Talk:Samnite Wars

message: It looks like the meaning of Tuscans here (and at Saturnia) is not even covered by the disambiguation at Tuscan. I take it that it refers to a pre-Roman tribe. Do we have a relevant article? In any case, can someone add it to the disambig and then re-link this accordingly? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 01:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always been told that Tuscany and Tuscans is derived from Etruria and Etruscans. Mhaesen 19:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuscans 

message: I think that we have enough content here to split a page off for each war, much like the Punic wars.  Gomm 19:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large enough to split into 3 pages? 

message: It is, in my oppinion, wrong to use the subdividion in the first/second and third Samnite war. We should be speaking of one Samnite war. For the full discusion one should read. "Deconstructing the Samnite wars" in "Samnium : settlement and cultural change : the proceedings of the third E. Togo Salmon conference on Roman studies" the last article. The subdevision in three parts is a modern thought. Coming from a German Historian if I'm right. If you are intrested in this subject it's a real must to read the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.28.154 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just one Samnite War 

message: The classical references are obscure, even going to the authors’ pages.  They should be listed in the bibliography with a title, or at least linked to a section on how they are to be referenced in the authors’ or works’ pages.  189.61.28.233 (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical references 

message: Regarding the introduction, 1) the statement “the Samnite wars were fought over the control of Italy” can be misleading. It can sound as if it was over the control over the whole of Italy. It was not. It was about the control of parts of central and southern Italy.  2) The statement that the wars involved nearly all the states of Italy is an exaggeration. It involved all the peoples to the east, north and west of Samnium (land of the Samnites) + the peoples of central Italy north of Rome (the Etruscans, Umbrians and Picenti) and the Senone Gauls. Many of the Italic peoples did not get involved. Foremost among them were the Lucanians who lived next to the area of the wars. The Veneti, Lingones, Boii, Cenomani Insubres, Taurini and Ligures of northern Italy did not get involved. The Iapyges and the Messapii of Apulia did not get involved. The Oenotrians of present day Calabria did not get involved either. Therefore, many groups had nothing to do with these wars.
Regarding the background section, the migrations or conflicts of the other Umbro-Oscan groups had nothing to do with the Samnites and were totally irrelevant to the Samnites or to the Samnite Wars. The Umbro-Oscans (the speakers of Umbrian, Sabellian and Oscan langauges) was a linguistic family, not an ethnic grouping. There were 13 ethnic groups which were distinct from each other and politically independent and the only thing they shared were linguistic similarities. In addition, 1) the Samnites were not Sabellians. They were Oscans. 2) There is no record of the Etruscans having to fight back Umbrians or Sabellians. 3) Yes, Rome and the league of the other Latin cities had to fight raids by the Volsci and the Aequi. However, they were Sabellians and not Oscans. 4) Yes, the Lucanian were pressing on the Greek cities in the area of the modern Basilicata coast. However, even though they were Oscans, they were distinct and separate from the Samnites. 
The View that the Samnites who lived on the mountains where backwards and the ones who migrated to Campania became civilised, less warlike and ill-fitted to fight the Samnite of the mountains is unhistorical and might reflect prejudice. There is no historical record of this. The statement that the Samnites were after the grassland of the plain which was fenced is also unhistorical. There is no historical record of this either. Archaeology has shown that the Samnites were not just backward mountain herders. Agriculture was practiced in their towns lower down in the valleys and there is evidence of Hellenization among the urban people, especially among the Caudini tribe. As for the Campanians, 1) it was only the city of Capua which asked Rome for help, not all of the Campanians (there were many Campanian cities). 2) The Capuans did not ask Rome for help because the Samnites were migrating into their area or because they were after the grassland of the plain. Not at all! The Samnites wanted to attack Capua because it helped the Sidicini against whom they were fighting. Also note that between the land of the Sidicini (who were not Campanians) in northern Campania and Capua, there was the lands of the Aurunci and the Ausoni, who were not Campanians either (the term Campanian is restricted to the people who had migrated from Samnium, the land of the Samnites, to central and southern Campania).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 020amonra (talk • contribs) 13:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate and/or unhistorical information in the introduction and the background section

message: I don't know where else to say this, but at some point wikipedia would do well to reject Varronian chronology. The fabricated Dictator Years (333, 324, 309, 301) in the Varronian chronology of the Fasti Capitolini are a relatively late invention. To put it briefly, a bunch of fictional years were inserted into the chronology of the late fourth century BC to help explain chronological inconsistencies in the chronology of the late fifth and early fourth centuries. There are undoubtedly problems in the chronology of the late fifth and early fourth centuries, which is also likely why some ancient authors (e.g. Livy) extended the Sextian-Licinian Anarchy from one to five years (cf. the one year in Diodorus' account). 
But for the late fourth century the solution appears to be simple. By remaining true to Livy's account, who inserts no Dictator Years into his narrative and makes no mention of their claimed existence, we can reconstruct the most likely chronology. For example, once we delete the Dictator Years, the Second Samnite War is shown to have broken out in 323 BC, not 326. Of course Livy doesn't make such things clear to the modern reader as he simply dates everything to the consulships and does not try to universalise these dates by linking them to, say, the Olympiads or the archonships in Athens. But Diodorus does take this universalising approach, and although his chronology has mistakes, we can usually see that, for the late fourth century, the non-Varronian chronology is supported by Diodorus' universalising efforts.
The problem of course is that, while scholars on the Middle Republic acknowledge that the Dictator Years are spurious and discuss the likely reasons why these Dictator Years were invented (these issues have been discussed by Andrew Drummond, Tim Cornell, S. P. Oakley, etc) and some scholars now do use non-Varronian years when discussing the Samnite Wars (e.g. James Tan, Byron Waldron), it is still standard practice in scholarship to use the Varronian years anyway, I presume simply because it's 'canon' or something. And so, is it the responsibility of Wikipedia to follow the practice of a minority of scholars in actually using the historical non-Varronian years? I suppose not. It might just confuse users who see books date the battle of Caudine Forks to 321 (as opposed to 319), or the sack of Rome to 390 (as opposed to 386).
Nevertheless, one day I hope more scholars (and eventually Wikipedia) adopt the practice of employing non-Varronian years. Incidentally, this is what the Second Samnite War looks like once you remove the Dictator Years: https://historum.com/t/a-non-varronian-timeline-of-the-second-samnite-war.197094/ 129.78.56.138 (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Varronian Chronology