Talk:Appius Annius Trebonius Gallus (consul 108)

Comments on the sources
I'm amazed that when there are three well-written books by experts & published in the last few decades on the Year of the Four Emperors, not one has been even mentioned in this article. Then again, none of them are mentioned in the articles on Galba, Otho, or Vitellius either. I shake my head sadly. These books are: I'd hope that someone at least looks at these books before submitting any article related to this period of Roman History as either a G.A. or F.A. -- llywrch (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Gwyn Morgan, 69 A.D.: the year of four emperors (Oxford, 2006)
 * Kenneth Wellesley, The year of the four emperors (New York, 2000)
 * Peter A.L. Greenhalgh, The Year of the Four Emperors (New York, 1975)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Appius Annius Trebonius Gallus (consul 108). 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/20110604204303/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/1331.html to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/1331.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604204303/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/1331.html to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/1331.html

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) 14:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Which Annius Gallus was active in 69?
After having written Appius Annius Gallus, I'm surprised to find this article that claims the general Annius Gallus was consul in 108, instead of the consul of 67. I suspect this is in error: there is ample evidence that Vespasian rewarded his supporters promptly, & to have ignored the contributions of Gallus his entire life & leave them to another man to reward Gallus with a consulship almost 40 years later does not make any sense. I'd remove all of this misplaced information now, but I'd like to verify whether a reliable source made this shaky identification. -- llywrch (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I had a peak at two of the sources used. Pomeroy nowhere mentions Trebonius Gallus in her book, & Smith talks only about the general of 69, so it appears the original author confused the two in accident. This is borne out by the fact he spells the author of one source two different ways, viz. Bunson vs. Dunson. I've gone ahead & removed the erroneous material. Let's all be a little more careful in writing articles! -- llywrch (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)