Talk:Legio X Equestris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Legio X Equestris article.
Article policies
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Gemina or Fretensis

  • Whether the legion was refashioned as Gemina or Fretensis is still being debated. Since it has not been resolved yet, this article needs to conform to a neutral point of view, something you (Panairjdde) did not keep in your edits of the page. In my version I point out that the mainstream view is that it was refashioned as Gemina, you fail to even mention the possibility of it becoming Fretensis. Unless you are willing to write a nonbiased article, please refrain from editing this page. --YankeeDoodle14 18:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
No, the consensus is about X Gemina lineage. The only source supporting Fretensis is Dando-Collins. Since YD14 seems to like this author, we can add the citation for his "work", but a reference for his "source" must be provided if an ampler support for his thesis is to be added to the article.--Panairjdde 20:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? All you have done is repeat that there's an issue over the lineage, something we already know. You fail to address ONE point that I made above. Why are you so insistant that only YOUR view be excepted? I offered an article in which both theories were given credence, you did not. Care to explain why? --YankeeDoodle14 03:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

the Xth NEVER had ether the Gemina was a different legion altogether and the Fretensis was from a stander that was found in sisaly(SP) that had Legio X F and had the bore as its sysble and where did equestris come from the legion was never called that--Rofur 00:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

in caesar's legion Dando does not say that it had fretensis Dando just said it was posable and that no ather had ever givin it a title --Rofur 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

Partial list of reasons for my edits:

  • The widely used format for the legion name is Legio X Cognomen (English: "English translation of the cognomen").
  • There is no reason to use the capital for the word "legion" in "Roman legion".
  • Notes go after the fulstop. So it is "word.<ref>", not "word<ref>...<ref/>."
  • There is no reason to hide that Dando-Collins is the only one to claim some points, in opposition to the whole academic world.
  • The claim that the symbol was the bull because it was the symbol of Spain should be backed by some reference.
  • There is no proof, as far as I know, that Equestris was already used as cognomen during the Gallic War
  • There is no precise date for the end of this legion and the beginning of X Gemina. Therefore we can say it ended between the disbandement of Caesar's legion and the merge with other legions' soldiers under Octavian.

--Panairjdde 20:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

The widely used format for the legion name is Legio X Cognomen (English: "English translation of the cognomen").

Ok, no objections.

There is no reason to use the capital for the word "legion" in "Roman legion".

Again, I have no objections.

Notes go after the fulstop. So it is "word.<ref>", not "word<ref>...<ref/>."

Yes, I made a mistake when adding some referances.

There is no reason to hide that Dando-Collins is the only one to claim some points, in opposition to the whole academic world.

Who's hiding it? If you want to you can add counter points, but don't go deleating huge pieces of the article without having counter-sources. The best solution would be to explain in the article that this is not a widely excepted fact, and to add your sources for it.
The major point is that you are supporting a novel as a historical research. It is like rewriting Jesus article on the basis of the "DaVinci Code" just because Dan Brown wrote on the back cover that everything in his book is true.
If you are disputing this article only on the basis of S. D-C book, you can directly give his proofs for his arguments in this article. If they do not exist (thing that I am starting to consider, since you are not providing them up until now), S. D-C can not be considered a reliable source, and must be excluded.--Panairjdde 00:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
A novel? Even if you dispute the conclusions reached in the book, calling it a novel is a it extream.
I would give you the sourcs he used, but in his book he failed to use endnotes, and thus I have no idea which books and documents were used for which passage. This does not mean, however, that the book's claims are not based on other documents and books, Dando-Collins just didn't go into detail on his references. Many other authors of critical aclaim have also failed to do this. --YankeeDoodle14 03:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
So no sources for his original work? And what is the difference between his book and a novel, if there are no source against which we (or better the scholars of the field) can check his claims? Are you sure (sure in the sense that you can prove it) that he actually did discover new proofs for his new claims? Can we give to Wikipedia readers a point of view that is not backed by proofs?--Panairjdde 10:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, I didn't say that there ws no source, I said that he did not properly organize his notes.
??? What does "he did not properly organize his notes" mean? Are the reference there or not?--Panairjdde 19:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you seriously asking what the difference is between his book and a novel is? Buy a dictionary.
I'm trying to let you understand that a novel does not need to cite it references, because it is a work of fiction, while a scholar book has references, because it will be judged on them, not on the prose stile.
As for the proof, again, his book is enough proof to add that there is a THEORY that the legion evolved into Gemina. Again, articles are supposed to conform to neutral points of view when a point is disputed. I think that my edits were very fair to your position, even giving you the benifit of the doubt. What do you have againt any theory but your own being put forward? --YankeeDoodle14 17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
If the book is a proof in itself, the notes "Dando-Collins is the only to support the idea that Legio X was reconstituded in the legion later known as X Fretensis" and "Dando-Collins researches often do not agree with widely accepted scholarity" are more than fitting to make a reference to SDC THEORY, which is not supported by FACT (quite strange a theory, indeed).--Panairjdde 19:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The claim that the symbol was the bull because it was the symbol of Spain should be backed by some reference.

I would, but since you have absolutely no respect for Dando-Collins I won't even bother.
What are his references on this point? What are his reasons to declare that the bull was chosen as symbol of Spain?--Panairjdde 00:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not Stephen Dando-Collins. I do not know what his references were. --YankeeDoodle14 03:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
If you do not know what the reference are, the related bit of article should be removed, according to me.--Panairjdde 10:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, according to YOU. However since you do not own Wikipedia, this decision is not entirely yours. --YankeeDoodle14 17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
According to me and Wikipedia. See WP:CITE.

There is no proof, as far as I know, that Equestris was already used as cognomen during the Gallic War

Didn't you even read my referances? Caesar's commentaries make this notation. Try again.
Would you mind give me the chapter in which Caesar calls his legion Equestris? And, as a side note, when you are citing Dando-Collins, whose book was published in a single edition, you can cite the book and the page, but when you cite Caesar, whose De Bello Gallico was published in countless editions, give the book.section.phrase (ex: VI.3.4), so that other people can use their edition of DBG, whitout being forced to use yours.--Panairjdde 00:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Book I, Section II. --YankeeDoodle14 03:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
You sure? Book I, Section II is:
Among the Helvetii, Orgetorix was by far the most distinguished and wealthy. He, when Marcus Messala and Marcus Piso were consuls [61 B.C.], incited by lust of sovereignty, formed a conspiracy among the nobility, and persuaded the people to go forth from their territories with all their possessions, [saying] that it would be very easy, since they excelled all in valor, to acquire the supremacy of the whole of Gaul. To this he the more easily persuaded them, because the Helvetii, are confined on every side by the nature of their situation; on one side by the Rhine, a very broad and deep river, which separates the Helvetian territory from the Germans; on a second side by the Jura, a very high mountain, which is [situated] between the Sequani and the Helvetii; on a third by the Lake of Geneva, and by the river Rhone, which separates our Province from the Helvetii. From these circumstances it resulted, that they could range less widely, and could less easily make war upon their neighbors; for which reason men fond of war [as they were] were affected with great regret. They thought, that considering the extent of their population, and their renown for warfare and bravery, they had but narrow limits, although they extended in length 240, and in breadth 180 [Roman] miles.
from here--Panairjdde 10:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Clearly my edition uses a different organisation structure than yours. Let me quote it:
"He decided to dismount all his native irregulars, and to put up in their places the men of the Tenth legion, knowing well that on these he could rely: should any emergency then arise, he would have round him an absolutely devoted bodyguard. While the transformation was being effected, one of the privates of the Tenth remarkd, not without a touch of humour, that Caesar was proving better than his word. 'He had promised to make the regiment a corps of Footguards: in the future they would appear on the roll of the Knights [Equestris].'"
--YankeeDoodle14 17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Apart the fact that you are using a book with very strange references, inconsistent with Caesar's book, do you realize that the text you provided does not support your claim? If one soldier says that they will be put on cavalry's payroll does not mean that it was called Equestris. The funny part is that you did not accept that brick and coin countermarks made by legion officers and bearing "LXF" was enough to counter Dio or Tacitus' silence of Fretensis, while a note of a soldier (not even Caesar) that the legionnaires were on cavalry's payroll is enough to call this legion Equestris without any other proof!
Now, if you want your two citations of Caesar's book to be included, give a reference to his De Bello Gallico, not to a exotic reference. If you need it because your book has not them, try this. And note that proper citing is mandatory.--Panairjdde 19:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no precise date for the end of this legion and the beginning of X Gemina. Therefore we can say it ended between the disbandement of Caesar's legion and the merge with other legions' soldiers under Octavian.

IF you accept that Equstris evolved into Gemina, this would be true. However since it's disputed, the date given seems to be th closest thing to a consensus we have.
I understand it is disputed. The point is:
  1. either this is backed by some proof, such as an inscription saying "LEG X EQVESTRIS FRETENSIS", and in this case it deserves a complete comparison with the mainstream lineage;
  2. or this is just written in D-C book, without any proof other than his word, and in this case I'm sorry, but it deserves no more that a citation, since we need references.
Furthermore, according to you and D-C, what are the proofs that Equestris evolved into Fretensis? I am asking this since the beginning, but not yet an answer.
--Panairjdde 00:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
So if there's no inscription it couldn't have happened? Look, Dando-Collins is my source. So far you have offered no proof that his book in inaccurate other than a crappy book review site and a forum of people complaining. You have not demonstrated why his book should not be trusted, so it stays in. The burden of proof is on you, since you are the one making an assertion (that D-C's book is wrong). Good luck. --YankeeDoodle14 03:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
He must have found something in his "research" to claim a different lienage, don't you agree? And this should be something like an inscription.
As regards the burthen of proof, you are changing the real situation to suit your POV. You put the disputed tag on the article, you claimed that Equestris evolved into Fretensis and not Gemina, so the burden of the proofs is on you.
Looks like you have no proofs for your claims. I am still waiting for a proof for Equestris lineage, and I've asked for it for a week.
As regards "crappy book review site and a forum of people complaining", I am not backing my claims on those, I just read there that S. D-C does not think it is important to back his claims of new discoveries with any sort of proof. It is true that this often happens in divulgative books, but it is also true that true scholars also publish articles or books for scholars, in which they cite their sources, and it seems SDC forgot to do this too. Am I wrong?
If you want to add SDC claims to these articles, I expect you to show proofs. The burden is on you.--Panairjdde 10:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did start this question of the lineage on this site, however I have been very respectful of your POV, and have given it a place in this article. Now I have given a source for my claim about the lineage, I haven't seen much evidence from you about your evidence. Why can't both views be represented in the article? Will you answer that, or will you continue to dodge the question. I have a book supporting this claim, which should be enough to at least give it a mention in this article. I didn't claim that it was the correct view, I didn't even say that is was probably the correct one. Also, I have been giving you sources for my viewpoint, however no matter what you claim that it isn't solid enough evidence. Well I think that it is, and I will continue to try to give a neutral viewpoint in the article, no matter ho much you revert it. --YankeeDoodle14 17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, you are missing the point. I have not SDC book. How can I understand it is a histoy book and not a novel? By its references, of course. What are SDC reference? Silence. You always forget to list them. Do they exist? If there are no references because SDC did original research, what are the proofs behind his "new discoveries" (e.g., the bull as a symbol of Spain)?
As regards my references, they are:
  • Roman Legionary 58Bc-Ad69 Ross Cowan, p 7, for the claim about X Equestris veterans' settlement in Patras by Augustus (the same book claims X Equestris = X Gemina)
  • Legio Emil Ritterling, for "Veneria" bit;
  • The article in references.
--Panairjdde 19:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

--YankeeDoodle14 23:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response (continued)

This is getting a litle out of hand, so let's continue the discussion down here. Basically my point is that even if you disagree with a statement here, it doesn't mean you can just deleate it. I disagree with a lot of things I see on this site, that doesn't mean that I go around taking half of the page away. If you disagree with something, just point out in the article that it is improbable, or add a citation-needed tag. Oh, and in my most recent revert I kept most of the changes you made. If there are some that I had agreed to and forgot to re-add, then just add them yourself, you don't have to revert the whole page. As to Dando-Collins's credability, you said it yourself, you haven't read his book. I have yet to see something from a scholar denouncing Dando-Collins. Also, he does have sources, which I provided to you in an earlier discusion. However he did not say which of the sources were used for which segments, so that has caused this confusion. My question here is, why can't we just use my version, which provides both sides with a little attention, and leaves much of what you wrote intact? Then you can just improve it (in your opinion) by adding sources and referances as to it becoming Gemina, and elaberating on that. Doesn't that sound reasonable?--YankeeDoodle14 23:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Because on one side we have the version approved by scholars, and on the other side the "novel" of a graphic designer, copywriter, creative director, and senior advertising agency executive (see Stephen Dando-Collins), who just turned into history researcher, but strangely does not follow scientifical research paths (adding references and proofs to his claims). We should give the established knowledge the predominant position, and, just because you are insisting, a side note about the work of "a non professional scholar who happens to discover a lot of new thing, but since he writes only for non-scholar people, who can't give the proofs needed". And the fact he lists a long list of sources does not mean anything, since linking the sources to SDC "novel" claims is a research job in itself, which I doubt he even made (otherwise he would have been accomplished a wonderful feat in scholarity, while he preferred to gather money writing a "novel").
You "have yet to see something from a scholar denouncing Dando-Collins", but at the same time did not see something from a scholar supporting Dando-Collins, did you? Is this because scholars usually do not write papers to comment on novels?
These are the reasons why I strongly oppose the inclusion of unsupported claims by SDC (as the bull as Spain symbol, or Equestris/Fretensis lineage), but as sidenotes. And WP:CITE allows me to delete unreferenced infos. And no, adding request for references tags does not count, since you, the one pushing for the inclusion of these "new" discoveries, have no idea of them; and in this case, who should add those references, SDC himself, when he did not to his book?--Panairjdde 00:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I am addding referances. Just because you happen to not like this author doesn't mean that he doesn't count. That's just insane. Second, Dando-Collins does not claim to discover anything new, you just interprit it that way because you disagree with his assertions. Third, you have still not answered why even a slight referance to there theories you don't approve of cannot be mentioned. --YankeeDoodle14 17:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
You are adding references? You did not even provide a reference for Julius Caesar!
Myrequests, just for the beginning:
  • give me the reference for the bull as symbol of Spain
  • give me the reference for X Fretensis lineage from X Equestris, despite X Gemina
--Panairjdde 18:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear, simply unclear

Look, I think that we can agree that the whole place/time/birth issue is rather unclear.

First of all, Dando wrote a book which speculates alot. Proof? I read the book "Gallic Wars" and couldn't find anywhere which legion begins in Transalpine Gaul. Dando clearly writes it was the 10th, but he doesn't tell us from where reaches that conclusion. He provides a great list of sources at the end of the book, that is true, but does not link them to the several statements! how are we supposed to know where he read what?

The "Bull" seems to me also one fo these unclear issues. Dando writes that it is a symbol of Spain, but go to Taurus (astrology), and you will read that it is a symbol of Venus, ancestor of the Julians (Caesar). It is possible that both things were true but...quite unclear.

As for the Equestris title, I have read that the paragraph of the Gallic war book is thought to be the reason for it. But that is no real evidence, and it is regarded more of a suggestion by scholars, than a real proof. In the fashion of: "It has been suggested that the passage of [Bla Bla Bla] is the reason for the title of this legion. However the issue is still unclear."

I propose that all these unclear issues have to be confirmed by two sources = two books of two scholars at the very least. Flamarande 19:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, It is worse than I thought, please read this:http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/content/view/32/114/ Flamarande 20:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

    • Yes, the whole thing is rather unclear, however I think that we can reach a comprimise here. Let's just add both theories in the article, and point out that the whole thing is contraversial. Even adding that Gemina is the favored one with most scholars. What's wrong with that? --YankeeDoodle14 23:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The "wrong" is that one is a scholar-backed position, another is a novelist-backed one. They have not the same importance and authority.--Panairjdde 18:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Look, I'm not going to bother debating this anymore. Clearly we can't reach a consensus, so this is just a waste of my time. --YankeeDoodle14 21:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
What was your way to find a consensus? Claiming SDC as your only source, which the world should accept without questioning its reliability?--Panairjdde 21:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)