Talk:Vercingetorix

This is ridiculous
Ive tried to edit this article 4 times and you keep reverting my edits. I'm a PhD and lecturer of European history! The only vandalism is the from the mod on a powertrip preventing me from improving this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.8.96 (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the article's history no one has edited it since 26 April. I'm not sure why you're unable to edit the article. What changes did you have in mind? Nev1 (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * He he. This made me laugh at least, so laughable is spot on. ;-) What was that edit you wanted to make then? You sure you tried on the English WP? Trigaranus (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Cause of Death
The article says that


 * "He ws probably strangled shortly after Caesar's triumph..."

and then later (of the theory that he was beheaded):


 * "...but this theory has as little support as that of strangulation."

So the article says that it is probable that he was strangled, but then dismisses the beheading theory as being no more likely than strangulation. This is internally inconsistent.

My knowledge of Vercingetorix comes entirely from reading Asterix books, so I don't know the right way to resolve this inconsistency. Molinari 01:45, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The tale I believe is the one that he was taken to Rome, paraded thru the city and was ritually killed during major festivities some years later. I got this one from the Discovery Channels documentary on Julius Caesars conquest of the Celts... Not changing, someone should fact check it to be sure… Golf


 * Caesar's triumph (the parade) actually occurred several years after the actual conquest of Gaul and Vercingetorix. In fact, the refusal of the Senate to allow him to triumph AND stand for consul in absentia (since if he crossed the Pomerium to stand for Consul, he'd become a privatus, losing his right to triumph) was a precipitous cause of his civil war. Because of this, his Gaul triumph was delayed until 46 BC, during his dictatorship. Additional, Vercingetorix wasn't held in the Tullianum the entire time. It wasn't a prison as we know it, but a temporary holding facility. He would, in all likelyhood, have been held in house arrest at one or many homes of prominent citizens. Txvoodoo (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As to cause of death, Roman tradition was to parade defeated leaders, whether kings or great tribal leaders, in the triumphal parade ending in the Lower Forum for the prisoner. The prisoner was then led into a small building known as the Tullianum where he was ritually strangled. His body was then thrown into a lower chamber of the Tullianum. Exceptionally, the Numidian King Jugurtha was thrown alive into the lower chamber in Marius' triumph of 104 B.C. and left to starve to death. Beheadings were usually reserved for Roman citizens, except if they were traitors, in which case they were thrown from the Tarpeian Rock located somewhere atop the Capitoline to their deaths below. (User: Cole, 30-Sep-06) I had thought Vercingetorix was beheaded or decapitated but am not sure, and think this was seven or ten years later.

Etymology
The problem with any 'etymology' of Gaulish surely is that it is the least attested of any of the Celtic languages. There are Welsh and Irish texts going back to the Middle Ages, and some (Welsh/Irish?) runic inscriptions of uncertain date and provenance whose 'translations' are highly speculative. But there are at most a few thousand isolated words and phrases in what we assume is 'Gaulish'? I mean there were a number of tribes living in what we know as Gaul at the time... Did they all speak Gaulish or some version of it...? Just as today 'everyone speaks French in France or some version...?', except for those who speak Breton and Basque, totally unrelated to Latin descended languages. So Gaulish (whatever that was) may have been one of many different languages spoken there 2,500-3,000+ years ago. Secondly the name. I agree with the query: is it a personal name or a title? Is it a first name, family, clan, tribal name? or is it a title? Or a description? Playing with parts of the name tells us precisely nothing as we know not what language it comes from. We assume 'Gaulish', but can we be sure? No. So much speculation and argument with so little basis of any sort. I am aware that a Proto-Celtic Etymological Dictionary has been published. Personally I think this is academia venturing into fantasy land. As no Celtic culture has written sources more ancient than the Middle Ages how can we possibly go into proto-Celtic except on the most general assumptions of Indo-European historical Linguistics? Does not help with specifics like names. It's just too general and speculative a field. Khananel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khananel (talk • contribs) 01:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

- To the person who wrote the part about the Actual Meaning of Vercingetorix’s name, where exactly did you get that translation from? I ask for two reasons (1) I have seen an alternate Translation of the name "Vercingetorix (or in Gallic possibly "Fearcuincedorigh", "Man who is chief of a hundred heads")" from this Website: http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/vercingetorix.php (2) Why do you translate the word "wer" to mean "Super", It was my impression that "Wer" means Man? (i.e. the other source I used interprets it that way). Hibernian

'wer' does mean man, but only in Germanic languages, i.e. Anglo-Saxon "Werewolf" - "Man-Wolf"

- Not Necessarily only in Germanic Languages, "*wíro-" means man in Proto-Indo-European and there are many languages that use or used this root for man.

i.e. Common Celtic *viro-, *vero- (a man) > Gaulish uiro- (a man), Old Irish fer, Irish and Scottish Gaelic fear, Manx Gaelic fer, Old Welsh gur, Welsh gwr, Cornish gur, Breton gour

(Got all that from this site) http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/phonetics/word8.html


 * however, its incorrect. VER means 'over' or 'great' in Gaulish. --Nantonos 19:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

So as far as I can see the Alternative translation there of "Man who is King of a Hundred Heads" seem possible, so what do you all think, should it be added to the Article as a possible meaning of his name? Hibernian

I had seen, at least twice, that "Vercingetorix" meant "King/Leader of the Marching Men", where "Marching Men" would be translated as "Infantry" today. A few classical writers have also commented on the uncanny similarities between Latin and the common Gaulish language at the time. The strangulation issue is usually resolved by citing the number of Roman sources that attest to the Romans' more-frequent use of this method of execution; decapitation is much less frequently written about. Also, the one link to the Gaulish language now returns a 404 error -- Page Not Found. A more thorough search, which I regret I do not have the time right now to do, would turn up more supporting evidence. (I am also new to this -- my apologies for any errors I've made -- mea culpa!)

I suppose that would fit snugly with the 'Hundred Heads' explanation as well - that could well be a fighting unit, such as the Saxon Hundred, commanded by a Hundredman.

Well I'm glad that someone has edited it, but there is still no explanation of the direct translation of the name. What where the Gaulish words making up the name and what do they translate to Directly?. What do the words "wer-king-gheto-rīks" actually translate to, because there have so far been two totally different interpretations of these words on this page, 1. "Super-Warrior-King" and 2. "king of the marching men", I'd like to know why these translations are given and where they came from. Also I think it has to be stated that any meaning of the name given, is reconstructed and Theoretical and not known for sure (unless of course the translation is academically accepted as fact).Hibernian


 * I will add a reputable and referenced etymology. Its actually very straightforward. VER - over CINGETOS warriors RIX king. So, great warrior king or king of the warriors. There is no refernce to "a hundred' or to 'foot soldiers' in this name. And yes, its pretty well attested academic fact; Gaulish studies have advanced greatly in the last 25 years.
 * However, it might be worth retaining the 'foot soldiers' and 'hundred soldiers' pseudo-etymologies, if only to mention that they are incorrect. --Nantonos 19:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that the movie of him ("Druids") can be used as evidence, but there it says numerous times that Vercingetorix means "leader of great warriors", which seems from all these comments to be a plausible translation.

Jean Markale translates it as Great King of One Hundred Battles, similar to the Irish Conn Cetcatach (Conn of the Hundred Battles).

Jean Markale also believes in survivors from Atlantis, so you should take all he says with a fistful of salt. ;-) Trigaranus 17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The comments above (and this one, below) look more like speculation than conjecture ... at any rate, here's another: for a translation, try "chairman of the high council", where the council means a body that makes decisions by consensus, and where chairman is more appropriate to modern meaning than king.

This at least has simplicity on its side, whereas the hero-ific definitions above (which allude to omnipotent leaders of mighty warriors) give the definition a flavor of blood lust. This comes from Gaulish "ver" and "rix" (as in comments above), and Welsh "cyngat", meaning harmony (ie, a council that rules by consensus).

By the time of Vercingetorix, the Gauls were fighting for their lives, trying to avert cultural extermination. How best to deal with the Roman menace, among disparate peoples who must now act together? The practical solution is a high council, with someone to lead it. It really does not make sense that they would (somehow) set up a poetic "Knights of the Round Table".

For an analogy to the situation that the Gauls faced, consider the similar circumstances surrounding the emergence of Wovoka in the face of US military policy. American Indians were as independent and honor-bound as the Gauls, and facing a similar fate. Their leaders and councils were concerned with the survival of their peoples, and they are remembered in that light.

The more mundane name translation is consistent with Vercingetorix's difficulty in implementing a scorched-earth policy (he could not get consensus from those whose earth would be scorched, a problem that a mighty king of mighty warriors would not have had). And a mighty king of mighty warriors would not have tried to establish a scorched earth policy. On the other hand, in an atmosphere of "what can we do to stop this Roman military behemoth", a scorched earth policy is a practical approach likely to arise in a council setting. Consider, too, that Vercingetorix was able to appeal for help at Alesia, and all of Gaul responded ... this is in the vein of Gaulish reaction to their council and its leader at this most desperate time; but it doesn't really fit well with the translation of Vercingetorix as an omnipotent leader of mighty warriors.

24.178.228.14 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be speculating there quite a bit, when trying to translate the name we aren't really concerned with what Vercingetorix’s actual political position was, just what the word(s) mean. Weather Vercingetorix was a leader of a loose tribal confederacy with only nominal powers, or an all powerful king is up for debate, but he definitely has the word King in his name (Rix is about the only part that no one would contest the meaning of), so presumably he thought of himself as some kind of King. By the way, I hope you didn't just add your own speculative translation to the article, if you have info about this "chairman of the high council" translation then you need to state where you're getting it from, and if it comes from a credible source. --Hibernian (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For that "harmony" issue, there are two or three things I would like to note here (apart from a caution not to wax too excursive on political philosophy):


 * 1) Where do you have this suggestion from? If you can quote a decent source, we'd better leave it in, if it's your suggestion or the suggestion of a self-declared pseudo-linguist (in the style of Jean Markale), it would better be taken out of the official article. The leap from "harmony" to "council that rules by harmony" is something that certainly does not happen in traditional IE élite names.
 * 2) Where do you have this "cyngat" word from? For all I know, the word for "harmony" in Welsh is "cynghanedd" or "cytgord", not "cyngat". And "council" would be "cyngor". Granted, my Welsh sucks, but still, there you go.
 * So, give us a source, please, otherwise I'd say we move that translation to a different place. Trigaranus (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As no clarification of the "Harmony King" seems to have been forthcoming, I've cleaned up the etymology section. I've kept the fact that the etymology is contested in there, but I've removed those etymologies that smack'd and pong'd of OR or were inspired by a video game site or an Irish baby names site. If you can quote another etymology by a scholar on the subject, feel more than free to contribute. Trigaranus (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

In so-called primitive Irish (such as found in Ogham inscriptions from 1st century CE) "Ver Cinn gCetor Rix" would mean "Man at the head of four kings" or, if you like, "King of four kings". More speculation! And that would have to assume that he came from, or at least was named by, speakers from a Q-Celtic part of Gaul. But as an Irish speaker this meaning always jumped out at me when I saw the name. It's tempting, since he was said to have united several warring kingdoms. I've never seen this interpretation anywhere else.--Scalesa (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As pointed out in Ogham, the oldest Ogham inscriptions do not date to before the 4th century, and Ver Cinn gCetor Rix (rīχs? rí?) cannot be Primitive Irish, because the endings are all completely missing (for example, the word for man would be  /wʲerah/ > Old Irish fer /fʲer/ > Modern Irish fear /fʲarˠ/), and gc- is a modern orthographic convention (it was certainly not used in Old Irish, though I cannot vouch for its absence in Middle Irish).
 * A general piece of advice: Don't try to reconstruct Primitive Irish forms (or anything else, if you can help it) unless you are a true specialist. Reconstruction is a highly technical endeavour which harbours countless pitfalls even for experts. No matter how recent the stage in question is, or if it is even an attested one, it is utterly common to miss some details and get it wrong. Even reconstructing Modern English forms "forward" from given Old English forms is hard because there are so many sound changes involved, several of them quite obscure.
 * Also, whether there ever was a Q-Celtic part of Gaul is very uncertain. Ireland was probably settled from Britain, rather than directly from Gaul, anyway, and anything closely resembling Primitive Irish, much less Old Irish, was certainly not spoken at the time when the first speakers of a direct precursor of Irish arrived in Ireland. One would rather expect a generic Old Celtic dialect, close to Old British. So your scenario rests on several far too unlikely assumptions to take it seriously. No surprise it hasn't been contemplated anywhere else. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The initially mentioned Fearcuincedorigh, too, is not even close to Gaulish, but patently cobbled together from Modern Irish words (fear "man", cinn "heads", céad "hundred", Scottish Gaelic rìgh "king", with a quite un-Gaelic connective vowel -o- thrown in for good measure). Correct Gaulish would probably be closer to Canto-penno-viro-rīx. See the difference? The hybris to pretend to be able to reconstruct Gaulish as a complete linguistic amateur is classic Dunning–Kruger syndrome, but the audacity to pass off bastardised Modern Irish as Gaulish is just malicious.
 * By the way, my favourite translation of Ver-cingeto-rīx is "super-hero king". It's surprisingly literal, and the comic-book associations are a specifically contemporary-pop-culture-influenced phenomenon: the translation wouldn't have sounded funny to earlier generations. As for cingeto-, this must have been a t-stem on account of Old Irish cing (stem cingeth-) "warrior", hence we can reconstruct nominative *cinges, genitive *cingetos, stem *cinget- (see Stifter's textbook for Old Irish). The original meaning of *kenget- may have been "someone who struts, strides, walks with a rolling gait", as proud ancient warriors were supposedly prone to do, to signal "don't you dare take me on!". As a final point, it has been suggested is that -rīx was originally only used as part of root compounds of the type Vedic havir-ád- "eating sacrificial food", i. e., for example, Dumnorīx < Proto-Celtic *dubno-rīχ-s < quasi-PIE *dʰubno-rēgʰ-s "ruling the (nether) world", and only later interpreted as a stand-alone noun meaning "ruler, king". One should be cautious with the reconstruction of a noun *rēgʰ- "king" to PIE ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's notable that 'ver kinge' is 'our king' in well attested languages from the region (which Gaulish is not), and 'to rix' is plausibly just the Latin 'tu rex', meaning 'your majesty' with an accent. Thus, at the very least, the name is a bilingual pun, 'our king and yours' which in the context of the political situation he was in, effectively means 'Master of the Universe'. I feel this is particularly poignant since Vercingetorix was all about fighting Rome. 2600:8800:7B87:1300:95C0:B0AC:D6DD:CE91 (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Unclear Antecedent

 * The next major battle at Gergovia resulted in a victory for Vercingetorix because Caesar was too anxious and had attacked instead of besieging and starving the city in standard Roman fashion. When Vercingetorix thought Caesar was in retreat (which he did not intend because it might have ruined his career) he abandoned the cautious tactics he had adopted before and attacked head on. Due to losses he had to retreat and moved to another stronghold, Alesia.

It's a bit confusing to me. -rayluT 02:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Images from other wiki sites
There is a good image on the French site http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Coin_Vercingetorix.jpg Is it usualtocopy itto the encommons, or to link - (and if so, how is it linked?) --Nantonos 12:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a great Image, I've added it in. I don't know where is the best place to put it, but for the moment I've just stuck it in the History section. Thanks for finding the picture Nantonos. --Hibernian 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of text content that could be brought across (translated) from the French article too. Google Translate tool can assist this.  --Peter Campbell Talk! 01:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

inappropriate text on page
I´ve just created my account and due to my lack of experience dare not touch the actual page yet, but someone could take the "YOUSUCkYOUSUCKYou SuCK" texts of the article. They appear at the moment between "History" and "memorial"

HraHattu 07:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah that's just Vandalism (happens all the time), someone has already fixed it. --Hibernian 18:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

They should have done that to George W. Bush and Richard Cheney instead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.138.179 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

pronunciation
the article states that [] is how it was pronounced in Gaulish... did Gaulish really have [] instead of [r]? --Krsont 03:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[wɜːɹkɪŋˈɛtoɹɪks] I agree that this supposedly phological rendering of the name is inapropriate. Both vocalism and ɹ seem to represent US-English pronunciation. There are no reasons for us to assume that Gaulish had the approximant ɹ as the phonological realisation of 'r'. It is also unnecessary to enter a ɜː (lengthened shwa, cf. turn [tɜːɹn]) as the first vowel; this is an English sound law, not a Celtic one. The same is true for the equation "short i -> ɪ", which is not an universal rule, but again a primarily English sound law. However, as far as we can reconstruct Celtic phonology (and it's representation in the Latin alphabet), it is very likely that the w, the k and the ŋg/ŋ are correct. For other sounds (especially vowel colour), one should opt for the most neutral graphemes, as it is almost impossible to determine how exactly an Arvernian would have rendered the name. So I am going to be bold and change it into [werkiŋgˈetoriks], which enters "neutral" vowel sounds where we could only guess the true phonetic value. To put it in the words of stark raving mad Queen Bess: "Hope you're not too miffed." ;-) Trigaranus 16:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits of Introduction
Hope no one minds, I just added a touch to the introduction as that it seemed to need a few words to sum up the article a bit more. --24.20.118.184 00:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

History
While this is a good article, it seems to somewhat begin in the middle of an idea, almost as if it was clipped from an article about good ol' Gaius. This is completely understandable as that he really only exists in historic contexts as a foil to Caesar, but I suggest that perhaps we edit this by mentioning Vercingetorix from the get go.


 * Isn't there anything we know about his early life as a Gaulish nobleman? This article seems only to jump in where Caesar crops up then follows his extremely short life from there. Would it not be better renamed to a more fitting title. Maybe something like The Rebellion of Vercingetorix? Rick-Levitt Talk Contribs 21:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Translation of French Text on Memorial
Perhaps my french isn't as strong as I think it is, but I think the translation in the article can be improved as follows:

Sorry to be picky; but it is a published article, after all. =P --ross613 talk 02:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 tag at top
I'm removing this tag. Reason: the tag in that location implies the whole article needs verification. Although you could not delete the whole article without consensus, nevertheless it gives the wrong impression. The article has references now. The 2009 situation is not true. Some of the article is referenced. Some I believe is accurate. You can of course dispute some of it. It seems to me more proper to place tags on specific statements you wish to dispute. You may also ask for clarifications or expansions. If it is unbalanced you can mark it as unbalanced. To leave the 2009 tag at the top is to invite an administrative deletion. I believe the article should be modified where necessary. The question is, will you do it?Branigan 12:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 December 2015
FYI not involved in edit-war: simply desire to offer alternate functioning ref_links for broken proto-celtic etymology URLs under Vercingetorix eg http://www.scribd.com/doc/61167870/An-Etymological-Lexicon-of-Proto-Celtic#scribd and/or http://www.wales.ac.uk/resources/documents/research/celticlanguages/englishprotocelticwordlist.pdf

n.b. FWIW, historicity of cognates indisputable: ubiquitous v/b consonant shift links W.caucasian Slavic / Sorbian tongues with E.caucasian Soghdian via Syriac/Aramaic - think Greek hero "Paris"; "Parisi" tribe; Persian "Pharsi/Farsi" speakers and Varingian/Pharingi/Franci Pontic-Volga boatmen. Cultural hegemony is fluid, v.subjective across time and space; no modern ethnic hegemony ought be inferred.

May I respecfully suggest a related pIE non-Latin alphabet example for "cingeto-" /protoCeltic 'kengo' : Uyghurjin: ᠴᠢᠩᠭᠢᠰ ᠬᠠᠭᠠᠨ ‎(čingis haan) Persian: چنگیزخان ‎(Čangiz-xân) or Ghengis Khan (Lord of the House of Khan, from Persian خان ‎• ‎(xân) meaning "inn," a hostel on the Soghdian Silk Routes, via Mongolian script derived from Roman era Aramaic-Syriac; with Asian 正 • ‎(Zheong, jeong) cognates meaning "5", ie cinq, symbolizing the perfection of (ie domination over) the '4" cardinal directions, a common conquest-patronym, see Ἀχαιμενίδης, literally 'lords of all they survey.'

Indeed familiar English terms such as king from 'konig' (related Lithuanian 'kunigaikščiai' Chinese 王 Wang "King" 'ruler' vertical stroke superimposed over 3 horizontal strokes signifying Heaven, Men, Earth; similarly Greek Ξέρξης from Persian 𐏋 ‎[xšāyaθiya] whence Caesar/Tzar/Shah) and hegemony from 'hegumen' (Ukrainian Ігумен Georgian იღუმენი  Coptic- Aegyptos - Ⲕⲟⲙⲙⲟⲥ Al-Kommos Arabic غوميز gomes, whence perhaps Iberian 'Gomez', derivation of Greek Ighoumenos, meaning abbot or dean of a Byzantine Orthodox monastery; and rank of hetjman гетьман of Zaporizhian Cossacks under Ottomans) came down to us via this very same culture of encounter between groups acquiring a shared language in obeisance to whatever ritual contemporaneously prevailed, in an anthropology of subjective economic value at the margins, as proposed by 19th C sociologist Carl_Menger vs the rigid Prussian utilitarianism of the German Kaiser that metastacized into full-blown fascism in the century that followed.

MrsKrishan (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel sure that your suggestions are very good, but having read the above I have no idea what you are actually asking for! Could you explain more clearly and preferably attempt to get consensus for your proposed changes? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

How far back does the spelling "Vercingetorix" attest to?
When was the first known use of the word "Vercingetorix" - wouldn't be surprise if the spelling "Vercingetorix" doesn't go back very far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.1.254 (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Julius Caesar. Old enough?

Why does it read: "This depiction is idealized and/or symbolic" under the picture of the Gold sater of Vercingetorix
Why not write: "This depiction is idealized and/or symbolic" even moreso under all the other article captions of Vercingetorix? - especially as they are much later dipictions. Why pick on the Gold sater showing a dipiction of Vercingetorix much nearer to when he was alive. Latterday Vercingetorix dipictions favoured by Francophones seem overly Germanic-like rather than Gallo-Roman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.1.254 (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what the source says about coins bearing his image. clpo13(talk) 22:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Revolt
Vercingetorix's defense of Gaul, or France, should not be classified as a "revolt" because France and Rome were two separate nations at the time. A revolt occurs when people take up arms against their own government. In this case, Vercingetorix was defending his own country against foreign invasion. Even the Roman government recognized the sovereignty of Gaul until Caesar defied the Senate's order not to attack. Ctmuva2000 (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Vercingetorix war against Rome began with him deposing his uncle Gobanitio, King of Gergovia. Gobanitio was one of the Gaulish chiefs who had submitted to Caesar. Therefore Vercingetorix's revolt was against both Gaulish and Roman authorities. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Aedilia Paullias
I was thinking of adding a section to the page about Aedilia Paullias, Vercingetorix's daughter, as there is no wikipedia article on her though she witnessed the invasion of Gaul by Julius Caesar. WVGman 11:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WVGman (talk • contribs)
 * I don't know how much information is available on her; but if there is enough to make her notable, then it might be better to create a separate article for her. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction in death section
"Vercingetorix was imprisoned in the Tullianum in Rome for almost six years before being publicly displayed in the first of Caesar's four triumphs in 46 BC. He was ceremonially strangled at the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus after the triumph. A plaque in the Tullianum indicates that he was beheaded in 49 BC."

These two sentences contradict each other. How about this rewording: "sources differ with regard to when he was killed.....However, a plaque...."? Dhalamh (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)