Talk:Julius Caesar's invasions of Britain

message: As someone else says, in the article itself, 
This article is essentially a copy of the relevant passages of De Bello Gallico and needs rewriting
-- I came in here to do a copyedit, but there seems no point in that if the article will be deleted -- as it should be, I think, as this is just a translation of Caesar so even cleaning that up would lead to all sorts of Classicist Latin translation problems. 
Caesar's book is too canonical to stand as simply a history: like translating the Bible for an article entitled "History of the Middle East". For an article entitled simply "Caesar's invasions of Britain" we need just that, a history -- a translation of Caesar would be a whole different thing. 
--Kessler 22:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put that up when I stubbed it off.  I only meant it seemed to be paraphrasing Caesar, as it stood.  I'm currently editing out the Caesar and putting it into a more balanced account in my own words (eg the Walmer and Agricola bits).  Please don't delete it. Neddyseagoon 17:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub out

message: I've done quite a bit of personal enquiry into Geoffrey of Monmouth's version of the invasions, and my contributions on this may veer pretty close to original research, so I'll go into them in detail here rather than the article.
Bede's account is virtually identical to Orosius's, with only a few differences in spelling. He preserves the error of calling Caesar's tribune "Labienus" rather than "Laberius" (which Geoffrey follows), and Orosius's "Mandubragius" becomes "Androgius" (becoming "Androgeus" in Geoffrey). The phrase "Trinobantum firmissima ciuitas" ("Trinouantum" in Bede) clearly, by comparison with Caesar, means "the very strong tribe of the Trinobantes", with Trinobantum here being a genitive plural; but as there's no further context in the passage, it could easily be misread as "the very strong city Trinobantum", with Trinobantum taken to be a nominative singular - the Historia Britonum (9th century) (19-20) makes the same error. Orosius and Bede only mention two invasions, but the Historia Britonnum says that Caesar invaded three times, as does Geoffrey. I can find nothing in Geoffrey's account that appears in Caesar that does not also appear in Orosius, Bede or the Historia Britonum, so I'd have to conclude that none of the British texts used Caesar directly.
There's plenty in Geoffrey that can't be traced to any other surviving source. The majority of that should probably be put down to Geoffrey's fertile imagination, but some material - the presence of Tenvantius, for example - may be derived from native traditions. --Nicknack009 20:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, any of that that you can convert back into 'unoriginal research', if you see what I mean, for the relevant section would be most useful. User|Neddyseagoon 15:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bede and Geoffrey of Monmouth

message: :Image:CaesarLadybird.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:CaesarLadybird.jpg

message: :Caesar's force of 800 ships (possibly including merchants), 5 legions, and 2,000 cavalry, while leaving 3 legions and 2,000 more cavalry in Gaul under the control of Labienus, was the largest naval landing in the history of the world, and remained that way until D-Day, in 1944.
It has "a reference", but it basically repeats this claim without any evidence. Just out of top of my head, a few big invasions before D-Day:
* 480 BCE Second_Persian_invasion_of_Greece#Army - 200–250,000
* 1281 Mongol invasions of Japan - 100,000 Mongol, Chinese soldiers & 40,000 Korean soldiers
4500 ships
* 1943 Allied_invasion_of_Sicily - 160,000 personnel, 14,000 vehicles, 600 tanks, 1,800 guns
There might have been some others - in any case this statement is really dubious without some serious evidence to support it. Taw (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Caesar's invasion force of 5 legions - each being roughly over 4,000 men - and 2,000 additional cavalry was enormous by any standard, ancient or modern. That said, the articles you link to above, which seem to be well-sourced, are enough to completely undercut the validity of the claim that his was the largest naval landing before D-Day in WWII. Seeing as how no one has challenged this since July, I will be bold and eliminate that assertion from the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 09:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: A lot of the suppositions in this article seem to have been erroneous. The University of Leicester have excavated a large fort dating from 55-2 BC at Ebbsfleet, Thanet, guarding Pegwell Bay. 
* and it refers to a BBC TV programme that is to be broadcast tonight.
A little rewriting seems to be in order!--ClemRutter (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  University of Leicester dig at Pegwell Bay 

message: I have a very small silver coin which has been attributed to Eppilus 10bc-10ad, Son of Commius 55bc. However this coin has a head facing left and I have searched but cannot find any coins of Eppilus with a left facing head, the ones I’ve seen all face right. I’m told there are no coins found that can be attributed to Commius.  Is it possible that this coin is in fact Commius and not Eppilus?
The coin has a small piece missing but what is there is nice and clear.
2.102.205.138 (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eppilus or Comis 

message: *Peddie, John, 1987, Conquest: The Roman Conquest of Britain, chapter 1 (pages 1–22).
*Salway, Peter, 11 Roman Britain (Oxford History of England), chapter 2 (pages 20–39).
*R. C. Carrington, 1938, "Caesar's Invasions of Britain" by (reviewed in Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 29, Part 2 (1939), pp. 276–277)
*Peter Berresford Ellis, Caesar's Invasion of Britain, 1978, 
*T. Rice Holmes, 1907. Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius Caesar. Oxford. Clarendon Press.
*W. Welch, C. G. Duffield (Editor), Caesar: Invasion of Britain, 1981, 
CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources that were listed that I removed since they weren't cited to