Talk:Latin War (498–493 BC)

Merge

Against. Believe this merge is not a good idea. Article has been renamed in a way that really can not be contested. To merge the events of an entire war into the article covering a specific battle makes little sense. Agree that further development of this page is necessary speaking historically, but a merge is ridiculous.- Clark Sui (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no evidence of a war between Rome and the Latins from 498 to 493 BC. There was the Battle of Lake Regillus, in 498 or 496, depending on the source you consult. No other battles led up to it or followed it. There's nothing in any ancient historian to suggest any other hostilities, or even the continuing presence of an army in anticipation of hostilities. None of them suggest that the treaty concluded between Rome and the Latins in 493 was directly connected with the Battle of Lake Regillus. The treaty doesn't imply the existence of a "state of war" lasting until 493. Even if we did imply that, it doesn't tell us that the treaty was the result of a Roman victory, or any victory, or that Cassius was a military commander; none of these are supported by any ancient authority. Everything factual about the conflict is already contained in the article about the Battle of Lake Regillus. This article is completely redundant. P Aculeius (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless the sources for this war are fabricated, there is evidence of a war between Rome and some of the Latin city states lasting precisely from 498 to 493 BC when the Foedus Cassianum was signed. It is true that the Battle of Lake Regillus was the defining event of this war as it was the only major event that survives in the collective historical narrative. That being said, this war happened. Roman history dating before 390 BC when the city was sacked by the Gauls who burned and destroyed most of their historical records is what it is. The Foedus Cassianum ended a war between the Romans and the Latin League, this is a fact. The treaty was also very much in favor of the Romans and in fact set the stage for Rome to become the dominant power in Latium going forward (mandating that the Latin League had to provide soldiers for Rome and that all combined forces would be commanded by Roman commanders.- Clark Sui (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

My own personal view is that a single battle and a treaty arising from it do not constitute a war. However, I have found two modern secondary sources which place the Battle of Lake Regillus as part of the First Latin War - Brill's New Pauly and Faulkner's "Rome: Empire of the Eagles". Of the two, Brill is the most authoritative modern secondary source for ancient Rome, and if that secondary source is speaking of the First Latin War, then perhaps it is best to let the article stand. Oatley2112 (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The question is, I think, whether enough information exists which should be in this article, but not in the Battle of Lake Regillus article. If all we end up with are two short articles with practically identical content, then I believe we are better off with a merge. Fornadan (t) 08:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Quoting directly from Livy's Ab Urbe Condita, Book II. 19 The consuls of the following year were T. Aebutius and C. Vetusius. During their consulship Fidenae was besieged; Crustumeria captured; Praeneste revolted from the Latins to Rome. The Latin war which had been threatening for some years now at last broke out. Right there we have Livy's own reference to three other battles in this war. Further, after describing in detail the events of the Battle of Lake Regillus, he goes on in Book II. 21 to say that the Latin War continued on for three more years after the battle but concedes the dates are hazy. The events of the war continue in Livy's Book II right through II. 33 when Cassius signs a peace deal. Will improve the article to embody these changes as soon as I have time. Again, the sources are what they are but they do exist and there is ample evidence this war did happen. The idea of a merge continues to be ridiculous.- Clark Sui (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ridicule isn't much help. Fornadan asks whether there's sufficient information to justify having two separate articles. Can you address that question? Cynwolfe (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem with these secondary sources is that they don't provide any concrete details about the supposed war; everything about it is inferred. I can't see all of page 31 in Brill's clearly, but under "first Latin War" it says that it isn't clear when the war so described began; this sentence follows immediately from the treaty with Carthage in 509 BC. The passage about the "foedus Cassianum" may be the following paragraph, and it seems to say that the war ended with the Battle of Lake Regillus; and that's the only event described as the Latin war. The event described by Livy at ii. 19 is the Battle of Lake Regillus. He says that this war "broke out" after he mentions individual events involving Fidenae, Crustumeria, and Praeneste, which is to say that they weren't part of a larger war, but separate events. More importantly, immediately after recounting the Battle of Lake Regillus, Livy says: "For the next three years there was neither settled peace nor open war." In other words, there was not an ongoing or continuing war with the Latins after that battle, or before that battle. No further battles with Latin towns are mentioned. The premise of this article is that Spurius Cassius led the Roman forces against the Latins and ended the war by concluding a treaty in 493 BC; but that's not what Livy says happened.

In ii. 24 (495 BC) we have Latin horsemen riding to Rome to warn the Romans of the approach of a Volscian army; in ii. 26, where Livy refers to the "Latin war" he specifically states that Postumius had been the Dictator during it (i.e. the Battle of Lake Regillus); in ii. 30 (494 BC) the Latin towns send envoys to Rome to ask for Roman support against the Aequi. So if we're basing this article on Livy's account of events, then the words "Latin war" appear to refer to nothing before, after, or other than the Battle of Lake Regillus; Livy explicitly states that there was no open war between Rome and the Latins between then and the treaty of 493; and the events of 495 and 494 BC where Rome is first forewarned by the Latins of an impending Volscian invasion, then besought by the Latins for assistance against the Aequi, seem to contradict the notion of a war between Rome and the Latins during this period.

In other words, Brill's doesn't say when the war began, doesn't assert that it consisted of any events other than the Battle of Lake Regillus, and doesn't support the premise of this article that Cassius' treaty ended the war, since it says that Lake Regillus ended the war. Faulkner does assert that there was an ongoing war, but gives no names of people, places, or battles, and doesn't cite any authorities for this paragraph. Moreover, I don't think that snippet views of this book should be used as a substitute for good scholarship, since Faulkner seems to be known for "fusi[ng] narrative with scholarship"; his reputation seems to be one for challenging established scholarship, and these blurbs appear on the book's cover:

In this dramatically provocative new account the Roman Empire is a bloodthirsty capitalist superstate whose plutocratic stakeholders bled dry untold millions of slaves and serfs, and ethnically cleansed millions more, only to implode exhausted by its merciless policy of ruthless expansionism. Dr Faulkner, for whom Augustus was 'a truly disgusting man', never sits on the fence - this unashamedly partisan book is a must for anyone who wants to be challenged and outraged by our familiar image of Rome's contribution to world history. –Guy de la Bédoyère, co-presenter of Channel 4’s 'Time Team'.

The Roman Empire is widely admired as a model of civilisation. In this compelling new study Neil Faulkner argues that in fact it was a ruthless system of robbery and violence. War was used to enrich the state, the imperial ruling classes and favoured client groups. In the process millions of people were killed or enslaved. Within the empire the state and the landowning elite creamed off taxes and rents from the countryside to fund their army, their towns, and their villas. The mass of people – slaves, serfs, poor peasants – were the victims of the exploitation that made the empire possible. This system, riddled with tension and latent conflict, contained the seeds of its own eventual collapse from the outset.

According to our article, Faulkner describes himself as "a Marxist, a revolutionary socialist, an anti-capitalist political activist". That doesn't disqualify him as a source for Wikipedia articles, but it should make editors wary of accepting everything found in his books as established scholarship supported by reliable sources, since his chief goal as an author is to contest what those sources say. Our articles need to be based primarily on established scholarship; the fact that a controversial author says something different can't be the chief basis for an article about something that is documented in reliable sources. In this case, we'd need to say something along the lines of "Livy says that there was no war following the Battle of Lake Regillus, and no ancient historian describes ongoing hostilities, but Neil Faulkner says that the war dragged on, with the Romans unable to capture the Latin towns, and their armies constantly being attacked by Latin guerillas, until the treaty of 493." And I think that would be ridiculous, since you can't just make up bits of history about fictitious attempts to capture cities and hypothetical guerillas attacking unattested armies, and call that scholarship. P Aculeius (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for resolution

Although I read the passage in Livy as supporting the view that there was a war of some sort, the current article has no content not already contained at Battle of Lake Regillus or Foedus Cassianum. Per WP:ATD-M, If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand. But to avoid a potential edit war, might we come up with a process? I propose:

• ClarkSui (or some other editor or editors) agrees to expand this article in a way that significantly distinguishes it from the two closely related articles.
• The expanded material should not be content that belongs in Battle of Lake Regillus or Foedus Cassianum; it needs to be specific to the scope of this article. That is, it needs to demonstrate the existence of a Latin War between the specified dates. The sections on the major battle and the treaty will be treated as summary sections.
• This expansion will occur by (please propose deadline).
• At that time, interested editors could revisit the article and decide whether it still qualifies for a merge under WP:ATD-M—because at present it certainly does.

How does that sound? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a very reasonable solution. In my opinion, the article needs to specify either when and how the war began, or how we know that it did, how it can be connected with the foedus Cassianum and what authorities state that they were connected, and what other historical figures or events can be clearly connected with it, together with sources for that. At least some of these need to be accounts in Greek or Roman authors, or cited to them, or to some other extant records; the passage from Faulkner would not be sufficient if he doesn't provide a source for his narrative account of failed attempts to capture cities and guerrilla attacks on Roman columns. P Aculeius (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it is an extremely reasonable way to resolve a dispute, however looking at how Wikipedia structures every other war and battle page as separate entities, I continue to have a difficult time understanding the reason the two articles can't exist separately. This is strengthened by the fact that there is ample evidence that this war occurred exactly in the time frame previously mentioned.

Understandably this article can be improved (as could the Lake Regillus article be) and I do plan on making the necessary improvements, however in no situation would I believe that merging this article into another (which covers the events of a single day, not 5 years) is a constructive end to this issue. Instead, such a merge would simply limit the coverage of this already obscure period in history. It would further go against the standard way wikipedia approaches coverage of battles and wars. Conversely, I would also oppose any move to merge the article on the Battle of Lake Regillus into this one just as fervently as I now oppose this.

Understand that at no point do I ridicule the intentions of anyone trying to work through this elusive bit of history and commend everyone for working together to find a solution. I do however find it ridiculous that the articles be merged in either direction. Ridiculous simply in the sense that I don't understand why. I believe we must embrace the sources that exist on this topic, especially the ancient sources that are more elusive.

To give one example of my understanding of Livy based on the original Latin text and to solidify confidence that this article should exist in itself, Aculeius' prior assertion that the battles of Fidenae, Crustumeria and Praeneste occurred before the war is not correct according to my understanding of the Latin text, instead I read it as stating that they were the precise cause of hostilities or rather the tinder box that set off an already present powder keg.

To further challenge Aculeius' deduction (on the talk page of the Lake Regillus article) that I had dubiously copied this page from the English language article, I had in fact originally translated it from the Spanish wikipedia page covering the Latin Wars. I regularly translate from the Spanish wiki in an effort to add unavailable content to the en.wiki, something that can be verified from my user page. This was actually cited on the page when I had originally completed it.

In Short: yeah... i'll improve this, but jeeze.

Continue to remain against any merge in any situation on principle. - Clark Sui (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, but you miss the point. When wars and battles have separate articles, they also have separate content. I'm willing to stipulate on the basis of the Livy passage that this war existed: but what does this article say about it? Nothing that isn't said at Battle of Lake Regillus or Foedus Cassianum. Per WP:ATD-M, it could be converted to a redirect right now. I'm trying to give you the opportunity to describe the war and provide content that is distinct from the other two articles. But I've seen merge proposals hang around for literally years, so I'd like to have a timeframe. The editor who's willing to do the work should get to set the timeframe, in my view of things. If no editor is willing to do the work, then there's no point in having a duplicative article. We're not arguing about the existence of the war; we're looking at whether information exists to sustain an article sufficiently independent of the battle and treaty articles. The merge tag was added April 6. Since you've been looking at the sources, how much time do you think it would take to compile enough content to make this article independent of the other two? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say you copied the page from the English language article (I assume you mean Battle of Lake Regillus). I said that the content here largely duplicates the content there, which it did. The "dubious" part is ascribing a connection between the Battle of Lake Regillus and the treaty of Cassius, in order to assert that the "war" dragged on for five years. Livy doesn't say that it did; he says that there was no open war between Rome and the Latins during the years after the battle; and the next interactions between Rome and the Latins imply friendly relations in 495 and 494, before the treaty was concluded. Brill's New Pauly seems to suggest that the earlier events with Fidenae, Crustumeria, and Praeneste were part of the war, which ended with the Battle of Lake Regillus; if we interpret Livy that way, which Cynwolfe is willing to do (and I'll willingly abide by her judgment in this), then the treaty of Cassius still doesn't have anything to do with ending the war. P Aculeius (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Not so Cynwolfe, I commend you for trying to resolve this bottleneck and I fully understand your point and empathize with any frustration you may feel. As stated, I will work to improve this article, but maintain that it should not be merged, nor do I believe the merge tag to be fair. Believe wikify or expansion template would be more in order than a call for a merge. In terms of your call to action to improve the article, which I certainly believe is fair and necessary, I don't predict an overly long amount of time. Understand you could theoretically merge the article now. Don't think its the right move. I further believe this debate is more constructive to our own development of the historical narrative than we may think.

Aculeius: Still maintain that the connection with the Cassian peace treaty is not dubious (also that the treaty is more of a result of the larger hostilities of the war and the looming Volscian threat than of the singular Battle at Lake Regillus - which is separated from the treaty by years depending on sources.) Concede your point that Cassius was not the only commander, something that we need to expand on. As the war lasted for 5 years, this would be highly unlikely given that consuls were generally elected on a yearly basis. - Clark Sui (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to give you the chance to expand the article. I don't see anything wrong with the merge tag procedurally, per the link I've already cited twice too often. So I don't think it needs to be removed as resolved until someone other than the expander is willing to remove it—in the interest of satisfying all parties. As I said, I've seen merge tags hang around for years; they're not so scary. (Do try to use Google Books or some other resource to obtain published scholarship other than websites and such; see whether you can lay hands on the relevant volume of CAH).Cynwolfe (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

But two notes: doesn't the passage in Livy (as P Aculeius points out elsewhere) deal with events leading up to the Battle of Lake Regillus? When I look at the careers in Broughton, MRR, I don't see a lot of relevant action in the years between Lake Regillus and the treaty. So it would be a good idea to find a solid overview in a standard work of scholarship. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition to Livy there's also Dionysius' description of events leading up to the Battle of Lake Regillus at v.50-vi.3 [1]. Neither Livy nor Dionysius seem to describe any further active operations against the Latins after Lake Regillus. Instead they describe some Volscian wars which they present as the immediate cause for the peace treaty. As for modern scholarship, I have checked with Cornell and Forsythe's histories on early Rome and neither make any mention of any other specific events than Lake Regillus and the Foedus. My feeling is that, with the exception of Dionysius, no author, ancient or old, have ever written more than a handful of lines on events before and after Lake Regillus simply because there's hardly any material to work with. Fornadan (t) 21:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)