# Talk:Gaius Marius

That's a picture of a bust of Sertorius. Definitely not Gaius Marius  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F720:F00:4862:1D6:72E8:AC32:C779 (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC) 

Which bust is Sertorius? What's your source for this? Paul August ☎ 16:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a link in the "Reforms of Marius" section to the wikipedia entry for celebrated historian Sir Richard J Evans, a specialist in the history of 20th century Germany.  It is clear, if you look at the footnote, that the source is in fact a 1995 phd thesis submitted by a student in South Africa called Richard John Evans.  I submit that this is unlikely to be the same person as Sir Richard J Evans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H4tess (talk • contribs) 10:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. T8612 (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

"Plutarch then anonymously relates that Marius"
100.15.127.199 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The specific passage (translated) in Plutarch is Some, however, say that his ambitious nature was completely revealed during his illness by his being swept into a strange delusion. He thought that he had the command in the Mithridatic war, and then, just as he used to do in his actual struggles, he would indulge in all sorts of attitudes and gestures, accompanying them with shrill cries and frequent calls to battle. Plutarch is relating what "some... say", which I think is adequately reflected by that phrasing. Would you (or anyone else) propose an alternate phrasing? Ifly6 (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The Scipio Asiaticus bust has been removed, and another image inserted in its place, which presumably also doesn't depict Marius. Seems to me like there should be some discussion on this, since the Asiaticus sculpture is probably too famous to warrant an unexplained removal, even if we know the traditional identification with Marius is incorrect. Avilich (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think the Asiaticus/Marius bust can stay with an explanation. The new bust however has a fantasy attribution and is much less famous. As far as I know, the only secured depiction of Marius is that on the coin of Fundanius. T8612 (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Is there (or rather do we have) an image of this coin? Ifly6 (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
This one, I believe. It's obviously not a close-up portrait, but still contemporary, and I would support using it instead of the Scipio bust. Avilich (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Hmm... I would prefer leaving the current traditionally... + "but actually" portrait then: that coin portrait is so generic it could be any triumphator waltzing down the street. Ifly6 (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Deedman22: Re the recent change image change, I reverted per the existing consensus to retain the old (possibly misattributed) bust. Ifly6 (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't really make any sense - what is the point of illustrating an historical figure with a picture of a bust saying it's probably not him? 110.145.75.205 (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@Digital Herodotus: Do you have a source for the attribution of the changed image? Ifly6 (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes it was in the descriptions of each image. It seemed better to switch out a busy, which is known to not be of Marius, with one from the Vaticans museum that is often attributed to be him. Digital Herodotus (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Could you add then, the source for the attribution of the changed image? Ifly6 (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
It's another bust with an fanciful attribution. T8612 (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Cerebellum: Hello there! I just wanted also to ping you about the timeline. I have no idea how that's set up or made, so I mostly ignored it during my rewrites. It may, however, be worthwhile to make sure that the dates there line up with the dates reported in the article text. (Hopefully, I'm not putting too much on your plate!) Ifly6 (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ifly6: No worries! I just took a look, the only date I'm not sure about is what year Marius was military tribune – the timeline says 134 but the article doesn't give a date, is 134 correct? --Cerebellum (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
There's no indication in Broughton's MRR that he was military tribune in 134 BC. The specific passage in Broughton MMR vol 2 (containing the career index) reads:
C. Marius C. f. C. n. (14, Supb. 6) Q. 121 ?, Tr. Pl. 119, Pr. 115, Promag. (Propr. ?) Farther Spain 114, Leg. Lieut. 109–108, Cos. Numidia 107, Procos. 106–105, Cos. II 104, III 103, IV 102, V 101, VI 100, Leg., Amb. 97, Procos.? 90, Leg., Lieut. 90, Procos. ? 88, 87, Cos. VII 86, Augur 97–86.
Source is Broughton, Thomas Robert Shannon (1952). The magistrates of the Roman republic. Vol. 2. New York: American Philological Association. p 589.
Thank you for checking! I removed that entry from the timeline. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Note for posterity. Evans Acta Classica 51 (2008) pp 65–69 indicates Marius was prorogued pro consule to Spain in 114. Drogula Commanders and command (2015), not cited but useful background, also notes how the propraetorship disappeared by the late second century and that, in general, Spanish governors during the 2nd century were prorogued pro consule. Ifly6 (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

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) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The image in the Infobox is of a coin which doesn’t do a good job of portraying what Marius looked like, is basically a stick figure. The image should be changed to the bust of Marius which shows in great detail what he looked like
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marius_Chiaramonti_Inv1488.jpg Friedbyrd (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not a bust of Marius. This attribution is baseless. T8612 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
The IP 58.164.39.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been very insistent that the coin image should be disturbed:

Image is at least of a person's face rather than a minuscule cartoon, regardless coin is presented on page lower down; the phrase 'so-called' is inappropriate academically to my mind, it is smug and immediately repellent.
Edit 3

Whilst the coin is definitely 'Marius', it is not to any reasonable standard a recognisable image of a person, and is on balance less worthy than a potentially suspect bust. Phrase "so-called" is smug and inappropriate.
Edit 2 with a prior Edit 1. 
This matter has been discussed at some length already. There are no busts, heads, etc which have any hard basis as being depictions of Marius. They are not potentially suspect: it's just almost certainly (95+ pc) not him; every head recovered during and after the Renaissance fetched a higher price if someone called it a depiction of FAMOUS_PERSON_HERE. 
The further objection to the phrase so-called as unacademic seems very irregular when such busts are called so-called in well-respected books and journals. Eg two marble portraits of unknown Roman aristocrats in the Munich Glyptothek, the so-called Marius... and the also so-called Sulla... and Giuliani has associated, for example, the so-called Marius and Sulla portraits in Munich with the tomb. Ifly6 (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I think in the case of Marius, it could be good to have a modern art depiction of him in the lede; the coin could be moved to the section on his triumph. There are several paintings (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Of these, I think 2 & 3 are the best (3 is a Google Art Project picture, while 2 is in the permanent collection of the Louvre, which makes it the most appropriate imo). T8612 (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352: Thanks for reminding me (via the Watchlist) that updating was necessary in this article to reflect changes on the Marian reforms. I largely wrote both articles; I should have taken action to reconcile them earlier. Ifly6 (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks to a commenter on Devereaux's ACOUP Marian reforms blog entry for mentioning that all other articles need to be made consistent with your rewrite, I'm slowly checking them one-by-one. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Re the following, I think The willingness of the soldiers to kill fellow Romans changed after the Social War, not due to a reformist Marian vision: "if Sulla's army had been unwilling to march on Rome... then the outcome would obviously have been completely different, no matter how power-hungry Marius or Sulla were". is a cuckoo edit. Flower 2010 connects the willingness of the soldiers to Marius' putative reform. Ifly6 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Just asking out of curiosity. I'm no expert on Marius, but the lede states that Marius rose "Rising from a family of poor smallholders", while the early career section states that "While many of the problems he faced during his early career in Rome show the difficulties that faced a "new man" (novus homo) in being accepted into the stratified upper echelons of Roman society, Marius – even as a young man – was not poor or even middle-class; he was most assuredly born into inherited wealth, gained most likely from large land holdings"
So which is it? Was he born into poor inherited wealth? That doesn't make sense. Can smallholders have large land holdings? The 'poor' point is completely contradictory, no? Harren the Red (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

So, I know enough that he was a novus homo initially of the equestrian class. In the first chapter, Evans 1995 plainly states that we don't really know much about his early life, and there wouldn't really be a way for us to know, and the contemporary and later biographies that paint Marius as rags to riches are basically engaging in perfunctory literary tropes expected by their audience. The political reality seems clear though: Evans 1995 p. 29 says:

 Remsense诉 16:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply! I figured that this was the case, but if so, why does the lede state that he rose from poor smallholders? Why not instead emphasize his status as a novus homo and the political difficulties he encountered, instead of a (seemingly) ahistorical "literary trope"? Harren the Red (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
If I had to guess—I'm about to check—it was a drive-by addition by someone who thought they were better reflecting the subject but ultimately added an error.
 Working ...
How did I know that? I must be psychic.  Remsense诉 16:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Basically all experts on the man say Marius came from an equestrian family and reject Plutarch's narrative as nonsense. We must reflect that pursuant to policy (WP:ACADEMICBIAS). If the lede says otherwise it should be fixed. Seeing that it was, my thanks to Remsense. Ifly6 (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
And apologies to @NebY: I was so proud about fixing the article that I thought I would keep myself humble, balancing it out by immediately adding two silly, unforced grammatical errors. Remsense诉 19:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Heh - hope it worked! But it's TiffanyPomegranate we should thank for the original good corrections. NebY (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Of course. I need to write a script that auto-thanks a user if I revert them and then immediately have to re-revert myself. Remsense诉 20:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Re edit with message, @Harren the Red: Added mention to Quintus Sertorius in Legacy. I think it is significant, and worth mentioning, that Marius' cause (however meagrely it was attached to his name at that point) outlived his death for more than a decade, continuing to trouble Rome and take Roman lives. I believe the Legacy => Political violence fits this information best, but any editor can move it to another appropriate section. Can you please provide a source for the sentence you added at the end? A good article (WP:GA) must have all of its claims sourced. If not I am inclined to remove on that basis. Ifly6 (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have added it. In the pages cited, Konrad argues that Plutarch's exaggerated figure of 120,000 soldiers that Sertorius fought against (Plut. Sert. 12.2) is the total amount of men who were tied down in Hispania throughout his war from 80 to 72 BC, amounting to 20 legions. He identifies 17 of them belonging to generals we know of as minimum estimates of their strength: (Fufidius (2), Domitius (2), Metellus (3), Manlius (3), Pompey (5), and the 2 that arrived in 74 BC as reinforcements), and says the remaining 3 are "easily filled by attributing more to Metellus and Pompeius" (p. 127). It could also just be the 3 or 4 legions Annius brought with him to Hispania too, but that's just what I think. He adds that obviously all of these legions were understrength, not 6,000 apiece as Plutarch puts it, but he does not consider Plutarch's figure (20 legions) merely sensational.  Harren the Red (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The thing I specifically mean to reference is the connection between Sertorius and Marius. On first glance, they're only the "same" in teleological terms. Is there anything connecting the two men in Konrad? Ifly6 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Can you clarify what you mean by connecting? That Sertorius gathered to him the remnants of Marius' supporters is pretty manifest across sources, but I can certainly find a citation if you want it. Harren the Red (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
It should be a source that connects something that Marius intended to Sertorius' activities. It should not just be "XYZ happened after or eventually". Such post hoc connections are just teleology. I know this is a difficult standard because Marius died during his seventh consulship. Further explanation is basically at User:Ifly6#And this eventually led to the Roman empire! just substitute Roman empire with Sertorius' revolt in this instance. Ifly6 (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I mean, if you are using that as your criteria, then it is pretty difficult to find anything. The only thing Marius did which furthered Sertorius' revolt while he was alive was  gather men who opposed Sulla under one banner, more or less, and these men would later conduct themselves to Spain to join Sertorius with the hopes of recovering their position in the state (which they only lost by choosing Marius' "side"). I understand the argument about teleology, and the examples provided in your link are logical, but this is much shorter stretch; Marius died in 86, Sertorius began his revolt in 80, gathering the Marian and Lepidan exiles en masse after 77. This isn't a "Marius put poor people in the army in the 100s, and from that the Empire formed 70 years later!" claim, if that makes sense. I know you're using hyperbole there, but I think this connection between Marius and Sertorius is really a lot more sustainable.
There is a scholarly consensus that Sertorius' revolt is the legacy of the Sullan Proscriptions (Spann p. 87, Gruen p. 18, and Konrad p. 189, who points out that part of the reason Sertorius' negotiations were always rebuffed was because he sought amnesty for him and the rest of the proscribed). These proscriptions were a reprisal campaign done due to the actions of Cinna and Marius. In your definition for post hoc teleology, you point out the importance of justification from contemporary circumstances. Well, none of the men who went to Sertorius got unproscribed. Nobody did; their allegiance to Marius (and Cinna) left them permanently outlawed from the Sullan State, which is the only reason they went to Sertorius. Is this connection really too tenuous?
In the article as is, it says that "The use of the Assemblies eroded senatorial control which, along with Sulla's decision to march on Rome, created significant and prolonged instability, only resolved by the destruction of the Republican form of government and the transition to Empire." Is this ('prolonged') not an indirect reference to Sertorius (among other wars and violence) in any case? Why not mention a specific instance of that instability led by a former follower of Marius leading many of those who had followed Marius starting only half a decade after Marius died? I would question if it is really teleology, on this basis, but of course look forward to hearing opinions on this!  Harren the Red (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The current statement about significant and prolonged instability iirc is from Evans 1995's conclusion. Basically, he says as much. Your middle paragraph (basically Marius' actions → Cinnanum tempus → Sulla's return → Sulla's victory → Proscriptions → Sertorius' revolt never reaching a negotiated solution) isn't problematic in itself; what is at issue is whether anyone connects Marius to Sertorius' revolt in that manner. If scholars do so I don't have a problem.
What I said about teleology is explaining why I think (separate to the first) that scholars will not do so. There are many offramps to Sertorius' revolt. The Sullan senate could have decided that war on Sertorius, Lepidus, and others was pointless and stupid; Sertorius could have been unable to gain support; Sulla could have decided not to do proscriptions; Sertorius could have been assigned to Italy and defeated; Sulla could have lost the civil war to the younger Marius; Sulla could have lost the civil war to Carbo; Mithridates could have been better at fighting; etc. Connecting Marius' siding with Cinna in the Bellum Octavianum all the way to Sertorius is, I think, too teleological. A "just-so" story that insufficiently appreciates the contingency of events. Because of that, I don't think there will exist sources that make that connection.
(To conclude and to be clear...) If there are sources which make the contention that one of Marius' legacies was Sertorius' revolt, I have no objection to inclusion. But, for reasons given, I doubt they exist. Ifly6 (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough! I'll delete the mention. If I happen to find any sources that say such explicitly I will re-add it.  Harren the Red (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it ok if I add a tree list for Marius' battles/wars in the infobox? The battles/wars module now only contains Marius' wars and I want to add his battles (there aren't that many) to the module. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

We should follow MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. The individual battles aren't key facts to be identified at a glance, and their addition would create an obstacle to that rapid glance. NebY (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
There aren't that many battles (4 or 5) and it's called Battles/wars. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
It's up to us to implement infobox templates appropriately; their designs don't impose mandatory inclusions on individual articles. I've fixed that label. NebY (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Scipio Africanus has a tree list for his wars and battles; looks ok. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
A complete list of battles includes many that aren't key information for our readers, yet an incomplete list of battles might seem misleading. In this giant project, there are examples of pretty much everything - see WP:OTHERCONTENT. NebY (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
How about just the highlights of his military career? The ones that have their own page? LuciusHistoricus (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Marius is a very fine example of a Roman leader whose success in wars is far more significant than any individual battles, which tbf is rather typical of the Romans - cf the famous Livy 9.17-19. Partial lists in infoboxes don't survive long; a good number of editors, including newly arrived ones, find completing infobox lists an attractive way to contribute, and of course don't find clear selection criteria for those lists. Also, if you usually read Wikipedia in desktop view, you may find the mobile view of this article interesting. NebY (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Fine. I'll drop it. I still think a tree list with highlights (wars/battles) would give readers a quick and simple overview, but since I don't have anyone seconding my proposal ...
Thanks for your insights btw. We might not agree, but this is how you discuss a subject AND I've learned something so: win-win. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! It's so much better that you raised this on the talk-page first, and I am glad you've got something out of it. NebY (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
I've created a draft for a Marius template. Perhaps it would work for you. Some articles have to be checked though; the battles of the Jugurthine and Social Wars are terribly sourced. T8612 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
 I think a template like that is a decent place to put such lists. As to the articles on the Jugurthine and Social wars, they practically all need to be rewritten or, more radically, just WP:STUBIFY'd. Frankly, I don't feel comfortable linking to them because of how low quality they are. Ifly6 (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
What an interesting approach! There are devils in the details though. If the Marian reforms aren't merely putative, they still weren't legislative unless we hypothesise some unattested law on recruitment or count the lex agraria, a one-off enabling act. Representing his legacy as one ancient short biography, one C17 play, a science fiction short story and a couple of C20 novels rather suggests he was quite insignificant, and doesn't relate to our Gaius Marius#Legacy. (It does also have inconsistent formatting, with the parentheticals mostly being author's names, as if the Life was an autobiography.) But yes, that is how navboxes work. NebY (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

This template is only an organised list of existing articles related to Marius. I did similar ones for Caesar, Augustus, Pompey, and Sulla.  T8612 (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)