![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Third Servile War is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 25, 2007. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
The article finally made it :) It was a long hard struggle, but the article finally passed its FAC review :) - Vedexent ( talk) - 18:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it's been years for me, but I'm really, really pretty sure that there was no such thing as a "province of Italia" in the 70s BC. Italy was treated as a special jurisdiciton outside of the system of provinces in the Republic and early Empire -- I think it only became a province in the 3rd century AD. I mention it because the phrase "province of Italia" is right now (7/24/07) on the front page of Wikipedia and really jumped out at me ... not to cast aspersions on the hard work of what is a great article, but I'm going to fix this unless someone wants to tell me I'm wrong... -- Jfruh ( talk) 00:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Good catch - I originally thought this was someone making "improvements" without checking their facts, and changed the page back, but you make a good case here - I've reverted the page back to your version. - Vedexent ( talk) - 04:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The accepted English word for the country in question is "Italy". I am well aware that, as is mentioned above, the delimitation of Italy in ancient times was not exactly the same as it is now, but it is still referred to in English as "ancient Italy". Normal Wikipedia policy is to use the name by which a person or place is most commonly known in English. Calling it "Italia" does not convey any different meaning: anyone who is aware that ancient Italy did not have the same boundaries as modern Italy will still know that whichever word we use; anyone unaware of it will still be unaware of it whichever word we use. I therefore propose to edit the article to conform to normal English usage and Wikipedia policy. JamesBWatson ( talk) 23:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Poetic wordings such as these are ambiguous and are likely to cause confusion. Seasons should not be used interchangeably with dates as seasons occur at different times of the year in different parts of the world. Thus, they are not encyclopedic. These should be reworded so as to be more precise. If a specific month is known, it should be used instead. Otherwise, substitute other wordings as appropriate. -- B.d.mills 03:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as how the ancient calendar didn't always coincide with the seasons I think we should leave it with the seasonal references. Regardless of what month it is called, we know what time of year they are referring to. Missjessica254 16:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
As Jfruh mentioned above, there was a law which prevented Caesar from crossing the Rubicon with his standing legions. This makes me wonder about the legal status of legions operating within Italy at this time, which should be reflected in the article.
What I’m wondering is
This does have bearing on this article. For example:
I believe that the legal exceptions, which I believe had to have been made – unless the laws which later barred Caesar’s actions were not in place at the time – emphasizes the alarm of the Senate with regards to the uprising, and should be mentioned in the article.
I would urge anyone who has a clearer understanding the legal implications of the Roman legions working within Italy, and/or the legal status of the imperium imparted on the individual commanders (if any) to chime in. - Vedexent ( talk) - 09:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The first reference (seen in the introduction) doesn't follow the style of the rest of the references. I'm unaware as to how to properly format it, but if someone could do that for uniformity's sake, I would appreciate it. Kampfers ( talk) 01:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The last sentence of the third paragraph is quite long and complex grammatically. Perhaps it could be rewritten or broken into multiple sentence to aid readability. Kaldari ( talk) 18:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm interested in that Slave ombudsman (as a ref, from Seneca's "On benefits". Where can I find more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.113.244 ( talk) 09:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The size/strength of ancient armies is often controversial, and it would help to have sources for armies and other large groups. Especially with sizes above 80,000-100,000. 72.66.37.62 ( talk) 00:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The article on Spartacus uses the BCE format, whereas this uses BC. Consistency (using BCE/CE rather than BC/AD, IMHO) should occur across Wikipedia articles. 69.42.13.45 ( talk) 13:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
There has recently been a bit of a tug-of-war about Roman force strength, and casualties - all made without citations or supporting arguments. I have reverted them back to the original - including some reversion of my edits, BUT I am willing to discuss the matter if there are supporting arguments and citations for the changes.
To my mind:
Does anyone have any input on these points? - Vedexent ( talk) - 10:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
On this article it says he was last reported as MIA (missing in action), however on his personal article, it says it was confirmed that he was killed IN the war. What should his final status be noted as????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crelache ( talk • contribs) 10:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Is that so? Is it an important enough name to deserve mention in the article? I see two problems with this name. First, it is misleading, since the gladiators were only the first of the rebels, and were soon a minority of the rebels. Second, it is ungrammatical, at least in my own dialect, because nouns do not work that way. Gladiatorial War, adjective+noun, Gladiators' War, and War of the Gladiators would be grammatical, though still misleading. I think I have seen the last form elsewhere. Ananiujitha ( talk) 04:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
At present, the lead claims "The Third Servile War was the only one to directly threaten the Roman heartland of Italy and was doubly alarming to the Roman people due to the repeated successes of the rapidly growing band of escaped former slaves against the Roman army between 73 and 71 BC."
I removed most Roman commanders' KIA status from infobox, because:
I note that someone has added unsubstantiated causality figures for Rome in the infobox. If you look at these casualty figures, they claim that the Roman militia and the garrison under Gaius Cassius Longinus (which only appears in some of the accounts), were butchered to a man, with no survivors - which seems extremely unlikely, and would have been specifically called out by the Roman historians.
Given the nonsensically high casualty rates, and inclusion of troops whose historical participation in the battles is uncertain, I've reverted the figure to "unspecified". If someone can provide concrete citations for the figures, I'd be happy to put them back, and update the body of the main text to accommodate the new sources.
Additionally, the differing values for those lost to Crassus' decimation have been removed in favor of the more sensational 4,000 figure. I've reverted that as well, since reported values do vary from 50 to 4,000.
Vedexent ( talk) - 17:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Various changes have been made to the lead since the article was featured on the main page. Not all have been beneficial; some of the details added over the years make for awkward reading. To be fair, almost all those changes have been sourced -- but then, we shouldn't need to source the lead; it should be just a summary of sourced content in the main article. Readability has not been helped by the overuse of transitives, and convoluted sentences; perhaps a consequence of adding more detail than the original sentence structure can carry. The changes since then have been minimal, but even the smallest addition can muddy a formerly well-constructed sentence. Here's a link to the main page FA version; [1] for comparison. I intend restoring that version -- it's not perfect (what is?) but it's clearer than what we have, and can be edited. In particular, the long-term significance and consequences of the war belong in the final para. Haploidavey ( talk) 10:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC) (also pinging Vedexent, as instrumental in bringing this article to FA)
Done. Haploidavey ( talk) 16:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Third Servile War. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Third Servile War. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Third Servile War is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 25, 2007. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
The article finally made it :) It was a long hard struggle, but the article finally passed its FAC review :) - Vedexent ( talk) - 18:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it's been years for me, but I'm really, really pretty sure that there was no such thing as a "province of Italia" in the 70s BC. Italy was treated as a special jurisdiciton outside of the system of provinces in the Republic and early Empire -- I think it only became a province in the 3rd century AD. I mention it because the phrase "province of Italia" is right now (7/24/07) on the front page of Wikipedia and really jumped out at me ... not to cast aspersions on the hard work of what is a great article, but I'm going to fix this unless someone wants to tell me I'm wrong... -- Jfruh ( talk) 00:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Good catch - I originally thought this was someone making "improvements" without checking their facts, and changed the page back, but you make a good case here - I've reverted the page back to your version. - Vedexent ( talk) - 04:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The accepted English word for the country in question is "Italy". I am well aware that, as is mentioned above, the delimitation of Italy in ancient times was not exactly the same as it is now, but it is still referred to in English as "ancient Italy". Normal Wikipedia policy is to use the name by which a person or place is most commonly known in English. Calling it "Italia" does not convey any different meaning: anyone who is aware that ancient Italy did not have the same boundaries as modern Italy will still know that whichever word we use; anyone unaware of it will still be unaware of it whichever word we use. I therefore propose to edit the article to conform to normal English usage and Wikipedia policy. JamesBWatson ( talk) 23:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Poetic wordings such as these are ambiguous and are likely to cause confusion. Seasons should not be used interchangeably with dates as seasons occur at different times of the year in different parts of the world. Thus, they are not encyclopedic. These should be reworded so as to be more precise. If a specific month is known, it should be used instead. Otherwise, substitute other wordings as appropriate. -- B.d.mills 03:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as how the ancient calendar didn't always coincide with the seasons I think we should leave it with the seasonal references. Regardless of what month it is called, we know what time of year they are referring to. Missjessica254 16:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
As Jfruh mentioned above, there was a law which prevented Caesar from crossing the Rubicon with his standing legions. This makes me wonder about the legal status of legions operating within Italy at this time, which should be reflected in the article.
What I’m wondering is
This does have bearing on this article. For example:
I believe that the legal exceptions, which I believe had to have been made – unless the laws which later barred Caesar’s actions were not in place at the time – emphasizes the alarm of the Senate with regards to the uprising, and should be mentioned in the article.
I would urge anyone who has a clearer understanding the legal implications of the Roman legions working within Italy, and/or the legal status of the imperium imparted on the individual commanders (if any) to chime in. - Vedexent ( talk) - 09:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The first reference (seen in the introduction) doesn't follow the style of the rest of the references. I'm unaware as to how to properly format it, but if someone could do that for uniformity's sake, I would appreciate it. Kampfers ( talk) 01:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The last sentence of the third paragraph is quite long and complex grammatically. Perhaps it could be rewritten or broken into multiple sentence to aid readability. Kaldari ( talk) 18:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm interested in that Slave ombudsman (as a ref, from Seneca's "On benefits". Where can I find more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.113.244 ( talk) 09:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The size/strength of ancient armies is often controversial, and it would help to have sources for armies and other large groups. Especially with sizes above 80,000-100,000. 72.66.37.62 ( talk) 00:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The article on Spartacus uses the BCE format, whereas this uses BC. Consistency (using BCE/CE rather than BC/AD, IMHO) should occur across Wikipedia articles. 69.42.13.45 ( talk) 13:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
There has recently been a bit of a tug-of-war about Roman force strength, and casualties - all made without citations or supporting arguments. I have reverted them back to the original - including some reversion of my edits, BUT I am willing to discuss the matter if there are supporting arguments and citations for the changes.
To my mind:
Does anyone have any input on these points? - Vedexent ( talk) - 10:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
On this article it says he was last reported as MIA (missing in action), however on his personal article, it says it was confirmed that he was killed IN the war. What should his final status be noted as????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crelache ( talk • contribs) 10:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Is that so? Is it an important enough name to deserve mention in the article? I see two problems with this name. First, it is misleading, since the gladiators were only the first of the rebels, and were soon a minority of the rebels. Second, it is ungrammatical, at least in my own dialect, because nouns do not work that way. Gladiatorial War, adjective+noun, Gladiators' War, and War of the Gladiators would be grammatical, though still misleading. I think I have seen the last form elsewhere. Ananiujitha ( talk) 04:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
At present, the lead claims "The Third Servile War was the only one to directly threaten the Roman heartland of Italy and was doubly alarming to the Roman people due to the repeated successes of the rapidly growing band of escaped former slaves against the Roman army between 73 and 71 BC."
I removed most Roman commanders' KIA status from infobox, because:
I note that someone has added unsubstantiated causality figures for Rome in the infobox. If you look at these casualty figures, they claim that the Roman militia and the garrison under Gaius Cassius Longinus (which only appears in some of the accounts), were butchered to a man, with no survivors - which seems extremely unlikely, and would have been specifically called out by the Roman historians.
Given the nonsensically high casualty rates, and inclusion of troops whose historical participation in the battles is uncertain, I've reverted the figure to "unspecified". If someone can provide concrete citations for the figures, I'd be happy to put them back, and update the body of the main text to accommodate the new sources.
Additionally, the differing values for those lost to Crassus' decimation have been removed in favor of the more sensational 4,000 figure. I've reverted that as well, since reported values do vary from 50 to 4,000.
Vedexent ( talk) - 17:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Various changes have been made to the lead since the article was featured on the main page. Not all have been beneficial; some of the details added over the years make for awkward reading. To be fair, almost all those changes have been sourced -- but then, we shouldn't need to source the lead; it should be just a summary of sourced content in the main article. Readability has not been helped by the overuse of transitives, and convoluted sentences; perhaps a consequence of adding more detail than the original sentence structure can carry. The changes since then have been minimal, but even the smallest addition can muddy a formerly well-constructed sentence. Here's a link to the main page FA version; [1] for comparison. I intend restoring that version -- it's not perfect (what is?) but it's clearer than what we have, and can be edited. In particular, the long-term significance and consequences of the war belong in the final para. Haploidavey ( talk) 10:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC) (also pinging Vedexent, as instrumental in bringing this article to FA)
Done. Haploidavey ( talk) 16:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Third Servile War. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Third Servile War. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)