Talk:Calgacus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

[edit] Leader?

Nowhere is is said that Calgacus was the leader of the Caledonian army at Mons Graupius, he is merely somebody credited with making a speech. Which, in all likelihood, he never made in the first place. If, that is, he ever actually existed. Or if the battle itself ever really took place, for that matter. All of the "evidence" comes from Tacitus, about whomn Tertullian wrote: Cornelius Tacitus, however, - who, to say the truth, is most loquacious in falsehood and who is contradicted in other Scottish matters by archaeological evidence. Lianachan 02:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tacitus calls him one of the leaders at the battle; the fact that Tacitus gave the speech to Calgacus rather than any other leader implies he was commander in chief, although admittedly does not necessitate that (how would Tacitus have gotten the name if Calgacus wasn't remember more than the others). The name, Mons Craupius (probably Moncrieffe Hill, Monadh Craoibhe), is genuinely Celtic. Quite possible the result was made up or the importance of the victory exaggerated. The battle must have take place though, because Tacitus was writing in a period when people, some members of the roman elite at least, would still remember the battle; he couldn't have made a thing like that up, although he was free to make other stuff up. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of things that just don't add up. There are some things about Calgacus and Mon Graupius (among other things) here that you may find interesting. Lianachan 02:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are a lot of things that don't add up. 1) Agricola was the Roman Commander. The only account of the battle was by Tacitus, his son-in-law. Not an impartial source. 2) The "victorious" Ninth Legion seemed to disappear off the face of the earth. 3) The "victor" Agricola was recalled to Rome in disgrace. 4) The Romans got out of Caledonia as fast as they could, abandoned Antonine's wall and retreated beyond Hadrian's wall, never to venture north again.

Draw your own conclusions. 82.40.211.149 20:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. However, to address your specific points.

1) Yup

2) No it didn't - it was moved to the continent.

3) In disgrace? How so?

4) Not true. The Romans occupied what is now southern Scotland for quite a while. After Agricola left, some forts were rebuilt and expanded, even. Severus, of course, also campaigned in Scotland in approximately 208. Lianachan 11:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really read anything there that altered what I said. Sure Tacitus made some stuff up; no-one thinks he didn't., but no-one thinks he made up the campaign. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying he made up the campaign, I'm just saying that the article doesn't give a balanced view or stress the extent of the uncertainties there are about all things Tacitus - especially with regard to Agricola in Scotland. This is not a minority or woo-woo view. I can see, however, that I am once again beating my head against the wikiwall. Lianachan 08:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well edit the article. I've never touched it, save only inserting a picture. I entirely agree the article as it is is misleading. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I may well do. I apologise if I seemed confrontational, it's just that I'm becoming increasingly fed up with Wiki - especially with having edits changed by people with no knowledge of the subject matter. It was the article I was criticising, not you. Lianachan 17:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)