Talk:Gaius Marius

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGaius Marius has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 3, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
March 8, 2022Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

That's Sertorius...[edit]

That's a picture of a bust of Sertorius. Definitely not Gaius Marius — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F720:F00:4862:1D6:72E8:AC32:C779 (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which bust is Sertorius? What's your source for this? Paul August ☎ 16:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reforms of Marius - reference to Richard John Evans[edit]

There is a link in the "Reforms of Marius" section to the wikipedia entry for celebrated historian Sir Richard J Evans, a specialist in the history of 20th century Germany. It is clear, if you look at the footnote, that the source is in fact a 1995 phd thesis submitted by a student in South Africa called Richard John Evans. I submit that this is unlikely to be the same person as Sir Richard J Evans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H4tess (talk • contribs) 10:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. T8612 (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oxymoron[edit]

"Plutarch then anonymously relates that Marius" 100.15.127.199 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The specific passage (translated) in Plutarch is Some, however, say that his ambitious nature was completely revealed during his illness by his being swept into a strange delusion. He thought that he had the command in the Mithridatic war, and then, just as he used to do in his actual struggles, he would indulge in all sorts of attitudes and gestures, accompanying them with shrill cries and frequent calls to battle. Plutarch is relating what "some... say", which I think is adequately reflected by that phrasing. Would you (or anyone else) propose an alternate phrasing? Ifly6 (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image?[edit]

The Scipio Asiaticus bust has been removed, and another image inserted in its place, which presumably also doesn't depict Marius. Seems to me like there should be some discussion on this, since the Asiaticus sculpture is probably too famous to warrant an unexplained removal, even if we know the traditional identification with Marius is incorrect. Avilich (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think the Asiaticus/Marius bust can stay with an explanation. The new bust however has a fantasy attribution and is much less famous. As far as I know, the only secured depiction of Marius is that on the coin of Fundanius. T8612 (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there (or rather do we have) an image of this coin? Ifly6 (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This one, I believe. It's obviously not a close-up portrait, but still contemporary, and I would support using it instead of the Scipio bust. Avilich (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I would prefer leaving the current traditionally... + "but actually" portrait then: that coin portrait is so generic it could be any triumphator waltzing down the street. Ifly6 (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deedman22: Re the recent change image change, I reverted per the existing consensus to retain the old (possibly misattributed) bust. Ifly6 (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really make any sense - what is the point of illustrating an historical figure with a picture of a bust saying it's probably not him? 110.145.75.205 (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Digital Herodotus: Do you have a source for the attribution of the changed image? Ifly6 (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was in the descriptions of each image. It seemed better to switch out a busy, which is known to not be of Marius, with one from the Vaticans museum that is often attributed to be him. Digital Herodotus (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add then, the source for the attribution of the changed image? Ifly6 (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's another bust with an fanciful attribution. T8612 (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline update[edit]

@Cerebellum: Hello there! I just wanted also to ping you about the timeline. I have no idea how that's set up or made, so I mostly ignored it during my rewrites. It may, however, be worthwhile to make sure that the dates there line up with the dates reported in the article text. (Hopefully, I'm not putting too much on your plate!) Ifly6 (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifly6: No worries! I just took a look, the only date I'm not sure about is what year Marius was military tribune – the timeline says 134 but the article doesn't give a date, is 134 correct? --Cerebellum (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no indication in Broughton's MRR that he was military tribune in 134 BC. The specific passage in Broughton MMR vol 2 (containing the career index) reads:

C. Marius C. f. C. n. (14, Supb. 6) Q. 121 ?, Tr. Pl. 119, Pr. 115, Promag. (Propr. ?) Farther Spain 114, Leg. Lieut. 109–108, Cos. Numidia 107, Procos. 106–105, Cos. II 104, III 103, IV 102, V 101, VI 100, Leg., Amb. 97, Procos.? 90, Leg., Lieut. 90, Procos. ? 88, 87, Cos. VII 86, Augur 97–86.

Source is Broughton, Thomas Robert Shannon (1952). The magistrates of the Roman republic. Vol. 2. New York: American Philological Association. p 589.
Thank you for checking! I removed that entry from the timeline. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note for posterity. Evans Acta Classica 51 (2008) pp 65–69 indicates Marius was prorogued pro consule to Spain in 114. Drogula Commanders and command (2015), not cited but useful background, also notes how the propraetorship disappeared by the late second century and that, in general, Spanish governors during the 2nd century were prorogued pro consule. Ifly6 (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

This article, along with several other articles about ancient Romans, was changed to use a different infobox, {{infobox officeholder}}. In consequence, there's discussion about which infobox to use and how at Talk:Julius Caesar#Infobox and then at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Infoboxes for Roman office-holders as a more central location. NebY (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coin image[edit]

The image in the Infobox is of a coin which doesn’t do a good job of portraying what Marius looked like, is basically a stick figure. The image should be changed to the bust of Marius which shows in great detail what he looked like

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marius_Chiaramonti_Inv1488.jpg Friedbyrd (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a bust of Marius. This attribution is baseless. T8612 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 58.164.39.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been very insistent that the coin image should be disturbed:

Image is at least of a person's face rather than a minuscule cartoon, regardless coin is presented on page lower down; the phrase 'so-called' is inappropriate academically to my mind, it is smug and immediately repellent.

Edit 3

Whilst the coin is definitely 'Marius', it is not to any reasonable standard a recognisable image of a person, and is on balance less worthy than a potentially suspect bust. Phrase "so-called" is smug and inappropriate.

Edit 2 with a prior Edit 1.

This matter has been discussed at some length already. There are no busts, heads, etc which have any hard basis as being depictions of Marius. They are not potentially suspect: it's just almost certainly (95+ pc) not him; every head recovered during and after the Renaissance fetched a higher price if someone called it a depiction of FAMOUS_PERSON_HERE.

The further objection to the phrase so-called as unacademic seems very irregular when such busts are called so-called in well-respected books and journals. Eg two marble portraits of unknown Roman aristocrats in the Munich Glyptothek, the so-called Marius... and the also so-called Sulla...[1] and Giuliani has associated, for example, the so-called Marius and Sulla portraits in Munich with the tomb.[2] Ifly6 (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the case of Marius, it could be good to have a modern art depiction of him in the lede; the coin could be moved to the section on his triumph. There are several paintings (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Of these, I think 2 & 3 are the best (3 is a Google Art Project picture, while 2 is in the permanent collection of the Louvre, which makes it the most appropriate imo). T8612 (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drouais in the Louvre (left), Vanderlyn - Google Art Project (right)

References

  1. ^ Pollini, J (2007). "Ritualizing death in republican rome: memory, religion, class struggle, and the wax ancestral mask tradition's origin and influence on veristic portraiture". Performing death: social analyses of funerary traditions in the ancient near East and Mediterranean. p. 259.
  2. ^ Fejfer, Jane (2008). Roman portraits in context. de Gruyter. p. 466. doi:10.1515/9783110209990. ISBN 978-3-11-018664-2.

"Putative reforms" section[edit]

@Rotideypoc41352: Thanks for reminding me (via the Watchlist) that updating was necessary in this article to reflect changes on the Marian reforms. I largely wrote both articles; I should have taken action to reconcile them earlier. Ifly6 (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks to a commenter on Devereaux's ACOUP Marian reforms blog entry for mentioning that all other articles need to be made consistent with your rewrite, I'm slowly checking them one-by-one. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re the following, I think The willingness of the soldiers to kill fellow Romans changed after the Social War, not due to a reformist Marian vision: "if Sulla's army had been unwilling to march on Rome... then the outcome would obviously have been completely different, no matter how power-hungry Marius or Sulla were".[1] is a cuckoo edit. Flower 2010 connects the willingness of the soldiers to Marius' putative reform. Ifly6 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Flower 2010, pp. 158–9.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaius_Marius&oldid=1219849620"