Talk:Battle of Arausio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC–c. 500 AD)

[edit] Roman consul

why change the name of the consul leading one of the Roman armies to Manlius? Every single reference I've seen says he was named Gnaeus Mallius Maximus as it originally was before the edit by Panairjdde... --Fdewaele 22:37, 28 September 2005 (CET)

Because there was a gens Manlia, but, as far as I know, no gens Mallia.--Panairjdde 16:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That's because the consul we are discussing was a homus novo... a "New Man", he was his own ancester whereas the old gens Manlia were patrician...

Look at this list of Roman consuls of the University of ALberta: http://www.ualberta.ca/~csmackay/Consuls.List.html

It clearly gives as consuls for the year 105 BC: P. Rutilius Rufus and Cn. Mallius Maximus.

And these sites on Rome http://www.roman-empire.net/republic/laterep-index.html http://www.ac-versailles.fr/etabliss/clg-guimoc-gennevilliers/Scipion/consul.htm all mention or list Mallius as consul in 105 as well. (there are plenty others as well if you google)

--Fdewaele 1 December 2005 19:00 CET

What I am saying is that no gens Mallia ever existed. In that case, Mallius could be simply a corruption of Manlius.--Panairjdde 10:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps... but if he was a new man the fact no such gens is known could be explained by the fact that his forefathers were simple plebs and not one of the more notable families which are known by name, gens and clan... also I believe his sons were killed at Arausio and he was banned after it from Rome, meaning he probably was the last of his family as well... so no new noble family got created and the name probably died out.

The fact remains that all official usage of his name, including in the current academical world and the Varronian chronology as well, uses Mallius... the name Mallius should be used at Wikipedia as well... --Fdewaele 2 December 2005 14:30 CET

better now?--Panairjdde 10:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Definately! An other argument peacefully settled. :) Nice to have a civilized discussion. I've seen worse (for instance the Zapatero article...)...

One question though... she have Mallius as killed in battle... from where did you gather that information? As I always was under the impression he survived Arausio but his sons died... (I could be wrong of course) --Fdewaele 9 December 2005

I do not know, it was not me who added the "dagger" sign.--Panairjdde 16:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Figures make no sense

Accordng to this articles figures, 80,000 Romans suffered 112,000 deaths.

???????

Actually they do make sense. The article says that Roman losses are quoted at up to 80,000 troops, and many more servants and camp followers (total loss estimated at about 112,000 men). This means 80.000 Roman soldiers were killed and that the auxillary forces (cavalry, servants,...) counted for an other 32.000 deaths. To make sense of these figures you have to take in to acount the organization of the Roman army: on the one hand you have the fighting force made up by the infantry legions, then you have the auxillary forces like cavalry, allies and lastly you have the non combattant logistic support. The defeat was so worse that even this last category was wiped away. -- fdewaele, 5 September 2006, 9:30 (CET)