Talk:Gaius Scribonius Curio (consul 76 BC)

message: The part of the article about the son had this sentence: "Although he had support from the consuls and the plebeians, he received a very hostile reception from senators." at the end of the third paragraph (the one about his peace proposal). I'm currently reading Anthony Everitt's biography of Cicero (titled Cicero), and it seems just the opposite, Curio's motion for Caesar and Pompey to disband their armies was carried 370 to 22 in the Senate, making it very popular (p. 204). It was the decision to give Pompey command of the Italian legions that had the popular and consular support without senatorial support, which incidentally was not Curio's' doing, but was instead done by Gaius Claudius Marcellus Minor (also page 204). I removed that sentence because I think it is mixed up, but if I am wrong, please change it back. Trainik 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senatorial support for Curio (son) 

message: Didn't Curio have a son by Fulvia? Fulvia's article contains the sentence: "At the time she ... was either pregnant with Curio's son or had delivered him" (citing Babcock, an academic source hosted on JSTOR), so that leads me to believe that he did; and whether he did or not, the discrepancy between his and Fulvia's articles should be resolved. Also, in any case, he had more stepchildren than just Clodia Pulchra -- Fulvia had a son by Clodius as well, also named Publius Clodius Pulcher.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.98.64 (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curio's children 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gaius Scribonius Curio. 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/20060524053616/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/0910.html to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/0910.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think this article should go back to "Gaius Scribonius Curio", currently a redirect here.  The present name is less appropriate, in my opinion, because "Burbuleius" wasn't part of his name; it was, I believe, Cicero's nickname for him, and he isn't generally called that in other sources, even if they mention the nickname.  The original article was a "prosopography page" with both the orator and his son, but the son was split off to become "Gaius Scribonius Curio (praetor 49 BC)".  As such, it was unnecessary to rename the father's article—and in any case he was probably the more significant of the two, historically speaking.  Since there is no other article named "Gaius Scribonius Curio", and that title redirects to this article, I don't see any issues with moving it back.  P Aculeius (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I support your proposal. Maybe we should add (consul 76 BC). Then the son would be (praetor 49 BC) and the father (consul 76 BC). However, I don't agree with the father being the more important historical character –the son was a very important tribune during the 'Fall of the Republic'; he almost prevented the civil war between Caesar and his opponents (his vetoes) and he also fought two major battles in Africa (if he had won, there would have been no Battle of Thapsus and  probably no Battle of Munda either – Caesar could have become the undisputed ruler of the Republic in 48 BC). The father held the higher office, but the son played a more important part during the critical phase of the 'Fall of the Republic'. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that the younger Curio was that pivotal a figure, but noting that there are at least two other significant figures named Gaius Scribonius Curio, I agree that adding "(consul 76 BC)" is a good idea.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the year should be dropped and the article renamed to Gaius Scribonius Curio (consul) since there was nobody else of that name who held the office (WP:ROMANS, WP:CONCISE). Aforst1 (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I see your point, we shouldn't move it again. The 76 BC just adds detail. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move back to "Gaius Scribonius Curio"