Talk:Battle of Arausio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Roman consul[edit]

why change the name of the consul leading one of the Roman armies to Manlius? Every single reference I've seen says he was named Gnaeus Mallius Maximus as it originally was before the edit by Panairjdde... --Fdewaele 22:37, 28 September 2005 (CET)

Because there was a gens Manlia, but, as far as I know, no gens Mallia.--Panairjdde 16:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That's because the consul we are discussing was a homus novo... a "New Man", he was his own ancester whereas the old gens Manlia were patrician...

Look at this list of Roman consuls of the University of ALberta: http://www.ualberta.ca/~csmackay/Consuls.List.html

It clearly gives as consuls for the year 105 BC: P. Rutilius Rufus and Cn. Mallius Maximus.

And these sites on Rome http://www.roman-empire.net/republic/laterep-index.html http://www.ac-versailles.fr/etabliss/clg-guimoc-gennevilliers/Scipion/consul.htm all mention or list Mallius as consul in 105 as well. (there are plenty others as well if you google)

--Fdewaele 1 December 2005 19:00 CET

What I am saying is that no gens Mallia ever existed. In that case, Mallius could be simply a corruption of Manlius.--Panairjdde 10:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps... but if he was a new man the fact no such gens is known could be explained by the fact that his forefathers were simple plebs and not one of the more notable families which are known by name, gens and clan... also I believe his sons were killed at Arausio and he was banned after it from Rome, meaning he probably was the last of his family as well... so no new noble family got created and the name probably died out.

The fact remains that all official usage of his name, including in the current academical world and the Varronian chronology as well, uses Mallius... the name Mallius should be used at Wikipedia as well... --Fdewaele 2 December 2005 14:30 CET

better now?--Panairjdde 10:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Definately! An other argument peacefully settled. :) Nice to have a civilized discussion. I've seen worse (for instance the Zapatero article...)...
One question though... she have Mallius as killed in battle... from where did you gather that information? As I always was under the impression he survived Arausio but his sons died... (I could be wrong of course) --Fdewaele 9 December 2005
I do not know, it was not me who added the "dagger" sign.--Panairjdde 16:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


Figures make no sense[edit]

Accordng to this articles figures, 80,000 Romans suffered 112,000 deaths.

???????

Actually they do make sense. The article says that Roman losses are quoted at up to 80,000 troops, and many more servants and camp followers (total loss estimated at about 112,000 men). This means 80.000 Roman soldiers were killed and that the auxillary forces (cavalry, servants,...) counted for an other 32.000 deaths. To make sense of these figures you have to take in to acount the organization of the Roman army: on the one hand you have the fighting force made up by the infantry legions, then you have the auxillary forces like cavalry, allies and lastly you have the non combattant logistic support. The defeat was so worse that even this last category was wiped away. -- fdewaele, 5 September 2006, 9:30 (CET)

"This includes the servants and camp followers, who usually numbered at least half as many again as the actual troops. "

Just a language point here, maybe. Saying half as many again means 1.5x's and not .5x's like the author is trying to convey. That is, if you are saying that a typical Roman force would have support troops numbering about half the number of combat troops you would say just that and not "half as many again as the actual troops." That would mean that there were 120,000 auxiliaries rather than the 40,000 which is what the rest of the article makes clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.145.35 (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

These figures seem rather dubious, this would have been one of the largest battles in history until WW1. Ancient historians are renound for vastly exaggerating battle figures, does anyone know of more realistic modern estimates? If these figures are accurate, how come battles like Arausio hardly get mentioned yet we never cease to hear about Cannae and Teutoburg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.215.92 (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Was Marcus Aurelius Scaurus Caepio's Legate or Maximus's?[edit]

According to Encyclopedia Brittanica Maximus was sent to reinforce Caepio, thus making Caepio the first force at the scene (Arausio). I assume that Scaurus was a Legate under Caepio? --Pzyktzle, 22 February 2008

Scaurus was a consular legate so he served under Maximus as his cavalry commander. Livy is clear about it:
M. Aurelius Scaurus, legatus consulis, a Cimbris fuso exercitu captus est, et cum in consilium ab his advocatus deterreret eos ne Alpes transirent Italiam petituri, eo quod diceret Romanos vinci non posse, a Boiorige, feroci iuvene, occisus est. Ab isdem hostibus Cn. Manlius cos. et Q. Servilius Caepio procos. victi proelio castris quoque binis exuti sunt, militum milia LXXX occisa, calonum et lixarum XL (secundum Antiatem) apud Arausionem. Caepionis, cuius temeritate clades accepta erat, damnati bona publicata sunt, primi post regem Tarquinium imperiumque ei abrogatum.
After the defeat of his army, Marcus Aurelius Scaurus, a deputy of the consul, was captured by the Cimbrians and called to their council, where he deterred them from crossing the Alps and going to Italy, saying that the Romans were unconquerable. He was killed by a savage young man, Boiorix. Defeated by the same enemies, consul Gnaeus Manlius and proconsul Quintus Servilius Caepio were stripped of both their camps; according to Valerius Antias, 80,000 soldiers and 40,000 servants and camp followers were killed near Arausio. Caepio, who had caused the defeat by his rashness, was convicted; his possessions were confiscated (for the first time since king Tarquinius) and his powers abrogated.
-- fdewaele, 22 february 2008, 10:30, CET.

Scaurus burned alive?[edit]

Regarding the section discussing the skirmishes, the entry states: "The king of the Cimbri was indignant at this impudence and had Scaurus executed by being burned alive in a wicker cage." I can find no evidence for the statement of Scaurus being burned alive. At least one of the chroniclers stated Scaurus was stabbed by Boiorix. The only other place I find any mention of this reported immolation, is in the work "German memories in Asia" by Rajkumar Kanagasingam - a non-historian who did not cite his source for the remark. Can anyone else provide evidence for this statement? Widsith Byrhtnoth

date[edit]

The day before the nones of October in the calendar of Numa was the "sixth of October", because it would have been nine days before the ides, which in October were on the 15th. But this doesn't mean that "6 October 105 BC" is the Julian date of the battle, which is falsely implied by just giving the date in this "modern" form. Until 46 BC, there were intercalary months "whenever necessary", and it would be non-trivial to find out the Julian date of "6 October" of the year 105 BC, perhaps it is possible, but until we establish that it is, it should be made clear that the date of the battle was not actually "6 October" Julian but "the day before the nones of October" in Numa's calendar. --dab (𒁳) 12:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

First Man in Rome[edit]

A work of historical fiction - namely ColleenMcCullough's The First Man in Rome - should not be included in the sources section. I shall remove it. Philologick (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)