Talk:Latin War

Comments
|Archbishopric of Salzburg refers here in the context of 15th century. Actually, by the evidence of external sources, it seems there should be a note about a 'Latin war' in Salzburg, 1523, while local Archbishop Matthäus Lang forced burghers to accept mass in Latin language. --Oop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.130.75 (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent page move
I have to say I'm not really comfortable with the recent (undiscussed) move of this page from Latin War to Second Latin War. As far as I can tell from the literature available to me, there are no established names for the various Roman-Latin wars. The exception seems to be this particular one, which when named seems to be uniformly called just the Latin War without any numbering attached. I'm worried that by moving this page to its current location we are displacing nomenclature well-established in reliable sources with an artificial Wikipedia-only creation  Fornadan (t) 18:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * An exact search of Google Books yields fewer than 10 results for either "First Latin War" or "Second Latin War". I'm no fan of Google Books these days (it thinks it knows what I want better than I do), but these low numbers are telling. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've just looked over the articles and consulted Broughton, and what I can see calls into question whether one can legitimately give the name to the "First Latin War." The only events seem to be the Battle of Lake Regillus, in either 498 or 496 BC (Broughton places it in 499), and the treaty drawn up by Cassius in 493.  I don't mean to minimize the significance of Lake Regillus, but it seems to have been just the one battle, with no other hostilities preceding or following.  I don't think it makes sense to assume that a state of war existed until the treaty was drawn up (rather an anachronistic concept, anyway).  The ancient authors don't seem to have considered this the "First Latin War."  It wasn't the first time that Roman troops fought against other Latins, and it wouldn't be the last time before "The" Latin War.  But the other conflicts, which were certainly more substantial than the Battle of Lake Regillus (if not necessarily as important to the course of Roman history) weren't called "The Latin War" and aren't being so called by the author who's moved this article.  I think that "First Latin War" should be deleted, since it doesn't really describe anything other than the background and consequences of the Battle of Lake Regillus, and doesn't seem to be consistent with historical usage.  Without that article, this one should be returned to "Latin War."  P Aculeius (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. This should be moved back. Srnec (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a general agreement what should be done, but how do to best proceed to actually getting it done? I usually try to stay far away from any entanglements with the wiki bureaucracy...  Fornadan (t) 16:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They don't bite. Srnec (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Lets go back to the name
Understand the reason for the change back to this name and also understand that this is the Latin War to End All Latin Wars. Further understand that we dont want to create a wikipedia only way to name the article, but it is not the only Latin War that happened. Perhaps Latin War (340–338 BC) or Final Latin War would be more appropriate and less confusing to readers. Propose it be named as such. Would appreciate other ideas. - Clark Sui (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Be sure to read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)