Talk:Legio X Gemina

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Legio X Gemina article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Roman & Byzantine / Classical C‑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

C

This article has been rated as C-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 met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

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

Classical Greece and Rome C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spain

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Different tenth?

I know that the tenth fought at Jerusalem. However, I think that it was a different tenth. According to Caesar's Legion, Gemina was the less famous of two legions called the tenth. It seems as though someone put the info for Legio X into this one by mistake. --YankeeDoodle14 21:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Dando-Collins is a rather peculiar historian, since he forgets to cite his sources and comes up with a lot of unknow facts. As long as these claims are not backed, please refrain from adding infos from his books to these pages.--Panairjdde 20:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? He has one of the longest reference lists I've ever seen. --YankeeDoodle14 21:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reference that supports the claim that X Equestris was renamed X Gemina and not X Fretensis?--Panairjdde 09:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. --YankeeDoodle14 04:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

??? "What is the reference that supports the claim that X Equestris was renamed X Gemina and not X Fretensis?" is not a yes/no question, it requires the name of the reference used by Dando-Collins.--Panairjdde 09:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read your question again. You are the one who has asserted that Equestris and Gemina are the same legion, not me. --YankeeDoodle14 17:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, exactly what are you disputing? You put a tag on the article, are going to explain why?--Panairjdde 21:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that Equestris was later refashioned into Gemina. As I have said many times before, Equestris was refashioned into Fretensis. However since you (Panairjdde) dissagreed and refused to let me edit the articles to that effect, I agreed to keep all three articles seperate. However you are going against your promise here and are trying to keep them together now. Care to explain why? --YankeeDoodle14 20:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is your proof that Equestris became Fretensis?--Panairjdde 21:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still no answer to this fundamental point. We are splitting the article because this Dando says it is Fretensis and not Gemina, yet no proof until now of this.--Panairjdde 15:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is possabe to name a legion with a number that is used by others there are many 1st legions--Rofur 00:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split this article Yes or No?

Ok, I read that a split of this article has been proposed. The first article would deal with the "Legio X Equestris" while under the command of Caesar (mainly describing during the Gallic Wars and the following Civil war against Pompey). The second article would deal with the refounded and punished (stripped of the name) and almagated legion of Augustus, namely the "Legio X Gemina". The first article will tell the average reader that the Legio X Equestris was succeded (and almagated with another legion) by the X Gemina. Well what do you think about it?

A fair alternative would be migrate the WHOLE article to Legio X Equestris (turning X Gemina into a redirect) and begin with something like this: The X Equestris fought under the command of Cesar in the Gallic Wars where it gained its Nom de guerre..... It nearly rebelled against Octavian and was stripped of its nom de guerre, amalgated with another legion and renamed as "Legio X Gemina". Flamarande 22:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not! The legion was known as Equestris for some decades, and Gemina for centuries. It is also questionable if they are actually the same legion, after the reconstruction of X Gemina ranks by Augustus; I think making X Equestris the main article is out of discussion (so to speak).--Panairjdde 22:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, then perhaps we should migrate the Caesar stuff to "Legio X Equestris", simply because alltough the "Gemina legion" existed by far longer "Caesar's 10th legion" is more famous. Flamarande 23:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But the whole point comes from the fact that YankeeDoodle14 disputes something about X Equestris/Gemina/Fretensis (I tought it was the lineage, but it seems I am wrong, I am waiting for explanation), and therefore put a lot of dispute tags on both legions' articles, so we ended up splitting the article. I was very happy with the original situation, in which there were two articles (Gemina and Fretensis) and whenever a link to Equestris was needed, it was made to Gemina.--Panairjdde 00:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were right. I do dispute the lineage. That's why I still want to split Equestris and Gemina, because they weren't the same legion. So let's put the matter to a vote: --YankeeDoodle14 21:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

What is the survey about?--Panairjdde 21:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Split this article, yes or no?" --YankeeDoodle14 19:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was already splitted, what are you complaining about?--Panairjdde 11:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --YankeeDoodle14 21:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP This survey is not needed. If you read above you will notice we allready decided to split the "Legio X Equestris" from the "Legio X Gemina", creating two separate articles. I also have the book "Caesar's legion" and previously shared Dando's view but I checked it out, and in the book "The complete Roman Army" by Adrian Goldsworthy found out that the X Gemina was levied by Caesar. It is more than likely that the original 10th legion was stripped of its title by Augustus and then almalgated with another legion and became the X Gemina. Dando's view is not supported by other scholars and is probably a honest mistake. Flamarande 21:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- However Panairjdde still seems to oppose the split. So I thought that the proper thing to do was put it to a vote. --YankeeDoodle14 19:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The power of the vote has been exagerated. If you are willing to work on this a few hours at LEAST, then simply go to Legio X Equestris and change it from a redirect expanding it into a full article. Try to be fair, and write something like this at end: "the original 10th legion was stripped of its title by Augustus and then almalgated with another legion and became the X Gemina..." (feel free to improve, but don't follow Dando blindly, he is a bit "liberal" in book, check everything first.)Flamarande 09:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sounds ok with me. I'll get started tomorrow. --YankeeDoodle14 04:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that was incorrectly added to article text

The information above is not historically correct. See "Caesar's Legion" for a comprehensive history of the 10th Legion written by Stephen Dando-Collins at Appendix E. The 10th Legion was raised by Caesar in 61 BC when he was governor of Baetica. According to classical sources this legion had NO title of any kind. In AD 233 Cassius Dio listed all the Legions in existence at that time. He does list both the 10th Gemina, and the 10th. The 10th Gemina is a different Legion and should not be confused with the 10th, which this article is doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.203.16.1 (talk • contribs) 20:08, December 10, 2008 (UTC)