User talk:Ifly6/Second Catilinarian conspiracy

Coins

@T8612: I guess this is maybe a reach, but are there any coins struck by Cicero or his pals commemorating his saving the republic? He never shut up about it in speeches. I ballpark guesstimate a 1000 per cent chance that if he had silver and access to a press he would have inundated the republic under a barrage of commemorative coins. And then probably bragged about how he minted more coins than anyone else in history. Ifly6 (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Cicero never minted coins... but I've added a denarius linked with Catilina. T8612 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, you may also check these sources:

Patrick McGushin, Bellum Catilinae: a Commentary, 1977.
Andrew R. Dyck, Cicero Catilinarians, 2008.

Both are commentaries on the important ancient sources. T8612 (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the addition of the coin! I've identified some overlap between the sources for this article and the sources for User:Ifly6/First Catilinarian conspiracy and (my additions to) Sallust, which should be of some help. Will require some time to read through and process though. I used a McGushin appendix for the FCC rewrite, don't have the whole book though. Ifly6 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Berry (2020) p. 54 also notes RRC 415/1 as connected: [Paullus] would naturally have shared Cicero's view that the defeat of Catiline represented a restoration of national harmony and draws analogy to Concordia's depiction in Principate coins following their civil wars. I added the coin to the draft. Ifly6 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments

@T8612 and Avilich: I am once again asking for your comments on one of my drafts. I saw that Avilich did the rename in the mainspace and also have edited the draft to reflect that new naming. If you have time, take a look too at User:Ifly6/First Catilinarian conspiracy, which I think is mostly complete as well. I will probably move next to rewriting the existing page on Catiline himself, which is a mess sandwiched between vanity press citations and "I see no reason to disbelieve anything the corrupt proconsul of Africa says". Ifly6 (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like when refs are cited inline as with "Gruen 1969". It's much better to say "Erich Gruen".

I find it hella confusing when ancient sources in the bibliography are presented as "Livy (2003)"; the year is only that of the translation and should be better presented. Write something like "Livy, Periochae, 2003 translation by Lendering, Jona – via Livius.org." T8612 (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I too would prefer something like that re Livy, I use the citation templates which only place the year there. In the code itself, I also create abbreviations like Livy ''Per.'' and use those as anchors. Anchors are similarly used for the inline "Gruen 1969" references. Ifly6 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit. I also made a query on the Template:Cite book talk page for guidance. Ifly6 (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's better for sure than the one in mainspace, you don't even need to bother doing drafts I think. Avilich (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]