Jump to content

Talk:Gaius Considius Longus

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

Bellum Africum

[edit]

I have removed the following text as it is plagiarised from: Concise Oxford Companion to Classical Literature, The, January, 1996 by M. C. HOWATSON and IAN CHILVERS: "Bellum Africum (‘the African war’), short record of Julius Caesar' s four months' war in Africa (47–46 BC) against the supporters of Pompey. The author is not known for sure, though some have thought it was Hirtius ; the contents suggest that he was a soldier who took part in the campaign but was not in Caesar's confidence." hamiltonstone (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

infobox

[edit]

The infobox is highly misleading, as it doesn't seem to understand the Roman constitutional process very well. "Nominated" should probably be "appointed". "Nationality" is anachronistic. There was no such thing as a formal political party called "Pompeian". Cynwolfe (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most infoboxes are misleading, being an effort to let classification replace thought. Add to the crimes here that he was appointed by the Senate; but are the Pompeians any less a political party than the Whigs of Pitt and Newcastle? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to infoboxes if what they do is encapsulate useful info, but agree with you that they shouldn't be a graphic device for the sake of having one. I've also been persuaded back to the use of "party" in ancient Roman politics by T.P. Wiseman's recent arguments. About "Pompeians," however, I would say that in Latin Pompeiani would be individuals who were loyal or attached to Pompey, his active supporters or clientela, and that it wouldn't be the same as "optimates" as a faction or party. The Clodiani of Clodius Pulcher, as Cicero likes to call them, might come a little closer to being a party or movement, but maybe more like a special-interest group, and again are probably better thought of as clientela. The articles on cliens, Client (ancient Rome), and clientela ought to be merged; hard to tell how well they would cover the subject collectively. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]