Talk:Battle of the Frigidus

message: It was through Arbogast they found the opportunity to restore pagan rule in the Empire through force.
Who is they?  The sentence also contains two 'through's, change one of them when sentence is fixed.K... 12:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence needs clarifications 

message: Not sure what the source is, but I think this is poor.  The first paragraph is very poor history, making assumptions about the status and character of the Senate in this period which are quite inaccurate.  Moreover, there is debate among historians over may of the "facts" reported, but no sign of this in the text.  And the English is often poor and there are editorial problems (why is paganism given a capital? it was not a single organised religion like Christianity or Islam).  It needs a major rewrite.  Deipnosophista 09:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Roman State Paganism was most certainly an organised religion; it had its own priestly colleges, set rituals, sacred dates and the like.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: needs improvement

message: I think the river should be called Fluvius Frigidus (="Cold River"), not just Frigidus (="Cold"). There is another article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupus_of_Friuli
mentioning the battles on the same location, where full name is quoted correctly.
Another problem is that no historian today can be really sure which river is exactly in question, and the Fluvius Frigidus is usually referred as today's Vipava river. But Vipava is not so cold at all to deserve such name...my best guess is that the river Fluvius Frigidus is today's Hubelj river (which is really very very cold) - there was a Roman fortification on its riverbank to the north, called Castra (today's Ajdovščina), and a cold river that cuts the valley from there, where would you plan your defences? :)
Here is a picture of my best-guess battlefield:
http://www.geopedia.si/#T105_vT_b2-3_x416335_y81579_s15
Hubelj runs North to South into Vipava, which runs West, and there is a bottleneck between hills, if you are coming with a huge army from East...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.124.243 (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: wrong name

message: Alan Cameron has published a new history book The Last Pagans of Rome (2010) that is being called a masterpiece and re-defining everything we thought we knew about the so-called pagan revival of the late 4th and earth 5th century. One of the book's principal theses is that there was never a pagan revival associated with the usurper Eugenius, who met his end at the Battle of the Frigidus. I have not read Cameron's book, but I think scholarship has moved beyond the current Wikipedia article, at least concerning the story that it was the last battle in a pagan revival. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the proper thing to do would be to cite and explain the varying views of Cameron, Hendrick, and MacMullen and let the readers decide (or seek further information) for themselves.TheCormac (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Last Pagans of Rome 

message: Found a source for the numbers, just add it to references while I put it in the template box.
John Julius Norwich, Byzantium: The Early Centuries, 115  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauca50 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The numbers! 

message: 1. Wouldn't it make better sense to have the section "Aftermath" follow "The battle", rather than have "Modern interpretation" between them? The material in "Modern interpretation" feels as if it would fit better at the end of the article.
2. The German Wikipedia equivalent links to some authoritative articles. I suggest that anyone who wants to improve this article -- or at least add sources -- use those references. -- llywrch (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two comments