Talk:Gaius Hostilius Mancinus

Finding a coin

@T8612: Sorry for bothering you about a coin again. Do you know if we have an image of RRC item 234 by Tiberius Veturius? It's noted in Rosenstein 1986 as depicting an emphasis of Roman fides which Rosenstein connects to Mancinus and his supporters' arguments for treaty ratification. Ifly6 (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ifly6: I will add something this week-end. T8612 (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That's fantastic, thanks a ton! Ifly6 (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to say that your contributions to the article are top-notch. Ifly6 (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. As an aside, I think a List of senatus consulta may be needed. T8612 (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gaius Hostilius Mancinus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 16:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one. Will start today, and should be done with a first pass either later on or in the next couple of days. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• I've now given this article a first pass, with comments below. It's in good shape; I'd like to see a few fairly minor referencing quibbles sorted out before passing, and to have the relevant extracts of the sources I can't access, but most of the rest is advisory. I have a couple of concerns about criterion 1, but I don't think those are anything that a good copy-edit won't fix. Please do come back at me if you think that anything is unclear or unfair. Nice work so far; I look forward to working with you to polish it up a little more. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Resolved comments

General Text in non-English languages should be in {{lang}} templates to allow the software to parse it and screen-readers to read it correctly: e.g. {{lang|la|urbanus}} (gives urbanus) or {{lang|la|urbanus|italics=no}} (gives urbanus) Done. I have translated urbanus to urban praetor. Lead There's no strict requirement for an infobox, but it might help (per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE) to give the casual reader a quick overview of his dates, positions and historical importance. Problem is that there isn't a lot to add in the infobox, we only know his father, not his wife, children, or siblings. There is no battle to add, nor any law, work, or anything else. No picture of him either. The infobox would take some place just to repeat the lede that he was consul, and that his father was also consul, but it's already mentioned in the first line of the text body. The trend in ancient biographies is now to remove the infobox if it contains little information. That may be true; you'd also have his praetorships, but I can see the argument against a three-line infobox, and this is very much on the optional end of the scale. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Gaius Hostilius Mancinus ... Mancinus: reads awkwardly to repeat the name in the very next sentence. Replaced it with "he" there. to mend a break with the gods: given that we're not Romans, and don't consider the existence of the Roman gods an uncontroversial fact, this should be rephrased in terms that present any 'break with the gods' as a matter of Roman perception and belief, rather than as a matter of fact. Changed "to mend a break with the gods" to "to avoid breaking the religious oath Mancinus took". stripped from his citizenship: stripped of. Done. His former quaestor during the campaign against Numantia, Tiberius Gracchus, defended both him and the treaty, as he was the one who had conducted the negotiations with the Numantines: was it Gracchus or Mancinus who conducted the negotiations? Gracchus. Unfortunately, this now introduces a new problem: the first steps in politics of Tiberius Gracchus, who supported the treaty, because he had led the negotiations with the Numantines as a member of Mancinus' staff - does because mean that Gracchus' first steps were the negotiations, or that Gracchus supported the treaty because he was the one who negotiated it? More generally, I think the lead could do with a little polish for prose and clarity: if it's OK with you, I'll take a look over the next few days and suggest something a little more concrete. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Can something about his family background and early life be included in the lead? Normally, I'd suggest putting it before the mention of his defeat, so that we don't begin in medias res: however, I can see the argument for keeping that as the first thing but then slightly reworking the structure of the lead, almost in obituary style, to set it up as a 'cold open' establishing his importance, then moving back into a more conventional chronological biography. I don't think that his family background is really important for the lede. The main event, for which he is only mentioned in the sources, is the treaty. The lead is meant, per MOS:LEAD (specifically, MOS:INTRO, to be a condensed version of the article as a whole. It's unusual for something to be important enough to merit a whole section in the body, but not even a mention in the lead. Granted, it's a pretty small section, but equally MOS:LEAD is one of the few parts of the MOS that does need to be followed by a GA. I think the lead could be slightly expanded: in particular, there's a lot of political manoeuvring and a potential PR campaign by Gracchus and Calvinus, which would be good to mention. You could also bring in a little more of Scipio's role: he's quite a major player in the article, but doesn't seem to have much agency in the lead. @UndercoverClassicist: Thanks for the review. I've reworded the lede to address all your observations. Tell me what you think. I will deal with the rest later. T8612 (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC) As promised, I've made some pretty bold edits to make the lead more comfortably fit MOS:LEAD as something which should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Please do edit and generally hack away. At any rate, I'm happy to start looking at the rest, just in case you're waiting on my account. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Family background Note 4: he claimed to have been the first Roman soldier to break through the walls of Carthage: Scipio or Mancinus? Mancinus (the elder brother). I've replaced "he" by "Lucius" to remove the ambiguity. I've been bold again and moved that explanation from footnote into body text: it's good information that fits well there. Otherwise, happy. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Do we know anything about Mancinus' mother? No. I wrote everything we could find about him, which is not much. T8612 (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Often the way; fair enough. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Dates should be followed with BC; MOS:ERA encourages the omission of AD/CE when obvious, but not BC, and there's certainly the potential here for momentary confusion. Isn't it enough to write BC in all the titles? We are more than a century before "AD" here, so the risk of confusion appears limited. Would a note in the lead "All dates BC unless stated otherwise" would work? I prefer to avoid overloading the text with many "BC". I'd at least use BC for the first use in each section, but then my general preference is not to omit BC unless immediately following another BC date (e.g. Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC and was murdered in 44.. Looking again, I notice that there isn't a single AD date in the article, so it's not a major problem. Equally, a footnote as you've described wouldn't hurt; I think it's always wise to over-clarify rather than under-clarify, particularly as we're coming from a position of expertise and our readers are not. I'll leave it up to you. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC) the official winner of the war: who or what made him "official"? He was the commander (proconsul) and received a triumph. OK, we can say as much: Scipio Aemilianus, who had received a triumph as the proconsul in command of the victorious armies. I worry that "the official winner" implies a degree of canonicity and central control over the historical record that simply didn't exist in ancient Rome, particularly as the entire enmity between the two was over how far Aemilianus deserved all of the credit. 14:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC) I've edited in that change. Assuming you're happy with it, no further action needed here. If not, please do revert and let me know why. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC) This Mancinus also had an elder brother named Aulus: coming back at this again, I realise I'm not clear whether this Mancinius is Gaius or Lucius. Done. Praetorship elected praetor, probably urbanus, because he presided over the senate: this reads as if people voted for him because he had presided over the Senate. If I understand it correctly, the intended meaning is that the evidence we have for his being a praetor urbanuscode: lat promoted to code: la is that he presided over the senate. Done (same as above). I think this is clear enough now; I've edited back in the Latin term praetor urbanus): never hurts to give both the clear phrasing and the 'real' one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC) Is note 11 referring to a translated primary document? That should be cited (along with where you got it from) if so. ::I cited Sherk's commentary of the senatus consultum, not the primary document. T8612 (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC) In that case, all good. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC) Explain briefly what it means for a praetor to be urbanus (and see general note above re. lang template). Added some details. Roman policy regarding allies' territories was to return to the situation at the date of the initial treaty with Rome: I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of "Roman policy" being a meaningful concept at any stage of Roman history: what the Roman state did was always the haphazard accumulation of in-the-moment decisions by numerous individuals, acting out of a complex mix of ideological conviction, political calculation, personal allegiance, private vendetta and momentary emotion. This is particularly true in the Republic when all the people actually making the decisions switch around on an annual basis, but the Romans never have any kind of codified or even generally-agreed principles as to how they 'ought' to interact with foreign peoples, and they're certainly not consistent about how they do so. At the very least, this needs a robust citation, but I would strongly advise reworking it, perhaps in terms of precedents for seeking status quo ante resolutions to problems. I've toned down "Roman policy" to "In the second century, the senate's principle"; "principle" reproduces Chaniotis' word, and "second century" limits the scope to this time only. Tell me if it's better. I'd be much more comfortable with something like In other similar cases [perhaps: such as...] during the second century, the Roman senate attempted to re-establish the situation at the date of the cities' initial treaty with Rome, but in this affair.... I'm very uncomfortable with ascribing principles, agency or motives to 'the Senate', especially over a hundred-year period: the overwhelming trend in modern histories of international relations (with which, granted, works of ancient history haven't always caught up) is to emphasise how groups like senates, royal councils, parliaments, general staffs and so on are made up of individuals with their own agendas, value systems, levels of knowledge/ignorance, personal alliances and animosities - and that understanding the lack of unity and synergy within them is often key to understanding their actions. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC) I'm just citing the source. In this case, the two cities followed the principle described above, but since the territory changed after the alliance with the first city, but before the alliance with the second one, it couldn't work. I changed to In the second century, when dealing with allies' territories, the senate usually returned to the situation.... Happy with this. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Indeed, the urban praetor often acted as the head of state when the consuls were absent (because they served in the province), notably by calling the senate: is the phrase 'acted as the head of state' Brennan's? I'm a little uncomfortable about it; it sounds as if the praetor urbanus executed some of the powers normally only allotted to the consuls. I'd also spell out exactly what calling the senate means: do we mean calling meetings of the senate - and are we talking about extraordinary/emergency or ordinary meetings here? Yes, Brennan writes "especially the complex responsibilities of the “urban” praetor (who for much of the Republic often found himself acting as head of state)". Before 81 BC, the consuls (and other praetors) were mostly away in their province, whereas the urban praetor was always in Rome. I changed "calling" by "presiding". Given that it's Brennan's phrasing, I'm happy to withdraw my objection. I made a minor ce to make presiding into presiding over. Narthakion and Melitaia, two allied cities in Thessaly: this reads as if Narthakion and Melitaia were allied with each other, rather than with Rome. their territory changed meanwhile: I'm not sure about the use of meanwhile here, though it's not an easy one to fix: suggest something like "the border dispute had arisen after Melitaia's alliance with Rome, but before Narkathion's, meaning that..." UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Done. Consulship Political life of the period was dominated by the difficult Numantine War in Hispania.: a big statement; I'd like to see a citation for it. Is this supported by Brennan later in the paragraph? Toned down a bit and added a source. During the campaign, Mancinus suffered several defeats until he was trapped and surrounded by the 4,000 Numantines, although the Romans were five times as numerous. This comes rather out of the blue: we have to infer that Mancinus has raised an army and travelled to Spain. I assume that 'the 4,000 Numantines' are themselves an army, but that isn't totally clear either: a valid reading of this sentence would suggest that Mancinus and his army were mobbed by 4,000 townspeople. Reworded. It might be worth briefly explaining what a quaestor was. Added. the proconsul Quintus Pompeius had also negotiated a treaty: a peace treaty? We don't know. The events around Pompeius' treaty are difficult to explain and it's probably better to remain vague here, otherwise it would need a whole paragraph to explain. Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC) it logically caused a "massive political storm". I'm not sure this was logical: as the article points out, making peace was quite a sensible move, in the circumstances. Sugggest consequently? Replaced with consequently. recalled, even though a Numantine delegation came with him to Rome: even though suggests that the presence of the Numantine delegation should have meant that he was not recalled; I think this sentence should be clarified as to exactly what the relationship between that delegation and Mancinus' censure was. Reworded. The new consuls for 136: is it worth naming them? Not really, and one of them (Furius Philus) is better introduced in another paragraph. Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC) It might help non-specialist or non-Anglophone readers if we briefly explain that a denarius is a coin. Isn't it obvious from the picture of the denarius in question? Not necessarily; some of our readers can't see the image, either because of visual impairments or different modes of access (e.g. they may have the image-censoring plugin enabled, which removes images by default). Others may 'see' that image in different places, depending on their hardware (most notably, on mobile, or if they use a screen reader: I haven't checked if the image has alt text) More generally, we should avoid using an image to present textual information; this isn't quite that, but I think a reasonable corollary of WP:TEXTASIMAGES is that, if it is important that the image informs the reader that a denarius is a coin, we should also tell the reader as much in the text. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Tiberius Gracchus: is this the same man as the Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus mentioned earlier? If so, clarify. Done. Spell out what fides Romana means in this context. Done. Oakley is a bit sceptical of Crawford's reasoning 'a bit' reads as slightly informal. I'm not sure what this adds here: is there something specific that Oakley disputes? Not really. He just says "not all his arguments are certain". {{|xt| the twins Romulus and Remus suckling the She-wolf}}: this is backwards (if you suckle someone, you give them milk), and she-wolf should be lower-case. The 'suckling' issue comes up in one of the picture captions as well. Done. the former consul of 141: delete former (in 141, he was consul, not former consul). Done. The senate commissioned the consul Lucius Furius Philus with finding a solution: you can commission someone to do something, or charge them with doing something, but not commission them with doing it. Fixed with "commissioned the consul Lucius Furius Philus to find a solution". Philus drafted three bills to put before the assembly, one returning Mancinus to the Numantines, the second Mancinus' staff, and the third Pompeius – the former consul of 141 and Scipio's bitter enemy – and had their proposals approved by the senate for assembly ratification: a bit of a run-on sentence that loses clarity. Suggest Philus drafted three bills to put before the assembly. The first proposed sending Mancinus to the Numantines as a prisoner, the second proposed the same for Mancinus' staff (including Tiberius Gracchus), and the third for Pompeius, the former consul of 141 and Scipio's bitter enemy. These proposals were approved by the senate for ratification by the assembly. Done. What's the value of citing Münzer (not exactly in-date) alongside another citation to Steel? Münzer remains a standard authority cited by every scholar, even if it's an old work. Not going to quibble; you'd absolutely do that in an academic article to "show your workings" and properly acknowledge the history of scholarship: I'm not sure that Wikipedia citations quite do the same job (being primarily about verifiability), but there's no harm done. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC) AE Astin: spell out as Alan (Edgar). Done. The consul Philus then went to Spain accompanied by the Fetial priests to surrender Mancinus to the Numantines naked and bound in chains, according to an archaic ritual: 'fetial' should be lower-case, and this sentence needs a bit of reworking: it isn't grammatically clear whether Philus or Mancinus were naked, or whether it was only the binding, or the nudity as well, prescribed by the archaic ritual. Reworded. Nicely done (also dodges the question of how far this was an 'invented tradition': the Romans were quite good at saying that they were doing something ancient but making a great deal of it up. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Velleius Paterculus is cited at the end of this paragraph: I'm quite a fan of including primary sources alongside (not instead of) the secondary sources that rely on them, but is there a reason why you haven't done this for any of the other material so far? ::Probably because there wasn't anything particularly worth citing. Although now that you say it, I will cite Appian. This coin set a milestone in Roman coinage as it broke from the traditional civic symbols of the Republic and featured instead personal and political imageries: I'm not sure this is a justified reading of Crawford, who is specific that the 'break with tradition' is the featuring of a head (that of Mars) other than that of Roma. There are certainly plenty of good precedents for Roman coins with political and personal undertones. I'd also advise rephrasing the idiomatic set a milestone. Crawford tells that both sides of the coin broke with tradition: "The reverse type makes a decisive break with the traditional approach to selection of coin types..." p.266). a natural cousin: what's an unnatural cousin? They were cousin by birth, but Veturius was adopted into another family, so they were no longer "cousins". I'm not sure many readers would deduce that as a possible interpretation: suggest "the son of Gracchus' uncle/aunt" would be clearer. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC) I just removed "natural". That works too. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Briefly explain the pax deorum, perhaps in a footnote: it's important that the audience understands it for what follows. Isn't it already covered in the citation of Rosenstein? It could be clearer; I understand how the quotation from Rosenstein is an explanation of the pax deorum, but then I already knew what the pax deorum was. There's also the fact that most readers won't think that a citation might include clarifying information, and so will probably not click it, and the general point that explanation in text is clearer than explanation in a footnote (indeed, the usual practice in this article has been to bracket a short definition). Perhaps you could try something like "the relationship between the Roman people and their gods, known as the pax deorum"? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC) I did that. Scipio and another friend Laelius were moreover mentioned as members of Philus' consilium (advisory council): mentioned by whom? In some ancient sources, but I removed "mentioned as". Philus drafted three bills to put before the assembly. We were in the senate a moment ago: clarify to the reader what the assembly was, and why it becomes involved at this point. We don't know which assembly (there were several ones, I suppose it was the Tribal Assembly, but sources don't say.). I reworded. Fair point; well reworded (I made a small ce). More curiosity than anything else: is there a reason to call it them people's assemblies rather than citizens' assemblies (as the title of the associated article) or popular assemblies (which feels to me more common)? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC) Names are interchangeable. I reworded with citizens' assemblies. Mancinus accepted his fate and even supported his own demise: is 'demise' the right word here? One of the footnotes says that Mancinus was confident that he would not be killed if returned. It is merely an isolated suggestion among several other sources. Still, unless we have some strong reason to discount that suggestion, WP:DUEWEIGHT would suggest that we shouldn't explicitly rule it out in the text. Something like "punishment" rather than "demise" would solve the problem. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC) Done. The peace saved 20,000 Roman soldiers: we've jumped ahead again: so Gracchus successfully negotiated peace? Do we know anything about the terms: are we talking about a truce and safe passage, or an end to the war? Given that this peace was so unpopular, did the Romans have to make any concessions? We don't know anything. Every event of the period is only superficially known, and I've added everything that could be found on Mancinus. I understand. We certainly know that peace was made, so we should mention that before talking about "the peace" (what peace?). I'd suggest a slightly more expansive phrasing: perhaps "Tiberius negotiated a peace by which the 20,000 Roman soldiers would be spared and the boundaries of Roman territory preserved, in exchange for the army's weapons and baggage"; I don't think that includes any factual information not already included in the article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Done. Demotion to Rehabilitation A trial took place, which adopted Rutilius' opinion: a judge or jury can adopt an opinion, but a trial can't. Fixed. Perhaps soon after 135, a bill was then carried: either A bill was then carried, perhaps soon after 135 BC or Perhaps soon after 135 BC, a bill was carried. Fixed (I picked the second one). Do we know anything about when Mancinus died, or any descendants? Nothing. Fair enough! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC) He was successful in being elected to a second praetorship, which guaranteed him a place in the senate at the next lectio: at least in theory, the point of the lectio was that an unworthy candidate could be denied the full status of senator, so I'm not sure that 'guaranteed' is the right word. Censors had to appoint as senators the former magistrates by rank (tribunes of the plebs and quaestors) until the 300 seats were filled. A former praetor would normally already be a senator. Therefore, a former praetor (ranked higher than quaestors and tribunes) not yet senator would be guaranteed a seat, while some quaestors could be left out if there weren't enough seats for all the former magistrates. I didn't want to go too much into technical details like that in a biographical article as I feel this belongs to the Senate of the Roman Republic article. Fair enough; I'm happy to withdraw my objection to guaranteed on those grounds. Maybe a footnote to that effect would help, but definitely optional. Spell out what a lectio (suggest an ILL, as articles on it exist in other languages: lectio senatus) was. I'm a little confused in its presentation here: on first mention, it seems as though we're talking about the event (election); on the second, it seems like we're talking about the document clarifying who was eligible to stand. I've detailed lectio, but I don't what you want me to do with an ILL? Senators were not elected. They were appointed by the censors, who drew a list every five years. They could sometimes remove seating senators from the list, which they apparently did not do for Mancinus in 136. I have rephrased the passage. I've added in the ILL: when there's a term which could have its own page, it's encouraged to redlink it; when that page exists in another language but not English, using the {{ill}} template creates a redlink with a separate link to either Wikidata or the foreign-language page, which has the double advantage of allowing people to go directly there (and possibly machine-translate the page) and of giving potential writers a place to start. If and when an English-language page is made, it'll revert to a straighforward wikilink. I'm still unclear on exactly what lectio means in the context of this article: at first, you gloss it as 'list of senators', but then during the lectio of 169 implies that lectio means some sort of event - the reading of the list? We just need either consistency or an explanation here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC) I replaced "during" by "in" to remove the confusion. Mancinus started a campaign to recover his former place: what do you mean by place in this context: are we talking about his honour, his social standing, his political office, his citizenship, or all of them? All of them. I chose "place" instead of position or honour specifically to designate all these elements combined. I can list them if you think this vagueness is misleading. I'd certainly err on the side of being more specific: presumably, his citizenship and office were the explicit bones of contention, with his honour and social standing implicit in the background? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Done. It is the first mention in the sources: 'it' is a statue, not a mention; should this be something like the Roman scholar Pliny the Elder's description of it, written around AD 79, is the first mention...? No, his statue was apparently the first of the sort in Rome (or the first we hear about). Pliny is not the first to talk about a naked statue. I've switched "first" to "earliest" if that makes it clearer. The issue is the word 'it', which doesn't have a logical antecedent. From what I gather, the sentence needs to be rephrased as something like The mention of this statue by Pliny the Elder (c. AD 79) is the earliest... Reworded the sentence. a naked Roman, who preferred at the time to be shown in toga or military uniform.: presumably, all Romans did, not just this particular naked one. I agree, but what do you want to change here? Perhaps something like a statue depicting a Roman citizen in the nude: portraits of the time generally showed men in a toga or military uniform? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Done. Mancinus' story of his voluntary sacrifice to keep his oath and preserve the diplomatic reputation of Rome brought him admiration among citizens: this is cited directly to two admiring citizens; I'd like a secondary citation if we're going to suggest that this admiration stretched to more than just Cicero and Plutarch, especially as neither was alive at the time. I will check the references later. Added reference to Brennan (2006). Brennan 1989, pp. 478, 486, 487, disagrees with Briscoe, principally because of a lack of evidence.: can we spell out this disagreement a little more: lack of evidence for what, exactly? Is the lack of evidence an agreed fact, or Brennan's opinion? Lack of evidence to support Briscoe's opinion, because there were very few instances of disgraced senators rehabilitated through a second praetorship. There are other academic opinions on this, but I didn't want to overload the text with refs. Briscoe and Brennan are the best examples. I understand; my issue is with the phrase because of a lack of evidence, which implies that the lack of evidence is an established fact. Presumably, Briscoe doesn't believe there's a lack of evidence: it would be good to spell this out a little more. Perhaps Brennan, however, considers there to be a lack of evidence for Briscoe's theory. I appreciate the interest of brevity, but if there's a communis opinio on the matter (do scholars generally side with one or the other?), it would be worth saying. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Added your sentence. There is no academic consensus on this, hence why I mentioned both opinions. Fair enough; happy with this. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC) In popular culture Assuming that this section stays, 4th should be spelt out as fourth. Done. T8612 (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC) MOS:POPCULT says that a Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. IMDB is a primary source in this context; has Mancinus' portrayal, or Morand's performance, been discussed in any length anywhere? I'm not sure what a reliable secondary source is for TV shows? The issue is more finding a source that's not the work itself (or, as with IMDB, a straightforward, mechanical extraction of basic information from that work). We really want a review, article or so on commenting on the character of Mancinus in the show. Thinking back to the article on Antistia (wife of Pompey), we kept the references to Antistia in Pierre Corneille's Sertorius, because Antistia's role in the play had been discussed in a work of critical commentary on the play, but cut a reference to how her story figures in Robert Harris' Imperium, because we couldn't find any source talking about how it figures in the novel. In other words, if the only possible citation is the work itself, it hasn't cleared the bar for MOS:POPCULT and shouldn't really be there. Something like IMDB, or a similar catalogue or database, is tantamount to the same thing, because it a) simply extracts factual information from the work and b) does so more-or-less automatically for all works under its remit. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Mancinus is only a minor character in a minor show, so there's nothing about him in a review or other similar work. So you think the section should be removed? I thought MOS:POPCULT was used to avoid cluttering articles about famous people, but here it is the only mention of Mancinus in any modern work. T8612 (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC) Yes, in that case, MOS:POPCULT would advise that the section be removed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC) Sourcing A minor point as far as GA is concerned, but the bibliography is done in an unorthodox order: it's usual to sort works by the same author with the most recent date first. Even more nit-pickily, the bibliography is inconsistent as to whether initials are full-stopped or not, and as to the formatting of ISBNs (this tool is quite useful for that). Hyphenated ISBNs and added full stops to initials. However are you sure about the ordering? I have always ordered entries chronologically, and seen them ordered this way. T8612 (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Well, I decided to grab an academic book off my shelf to check, and it seems I've been an outlier: oldest-first seems to be the norm. Thank you for querying! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC) The phrase a victorious campaign is slightly odd, and directly cribbed from Crawford: on its own, it's not enough to trigger WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, but I'd suggest a rephrase. Replaced with "and defeated the Samnites" Note 36: This scene has been interpreted by numismatist Michael Crawford as reflecting the imperial claims of Rome, therefore opposing Mancinus' treaty with the Numantines. Crawford also suggests that this Sextus Pompeius might have been related to the former consul of 141, who spoke against the treaty. "The scene on the denarius is perhaps the most obvious way of symbolising a belief in the imperial claims of Rome (for which in this period see F. W. Walbank,JRS 1965, 1-16) and an appeal to such a belief may perhaps have been held to justify the repudiation of the foedus Numantinum of 137 (M. H. Crawford, PBSR 1973, 'Foedus and sponsio'). The adoption of the type by the father of Co. Pompeius Strabo may perhaps show a link between this branch of the Pompeii and the family of Q. Pompeius, Cos. 141, who urged the repudiation." Great stuff. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Family background

Career

Praetorship (c. 140 BC)

Consulship and the Numantine affair (137–136 BC)

• Rosenstein also notes that the previous treaty had not been ratified; Mancinus likely stressed the breach of Roman fides and moral ratification instead.: what grounds do we have for preferring the fides explanation to that put forward by Rosenstein?

The text body sentence tells about Mancinus' argument. Rosenstein only adds a precision. I don't see a contradiction.

I think my confusion came from the wording of the footnote: if I understand you correctly, the point of it is to explain how Mancinius could use the breaking of the treaty as an argument, when the treaty didn't technically exist. Perhaps something like "Rosenstein also notes that Pompeius's treaty had not been officially ratified; Mancinus likely argued that the Romans had given their fides to honour its terms, and so that it had been morally ratified."? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

You want this in the footnote or in the text?

I was proposing that as a rewording (clarification) of the footnote. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hi UndercoverClassicist. I corrected this section. Sorry for the delay; I was busy with work. T8612 (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is still on my list: thank you and well done with all that. I'll get to it when I can. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your patience: another nice job in clearing a lot of ground, and some great improvements. Everything left on this page is now "open", I think. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

    @T8612: Could I just check in and see where you are with the remaining sourcing issues? As ever, happy to be flexible, but I'm conscious that the hold period is now getting unusually lengthy. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

    • @UndercoverClassicist: I have answered all your queries (I think). Sorry for the delay. T8612 (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

From demotion to rehabilitation (after 135 BC)

Sourcing

Earwig's happy. In what follows, footnote numbers refer to this version:

• Note 19: I'm happy here; the source is fine for GA, though you might want something more modern if going to FAC.
• Note 39: Rosenstein has the whole question of what to do about the treaty was turned over to the consul P. Furius Publius for further discussion with his consilium, and later P. Furius Philus, had been charged not only with the investigation of the foedus but the task of handing its maker over to the enemy. I'm fairly satisfied that it's Lucius, not Publius, in question here, but does Oakley confirm that?

It's apparently a mistake from Rosenstein. The "consul" can only have been Lucius Furius Philus.

I sympathise, but we need to address that somehow: as it stands, the source doesn't support what it's meant to. Perhaps expanding the footnote with something like Rosenstein gives the consul's praenomen as Publius, though the consuls for [year] were Lucius Furius Philus and [the other one].[cite a separate source]. Not perfect (it's arguably WP:SYNTH unless a secondary source explicitly says that Rosenstein is wrong) but probably good enough. Is there another source that could be used? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

That seems overly complicated. I just added "Rosenstein mistakenly uses the praenomen Publius for Furius Philus, instead of Lucius" in the footnote. I've done that before for a small mistake in the source. I can't use another source for the part on the consilium.

The problem is the statement Rosenstein mistakenly uses.... How do we know it's a mistake? Just saying as much is WP:OR: as I read you, you're saying that we know it's a mistake because we know that the praenomen of the only reasonably-intended consul was in fact Lucius. We know that from somewhere, so we need to cite it to any reasonable source that says it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Note 46: I can't see anything on p247 that suggests that Gracchus and Pompeius said anything to convince the voters themselves; my read of the source is that Rosenstein believes that it was who they were, specifically their popularity, that gave the voters pause.

Reworded to: "Voters nevertheless rejected the bills exiling Tiberius Gracchus and Pompeius, thanks to their popularity."

Fine with that from a sourcing point of view, but could it be rephrased to clarify the antecedent of their: perhaps thanks to the two men's popularity? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Done.

Spot-checks on material I don't have access to: could you provide a quote from the sources provided to support the following:

• Note 10: Mancinus was elected praetor, probably urbanus, because he presided over the senate during the vote on the senatus consultum de Narthaciensibus et Melitaeensibus, which arbitrated a border dispute between Narthakion and Melitaia, two allied cities in Thessaly.

"I suggest it is quite probable (though not actually attested or certain) that in later senatus consulta where a praetor or [greek: strategos] is named in the prescript, it is in fact the praetor urbanus. We have a fair number of such documents preserved on stone (particularly from the Greek east). No provincia is recorded for Q. Minucius Q.f. (pr. ca. 164?), who saw to the passage of a senatus consultum ordering the Athenians to reopen the Sarapeum of Delos; L. Cornelius Lentulus Lupus (later cos. 156, and so pr. ca. 159), who sent a senatus consultum accepting the apology of the people of Tibur for an unknown transgression; C. Hostilius Mancinus (later cos. 137, and so pr. ca. 140), president of the Senate when it heard and decided on a dispute between envoys from the (independent) Thessalian towns of Narthakion and Melitaia;..."

• To me, "probably" implies far more certainty than "I suggest it is quite probable (though not actually attested or certain)". It's minor, but could we frame this (as the source does) as an individual scholar's suggestion? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Brennan's language is very cautious here, but there are other scholars who made the suggestion before, first with Münzer in 1913.

If the article's going to be less cautious than Brennan, it should cite sources which are: best to do alongside rather than instead of Brennan, I think, but up to you. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Note 18: Mancinus felt that he had no other choice but to negotiate with the Numantines, and ordered his quaestor, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus to deal with them

"He extricated his troops only at the price of a formal treaty, the details of which were negotiated by his quaestor, Ti. Sempronius Gracchus."

Anything for "felt that he had no other choice but to..."? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Isn't it implied by the "only at the price of"?

No: "I could only buy pizza at the price of £10" does not imply that I had no choice but to buy pizza. The source tells me that Macinus chose to negotiate, and that the only way to secure a successful outcome to that negotiation was to accept the treaty: it doesn't tell me that he felt that negotiation was his only (rather than best) option. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Notes 34 and 35: Veturius' propaganda did not work and only the invented version survived in subsequent Roman historiography, such as in Livy's Ab Urbe Condita written a century later

Note 34 is on JSTOR here. Tell me if you don't have it.

I've got it: I can't find the text supporting this statement, however. Would you mind quoting the bit you used for me? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I hold then that in 137, when news of the agreement made by Mancinus reached Rome, argument began over whether or not to ratify the agreement. The agreement of 321 was immediately invoked in the argument, an agreement on which two versions were already in circulation: a version (which doubtless approximates more closely to the truth) in which the agreement was ratified and peace kept and a version in which the agreement was repudiated and a victorious campaign of revenge instituted (a trick analogous to that of P. Scipio Africanus or the envoy from the prisoners taken at Cannae was perhaps assumed). Ti. Veturius struck his denarii to urge by the portrayal of a foedus that the agreement be ratified, recalling the first version of the events of 321.

But the decision was taken to repudiate the agreement and the Roman conscience cleared by surrendering Mancinus to the Numantines, as the man responsible for the agreement; he was in fact simply disowned. At some later date, the promise he made and the fate he suffered because the promise was not kept were explained in terms of the Roman civil law procedure of sponsio, the verbal promise in response to a question which binds the man who promises. The whole apparatus of sponsio in dealings with a foreign power and surrender to that foreign power to make up for the fact that the promise did not bind was then wished on to the events of 321. Roman historiography gains another example of the way in which Roman history was invented; Roman law gains the procedure of sponsio, as a designated form of promise uncontaminated by the sacral nonsense with which it has been invested.

Crawford doesn't state the obvious (for him) that this version found its way in Livy's book, but he cites Livy in his notes 36-39.

I'm not seeing anything there to say that the "true" version was forgotten, only that the false version was invented. I think this is the same problem as the query below. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Note 35 (I can't cite everything): If the coin does refer to the Caudine story then it was presumably issued in 137-136. Badian (1968: 33-6) has made it likely that this moneyer was a son of Ti. Veturius Sempronianus, and this allowed Crawford (1973: 6) to suggest that he was a cousin of Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (tr. pl. 133), who was involved in the Numantine affair as a quaestor. He suggested that two motives emerge for the issue of the denarius, with its strong claim that the treaty was ratified: the desire both to protect Veturius' cousin Gracchus and to uphold the family tradition about what happened to the Veturius who was consul in 321. One implication of this interpretation of the coin is that there must have been an alternative version of the Caudine story-unfavourable to Rome, and quite different from that found in L.-in which the Caudine foedus was not repudiated but honoured, at least for a while. One might compare the well-known alternative traditions about Porsenna's capturing Rome and the Gauls' capturing the Capitol, each less flattering to Rome than the annalistic version; and we have seen already (ix. 1. 1-16. 19 n.) that this version may even have been true.

This interpretation of the coin, however, also poses two problems. Crawford (1973: 5-6) believed that Veturius was the first to bring the Caudine saga into the Mancinus affair, arguing that just as Ti. Gracchus appealed to Roman fides, so Ti. Veturius supported his argument with a classic case of a treaty being upheld. There is no evidence for this, nor is it probable. The opposition to Veturius and Gracchus could easily have cited their version of the story first (as Plutarch makes them do) and this could have provoked Veturius to strike the coin, stung by the harm done to his ancestor's reputation. No Roman noble would spontaneously wish to remind the public that his ancestor was responsible for one of the greatest Roman disasters.

It is also uncertain whether two versions of the story existed in 13 7-136. Obviously, if Crawford's interpretation of the coin is correct, then the Veturian version must have been circulating, and, if the argument in the preceding paragraph is sound, then so too must the version later to be told by L. Crawford wrote (p. 6) '[s]uch a coin could hardly have been produced if the story of the repudiation of the agreement of the Caudine Forks was already established as orthodoxy'. But the story of the repudiation was so seductive that it could easily have replaced the Veturian version, which would then have needed reassertion.

Even though Crawford's arguments fall some way short of proof, it remains likely that our version of the story of the Caudine Forks is so contaminated with the story of Mancinus that little in it may be taken as trustworthy.

Oakley discusses this over several pages, but I believe we cannot go into that sort of details on Wikipedia. As I mentioned inside the footnote, Oakley is sceptical of Crawford's reasoning.

This is close: I see in the source that a "Roman-bashing" version of the story existed, and that Veturius' coin was connected with it. I can infer that the story is now forgotten from "there must have been", but I don't think that's enough for "Veturius' propaganda did not work": the source doesn't seem to specify when the story was forgotten. The problem is WP:OR: we can't make anything more than the most trivial inferences from what's actually argued in the sources. Is there anything (in either source) to explicitly say that the alternative story was rejected or forgotten in its own day? You've very kindly given me a lot of material, so please do point me directly at it if I've just missed something in what you've quoted. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I will read Oakley again. I hope to finish this review in the week-end. T8612 (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I have replaced the sentence by "The version supporting Mancinus was nevertheless abandoned and only the invented version survived in subsequent Roman historiography".

Image licensing

• All licences check out. The map is particularly nice work.

Review Template

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   Generally sound. A few points of ambiguity and grammar need to be addressed. On their own, they aren't particularly serious, but there's enough of them to have a material impact on the quality and comprehensibility of the article as it stands, particularly for readers without a background in Roman history.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Formatting in bibliography remains somewhat inconsistent (e.g. title case vs. sentence case, ISBN style), but that is fine for GA.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   No cause for concern so far, but spot-checks need to be done to confirm.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   As 2c

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

   All issues here fixed during nomination.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   All images check out and are PD.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Nicely done, given the paucity of available material.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   I'm satisfied that everything left can be fixed straightforwardly: I'd like to see at least a critical mass of the 1a concerns addressed, and the sourcing spotchecks are essential before the article can be passed. Happy to be flexible on the seven days of hold if that would be helpful.

   Given that no movement has happened over quite some time, and the nominator has not been active on Wikipedia, I am closing this one with some sadness: the hold period can be flexible but this is now one of the longest-held nominations on GAN and a line has to be drawn somewhere. Unfortunately, as there are open spot-checks and therefore open questions as to OR and sourcing, I can't pass it at this stage, but I am sure that a second nomination would be relatively straightforward and would be more than happy to assist in one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.