Talk:Battle of Alesia

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ambiguity over how long it took to build the siege walls? 

message: 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 . 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 ), 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 ).
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 . 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 ).
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)
thread_title:  Questionable content 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Needs work

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Grain stored by Vercingetorix 

message: 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)
thread_title: Number of Gaulish Warriors

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dubious

message: 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)
replies: text: Nice work.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation into Chinese Wikipedia 

message: 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 AthensTalk 15:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where were those crazy Celts at? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. Edited accordingly and tag removed. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Siege works raised "four hundred feet"??

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reply to "siege works raised "four hundred feet"?" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tag for Insufficient Citations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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:  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)
thread_title:  Was Caesar consul during the Gaulic wars?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article uses terms incorrectly - it has mixed up circumvallation with contravallation