Talk:Marcus Licinius Crassus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Inclusion of details within the Spartacus section

The Spartacus section seems to contain a large amount of information which has nothing to do with Spartacus, but is instead very important points of Crassus's later career. Perhaps these points (such as his involvement in the First Triumvirate) could be moved into another section? Phasler90 21:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the changes noted above have been made. However, in this same section, I see a paragraph beginning as follows: "Crassus' order for the decimation of his troops could been wrongly interpreted by moderns (see above). This perceived act of 'abject cruelty' might be viewed through the lens of a young aristocrat . . . " This paragraph seems to be pure speculation and editorialization -- the phrasing suggests that it's one person's opinion, and there is no citation of any kind to support the argument. I suggest that this editorializing paragraph be deleted -- oratio delenda est! Thuvan Dihn (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I just read Plutarch's Life of Crassus, which gives a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the decimation in Chapter X. Although Plutarch was writing 200 years after the fact, I think we can trust him to represent the attitudes of Crassus' contemporaries much more accurately than we can trust a modern individual without any special training in the period's history and culture. Plutarch's account ends: ".... thus inflicting on the soldiers this ancient mode of punishment which had long fallen into disuse; for disgrace also is added to the manner of death, and many things horrible and dreadful to see accompany the punishment, in the presence of all the spectators." This passage does not suggest in any way that Plutarch might have condoned such an action.

Accordingly, and boldly, I deleted the editorializing paragraph and expanded the description of the decimation, with reference to Plutarch.Thuvan Dihn (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing legion sounds-like

calling them Li-Jien, which when pronounced sounds like legion.

It certainly does in English, but was it pronounced "leejun" by Roman soldiers at the time? Modern Italian, if I understand correctly (and I really don't know) pronounces it quite differently.

Caldair (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit: Checking with A Guy Who Knows Latin yesterday, it turns out that it was indeed pronounced pretty much like in modern Italian, something like "leh-gi-oh" - so unless Chinese pronounciation of Li-Jien is different to what I'd think it is, the vowels are wrong. Caldair (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I studied Latin for four years. The Latin word was legiō (legiōnis in the genitive case), which was pronounced le' gı o (IPA)), LEH gih oh (with a hard "g", not "LEH jih oh"). so there's little correlation between the two.

I'm going to remove that section from the since the sources are a blog post and an email based on viewers recollection of speculation in a Discovery Channel program.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 15:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite right, BCorr|Брайен. But the section is (was) still there. I tagged the part "took them prisoner ... calling then Li-jien" as "Citation needed", and took out the unsupported connection between that and Classical Latin legiō ˈleɡioː (or possibly Vulgar ˈledʒio), and its unsupportable implied similarity to Modern English legion ˈliːdʒən. -- Thnidu (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Molten gold controversy

I believe that the molten gold punishment should be seen as solely literary flourish, unless we have physical evidence that this actually happened. This is not to say that such tortures were possible, but the sources of such comes from ancient and medieval writers way after the fact such as Cassius Dio and Dante (whose Divine Comedy was mostly a political critique.) Perhaps this concept should be a separate article in Wikipedia itself as I do not see any issues about it on the 'net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabinal (talk • contribs) 17:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Pulling Crassus' Bridle

In this article, it is claimed that Octavius grabbed Crassus' bridle, leading to a panic amid Crassus' group, and the final slaughter. However, in the Battle of Carrhae article, the claim is made that a Parthian grabbed Crassus' reins, causing the panic. Which is the correct incident? 24.138.105.38 (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Plutarch says it was Octavius (first in a crowd). I am not aware of any other source saying anything else.I am open to correction here if someone knows another source.Orenburg1 (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Loaded Statement

As per the final sentence of the lede:

"Crassus' death permanently unraveled the alliance between Caesar and Pompey. Within four years of Crassus' death, Caesar would cross the Rubicon and begin a civil war against Pompey and the legitimate government of the Republic."

The inclusion of "legitimate" in this sentence sounds very POV. Legitimate according to what (or so it appears, whom's) standards? There was much debate within the Republic itself as to what constituted "legitimate" government. "Ruling" would be a better qualifier, or "current". Much more suitable would be to say "civil war against Pompey and the optimates." 24.138.105.38 (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)