This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 198.252.15.202(talk) at 21:55, 11 April 2013(Added B-class checklist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:55, 11 April 2013 by 198.252.15.202(talk)(Added B-class checklist)
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 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
This article is practically off the wall, a tenth rate hash of grade B secondary source guesses and lies. For example, lake regillus was for the most part not a volcanic crater and certainly was not dry in the 4th century BC. Why should it be dry? Volcanic lakes do not just dry up a propos of nothing in a few short years and if it was dry how could the classical Romans run aquaducts from it? The location is no longer in doubt. The springs that fed it are currently in use for the water supply of Rome; otherwise, the lake would still be there. See under Gabii, with which I am not done yet. The article says nothing of Gabii, the major settlement on the lake. Just about everything else is baloney as well. We need some expertise added here. I'll be getting to it eventually. You know how Wikipedia is, you go looking for supporting material and mainly what you find are kluged-up pieces of junk sporting templates waiting for their first real editor, so you jump from junk-yard to junk-yard trying to dodge the neurotic shadows of the great collective id. Three million "articles"? Sure. Among these few million opportunities to do an article it is easy to get sidetracked but I will eventually get to the battle. Feel free to do it yourself; meanwhile, don't take it too seriously and don't delude yourself into thinking it says anything much. It's an opportunity, and that can be a good thing, but not yet a serious article.Dave (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to merge with First Latin War
There's currently a discussion under "Second Latin War" about the recent move of "Latin War" to that title, and creation of "First Latin War" by the same editor, largely duplicating information in this article, and adding some dubious inferences (such as that the war dragged on until 493, when Spurius Cassius concluded a treaty with the Latins, or that Cassius was somehow "the" Roman leader during the war, despite a lack of mention of any other battles against the Latins led by Cassius, or any other battles against the Latins after Lake Regillus). Ancient authorities don't seem to consider this "the First Latin War", and there were certainly other conflicts between Rome and Latin towns or alliances between this and the "Second" Latin War (usually just called "The Latin War") that would have better merited the label. So it looks as if "Second Latin War" will be going back to "Latin War," and "First Latin War" will be going away. Whatever needs to be merged into this article from that one can be done when that discussion is over. I'll be glad to work on this when the time comes. P Aculeius (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
