Roman history who are referred only by one name, such as Trebonius, Sejanus and, as you've already mentioned, Lucullus, so I guess you could group Sertorius with them. I'll put a notice to alert others to the suggestion, and leave the issue in abeyance in the meantime. Aforst1 (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't move the article. As P Aculeius says in the other discussion, it has been stable since its creation eighteen years ago. Don't fix what isn't broken. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) Aforst1 (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Quintus Sertorius → Sertorius – WP:CONCISE, WP:CRITERIA; nobody else of note with that name Aforst1 (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. As a long-time editor and member of WP:CGR, I prefer that articles on Romans be listed under their tria nomina whenever possible—or in this case, duo nomina. While we have exceptions for a number of very famous individuals, those are mainly the result of long-standing consensus, often involving the participation of the broader WP community, rather than just CGR. This article has been stable at its present title since its creation in 2002. I won't argue that the general isn't by far the most prominent member of his gens—although at least one other attained the praetorship—but even so, insisting that the article be moved when it can easily be reached by anyone searching for it makes our collection of Roman biographical articles less consistent, more of a hodgepodge, and benefits no-one. P Aculeius (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! We shouldn't move the article. As P Aculeius says, it has been stable since its creation eighteen years ago. Don't fix what isn't broken. It's Quintus Sertorius like Gaius Marius! LuciusHistoricus (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assorted issues, July 2024

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome § Questions about Quintus Sertorius

Continued from discussion at WT:CGR:

I would merge. The topics are sufficiently different. The article on Sertorius should concentrate on Sertorius; the article on the war should take a broader view. I am not, however, entirely sure about the quality of the sourcing in the article on Sertorius. Matyszak isn't great; Telford is unreliable; there seems to be a bit of a heavy reliance on primary sources as well. I think there are also some issues with dated historiography. Something that jumps immediately just from the info box is "populares": no such faction or political party ever existed; it is a 19th century historiographical fiction. Further on the page itself probably should be on the relevant talk. I am unsure also as to close paraphrasing. Inasmuch as such problems exist, I would fix them and then do rescoping. Ifly6 (talk) 2:39 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Tribunate and praetorship

Re Tribune of the plebs ... 87 BC. Most modern sources seem to reject tribunate in 87. Per Pina Polo on repulsae, via DPRR, he was evidently unsuccessful in the elections for 88 (meaning he would not serve in 87). This is similarly accepted by Brennan 2000 p 503 Sertorius was a failed candidate for the tribunate of (probably) 88. Konrad seems to place him as urban praetor in 85 or 84; Brennan rejects the then-accepted date of Sertorius' praetorship (83) as too late and puts forward arguments against an early praetorship (86 or 85); if we need to have exactly one year I would probably put 84. I'll edit the current dash to or and remove the entry on the tribunate shortly. Ifly6 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as I can confirm via the BMCR review that Konrad does actually believe in a tribunate in 87 – he makes a very tentative case for a tribunate in 87 (59–62) – it is at least worth mentioning as a possibility or aside in notes. But, I think, still not in the infobox. Ifly6 (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

The current version of the article has a number of malformed quotes and parameters. Use {{quote}} instead of ::. (I also prefer it to blocktext HTML tags because it works well with the 2017 Wikitext editor's highlighting.) Where pages are plural, as in a range or in multiple citations, in {{sfn}} use |pp= instead of singular |p=. Ifly6 (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(?<!p)p=\d+(, |[-–])\d+}}. This is a useful regular expression to find page ranges which are improperly marked with |p=. Similarly pp=\d+(?=}}) can help find singular pages which are improperly marked with |pp=. Neither of these will operate with Roman numeral pages like |p=xvii. Ifly6 (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ERA a non-breaking space &nbsp; should be added between the year and BC. This can by typed in the 2017 editor very easily by hitting Ctrl+Space (Windows) or ⌘ Command+Space (Mac). Alternatively, the template {{nbsp}} can be used. Ifly6 (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LOGICAL requires placement of punctuation (commas, full stops, question marks, exclamation marks, etc) outside of quotes unless the quote actually contains that punctuation regardless of WP:ENGVAR. Ifly6 (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long block quotes

We should not be presenting information in these long block quotes. I haven't taken a long look at them right now but it has code smell:

  1. If the long block quotes are of something that is still within copyright, then it is probably WP:COPYVIO.
  2. If the long block quotes are old enough to be out of copyright, then:
    1. If it's a modern source, it's old enough to probably be out of date;
    2. If it's an ancient source, presenting it by itself would raise WP:PRIMARY concerns.

I am not yet saying that all the long block quotes should be removed, but they should at least be reconsidered. If they are long and anecdotal, they might not add much to the presentation. If they are short, it becomes unclear why they are so separated. Ifly6 (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotes

I would encourage trimming the anecdotes and purple prose. For example:

On a moonless night in the year 80 BC, Sertorius sailed his forces from Tingis across the Gibraltar strait back to Hispania. A small fleet under Aurelius Cotta from the coastal town of Mellaria tried to stop him, but he pushed them aside and landed his army at the small fishing town of Baelo near the Pillars of Hercules. Rumours of his army spread far and wide in Hispania. At this point, it was composed of 2,600 Roman legionaries and 700 Libyans.

This is eminently serviceable as Sertorius crossed the strait at Gibraltar at Tingis in 80 BC, landing at Baelo. According to ____, his army was composed of 2,600 Romans and 700 Libyans. On momentary examination, Plut. Sert. 12.2. Re the underline, in general, I am wary of ancient numbers and believe they should be sourced directly along with parallel citations to who believes them. Cf this meme.[Humor] Ifly6 (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I rather like that meme (you gotta love ancient sources), you have a good point. I think the issue with the Sertorian War, like so many other ancient conflicts, we only really know troop amounts from ancient numbers. In any case, when I start merging with the Sertorian War article it'll be presented in the way you describe. I'm certain Spann has some discussion on the figures. Harren the Red (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sertorius and Appian, Livy, and the Grass Crown, July 2024

I post this to clarify two things for what I plan to edit. First, the notion by Spann that Livy was 'hostile' to Sertorius due to his affinity for Pompey, and second Sertorius' Grass Crown.

Livy

Konrad refutes Spann's claim that Livy was 'hostile' to Sertorius. For the Sertorian War a la Livy, we have the periochae from Book 90-96 and a singular long fragment from Book 91. Compared to Appian, who is hostile, it appears Livy presented Sertorius relatively neutrally. Periochae 93.5 has praise for Sertorius, while 96.4 has a short character assessment of him after his death. The epitomator writes "he [Sertorius] had been a great leader and against two commanders, Pompey and Metellus, he had often been successful, although in the end, he changed into a savage and prodigal man." This is a rather accurate account of Sertorius, not really 'hostile'. The length of this assessment has Konrad point out that Livy probably wrote a "substantial obituary" for Sertorius, which is a curious thing to include if he hated the man. Further, in the extended fragment of Book 91 which details Sertorius' movements and instructions for the opening of the campaign in 76 BC, Livy presents Sertorius as an able Roman commander, and his actions are presented quite objectively. Konrad writes that Livy saw Sertorius not as an "Iberianized robber baron" but "a great Roman whose life went all wrong". Obviously, Livy is the only source for the movements he presents, but none are openly tinged with dislike (like Appian in some cases) and follow what we know of Sertorius quite well (cunctatio is practically his strategic trademark in the war, after all). Harren the Red (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the best sources on Sertorius agree that Livy was not hostile, then it should be so reported. If, however, Konrad and Spann disagree on this (as you seem to imply), we should discuss it somewhat. To what does Spann point to justify his belief in Livian hostility? If both views can be summarised succinctly, and Spann's beliefs are not arbitrary, they should both be presented. If classicists now trend toward Konrad and against Spann, this too should be cited – a source should say this – and presented. Ifly6 (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look for Spann's justification on the Livian hostility, but all I remember from the book off hand is that it was based on Livy's favour toward Pompey, Sertorius' antagonist in Spain. I'll scan Konrad and look for specific refutations of Spann's claim as well, to see if I can synthesize anything succinct enough to put in the main article. Harren the Red (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem there's any clear answer on priority between Spann and Konrad: that people are still citing both implies both are still relevant. A short look in relatively recent introductory material: Flower Roman republics (2010) p 139 n 6 (both); Steel End of the Roman republic (2013) p 105 n 100 (citing only Spann); Konrad "From the Gracchi to the first civil war" in Rosenstein and Morstein-Marx, eds, Companion to the Roman republic (2006) pp 186–7 (both); Ungern-Sternberg in Flower, ed, Cambridge companion to the Roman republic (2nd edn, 2014) p 89 n 41 (= p 97 n 41) (citing Konrad and one König Klio 82 (2000) pp 441–58). Ifly6 (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. That Konrad is newer and refutes several of Spann's claims, rather reliably, I assume does not count for much considering that is my personal opinion as an editor? I will try to be balanced in the revamped citations. After I get through adding Spann and Konrad, I plan to look through other reliable sources for further confirmations and smaller details. Chronology for the War in particular is certainly a next step, and Brennan's "Spain in the Period after Sulla" chapter seems a detailed discussion (along with Konrad's article) that I will read thoroughly when I get the time. Harren the Red (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors' opinions on the credibility of arguments are valuable but do not go very far. If the WP:HQRS disagree then both should be presented per WP:NPOV. Editors' opinions as to how "fringe" something is must be measured against what the HQRS in the academe are citing. For example, someone saying that a book is "fringe", when that same book is regularly cited by and engaged with in journal articles and later publications, is an indication of the editor's bias (or, uncharitably, ignorance) and not the book's fringe-ness.
While WP:AGEMATTERS, so long as recent publications are still engaging with the old source – unless the engagement is little more than "point and laugh" or "look how far we have come" dismissal (most citations of Gibbon) – that implies that the older source is not yet obsolete. It's important not to confuse the heuristic of age with a blind deference to novelty. For example, we shouldn't just accept that the (almost universally held to be fictitious) First Catilinarian conspiracy should be re-promoted to historical event just because Woodman 2021 so argues. However, many editors, though not all, presume a source to be obsolete unless shown otherwise when they are sufficiently old. How old is enough to trigger that presumption can differ greatly between fields, topics, and editors. Ifly6 (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appian

Appian, conversely, possibly reflecting Sulla's memoirs, is evidently quite disfavourable to Sertorius. It's littered throughout his writing, but the example that comes to mind immediately to me is Sertorius' attempts to besiege Metellus' camp after the battle of Saguntum and Appian labeling his actions 'contemptuous'. Sertorius' senate is made in "derision" of the real one, and Appian also, inexplicably, takes Sertorius white doe -- a tool by which he gained the awe and support of native Iberians -- and has Sertorius himself be manipulated by it. Sertorius was a politician, and the doe was a clever political stunt. Are we really to believe that "When this fawn was not in sight Sertorius considered it a bad omen. He became low-spirited and abstained from fighting; nor did he mind the enemy's scoffing at him about the fawn." (Appian, BC 1.8.109)? By making Sertorius fall for his own ruse, Appian is making him more of a fool than he was. Spann notes that Appian's portrayal of Sertorius' "heaven-sent madness" is at odds with his own belief that "if Sertorius had lived longer, the war would not have ended so soon or so easily" but misses the point by denying Sertorius descent into tyranny. Appian probably exaggerated existing reports of Sertorius' tyranny (out of his own dislike); Livy's periochae reports on them, as does Plutarch. Konrad, I recall, also agrees that Appian very much did not like Sertorius, and the substance of his discussion on the matter is similar to here.

The 'hostile sources concede he was a great leader' bit in Legacy need not be deleted though. Appian many times notes Sertorius' proficiency in warfare, so it can just be changed a bit.

So Appian was certainly not a fan of Sertorius, while Livy was not 'hostile'. I intend to edit the Legacy section with that in mind. I'm just posting my thoughts so my edits do not come out of nowhere. Harren the Red (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems rather clear cut. I think from the other comments I made at this date, below and after, should imply what I think you should do clearly. Ifly6 (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grass crown

The second point I want to raise before I delete it from numerous articles is Sertorius' Grass Crown. Before I began editing the article (and as of now too), it states quite matter-of-factly that Sertorius won the Crown during the incident in Castulo. The only citation I can find for this is Pliny's account of those he could find who won Grass Crowns in his Natural History. Spann rejected this as being proof Sertorius won one, Konrad also agrees, as does other studies of Sertorius' life/career, which makes me confused as to how it was ever tied to Castulo specifically.

Pliny writes in Volume 22.6 of Natural History how Sulla claims in his own memoirs he got the Crown during the Social War in Nola. Pliny then writes "If there is any truth in this statement, I can only say that it renders his memory all the more execrable, and that, by his proscriptions, with his own hand he tore this crown from his brow, for few indeed were the citizens whom he thus preserved, in comparison with those he slaughtered at a later period. And let him even add to this high honour his proud surname of "Felix," if he will; all the glories of this crown he surrendered to Sertorius, from the moment that he put his proscribed fellow-citizens in a stage of siege throughout the whole world."

I think this passage makes clear Pliny did not like Sulla, but the "crown he surrendered" is to me very much metaphorical, as Spann writes. He's making the point that Sertorius had "all the glories" of the crown (i.e., he protected proscribed Romans, in a similar vein to how the Crown is usually granted for saving an entire legion or army of Roman soldiers) after Sulla's proscriptions. How was this ever tied to Castulo? Are there any other sources for this? I am baffled at how certainly this was presented, even in the Grass Crown article. Surely Plutarch, the sympathetic biographer, would have mentioned such a great honour for his hero Sertorius in the Life of Sertorius if he had won it? If anyone can find more information on this, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I am inclined to delete it from here and the Grass Crown page. A single obscure reference from a primary source, probably misinterpreted, is not firm enough evidence for this in my view. Harren the Red (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a strong case for excising the existing statements. I greatly appreciate the work you've done in searching through the citations. However, what specifically Plin NH says is largely irrelevant given that Spann and Konrad disagree. What Wikipedia should report is what the WP:HQRS (high quality reliable sources) report. Classical studies is fortunately an academic field and that means what we report should reflect whatever the academic consensus is. Inasmuch as academic classical historians reject this claim, as you imply with Spann rejected this... Konrad also agrees, that is the end of it: academic secondary sources basically always beat editors' interpretations of primary sources. If someone later objects to the removal, provide quote snippets. Ifly6 (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the confirmation! Harren the Red (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re Pliny's remark regarding Sertorius possibly winning the Grass Crown, tied sometimes to the Castulo incident, is refuted by scholars.[1][2] Castulo did, however, earn Sertorius considerable fame in Hispania and abroad, aiding his future political career. I would cite the relevant passage of Pliny.
You can do a parallel citation with {{sfnm}} like so {{sfnm|Spann|1p=20|Konrad|1994|2pp=52|Plin. ''NH''|3loc=22.6}} [3]. However, we should also consider adding the year back to Spann's anchor; doing so would make |1a1= and the like unnecessary. For the anchor to Plin. NH to work we'll have to add it to the bibliography. Further information at WP:CGR/Guides/Primary sources. Having the primary sources cited is important in making our articles useful to the specialists who would consult them.
Also, can you quote what Spann and Konrad said directly? If Pliny says nothing about Castulo, as you imply above, it should not go here. It should go in an overview of his military career (possibly § Legacy). The statement that it is sometimes tied to Castulo, which places it here, would otherwise require a source. Ifly6 (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the source of the rub! Konrad and Spann both seem to suggest, if only by chronology (they only talk about the Grass Crown right after Castulo) that the crown is linked to the Castulo incident. Konrad cites an older work by Scardigli that refutes the Grass Crown following Castulo as well... But Pliny says nothing of it! It must be from an older work on Sertorius that I have not read, now that I think of it. You are right though, Legacy fits it better. I can do a more thorough section on the honours and what ancient sources say about Sertorius' generalship in Legacy; this will fit well there. Harren the Red (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Spann, p. 20.
  2. ^ Konrad 1994, p. 52.
  3. ^ Spann, p. 20; Konrad 1994, p. 52; Plin. NH, 22.6.

Page image, July 2024

I can't seem to find any rules or guidelines on what conditions are necessary for a page image, or standards on historical pages for this. Although no busts or coinage of Sertorius survives, we do have numerous artworks of him as in the article. I'm personally not a huge fan of any of them (Sertorius lost an eye, dammit! Why do none of them have that?), but I think Sertorius deserves an image of some kind. Are these artworks generally not permissible for historical figures as page images?

If anything, I am partial to this chromolithograph (even though it also misses the eye thing). I recall seeing Look and Learn as among the sources of free images that can be used on Wikipedia, so I would appreciate getting further opinions on this, but as I am not experienced in copyright for images I will not do anything without knowing for certain this image is 'safe'. It says it was created in the 19th century, so surely enough time has passed for it to become common use? Harren the Red (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Have you any advice on images? Ifly6 (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged UC because I have the somewhat radical view that only contemporary depictions should be used in articles on Romans. As corollaries, (1) images from later periods are acceptable only in sections on legacy and classical reception; (2) if there are no contemporary depictions then there should be no depiction at all. Ifly6 (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I started a bit of an argument on this topic a while ago on Antistia, who has no extant portraits, when I tried to use a contemporary-ish image of an unknown woman of approximately the right age and social class. We eventually decided not to use it in the lead, and came to a broad consensus as follows:
  • The lead image should at least purport to be an image of the person: it's not a major problem if that identification is modern or uncertain, (or indeed, as with Homer, impossible) but the threshold was felt to be that if no museum would at least put "said to be of [subject]" on the object, we shouldn't either.
  • The idea of having a Wikipedian draw a portrait of Antistia was discussed -- it was felt that this would be wrong. It was felt that the rationale for including "modern" depictions was that the images are themselves useful to illustrate how a person has been imagined or portrayed: for example, a fanciful picture of Caesar on a 16th-century coin would tell you something interesting about the ideological place of Rome where it was minted.
I have some sympathy with the idea that if there are no contemporary depictions then there should be no depiction at all, but it is not a reflection of consensus as established in practice across Wikipedia's articles:
To sum that lot up -- whatever image we choose, we must be clear about what we're doing -- if the portrait is later, or drawn from imagination, we should say so. If a contemporary image exists, it should be used even in preference to a "better" later image, but if none does and a later depiction exists which itself has some artistic or historical notability, I would support its inclusion. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed breakdown! I think the best case for Sertorius then would be the right circular portrait on this Porta Romana in Sertorius' birthplace, Norcia (here, you have to zoom a bit). @Ifly6 I would be curious as to your opinion as well. Spann, in his study on Sertorius, says this was the only depiction of the general he could find, but he does not give a date for its creation. According to http://www.visitsitaly.com/umbria/norcia/, Sabine ruins (Sertorius was a Sabine) are located outside of this Porta Romana, but I cannot find any information regarding when the gate itself was built (even on Italian websites!), or when the portraits were added to it. Presumably the Porta Romana itself dates to Roman times (probably Imperial?), while the portraits were certainly added sometime later.
Sertorius is placed opposite to Ufens, another Norcian 'enemy of Rome.' Overall, I think this image has some historical notability, given it was made by Norcians. Compared to the later Spanish art pieces of Sertorius at least, this has a distinct connection to his birthplace. Some images of Sertorius have been made using this portrait as a base, but obviously the unedited base should be displayed if anything, not the offshoots made from it.
But again, I ask about the copyright and ability to use this on Wikipedia. This is the highest quality image of this gate (and thus Sertorius portrait on it) I could find online, via Pinterest of all things. As I am in North America, I cannot walk to Nursia and take a picture myself. Would it even be usable? What would be the procedure for doing so?
There is another decent image of this gate with Sertorius' portrait, but it is covered, inexplicably, by a few tree branches due to the photographer's angle.
I would appreciate any ideas on this! Harren the Red (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After looking a bit further, the image of the gate is on wikimedia commons (here) but not very high quality. One cannot see Sertorius' face very well. Harren the Red (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was the gate not built in the 19th century? https://norciaintavola.it/it/blog/vetusta-nursia-le-porte-dell-antica-cinta-muraria-di-norcia-n104 Ifly6 (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears so! I reckon 1869 is too modern then. A shame. Harren the Red (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could I be a little radical and suggest this coin under an a fair-use rationale, as a historical portrait of a person no longer alive? As far as I can find out, it's the only known ancient likeness of Sertorius, and the presumptive copyright holder has no real commercial interest in the image (the coin is sold and the auction long finished), so I think the NFCC case would be very easy to make. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for it! Harren the Red (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is great! Heartily endorse the idea of the coin. Ifly6 (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the procedure for adding it to the infobox? Do you intend to, or should I? I am still a relatively new editor so I am unsure as to the specifics. I presume you have to upload it to wikimedia commons first? Harren the Red (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would first need uploading to Wikimedia Commons. I'm not exactly sure about the proper copyright tagging on their side; could you advise UndercoverClassicist? Ifly6 (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be uploaded to Commons -- it needs to be uploaded to Wikipedia (if you hit "Upload file" on the left-hand menu, it's the "Upload a non-free file" option). There are a few questions you'll have to answer to explain why the image has encyclopaedic value, and why no free-use image exists that could do the same job. Once you've done that, it'll give you a filename for the image: you then need to add |image=, |alt= (a text description of the image) and |caption= to the infobox, with the filename as the image parameter. If you upload it (cropped to just the obverse, ideally), I'm happy to take a look at the fair-use rationale and tweak it if/as necessary. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get on it, and appreciate your further help! What would be the author of this image, and the original publication/date of publication? I can't seem to find who manufactured it (or the specific time), nor when it was put up to auction. Would the RBW collection count as an author, or the website itself, the CNG? I am unfamiliar with numismatics! All the other questions I have answered.
I also don't see the necessity though to crop to just the obverse. Sertorius' white stag (actually a doe) was quite famous in ancient sources, one of the notable things about him. I think both faces of the coin should be included because of that! Or is it a rule, or general preference, for the portrait only? I could have sworn other historical figures' articles on Wikipedia have both sides of a coin on the page image even if the other side is not part of the portrait, but I may be wrong. @Ifly6, can you advise as well? Harren the Red (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would the date of publication be the purchase date, aka 14 December 2009? Harren the Red (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again at the auction page, there may be a bigger problem -- it gives the date of manufacture as C18th, which means that it's (at best) a copy, or more likely a complete fake. I can't get find the 8th volume of Rasche, which the auction page cites (and would imply that it was real?), to see what's going on here, unfortunately. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is unfortunate. I can't seem to find it anywhere either. I will still advocate for this coin's use, if at least that something is better than nothing, and given the citation it might be a real likeness. Harren the Red (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer two versions: one with both sides and one with just the portrait. The portrait version could be used in the infobox. The version with both sides could then be used in the body where relevant. I'm not entirely sure about the metadata. I'll ping our resident numismatist: T8612. Ifly6 (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me (I will do both), but please read UndercoverClassicists' comment above. The coin is probably a copy of a design that may have been an ancient likeness, and we cannot verify the citation provided to be certain. Does this change your stance on its usage? Harren the Red (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thanks for pointing me to that. I'm not sure. If it were not legitimate in terms of being a contemporary or at least period-relevant piece, I wouldn't use it. If T8612 responds I think he'll be able to advise on this matter much better than I can. Ifly6 (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the coin is just another "reception" image, then we don't have a good FUR, since comparable free-use images exist. Interested to know what T8612's view is UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a second more thorough look, I have found the J. C. Rasche volume spoken of, and the entry of Sertorius (Quintus) on page 717 (page 380 in the viewer) as described. I was only able to access it through my university, so I do not know if it will work for anyone else: Link (here). It appears that the inscription itself, Q. SERTORIVS and PROVIDEN MILITAR, along with the two images (Sertorius' head and a stag) are accurate as well. For this coin, it cites sources I do not know of though (Vaill, col I p. 12. 22.) I'm sure T8612 or anyone with more experience in numismatics will be able to interpret this better than me. Harren the Red (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Vaill" is Jean Foy Vaillant, though I'm not sure which volume -- most of his works are on Archive.org, but I haven't been able to find the right one. There's another reference to the coin from 1864 here, with a small line drawing on what the pdf gives as p. 521. That at least is definitely free-use, and the writer is absolutely certain that the coin was authentic, but I'd be keen to hear a more modern and detached view. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing find! Ought I put this line drawing up as the image until the coin gets verified (or not)? Harren the Red (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. @Ifly6, @UndercoverClassicist, I've finally read this riddle. Here is the origin of the coin. It appears this image of Sertorius (face obverse, stag reverse) originates from "emulation and imitation in the numismatic fantasies of Valerio Belli", a Rennaissance era medallist. It was apparently first struck by Valerio between 1500 or 1546, from the website. I would love -- and I'm being serious -- someone to prove me wrong, since I want to use this as an image being an accurate likeness!
I cannot find Valerio's work to verify whether this was based on some older reports of a Sertorian coin or other, and would thus appreciate further analysis from you both and T8612 whenever he reads this thread. But it appears, to my great sadness, that this is just a made up image. My guess would be that the C18th coin we first discussed is a reproduction created when this inscription and medal was rediscovered, or perhaps simply propagated, by Vaillant and Rasche. All that work for nothing!
I guess we're back to square one, then. I recall that there are Iberian coins made in Osca (Bolskan), Sertorius' capital in Hispania that are dated to his rule; would those be a good place to go? Harren the Red (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was generally out of character for republican Romans to put their own likenesses on coins. I think Caesar was the first to have his likeness on a coin while he lived; Flaminius was "first" but those coins did not circulate at Rome. Prior to that, one only appeared on a coin when dead: for example, coins of Sulla postdate his death. They were also generally made, iirc, by moneyers flaunting their descent (eg Marcus Brutus minting coins depicting Lucius Brutus and Gaius Servilius Ahala). If this one is not legitimate and that trend holds, I would think there is likely no other option. Ifly6 (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Army, force, legion

A recent edit changed, in context, the word force to legion in the following:

Sertorius thoroughly outmaneuvered Pompey during the battle, forcing him to stay in place by threatening an attack from the rear, then killed his foragers and a Pompeian legion sent to relieve the foragers.

Is this accurate? A legion is not an army. Nor is it a force. It is a specific unit. Ifly6 (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! The primary source for the Battle of Lauron are Plutarch and Frontinus' Strategemata (Livy's account is lost). Plutarch reports no figures, while Frontinus (2.5.31) cites this lost account of Livy and states that Pompey lost 10,000 men in the battle, along with the entire transport.
In Frontinus' account, after the foragers were killed, "Pompey sent out a legion under Decimus Laelius to reinforce his men, whereupon the [Sertorian] cavalry of the enemy, withdrawing to the right flank, pretended to give way, and then, passing round the legion, assaulted it from the rear, while those who had followed up the foragers attacked it from the front also. Thus the legion with its commander was crushed between the two lines of the enemy." Konrad and Spann accept these figures (p. 164; p. 96), and assume, mostly from lack of evidence otherwise, that the other 5,000 men Frontinus and Livy referred to were the foragers themselves. Thus, two legions were slain: 5,000 of the foragers, and 5,000 under Laelius. Pompey had (also from primary sources only, but modern historians accept the figures; I can find the citations if need be, and will when I rewrite the references for the section) 30,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry, so a loss of 10,000 would amount to 1/3 of his army. Harren the Red (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wary since many people (incorrectly) use legion and army associated with republican or imperial Rome interchangeably. Thanks for the confirmation. Also, I again recommend parallel citations for this sort of thing, especially with troop numbers that are from ancient sources. Ifly6 (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted! Harren the Red (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Length?

What would be a good length of this article, in total? I have significantly trimmed the Sertorian War section (more remains to be done) and it stands, as of now, at 7161 words. I am mostly basing this off of the fact that the Marius and Sulla pages, respectively, are both ~8000 words, and this is appropriate given they are much more important figures in Roman history in general. Sertorius should certainly be shorter, but how much?

I still want to cut down Sertorian War more and rewrite some sections, but what do some of you think an ideal length would be? Curious to hear any ideas.

The cut sections for this article's Sertorian War section I will be merging into the existing Sertorian War article sometime later; as of now, it is threadbare and missing some information of import. Harren the Red (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a somewhat related note, given WP:UPFRONT, should we not mention Sertorius' white fawn in the lede (possibly in how he gained the support of the Iberians, along with his milder governing)? Of the myriad other things he did, this is among the most famous (in ancient sources especially), the other being his story with the two horses. It can, I think, serve to 'grab' the reader, since it is pretty interesting on its face, and unique to Sertorius himself. Harren the Red (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added it here: He gathered support from other Roman exiles and the native Iberian tribes – in part by using his tamed white fawn to paint himself as a religious leader before them – employing irregular warfare to defeat commanders repeatedly sent from Rome to subdue him. Ifly6 (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quintus_Sertorius&oldid=1237290597"