Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Caesar's invasions of Britain

Caesar's invasions of Britain[edit]

As part of its A / GA nomination, someone suggested it needed a peer review, so here it is. User|Neddyseagoon 22:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

It's not a bad article, per se, but it has some major issues:

The use of exclusively primary sources for a topic of this magnitude is somewhat worrying, particularly given that Caesar was not exactly the most impartial of narrators. Are there no secondary works on this?

Somewhere, trying to find them! Frere's Britannia, Salway's Roman Britain, that kind of thing. User|Neddyseagoon 23:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The evaluations of the invasions' success or failure are most certainly something that needs to be sourced to the historians making them; making such judgements based only on primary sources is basically original research.

See previous comment on secondary sources.

There are a number of very short sections and paragraphs that could be better integrated into the surrounding prose. The "Discoveries about Britain" section, in particular, is little more than a series of extended quotes strung together with very little additional explanation or commentary.
The popular culture section does not seem to contain anything particularly notable, and might be better off being eliminated entirely, or worked into a footnote.

Probably something could be dug out about British reactions to Caesar's invasion, in the say, Renaissance period onwards, how it integrates into Geoffrey of Monmouth etc., to bolster / save this section. User|Neddyseagoon 23:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknack 009 is doing some good work on this issue. User|Neddyseagoon 13:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox should give (possibly vague) numbers for the strength of the opposing sides, or simply put "Unknown"; a list of types of troops with no indication of number isn't particularly useful.

Looking for - again, the only source for numbers is Caesar - I've multiplied the number of legions by the numbers in a legion, then added 'unknown numbers of cavalry forces'. User|Neddyseagoon 23:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually move the Briton numbers up from the footnote into the box itself. Kirill Lokshin 13:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, I would suggest abandoning the "Discoveries about Britain" section unless significant secondary material on this topic per se can be located, and instead working some of the points into a broader "Historiography" section. The question of how Caesar presented these invasions in his accounts, and how other contemporaries and later historians did the same, is probably something that can be discussed at some length. Kirill Lokshin 22:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff could be added from the archaeology of Iron Age Britain, seeing how it reflects on Caesar's observations. And then keep it under the 'Discoveries' title, and add a level 2 section on Historiography, on Caesar's self-presentation etc. (though might repeat stuff in de Bello Gallico), including a level 3 section 'the invasion in other sources' (eg Dio, Tacitus)User|Neddyseagoon 23:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably work, so long as sources are available to support everything. Kirill Lokshin 13:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mais oui! User|Neddyseagoon 14:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Way too many primary sources, especially given Caesar's tendency to self promote.old windy bear 21:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd eliminate the popular culture section,

What, even though it's been boosted up into a bigger section? Neddyseagoon - talk 14:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and OldWindyBear is right - not enough balance of ancient sources with modern views.

Yes, that does need some compensation - needs a full rewrite of the main sections in that respect. Neddyseagoon - talk 14:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any British sources?

Buckshot06 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As in ancient British? Prehistoric Britain was an oral-history society, rather than a written-history/literate one. For secondary ones by British authors, see higher up in the discussion. Neddyseagoon - talk 14:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]