Talk:Titus Labienus

Question

So it's unknown for sure what gens he belgoned to, but he's believed to be an Atius? Kuralyov 19:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An idea discredited sometime during the past century I bet, my modern sources don't say anything about that. Google finds [1], which seems like an awfully good modern source for a complete rewrite. Stan 22:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Caesar in Rome?

The article says Labienus took command of the Gallic armies whenever Caesar went to Rome during his consulship, but Caesar never went to Rome. He couldn't have; crossing the pomerium would have stripped him of his imperium, but even leaving his provinces during at all during his tenure would have been frowned upon (the meeting with Pompey and Crassus was at Luca, on the southern border of Italian Gaul, for instance). Binabik80 04:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Labienus brought no strenght with him" ? Says Who?

Labienus was the chief lieutenant of Julius Cesar during the gallic Wars and saved Ceasar´s live during that campaign. It was only after his defection to Pompey that Ceasar began a character assassination. From this point, too, Ceasar choose Mark Antony as his deputy. Labienus deserted and brought 3700 German and Gallic cavalry with him. Besides all that he was a veteran commander and a very good one. My sources are Ceasar´s legion by Stephen Dando-Collins edited by John wiley & Sons page 68 and page 73. Flamarande

Which legion?

Which legion did Labienus command under Caesar? I remember hearing that it was the Tenth legion, but I don't remember the source. --maru (talk) contribs 03:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Rome Comments

Wow, this is a really well researched and formatted article. It really goes above and beyond; I saw no superfluous information and all the facts given seemed important and could be backed up with the proper citation.

My criticisms are few and mostly trivial. The entire article was smooth and easy to read save the last couple sentences of the last paragraph. I suggest a change to: "The Battle of Munda marked both the end of the Roman Civil War and Labienus's life. Labienus, in charge of Pompey's calvary unit, saw King Bogud's (an ally of Caesar) army approaching from behind. He ordered his calvary team to attack Bogud's forces, which was interpreted by the rest of Pompey's army as a retreat. The confusion in the ranks started a rout, resulting in massive casualties, the death of Labienus, and the end of the Roman Civil War." Feel free to alter or disregard this suggestion as you wish.

The only mechanical error I noticed was with the multiple use of the same footnote. If you assign a footnote a name/value, Wikipedia remembers this and uses the same number for the same footnote. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing_a_footnote_more_than_once

All in all, this is a well written and thorough article.

199.74.101.136 03:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Sam Hobbie

Interesting....didn't know that Caesar had a friend in the background doing a lot of the legwork in his military. And this article does a good job of telling that story, right up to Labienus's end - the betrayal.

This is a solid, well-thought out article. My only critique is the part written about the trial of Gaius Rabirius. It was a little wordy right around the explanation of the duumviri part - but that might just be me.

I also like the back-and-forth at the end between the different accounts of Labienus's defection to Pompey. It might be interesting to include where Labienus was buried, if you can find that out.

Nice work.

Ryan Reeh 17:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I really like this article a lot. It is very well researched and obviously, much work was put into it. I liked the organization of the article. It shows the step-wise progressions in his life and allows the reader to follow the article easily. Well-written too.

I like how well-balanced the article is. It shows the favorable sides of Labienus as he supported Caesar and was a dutiful soldier and then how he later supported Pompey. Even showing both sides of the historical discussion of the reversal of allegiance helps to show his human qualities and not as a mythological figure.

No major gripes from me. Good article.

Timothy Lee 21:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellently researched and well-written; however, you nearly got a zero through not sending your URL to the professor or T.A. Be careful!

A suspicious reference

Caesar however did not give him independent command nor gave him any prospects of consulship. He became resentful of this lack of recognition and developed a deep hatred towards Caesar,[17] which eventually caused him to turn against Caesar and join the side of the enemy.

17 is Bellum Civile (3.9). I assume this means Commentarri de Bello Civili, book 3, chapter 9. Well, that chapter doesn't have anything to do with this. I don't remember his reasons for deserting Caesar being mentioned in the book at all. I think he just starts mentioning Labienus as being in the Pompey's army at some point in the book, without any explanation.

Also, on an unrelated note, I went and double checked with the version that the wikipedia page on this book links to, but that version is a mess. I don't mean errors in translation - I think some chapters are missing or something. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0076;query=chapter%3D%23129;layout=;loc=3.9 This is actually chapter 3.11., not 3.9. Although it still has nothing to do with Labienus. Tapir (talk)

Very poor sources

With the exception of Tyrell, the other "sources" listed are suspicious. No page numbers, no publisher, no publication date. How do we know they exist? How do we know if this article is not a hoax?Closedthursday (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Revert

Fdewaele, the material that I removed may have a source, but that does not automatically make it worthy of inclusion in the article. The article openly takes sides in favor of one historian against unnamed other historians, a clear violation of WP:NPOV. I recommend that you read MOS:SAID if you have not already. This paragraph uses language like "points out" and "recognizes" to refer to the arguments that someone is making. This implies that what the person is saying is true and therefore impairs the article's neutrality. Because a historian on one side is named, those on the other side probably should be as well. And while the article may describe a dispute between them, it should not take sides.

In addition to the neutrality issues, the paragraph is also poorly placed. It is historiography because it focuses on historical debate rather than on the events themselves. That sort of thing generally goes in a separate Legacy section near the end of the article, so as not to interrupt the focus of the article.

If you want to take a try at reworking the paragraph to alleviate these concerns, feel free. But as it stands, it does not belong in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)