Talk:Battle of the Cremera

Military history: Roman & Byzantine / Classical

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

About the Roman numbers John Pinsent ("Cincius, Fabius, and the Otacilii", Phoenix, 18 (1964), p. 29) speculates that the number on the Fabian side was an estimate based on what the tribes had to provide to man the army. "For 300 is the contribution of one tribe to the legionary forces, to one legion of 6,000 or to two of 3,000 based on the first 20 tribes before or after the institution of the consulship, or to two legions of 4,500 based on the 30 tribes in which Fabius believed according to Dionysius Roman Antiquities 4.15.1. The odd 6 would represent Fabian officers fighting on horseback."
(This is more a note of something to add than a criticism of the article.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC) As you say, it is speculation rather than research (this seems to be a common feature of modern academia). But feel free to add it to the article. Urg writer (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]