Talk:Battle of Mutina

Wrong
This article stats that it was a mark anthony strategic victory. It was a complete Roman Republic victory lead by Octavian. This particluar civil war was won by them against mark anthony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.53.39 (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Technically it was a Mark Antony victory. -Mark Antony was actually able to make a treaty with the Roman Republic (while Lepidus won Africa and Spain; Octavian only got Gaul and Illyria and Mark Antony was given Greece, all Anatolian provinces, Syria and Cyrenaica while Italy was run by the senate or all three triumvirs -Mark Antony killed the consul and inflicted more casualties on the Republic than he himself gained thus defeating a part of the Republic army -Mark Antony managed to escape and thus gained the strategic advantage allowing him to avoid being surrounded and the Republic did not accomplish the objective to destroy Antony and then the Republic sued for peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauca50 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems a stretch to say that the result of the battle was the Triumvirate (as the infobox now does, without naming the "treaty"). Many months of manoeuvring (political and military) intervened between this battle and that deal. The Italian version also makes too much of what Antony gained from this engagement. He was trying to destroy Brutus' force at Mutina and take Cisalpine Gaul; thanks to this battle, he could do neither. True, he regrouped later, but that's another matter (having more to do with what Bassus, Lepidus, and Plancus did—and the divisions within the anti-Antonian camp—than with this battle). Q·L·1968 ☿ 22:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The infobox characterized this battle as a "tactical senatorial victory, strategic Antonian victory (Antony prevents encirclement of his forces, the enemy consul was killed), Octavian and the Republic sign a treaty with Antony". I find that to be special pleading; this battle was a senatorial victory, full stop. Antony preventing encirclement of his forces was a matter of tactics, not strategy. He then had to flee into Gaul. The loss of Hirtius was again more of a tactical than a strategic advantage, and it was counterbalanced by the emergence of Caesar Octavian as a commander. Caesar Octavian's eventual volte face, culminating in the formation of the Triumvirate, was not due to this April battle. That happened in late November, after Caesar had (for entirely separate reasons) had a falling out with Cicero's faction and Antonius had acquired reinforcements from Lepidus and Plancus. For comparison's sake, we don't get to call Chancellorsville a strategic Union victory because it led to events that led to events that produced a Union victory at Gettysburg months later. Q·L·1968 ☿ 13:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Translated
Expanded with translation. It's pretty funny for this article to be citing a 2014 Italian translation of Syme rather than the original, but that's the reality of the case! Q·L·1968 ☿ 22:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be that hard to track down the English original of passages cited in the Italian translation. Or determine if the Italian translator changed anything (hopefully because new information has surfaced since 1939), & note that. -- llywrch (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)