Talk:Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus

Untitled

My man! --The Cunctator

hmpf! Now let's see you take your man beyond a three-word stub <g> - clasqm

There is a reason I chose that name. --TheCunctator

---

Visigoth invasion?????????? KF 11:32 27 May 2003 (UTC)

"Fabius was well aware of the military superiority of the Carthaginians" this isn't true - the Romans actually had a much superior military, it was simply that *Hannibal was too good. On equal ground the romans would have won, but hannibal chose the scenario every time. Change.

panthers

---

The article mentions that even though Fabius Maximus was part of the delegation to Carthage in 218 BC, it was his kinsman Fabius Buteo that declared war. However, looking at the citation (Liv. Ab Urbe Cond. xxi. xviii) along with the account by Cassius Dio (Zonaras 8, 22) it looks to me as though Fabius Maximus was the one who declared war. Maybe someone more knowledgeable could clear this up for me? Am I missing something or was it actually Fabius Maximus who declared war? Ltmboy (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced?

I would say that there are references, but no in-line citations. References can be improved. wikibiohistory (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. Ucucha 18:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Fabius Maximus → Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus — Full name. There are a number of watchers for this article so I wanted to be cautious rather than bold on this one. Sometimes written as Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator, however 'Cunctator' appears to be more of a nickname as it means 'the delayer'. Appears to be the consistent name choice on international wikipedias.—Labattblueboy (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:They're all nicknames; cognomina are merely hereditary nicknames. I really think that this, like Julius Caesar, comes under Keep It Simple, Student. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Support: full names, please. --TakenakaN (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? We don't use Pompey's full name, or Caesar's, or Cicero's; why Fabius Maximus'? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, I wouldn't oppose a move towards Quintus Fabius and perhaps even Quintus Fabius Maximus but I oppose the proposed 'Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus'. Way too long, way too clumsy. Flamarande (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

3 is the first odd number?

"Plutarch isn't sure exactly how Fabius came up with this number, although he believes it was to honor of the perfection of the number three, as it is the first of the odd numbers..." When did three become the first odd number? Where I come from, one is the first odd number. Hmmmmmm... Rsercher (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources

How is Plutarch, writing biography in the 1st or 2nd century A.D. a "primary" source for the war with Hannibal and Fabius Cunctator's part in it, and both Livy writing in the 1st century B.C. and Polybius writing in the 2nd century B.C. (not even a century after these events), a "secondary" source?! Plutarch would have probably used those two (plus others of course) as his source.

It seems to me someone read Plutarch and wrote this article up from that. As I am doing some work in this area as I get some time to improve this article and include a better selection of source material into it.

GermanicusCaesar (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Feel free to point the old title to the gens article or create a dab, whichever is usually the done in such circumstances. If the two interested users disagree about where the redirect should point, take it to WP:RFD. Jenks24 (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Fabius Maximus → Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus – Revisiting an old request. Nearly all secondary sources give his name at least as "Quintus Fabius Maximus", not merely "Fabius Maximus", and most classical reference sources include "Verrucosus" because there were many other important Romans named "Quintus Fabius Maximus". In fact, Wikipedia has a disambiguation page for them, listing twelve (more are known from inscriptions, including a few not named Quintus). Wikipedia presently has articles (or at least stubs) on eleven different persons named "Quintus Fabius Maximus", and most of them at one point were important generals and/or held the consulship, the highest office of the Roman Republic. There's no arguing that this isn't the most important one, but he's the only one not identified by his full name in the article title. Since most other sources list him by his full name (sans "Cunctator", which isn't universally applied, being more an epithet than a cognomen), doing so wouldn't unduly confuse people looking for this article. And of course, a high percentage of people reading this article will get here through links in other articles, in which case the exact title isn't even relevant for searching. The last time this suggestion was taken up, seven years ago, there were two in favour, two opposed.

One of those opposed wrote that he would support "Quintus Fabius Maximus", just without the cognomen, which he felt was "way too long, way too clumsy". But we have articles titled:

• Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus
• Quintus Fabius Maximus Gurges (two of them)
• Quintus Fabius Maximus Eburnus
• Quintus Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus
• Quintus Fabius Maximus Aemilianus
• Quintus Fabius Maximus Servilianus

And two articles titled "Quintus Fabius Maximus" without a cognomen, one of which has the date of his consulship for disambiguation, the other having no disambiguation in the title. Surely if a single article should be primary for "Quintus Fabius Maximus", it would be this one, Verrucosus, not the consul of 45 BC. The fact that one of the "minor" members of this family has that distinction in Wikipedia is hard to explain.

The other vote in opposition asserted that "cognomina are merely hereditary nicknames". Which isn't strictly speaking true, any more than it would be to say that "Glover, Cooper, Fletcher, Baker" are hereditary nicknames. It's true that cognomina were acquired much as nicknames were, but they also distinguished branches of larger families, sometimes for many generations; "Maximus" is a cognomen, as are "Caesar" and "Scipio". Within those branches, additional cognomina could be used to distinguish individuals, which is why the Fabii Maximi had so many of them, including "Verrucosus". That was how the Romans identified which Fabius Maximus they intended, and it's how most secondary sources do it today. Verrucosus is the most famous because he played a pivotal role in the Second Punic War, but his ancestor Rullianus was nearly as important a century earlier, and several of the others were quite notable for their deeds. Plus, in categories it's quite odd to see a dozen Fabii Maximi under their full names, including one "Quintus Fabius Maximus" with no additional cognomen or disambiguation, but which isn't this one, and at the same time to have this one alone listed only as "Fabius Maximus", which you might expect to be the title of a disambiguation page, or an article about the family, rather than a single member of it.

In short, moving the article to "Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus" would be consistent with how other articles about members of this family are titled; consistent with how he's named in most secondary sources; useful for internal reasons (such as sorting and categorization), and wouldn't make the article significantly harder for users to find. P Aculeius (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• On the face of it a good idea could easily be confused with Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus In ictu oculi (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose this Fabius Maximus seems to be the most notable and he is called "Fabius Maximus" in the sources. Consistency isn't the only consideration. What a mess this family left us.

• Would propose the following:
  • Quintus Fabius Maximus Gurges (Consul 265 BC)-->ProD
  • Quintus Fabius Maximus Gurges (Consul 292 BC)-->Quintus Fabius Maximus Gurges
  • Quintus Fabius Maximus Servilianus (Quintus Fabius Maximus Servilianus (consul 142 BC)-->Quintus Fabius Maximus Servilianus

==  Proposed deletion of Quintus Fabius Maximus Gurges (consul 265 BC) ==

The article Quintus Fabius Maximus Gurges (consul 265 BC) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm interested to know which sources call him only "Fabius Maximus". The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology calls him "Quintus Fabius Maximus, with the [agnomen] Verrucosus", the Oxford Classical Dictionary lists him as "Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus", as does Webster's Biographical Dictionary, and The Magistrates of the Roman Republic; the Cambridge Biographical Encyclopedia calls him "Quintus Fabius Maximus", while the Oxford Reference Encyclopedia states in the first line, "full name Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus". Livy consistently refers to him as "Quintus Fabius Maximus". Plutarch, who ignores his praenomen (perhaps understandable, as he was a Greek scholar), nonetheless gives the surname "Verrucosus" in section 1 of his "Life of Fabius Maximus" (I think it's also worth noting that Plutarch describes Rullianus as the "greatest" of the family). The Capitoline Fasti always give praenomen and at least one cognomen; more if there's space. If we're going by sheer number of sources, the majority clearly come down in favour of "Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus". P Aculeius (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You know what, upon a closer reading, it's not so clear whether Livy may have been referring to a son of the man in question. He calls him Quintus Fabius Maximus 21 times. (XXII 8, 9, 10, 38, XXIII 21, 22, 30, 31, XXIV 9x2, XXVII 6, 7, 8, 11x2 35, XXXVIII summ, 40, XXX 26x2, XXXIII 42, 44) He calls him (or perhaps his son) Fabius Maximus 5 times (XXII summ, 53, XXIII 31, XXVI 8, XXVII summ,) He calls him Quintus Fabius once (XXIV 43). As to the "greatest" note, I'm pretty sure that this Fabius Maximus is the most notable because of his association with Hannibal and the Punic Wars (I swear my Western Civ. Professor spent half the semester talking about them!). For the reasons:

Prefer either Quintus Fabius Maximus or Fabius Maximus. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: We seem to have three opinions, of which two are in favour of the move, and one opposed to the move as requested, but willing to move to a similar title. I'm not sure that this is enough to say we have consensus. Before closing the discussion, I'd like to see if we can reach a closer agreement. If closed now, we would move either to Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus or Quintus Fabius Maximus. There's already an article titled Quintus Fabius Maximus, which I think we can probably agree would be better moved to another title (I doubt this would be controversial). There's also a disambiguation page, "List of Romans named Quintus Fabius Maximus", which I think is rather superfluous given that we now have Fabia (gens) listing all of them.

When one searches for an article in the search window, matching article titles appear automatically, including redirects, one of which is to "Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus". Out of that list I'd be much more likely to choose that, due to precision, than to choose "Quintus Fabius Maximus" without an agnomen. I can't see anybody being confused or misled by this title, which I think is a problem with the current one. I'm not aware of any policy that states that the shortest possible title is necessarily the best one, and we don't always choose a primary topic when there are multiple articles that are all important, even though is arguably more notable than the others. For instance, many editors (in WP CG&R) would argue that Mercury the god should be the primary topic, while other editors (particularly astronomers) would argue for Mercury the planet, and others for mercury the metal. Instead we have Mercury (mythology), Mercury (planet), and Mercury (element) (to say nothing of Mercury (Freddie)).

Are there any strong arguments against Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus other than length (the name is certainly not obscure) or whether he should be the primary topic for Quintus Fabius Maximus? If there aren't, then I suggest that precision is the best criterion to use in this instance. P Aculeius (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Unopposed Has someone suggested a redirect from "Fabius Maximus" after the move? Sorry, I scanned the comments and didn't see one.Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, then, it appears we have consensus. But I'll leave this open another day or so just in case someone's just noticing the discussion. A redirect would be created automatically when this article is moved over the existing redirect, so that's not a problem. However, I think that "Fabius Maximus" is inherently ambiguous, so would suggest redirecting it to the Fabii Maximi section of the gens page. That's pretty easy to do, if we can agree that it's the best target. I say "ambiguous" because both Rullianus and Gurges were larger-than-life figures, and to the Romans, it was Rullianus, rather than Verrucosus, who was regarded almost as a demi-god; Verrucosus was a hero, but still in his grandfather's (or great-grandfather's) shadow. P Aculeius (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How to add a picture of a portrait bust that purports to be of Quintus Fabius Maximus from the Hannibal's War from a library book.

Could someone please tell me how I can include a picture of a portrait bust of the Fabius Maximus from the Hannibalic War. It's from a public library book on history and can be footnoted. I've never seen this picture anywhere on the internet so I photographed it with my phone. I think maybe no one has ever posted this picture from a book to the internet before. It's a bust of him as an older man and looks like something that Fabius Maximus might have posed for in his lifetime. The book looks like a legitimate source. Thank you anyone who might read this. Charlesyanni (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

There's not a simple answer to this question. If we knew more about the book and the photo in it, we might be able to determine the picture's copyright status (i.e. is it in the public domain), and whether better versions are already available. Without that, we're guessing about whether we can add a picture of a picture, without being able to verify that it depicts the subject of the article (or is at least speculated to do so by experts). Not to mention that a copy of a copy may not be very good for Wikipedia use. What I suggest is that you identify the book more specifically: we need the full title, author, and the date of publication. All of this should be printed on or near the title page. The book might have a list of illustrations in the front, or a caption that identifies the image more clearly. If nothing in the book tells us more—say, what museum the bust is in, or who discovered it, or any nickname given it—then maybe someone who can view the image will be able to find a match for it on Wikimedia Commons or the internet generally, and establish which bust it is, so that we can determine if there's a photo of it that can be used on Wikipedia. So as a starting point, can you identify the book specifically? If you no longer have it, you should be able to look it up in your library's online card catalogue, and post the title, author, and perhaps the publication date in a reply here. Then maybe we can find out more about the image. P Aculeius (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

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) 19:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)