Talk:Septimius Severus/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Wikipedia is racist
Don't expect anything to change. - This is how it works.
1. If you take a modern census etc... Anyone with just a drop of black blood, no matter how light, is considered black or negro - Obama is a good example even though he is half half. - I know famous people who technically are less than 1/4 black and yet they are referred to as black.
Now -- When it comes to great leaders and history reverse the above formula.
2. No matter how dark someone is always emphasize the lighter blood, if he has a drop of white blood he is white - if he is black and syrian he is syrian etc.
Facts don't matter on Wikipedia.
What are you on about? The Bust of Severus doesn't look very "black". He also came from what is now Libya on the coast of North Africa. Would you call Qadaffi "black"? His mother's family were Italian in origin too. We don't know if he had any sub-Saharan ancestry. In any case, I can't see what your point is. The article doesn't say that "Severus was white". Now you have a point about the notion that anyone with "one drop of black blood is black" (although many Apartheid leaders in South Africa had lived in the country for generations, and some did have some black African heritage, but they would never be called black), but I don't see what that has to do with this article, which does not make a claim for his race as far as I can see anyway. He probably had an olive complexion, but most people from the Mediterranian do. As for his claim to be a Great Leader, well that's mixed. He debased the Roman coinage, and greatly increased the financial burden of the government by increasing greatly soldiers' pay. So he drained the civil economy, and helped to set the scene for the 3rd century crisis by the twin props of inflation and encouraging soldiers to expect more and more from the State. He also ended his life fighting a genocidal imperialist campaign in what is now Scotland. Is this what you regard as a "great leader"? I think he was capable, but his record and legacy was mixed at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.222.181 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Severus in Scotland
An interesting article about his campaigns in defence of Roman Britain can be found at http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.com/invicta.htm Pclive 23:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Last words
was he the one whose last words (to his sucessor) were "pay the soldiers and fuck the rest"? -- Cabalamat 19:57, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- No. According to the HA his last words were along the lines of "I rought peace to the Empire in every corner, now I leave it to my sons; the Empire will be strong if they prove good, weak if they prove bad". Lucius Domitius 16:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Septimius or Septimus?
Is his name Septimus or Septimius because it changes in different articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.105.180 (talk • contribs)
- Septimius with an I. *Septimus is not a proper variant; it's a plain mistake, and should be corrected. — Bill 16:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bias
How come this page still refers to Severus as "African" rather then Black? - The British Museum says he was black, not simply "North African". - There is a serious bias on this here page.
- First try signing your input. It is NOT a well known fact Lucius Niger was black. Cassius Dio makes it very clear he was a descendent of Phoenicians not native Africans and that his mother was from an Italian background. This has been discussed ad nauseum and few serious historians would make the claim he was black today. Virgil61 07:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It is a well known fact that Lucius Pescennius Niger was a black man it is not even debated, it is in the historic texts such as Book 75 from the works of Cassius Dio. - And even though Lucius Pescennius Niger is reffered to as an "Italian" in the book it later explains that he was a black Italian.
- See your errors above. Virgil61 07:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It is pretty clear in the book of Dio that Pescennius Niger was a black man, and I will quote from it so you can finally learn something new. "" This proved to be the greatest disaster of the war; for twenty thousand of Niger's followers perished. And this evidently was the meaning of the priest's dream. 2 It seems that while Severus was in Pannonia the priest of Jupiter in a dream saw a black man force his way into the emperor's camp and come to his death by violence; and by interpreting the name of Niger people recognized that 'he was the black man in question. Orasis 06:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC) (8)
- Trust me, you are in no position to teach me anything about Roman History. Virgil61 06:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Now can it be any clearer then that? 'HE WAS THE BLACK MAN IN QUESTION' end of story with Niger, he was BLACK as in skin. Orasis 06:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- You intention is clear. You want him to be considered African racially. You posting history shows it, your selective reading shows it and so on. Fine, believe what you want. Virgil61 06:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
(EDIT NOT ORIGINAL AUTHOR -- It is also sad that on the wikipedia page of Percennius Niger SOMEONE keeps removing the fact that he was black - IT IS NOT DEBATABLE, Pescennius Niger was BLACK. Cassius B75.)
- It will continue to be removed if inserted. Virgil61 07:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
My point is this, when you say "because emperor Severus hailed from North Africa that does not mean he was not black..." that kind of logic does not fit with the historical facts surrounding life and migration during the lifetime of the Roman Empire, and we know for a fact that many races lived in many areas that were not native to their race at the time. And again like others have said here -- the British National Museum says this man was a black. Some try to counter this by observing that he does not have negroid features on his statue etc, well neither does Lucius Pescennius Niger - but we know for a fact that he was indeed black.
Also since Severus was not 100% black, his features are not really an issue.
So do not say whether Niger was black is even "debated", you have to be blind as a bat to miss that part where it clearly says that Niger was the black man in question. Orasis 06:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- For God's sakes man, it state quite clearly he was of Italian and Punic descent. If the translation is correct he wasn't black in the sense of being of African ethnic origin. Can you not follow that logic? Virgil61 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
So in your logic all Americans are white? And all Brazilians are brown and so forth? - I mean simply because he was of Italian descent, does not mean that the man was "Italian" as in race. Orasis 01:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- You clearly have some sort of cognitive difficulty with this.
- You want him to be black as in African, that is your agenda. He wasn't. Cassius Dio says "This man was an Italian of the equestrian order", taken to mean he was of indigenous Italian origin. There are no "African" people populating Italy at the time in large numbers. There are Gauls in the North, Greeks in the south, Etruscan, and Latin and related tribes in the middle. Your 'agenda' seems to dictate your beliefs. Virgil61 05:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
If you take this view on all of your history, perhaps we can also throw away the fact that Cleopatra greek by race, and call her African, so from now on we shall assume that she was either a berber or a negroid since she was the Queen of the 'Egytians.
- You logic makes no sense. There are no non Indo-Europeans (save for Etruscans) inhabiting Italy at the time and a clear indication of Italian descent (ie from Italy) and given an equestrian title. Your agenda is that he be of African descent, that's your 'game'.Virgil61 05:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyways, I have no clear idea as to why this clear as day passage is hard for you to grasp
It seems that while Severus was in Pannonia the priest of Jupiter in a dream saw a black man force his way into the emperor's camp and come to his death by violence; and by interpreting the name of Niger people recognized that 'he was the black man in question.
As for Severus being black that may still be up for debate.
The passage is clear as day - it talks about people interpreting the name Niger and people coming to realise (because in Latin Niger means black) thet he was the black man mentioned. If he actually was black, as in had black skin, nobody would have to interpret anything. Duh! And also, funnily enough, in most times and places in history the agendas arising from modern US history have no relevance. The epithet black is more often a reference to hair colour in these cases. Sorry.82.12.117.149 (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- @ Orasis and whom it may concern: Wow, are you serious in interpreting the passage in this way? It talks about an omen given in a dream, a black man, and the interpretation of the omen is that the black man represents Niger on account of the latter's name meaning 'black' in Latin; that's the most natural reading, not that Niger was actually a sub-saharan african for crying out loud! It is interesting how you have omitted part of the text, if the translation you were reading was actually complete in the first place that is (or do you read Greek after all?); it is clearly stated that the people understood Niger being meant in the dream after translating his name into Greek and realizing that he must be the black man refered to in the dream (Dio: 75.7); if Niger was black, wouldn't the connection be immediately obvious, why the word play and guessing? It is obvious you have no clue about how important word play of this sort was in interpretations of ancient oracles, but whatever everybody is an expert nowadays. As for how he got the name Niger look up his life in the SHA: I quote in full the relevant passage (6.5-6): Fuit statura prolixa, forma decorus, capillo in verticem ad gratiam reflexo, vocis raucae sed canorae, ita ut in campo loquens per mille passus audiretur, nisi ventus adversaretur, oris verecundi et semper rubudi, cervice adeo nigra, ut, quemadmodum multi dicunt, ab ea Nigri nomen acceperit, 6 cetera corporis parte candidus et magis pinguis, vini avidus, cibi parcus, rei veneriae nisi ad creandos liberos prorsus ignarus Can you read Latin? Look up candidus in a dictionary, the man is said to have taken his cognomen because the back of his neck and probably his hair there was black, but he was white in the rest of his body (repeat with me: cetera corporis parte candidus). That's all, good day.Lucius Domitius (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This Needs to be fixed
Calling Septimius Severus simply the "African Caesar" makes no sense, from all qualified sources I can find like the British National Museum and it's set of historians say that Severus was "Black" not simply someone from Africa. - I also believe that there is an ancient history text written during the empire which says that Severus was a black man in skin color and not simply "African". I also think some parts of Wikipedia are similar where a historical person is known as being black or half and it is not mentioned. -- If we are going to have an accurate encyclopedia, it cannot hide or twist facts. -- And that still applies if Severus was not black, but it seems that all sites that people submit as references claim that he was Black - the BBC/British National Museum.
I wouldn't take what modern British institutions like the BBC/British Musuem say too seriously- they are notoriously politically correct. I would be curious to see what they say though, the BM especially, do you have a link? SS's ancestry is well documented —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.8.39 (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Was he black?
There are a lot of pages on Wikipedia in which people who are known to be black or partially are not recognized as such. Septimus Severus is one of these people, I do not understand where some of you get your "historians do not agree" theory. - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severan_Tondo) that pretty much makes it clear for one, secondly most historians agree on the BBC article that Septimus was a black man. -- The same thing has happened with the article on Charlotte Sohphia wife of King George III, while not fully black -- she is mixed, and that is fact but not mentioned at all.
Another page about Halfdan the Black does not even mention that "black" was actually due to his skin color and not his temper.
Reminder : To say Septimus was not black we would have to ignore the Tondo.Because it is fairly obvious that there is a major difference in color between that of Julia the child and Septimus.
Septimius Severus was most definitely not black in spite of some pseudo-histories out there. I've deleted the incorrect text from the article.
Septimius Severus was born in Leptis Magna, the Roman Province of Tripolitina (modern Africa) of a Phoenician father and a Roman mother, and who were part of the equestrian class. Leptis Magna was an ancient Phoenician trading colony. Phoenicians were originally from what is now Lebanon. He was most probably of the same complexion as Romans themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.66.144 (talk • contribs)
(Please quit vandalizing my commentary)
Its is funny how the people who deny Severus' blackness all use websites that refer to him as the black emperor of Rome. They say he is black because he was a native african. Even the British national Museum recognized that he is black so this isn't up for debate. He was one of many black berbers who lived in Africa and still live in Libya until this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmac800 (talk • contribs)
History from webites may be your problem. Most present-day classical scholars dont' agree with you or your assessment. Try reading history and using critical thinking sometime instead of getting your info from the internet.
Get a history degree then you'll understand. That's not up for debate. Septimius wasn't of Berber stock, his parents weren't black either in spite of your vandalism of my above paragraph. If you don't like what I write fine, have more courtesy than a common thug and don't adjust my writing on the discussion page.
Few modern day scholars consider Severus a Berber, but there are indications he was of Punic and Roman (Italian) stock. I've included the Historia Augusta as the reference. Virgil61 19:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
It ought to be added that while Romans and Phoenicians certainly aren't Black, North African Berbers aren't black either. Look at the people of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia today - they are of largely Berber stock, and they look more like Arabs than they do like sub-saharan Africans. Only the Tuaregs look black, and they live deep in the Sahara, not on the northern coast of Africa. It does no credit to anybody to try to falsely claim that people like Septimius Severus, Hannibal, and Cleopatra (a Macedonian, for God's sake!) were black. Claiming that these people were black is like claiming that Jan Smuts and Paul Kruger were black - living in Africa does not make one black! john k 20:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I actually have one of the books listed here and it states that Septimus Severus was 1/8 Roman and 7/8 black african. I have used the sources cited which I see you have deleted. Why is that a book or website is credible to use that describes so much of his history yet when it says he is black it must be a lie. This seems to be based on some form of weird Eurocentrism that tries to deny that any civlization that has ever accomplished anything was black. I already have multiple history degrees and I am working as an assistant professor and the University of Toronto. I'm not denying that he had some Roman(White Roman) blood but I am acknowledging the fact that he was 7/8 a black man. Go to the British National Muesuem and you will see septimus severus listed as one of the great black britons. I guess they are all liars too. Why did you delete the refernce to this website is their something you are trying to conceal. That reference has been there for many years and never seemed to be a problem until now. So you have deleted it in a poor attempt to cover up the evidence. I disagree with your statement that Romans aren't black. There were plenty of black Romans in North Africa like Terrence. In fact I think he was a playwright or something like that. The usurper of the throne during severus' time, Niger whos name mean black was another black Roman emperor. I also disagree that Phoencians aren't black. According to the bible Qu'ran and Torah they are black whether you take it literally or not, especially for those who don't.
I am from Algeria and immigrated here when I was 13, no one has ever called me a race other than black. There goes that arguement for you.
I don't know when sub-sahran african became the defining of who is black and who isn't. People from Kush which is now southern egypt were very black and they are not sub-saharan so that argument already makes no sense. The only reason you are trying to define blackness as sub-saharna african is that is where african americans come from so that is what is black to you. Tunisia has tonnes of black people but also lots of white people. You are ignroing that many North african countries were occupied for 1000 years by the turks who didn't really pull out from the area. Most of the light skinned people from North africa are of Turkish descent but of the berber culture. The reality is that there were many blacks in Northern Africa and only since the invasion and 1000 years occupation by turks do we see basically white/arab looking people in North Africa. Not to mention they don't have the race hate in Algeria like you guys do here so mixing Turkish and black nroth africa would be fairly common then anyways.
I don't know if Cleopatra was black but I do know there are and were many black Egyptians. I'm not going to try to say she was black or white because I don't think we will really ever know for certain, so it is a waste of time debate.
I do know that Libyans however are black and even today the majority of them are dark skinned black people or mixed with Turkish like the Qaddafi who is a mix himself and wife is black. We also know that Severus was definitley black. Hannibal was also black but probably not as dark black as Severus was.
Your view is seems to be based more on hate more than evidence. Saying Severus was white or not black is a joke because no one believes you and there is a meuseum set up by the British government that says opposite so stop vandalising the post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmac800 (talk • contribs)
- I'm putting back the reference to the brit. nat. mueseum because it has been there for years so I don't see why it is no longer credble simply because it doesn't fit your racist narrow minded based views of black people are. This refernce was there for years so I don't see why you are only now editing it because I seen you edit this page at least ten times before and only since I brought it up have you removed this from their. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmac800 (talk • contribs)
- Although I'm one of the great majority out there who don't believe Severus was black (and will revert the body of the article as many times as necessary) — as a link, that's a good idea, and I hope we keep that: it's a viewpoint, after all, and deserves a link. Bill 21:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I refuse to respond to this nonsense save to once again reassert that Phoenicians are not black, and that both Hannibal and Septimius Severus were clearly of largely Phoenician origin (Leptis Magna was a Phoenician city). I don't see how it makes me any more racist to say Hannibal was not black than it makes me racist to say that Smuts wasn't black, except that nobody tries to pretend that Smuts was black. There is about equal support for both ideas. As to whether Algerians are "black," I certainly can't speak for your personal experience. But I do know that anthropologists consider North Africans to be more closely related to Europeans than they are to Sub-Saharan Africans.
I have removed the link you have insierted. Whatever its source, it is full of nonsense and is misleading. It says Septimius Severus was the first emperor not born and raised in Italy. This is simply untrue. Trajan and Hadrian were both born in Spain. Beyond this, it simply takes it for granted that everybody born in Africa is black. It cites a bunch of sources, none of which appears to be one dealing with the issue of whether Severus was black. I would have no problem with linking to an article that makes the argument that Severus was black. I do not see why we should be linking to articles that simply blindly assert this. john k 21:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The article will stay because you are the only person here who thinks it should go. Your personal opioin is that it should go because you believe severus was white, the link should stay because it has always been there and has never been an issue to no one but you. It is best that we leave his race as either blank as it currenlt is or present both views. Removing a link that one our of thousands of people who have edited this page for the last several years is simply foolish. If the link is filled with all non-sense then it would have been deleted along time ago. It seems like you are some guy who doesn't want to accept it which I can't force you to, but that gives you know right to delete a link which thousands of people did not object to for years.
- Birley, A. R., The African Emperor: Septimius Severus, London,1988
- Haynes, I. P., The Romanization of the Alae and Cohortes of the Roman Imperial Army from Augustus to Septimius Severus (unpublished PhD thesis), Oxford, 1993
- Hill, P. V., The Coinage of Septimius Severus and his Family of the Mint of Rome, London, 1964
- Holder, P. A., The Roman Army in Britain, London, 1980
- Honore, T., 'Scriptor Historiae Augustae', Journal of Roman Studies 77, 1987, pp. 156-176
- Millar, F., The Emperors in the Roman World, London, 1977
I don't see what is wrong with any of these sources that you claimed were bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmac800 (talk • contribs)
- We most certainly do not know if I am the only person who thinks it should go. I am the only person who has taken action to remove it. Bill said that he thought a link was fine, but I have presented several reasons I think it should go - it is possible I have convinced him (or not - but you don't know any better than I). I have little interest in discussing his "race," as this is not a concept which would have been familiar to the Romans. That his family was probably of Phoenician origin seems to be generally accepted among scholars, though. As to the sources you list above, I do not claim that any of them is bad. I claim that none of them has to do with the issue of whether Severus was black. Looking at the Amazon reviews of the Birley book, it appears rather strongly that Birley says that Severus's origins were Punic (you can look at them too!). Basically, these are good sources for a discussion of the life of Septimius Severus, and for issues about the Roman army in Britain, and so forth. But so far as I can tell, none of them makes the argument that Severus was Black (that is, Sub-Saharan African), or even that he was a Berber. The article you link to also fails to make that argument. It simply assumes that anybody from Africa is Black. I'm sorry, but this is misleading, and until you can provide a source which actually argues that Septimius Severus was black, rather than asserting it on the basis that he was born in Africa, we shouldn't be linking to an article which consists of misleading half-truths. john k 23:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
There are no soruces that establish a widely known historical fact that Severus was black. You are the first to assert he was white. Obviously there will be no counter argument (Severus was black) to an argument that didn't exist until now(Severus was not black). It is like there is no website that argues Napolean was white because it is a historical fact that Napolean was white and not Arab, Chinese or Black. The fact there are so many websites sponsored by a white British government who has nothing to lose or gain by asserting Severus was black is already enough proof and at least enough to have his black heritage mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmac800 (talk • contribs)
- It is not a historical fact. Please cite a single scholarly source which says that Severus was black. He was of Romanized Phoenician background, and was no more black than my mother (an Ashkenazi Jew) is. john k 07:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Beyond this, you are full of shit about the link - it was never in the article until you came along a few days ago. So the "hundreds" of people who have edited the article have had no chance to make a judgment on your link, since it wasn't there before. john k 23:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
No the article has been there for a long time you can go check the history. I didn't even add it. It was there before I was even created here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmac800 (talk • contribs)
- On examination, the page under that link is, like J.K. says, not good at all, and — more to the point, again like J.K. says — doesn't really address the question. Normally, I'm ferocious about the quality of outside links, and if this were some non-controversial article, I'd delete the link too; here, however, there ought to be some witness to the theory that S.S. was black, as misguided as I believe it to be. (It's surprising to find such a weak page sponsored by the British government, too!) A better page, then, would be welcome: do you think you can find one? Bill 00:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I perfectly agree that a decent page making the argument that Septimius Severus was black would be fine. But all I can seem to find on the internet are sites about "famous black people" that discuss Septimius Severus and simply assert that he was black because he was born in Africa. Will try to find something relevant, though, if I can. john k 01:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
It is your responisbilty to replace the link because you are the one removing it. Since we cannot assume that people from Africa are black according to you then we cannot assume people from Europe like say Socrates or Plato are white simply because they are from Europe. They could have been Arabs, Chinese, Native Americans, Latino or Black. If you hold a certain standard in a debate for one race of people then you must enforce it for all races and all people. D,Jon
- This is ridiculous. People from North Africa and Europe are generally assumed to be "white" in most accounts. It would certainly be absurd to call Socrates or Plato Arabs, Chinese, Native Americans, Latino (a category which didn't even exist until 1492) or Black. john k 07:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. People from North Africa are generally assumed to be "black" in most accounts before the Ottomans. Arabs, Chinese, Native Americans, Latino or Black s all existed before 1592 as opposed to what you are trying to say. North Africans (Exlcuding egypt which had mixed people) have been always black until the 1000 year occupation by the Ottomans who still live there today. I'm not saying that Plato wasn't white but if you believe this then you must find the same kind of evidence you want me to find the SS was black. You will notice it will be very hard for you to find credible places that actually give evidence of him being white as opposed to asserting it. This is because it is simply a widely known fact as in the case with SS. Not to mention there was not race the way we look at it 2000 years ago so even if severus was from zululand it would be highly unlikely that it would have been documented that he was black. All I am saying is to hold a similiar standard for everyone. If blacks like Septimus Severus and Hannibal need proof they are black then so must Julius Caesar, Plato, and Socrates they are white and that Confuscious is Asian or Siddharta Indian. You can't just say that only famous blacks need proof of being black but people from a melting pot mediterrain like say Caesar or emperors from spain don't need proof of being white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmac800 (talk • contribs)
- "Latinos" are not a race. If you mean "Mestizos" - that is to say, mixtures of whites and American Indians, then no, these did not exist before Columbus. Beyond this, the Ottomans did not occupy North Africa for a thousand years (if they can be considered to have occupied it at all - their control beyond Egypt was always very tenuous, and they mostly ruled through semi-independent local dynasties), and they never ruled over Morocco at all. Beyond this, you have as yet provided absolutely no evidence that the native peoples of North Africa were "black" in the sense that we normally mean today (that is to say, sub-saharan African), and this doesn't even get into the fact that Septimius Severus was almost certainly of largely Phoenician origins. And don't give me the "the Canaanites were black" garbage. This is using one absurd fringe belief to support another absurd fringe belief. Of course, it's hard to find direct evidence that ancient North Africans were "white," (in the broad sense) but this is the scholarly consensus. Beyond this, I don't think we have statements in our articles about Caesar or Plato that they were white. This would be ridiculous. They were an ancient Roman and an ancient Greek, respectively. We know from archaeology that ancient Romans and ancient Greeks were white, but this is not a terribly relevant fact. You have provided absolutely no evidence that ancient North Africans (especially Punic North Africans) should be considered to be black, you have simply (repeatedly) asserted it, on the basis, apparently, that everyone from Africa, save maybe Egyptians, is black. This is ridiculous. john k 21:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Forget about saddling people with "responsibility"! The aim is to produce a good encyclopedia article, and whoever can find a good link should insert it. From a practical standpoint mind you, judging from other articles, those most likely to find such a link are those most driven by the particular topic. A priori, there is no reason there shouldn't be an excellent page out there somewhere on the theory that Severus was black: that lays out the evidence in ancient documents, explains why it is conclusive, explains why the standard opinion is not correct, etc. If you or I, or anyone else, finds such a page, it will surely be welcome here. Bill 09:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmm check out these site and give me feedback. I've stayed away from pro-black sites that say everyone is black.
- http://www.kingston.gov.uk/leisure/whats_on/current_events/blackhistorymonth/blackbritishhistory.htm
These books all say he and others were black At the time that the twelve African Christian martyrs died in A.D. 180 there were living two great African personages: Septimus Severus, who later became Emperor of Rome; and Tertullian, one of the great of Church leaders."
--J.C. DeGraft-Johnson
- No one is denying that Septimius Severus was African (or that Tertullian was). john k 21:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Birley, Anthony. Septimius Severus: The African Emperor. Garden City: Doubleday, 1972.
- I've not read Birley, but I am highly suspicious that he says Septimius Severus was black, or even a Berber. Reading the reviews of the book on Amazon, it seems quite clear that he depicts Severus as being of Phoenician origins. john k 21:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Brilliant, Richard. The Arch of Septimius Severus in the Roman Forum. Rome: American Academy of Rome, 1967.
- Can you provide a quote which supports your claim that this book says he was black? john k 21:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Carlisle, Edward E., and Josephine E. Carlisle. "Septimius Severus (Negro Emperor of Rome)." Chapter in Historical Sketches of the Ancient Negro: A Compilation. 1920; rpt. London: African Publication Society, 1981: 76-97.
- DeGraft-Johnson, J.C. "Africa Romana." Chapter in African Glory: The Story of Vanished Negro Civilizations. 1954; rpt. Baltimore: Black Classic Press, 1986: 25-36.
- Again, pretty old. The quote you (or rather, the website you copied this list from) gives from this book does not support that it claims he was black - just that he was African (which, again, nobody is denying). john k 21:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Jones, Edward L. "Lucius Septimius Severus (145-211 A.D.) The Black Emperor of the World (193-211 A.D.)." Chapter in Profiles in African Heritage. Black Studies Series (In Classical History). Seattle: University of Washington, 1972: 129-50.
- Looks dubious - not to be found in my university library, for instance. john k 21:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Jones, Edward L. Review of Septimius Severus: The African Emperor, by Anthony R. Birley. In Black Scholar 7, No. 8 (1976): 55-56.
- Couldn't find this journal on JSTOR. Reading through the reviews of Birley's book on Severus in classics journals, it does not appear that there is any support at all for the idea that Severus was black. Birley is apparently writing against the commonly accepted older idea of the Severans as an alien, eastern "Semitic" dynasty (Severus himself a Phoenician, his wife a Syrian), but there is no indication that he thinks Severus was black. john k 21:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Jones, Edward L. The Black Diaspora: Colonization of Colored People. Seattle: Edward L. Jones, 1989.
- Jones seems a dubious source in general. Even so, can you provide any evidence for the claim that this backs up your story? john k
- McCann, Ann Marguerite. The Portraits of Septimius Severus. Rome: American Academy of Rome, 1968.
- Person-Lynn, Kwaku. "Septimius Severus--Emperor of the Roman Empire." Los Angeles Sentinel, 1 Jan 1991: A-8.
- Platnauer, M. The Life and Reign of the Emperor Lucius Septimius Severus. London: Oxford Press, 1918.
- Raven, Susan. "The First African Emperor." Chapter in Rome in Africa. 3d edition. London: Routledge, 1993: 132-43.
- Any evidence that this supports your argument? Remember, nobody is denying that he was African. john k 21:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Tuck, Jim. "Marcus Opellius Macrinus: Rome's Negro Emperor." Negro Digest (Feb 1965): 22-28.
- This would seem to be about Macrinus, another African emperor. Macrinus may, in fact, have been a Berber, although it seems more likely that he was of Italian or Phoenician origin, too. But it doesn't relate to Severus. john k 21:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
As I said before people from Libya have and contiued to be assumed as black. Although the Ottomans have made many "white" if Algerians and Egyptians they did not have as much an affect on the Libyan population because it was small and did not have as much valuable land at that time(before oil was found there). Even today most Libyans are very dark skinned clearly black african people and there are about 10-20% mixed people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmac800 (talk • contribs)
- On what basis do you claim this? In the United States, North Africans are considered to be "White" in our racial categories. This is supported, so far as I am aware, by studies in population genetics. As to the Libyans, they are not clearly black at all. King Idris didn't look black. Neither does Qaddafi. Neither does the current prime minister. At any rate, your arguments about the Ottomans are completely ass backwards. The argument usually made is that North Africans used to be whiter, and that they have had an influx in black blood over the last few centuries due to the importation of slaves from sub-saharan Africa in the modern period.
I'm posting inbetween you cause of all the things you wrote. North African have only been classified as caucsoid since 1950's. It is important to understand that Cauasoid simply means have facial features like a straight nose etc. This however does not mean white. There are plenty of Causoid black africans. This is because American base blackness on being a west african/african american which is not where black africans origante from so there are large amounts of black being discluded when you use this narrow term. Libyans are very black indeed. They have very dark skin and show afrcoid features like the curly hair, thick lips etc. Qudaffi is mixed with Ottoman turk so of course he doesn't look very dark skinned black. His wife is a black woman and his sons look like typical african ameiricans except with shaved heads. King Idris is an example of another mixed fellow from Libya. He display afrocid lips and hair while keeping ottoman facial features. The Libyan Prime minister shure is abnormally dark for a white man. He is just another mixed man from Libya. I'm sure a question might be well the sure are alot of mixed Libyans in politics. I would agree, any African or black country that was occupied by foreigners always seems to have exceptionally high amount of people from mixed race in politics. You can pick nearlly anyone and see this. Eg. Jamaica. 90% of it prime minister have either been white or half white or half non syrian yet whites make up 5% of the population. Your argument about th Ottomans is just a load of crap and needs no response as it disproves itself. You seem to think all black must look the same. Slavery has been outlawed in North Africa for a very long time and the Ottomans actually captured white europeans sailors of the mediterrain, converted them and used them as slaves because it was alot closer than the Kongo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmac800 (talk • contribs)
- Here are the basic things that need to be determined to be able to say if Severus was black:
1) What was Severus's own ethnicity? Was he Phoenician, Roman/Italian, Berber, or some combination? Given that Leptis Magna was a Phoenician-speaking city, as far as I am aware, he is normally taken to be of mostly Phoenician origin.
2) What was the race of the Phoenicians? Every serious scholar believes that their race was the same as that of the people of modern-day Lebanon who descend from them - that is, "white."
3) If evidence can be provided that Severus was of Berber origins, we'd have to also ask the question "What was the race of ancient Berbers?" Again, the answer seems to be "white," for all your claims to the contrary.
- There is no proof of this but I looked up berbers and it said they most likely orignated from east africa and east african genetics,75%. None the less Berbers were native africans so you must explain how they could come from Ethiopia/Kenya (where all people are believed to come from) and went to a hotter Sahara desert and became white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmac800 (talk • contribs)
4) I will note, finally, that I am using "white" in the broadest possible sense, as representing the population group that not only includes Europeans, but middle easterners and people from India.
- So you include the small group of 20-30,000 Black Siddis in the Gujaret province of India. You include the 15% of black Saudis, you include the 50% of Yemenis with black ancestry. Lets not forget the Somalis come from Yemen and Yemen was part of Ethiopia for a while so I don't see how they get summed up as being white. Do you also include the Europeans who have black ancestry from the moorish conquest for 800 years or those in spain who have black ancestry from the carthgians. You can't count middle eastern people as white until you provide some proof(Inlcuding the ones who are obviously white). This is because you demand I prove that people like SS who are obviously black to be prooved. I do agree that they are caucsoid (Displaying white features thin lips) but so are some african americans who are called black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmac800 (talk • contribs)
At any rate, until you are able to provide actual quotes from an actual source that makes an argument that Septimius Severus was black, I don't see that we have to include anything about this. john k 21:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- I did. Did you even look at the websites? Check them out. It doesn't make sense for me to get a bunch of quotes and post them if your gonna say this site is full of crap so you look at them first it ill take 10 sec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmac800 (talk • contribs)
- User:Jmac800 has been going around to a lot of sites lately (check his contributions) asserting that a bunch of guys are black, and is wasting a lot of people's time. He has asserted in many cases that their facial characteristics (i.e. Socrates's flat nose) is evidence enough to say they are black. Jmac is either a troll or very borderline troll - please keep this in mind when responding to his edits or comments. FranksValli 22:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Alright, I'm not responding anymore. Jmac has yet to cite an actual source which makes an argument. I will continue to revert any attempts to add nonsense to the article. john k 01:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
A comment to this controversy. Looking at Severus' bust on the main page, he does not seem black to me, but I suppose there could have been some idealization from the sculptor, or I may just have misconceptions about what black people can look like, and in any case the skin colour (I assume the bust was originally painted, as was the custom with Roman statues) is no longer visible. But the question of whether Severus was black may not have a unique answer, anyway, because 'black' and 'white' do not mean the same in all cultures. A person may be considered black in the U.S., for example, and not be considered black in Brazil. In ancient Rome, where he lived, we don't know what he would have been called. Probably just Septimius. It's anachronistic to impose the labels of a modern society on a man who lived thousands of years ago, especially when other societies of the present may well apply different labels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.232.3 (talk • contribs)
That's strange. Looking at Severus' bust on the main page, he could definitely be black or white. Ever seen Grady on Sanford & Son? Also; why, earlier, did someone say they were "avoiding the pro-black sites" as if being pro-black automatically makes someone a liar or otherwise innacurate? Is this a common racial attitude in orthodox history academia? Just curious.
HAM - SON OF NOAH, AND FATHER OF THE HAMITIC, I.E. AFRO-ASIATIC LANGUAGE FAMILY, AND OF THE NEGROID (BLACK)RACE.
The following 30 proto-nations that emerged from Babel were all Black, Negro, Negroid, whatever you wish to call it. This held true not only for those who settled the African continent, but those who settled the Eurasian continent as well. Their Negroid/Black attributes weren't caused by environment, but by God to hasten the migration from Babel. The Negroid features included a meium-to-tall stature with a more or less slendor, lean, wiry muscular build. They possessed black hair, brown eyes, and broad, flat facial features. (Note: Out of these 30 tribes, only 13 or so migrated to Africa (Nubians, perhaps some Sumerians = Yoruba, Egyptians, Libyans, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphuhites, Pathrusites, Philistines, Caphtorites, Phutites, some Hittites, and Phoenicians. Africa's Black peoples descend from these primarily. The rest more or less migrated to various parts of Eurasia, mainly Mesopotamia, Arabia, and farther east to Central and Southeast Asia to Australia, across the Bering Strait, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans to the Americas. Certain small settlements in the cold European areas where they dwindled due to rickets, i.e. Neanderthals.)
1)CUSH - (son of Ham) = Nubians
2) SEBAH - (son of Cush) = Sabaeans
3) HAVILAH - (son of Cush) = Hawlans
4) SABTAH - (son of Cush) = Sabathes
5) RAAMAH - (son of Cush) = Dravidians?
6) SHEBA - (son of Raamah) = Shebahites
7) DEDAN - (son of Raamah) = Dedanites
8) SABTECHA - (son of Cush) = Sabactens
9) NIMROD - (son of Cush) = Sumerians
10) MIZRAH - (son of Ham) = Egyptians
11) LUD - (son of Mizrah) = Libyans 12) ANAM - (son of Mizrah) = Anamites 13) LEHAB - (son of Mizrah) = Lehabites 14) NAPHTUH - (son of Mizrah) = Naphtuhites 15) PATHRUH - (son of Mizrah) = Pathrusites 16) CASLUH - (so of Mizrah) = Philistines 17) CAPHTOR - (son of Mizrah) = Caphtorites
18) PHUT - (son of Ham) = Phutites 19) CANAAN - (son of Ham) = Canaanites
20) SIDON - (son of Canaan) = Phoenicians 21) HETH - (son of Canaan) = Hittites 22) JEBUS - (son of Canaan) = Jebusites 23) AMOR - (son of Canaan) = Amorites 24) GIRGASH - (son of Canaan) = Girgashites 25) HURR - (son of Canaan) = Hivites 26) ARKAH - (son of Canaan) = Arkites 27) SINN - (son of Canaan) = Sinites/Chinese 28) ARVAD - (son of Canaan) = Arvadites 29) ZEMAR - (son of Canaan) = Zemarites 30) HAMATH - (son of Canaan) = Hamathites
That all 30 Hamitic tribes became Black at Babel, is documented more or less in ancient documents. This is well established for the 1) Cushites or Ethiopians, so by logical deduction, it's safe to deduce that 2 - 9, Cush's sons and grandsons and tribes were also Black. (Note: 9) Nimrod, a son of Cush, and father of the Sumerians. The Sumerians proudly described themselves as "black-headed people," or more precisely "head-of-black people" from original Sumerian. Now, since pretty much all ancient Mesopotamian inhabitants were either Semitic or Hamitic, and since they both all possessed brunet/black hair, the Sumerians weren't refering to hair color alone, skin color being the only other factor of distinction between themselves and the White Semites who lived close by and Japhethites i.e. Indo-Europeans who were a bit further away. Hammurabi referred to the dominant Mesopotamians (Sumerians) as "the blackheaded ones." (Note: The Yoruba, a Black people of western Africa claim to be descended from Nimrod, thus opening the possibility up for the Yoruba being descended from the Sumerians, which is more evidence for the ancient Sumerians being Negroid.) And since 10) Mizrah was Cush's brother, one can deduce that the original Egyptians were Black as well and again by logical deduction the same holds true for 11 - 17 who were Mizrah's sons and tribes. What race was Ceopatra? She was queen of Egypt late in Egypt's history which would have made the Egyptians quite mixed by this time mainly from the Hyksos invasion. Egypt ws also in the northeastern corner of Africa allowing settlers from plenty of White Semites and Japhethites tomove there. Cleopatra was a Ptolomy, which would have made her Greek in lineage. So, from this, you might deduce she was White, but since the majority of Egyptians by Cleopatra's time were quite mixed, though many were still doubtlessly Black while many were White too, it would be safest to assume her to have been mixed as well. Now whether or not she was predominantly Negroid or Caucasoid is not known. Now for the Canaanites. King Sennacherib referred to the Canaanites as "blackness of head people." Again, the evidence does support the notion that all the other Hamitic tribes were in fact, originally Black, so it stands to reason now that the Canaanites would also be Black. Logic again here would apply this to 20 - 30 as well, including 20) Sidon (Phoenicians), 21) Heth (Hittites), and 27) Sinn (Chinese). If the Canaanites were Black as the evidence suggests, then all his 11 sons would be too such as the original Phoenicians known as Sidonians, the original Hittites, and the original Chinese. The Canaanites as well as the Phoenicians early on lost most of their Hamitic tongue in favor of a Semitic tongue. This tells me that early on the Canaanites and Phoenicians who were originally Black, mixed in with various Semitic (White) tribes, thus over the next 1 to 2,000 years, they lost much if not most of their Negroid features. By the time of Carthage and Hannibal, the Phoenicians (who incidentally claimed to be Canaanites) were very mixed racially. Is it possible that Hannibal was Black? Yes. But it's also possible he was White. But, from the above evidence, I would have to say Hannibal probably resembled racially someone between The Rock and Prince, no pun intended. Whether he was more Black or White is not known. As for the Hittites, they would also have originally been Negroid, but when the Hittite nation became a major power in what is modern Turkey, they were already mixed as well. Evidence from ancient pictures depicting Hittites, some with Mongoloid features and others with White (Caucasoid) features. The linguistic evidence also verifies mixing since they eventually spoke a form of Indo-European (probably Greek) in place of their original Hamitic. Mongoloid simply means Mongolian-like. Mongoloids tend to possess both Negroid and Caucasoid features, some more of one and some more of the other. Some isolated tribes of Negroids also possess features usually associated with Mongoloids. Again, in the Hittites we see a mixed nation of Black and White. The Sinites or Chinese are another Hamitic tribe that eventually ended up in the Far East. A son of Canaan also, the earliest Chinese writings describe their first dynasties as being Black until later White peoples began migrating there. Again, makes plenty of sense since there are still areas of far eastern-southern Asia, Indonesian archipelago, and on down to Australia where there are still numerious Black people most of them surrounded by the vast Mongoloid (mixed) people. The Dravidians of the Indus civilization were described by the invading Aryans (Medes) as "a black and noseless people." Now obviously they had noses, but from a distance to an onlooker, especially a White one, broad flat noses against black faces would give the appearance of being noseless, although surely the Aryans new this. It's just a means of description.
The picture here is a pretty clear one and that is that the original 30 tribes/nations of Ham when they first migrated away from Babel some 4,500 years ago were originally Black/Negroid. Over time many tribes mixed with Whites, while others seemed to avoid for the most part being mixed. Just for the record, I am White, but I m not a Eurocentrist. On the flip side, I am no Afrocentrist either. Noah's Ark landed in the mountains of Ararat, which is on the continent of Eurasia. (Note: Europe and Asia are actually one single continent.) So, I guess you could call me a Eurasiocentrist. As to what continent Noah built the ark on, we will never know, since the pre-flood geography and topography was totally destroyed changed, rearranged, redone, moved, overhauled during the Noahic flood. So, sorry all you "Out of Africa" lovers, no evidence points to that conclusively. And for you White supremacists, sorry as well, no evidence for you either. Also to declare that anient people didn't notice skin color the way we do today is absurd. If a White man saw a Black man then he saw the same thing we do and vice versa. People back then most certainly saw and took notice of skin color. It's human nature then as well as now, no different.
What about Septimius Severus, was he Black? Well Blacks were the main peoples who migrated to Africa, but in the ancient times as well, soon after Babel, Whites did migrate to Africa, but were mainly confined to the extreme North African coast. Outposts of Ionians, Aeolians, Dorians, and Cypriots settled there. The Mediterranean was once known as the "Great Circle of the Uinuvu (Ionians)." Tripolitania is on the North African coast so it's possible Severus was White. But, North Africa was home to the much more numerous Blacks, so Severus could have been Black as well. Where one race borders another, mixing is an inevitable outcome. Since Egypt was very mixed by this time, it's also safe to assume the rest of northern Africa has become increasingly mixed as well (Berbers). This being the case and with the Roman occupation to boot, it would be safe to assume him to be White or at best mixed, but again, who knows, he very well could have been very dark or peraps even Black. Whether predominantly Black or White is not known.
Here below are the lists for the White race of mankind:
SHEM - SON OF NOAH, AND FATHER OF THE SEMITIC LANGUAGE FAMILY, AND OF THE MEDITERRANEAN BRANCH OF THE CAUCASOID (WHITE) RACE.
1) ELAM - (son of Shem) = Elamies 2) ASSHUR - (son of Shem) = Assyrians 3) ARPHAXAD - (son of Shem) = Chaldeans
4) SALAH - (son of Arphaxad) = Salahites 5) EBER -(son of Salah) = Hebrews 6) PELEG - (son of Salah) = Pelasgians 7) JOKTAN - (son of Peleg) = Joktanites 8) ALMODAD - (son of Joktan) = Al-morads 9) SHELEPH - (son of Joktan) = Salifs 10) HAZARMAVETH - (son of Joktan) = Hadramauts 11) JERAH - (son of Joktan) = Jerahites 12) HADORAM - (son of Joktan) = Adramites 13) UZAL - (son of Joktan) = Azallas 14) DIKLAH - (son of Joktan) = Diklahites 15) OBAL - (son of Joktan) = Obalites 16) ABIMAEL - (son of Joktan) = Abimaelites 17) SHEBA - (son of Joktan) = Shebahites 18) OPHIR - (son of Joktan) = Ophirites 19) HAVILAH - (son of Joktan) = Euilats 20) JOBAB - (son of Joktan) = Jobarites
21) LUD - (son of Shem) = Lydians 22) ARAM - (son of Shem) = Arameans
23) UZ - (son of Aram) = Uzites 24) HUL - (son of Aram) = Hulites 25) GETHER - (son of Aram) = Getherites 26) MASH - (son of Aram) = Lebanese
JAPHETH - SON OF NOAH, AND FATHER OF THE JAPHETIC, I.E. INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGE FAMILY, AND OF THE NORDIC BRANCH OF THE CAUCASOID (WHITE) RACE.
1) GOMER - (son of Japheth) = Cimmerians
2) ASHKENAZ - (son of Gomer) = Scythians 3) RIPHATH - (son of Gomer) = Paphlagonians 4) TOGARMAH - (son of Gomer) = Armenians
5) MAGOG - (son of Japheth) = Magogites 6) MADAI - (son of Japheth) = Medes 7) JAVAN - (son of Japheth) = Ionians
8) ELISHAH - (son of Javan) = Aeolians 9) TARSHISH - (son of Javan) = Tartessians? 10) KITH - (son of Javan) = Cypriots 11) DODAN - (son of Javan) = Dorians
12) TUBAL - (son of Japheth) = Iberians 13) MESHECH - (son of Japheth) = Muskovites 14) TIRAS - (son of Japheth) = Thracians
Both these Semitic and Japhetic lines were White and were roughly very close in skin pigmentation, but the Semites (Mediterraneans) had brunet hair, brown eyes, and had the ability to get a dark brown tan relatively easy when in the sun, but areas unexposed to sun were light as could be. They were generally of a medium stature and of a medium-stocky build, with prominant aqualine facial features. Whereas the Japhethites (Nordics) had either blond to dirty-blond to sandy-blond to red hair, blue-green-gray eyes, and the ability to get a bronze tan, though not as easy as the Semites. They were generally of a medium-to-tall stature and medium-stocky build. They possessed sharp, stern facial features.
Bottom line, we may never know for certain what race some ancient figure was due to mixing, moving, invasions, language borrowing, migrating, assimilation and absorption. You can get a good idea about the broad demography but not always the individual.
Perhaps this material was helpful to you. Much Abliged, Billy, SouthernBoyWKG73@wmconnet.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.139 (talk • contribs)
- You're using the Tower of Babel as a starting point to debate the historical ethnicity of a Roman Emperor? This is an encyclopedia not religious convention. When you learn how to deal with history as a historian you'll be taken seriously. Until then I suggest your writings above were a waste of time and quite frankly laughable to anyone with any serious background in history..Virgil61 11:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
In the life of Severus in HA (22.4-5) there is an anecdote about an omen which points towards the impending death/deification of Severus. One of his most scurrilous soldiers, an "Aethiops", i.e. black man, met him after his return from a victory and presented him with a crown made of cypress (which has connotations of death and the underworld) as a joke. Severus in anger ordered that the man be removed from his presence both because of the connotations of cypress and because of the man's ominous color (it is a combination effect), black; the rest of the anecdote is irrelevant. Now if Severus had been black himself as an Aethiops he would have hardly considered his own skin's color to be part of an omen, eh? Btw, I find it incredible that such a novelty as an "Aethiops" emperor would have escaped all ancient historians who dealt with Severus so that not a single one of them would mention it. Claiming that Severus was black is ludicrous, I have yet to see any evidence pointing to that direction while there is a wealth of evidence pointing to the contrary, i.e. that as descended from Phoenician stock (he probably learned Latin as a second language as his sister hardly spoke Latin) he was white (Phoenicians have never been mixed up with "Aethiopes" in ancient literature. As for Pescennius Niger being another "black emperor", this implies blatant ignorance of the narrative of the HA where it is clearly stated (6.5) that rumour had it that Pescennius had acquired his cognomen Niger by virtue of his black hair. I wish people read the ancient sources more and spurious secondary literature less; it only takes a cursory look through the HA or our other sources in order to disprove such ridiculous claims. Lucius Domitius 16:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It's irrelevant what people in a region today looke like, are considered etc. Using that "logic" you will deduce that the Aborigines looked like Shane Warne, or the Cherokee look like George W. Bush. There is an abundance of material to show that the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Ancient Egyptians etc were all Greco-Roman looking. Just because today a region may have one group as a majority does not mean it was always so. The true people of North Africa are essentially extinct.....Username: not logged in 12:12pm 17 March 2006
- I'm glad these ridiculous and fantastic claims have been rejected in large by the community. This type of relativism is not only destructive to our credibility, but also undermines the perception and perceived intentions of Afro-centrists. Koalorka (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- While the idea of a black Roman Emperor interests me and invokes my love of ahistoric scenarios, to be a Roman Emperor, one would need a certain level of prestige. Tuareg/Berber families living in the Roman Empire simply didn't have privileges anywhere near that level, as far as I'm aware. African American historians like to press the idea that many famous characters of history were black. These claims shouldn't be taken seriously in most cases; they're simply political, even when sometimes disguised as religious.
- Even from a religious standpoint, most 'histories' as mentioned above are usually fallacious because they refer often to modern tradition rather than any actual ancient document. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Year of his birth
There seems to be some debate on whether he was actually born on 146 AD or one year earlier. [1] has 145, on the count of him being reported at his death to be sixty five years old and change. I am not sure which version is more believable. Any authorities that can clear this up? F1list 16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe he was tanned?
There's a portait of Severus and his family (here or here) and he looks like a mediterranean man with tanned skin (e.g. like north africans nowadays), not a black african. --Lucio Di Madaura (disputationes) 17:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you look at the page on Moors, it contains a reference to Herodotus (the ancient Greek historian), who mentions a light-skinned north Libyan population. It is entirely possible that Severus was a descendant of these Africans. The Dark 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The truth is that we just have no way of knowing the color of his skin. The Romans of that time would not have understood the discussion anyway, because say what you want about the Romans, they were certainly colorblind in that respect. I think everybody with an ethnically biased political agenda is doing a disservice to a serious encyclopedia. AFAIK there is only one historical source which claims that Septimius Severus was 'black': Ioannes Malalas` Chronographia. On the other hand we also know that Malalas` statement that Sept. Severus had a long nose can be proven to be false by looking at the portraits. Aquinate 21:44, 23 Aug 2007 (CEST) 19:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed "He was one of the early Africans in history to gain fame..."
I've removed the second sentence of the article -- "He was one of the early Africans in history to gain fame outside of his native continent".
There were many earlier and more famous persons born on the continent of Africa -- the Macedonian-Greek Cleopatra, and the Phoenician-Punic Hannibal to name just two.
Also the phrasing implies there was some kind of Africa-wide fame to be had by natives of the continent that was ignored by Europeans up till this time. In fact famous North Africans were always well known to the Romans, and North Africa was culturally disconnected from Sub-Saharan Africa by the Sahara desert.
Is that so? You people don't like to mention that Greece had no dealings with Europe, but was mainly into Africa and Asia. Also, Greece was started by black with paintings all over the place as proof. However, you just like to keep quiet about that and hope that no one brings it up...--71.235.81.39 19:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- You seem unaware that Greece is in Europe, the Greeks colonized large portions of southern Italy (a part of Europe), were themselves of Indo-European stock and so on. Of course no one speaks of Greeks being black for the same reason no one speaks of them landing in Newfoundland. Neither are true. Virgil61 06:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe thats what you call "OWNED!" Where do people get these crazy ideas anyway? I'm glad that there are people like virgil61 who are well versed in antiquity unlike some people. Anonymous user (dont know what else to call you) did you realize that the Greeks colonized Sicily, Italy, South France, Spain, Turkey, North Africa, and the Levant? It seems laughable to say that they were black. I do not believe that they appeared Northern European (English, German, etc.) but of a more Mediterranean stock (olive skinned). Also, why does it matter? Why not just stick up for the truth. I'm not going to tell you that Nelson Mandela was white because he lived in South Africa and there were lots of white people there. If you have to make senseless points at least keep them on the talk page and DO NOT edit the article with your silly opinions. Canutethegreat (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Libyco-Punic or Liby-Phoenician
The phrase Libyco-Punic is used in this article, Creasy uses the phrase Liby-Phoenicians to describe the same people. Liby-Phoenicians seems a more euphonious alternative. Would people object if I changed it? --Boreas 23:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- No objection here. Virgil61 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Request to remove Severus and Pan-Africanist
Why do I get the feeling that there is more going on here than just adding text. This text could be more objective. Since there is no proper arguement for or against the claim that Severus was indeed or not a born African you should lay of the whole subject and state something like . . . "Some historians believe Severus has African ancestry. Historians are still debating the subject and more research is being done". The whole subchapter reads like slant aswell as Eurocentric prop., therefor it sounds partial and it has no place here. No one want's to read an encyclopedia which propagades ideas without soundproof historical back-up. That goes specifically to does who dismiss on first hand the idea that Severus could be of African stock. So keep your personal views out of it and try to be more accurate and restrain yourself from biased slur. --Glynn71 07:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course there's a proper arguement for his not being of African descent; source material indicates he wasn't. It specifically names his parents lineage. I'm not sure how much clearer it can be. Few historians are now debating this though a large number of non-historians are proponents of some sort of African origin due to their own agendas. That it sounds like Eurocentric prop might be more understandable if one knows we're talking about the Roman Empire not the Egyptian, Assyrian, etc. Be that as it may, sources also indicate a non-European lineage from Phoenicia and this has been stated. That doesn't seem to support the claim of Eurocentric prop. It's unfortunate you think putting forth historically accurate information is a personal view. Virgil61 08:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Septimius Severus born African. There doesnt seem to be an argument on the location of where Septimius was born, only about his color. We alway seem to be the victims of race politics. I am never shocked to see that all accomplishments on the African continent happens to be the work of a benevolent white man. White historians never lay claim with founding of poor black tribes. Only great African civilizations. The Dido story is so silly that it is laughable, yet educated people actually believe that an African king would give up his prime land to a boat full of refuge based on a trick. It is to laugh. You may want to fight over the color of Hannibal and Septimius if you like. What we do know is that they were both born in Africa, And that they both controlled Rome for 18 years. Scipio is give the title the Africanus because he defeated Hannibal. If Hannibal were white or punic Scipio would have been named the Asiatus. We also know that septimius was given the nick name Hannibals revenge. One African conquering in the spirit of Another. Caliph Shaquel
Why people on english Wikipedia are so concerned about Severus's skin colour? Is it really so important? I fail to understand why the skin colour of person is considered so important,especially considering how little the romans of the time cared about it!--Rambaldo (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Christianity
The page on Persecution of Christians implies that tales of SS persecuting Christians are considered by many historians as a Christian invention. This is not mentioend in the section on this page, in which it is taken as a fact that he persucted them. Which more accurately portrays the consensus of historians? The other page says: state persecutions were desultory until the third century, though Tertullian's Apologeticus of 197 was ostensibly written in defense of persecuted Christians and addressed to Roman governors[5] The "edict of Septimius Severus" familiar in Christian history is doubted by some secular historians to have existed outside Christian martyrology. Orlando098 (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
How can it be?
He outlawed conversion to Christianity while according another statement from the article, any Christian was already a subject of death penalty. Does it mean that conversion to Christianity was permitted before Severus?--MathFacts (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Black or not Black? Good Grief!
Why not just mention the debate in the article? There is strong evidence on both sides; sources do not agree. Nothing new in that. Wikipedia is not about re-stating debates as definitive facts. Nobody is served by such a thing. Be open on the site Spanglej (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is no debate. Academically, the idea that he was a Sub-Saharan African has been long rejected. Koalorka (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Koalorka is correct. Their is no serious evidence that Severus was "black", and the issue has been addressed on this talk page before. (So too at Hannibal!). Catiline63 (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone keeps adding unreferenced claims of Berber origin. This is ridiculous.--Dipa1965 (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Septimius Severus was NOT Black
For frigs sake Septimius Severus was not black his father was from freaking Turkey and his mother was directly from Rome, his father was a freaking Phoenician Roman hybrid. Septimius Severus was mostly Roman rather than the invisible Phoenician in him. Also it is not historical to say that Phoenicians were black, and before you throw your bible says this you must remember that the bible is not a legaly binding document or a legitimate source. You cannot simply say that because a guy was born in Africa this makes him black because apparently you have never heard of a colonist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.242.162 (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
He was black as described by the Romans and as seen through his offspring! Even the BRITISH (modern) did a special on him and they ALWAYS concede that he was black. Being from Turkey or Italy, especially then, does not mean what it means today as TURKISH tribes did not even reach what is known as Turkey then, so there were not Turks and there were not redheads.www.realhistoryww.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.197.169 (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Damn it! Considering how historians believe that Napoleon had gas chambers and that the Pyramids were built by extraterrestrials, who apparently had no better material than rocks. I really wouldn't put faith into any of those people who make such ridiculous claims. Have you ever wondered why Britain is the only country making those claims even though America is centre for black people? Jesus fucking Christ! If Niger was black around the neck but white around the rest of his body then therefore he was not a person of the negroid branch and neither was Septimius Severus. No, Turks come from the steppe which is why Turkey was populated by Anatolians and Hellenes so either way there are no black people in those places. Look at the damned migration history and you will see that negroids live below the Sahara while Mongoloids and Caucasoids live above it. If he were black then it would say Nubian, Ethiopian or even Gaetulian Equestrian, but it says Italian Equestrian and not Gallic, Briton, Germanic or Nubian. Therefore he was fucking white like the rest of the Europeans.Cauca50 (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
If people said he was of mixed ancestry, there would be no problems. There is ambiguity around the so-called 'race' of non-distinct mixed populations. Black and white are only problematic because colour-wise they are the two extremes. Therefore saying someone with a less distinct heritage is either is misleading. It's like arguing over whether a random tanned Brazillian person is black or white. It's futile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.85.247 (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Under-developed section
There's a not-yet-expanded (sub)section, created in September 2009, about the "Assassination of Commodus". What would belong there, WRT Septimius? I don't fathom Gladiator (2000 film) would have any connection to this, and that is all i can think of when i see the title... TY. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Questionable Citations
The article uses Historia Augusta repeatedly as a source of information. The article also several times attests to Historia Augusta being an unreliable source, and in the same breath will write a claim from Historia Augusta and contest it. While I applaud the article's skepticism, this comes dangerously close to WP:OR and to be frank the best way to deal with an untrustworthy source is to leave it out entirely. Perhas a separate article for Historia Augusta would be a more appropriate place to question its claims. Any objections to a rewrite removing references to Historia Augusta? Jaydubya93 (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting Map
I stumbled upon a very interesting map today which shows the ancient view of the 'Berber' people - it would seem that the Berber people during the Roman times were not the people of Tunisia, nor does it seem Libya. - According to this map the ancients considered the people of Sudan and Ethiopia the 'Berbers'. ---- After looking at this map, and of course the statues of Severus which he has very 'wooly' like hair - I am convinced that he was from Ethiopia or Sudan "Africa" not Libya or Tunisia.
According to the ancient map from the 1st century A.D (not too far off) the Berbers we know today are NOT the same as what a Berber was at that time, which it would seem were the Sudanese and Ethiopians.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/PeriplusMap.jpg
English variety used in this article
The English variety used in this article needs to be sorted out. It has both British English (travelled, armour, archaeological) and American English (traveled, favorites, rigor). It should use one or the other, not a mixture. 86.134.50.51 (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent catch 86.134.50.51. I had to go back and read WP:MOS. After reviewing the relevant passages - WP:ARTCON WP:CON and WP:RETAIN and reading the article itself I think a UK variant is most appropriate. The US/UK spellings were mixed in about evenly and I made the call based on the connection between UK history and Severus (which is somewhat tenuous but is more concrete than a US/Severus connection, which is non-existent). I am resolving the spelling issues you pointed out now. That said, I am a US variant speaker so I may miss some variant words and spellings in my ignorance. If you see something, please help! Jaydubya93 (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Archiving
I have set up archiving for this talk page. Once the Bot has run I will place a non archiving notice about the discussion of black or not black with a link to the archive. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
This article needs another look...
(Quotes from the article itself are in Bold, commentary below.)
Although his actions turned Rome into a military dictatorship he was popular with the citizens
This does not seem to be wholly true according to Gibbons and some other modern sources Severan's reign was not as 'popular' as this Wiki page would make it seem, not only that but many AT the time of his reign also believed that it was the beginning of the end. - Perhaps it would be better if it was clarified that he was popular with the lower class citizens, or the plebes?
We must also keep in mind that Plebes at the time had very little understanding of politics, even though the Republic was dead for a good 300 years - in Ammianus'es history, the author being born in the 300's, reports that the Plebes would bet on charioteer's claiming that if the one they picked lost 'It would be the end of the Republic' --- This tells us that the average plebe knew next to nothing of politics, and that even after Severus Emperor's still referred to the Monarchy/Despotism as 'The Republic'.
So it's a bit nonsensical to say that even though he created a military dictatorship he was popular with the citizens - when most citizens had no idea what a military dictatorship meant, let alone that they were trampled underneath one. That line sort of makes it sound as if the citizens understood politics well enough - and were happy with the system which they were under.
The stability Severus had provided the Empire was soon gone
This does make it seem as if Severus had provided the empire with a sound economic, military and social footing - when in fact he only provided one thing, fear and military dominance and stability for the imperial household, there was no real 'stability' for the common people in Rome - the financial problems which Pertinax had to deal with still were not resolved and there is no way that Severus fixed the Roman economy in that short of time.
He also disbanded the Praetorian Guard and replaced it with one of his own
This is somewhat misleading since he never 'disbanded' the Praetorian Guard to replace it with 'his own' sort of service, he simply 'fixed' to his liking the existing Praetorian Guard. Not all of the Guard was disbanded, killed or exiled - only those who were in on the plot to overthrow and murder Pertinax.
The only emperor to have 'disbanded' the Praetorian's for good was Constantine.
Perhaps it can be worded in a more.. factual way?
- Hi MrBill3. I will address each of your claims in order.
Although his actions turned Rome into a military dictatorship he was popular with the citizens
Your points make a lot of sense but require a citation. Can you provide one? The current summary appears as though it is sourced to "Cassius Dio, Roman History, Book 76, Sections 14 an 15". Unfortunately I do not have access to that resource to confirm. It is certainly possible that the Cassius Dio piece refers only to Severus' relationship with Gaius Fulvius Plautianus, which is stated in the next sentence of the same graph.
The stability Severus had provided the Empire was soon gone.
AFAICT this is already removed from the article.
He also disbanded the Praetorian Guard and replaced it with one of his own.
This sentence is part of the Rise to Power section of the article. The entire section is unsourced, save for a blurb at the end about how Severus put marble on Hannibal's tomb. In the External Links section, there are links to the Cassius Dio piece referenced above: "Books 74, 75, 76, and 77 of Dio Cassius, covering the rise to power and reign of Septimius Severus". However it is unclear if this was just incidentally the same phrasing as the section and in any event it is not appropriate citation syntax.
I have added a Citation Needed tag to the graph that included the "stability Severus[...]" sentence, however citations are desperately needed. I am happy to summarize, write and perform the article edits to back up your claims but in order to do so we need reliable references to move forward. Jaydubya93 (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion, Birley's biography of S. is the best all-purpose reference one could use in this article.--Dipa1965 (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Name meaning?
Not to make a joke here, but is this guy's name really "Nose cutter", and did he actually cut off noses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.176.9 (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, and no - at least, it's not recorded that he preferred that particular punishment. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
he was not black!!!
septime severus was not black at all!!! he was from libya, i m a berber from algeria and i m not black!!! we are pure african! and we r white! septime severus was half roman half berber from libya! nowaday, in libya most of the people are berber (check for the nefusa tribes) and they are not black, stop tobbing our berber heroes! it s like berberian pharon, most of black people think they r black whereas they were of berberian origins! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.124.155.70 (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
It is pretty clear that people of North Africa and around that area have a somewhat mixed heritage influenced from all borders of Europe, Central Africa and Asia. Therefore yes it is likely Septimus had black heritage. Furthermore the population dynamics back ~2000 years ago was different to it is now. Outrightly calling him black can yes give the wrong impression, but so does saying he was not black. Saying someone is black is ultimately also pretty meaningless in itself, as skin colour is just one attribute indicating genetic makeup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.85.247 (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's pure, unadulterated rubbish, anon IP. You are engaging in pure speculation, not supported by what we know of his ancestry (Italian and Punic) nor the multitude of statues of S. Severus - all show a "white" man. This kind of random talk has no purpose on the Talk Page. Bring forth RS's to quote (you won't find any) then post. Otherwise, keep that guff off of the discussion. 68.19.21.246 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously the OP's fallacious comment offers nothing to the discussion, and cannot be used to influence editing of the article. However, since this is an issue of some popular interest, I point out that the Severan Tondo unambiguously depicts Severus with darker skin complexion than his (Arab) wife and sons. Both he and his son Caracalla are portrayed with unmistakably distinct head and facial hair in busts, coins, etc. To the extent that race is a fluid social construct, dependent on contemporary context, it may be meaningless to consider Severus or Caracalla "black" in the contemporary sense (a signifier which does not strictly track skin color; e.g. there are South Asians who have darker skin pigmentation than Malcom X but Westerners do not typically consider them to be "black"). Nevertheless, considering the consistency of the historical representations, it does not seem unlikely that if Severus or Caracalla were alive today and walking the streets of an American city, they might casually be considered "black" by physical appearance alone. Blacksun1942 (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- This issue could easily devolve into something wholly inappropriate. I ask that we all proceed with caution and do our best to approach the issue dispassionately with a skeptical reading of all claims, even those we support. Furthermore I would recommend that we approach this issue as we would any other - by relying exclusively on citation of reliable, third party sources for our information (which I have not yet seen presented here yet). If there are no such sources on this issue, we need to leave it out of Wikipedia and allow scientists and researchers to resolve the issue. Jaydubya93 (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Septimius Severus. 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/20060528175255/http://www.numismatics.org/exhibits/DrachmasDoubloonsDollars/cases/case02.G.html to http://www.numismatics.org/exhibits/DrachmasDoubloonsDollars/cases/case02.G.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 06:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Berber? (again!)
@various users: Please do not add unreferenced claims of x origin. This is even worst when the existing sentence is supported by a reference (Anthony Birley, Septimius Severus: The African Emperor) that points to Roman/Libyan/Punic descent. Thank you.--Dipa1965 (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
And Birley, of course (p23 if you have to look it up), says that ancient 'Libyans' ARE modern 'Berbers'. Calling Severus part Berber is mildly anachronistic at worst. 141.225.36.178 (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Nice try for distortion but you could do better. Actually it's p. 3 where Birley says that "The Libyans were the ancestors of the modern Berbers". It is the only instance in the whole book where the word "Berber" is mentioned. On the same paragraph he also says that intermarriage with other peoples was very common. All this Berber thing is really pointless and misleading.--Dipa1965 (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Septimius-Severus. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Jack Frost (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Africa (202)
In late 202 Severus launched a campaign .... In 202 Quintus Anicius Faustus left Africa...?? (Peluba (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC))
Coloration on the family tree
Sallustia Orbiana is colored green, whereas Severus Alexander, the emperor is not. Please fix this. 69.1.20.63 (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Re: Tondo. Is it Geta's or Caracalla's face that is erased? That it is Geta's has not been fully determined. It is rather presumed that it is Caracalla to the right because of a general resemblance to images on the coins (and a general resemblance to Geta is equally compelling) and, crucially, because he succeeded Geta. GM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.219.162.138 (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Greatest extent
Someone might want to update Roman Empire of this new factoid, because Roman Empire says that it was at it's greatest extent in 117 AD under Trajan... and that is right in the infobox on that page.
- DYK from Septimius Severus = "... that the Roman Empire reached its greatest extent under Emperor Septimius Severus?"
Thanks 161.222.160.8 (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I came here to say this also. Mjp797 (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Both claims seem to be adequately referenced. The Severus one is quantified. Is it a, not unusual, conflict of sources? And possibly of definitions? Perhaps it would be appropriate to prefix both claims with "Some experts claim...", or suffix them with "... ,although other sources state..." Or add a note to that effect, which would allow a bit of explanation without distrupting the flow of the articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- The article still contains this claim and so I have tagged it as disputed. Andrew D. (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Just an FYI, that particular source on the Roman Empire article,
- Bennett, Julian (1997). Trajan: Optimus Princeps : a Life and Times. Routledge, Fig. 1, page xix.
- Simply states, "The Roman empire under Trajan". --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
If it helps, Trajan's empire contained a much larger swath of Mesopotamia than under Severus, which was later lost, while Severus re-expanded the empire significantly in retaking part of Trajan's eastern conquests and establishing new conquests in Scotland and in the northern Sahara. I don't think we have the data to do an acre-by-acre comparison. It might be fairer to give the empire two peaks in territory, or to argue that 'Rome's extent under S. rivaled that under T.' and vice versa. 196.252.237.119 (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
"I don't think we have the data to do an acre-by-acre comparison." I think we can. If you look at the various sources describing the limits of the empire at both times, you can make a good approximation of the borders in each case and calculate the area. It would take a lot of work but it's possible. Whaht it comes down to is this: did Septimius Severus's conquests in various places add up to a greater area than Trajan's conquests in Mesopotamia? It seems entirely plausible to me. 2A01:CB04:326:AC00:451A:E0A3:3B1C:EF95 (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds like OR to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
The problem with the statement that the empire's greatest extent was following Trajan's conquests is that it is based on old research and the habit of a statement that is oft-repeated. While it is true that Trajan's total conquests of Dacia and Mesopotamia amounted to a greater amount of territory added to the empire than what Severus achieved, Severus had the advantage of building upon the Trajanic base which included Dacia. Archeological evidence examined over the past 3 to 4 decades and a re-examination of the historical sources suggests that the Severan conquests involved a significant expansion of territory directly controlled by the Romans. During the 19th and early 20th century it was only accepted that he had re-taken a part of Trajan's Mesopotamian province. However it is now clear that by the end of his reign he had extended Roman territory considerably southwards across Mauretania Caesariensis and Africa Proconsularis. Similarly it had been believed that he only campaigned in the north of Britain. It is now accepted that he re-established the Antonine Wall as the empire's northern frontier. So in retaking a not inconsequential segment of Trajan's Mesopotamian province, the total amount of territory that he added to the empire saw its total area of control being larger than what it was when adding the narrow corridor of territory that Trajan created in his conquest of Mesopotamia. Hanging on to Trajan is a legacy of the belief that the empire only achieved its height during the reign of the 5 good emperors, not during the reign of iron of the Severans (thank you Cassius Dio). I will re-instate the statement and supply a modern scholarly source to back it up. Oatley2112 (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it’s true that he may have expanded the empire significantly although the idea that under his reign the empire had grown more in territory then under that of Trajan is definitely still very contested . And, while most experts agree on his reign being better then the ones that followed, I am sure not all experts agree on "the reign of iron of the Severans" being comparable to the period of the five good emperors when it comes to military might . Severus was very much a strong leader who was very skilled in military affairs and had a lust for conquest, but the territory he conquered in modern day scotland would soon be lost after his death, and his conquests in the Sahara would be as well . Julian the PHILOSOPHER(constancekilledhisfamily) (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Since this is still being debated, wouldn’t it be best for the article to simply cite the extent of the empire under his reign, which is still impressive, and leave the rest up for debate. That way Wikipedia won’t take a side in the debate . Or maybe it would be best to prefix both claims with "some experts claim" and/or suffix them with "although other sources state" etc as suggested befor by another user. Julian the PHILOSOPHER(constancekilledhisfamily) (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- This seems to have resolved itself for now, but I just wanted to add that, most rehabilitations of this sort include experts changing their minds on an emperors economic policy and/or personality. The most famous case being Claudius, other cases being Tiberius and Domition. But it is usually not debated rather an emperor conquered a region and/or an empire he is said to have conquered because such information is 1. Harder to falsify for ancient historians 2. More difficult to study considering that short lived borders (and long lived ones as well) usually don’t give us a lot of archeological findings . It must also be mentioned that one of the or THE most important sources on Severus is the work of Cassius Dio, who, while not always having a 100% positive opinion on Severus, was very much fond in many aspects of Severus (remember he was a contemporary of the latter and he was writing during Alexander Severus’ reign, Alexander technically being of the same dynasty as Septimius). This does not mean that Dio is "lying", not at all, but it does mean that Cassius Dio most likely DIDN’T lie about Severus and truthfully conveyed the many conquests of the emperor. The problem here is that Dio never said anything about conquests greater then the ones we now of . And since archeology can’t really help us here, we need to rely on ancient sources, are best source being Cassius Dio. And Cassius Dio says what has been said by other ancient historians and what has then been continued by historians like Gibbon or Mommsen. In the end, I highly doubt the majority of historians trying to make a "new image" of Severus, claim that he conquered more territory in total then Trajan. Now I am not saying that Trajan was perfect or anything. You’r totally right about previous historiographical work having been very biased when it comes to that period of history. On the contrary what I am saying is that Trajan had conquered Mesopotamia,Armenia and Dacia, and that Severus had conquered parts of modern day Scotland, parts of the Sahara which were quickly lost, and parts of Arabia and nothing else.So the question is for Severus: do we count the Sahara because it wasn’t under Roman control at the same time the other provinces were . And for Trajan it is: do we count Armenia which was only breefly a province from what I can remember (please correct me) and then was a vassal of Rome.
- In the end I think this is a conflict of definitions (all territories conquered in the reign/all territories conquered in one year(the peak) of the reign) and am keen to the suggestions made by "Julian The PHILOSOPHER(Constancekilledhisfamily)" and "Gog the Mild". Populares rome (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- I actually do agree with much of what others have said. I personally would not have an issue if it weren't held as an absolute truth that the empire reached its greatest extent under Trajan, an idea which I maintain is only held on to because it has been so often repeated that it must be so. As I mentioned, this is not a question of how much territory was added by an emperor, of which Trajan would "outscore" Severus. It is about the physical extent of the Imperium Romanum. In so far as what Populares rome has asked, client states are generally not included in the extent of the empire. Armenia is ignored because although Trajan innitally annexed it, he returned it as a client state very soon afterwards while he was alive. Archeology has helped us for Severus's reign - we only know of the significant extension of the Limes into the south of Africa Proconsularis because archeologists uncovered them, otherwise from Dio's account it would appear that he only campaigned against the Saharan tribes to maintain their client state status without extending direct Roman control over them, especially as the extension was so limited in duration. As as for the transitory nature of the Severan conquests, well one cannot simply argue that Severus's conquests were quickly lost after his reign, so we perhaps shouldn't consider those as legitimate additions, while we're happy to include Trajan's annexation of Mesopotamia which only lasted for one year (116-117/8).
- The best way to answer this question in my opinion is to examine what each emperor understood to be the extent of their imperium at the time of their death. As Dacia is a given for both, for Trajan it included the whole of his conquest of Mesopotamia. For Severus, it is the retaking of a quarter of the old Trajanic province, plus the extension up to the Antonine Wall, plus the extensive territory southwards in North Africa. On that measure, it is almost certain that the empire's physical totality was greater at the close of Severus's reign. As this statement can be backed up with actual quotes from scholarly sources, I don't see why the article cannot make that statement as well, although qualified in some way if other editors don't want to go so far as abandoning the Trajanic viewpoint.
- What about this compromise statement: "By the close of his reign the Roman Empire reached an extent of over 5 million square kilometres, which some scholars state expanded the empire to its greatest physical extent." Oatley2112 (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- That proposed statement is probably correct, although "some scholars" sounds weasely. Better to specify where the statement "greatest extent" comes from - I don't have access to the sources cited, so I can't directly comment. I'll also note that the text source seems to be in square miles which has been run through convert. We should have in visible text the specific value and units cited, and in parenthesis a more standard unit if necessary. E.g.,
{{convert|2|e6mi2|e6km2|abbr=off}}
gives2 million square miles (5.2 million square kilometres)
. Avoid pulling the millions out, let that be part of the conversion. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 02:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- That proposed statement is probably correct, although "some scholars" sounds weasely. Better to specify where the statement "greatest extent" comes from - I don't have access to the sources cited, so I can't directly comment. I'll also note that the text source seems to be in square miles which has been run through convert. We should have in visible text the specific value and units cited, and in parenthesis a more standard unit if necessary. E.g.,
- What about this compromise statement: "By the close of his reign the Roman Empire reached an extent of over 5 million square kilometres, which some scholars state expanded the empire to its greatest physical extent." Oatley2112 (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
If it doesen‘t bother anyone then I will do the First si that the phrase at least already gets the job don when comes to being neutral, but I to can’t ne more specific as to which Expert(s) are claiming this. Optimates greece (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- If we're wanting specific quotes, them there are the following: (i) "After 200 Severus presented himself in Rome, to the people, in a splendid and traditional manner. His glory was monumentalized in the Roman Forum. The empire looked strong and had reached its greatest extent." - Lukas de Blois, Image and Reality of Roman Imperial Power in the Third Century AD: The Impact of War (2018) https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Image_and_Reality_of_Roman_Imperial_Powe/1wtpDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=roman+empire+%22greatest+extent%22+severus&pg=PT299&printsec=frontcover (ii) "At its greatest extent—under the Emperor Septimius Severus (AD 193–211)—the Roman Empire encompassed some 2 million square miles." - David Kennedy & Derrick Riley Rome's Desert Frontiers (2012), pg. 13 https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Romes_Desert_Frontiers/g1eQAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=roman+empire+%22greatest+extent%22+severus&pg=PA13&printsec=frontcover (iii) "at the greatest extent of its territorial control after the creation of the province of Mesopotamia by Septimius Severus in the late second century A.D." - J. B.Campbell Rivers and the Power of Ancient Rome (2012), pg. 13 https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Rivers_and_the_Power_of_Ancient_Rome/iznJ_d6mQagC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=roman+empire+%22greatest+extent%22+severus+rivers&pg=PA13&printsec=frontcover Oatley2112 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Done, I hope the way the phrase is formulated doesn’t bother anyone. Reman Empire (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)