Talk:Jugurthine War

Untitled

I thought, Jughurtha died in prison, 7 days in dungeon.

Untitled

I feel it significant to note that this article seems to be written entirely (or almost entirely) from Sallust's "The Jugurthine War." While this is not necessarily a bad thing, as this is one of the most complete histories of the war that we have, I think it is important to realize that most of the information in this article comes from a single source and carries with it that source's not-so-thinly-veiled biases. A major changing of the article is perhaps unnecessary, but a disclaimer of sorts could be helpful.

-More importantly, maybe, I feel that this article is simply not very well written. It is rather unsophisticated in its approach and language, and simply doesn't read very well. I may attempt to fix the language somewhat without actually changing any of the information soon if I can find the time.

130.64.31.197 (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Eilos[reply]

RE: Concerns on source bias

How do people feel about the work of Ober and Strauss in Anatomy of Error on the Jugurthine War? 99.59.128.43 (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Joseph Paul[reply]

"Filed objection" (moved here from article)

Filed Objection: The cited "Saluste" in "Jugurtinian Wars" clearly states that Jugurtha was the nephew of the King Massinissa, through his father(brother of Massinissa) and his concubine. Having a personal relationship with Jugurtha, Saluste also qualifies Jugurtha's nephewsMacipsa and his brother, as toddlers - whom Rome favored for the throne, for obvious reasons - in place of Jugurtha who in his 20s, had already won more than one war, on behalf of Rome, and was the assigned commander of the King's (Massinissa) army, by trust and merit. Your gibbrish below and elsewhere, is to be put in the same category as the rest of your "opinions", starting with the placing the Amazigh People and Heritage, in the 7th and 8th century. The rest of your account of the Amazigh heritage and culture, contradicts what you/author are obligated to consider. A 1000s of years of history and evolution, which amongst other things has produced and Alphabet and a grammar of many branches. The first written mention and relating the word Barbarians by Rome, is to be found in the Salust account of the Jugurtinian wars, and not before. For Catalania to be the "commercial partner" of the Phoenicians instead of the Numedians, you qualify as "with nothing/products to offer", one has to assume some superiority, which the Numidian Army, under Jugurtha acquired for Rome, in one battle. Your/author inconsistencies are of the same king found in the islamic stories and those of the analphabet psychopath prophet. (For IP 173.17.204.81)

Dubious

This article has a fair amount of fairly dubious information. Among other things:

• Sallust lived in the 1st century, and so could not have written about the "Fall of the Roman Empire"
• The historicity of the Marian reforms are disputed at best, so reference to that seems to be wrong.
• Lynda Telfort, Sulla: A Dictator Reconsidered does not look like a reputable source -- it is written by an amateur with no formal training and a fair amount of culture war axes to grind
• A lot of the commentary seems to parrot Sallust's analysis on events (especially regarding the putative corruption of the Roman Senate). While Sallust is a crucial source, he's also an incredibly biased one and not all his claims should be taken at face value.

71.167.7.218 (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]