Talk:Marcus Licinius Crassus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Crass Crassus?

Is it correct that the word "crass" derives from the name of Crassus? Bastie 14:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually that is the only thing on this page that make s any sense or is based on any historical fact.

Crassus Dives.

Although Marcus Licinius Crassus was considered at one point to be the richest man in Rome, he was not of the Crassii Licinii Dives family. His was simply Licinii Crassii. The two branches are often confused for the simple reason that Crassus at his death was worth so much money but in truth this is false. I sort two sources which i feel strongly about. There is Cicero who when speaking of Crassus often just refers to a "Crassus" but when he speaks of the actually Crassus Dives, he uses the term "dives" so as to distinguish between the two. Further there is Marcus Crassus and the Late Roman Republic, a very good book, which notes the signifcant differences between Crassus's family and the Licinii Crassii Dives. In conclusion, when Wikipedia calls Crassus "dives" they are perpetrating an error in history. Crassus started humblely and lived a very modest life, starting off with no more than 300 Talents, and dieing with 7,200 talents.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.146.77.194 (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2006‎

OCD agrees, and I tweaked the article. There should probably be an explanatory note about the whole "dives" confusion at the end. Stan 13:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Why has this article been reduced to a mere shadow of itself? Not even three weeks ago, when I last visited this article, it was far more in-depth and informative, as compared to the current version that is completely inadequate. Also, can someone authenticate the bust that is supposedly of Crassus? I was under the impression that no busts have been confirmed as being genuine representations of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.189.198 (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2006‎

It seems to be on account of plagarism. But the history links to Talk:Caligula instead of anything about Crassus. And following a link from that page lead to a site with nothing about Crassus. SO I have no idea why there were massive deletions from the article. Amphipolis 00:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Biographies

Can anyone recommend a good book about Crassus?

Any book on Caesar, Pompey, or the end of the Republic will certainly have something in it about him.Kuralyov 00:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Read Rubicon, by Tom Holland. It is the best single volume history of the Late Roman Republic on the market, and also has a lot about Crassus. Also, Plutarch wrote a biography on Crassus.

Funny and well written, also. You must read it. --KesheR 00:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

vandalism?

baby eating disorder? i'm not confidant on the subject or crassus or wikipedia but i'm fairly sure he neither had an eating disorder as a baby nor ate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeetable (talk • contribs) 07:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

essay and antivandalbot weirdness

I took out a long (copyrighted! by the editor no less!) essay that was tacked on to the end of the article. It had been previously reverted but VoABot II did some funny reverts and it appeared again. Lowerarchy 02:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Crassus' legions as Hun mercenaries

I've reverted the edits by an anonymous user that, without citation, stated Crassus' legions fought for the Huns(!) against the Chinese during the reign of Augustus. On the off chance that it's not just another crackpot theory I'll preserve it here, but before it gets reinserted into the text it needs some major supporting references.

When Surena found Crassus and his men the next day, he again offered a truce, saying the king had ordered it. Surena supplied Crassus with a horse, but as Surena's men tried to make the horse go faster, a scuffle developed between the Romans, who were unwilling for Crassus to go unaccompanied, and the Parthians. Crassus was killed in the fighting. Surena ordered the rest of the Romans to surrender, and some did. The others who tried to get away by night were hunted down and killed the next day. Altogether, the Roman suffered over 20,000 killed on the campaign and 10,000 captured. Recent archeological findings gave rise to a theory that some of the captive legionnaries were eventually stationed to the far eastern corners of the Parthian border and somehow entered into the service of local Hun warlords. According to anicent Han Annuls, the Han Chinese border garrisons engaged in combat with "blonde-haired mercenary forces" of the Hun warlord. These soldiers were stated to have "linked their shields in a fish-scale formation", and built Wooden Palisade as part of their defensive structure (a tactic only used by the Romans at the time). Thus, the theory suggsted the first possible encounter between Romans and the Han Chinese around 20-15 BC.

Binabik80 23:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this has ben mentioned in Chinese sources, although I don't have citations for it. IIRC, Chinese sources report fighting against Parthian mercenaries who fought in formation (testudo) and had fishscale armor.

"The fate of the Roman soldiers taken captive at Carrhae deserves a brief digression. They were settled in the Margiana oasis in the Kara Kum desert, but later offered mercenary service to one Jzh-jzh, the leader of a nomad tribe known from Chinese sources. When he was defeated, these soldiers, who had shown great military prowess and discipline, accompanied the Chinese general to the east. A census list of 1-2 CE mentions a town Li-jien, "Roman city", in the commandery Chang-i."

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/parthians/parthians.php

"In the 1950's Oxford historian Homer H. Dubs proposed that 145 Roman soldiers captured by the Parthians after Crassus's defeat at Carrhae in 53 B.C. were eventually hired as mercenaries by a Hun warlord in the western frontier past the boundaries of the Han Empire and were captured by the Chinese and allowed to form their own city, based on the Roman model."

Also, this monograph has extensive discussions about this and whether Dub's theory was accurate.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/e/w/ewg118/li-chien.pdf

There might be some truth to the hun story. They believe a village in China might have some roman heritage. http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/dna-tests-for-chinas-legionary-lore/2007/02/02/1169919531024.html

This story has been reported on foxnews, which makes it ( as I understand ) sufficently verifed to be placed back in the main article. 145.253.108.22 11:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I think some more sources could do with being attributed. A lot of the content of the article comes from more than just Plutarch as a primary source and I think that others could do with being mentioned, regardless of whether they are mentioned in the secondary sources or not. Cicero for example is definately worth mentioning, among others. Phasler90 21:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Marcus Licinius Crassus II

There should be a disambiguation page that leads to a page for the Marcus Licinius Crassus who served Augustus after his succession. Book 51 of Dio gives a fair amount of information on his achievments on the field of battle, but there seems to be nothing on wikipedia about him (only mentioned in the Spolia opima article).

Done. Created a disambig page for Marcus Licinius Crassus, and articles on his grandson (the consul of 30 BC) and adoptive descendants. wikibiohistory 09:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Molten Gold Story (Changes Needed)

Just wanted to say that although Crassus was certainly not executed by means of having molten gold poured down his throat, there is a fairly well established tradition that makes the claim that the Parthian king Orodes did in fact pour melted gold into Crassus's skull AFTER he was dead, saying "aurum sitisti, aurum bibe" (you thirsted for gold, drink gold). I got this information from the commentary on Dante's Purgatorio, Canto 20, lines 116-117 (the Durling and Martinez edition, Oxford 2003); both Cicero, in De Officiis 1.30, and Florus, in Epitome 3.11, are said to have reported the story. Whether true or not, its worth mentioning in the article. It may also be worth mentioning that Dante uses Crassus as one of his seven examples of avarice cited by penitant souls in Purgatory, who cry out, "Crassus, tell us, for you know: what flavor does gold have?" I'd have added some of this info myself, but I don't know anything about HTML scripting and I didnt want to post this stuff without one of those links that takes you to the bottom of the articles where the citations are at. Seeing as this story has been refuted before on Wikipedia, I think the authority of Dante and or Cicero might be helpful.

---

"According to some sources, this trophy was revealed to the king in a particularly dramatic fashion during a performance of the The Bacchae of Euripides: it was used as a prop, standing in for Pentheus' head in the final scene." I believe a such a claim needs to cite a source. According to this website, the story is derived from Plutarch(XXXIII), but I couldn't find any such thing when I looked. I will add [citation needed] to it.80.114.26.224 08:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

== I agree. Dio Cassius reports straight out that Crassus was killed either by his own men to prevent capture, or by the Parthians because he was badly wounded. Dio Cassius, Book 40, Stanza 26. Nathraq (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Crassus in Syria

Interesting, in the main text: "...Upon his arrival in the Parthian camp he was seized and killed." Is there really any reliable source to prove this? It is nowadays in fashion to portray Romans as great and glorious as possible, and show the other side as some ugly foe. Besides, just compare that "Crassus in Syria" section to the main Ashkanian (Parthian) page.

Shaahin (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

2nd para in rise to power

"The rest of Crassus' wealth was distrebuted to english Queen and came to the Noble dickons.the working of silver mines, and judicious purchases of land and houses, especially those of proscribed citizens."

what ???? Machete97 (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Bust depiction

Uhm.....is that the right bust? I seem to find this statue listed as a statue of Pompey......with a reconstructed head. This imag appears to be that modern reconstructed imag of Pompey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.178 (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears that I am correct. I found this on the image page "I'm not sure how to go about removing this image, but it's definitely not Crassus. For a valid image of Crassus see: http://www.bridgemanart.com/thumbnails/web400wm/161/161309.jpg"

Removing image from page and requesting speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.178 (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Carrhae picture

I'm new to editing, might be doing it wrong. Anyway, the picture with the subtitle "Battle of Carrhae" looks ridiculous. I think it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.9.117 (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Be bold! I'll remove it. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Crassus and Spartacus

This section seems of a different nature to the rest of the article - very much a matter of opinion (OR?) and lacking demonstrated evidence. Does anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.155.87 (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you maybe be talking about the paragraph I just criticized above, referring to the argument about decimation being perfectly reasonable from the perspective of a (not so young) aristocrat? If so, I totally agree.

As a side note, the general interest in Spartacus that has been incited by the Starz series (ca. the Kalends of October, 2010) brings fresh interest to this fascinating period. Got to dig up the corresponding volume of Plutarch . . . . Thuvan Dihn (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)