Talk:Calpurnia gens

Correction as to Father of Calpurnius Galerianus

The list asserts that "Calpurnius Galerianus, son of Licinianus, murdered by Gaius Licinius Mucianus, the praefectus of Vespasian.[19]" The citation is to Tacitus, 'Histories', Book IV, section 11, wherein it is ~ not ~ stated that Galerianus was the son of a "Lucius Piso," but of "Caius Piso," who could only be the conspirator under Nero and consul of 41. According to Tacitus, "The murder of Calpurnius Galerianus caused the utmost consternation. He was a son of Caius Piso and had done nothing..." Pelagius1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Of note, Wikipedia's own article on Lucius Calpurnius Piso Licinianus, Galba's heir, correctly asserts that "it appears" he and his wife "had no children."Pelagius1 (talk)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Calpurnia (gens). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051224133018/http://dellelce.com/coins/republic/showimg.php?name=calpurnia_a to http://dellelce.com/coins/republic/showimg.php?name=calpurnia_a

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: L. Calpurnius Longus

This addition is more of a place-holder than how I expect it to look for good. Longus is part of a scholarly mess that I am still trying to untangle, where it appears that evidence about least 4 men were inadvertently considered to apply to the same person, 4 different scholars writing in 4 different languages have tried to clean it up, but more recent evidence requires the best explanation to be modified to some degree. (Sometimes I really hate the no original research rule.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fine insofar as it's the best available evidence. If it gets cleared up, the entry can be changed. I'll separate the father and son, though, as these articles generally use one entry per person. If the father is known only from the filiation, it would be okay not to mention him at all, but that's done in a few instances, particularly in the old patrician families of the early Republic. P Aculeius (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it's more complicated than even that. The names of the men (best as I can distinguish) them are:
M. Calpurnius [...]
M. Calpurnius M.f. Coll. Rufus
L. Calpurnius Longus
Calpurnius Rufus
L. Marcius Celer M. Calpurnius Longus
I think that's everyone, ignoring a few surmised individuals. My challenge is figuring out how to set forth all of this information, especially as I suspect one of these is a duplicate. (Or I can just pick one expert, present his interpretation as RECEIVED TRUTH & label the rest as fringe views. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)