Talk:Battle of Alesia

Titus Labenius?

Forgive me, but I seem to be unable to shake from my mind that it was Titus Labenius, and not Annthony who rode with Trebonius. Can anyone settle this?

Pictures

As I have written in the nomination discussion, this article can use more pics. I have written to the owners of sites I linked in external, and here are the responces so far: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• from [1]: Thank you! - but hardly one of those images is properly licensed from a legal standpoint. They are things I found on the Web, or borrowed (with permission) from others who almost certainly had found them somewhere else!
• from [2] You may use any of my photos licence-free, but some of the depicted images belong to the museum "The Archéodrome de Bourgogne". You can find information about them on [3]. So please contact them instead. I don't know anything about the copyright methods you mentioned. I'd be obliged if you mentioned my website [4] in return. And please use the French name for that famous site: Alésia instead of

This is great! I'll upload one of the photos from (2). Thanks! muriel@pt 10:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But I don't know where Aleshia ish!

But I don't know where Aleshia ish! No one knowsh where Aleshia ish! — JIP | Talk 10:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alesia´s location ish known and described in the text: you can even visit the reconstructed fortifications. muriel@pt 11:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alesia and Asterix

The Asterix album Asterix and the Chieftain's Shield really does mention the battle of Alesia. I think it's worth mentioning here, in some footnote or something.

The reason for all the "sh"'s is that in the album, all the Gergovians really shpeak like thish. (At least in the English and Finnish versions anyway, I haven't read the French original.) — JIP | Talk 16:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Mentioning Asterix album as a worthy reference: i hope that's a joke. muriel@pt 14:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • If the article about Citizen Kane can include places where Citizen Kane is mentioned, or referred to, why can't this article? It's not as if I'm trying to use Asterix and the Chieftain's Shield as a reference, or background research, for the Battle of Alesia. It's the other way around: the battle of Alesia is background information for the album! Tell me which part of the Wikipedia rules prevent mentioning that the battle of Alesia is so famous that even comic books talk about it? — JIP | Talk 16:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JPL: Mentioning something to the article about the reference might be useful. Adding the following is not:

The Asterix album Asterix and the Chieftain's Shield mentions the Battle of Alesia, but I'm not allowed to say that here, although it should be obvious that I am not basing any information in this article itself on the contents of the album (which is a fictional work, produced in the 20th century, and is copyrighted material).

Please don't add comments like that to the article. If you have a complaint or an issue express them here. If you want to write something serious about references to the battle in the Asterix comic, then please do so. But I would recommend that you propose a draft here first. In any case be prepared to discuss and defend if necessary what you write, on the talk page here. Paul August ☎ 19:21, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It was late at night when I wrote that, and I was already annoyed by the trivial dismissal of my earlier version. I have since written a better version (see below) and it seems to be OK. BTW, it's "JIP", not "JPL". — JIP | Talk 09:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for apologizing. We all get annoyed sometimes, but it's wholly inappropriate to express your annoyance in the main article space. As regards to what it was you were annoyed with, which of your edits do you think was subjected to a "trivial dismissal"? Your first edit, inserted the following qualification concerning the proposed location of the battle:

"although no one knowsh exactly where Aleshia ish". [5]

This seemed to me, at the time, unnecessary (the article already says "situated probably at …") or overly strong (there is lots of evidence for the proposed site), not to mention poorly spelled. However, as it turns out, it was apparently some kind of in-joke reference to the Asterix comic. Your second edit was to add a new section titled "Notesh", with the following text:

"In the Ashterix album Ashterix and the Chieftain'sh Shield, Ashterix ashksh an old Gergovian warrior about the battle of Aleshia. However, inshtead of anshwering him, the warrior getsh mad and shaysh that no one knowsh where Aleshia ish." [6]

It was hard to know what to make of this. I wondered, was this some prankish attempt at humor? Was the editor drunk? Were these "misspellings" intentional? It was hard to take either of these edits very seriously. It now seems (as you indicate below) that they were not meant to be entirely serious. Edits of this kind are inappropriate — While we should try to have fun doing it, writing this encyclopedia is serious business. If you make un-serious edits you should expect them to be dismissed. By the way, sorry about the name typo (are you sure you are not JPL?) Paul August ☎ 16:10, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that my earlier edits were not serious. To address your question about trivial dismissal, I was referring to User:Muriel Gottrop's comment:

• Mentioning Asterix album as a worthy reference: i hope that's a joke. muriel@pt 14:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This made me angry, because as I understood it, Muriel Gottrop misunderstood me completely. I think she thought I was trying to use the Asterix album as background research for the article itself, when it was obvious it was the other way around - the battle of Alesia inspired the album. I have left an explanation on her talk page but she has not yet responded. — JIP | Talk 16:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it may have been "obvious" to you what you meant, but it wasn't obvious to me, and if Muriel misunderstood you, then obviously it wasn't obvious to her either. Your previous edits had made it difficult to take your subsequent comments completely at face value. Not only do facetious statements, tend to get dismissed, trivially or otherwise, they also lead to being misunderstood, so I don't find it surprising that Muriel may have misunderstood you. Moreover that someone misunderstands you doesn't seem like a good reason to get angry. Paul August ☎ 17:49, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have now made my third, and second serious, attempt at mentioning the Asterix album. This time I have tried to avoid any Asterix in-jokes. I hope this is good enough for an encyclopedic article. And, for the last time, it's the battle of Alesia that came first, and the Asterix album that came after that! Goscinny and Uderzo never intended to do serious research about the battle of Alesia, instead they only paid homage to it! — JIP | Talk 19:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguity over how long it took to build the siege walls?

There is ambiguity over how long it took to build the siege walls. This article says 3 weeks while Alesia_(city) says 6 weeks. How would one know anyway? Old Roman military records? --Kaze0010 00:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. But if I remember right estimates are based on the size of the structure (whose precise length, characteristics and locations are fully known at Alise Sainte Reine), estimates of how much work and loads can be carried by soldiers, estimates of what percentage of the contingent actually participated in the fortification work themselves, depth of trenches as seen onsite (compensated for the change in terrain levels as scraped by 2000 years of agriculture) the available amount of wood in the surroundings and the time it takes to cut it and displace it. So it's reasonable to assert that there is some uncertainty over this. Nevertheless, these arguments and estimates were also used by Reddé (see ref. below) to show that full scale fortifications such as the classical representation at the Archeodrome de Beaune could not possibly have been carried out over the entire structure, which is consistent with archeological findings showing not one but several fortification variants, according to terrain nature and orientation, proximity to camps, strategic importance... which makes perfect sense if you think of it as a resource management problem. Also Caesar's main description mentions a watered trench in his fortification which obviously could only take place at a specific place in the valley, between the two streams. It is also recently believed that watch-towers were only one story high instead of several (as shown on the Beaune picture), based on the depth of pillar holes and estimates of wood requirements and availability on location, if I remember right.

--jsfranco 21 Aug 2006 18:09 (UTC)

Questionable content

This article portrays ongoing controversy over the localization of the site. However, it is my strong impression that this does not reflect the current scientific consensus, which shows very little doubt over the location at Alise Sainte Reine. It would help if more historians contributed to this article. The bias in this article is revealed by the bibliography, as many of the pointers lead to sites and books of the Jura standpoint.

This article appears to be translated from the French article [7]. Although still not reflecting the scientific consensus, the French article has been edited since (not by me), with a somewhat more balanced bibliography and a more detailed account of findings at Alise Sainte Reine. These include the discovery of the complete fortification system (inner and outer line specific to this battle), from aerial archeology (work of René Goguey) and excavation, including military camps, with comma shaped entrances specific to the Roman army; a vast collection of excavated materials, weapons, tools used to build the fortifications; traces of the holes where the base of four observation tower pillars once stood at several excavation sites; a broad range of coins and monetary instruments reflecting both armies' many geographical origins, consistently dated of the era; a sling bullet with initials Ti. Lab. carved on it (Titus Labienus, Cesar's first general in this battle); a dated torn piece of a roman leather tent in one of the camps; excavated portions of trench holes filled with consistent archeological material; detailed and repeatable findings of Cesar's trap systems with several variants adapted to soft/rocky terrains and strategic importance; etc. The oppidum also happens to be covered with burried ruins of a post-era Roman-Gallic city (some photos of archeological material found there at [8]), where large excavations took and are still taking place, revealing some pre-war Gallic foundations. An inscription "In Alisiia" was also found there (as seen on this page [9]).

No equivalent large scale findings of Cesar's presence or even the Gallic presence on the oppidum can be seen at the Jura site, contrary to what is written in this article, despite many test excavations (it is said 31 in the French wikipedia source). One accidental discovery in one spot by a local farmer in the seventies led to an excavation by Berthier of some archeological material which was interpreted to be Roman fortifications, but has been unrepeated. What is said to be a straight line defensive trench in the valley from an instrumented aerial survey, cannot be distinguished from a geological break in terrain or an ancient irrigation canal even with goodwill. Some archeological material including nails and tools are on display, whose number and relation to the conflict and era are dubious. Dion Cassius once wrote that Alesia was in Sequanie (actual Jura). But he's a historian relating second hand accounts three centuries after the battle. That's about it. Nothing on the oppidum. Although animated by a genuine passion for history and ancient latin texts, the lady at this museum did not convince me: the two cases are no match.

Convincing discussions, photographies of the mentionned evidence, and argumentations appear in Reddé's work, a leader of the latest excavation campaigns by the franco-german team at Alise Sainte Reine from 1991 to 1997. Perhaps some of this documentation can make its way in here if copyright issues are resolved. (M. Reddé, Alésia - L'archéologie face à l'imaginaire, Errance - Hauts lieux de l'Histoire, Paris, 2003). This includes explainations about the topography of the Alise site, and why it is consistent with Cesar's accounts. This is the part that caused much of the controversy which can lead one to doubt - if one forgets the overwhelming body of evidence everywhere else.

I am not a historian, but out of personal interest for the era and curiosity, I visited in 2003 both the Alesia museum at Alise Sainte Reine, Cote d'Or and the Institut Vitruve in Syam, Jura, and read some of the available material. I also met and discussed with the museum curator at Alise Sainte Reine, Claude Grapin. The whole experience left very little doubt in my mind.

Hope this helps.

jsfranco@laposte 21 Aug 2006

Note: for French speaking contributors to this article, a full-length discussion appears on the French wikipedia article discussion page [10]. To clarify the meaning of the above paragraph I added: although most parts in this article are worthy of the FA-rating, the controversial parts that are notably biased, mis-represent the actual state of research, and need change are: the sentence "situated probably at Chaux-des-Crotenay (in Jura in modern France). Earlier research located Alesia atop Mont Auxois, above modern Alise-Sainte-Reine in France, but this location - it is said - does not fit Caesar's description of the battle. Alise-Sainte-Reine is still the official location of Alesia." The hypothesis of location at Chaux-des-Crotenay dates from a 1963 thesis by A. Berthier and echoes popular regional controversy in France, dating back to the 19th century. The most recent peer-reviewed research by Reddé's franco-german archeology team in the nineties and other research on the Alise oppidum fully confirms the location at Alise-Sainte-Reine, by unvealing a murus gallicus on the oppidum, confirming the structure of the siege, camp locations, and confirming the findings and documentation left of Napoleon III-era research at various excavation sites at Alise.

Also in the following paragaph: "Uncertainty has nevertheless persisted, with questions being raised about the validity of Alise-Sainte-Reine's claim. For example, the topography of the area - it is allegedly said - does not fit with Caesar's description. The site is also too small to accommodate even revised estimates of 80,000 men with the Gallic infantry, along with cavalry and additional personnel." These are arguments of Berthier's thesis. The false topography allegations implicitely refer to Berthier's "police-sketch" theory of Alesia topography. These arguments have been proven false by Reddé's research - see bibliography below. Discussion with a historian on the French site also reveal that the Chaux-des-Crotenay site's size and configuration would be in complete contradiction with respect to all other known oppida, like for example the contemporary Arvern capital Gergovia (see [11]).

The next paragraph is also biased: "Another theory supports the location of the battle at Chaux-des-Crotenay at the gate of the Jura mountains. Preliminary researches in Chaux-de-Crotenay unveiled a complete system of Roman fortifications in good fit with Caesar's description of the site. However, further archaeological research is needed to definitively confirm the location of Alesia.". Note that the sentence "Preliminary researches in Chaux-de-Crotenay unveiled a complete system of Roman fortifications in good fit with Caesar's description of the site" is blatently and verifiably false, and again implicitely refers to Berthier's views and interpretations of Ceasar's description and the "police sketch" theory.

The bias in the bibliography is evident, with a majority of non-peer reviewed private publications by the people supporting Berthier's views, including Danielle Porte, and websites in connection to the Vitruve Institute founded by Berthier and his supporters.

Scientific, internationally peer-reviewed research from the last 40 years and arguments are fully documented - see the French article's biography:

• J.-B. Colbert de Beaulieu, « Epilogue numismatique de la question d'Alésia », Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire offerts à André Piganiol, Paris, 1966, p. 321-342 et « Les Monnaies de bronze de Vercingétorix : faits et critique », Cahiers numismatiques, 1967, n° 13-déc. - p. 356-372.
• Collectif, Vercingétorix et Alésia, catalogue de l'exposition des Antiquités nationales, Paris, 1994.
• C. Goudineau, César et la Gaule, Errance, Paris, 1990 et Points-Seuil, Paris, 2000 (synthèse sur la Guerre des Gaules).
• V. Kruta, articles Alésia et Alise-Sainte-Reine in V. Kruta, Les Celtes, Histoire et dictionnaire, Bouquins, Paris, 2000, pp. 400-401.
• J. Le Gall, Les fouilles d'Alise-Sainte-Reine 1861-1865, Institut de France, Paris, 1989 (les fouilles du Second-Empire).
• S. Lewuillon, Vercingétorix ou le mirage d'Alésia, Paris, Complexe, 1999 (mise en perspective et analyse sociale, anthropologique et politique de la guerre des Gaules)
• M. Reddé (dir.) et alii,, Fouilles et recherches franco-allemandes sur les travaux militaires romains autour du mont Auxois (1991-1997), Mémoire de l'académie des inscriptions, 2 vol., Paris, 2001 (publication scientifique des fouilles d'Alise).
• M. Reddé, Alésia - L'archéologie face à l'imaginaire, Errance - Hauts lieux de l'Histoire, Paris, 2003 (discussion de la localisation, présentation des fouilles d'Alise).
• J.-L. Voisin, article Alésia, in J. Tulard éd., Dictionnaire du Second Empire, Paris, 1995, pp. 24-27.

jsfranco@laposte 27 Aug 2006 22:32 (CET) Then why don't you be bold and edit the article, accordingly ? I-do-do-you? 17:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Some reference links to BBC articles on the location of Alesia didn't work properly. I modified them.さえぼー (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Aerial Photography

I have removed a remark about the identification of the ancient site by aerial photography after a check at the forum of RomanArmy.Com

Needs work

This article, like many others in the ancient history/warfare series, is not written from an expert perspective, and is riddled with errors of varying seriousness, with several outright howlers. For example, it is a mistake to suggest that Caesar rebelled partly because the Senate refused him a triumph. Similarly, the description of Ceasar's army as "the army of the Roman Republic" is amateurish in the extreme. I could go on and on, but it would be nice if an expert could clean up the mess.Esf456 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)esf456

Expulsion of Women and Children?

Having just watched a program on this subject which took a quite different view in some key areas, I second the call for an expert opinion. For example the statement "The Mandubii decided to expel the women and children from the citadel" seems particularly out of keeping with some views on Celtic culture.

Grain stored by Vercingetorix

Reference 28 in the article is used to support the claim that "Vercingetorix ordered all the corn to be brought to him and rationed it." However, corn is a new world grain that was unknown to Europe for many centuries to come. If we can't determine which one, perhaps just "grain" would suffice. Zrave (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

"Grain" probably would be better, because, sadly, there are too many people think "corn" only means "maize". In fact, as I've just discovered, here on Wikipedia Corn redirects to Maize. This is rather American-centric, and misleading in contexts like this. Wikipedia's articles on ancient history are mostly based on public domain translations of the ancient texts from the late 19th or early 20th centuries, in which "corn" is generally used to mean wheat. I will have a think how better to target that redirect to be more informative, and change this article's reference to "grain". --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I've made the change to "grain" in this article, and also changed Corn from a redirect to Maize to a disambiguation page that explains its generic meaning as well as the American meaning of maize, and redirected Corn (disambiguation]] to it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Number of Gaulish Warriors

Where is the 250,000 figure for the relief army comming from? It seems very high, I have heard 100-200 thousand but never 250,000.

A relief army of 250,000 is certainly ridiculous and its original source must've included all the women, children, auxilliaries and other camp followers. Does anyone have Engels' Logistics of the Macedonian Army handy to form an estimate regarding the percentage of camp followers in ancient armies? --Gingerbreadman4290, 25 October, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerbreadman4290 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The 250,000 number of gallic troops came from Caesar's Gallic Wars, he wrote it himself. he probably inflated the numbers a bit though. --199.198.251.108 (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)J.Aburto

Spilling, M. 2008, Great Battles: Decisive Conflicts That Have Shaped History, Parragon Books Ltd, London says 250,000 although your right about Caesar writing the history books and probably inflating the numbers. Gloryify (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Even 180,000 is about twice as large as the strongest attested Roman armies. And it's unlikely that Gallic armies *could* have been as large as those Roman armies, given that the Gauls didn't have the logistical system the Roman army did. 71.191.233.120 (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is nothing to suggest they did not have a logistical system that could compete with the Romans. Remember, they lost the war, their histories were destroyed. Caeser's account of his enemies'strength is proportional to similar wars fought in that time period against Belgians, Germans, and Gauls as well. There is no doubt that the Gauls had inferior tactics and no huge number of professional soldiers, but there is nothing to suggest that there was anything wrong with their logistical capacities. There is nothing to suggest that they were too primitive, quite the opposite. The Gauls, like any Celtic people, had a literate bureaucracy, a well defined hierarchy, and plenty of resources given their pan-Gaelic Alliance at the time of the rebellion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.200.73.177 (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

"This was a considerable engineering feat, but nothing new to the man who, as curule aedile, an elected official of the city of Rome, had once diverted the Tiber into the Circus Maximus for a mock sea battle, as a form of public entertainment."

Source? This smells of BS to me. 154.20.115.35 22:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this. The first known naumachia occured as part of the multiple Caesarian triumphs following the Civil war. Paul August ☎ 06:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

The 08:50, 14 June 2008 99.252.251.199 version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Wing (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice work.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Where were those crazy Celts at?

The article currently reads, under Aftermath: "At that point, only the Island Celts (Ireland, Scotland, Wales...) remained."

At this time the people of England would also have been Celts, as this was a few centuries before Angles, Saxons and Jutes made their way there. I believe that Celts in the British isles are known as "insular Celts" I get what is meant, but the reason we have celtic languages and culture allive in those countries today has more to do with the Germanic tribes than Romans...

Also if you are going to talk about Celtic culture in modern Europe Brittany certainly, and also Cornwall and perhaps the Isle of Mann deserve a mention.

Wait a minute, what about the Iberian Peninsula (the northwestern parts not conquered by Rome until the reign of Augustus)? There were still many Celtiberian groups who were free of Rome's domination. And what about the remaining Celts in parts of Eastern Europe? This sentence is most dubious.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

{Battle of Alesia {[(and what the terming Alesia represents)]} ...What a great find of historical data. Data is great it can always be secured as determinational data processed as determinational data. Which in my aspect can be researched further with further research. My question here can be if so, does DeLancey or in figuration of its name have a comparison and or connection with Alesia. DeLancey now is longer in name and also has correspondence with ancidious or in that division which Alesia may have come first. Although a similar name of ancedious may have sound reference. I'm for admitting this setting here of mine needs work. Thank You.12-26-2011/2:04 A.M. E.S.T. I'll correct and set better at another timeDavid George DeLancey (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Celtic kingdoms survived in western and central Iberia until the muslim invasion of 711 A.D (note there is still a place there called Galicia, no longer Celtic, but the name remains), and in all of Gaul (these were assimilated, not wiped out, French people are mostly Gaelic by blood). There is also a Gaelic kingdom that survived in eastern Europe that is still called Galicia-Lodomeria and Galicia-Volhynia where Gauls lived and were slowly assimilated over the Middle Ages. Add to that another Anatolian kingdom also named Galatia in modern day Turkey and you have a BUNCH of places where Celts have survived, even if they have given up their language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.200.73.177 (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Cavalry cohorts?

Most work describes infantry cohorts, mixed cohorts, and cavalry alae. Is there a specific source for the "cavalry cohorts" described here? 173.66.211.53 (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You are correct in noting the distinction in unit designations. But we have a larger problem here. All the translations I have read merely mention Caesar dispatching cohorts in those passages. Which would denote infantry. I have no idea how the infantry cohorts of Book VII/Chapter LXXXVI have been transmuted into cavalry in this Wiki article. Can anyone else explain this?

That passage and the generally poor quality of the description of the battle support the earlier call for review by military historians. The reliance solely on general historians and archeologists excludes perspectives and expertise necessary to correctly interpret and narrate the events. 73.235.236.46 (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Cato

"Without this political connection with Pompey, men dedicated to the Republic like Cato the Younger" Are the Boni/anti-Caesar's actively involved in editing this article? I find this characterization of Cato to be prejudicial. How about:

'Without this political connection with Pompey, the politicians that opposed Caesar such as Cato the Younger...'?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Alesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720222647/http://alesia.jura.free.fr/ to http://alesia.jura.free.fr
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051125152410/http://www.zdf.de:80/ZDFmt/mediathek/ZDFmt_video_cont/0,3498,MT-2213499--MD-1000051-hi--1,00.html to http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmt/mediathek/ZDFmt_video_cont/0,3498,MT-2213499--MD-1000051-hi--1,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051016011449/http://home.versatel.nl/postbus/images/alesia15.jpg to http://home.versatel.nl/postbus/images/alesia15.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Siege works raised "four hundred feet"??

In the section "Siege and battle", it says: "Caesar ... dug a trench twenty feet deep (6 metres, 19 ft.) with perpendicular sides, raised all other works four hundred feet (118 m, 388 ft.) from that trench and in between he dug two trenches fifteen feet (4.4 m,14.5 ft.) in length and depth." I'm not sure what exactly was supposed to be "raised ... four hundred feet", but I think this is dubious. Paul August ☎ 19:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I now see that this sentence was added here. Perhaps the editor (@020amonra:?) can shed some light on this? Paul August ☎ 20:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The statement means 400 feet away. "Raised" as in built, not made higher. 400 feet high would be quite high. --100.34.110.98 (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Edited accordingly and tag removed. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Reply to "siege works raised "four hundred feet"?"

1)100.34.110.98 is right. "Raised all other works four hundred feet (118 m, 388 ft.) from that trench " means built at a distance of 400 feet form that trench. It does not mean built to a height of 400 feet. One of the meaning of the verb to raise is: to construct or build (a structure) ‘a fence was being raised around the property’ (Oxford Dictionary); to build or erect (Collins Dictionary); to set upright by lifting or building (Merriam-Webster),

2) I have checked again and I have seen that I made a mistake. The distance of hat trench was even greater, 400 paces, not feet. This makes this distance more than four times further away. I have included the explanation Caesar gave for this distance. I have also changed the wording to make it clearer that this was the first of three trenches. I have included the word probably for the distance in metres and modern feet because Caesar wrote before the standardisation of the pace by Agrippa; thus, we do not know the exact length of pace he used. I have improved the description of the further defensive structures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 020amonra (talk • contribs) 13:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Tag for Insufficient Citations

I don't see the justification for the tag that says this article has insufficient inline citations. It seems to me to have an adequate amount of citations. There was one section on the Aftermath that had no citations so I checked the facts against a book I have and with one exception (which I'm going to document in another section) the section seemed consistent with that book. I'm going to remove the tag unless someone objects. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Was Caesar consul during the Gaulic wars?

The aftermath section currently says: "...due to political reasons, refused Caesar the honour of celebrating a triumphal parade, the peak of any general's career. Political tension increased, and two years later, in 49 BC, Caesar crossed the Rubicon, which precipitated the Roman Civil War of 49–45 BC, which he won. After having been elected consul, for each of the years of the war". First, I think this could be stated a bit more accurately. There weren't just "political tensions" the Senate was going to put Caesar on trial for waging an illegal war without their consent. Also, this makes it sound (at least to me) as if the claim is that Caesar was consul "for each of the years of the war". I know he was consul before the war but I thought the whole reason for Pompey and Cassus(sp?) sending him to Gaul was to get rid of him because they didn't want him to be consul anymore. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not saying he was consul during the Gallic Wars, but for the years of Civil War. It could probably be expressed a bit more clearly. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a source that says Caesar was consul during the civil wars? My understanding is that he ignored Rome and stayed with his Army, first trying to attack Pompey who with the majority of the Senate had abandoned Rome. Caesar tried and failed to attack Pompey before Pompey could leave Italy and sail with his army to Greece where Pompey would join a much larger army and that when Caesar failed to catch Pompey he immediately started building boats. After Caesar's victory at Pharsallus it was Marc Antony not Caesar who initially came back to Rome and was consul (and did a terrible job). It was only after Caesar came back from Egypt that he made himself dictator for life. I'm not certain that's correct, I can't site a source, that's just what I remember from readings a long time ago but I think it would be good to make that text clearer and to have a source for it. Unfortunately, the book I have on Alesia doesn't go into those details, I'll look at some other Wikipedia pages and see if there is a good source, if you know of one please let me know. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I found a decent source that resolves the issue. It's more or less correct as written once we clarify he was consul during the Civil not Gallic war. The source is a book Caesar: Life of a Collosus by Adrian Goldsworthy. Here is what he says about rule in Rome during the Civil War:

"Caesar continued to maintain at least a façade of normal public life at Rome. He wished now to become consul for 48 BC, but there was no existing consul to preside over elections. A praetor was available, but a praetor had never supervised the appointment of new consuls, and when Caesar proposed this it was rejected by the college of augurs. Instead the praetor Marcus Lepidus appointed Caesar dictator so that he could hold the elections. There was a single precedent for this, dating back to the darkest days of the Second Punic War. Caesar returned to Rome, summoned the Comitia Centuriata and was duly made consul for the following year with Publius Servilius Vatia Isauricus as his colleague. It was unorthodox, though strictly speaking legal, although it is perfectly possible that there were no other candidates in the elections then held. Caesar would be consul again in 48 BC, the proper ten years after his first consulship. His colleague was the son of the man under whom he had served in Asia during the seventies BC, and was very much a member of the established elite, married to a niece of Cato. It was another indication of how complex and confusing loyalties were during the Civil War. Elections were also held for the other magistracies –Caelius Rufus became praetor –and then afterwards Caesar used his powers as dictator to pass a series of laws."

So my reading of this is that during the war Caesar was both dictator (although the standard temporary kind intended for emergencies) and one of two counsels, although he soon left Rome to chase Pompey and didn't really get back to governing until he returned from Egypt. One thing I find interesting is the different views that different writers have toward Caesar. The first book I mentioned says something nasty about Caesar on almost every page, how he cruelly made war against the Gauls for his own glory, etc. where as this newer book is the exact opposite, he is constantly rationalizing Caesar's behavior (e.g., claiming Caesar had no choice but to march on Rome given the behavior of Pompey and his allies) and emphasizing that Caesar was often generous to those (Romans) he defeated unlike previous victors in earlier Roman civil wars. Back to the issue at hand: I'll make some minor edits and add the reference unless you would prefer to do it. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Article uses terms incorrectly - it has mixed up circumvallation with contravallation

The circumvallation is supposed to be the outer wall that protects the Romans against the field Gallic army, and the contravallation is the inner wall that prevents the Alesians from escaping. See Investment (military).

But both the diagram (contributed by @Muriel Gottrop~enwiki) and the text use the terms incorrectly, with the circumvallation on the inside and the contravallation on the outside. I'd like to edit this except I can't so easily change the diagram.

Halberdo (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)