Talk:Quintus Sertorius

Untitled, May 2011

This article is a bit gossipy - could do with some of the facts being clarified (e.g. what happened to Sertorius from 87 to 83? Why exactly did he go to Spain?). The language of optimates/populares needs to be cleaned up - it's very 19th century to think in these terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.43.45 (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Untitled, Jun 2004

After having added a lot of patent nonsense and having been reverted and warned, 207.162.58.10 has changed the description of Quintus Sertorius' death. I have reverted that, too—I have not found any corroborating external sources for this version, but lots for the assassination. The only Battle of Ravenna I know of was in 432, not 72 BC. Looks like "stealth vandalism" to me: deliberately adding wrong information in a way that makes it hard to detect because it appears plausible at first glance. Lupo 08:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article is in places unclear--"He now declared for Marius and the populares party, though of Marius himself as a man he had the worst opinion. He must have been a consenting party to the hideous massacres of Marius and Cinna in 87, though he seems to have done what he could to mitigate their horrors". Perhaps this should be reworked. --24.251.168.56 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I amended that. Sertorius supported the Populares, who were led by the consul Cinna, and resented Marius taking part in their siege of Rome, but relented when Cinna said he invited Marius, and Marius did not show up on his own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Jackal God (talk • contribs) 14:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Party Politics"

The article takes as granted, and indeed infers, that the Roman Republic was dominated by two political parties (in the modern style) when, in fact, this idea has been widely discredited. At best they can be considered loose political groupings, but the very nature of Late Republican Roman society was means that any political party, in the modern sense, could never exist. Political alliance was temporary, self centered and ultimately aimed for ones own political ends, as soon as a relationship ceased to meet these ends, it was terminated. Furthermore, the individualism of Roman politics precludes any assertion of a unified set of goals/aims among political allies - Roman society cannot be rendered through the prism of modern political organisation. I move that the article should be rewritten to take into account modern scholarship with relation to Roman politics, or at the very least make it clear that no "party" system existed in the modern sense.Derekpatterson (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

True, no actual political parties as we know today existed. However, there were a common group of principles held by ppl mostly depending on their social background. That cannot be denied. The fall of the Republic came about by powerful men utilizing the distinct aims of the Populares and Optimates and their servants. For the sake of clarity, faction could replace the word party, and that way distinguish between the modern institution of political parties, yet still express the common political aims, and social groups that existed back then. Completely disagree w/ your sentence "individualism of Roman politics precludes any assertion of a unified set of goals/aims among political allies" for this time period. Is this a joke or sarcasm? The Jackal God (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence 'individualism of Roman politics precludes any assertion of a unified set of goals/aims' perhaps does suggest that there weren't factions - but it's broadly on the right lines. The language of optimates and populares needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.43.45 (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously very late but I too will echo that the "populares" and "optimates" need to go. They were not parties, they were not factions. Some scholars think they were ideologies but aristocrats did not form concrete alliances on such bases in the late republic. The tendency to fluid ad hoc political factionalism should not be obscured by party labels. "Factions" of the late republic should be discussed in terms of their leaders – eg Scipionic, Marian, Cinnan, Caesarian, Catonian, and Pompeian – and not in terms of an overarching label that implies something akin to a corporate or persistent existence. Ifly6 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hirtuleius

if Quintus Sertorius and Sertorian War are going to share the same article page, it might be a good idea to incorporate something about Sertorius' ablest lieutenant, Hirtuleius, who cleared out, if i'm not mistaken, Hispania Citerior, ousting the Sullan governor as well as defeating Manlius, the governor of Transalpine Gaul who came to his assistance. Quite an asset to Sertorius' cause, Sertorius was not a little sadden upon news of his death, and his death played a major role in Sertorius' diminishing fortunes as the decade waned. The Jackal God 21:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article

I suggest that the article be renamed from 'Quintus Sertorius' to simply 'Sertorius'. It is WP:CONCISE and he is one of the few Romans in history with that surname, and doubtless the most famous of them. His WP:COMMONNAME is often simply given as Sertorius, with the given name omitted, as is the case with Sulla, Julius Caesar, Pompey, Cicero and others. Aforst1 (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

First things first, thanks for your invitation. My personal preference when talking about republican Romans is to use two (or more) of their nomen; like Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, Scipio Africanus, Gaius Marius and Aemilius Paulus. This to distinguish them from their many namesakes. Therefore, I would prefer Quintus Sertorius, but having said that I have to admit you have got a point, there are no other famous Quintus Sertoriuses, so Sertorius is quite unique. This would put him in another category; the category of the likes of Cicero, Pompey, Sulla, Lucullus, Crassus etc. So I am torn. Again my personal preference is Quintus Sertorius so I don't see the need to move the page. I think other users will have to weigh in. Is it Sertorius like Pompey or Quintus Sertorius like Gaius Marius?LuciusHistoricus (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I would point out that Wikipedia also has a number of non-canonical figures of Roman history who are referred only by one name, such as Trebonius, Sejanus and, as you've already mentioned, Lucullus, so I guess you could group Sertorius with them. I'll put a notice to alert others to the suggestion, and leave the issue in abeyance in the meantime. Aforst1 (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't move the article. As P Aculeius says in the other discussion, it has been stable since its creation eighteen years ago. Don't fix what isn't broken. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) Aforst1 (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Quintus Sertorius → Sertorius – WP:CONCISE, WP:CRITERIA; nobody else of note with that name Aforst1 (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. As a long-time editor and member of WP:CGR, I prefer that articles on Romans be listed under their tria nomina whenever possible—or in this case, duo nomina. While we have exceptions for a number of very famous individuals, those are mainly the result of long-standing consensus, often involving the participation of the broader WP community, rather than just CGR. This article has been stable at its present title since its creation in 2002. I won't argue that the general isn't by far the most prominent member of his gens—although at least one other attained the praetorship—but even so, insisting that the article be moved when it can easily be reached by anyone searching for it makes our collection of Roman biographical articles less consistent, more of a hodgepodge, and benefits no-one. P Aculeius (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed! We shouldn't move the article. As P Aculeius says, it has been stable since its creation eighteen years ago. Don't fix what isn't broken. It's Quintus Sertorius like Gaius Marius! LuciusHistoricus (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per P Aculeius ~ HAL333 18:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Assorted issues, July 2024

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome § Questions about Quintus Sertorius

Continued from discussion at WT:CGR:

I would merge. The topics are sufficiently different. The article on Sertorius should concentrate on Sertorius; the article on the war should take a broader view. I am not, however, entirely sure about the quality of the sourcing in the article on Sertorius. Matyszak isn't great; Telford is unreliable; there seems to be a bit of a heavy reliance on primary sources as well. I think there are also some issues with dated historiography. Something that jumps immediately just from the info box is "populares": no such faction or political party ever existed; it is a 19th century historiographical fiction. Further on the page itself probably should be on the relevant talk. I am unsure also as to close paraphrasing. Inasmuch as such problems exist, I would fix them and then do rescoping. Ifly6 (talk) 2:39 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Tribunate and praetorship

Re Tribune of the plebs ... 87 BC. Most modern sources seem to reject tribunate in 87. Per Pina Polo on repulsae, via DPRR, he was evidently unsuccessful in the elections for 88 (meaning he would not serve in 87). This is similarly accepted by Brennan 2000 p 503 Sertorius was a failed candidate for the tribunate of (probably) 88. Konrad seems to place him as urban praetor in 85 or 84; Brennan rejects the then-accepted date of Sertorius' praetorship (83) as too late and puts forward arguments against an early praetorship (86 or 85); if we need to have exactly one year I would probably put 84. I'll edit the current dash to or and remove the entry on the tribunate shortly. Ifly6 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Inasmuch as I can confirm via the BMCR review that Konrad does actually believe in a tribunate in 87 – he makes a very tentative case for a tribunate in 87 (59–62) – it is at least worth mentioning as a possibility or aside in notes. But, I think, still not in the infobox. Ifly6 (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Konrad does believe Sertorius could have been tribune of the plebs in 87 BC, arguing for a failed candidacy in 89 BC. But he says it is conjectural, based on a synthesis of the circumstantial evidence and thus not known for certain.

There's no need to go over the points he argues for this tentative case, since as he puts it himself, "In the current debate the case [Sertorius' tribunate] for either year, 89 as well as 88, remains replete with unverifiable assumptions and conjectures. No further argumentation can be based on the presumed year of Sertorius' failed candidacy." (p. 61) I don't think it's particularly worth mentioning in the article. Harren the Red (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd have it as a footnote. Just something like But see Konrad 1994, pp. 59–62, for conjectural argumentation that Sertorius served as plebeian tribune in 87 BC. would probably be most appropriate. Definitely not worth mentioning in the infobox if Konrad also softens the language on it so much. Ifly6 (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems logical. Will do. Harren the Red (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Formatting

The current version of the article has a number of malformed quotes and parameters. Use {{quote}} instead of ::. (I also prefer it to blocktext HTML tags because it works well with the 2017 Wikitext editor's highlighting.) Where pages are plural, as in a range or in multiple citations, in {{sfn}} use |pp= instead of singular |p=. Ifly6 (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

(?<!p)p=\d+(, |[-–])\d+}}. This is a useful regular expression to find page ranges which are improperly marked with |p=. Similarly pp=\d+(?=}}) can help find singular pages which are improperly marked with |pp=. Neither of these will operate with Roman numeral pages like |p=xvii. Ifly6 (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:ERA a non-breaking space   should be added between the year and BC. This can by typed in the 2017 editor very easily by hitting Ctrl+Space (Windows) or ⌘ Command+Space (Mac). Alternatively, the template {{nbsp}} can be used. Ifly6 (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LOGICAL requires placement of punctuation (commas, full stops, question marks, exclamation marks, etc) outside of quotes unless the quote actually contains that punctuation regardless of WP:ENGVAR. Ifly6 (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Harren the Red: I don't want to keep bothering you on formatting since I know it can be annoying, but I want to note that {{sfn|Plutarch|1911|p=22.6}} doesn't work. First, the anchor for Plut. Sert. is set up verbatim; second, ancient primary sources are not customarily cited on page numbers but rather on book and chapters. So the right parameters would be {{sfn|Plut. ''Sert.''|loc=22.6}} (in this instance). See eg this diff and this WP:CGR guide to primary sources (especially §§ Citation and Shortened footnotes). You can also install a user script to help detect {{harv}} errors. Ifly6 (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Not a problem! I was actually trying to figure out how to correct that as you did it (you can check our edit times; minutes apart!). I've figured out by now about the anchors and locants, and I'll do my best to follow the formatting after taking a look at those guides and installing that script. I don't want to have to have you overlook all of my edits to make sure they aren't broken as well! Harren the Red (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey Ifly, I think you made a mistake in one of your recent edits. At the end of 'Sulla's consulship and the bellum Octavianum', you posted 'Template:Vnspan'. I'm assuming it was incorrectly implemented as it now shows up as red text at the end of the paragraph. Just thought I'd let you know; as I do not know the intent of your edit exactly nor what template you were aiming to use, I will elect not to fix it myself. Harren the Red (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I've changed it from {{vn span}} to {{cn span}}, as used at the end of the previous paragraph and for which the parameters are appropriate; hope that's right. We do reference Swann for "Sertorius declared for Cinna and the populares", but does he really say something to that effect? He seems clear that the populares weren't a party in the modern sense. NebY (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah - you've dealt with it while I was being slow. NebY (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll doublecheck later, but I'm pretty sure Spann calls it the Cinna-Marian faction (maybe Cinno-Marian?). Much of the populares/optimates language littered across the article are artifacts of it's older state. This has brought to my attention the need to change the language to Marian/Sullan where appropriate, and it will probably be the next thing I do when I get the time to. Harren the Red (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that's probably the right template to use. Thanks all for noticing the error. I probably thought {{vn}} would have an analogous template to {{cn span}}.

As to what to call factions. It would do no good just to find-replace all old references to the putative "optimates" and "populares" with "Sullan" and "Marian". They sometimes really mean different things. This is, yet more work, but we should base our narrative around what the reliable sources indicate rather than what na old source indicated with some labels replaced. Ifly6 (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Long block quotes

We should not be presenting information in these long block quotes. I haven't taken a long look at them right now but it has code smell:

1. If the long block quotes are of something that is still within copyright, then it is probably WP:COPYVIO.
2. If the long block quotes are old enough to be out of copyright, then:
   1. If it's a modern source, it's old enough to probably be out of date;
   2. If it's an ancient source, presenting it by itself would raise WP:PRIMARY concerns.

I am not yet saying that all the long block quotes should be removed, but they should at least be reconsidered. If they are long and anecdotal, they might not add much to the presentation. If they are short, it becomes unclear why they are so separated. Ifly6 (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Anecdotes

I would encourage trimming the anecdotes and purple prose. For example:

On a moonless night in the year 80 BC, Sertorius sailed his forces from Tingis across the Gibraltar strait back to Hispania. A small fleet under Aurelius Cotta from the coastal town of Mellaria tried to stop him, but he pushed them aside and landed his army at the small fishing town of Baelo near the Pillars of Hercules. Rumours of his army spread far and wide in Hispania. At this point, it was composed of 2,600 Roman legionaries and 700 Libyans.

This is eminently serviceable as Sertorius crossed the strait at Gibraltar at Tingis in 80 BC, landing at Baelo. According to ____, his army was composed of 2,600 Romans and 700 Libyans. On momentary examination, Plut. Sert. 12.2. Re the underline, in general, I am wary of ancient numbers and believe they should be sourced directly along with parallel citations to who believes them. Cf this meme.^[Humor] Ifly6 (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

As much as I rather like that meme (you gotta love ancient sources), you have a good point. I think the issue with the Sertorian War, like so many other ancient conflicts, we only really know troop amounts from ancient numbers. In any case, when I start merging with the Sertorian War article it'll be presented in the way you describe. I'm certain Spann has some discussion on the figures. Harren the Red (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Quotes

By the way, Wikipedia uses double quotes " and not single quotes per MOS:QUOTES. Ifly6 (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sertorius and Appian, Livy, and the Grass Crown, July 2024

I post this to clarify two things for what I plan to edit. First, the notion by Spann that Livy was 'hostile' to Sertorius due to his affinity for Pompey, and second Sertorius' Grass Crown.

Livy

Konrad refutes Spann's claim that Livy was 'hostile' to Sertorius. For the Sertorian War a la Livy, we have the periochae from Book 90-96 and a singular long fragment from Book 91. Compared to Appian, who is hostile, it appears Livy presented Sertorius relatively neutrally. Periochae 93.5 has praise for Sertorius, while 96.4 has a short character assessment of him after his death. The epitomator writes "he [Sertorius] had been a great leader and against two commanders, Pompey and Metellus, he had often been successful, although in the end, he changed into a savage and prodigal man." This is a rather accurate account of Sertorius, not really 'hostile'. The length of this assessment has Konrad point out that Livy probably wrote a "substantial obituary" for Sertorius, which is a curious thing to include if he hated the man. Further, in the extended fragment of Book 91 which details Sertorius' movements and instructions for the opening of the campaign in 76 BC, Livy presents Sertorius as an able Roman commander, and his actions are presented quite objectively. Konrad writes that Livy saw Sertorius not as an "Iberianized robber baron" but "a great Roman whose life went all wrong". Obviously, Livy is the only source for the movements he presents, but none are openly tinged with dislike (like Appian in some cases) and follow what we know of Sertorius quite well (cunctatio is practically his strategic trademark in the war, after all). Harren the Red (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

If the best sources on Sertorius agree that Livy was not hostile, then it should be so reported. If, however, Konrad and Spann disagree on this (as you seem to imply), we should discuss it somewhat. To what does Spann point to justify his belief in Livian hostility? If both views can be summarised succinctly, and Spann's beliefs are not arbitrary, they should both be presented. If classicists now trend toward Konrad and against Spann, this too should be cited – a source should say this – and presented. Ifly6 (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll look for Spann's justification on the Livian hostility, but all I remember from the book off hand is that it was based on Livy's favour toward Pompey, Sertorius' antagonist in Spain. I'll scan Konrad and look for specific refutations of Spann's claim as well, to see if I can synthesize anything succinct enough to put in the main article. Harren the Red (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem there's any clear answer on priority between Spann and Konrad: that people are still citing both implies both are still relevant. A short look in relatively recent introductory material: Flower Roman republics (2010) p 139 n 6 (both); Steel End of the Roman republic (2013) p 105 n 100 (citing only Spann); Konrad "From the Gracchi to the first civil war" in Rosenstein and Morstein-Marx, eds, Companion to the Roman republic (2006) pp 186–7 (both); Ungern-Sternberg in Flower, ed, Cambridge companion to the Roman republic (2nd edn, 2014) p 89 n 41 (= p 97 n 41) (citing Konrad and one König Klio 82 (2000) pp 441–58). Ifly6 (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. That Konrad is newer and refutes several of Spann's claims, rather reliably, I assume does not count for much considering that is my personal opinion as an editor? I will try to be balanced in the revamped citations. After I get through adding Spann and Konrad, I plan to look through other reliable sources for further confirmations and smaller details. Chronology for the War in particular is certainly a next step, and Brennan's "Spain in the Period after Sulla" chapter seems a detailed discussion (along with Konrad's article) that I will read thoroughly when I get the time. Harren the Red (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Editors' opinions on the credibility of arguments are valuable but do not go very far. If the WP:HQRS disagree then both should be presented per WP:NPOV. Editors' opinions as to how "fringe" something is must be measured against what the HQRS in the academe are citing. For example, someone saying that a book is "fringe", when that same book is regularly cited by and engaged with in journal articles and later publications, is an indication of the editor's bias (or, uncharitably, ignorance) and not the book's fringe-ness.

While WP:AGEMATTERS, so long as recent publications are still engaging with the old source – unless the engagement is little more than "point and laugh" or "look how far we have come" dismissal (most citations of Gibbon) – that implies that the older source is not yet obsolete. It's important not to confuse the heuristic of age with a blind deference to novelty. For example, we shouldn't just accept that the (almost universally held to be fictitious) First Catilinarian conspiracy should be re-promoted to historical event just because Woodman 2021 so argues. However, many editors, though not all, presume a source to be obsolete unless shown otherwise when they are sufficiently old. How old is enough to trigger that presumption can differ greatly between fields, topics, and editors. Ifly6 (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Appian

Appian, conversely, possibly reflecting Sulla's memoirs, is evidently quite disfavourable to Sertorius. It's littered throughout his writing, but the example that comes to mind immediately to me is Sertorius' attempts to besiege Metellus' camp after the battle of Saguntum and Appian labeling his actions 'contemptuous'. Sertorius' senate is made in "derision" of the real one, and Appian also, inexplicably, takes Sertorius white doe -- a tool by which he gained the awe and support of native Iberians -- and has Sertorius himself be manipulated by it. Sertorius was a politician, and the doe was a clever political stunt. Are we really to believe that "When this fawn was not in sight Sertorius considered it a bad omen. He became low-spirited and abstained from fighting; nor did he mind the enemy's scoffing at him about the fawn." (Appian, BC 1.8.109)? By making Sertorius fall for his own ruse, Appian is making him more of a fool than he was. Spann notes that Appian's portrayal of Sertorius' "heaven-sent madness" is at odds with his own belief that "if Sertorius had lived longer, the war would not have ended so soon or so easily" but misses the point by denying Sertorius descent into tyranny. Appian probably exaggerated existing reports of Sertorius' tyranny (out of his own dislike); Livy's periochae reports on them, as does Plutarch. Konrad, I recall, also agrees that Appian very much did not like Sertorius, and the substance of his discussion on the matter is similar to here.

The 'hostile sources concede he was a great leader' bit in Legacy need not be deleted though. Appian many times notes Sertorius' proficiency in warfare, so it can just be changed a bit.

So Appian was certainly not a fan of Sertorius, while Livy was not 'hostile'. I intend to edit the Legacy section with that in mind. I'm just posting my thoughts so my edits do not come out of nowhere. Harren the Red (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This seems rather clear cut. I think from the other comments I made at this date, below and after, should imply what I think you should do clearly. Ifly6 (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Grass crown

The second point I want to raise before I delete it from numerous articles is Sertorius' Grass Crown. Before I began editing the article (and as of now too), it states quite matter-of-factly that Sertorius won the Crown during the incident in Castulo. The only citation I can find for this is Pliny's account of those he could find who won Grass Crowns in his Natural History. Spann rejected this as being proof Sertorius won one, Konrad also agrees, as does other studies of Sertorius' life/career, which makes me confused as to how it was ever tied to Castulo specifically.

Pliny writes in Volume 22.6 of Natural History how Sulla claims in his own memoirs he got the Crown during the Social War in Nola. Pliny then writes "If there is any truth in this statement, I can only say that it renders his memory all the more execrable, and that, by his proscriptions, with his own hand he tore this crown from his brow, for few indeed were the citizens whom he thus preserved, in comparison with those he slaughtered at a later period. And let him even add to this high honour his proud surname of "Felix," if he will; all the glories of this crown he surrendered to Sertorius, from the moment that he put his proscribed fellow-citizens in a stage of siege throughout the whole world."

I think this passage makes clear Pliny did not like Sulla, but the "crown he surrendered" is to me very much metaphorical, as Spann writes. He's making the point that Sertorius had "all the glories" of the crown (i.e., he protected proscribed Romans, in a similar vein to how the Crown is usually granted for saving an entire legion or army of Roman soldiers) after Sulla's proscriptions. How was this ever tied to Castulo? Are there any other sources for this? I am baffled at how certainly this was presented, even in the Grass Crown article. Surely Plutarch, the sympathetic biographer, would have mentioned such a great honour for his hero Sertorius in the Life of Sertorius if he had won it? If anyone can find more information on this, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I am inclined to delete it from here and the Grass Crown page. A single obscure reference from a primary source, probably misinterpreted, is not firm enough evidence for this in my view. Harren the Red (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a strong case for excising the existing statements. I greatly appreciate the work you've done in searching through the citations. However, what specifically Plin NH says is largely irrelevant given that Spann and Konrad disagree. What Wikipedia should report is what the WP:HQRS (high quality reliable sources) report. Classical studies is fortunately an academic field and that means what we report should reflect whatever the academic consensus is. Inasmuch as academic classical historians reject this claim, as you imply with Spann rejected this... Konrad also agrees, that is the end of it: academic secondary sources basically always beat editors' interpretations of primary sources. If someone later objects to the removal, provide quote snippets. Ifly6 (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the confirmation! Harren the Red (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Re Pliny's remark regarding Sertorius possibly winning the Grass Crown, tied sometimes to the Castulo incident, is refuted by scholars. Castulo did, however, earn Sertorius considerable fame in Hispania and abroad, aiding his future political career. I would cite the relevant passage of Pliny.

You can do a parallel citation with {{sfnm}} like so {{sfnm|Spann|1p=20|Konrad|1994|2pp=52|Plin. ''NH''|3loc=22.6}} . However, we should also consider adding the year back to Spann's anchor; doing so would make |1a1= and the like unnecessary. For the anchor to Plin. NH to work we'll have to add it to the bibliography. Further information at WP:CGR/Guides/Primary sources. Having the primary sources cited is important in making our articles useful to the specialists who would consult them.

Also, can you quote what Spann and Konrad said directly? If Pliny says nothing about Castulo, as you imply above, it should not go here. It should go in an overview of his military career (possibly § Legacy). The statement that it is sometimes tied to Castulo, which places it here, would otherwise require a source. Ifly6 (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

That is the source of the rub! Konrad and Spann both seem to suggest, if only by chronology (they only talk about the Grass Crown right after Castulo) that the crown is linked to the Castulo incident. Konrad cites an older work by Scardigli that refutes the Grass Crown following Castulo as well... But Pliny says nothing of it! It must be from an older work on Sertorius that I have not read, now that I think of it. You are right though, Legacy fits it better. I can do a more thorough section on the honours and what ancient sources say about Sertorius' generalship in Legacy; this will fit well there. Harren the Red (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Page image, July 2024

I can't seem to find any rules or guidelines on what conditions are necessary for a page image, or standards on historical pages for this. Although no busts or coinage of Sertorius survives, we do have numerous artworks of him as in the article. I'm personally not a huge fan of any of them (Sertorius lost an eye, dammit! Why do none of them have that?), but I think Sertorius deserves an image of some kind. Are these artworks generally not permissible for historical figures as page images?

If anything, I am partial to this chromolithograph (even though it also misses the eye thing). I recall seeing Look and Learn as among the sources of free images that can be used on Wikipedia, so I would appreciate getting further opinions on this, but as I am not experienced in copyright for images I will not do anything without knowing for certain this image is 'safe'. It says it was created in the 19th century, so surely enough time has passed for it to become common use? Harren the Red (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: Have you any advice on images? Ifly6 (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I pinged UC because I have the somewhat radical view that only contemporary depictions should be used in articles on Romans. As corollaries, (1) images from later periods are acceptable only in sections on legacy and classical reception; (2) if there are no contemporary depictions then there should be no depiction at all. Ifly6 (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I started a bit of an argument on this topic a while ago on Antistia, who has no extant portraits, when I tried to use a contemporary-ish image of an unknown woman of approximately the right age and social class. We eventually decided not to use it in the lead, and came to a broad consensus as follows:

• The lead image should at least purport to be an image of the person: it's not a major problem if that identification is modern or uncertain, (or indeed, as with Homer, impossible) but the threshold was felt to be that if no museum would at least put "said to be of [subject]" on the object, we shouldn't either.
• The idea of having a Wikipedian draw a portrait of Antistia was discussed -- it was felt that this would be wrong. It was felt that the rationale for including "modern" depictions was that the images are themselves useful to illustrate how a person has been imagined or portrayed: for example, a fanciful picture of Caesar on a 16th-century coin would tell you something interesting about the ideological place of Rome where it was minted.

I have some sympathy with the idea that if there are no contemporary depictions then there should be no depiction at all, but it is not a reflection of consensus as established in practice across Wikipedia's articles:

• Looking only at Featured Articles, we have for example Edmund Ætheling, Death of Cleopatra, Zhou Tong (archer), Philitas of Cos and others, where no contemporary depiction survives, using non-contemporary images as their lead images. Now, admittedly, these mostly use images of vaguely the right time and culture (so Edmund Atheling has a picture from a medieval manuscript). However, Archimedes has a C19th painting as its lead image, and four other modern images of him that are themselves notable and interesting later in the article.
• Looking beyond just the lead image, as far as I can see, the vast majority of the FA biographies under Wikiproject Rome contain at least one "modern" image. There are several reasons why, all things being equal, including images is better than not including them. Moreover, someone's Nachleben in historiography, literature and art is itself a valuable part of their Wikipedia article, as we would expect to find it in an academic biography of them (especially in Classics!).

To sum that lot up -- whatever image we choose, we must be clear about what we're doing -- if the portrait is later, or drawn from imagination, we should say so. If a contemporary image exists, it should be used even in preference to a "better" later image, but if none does and a later depiction exists which itself has some artistic or historical notability, I would support its inclusion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed breakdown! I think the best case for Sertorius then would be the right circular portrait on this Porta Romana in Sertorius' birthplace, Norcia (here, you have to zoom a bit). @Ifly6 I would be curious as to your opinion as well. Spann, in his study on Sertorius, says this was the only depiction of the general he could find, but he does not give a date for its creation. According to http://www.visitsitaly.com/umbria/norcia/, Sabine ruins (Sertorius was a Sabine) are located outside of this Porta Romana, but I cannot find any information regarding when the gate itself was built (even on Italian websites!), or when the portraits were added to it. Presumably the Porta Romana itself dates to Roman times (probably Imperial?), while the portraits were certainly added sometime later.

Sertorius is placed opposite to Ufens, another Norcian 'enemy of Rome.' Overall, I think this image has some historical notability, given it was made by Norcians. Compared to the later Spanish art pieces of Sertorius at least, this has a distinct connection to his birthplace. Some images of Sertorius have been made using this portrait as a base, but obviously the unedited base should be displayed if anything, not the offshoots made from it.

But again, I ask about the copyright and ability to use this on Wikipedia. This is the highest quality image of this gate (and thus Sertorius portrait on it) I could find online, via Pinterest of all things. As I am in North America, I cannot walk to Nursia and take a picture myself. Would it even be usable? What would be the procedure for doing so?

There is another decent image of this gate with Sertorius' portrait, but it is covered, inexplicably, by a few tree branches due to the photographer's angle.

I would appreciate any ideas on this! Harren the Red (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

After looking a bit further, the image of the gate is on wikimedia commons (here) but not very high quality. One cannot see Sertorius' face very well. Harren the Red (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Was the gate not built in the 19th century? https://norciaintavola.it/it/blog/vetusta-nursia-le-porte-dell-antica-cinta-muraria-di-norcia-n104 Ifly6 (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It appears so! I reckon 1869 is too modern then. A shame. Harren the Red (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Could I be a little radical and suggest this coin under an a fair-use rationale, as a historical portrait of a person no longer alive? As far as I can find out, it's the only known ancient likeness of Sertorius, and the presumptive copyright holder has no real commercial interest in the image (the coin is sold and the auction long finished), so I think the NFCC case would be very easy to make. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm all for it! Harren the Red (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This is great! Heartily endorse the idea of the coin. Ifly6 (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

What is the procedure for adding it to the infobox? Do you intend to, or should I? I am still a relatively new editor so I am unsure as to the specifics. I presume you have to upload it to wikimedia commons first? Harren the Red (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It would first need uploading to Wikimedia Commons. I'm not exactly sure about the proper copyright tagging on their side; could you advise UndercoverClassicist? Ifly6 (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It can't be uploaded to Commons -- it needs to be uploaded to Wikipedia (if you hit "Upload file" on the left-hand menu, it's the "Upload a non-free file" option). There are a few questions you'll have to answer to explain why the image has encyclopaedic value, and why no free-use image exists that could do the same job. Once you've done that, it'll give you a filename for the image: you then need to add |image=, |alt= (a text description of the image) and |caption= to the infobox, with the filename as the image parameter. If you upload it (cropped to just the obverse, ideally), I'm happy to take a look at the fair-use rationale and tweak it if/as necessary. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll get on it, and appreciate your further help! What would be the author of this image, and the original publication/date of publication? I can't seem to find who manufactured it (or the specific time), nor when it was put up to auction. Would the RBW collection count as an author, or the website itself, the CNG? I am unfamiliar with numismatics! All the other questions I have answered.

I also don't see the necessity though to crop to just the obverse. Sertorius' white stag (actually a doe) was quite famous in ancient sources, one of the notable things about him. I think both faces of the coin should be included because of that! Or is it a rule, or general preference, for the portrait only? I could have sworn other historical figures' articles on Wikipedia have both sides of a coin on the page image even if the other side is not part of the portrait, but I may be wrong. @Ifly6, can you advise as well? Harren the Red (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Would the date of publication be the purchase date, aka 14 December 2009? Harren the Red (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking again at the auction page, there may be a bigger problem -- it gives the date of manufacture as C18th, which means that it's (at best) a copy, or more likely a complete fake. I can't get find the 8th volume of Rasche, which the auction page cites (and would imply that it was real?), to see what's going on here, unfortunately. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. I can't seem to find it anywhere either. I will still advocate for this coin's use, if at least that something is better than nothing, and given the citation it might be a real likeness. Harren the Red (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer two versions: one with both sides and one with just the portrait. The portrait version could be used in the infobox. The version with both sides could then be used in the body where relevant. I'm not entirely sure about the metadata. I'll ping our resident numismatist: T8612. Ifly6 (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me (I will do both), but please read UndercoverClassicists' comment above. The coin is probably a copy of a design that may have been an ancient likeness, and we cannot verify the citation provided to be certain. Does this change your stance on its usage? Harren the Red (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for pointing me to that. I'm not sure. If it were not legitimate in terms of being a contemporary or at least period-relevant piece, I wouldn't use it. If T8612 responds I think he'll be able to advise on this matter much better than I can. Ifly6 (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If the coin is just another "reception" image, then we don't have a good FUR, since comparable free-use images exist. Interested to know what T8612's view is UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

On a second more thorough look, I have found the J. C. Rasche volume spoken of, and the entry of Sertorius (Quintus) on page 717 (page 380 in the viewer) as described. I was only able to access it through my university, so I do not know if it will work for anyone else: Link (here). It appears that the inscription itself, Q. SERTORIVS and PROVIDEN MILITAR, along with the two images (Sertorius' head and a stag) are accurate as well. For this coin, it cites sources I do not know of though (Vaill, col I p. 12. 22.) I'm sure T8612 or anyone with more experience in numismatics will be able to interpret this better than me. Harren the Red (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

"Vaill" is Jean Foy Vaillant, though I'm not sure which volume -- most of his works are on Archive.org, but I haven't been able to find the right one. There's another reference to the coin from 1864 here, with a small line drawing on what the pdf gives as p. 521. That at least is definitely free-use, and the writer is absolutely certain that the coin was authentic, but I'd be keen to hear a more modern and detached view. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Amazing find! Ought I put this line drawing up as the image until the coin gets verified (or not)? Harren the Red (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind. @Ifly6, @UndercoverClassicist, I've finally read this riddle. Here is the origin of the coin. It appears this image of Sertorius (face obverse, stag reverse) originates from "emulation and imitation in the numismatic fantasies of Valerio Belli", a Rennaissance era medallist. It was apparently first struck by Valerio between 1500 or 1546, from the website. I would love -- and I'm being serious -- someone to prove me wrong, since I want to use this as an image being an accurate likeness!

I cannot find Valerio's work to verify whether this was based on some older reports of a Sertorian coin or other, and would thus appreciate further analysis from you both and T8612 whenever he reads this thread. But it appears, to my great sadness, that this is just a made up image. My guess would be that the C18th coin we first discussed is a reproduction created when this inscription and medal was rediscovered, or perhaps simply propagated, by Vaillant and Rasche. All that work for nothing!

I guess we're back to square one, then. I recall that there are Iberian coins made in Osca (Bolskan), Sertorius' capital in Hispania that are dated to his rule; would those be a good place to go? Harren the Red (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it was generally out of character for republican Romans to put their own likenesses on coins. I think Caesar was the first to have his likeness on a coin while he lived; Flaminius was "first" but those coins did not circulate at Rome. Prior to that, one only appeared on a coin when dead: for example, coins of Sulla postdate his death. They were also generally made, iirc, by moneyers flaunting their descent (eg Marcus Brutus minting coins depicting Lucius Brutus and Gaius Servilius Ahala). If this one is not legitimate and that trend holds, I would think there is likely no other option. Ifly6 (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• I haven't read everything, but the coin of Sertorius mentioned in the discussion is modern ("manufactured in the 18th century"). Sertorius never minted Roman coins, unfortunately. If there is no ancient depiction of him, then I think a modern painting/statue can be used, either the most famous of them, or the best picture we have on Commons. T8612 (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that was the conclusion we reached as well; the coin dates to the fanciful creation of a renaissance-era medallist! As for the image, I've put up an Iberian denarius that is dated to Sertorius' rule in Hispania, which is likely the closest we'll get to a historically relevant image for his article. I like the similarity it gives with the articles of other major figures in his period -- Marius and Sulla, mainly.

  It does not depict him, but nothing does that is not an invention of later times. I am happy with the coin as it is now, but if other editors wish for one of the art pieces to be put up, we can do it -- I'm just wary about it since a previous edit on the page tried to put up an art piece for the page image, and a more experienced editor immediately took it down. I prefer the coin simply for historical relevance. Harren the Red (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Army, force, legion

A recent edit changed, in context, the word force to legion in the following:

Sertorius thoroughly outmaneuvered Pompey during the battle, forcing him to stay in place by threatening an attack from the rear, then killed his foragers and a Pompeian legion sent to relieve the foragers.

Is this accurate? A legion is not an army. Nor is it a force. It is a specific unit. Ifly6 (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes! The primary source for the Battle of Lauron are Plutarch and Frontinus' Strategemata (Livy's account is lost). Plutarch reports no figures, while Frontinus (2.5.31) cites this lost account of Livy and states that Pompey lost 10,000 men in the battle, along with the entire transport.

In Frontinus' account, after the foragers were killed, "Pompey sent out a legion under Decimus Laelius to reinforce his men, whereupon the [Sertorian] cavalry of the enemy, withdrawing to the right flank, pretended to give way, and then, passing round the legion, assaulted it from the rear, while those who had followed up the foragers attacked it from the front also. Thus the legion with its commander was crushed between the two lines of the enemy." Konrad and Spann accept these figures (p. 164; p. 96), and assume, mostly from lack of evidence otherwise, that the other 5,000 men Frontinus and Livy referred to were the foragers themselves. Thus, two legions were slain: 5,000 of the foragers, and 5,000 under Laelius. Pompey had (also from primary sources only, but modern historians accept the figures; I can find the citations if need be, and will when I rewrite the references for the section) 30,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry, so a loss of 10,000 would amount to 1/3 of his army. Harren the Red (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I was wary since many people (incorrectly) use legion and army associated with republican or imperial Rome interchangeably. Thanks for the confirmation. Also, I again recommend parallel citations for this sort of thing, especially with troop numbers that are from ancient sources. Ifly6 (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Duly noted! Harren the Red (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Good length?

What would be a good length of this article, in total? I have significantly trimmed the Sertorian War section (more remains to be done) and it stands, as of now, at 7161 words. I am mostly basing this off of the fact that the Marius and Sulla pages, respectively, are both ~8000 words, and this is appropriate given they are much more important figures in Roman history in general. Sertorius should certainly be shorter, but how much?

I still want to cut down Sertorian War more and rewrite some sections, but what do some of you think an ideal length would be? Curious to hear any ideas.

The cut sections for this article's Sertorian War section I will be merging into the existing Sertorian War article sometime later; as of now, it is threadbare and missing some information of import. Harren the Red (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, given WP:UPFRONT, should we not mention Sertorius' white fawn in the lede (possibly in how he gained the support of the Iberians, along with his milder governing)? Of the myriad other things he did, this is among the most famous (in ancient sources especially), the other being his story with the two horses. It can, I think, serve to 'grab' the reader, since it is pretty interesting on its face, and unique to Sertorius himself. Harren the Red (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I added it here: He gathered support from other Roman exiles and the native Iberian tribes – in part by using his tamed white fawn to paint himself as a religious leader before them – employing irregular warfare to defeat commanders repeatedly sent from Rome to subdue him. Ifly6 (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Cultural references etc

There is a discussion on my talk page relating to (first one now two) of my edits which had the effect of removing the previously present section on cultural references. The issue as I see it is mainly whether MOS:POPCULT permits the following references:

In fiction

• The 1662 French play Sertorius by Pierre Corneille and the 1679 English play Sertorius by John Bancroft both portray the events of the rebellion
• In Colleen McCullough's novels The First Man in Rome and Fortune's Favourites, Quintus Sertorius features as one of the secondary characters.
• In Steven Saylor's short story "The White Fawn", Sertorius features as one of the secondary characters.
• Sertorius is the main character in Vincent Davis II's historical fiction series The Sertorius Scrolls.

References

My reading of MOS:POPCULT emphasises this language: A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources ... A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth. The nature of that coverage, in my view, is that it must discuss the actual cultural impact. In this instance I believe that the kind of sourcing would be something akin to the chapter on the classical reception of Marcus Junius Brutus in Tempest Brutus: the noble conspirator (Yale 2017) (see my clarification below). It would not be a list of plays or works of historical fiction that merely mention Sertorius. What would be required for inclusion would be a reliable secondary source referencing the work as relevant for reception of the figure. Moreover, the nature of the reference must be weighed from the perspective of the sources on Sertorius rather than from the perspective of the sources on the works of fiction per Folly Mox.

I greatly appreciate that Vincentbdavisii (talk · contribs) has raised this issue so gracefully and disclosed his own authorship as required by WP:COI. I also believe that his engagement here at this talk page on this topic would be legitimate. We disagree and therefore have brought our previous discussion here. I don't want to put words in his mouth so leave it open for reply. Ifly6 (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Ifly6. Before anything else, I want to thank @Harren the Red, @LuciusHistoricus, @Newfoundlandguy, and all the other wiki editors who are working to improve historical pages like this. I've devoted much of my life's work to Quintus Sertorius, so it means a lot to see his page getting this kind of attention and support.

As @Ifly6 mentioned, I am the author of "The Sertorius Scrolls" series. Someone added it to the page previously, and I recently logged on to check if my latest release had been added, and realized that @Ifly6 had removed it from the fiction section. The reason listed was "obscure in fiction" so I reached out to ask what criteria was considered to make the determination, and we've been discussing the topic since then.

Although I've been using Wikipedia for reference for decades, I just recently created my account to begin this dialogue with @Ifly6, who was kind enough to send me Wikipedia:POPCULT and other resources to review.

I came to realize that my series was removed for lack of citation. After we began discussing the topic, @Ifly6 removed the entire fiction section for the same reason.

We've had a productive conversation, and I am very grateful for the time taken to respond to my questions and discuss this topic, but eventually we realized we are simply interpreting some of the text differently, and we wanted to seek the opinion of everyone else here as well.

After reading over the articles, I came to the conclusion that books like my own, and those by Steven Saylor and Colleen McCullough meet the criteria for being included on a page such as this.

We began our discussion about the need for citations and academic sources. The book @Ifly6 mentioned, Brutus: the noble conspirator (Yale 2017), is a scholarly, nonfiction history book taking a new look at the famous Roman. It makes sense that this title would require this sort of secondary source citation. But on the same Marcus Junius Brutus page, in the "In Popular Culture" section, there are several movies, plays, and novels about Marcus Brutus, and none of them have secondary sources, scholarly reviews, etc. Works of fiction are often reviewed by credible institutions such as Publishers Weekly, but they are very unlikely to be included in an academic paper.

When I mentioned that I've never seen works of fiction with the same burden of sourcing that would be required by nonfiction texts or a look at cultural relevance, @Ifly6 mentioned that many wikipedia's pages are outdated and that fiction references that are common place should be removed once someone finds the time.

I'm inclined to agree with much of wikipedia being outdated and much of it being cited improperly, but I do still believe the guidelines suggest works of fiction can and should be included under certain circumstances.

The first thing that caught my attention was on Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content: "When fictional characters are modeled after notable people or celebrities, they can be mentioned in the article about the person when the connection is identified in the primary source or attributed by a secondary source."

This seems to address a situation like the one we're discussing. The character in all the books in question are directly named Quintus Sertorius, and the events which take place closely resemble the historical detail.

While I agree with @Ifly6 that the section he referenced above does suggest a credible secondary source is needed to justify the inclusion of addressing a subject's cultural impact, I think we are interpreting the lines differently. In this section, "subject" seems to be speaking directly about the topic of the page, Quintus Sertorius in this case. And the secondary sources are needed to include/discuss the "cultural impact" of Quintus Sertorius. I believe the section I included above far more directly speaks to a work of fiction being included. However, if "subject" in this case does refer to the work of art in question, I still believe this is saying the secondary sources are required for "cultural impact" discussions, but doesn't necessarily address a work of fiction being included to begin with.

The next section I looked at was the following:

• Inclusion of more and more pop-culture details the more influential or general the topic is – A litany of the innumerable novels, TV shows, and films featuring Julius Caesar, dogs, New Hampshire, World War II, wizards, or hip hop is not useful to anyone. Topics of this level of world importance or broad generality never need pop-culture bulleted lists. Lists with bullets tend to grow until they become an indiscriminate collection of trivia. If a cultural references section is present in an article on WWII, for example, it should be reserved for major, in-depth treatments of the subject that have had lasting significance. As well, it should be written in prose, in paragraph form. This "raises the bar" for contributing to the section, and makes editors less likely to add trivia.
  • Don't include: Any of the thousands of romance novels that mention Paris
  • Consider including: The only English-language novel that features this article's obscure subject

The importance of the works it may be reasonable to mention in a pop-culture section should rise commensurately with the level of notability of the subject of the article in which the section appears. A nonfiction best-seller, or film that won major awards, about a historical figure is more likely to be encyclopedically relevant than a special issue of a magazine, or a one-hour TV documentary. The relative importance of or focus on the Wikipedia subject in the works should also rise with the article subject's notability.

This all seems to suggest to me that while a novel series about Julius Caesar might not necessarily be notable enough for inclusion because of the sheer amount of books about him, Quintus Sertorius is a much lesser known figure. There have been very few works of fiction about to Quintus Sertorius in the past 2,000 years. My belief is that the novels written by McCullough, Saylor, and myself are noteworthy and relevant because they are the few (or only) works of art devoted to Quintus Sertorius and have encouraged more conversation about the historical figure. In the examples listed above, I think the titles in question reflect the "only English-language novel that features this article's obscure subject" (ie, only fiction titles in history to focus on the life of Quintus Sertorius) than "Any thousands of romance novels that mention Paris."

Whether or not my books are added back, I do believe that works of fiction should be considered worthy of inclusion without academic sources, and my interpretation of the wiki guidelines suggests that the case. As someone who has researched many obscure historical figures throughout my life, I've always benefitted from being able to see noteworthy works of art dedicated to the subject, where any exist.

Regardless of the decision made on this issue, I appreciate all of you for taking the time to read this (admittedly lengthy) response, and for working to improve the information about a very important historical figure.

Vincent B. Davis II Vincentbdavisii (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

First, I want to thank you for approaching the topic so thoroughly and calmly! I'm still a relatively new editor; I've been deferring to @Ifly6 in terms of formatting and procedure because he is much more experienced in terms of what is "proper" on Wikipedia. I will say from my personal experience that many articles indeed include 'trivial' entries in their Popular Culture sections, and Ifly's argument about these being outdated seems to be broadly true. But I am persuaded mostly by the fact that Sertorius is so obscure to say their inclusion on his page is, on a second glance, warranted. I think these questions (from here) can be best used to explain my viewpoint on this:

When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:

1. Has the subject (if a person or organization) acknowledged the existence of the reference?
2. Have multiple reliable sources pointed out the reference?
3. Did any real-world event occur because of the cultural element covered by the reference?
4. Did the referencing material significantly depend on the specific subject? For example, if the reference is to a specific model of car, did the material use that model car for some reason, or was it just a case of "use a well-known name of a car"?

1 is not possible for a deceased historical figure, and novels of the type we are discussing are not likely to be discussed by reliable sources like journals or scholarly articles. Similarly 3, is not likely to follow. But I think 4 is the key point -- and it should be held in greater emphasis, because Sertorius is so obscure. I have not read @Vincentbdavisii's works, but have read both McCullough's and Saylor's stories. Both are (broadly; there are some inaccuracies, moreso in McCullough due to sheer length) accurate tellings of Sertorius' story. All of them, this is to say, significantly depend on the specific subject. I think the obscurity of Sertorius basically means no reliable secondary source will really -- at least for some time into the future, unless he suddenly gains in popularity -- ever assert the importance of any given work to knowledge of him.

There are few enough recent complete studies on the man himself; Spann and Konrad, the most authoritative sources, are from 1987 and 1994, respectively. The idea that a reliable work will be produced discussing the practically negligible cultural impact of Sertorius and cite one of the very few books that covers this meaningfully is very far-fetched. This means that the cultural works produced on Sertorius will, in a certain sense, remain even more obscure. I think there is a certain merit in the argument that placing works in a Popular Culture section can help promote greater understanding, so long as they are, as the article says, "curated carefully," and that there is less need to be picky when a historical figure is less obscure, like Sertorius. People reading his page all the way to the bottom are already probably pretty interested in ancient Roman history, and being given a curated list of the very few works that discuss a figure they are interested in at any meaningful length seems to me generally harmless. But at the same time, I understand the view that guidelines ought to be applied wholesale and not picked and chosen.

I am inclined to say that as long as a popular work covers Sertorius deeply and relies on the sources to tell his story somewhat accurately, it can be included. This does not mean it, regulations-wise via MOS:POPCULT should. I am only specifying this contingency, as I hope should be clear, due to how obscure a figure Sertorius is. This is only my opinion; neither here nor there, but if it is left in I am not against it. I am sure more experienced editors will share their own thoughts though, and I implore them to do so. Harren the Red (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I realise now that I should check what I link rather than just rely on my memory. In In this instance I believe that the kind of sourcing would be something akin to the chapter on the classical reception of Marcus Junius Brutus in Tempest Brutus: the noble conspirator (Yale 2017) I meant Overthrow of the Roman monarchy § Legacy. As to Marcus Junius Brutus § In popular culture, I was clearly confused between what I did (rewrite § Legacy) and what I had read: most relevantly, Tempest discusses reception of Brutus in the book on page 231:

When we encounter Brutus today in modern representations on TV, stage and film, the Brutus we see is predominantly the product of Shakespeare. Thus, when he appears, he is more of a troubled soul than a public symbol, and the result is often sympathetic: a tragic hero akin to Hamlet. Best known, perhaps, is James Mason's appearance as the romantic idealist Brutus in Joseph Mankiewicz's 1953 film Julius Caesar. But different takes on the Shakespearean play have also proved possible such as ... [that of] John Wood in Trevor Nunn's 1972 adaptation, or Anton Lesser's masterly presentation of Brutus as an unsympathetic intellectual in Deborah Warner's 2005 production. More recently, we have seen Tobias Menzies on our screens as a youthful Brutus caught in the horns of a dilemma in HBO's Rome (2005–7)...

It is this kind of passage which is that which I believe is needed to justify inclusion in these kinds of trivia lists. Similarly, see Rawson "Cassius and Brutus" in Past perspectives (Cambridge 1986). In essence, I believe a high quality reliable source must mention a work for it to be made culturally relevant enough for inclusion. Ifly6 (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

This is also relevant: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 63#popular-culture-RfC. Ifly6 (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for the thoughtful replies. That summary certainly makes more sense than the previous one. I do think it’s worth noting that this is an extremely niche case study, and is only looking at modern film. The works of McCullough for example, are not included in this summary but are still on that same entry on Marcus Brutus.

There is also the issue of notoriety. While Brutus might not be as well known as Julius Caesar, he is much more a household name than Quintus Sertorius. Like @Harren the Red mentioned, with Konrad and Spann no longer with us, it’s highly unlikely we’ll see such a discussion on Sertorius.

As to the verifiability article, I may be misunderstanding, but as I read through the text I see they’re largely having a discussion about REFERENCES. Examples given are bands mentioned in an episode of The Simpsons or buildings mentioned in an episode of Seinfeld. That is very different from if the entire storyline of The Simpsons was based around a particular band, which is the case for the books in question and Quintus Sertorius. I still believe the portions I shared above are the only ones I’ve seen which refer specifically to works of art dedicated in their entirety to the subject of the page.

Successful fiction works do have second and third party references, but if they are required to be academic in nature, very very few will ever have that opportunity.

Artistic portrayals are an important aspect of how we understand a subject. A passing reference to Sertorius in a song or movie wouldn’t be worthy of inclusion, but it appears to me the inclusion is merited by Wikipedia:POPCULTURE for works which are devoted to a subject in their entirety.

Thank you both again. I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others. Vincentbdavisii (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Ifly6 is correct to point to that RFC (RFCs are one of Wikipedia's formal processes for establishing community consensus, and their outcomes remain in effect indefinitely.) The full link is Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 63#RfC: Are "in popular culture" entries "self-sourcing" or do they require a reference under Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources?. The summary was The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases. A tertiary source is even better, if available. In the rare case that a primary source is judged to be sufficient, it should be properly cited. The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance. Comments that references are required encapsulate, in the terminology Wikipedians use talking with each other in discussions such as that, that inclusion is only warranted if supported by citations to sources establishing not merely the existence of the work but also its significance.

It should go without saying that such significance must go far beyond being the only work of fiction directly concerning our subject (or the only work in English known to the editor who wishes to insert it, and so on). Producing a work of fiction (novel, comic book miniseries, TV drama, whatever) on a niche subject not previously the focus of one does not and can not guarantee its inclusion in a Wikipedia article on that subject. NebY (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Vincentbdavisii. Academic sources on cultural references of (relatively) obscure characters are mostly non-existent. This sort of references is needed to create a section on the cultural legacy of a character or subject, but not for a simple list of appearances in works of fiction. Those lists are actually very useful; where else on the internet can you find such a consistent set of references, even for completely unknown people? T8612 (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with Vincentbdavisii. I don't see the harm of including a short list of cultural references at the bottom of historical articles. They serve to expand the topic's relevance beyond the merely academic to a wider audience. Many people's main exposure to history comes through historical fiction, whether it be books, movies, or television. For good or ill, this is a fact and rather than ignoring it we should embrace this source of interest in history and use it to funnel people to academically credible sources. Likewise, people coming to the topic from a more academic background may find it interesting to know how the topic has been referenced in popular culture. Newfoundlandguy (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Being very useful still doesn't justify inclusion in this encyclopedia. Yes, sometimes editors do ask where else on the web they can put their material; sometimes the answer's "the world's largest fan wiki platform" fandom.com, sometimes "a blog", sometimes it's merely that we don't know and it's not up to us - just, not here. I've seen articles that listed every IC of a particular type for years, with extraordinary detail gleaned from datasheets that are no longer published, deleted; extensive tables of cheat codes, chopped out; long collections of places the words "Animal Farm" have been used, removed. (Admittedly I don't remember anyone arguing that the last was useful, only giving "the reader the fullest depth and breadth", but utility was argued for the others.) It might not seem it sometimes in this giant project, but we do have criteria and the community has, as in the RFC discussion above, established and reiterated the criteria and the underlying principle: we don't add anything and everything we know about. NebY (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who has weighed in. It appears there is a healthy balance between the two opinions/interpretations.

I'm not sure if this sort of thing is typically decided by a vote, by senior voices, or some other manner. Regardless, I wanted to express my gratitude.

I'm going to bow out of the discussion, respectfully, and allow you all to take it from here.

As long as everyone is okay with it, I would love to contribute to discussions about the page, and help out with research in any way I can. Vincentbdavisii (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that's graceful and gracefully said. I should think you're very well placed to contribute to discussions and research! NebY (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

My apologies to Vincent but I have to agree with this Producing a work of fiction... on a niche subject not previously the focus of one does not and can not guarantee its inclusion in a Wikipedia article on that subject. If I wrote a short story about the travails of Marcus Caecilius Cornutus (urban praetor 43 BC) as Octavian marched on Rome, its mere existence would not be sufficient to have it included at the bottom of that article. What would be needed would be a source saying something like "Cornutus, an obscure figure known to modern viewers only by Ifly6's short story Now what?, was urban praetor in 43 BC". Ifly6 (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not like Konrad is dead. He still teaches at Texas A&M. He's the interim department head. https://artsci.tamu.edu/global-lang-cultures/contact/profiles/christoph-konrad.html. When I hear McCullough, I think of the author of 1776 (or the court case), not the different one who wrote Masters of Rome. And while I appreciate that this series has been rather influential for internet discussions on the republic, I also think inclusion of it as a cultural reference would require someone to refer to it as or in the context of listing relevant cultural references. Such sources do exist: eg https://www.persee.fr/doc/ista_0000-0000_2019_ant_1476_1_3780 (relevant for this article may be A Hora de Sertório (1994) by João Aguilar; p 187). However, it is not clear that McCullough's inclusion of Sertorius is sufficiently significant to include because nobody talks about it. Ifly6 (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point as to Konrad. I was referring to Spann in particular. My point was just that a “cultural impact” academic paper on the subject of Quintus Sertorius is extremely unlikely at this point in time. Regardless, the pivotal question is whether or not a work of art which is dedicated to an obscure subject in its entirety should require a second or third party academic research paper (on the cultural impact) for it to be included.

I love to see the various points of view. I appreciate everyone’s feedback thus far. Vincentbdavisii (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The faction with which Sulla aligned

What is the best name (and link) for the men who Sulla aligned himself with in the early 80s through his marriage to Caecilia Metella and opposition to Marius? I want to eliminate optimates, and have removed all other mentions of it with Sullan loyalists or some equivalent.

Spann calls them the boni ('good men') in his book, which is just another name for optimates. I think the problem is that there has to be some name for them before Sulla joined them, a name for the political faction of the "non-populist" (forgive the insertion of modern politics) Roman elites, but I cannot think of any that does not imply a political party. Perhaps the use of optimates is fine here because it is the only real name for the faction before Sulla aligned himself to it? Is boni any better? Would love to hear some opinions. Harren the Red (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The section to which I am referring is this:

"It is also equally possible Sulla (and by extension the optimates, who he was closely tied to through marriage with Caecilia Metella and opposition to Marius) were uncertain about what manner of tribune Sertorius would be, and not being able to rely on his obedience led to their opposition." Harren the Red (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

My reading of the primary and secondary sources leads me to believe optimates would be appropriately used here. I think the problem relies when people refer to the optimates and populares as if they were political parties (such as modern day Republicans and Democrats). The optimates is more like saying "conservative". A loose classification of individuals who supported the rights of the nobility, regardless of their class. The Caecilii Metelli were plebeian, but they were diligent supporters of the senatorial cause.

I believe the closest thing Republic Rome had to "parties" were the powerful and influential families that other families aligned themselves with and followed. Metellus Numidicus was still a leading figure at the time of Caecilia's marriage to Sulla, and Metellus Pius was a rising star in the Social War, so I believe you could also rightfully say "...and by extension the Caecilii Metelli..." though that's a bit redundant, and likely wouldn't mean much to the average reader.

Just my thoughts! Vincentbdavisii (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think VBD2 is wrong in what he says, but I prefer Marians vs. Sullans when writing specifically in the context of the rivalry/warring between these two and how individuals coalesced around them at any given time, while allowing for changing sides, as I seem to recall Crassus did and certain of the Valerii Flacci, not to mention that "nephew" of Marius who married Sulla's granddaughter and famously dumped her because his wife should be above suspicion – that is, treating them as loose and continually reforming alliances of individuals identified in the scholarship as having worked for the interests of one of these two or having proclaimed their loyalty to one or the other at a point in time, or as having risen on their coattails, or toga border, as it were. I think Harren the Red is right to distrust ideology as a basis for these factions and to see these alliances as based primarily on opportunism and secondarily on traditional relations between families. The role of Cinna complicates "Marian", I suppose.

Our article on optimates and populares fails to accept that these are standard terms in scholarship that an encyclopedia article should seek to explain rather than debunk and condemn, so for me that complicates matters when you need a link that explains how and why some of the best 20th-century scholars on the late Republic use these problematic terms - debunking strikes me as a bit arrogant of WP editors. An encyclopedia article is not a term paper.

But it isn't as if there was an organized party apparatus that could be transferred to Sulla or that he could take over, in the manner of the recent Biden-Harris transfer in the US. That may be the problem inherent in saying "there has to be some name for them before Sulla joined them" – what did he "join"? Cynwolfe (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a very good point. I like Marians vs. Sullans. It's worth pointing out that at this point, Sulla was still up and coming. His first consulship was on the horizon, but I'm not sure many in Rome would have considered him a figurehead at the point Sertorius was running for the tribunate.

During the Social War, it seems like one of the things that unites Sulla, The Metelli, Catulus, and others is their opposition to Marius, and those like him.

Perhaps the best way to say this would be something along the lines of "Sulla joined the ranks of influential anti-Marians" or something along those lines. Vincentbdavisii (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is related to others here and here.

I think it is preferable to use the name of the leaders of each faction, as these groups were often formed for the benefit of its strongman. I restate my preference for Cinno-Marians for the 80s, as it deals with the problem mentioned by Cynwolfe, "The role of Cinna complicates "Marian"". For the "Sullans" before Sulla, I'm ok with the label "conservatives" instead of optimates; it is a timeless political label that usually means the same. T8612 (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

To the suggested wording by Vincentbdavisii, I'd say not the metaphor "joined the ranks". Maybe just "aligned himself with". Some of this is about cultivating amicitia and even the clientela network – on the ground, lesser agents serving two or more friends/patrons formed connective tissue. Also right to think in terms of timeline and where Sulla was in his career.

I completely agree that "conservatives" is the correct way to understand Cicero's boni or "optimates" in that their aim was to preserve traditional senatorial prerogatives. I just don't argue that on Wikipedia because then the argument becomes what "conservative" means. Similarly populares; popularism is a political strategy to accrue power, but many of these figures actually did act as reformers to address issues such as hunger and debt confronting people of lower status. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The populares don't have an "ideology" that really contrasts them with the optimates in terms of policies; at least unless we want to define Cato and the senate in 63 and 73 as "populares". What they have is a different method of working, one before the people rather than before the senate. This is the core of what Meier 1965 (in RE) discusses and how the words are today used. The scholars following Wiseman et al in ascribing ideological content similarly use "populares" to describe an ideology of popular primacy and "optimates" as the converse (senatorial primacy). What specific ends to which that popular primacy is directed are not entirely relevant. As to optimates and populares – which I should disclose I largely wrote – our articles should reflect how and what scholars use and think of, respectively, the terms (WP:ACADEMICBIAS). A Mommsenian time capsule is not that.

I fully agree that aligned with is much better than joined the ranks of (or like words). I disagree however with the Gelzerian "frozen waste" (families X, Y, and Z control Roman politics). This model of Roman politics has been greatly challenged by Millar's Roman democracy thesis and is no longer widely accepted among scholars. See eg North CP 85 (1990) p 280. But as to the Social War, I fail to see how Marius was so strongly opposed. The man was recalled to service (also the title of Weygand's memoirs), took command when his superior was killed in combat, and replaced by the next year's consul. This is an entirely traditional series of events. The kerfuffle having to do with Sulpicius is very different; see eg Powell Historia 39 (1990) pp 446ff. Ifly6 (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Re It is also equally possible Sulla (and by extension the optimates, who he was closely tied to through marriage with Caecilia Metella and opposition to Marius) were uncertain about what manner of tribune Sertorius would be, and not being able to rely on his obedience led to their opposition. This sentence is strange to me. It's generally accepted among scholars, going back beyond Meier 1965 back to Taylor Party politics in the age of Caesar (1949), that republican candidates generally did not stand for office with manifestos or platforms. How 19th and early 20th century scholars hand-waved the causality of events to the action of putative "parties" has, in my opinion, done little but obscure the actual republican politics at hand. (Cf Gruen Last generation (1995) p 50 obscures rather than enlightens; here, eg, by supposing an dubious policy-based opposition which serves to displace other possibilities such as personal rivalry.) I would determine whether there is actual evidence of Sullan opposition; if there is, I would simply describe what is said of it with clear attribution such as According to Plutarch .... If there is not, I would simply say he lost and not elaborate further. Ifly6 (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s a good point. Plutarch does suggest that Sertorius lost the election because of opposition from Sulla. I’m happy to find the specific passage that refers to it, or Spann’s reference to it as well, if that would be helpful. Vincentbdavisii (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

While not disputing that According to Plutarch .... or simply saying he lost might be better, the implication of a party would be weakened by merely removing a comma, from and by extension the optimates, who he was closely tied to through marriage to and by extension the optimates who he was closely tied to through marriage, or with stricter grammar and by extension those optimates to whom he was closely tied through marriage. NebY (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This sentence (and the whole paragraph) does not mention the political context in Rome, as Sulla had just made a coup and forced into exile Marius and 10 other politicians. His army left the city to prepare the expedition against Mithridates, but he still tried to influence the elections for 87. It is possible that Sertorius had made a campaign hostile to Sulla. The consensus seems to be that Sertorius' bid took place in 88 BC. More info and references here and in Katz's Studies.

I would rephrase this way:

Upon his return to Rome he apparently enjoyed the reputation of a war hero. In 88, Sulla marched on Rome and took control of the city. He forced his enemies into exile, most notably Marius, and passed a set of laws that considerably altered the constitution in a more conservative way. Sertorius ran at the elections of the tribunes of the plebs, which probably took place at the end of September 88, but Sulla used his influence to have him defeated. Sulla may have had a grudge against him from the time they served together under Marius earlier in their career, or Sertorius made a campaign hostile to Sulla and his legislation. T8612 (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Skimming Katz, it seems he assigns no certain date to the repulsa since Plutarch also does nothing of the sort. While I agree that on first glance it seems more likely that Sullan opposition per Plutarch would be more efficacious in 88, Sulla lost (at least the consular) elections amid general revulsion to his march. I think we should be less dispositive as to what year this repulsa occurred. If the later consensus dates it to 88, we should probably regardless explain what specifically about the Sullan programme that year was "conservative". Ifly6 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And, since I now realise that I never addressed the first-raised matter: it is not necessary always to provide labels for "factions". There need not be any. The tendency to form ad hoc political groups – also called Gegenstandsabhängigkeit in Tatum Patrician tribune (1999) – of republican politics means such factions are not necessarily of sufficiently permanent or identifiable character to get a label. Under such circumstances you should simply say that Sulla and X, Y, and Z formed a political alliance in some specific matter. (The matters are regularly one-off; and given, of course, that the HQRS say that.) Ifly6 (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you both about “aligned with” being much more appropriate language to use. Though, Sulla was already aligned with them in some regards, but the marriage made it official.

I see your point as to Marius, though I think there is reason to believe there weren’t many in Rome who were antagonistic to him specifically during this time, even if he wasn’t at the height of his power. One thing that comes to mind is the feud with Sulla over the statues he displayed which depicted him as the victor over Jugurtha. Groups of senators and magistrates sided with Sulla, not as a matter of policy by as opposition to Marius.

And then there is Metellus Numidicus and Metellus Pius, both of whom were deeply antagonistic or Marius.

I do agree the language “anti-Marian” may be taking for granted what we know follows these events, as the term “Marian” becomes widely used to refer to those on his side of the civil war with Sulla. I think you’re right to suggest we avoid that. Vincentbdavisii (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I like VBD2's approach in using plain language, which is appropriate for a generalist encyclopedia, rather than academic bocage. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to digest the work of scholars and make it readably accessible to the kind of audience likely to be looking up the topic in WP. Some of our articles read like papers written by bright students trying to impress their teacher. There are so many scholars' names in the body – isn't that what citations are for? – that no narrative emerges. I don't edit this article (I generally don't edit anything but low-importance articles, or topics others seem to avoid), but even as a Sertorius fangirl, I wonder about heaving-bosom vapors like "Brave, noble, and gifted with eloquence, Sertorius was just the man to impress the native warriors", which remains in the article while we chat about this. Also the nose-in-the-air "superstitious Iberians". At the same time, I would not like the biography of Sertorius to be reduced to a string of scholars' names and their soundbites. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the purple prose should be removed. (And I made remarks to this effect previously above.) But there are some other issues at hand. WP:CLOSEPARA requires direct attribution (ie Per XYZ, ABC); it can be easy to overuse this – simply paraphrase less closely – but sometimes attribution is necessary. Ifly6 (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That "brave" passage was in the article when I began editing it over a month ago! I think I was so focused on revamping the citations with academic sources that I skipped over much of the purple prose. I'd appreciate if you guys can point out more examples, but as of now I'll go through the article and try to trim it significantly toward that end.

As for what Ifly mentions, I think the trouble is that much of Sertorius' career is in doubt. We have ranges for when he did things, achieved things, or when events occurred, and theories about how these events were interspaced, or why some things occurred. I have elected to just say the scholars who believe certain things, instead of adding another host of 'may' 'likely' and 'probably' with a citation, but I can certainly remove some examples and reword the sentences to exclude it. I can understand how the reading experience suffers from it, in any case. Harren the Red (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the core of the issue with the scholarly namedropping is basically that there are multiple versions of events and that people disagree on them. It may be worthwhile to take some of the disagreements and put them into notes. I did this, for example, with the death date. 73 or 72 BC has the note Konrad 1995, pp. 160–62 (arguing for 73); Brennan 2000, pp. 508 ("Konrad['s case]... ultimately fails to convince"), 514 (placing assassination to 72), 852 n. 290..

I haven't read the new text in its entirety since I'm on holiday. However, Cynwolfe's feedback on the prose itself may be more useful as well, since I find myself unbothered by even rather dense styles of academic writing. (Eg I don't find Butler's oft-derided statement about hegemony very difficult at all.) Ifly6 (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Terrorizing Rome

The end of Quintus Sertorius#Sulla's consulship and the bellum Octavianum is currently After Marius' death he, probably with Cinna's approval, annihilated Marius' slave army which was still terrorizing Rome. It's not sourced but could easily be - though "liberated slave" might be better. Still, has it been critically considered in modern scholarship? The more I learn of Roman fears of slaves and attitudes to ex-slaves, the more nervous I am of this justification and the more unhappy with Plutarch for unquestioningly repeating it. NebY (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Konrad treats the issue of Marius' "slave army" and Sertorius (and Cinna's) slaying of them in his historical commentary on the Life of Sertorius (pp. 71-73). He says that "the least problematic aspect of the event is Sertorius' part in it" (p. 71) where the consensus is that Cinna probably gave the command (to kill the band), and Sertorius carried it out. The precise origin of the slaves is unclear. Some seem to have been freedmen from Africa who trailed Marius on his return to Rome, some from Etruria, others from Rome itself who responded to Cinna's edicts which promised freedom (and seeing that Cinna and his supporters would be victorious, apparently took advantage of the turmoil to revenge themselves on their masters). "Marius' slave army" as written is as broad as possible, probably to include these groups.

In light of this, the fact that Cinna was unable to stop their "rampage" is more explicable, especially if their number included slaves of the City who were now tasting freedom in a violent occupation. I'll add a citation, but insofar as the newly inaugurated Cinna-Marian regime failed to contain the slaves, it does not seem to be in doubt, and Konrad at least accepts the narrative of Plutarch and Appian (he says "the execution of the slaves was intended to restore order throughout the City", p. 72) Harren the Red (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't find it at all far-fetched that the Romans (or really any ancient society) would have been terrified of the mere existence of any large group of armed slaves or recently freed slaves. Ifly6 (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Harren, I'm not in doubt that the massacre happened, nor, Ifly6, that at least some Romans may have been terrified. That doesn't equate to terrorising. Even "jogging while Black", "BBQing while Black" and "bird-watching in Central Park while Black" have elicited some fear, or revulsion, or an urge to violent correction, but we wouldn't describe them as terrorising. But I'm wandering into WP:OR and WP:NOTFORUM here; I hoped the matter had been critically considered but if WP:SCHOLARSHIP has terrorizing then I suppose we must retail it. NebY (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)