Talk:Battle of Aquae Sextiae

Number of barbarians involved in the battle

The Roman tendency to exaggerate the number of barbarians involved in a battle seems to have carried through to this article. The Teutons, Ambrones, Cimbrii, Vandals and Harudii all came from the Jutland peninsula. Given that only the Teutons and the much smaller contingent of Ambrones were involved in this battle a total headcount of 110000 is implausible. The book 'The Barbarians - Goths, Franks and Vandals' (Malcolm Todd)makes a similar point - 'Armies of several thousands would have joined battle only in the course of a mass migration......'. Another perspective would be to look at village sizes of the time - A typical village having 80-100 inhabitants, admittedly somewhat more if near the coast - 'Die Ersten Deutschen' (The First Germans - S. Fischer-Fabian). A headcount of 110000 would have emptied 1000 villages. Subtract from this the number of people left behind. The Cimbrii, who parted company from the Teutones somewhat earlier, the Vandals and Harudii and one gets the sense that Jutland must have had a village every few yards! Zooming into the Ambrones, one reads that they came from the island of Amrun (see last reference) - an island of some 40 square kilometers and five villages. Bottom line: I would propose a 'combatant headcount of <5000' HagenFranziska 14:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Broken link

Footnote #1 (actually the only footnote here) to St. Jerome's letter has the link "http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-06/letters/lette123.htm". Apparently CCEL.org has rearranged their site, but by rummaging around a while, I found that letter: its new link is "http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.CXXIII.html". 208.66.124.31 00:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC) (Randall)

Size of forces involved

It seems that there needs to be more sourcing and estimates of the size of the German force. It seems to me reasonable to include the figures from ancient sources, but commentary on the accuracy of these numbers and the potential for exaggeration be Greek and Roman historians would probably be helpful.Pipsally (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Further, this might be useful reading on the use of ancient writers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#How_to_classify_a_source Pipsally (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Something like this from the Battle of Vercellae article might be useful - (Modern historians are always somewhat sceptical about the overwhelming numbers the legions are reported to have fought, but there is no way to determine the true numbers today.)[15][16][17][18] Refs need checking obviouslyPipsally (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The article deals with the Teutons, not the "German force". There is not even an unequivocal opinion among the researchers whether they were of Germanic origin. Many different theories among scholars: ancient and modern - they don't have consensus. As for their number, I am afraid that apart from the Roman data, scholars have nothing. But even this data refers to the bravada opinion of Guy Marius in his report to the Senate. Opinion is an unreliable source. Moreover, ancient authors are known for their exaggerations and they must be quoted very carefully, separating the wheat from the chaff - undeniably neutral descriptions from propaganda of exaggerating military successes. Usually, "controversial" numbers are not used in Wikipedia articles.31.40.131.100 (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like to include some of these theories from different scholars. It is not at all uncommon to include the numbers recorded by ancient historians in wikipedia articles, especially when it's the only data we have. What you're doing by not providing other sources or adding any detail about the discussion is simply WP:OR.

It's also worth noting that in the text you want editted it's explicitly stated that this is what the Romans claimed. It's not stated as a definite number of Germans (shorthand...)Pipsally (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The points of view of various researchers have long been posted on the page about the Teutons. Here we are on the issue of their "numbers and losses" in a particular battle. Also the own interpretation of the WP rules is inappropriate. Perhaps we'd better wait for the administration's decision.31.40.131.100 (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not an administrator decision. This is where a consensus needs to be established. You need to include the relevant sources and discussion here, not simply remove attested figures that are discussed in a reasonable way in the article already.Pipsally (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)