Talk:Roman–Etruscan Wars

tags

I've tagged this article as relying on a single source and violating WP:OR in accordance with the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Livy. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the single source tag, at this stage. I don't agree with the original research tag.--Urg writer (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

508 BC War with Clusium

I have merged the Siege of Rome (508 BC) article into this section.

The section is currently at a manageable length. However, at some stage, particularly if the section is significantly expanded using other sources such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus, it may be a good idea to move the section to a separate article, and merely have a summary here with a "main" link to the new article.--Urg writer (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Children's reading section?

The external article 'Enemies of Rome' by Ross Cowan that was linked by an IP editor seems to me to be of interest in a bibliography if it is considered appropriate to have a subsection on introductory or children's books, as some articles here do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Title hyphen

Why does the title not have a hyphen but instead the redirect does? This is exactly the place to use a hyphen and not a dash of any kind (em or en). - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, checked MOS:Dash to see that an en-dash is the preferred usage on Wikipedia, though not elsewhere like here. So, never mind. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Need for article?

This article collects a disparate group of campaigns conducted over several centuries for various reasons as if they belonged together. They don't. Add to that the highly fictionalized nature of the accounts and I wonder what the need is for this article. IMO, it would be better merged into other articles, or at least broken up so that single groups of campaigns are isolated. Not marking this for deletion yet, but what do others think? - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eponymous-Archon Good question, I've been wondering that too. I'm currently reviewing multiple Roman-Fooian wars articles in English Wikipedia and many of them suffer from similar problems. However, unlike Roman–Gallic wars (which I have just nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman–Gallic wars), and Roman–Latin wars (where @GenoV84 and I have tentatively agreed to merge/split it across multiple other articles at Talk:Roman–Latin wars#Future of this article), Roman–Etruscan Wars appears to be sufficiently present in RS (WP:SIGCOV).

• Margaret Sankey 2002 p. 748–749 dates Roman–Etruscan Wars as 509–234 B.C.E., from the Overthrow of the Roman monarchy (traditionally in 509 BCE) to the Battle of the Metaurus (which she dates to 209 BCE). This is strange given that in her title she puts the end at 234 B.C.E. (which isn't mentioned in the entry).
• George Childs Kohn p. 165–167 divides them in two phases: Early Etruscan-Roman Wars (c. 509–308 B.C.), starting from the Overthrow of the Roman monarchy and ending with the Roman conquest of Perusia in 309 and a truce in 308, and Later Etruscan-Roman Wars (c. 302–264 B.C.) starting with the 302 BCE Roman intervention at Arretium and ending with the sack of Volsinii in 264 BCE (though he continues the narrative of military conflicts with "Etruscan" revolts up to 40 BCE).
• Pocket Eyewitness Ancient Rome 2014 p. 56 dates them to 753–308 BCE, without explanation. I think we can discard this as an unreliable source (popular history-telling), but that 308 BCE was significant seems to agree with Kohn.
• In a 2021 Science Advances paper by Posth et al., it says After more than four centuries of extensive regional development, in the fourth century BCE, the Etruscan civilization began to be assimilated into the Roman Republic through a series of Roman-Etruscan Wars, which ended in 264 BCE.
• Lee L. Brice 2014 p. 66–70 calls them the Etruscan Wars and dates them to 483–273 BCE, with a critical note at the beginning that it's virtually impossible to accurately reconstruct how the wars went. Interestingly, the entries Etruscan Wars and Etruscan Wars. Causes of the overlap a great deal in verbatim content, though the former suggests the 241 BCE revolt of Falerii as a last gasp.
• Amanda Grace Self 2016 p. 893–895 provides a very nuanced perspective on the Etruscan Wars, not giving a firm start or end. The earliest date she mentions is 436 BCE, the latest 295 BCE, but her view is clearly broader, and setting precise dates isn't the point. She even explicitly criticises the "us versus them" narrative, and the idea of a grand strategy to unite and completely defeat the other: The Romans had no notion of a planned, unified war against the Etruscan people. Rather, the military endeavors against the city-states of Etruria were discrete reactions to an array of individual factors and events. The Etruscans themselves never united in a large-scale war against the growing strength of Rome. (I must say I find that very well said). In the end, she does accept the term Etruscan Wars as a valid way of talking about this complex process.

That still leaves open the question of how to date this process, although unlike with Roman–Gallic wars, I do not see a fundamental disagreement in the sources about what and roughly when the terms are referring to. Everyone agrees on at least 436 BCE to 308 BCE, and most of them agree to stretch it a few decades broader than that in both directions. 753 BCE, 241 BCE, 234 BCE, and 80 BCE are unexplained or poorly explained outliers that almost nobody else accepts. For practical purposes, I think we can tentatively put the dates at c. 509–264 BCE, while noting that some authors have a different periodisation. We should probably also add Etruscan Wars and Etruscan–Roman Wars as altnames in the opening sentence. What do you think? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, the point here is that this is not a “process”. It’s mainly a series of campaigns, unrelated except that they are part of Rome’s nearly constant warring (and expansion). Most of the sources cited above are encyclopedic in some part, and the last doesn’t impress with the usual silliness about us not understanding Etruscan. I’d like to see a citation of a serious treatment of Roman history that refers to “the Etruscan Wars”. I’d still delete this page. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Disregarding the last source, you do seem to view the rest as RS that are relevant to establishing the topic as a group or set (per WP:NLIST), don't you? And would you not agree that these sources provide WP:SIGCOV? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I’d describe the other sources as broad, encyclopedic works that by their nature are overly generalizing and non-specialized. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

history

why the romans rebelleed aginst the etruscan kings 103.217.156.162 (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)