Talk:Caratacus' last battle

Military history: British / European / Roman & Byzantine / Classical Start‑class

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Shropshire Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shropshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Shropshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShropshireWikipedia:WikiProject ShropshireTemplate:WikiProject ShropshireShropshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Expansion of this article

A cavalry tombstone found near Gloucester, I believe, indicates one of the units that may have seen action was the Ala I Thracum, a cavalry auxiliary. The tombstone is that of one of the units duplicarius which the author explains is an NCO on double pay, named Longinus Sdapeze, a Thracian from what is now Sofia, Bulgaria. From Graham Webster's Roman Invasion of Britain pg. 20.

I'm not sure if this particular cavalry reg. participated in this battle, more research will be needed. Clearly it will be much easier to define what cohorts were actually present at the site of the battle than the Britons under Caratacus command, but such an investigation would add much to this article.L Hamm 00:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS The article on Caratacus does not yet have a link to this article.

Rename article

If there's one thing that looks fairly definite, the battle wasn't on the site now known as Caer Caradoc. The article is long overdue for renaming, perhaps to Final defeat of Caratacus. I'll leave the suggestion for a few days at least before I do anything. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to Caratacus's last battle. I hope this suits everyone. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tacitus

There is no need to quote massive blocks of Tacitus verbatim from an old out of copyright translation, even and perhaps especially if it's the only source. The article as it stands is pretty much just an abdriged version of these passages from the same translation, so it get s very repetitious to then have the original passages underneath at such length. Pipsally (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific case, where multiple secondary and tertiary writers endlessly recycle more or less garbled paraphrases of our only source, direct quotations seem a really good idea to me. But indeed, however good Perseus is, a more recent translation might be good. Can you suggest a better translation?

Meanwhile I have copyedited, removing some of the frankly legendary material, an image of some haphazard spot on the Severn, etc. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, up to a degree, but on that rationale there are large swathes of Roman Wikipedia that we should simply make simply quote blocks of Livy and Diodorus, or god forbid, the AngloSaxon chronicle for the Early Middle Ages. I’m a long way from a decent library, but I endeavored to be industrious yesterday to find sources online that discuss this battle. As you see I came up with very little. I think that really there not much more than a stub here, a discussion of the best of the location debate, and a link to Perseus. There simply isn’t much notability, even if the passage itself is descriptive.

Certainly in tandem with the skim of Tacitus that makes up the article now, I don’t think the passages should go back in in such length. But maybe it’s a case of cutting the other junk insteadPipsally (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]