Talk:Quinctia gens

Classical Greece and Rome 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Titus Quinctius Capitolinus Barbatus (consul 421 BC)

I see no indication that this Titus Quinctius and the Titus Quinctius, consular tribune in 405 BC, are different individuals and Broughton seems to treat them both as the same in "The Magistrates of the Roman Republic". Any feedback from someone on this or should they be merged? CutieyKing (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that Drumann would shed some light on this, but I don't see that he treated the Quinctii. The DGRBM treats them as two individuals, but doesn't discuss the reason. Both 421 and 405 are partially extant in the Fasti Capitolini, but the filiations are not—they're interpolated by modern scholars. I can only suggest that chronology is the objection: the grandfather, Titus Quinctius Capitolinus Barbatus, was consul for the first time in 471 BC. Assuming that he was younger at that time than consuls tended to be in the later Republic—say thirty—his eldest son would likely have been born around that time, and been about fifty when he assumed the consulship in 421—older than usual, but not exceptional; his illustrious father last held it in 439, when he would have been around sixty-two, if he had been only thirty in 471. If he were older than we're supposing, then the son might have been well over fifty as well in 421.

Now we don't have a firm grasp of the ages of consular tribunes, but it was certainly seen as a less dignified office than the consulship, and since there were typically six of them each year by this point in time, they would have tended to be younger, on average, than the consuls in years when consuls were elected. But by 405, Barbatus the son would have been around sixty-six, at the youngest—and perhaps older—unless Barbatus pater had no sons until he was middle aged. So the consular tribune of 405 would seem more likely to be the grandson, than the son of Cincinnatus' brother. Speaking of which, I point out that Cincinnatus' son Caeso was banished in 461, and so was probably born in the 480's at the latest; Barbatus was the elder brother, having held office eleven years before Cincinnatus, but if his eldest son were of an age with Caeso Quinctius, he would have been closer to sixty or sixty-five in 421, and possibly over seventy-five by 405.

As I said, however, we don't really know how old Barbatus pater was, we don't know when his eldest son was born (or technically, whether the consul of 421 was his eldest son, although we infer that from his name; but there could have been an earlier son who died, and the consul of 421 could indeed have been the son of his father's middle age or beyond). And he could have been consular tribune in his sixties or even seventies, if he were respected enough; even if the office were typically filled by younger men, older men sometimes did hold it. But this still requires a chain of inferences that doesn't seem terribly probable, compared with the likelihood that the consular tribune of 405 was the grandson, and not the son of the famous Barbatus. And the bottom line is that we don't know and can't prove it either way, which is why it makes sense for them to have separate entries, although it might be worth noting that he could be the same man as the consul of 421. P Aculeius (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You provide a convincing Argument as always! Il add it to the page of the consul in 421 in regards to the confusion surrounding the identity of the consul and the consular tribune, would be great to find some quote to it. But i guess i can check out the DGRBM who considers them two different people. Not sure if a separate page for the consular tribune in 405 BC would be that productive when very little is written about him. But i might come around to doing it. CutieyKing (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think it would be fine to treat them as the same person in the biographical article, provided that it allows for the possibility that they might be father and son instead. Obviously a quote would be ideal, but we don't have a quote, at least not from the DGRBM, although you can cite it for the proposition that some scholars regard them as father and son. Have you checked Pauly-Wissowa to see if they have one entry or two, and what they say, if anything, about the identification? It could be that they take it for granted, but there might be some discussion of the matter. P Aculeius (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly i do not know how to navigate the Pauly-Wissowa (nor do i think i can access it in a reasonable way). Added a short section in regards to the possibilty of them being two different individuals in the article. But might be that the second part of it falls under "OR" unless i can find some kind of reliable source for this. Thanks for the tips and help in this! CutieyKing (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]