Talk:Caracalla/Archive 1

Catacombs of Kom el Shoqafa
I found this page by reading about the Catacombs of Kom el Shoqafa which reads “One of the more gruesome features of the catacombs is the Hall of Caracalla, a mass burial chamber for the humans and animals massacred by order of the Emperor Caracalla after he violated them. He was often in various orgies in 215 AD. It was placed as an addition into the original chamber on Caracalla's orders.” This page mentions nothing of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.221.126 (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder why not. When was Caracalla at Kom el Shoqafa to do all this violating? What would motivate non-historical but dramatically lurid accounts, do you think?--Wetman (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Im not great at editing articles but this article is extremely lacking. There is a good deal of information on his reign and very little is presented. Not even a mention of his brother Geta who became co-emporer along with Caracalla??Odin1 (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(heading on forum blab)
(inserted for readability. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 07:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

Caracalla sure is mean!

yeah he really is! i mean he killed his own brother. but he got what he deserved. talk back please :)

he also tried to kill his dad. and he killed several senators and members of his court, his wife, threatened to kill his mom, defaced and destroyed any evidence of his brother in rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.239.18 (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (WP:NOT) Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 07:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Edict of Caracalla
The wiki page on Caracalla is extremely lacking in facts and is mostly filled of rumors based on the historia augusta, which in itself is a ancient version of a tabloid. What I found that was lacking in this article is the absence to any mention to the Edict of Caracalla. Even though Caracalla's reign was marked by violence and treachery his edict is quite important in ancient Roman history. His edict called for all free peoples in the Roman empire to be Roman citizens, this meant that a free person from Gaul, for example, was now as Roman as someone living in Rome itself. It is believed that Caracalla enacted the edict to gain worshipers to the Roman Gods. The edict is important because it hints to an eventually downfall to the Roman empire losing control of its people party because of a emergence in a new religion, Christianity. I think the edict is defiantly worth mentioning on Caracalla's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpasby (talk • contribs) 20:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Empire was Christianized for over a century when the Western half "fell" - and the Eastern empire continued for almost 800 years as a Christian polity; the reasons for the West's fall are complex but the bottom line is that it was a military defeat, caused by the economic and political decay of many decades, and not forgetting the effects of plague on the population, that weakened the army so that the barbarian waves were successful. As stated by the poster below, this was little more that a cynical 'cash grab' by Caracalla, whose treasury - as the Sources indicate strongly - was strained to the breaking point. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan


 * Or, as has been alleged: to increase the tax income. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 07:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Cubone
I believe he deserves at least some mention to the fact that his name went on to be the Japanese name of the pokémon cubone, its name in japan is カラカラ (karrakarra) which translates to Caracalla in english, i guess this is probably a reference Caracalla's brother dying and the death of cubone's mother in the canon to the original games, i got the name from cubone's bulbapedia and wikipedia articals and the translation was on google translate. GLITCHSMASHER :) 21:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion
For the curious, the EB links:



Further, given that this is Wikipedia, there's probably plenty of text that's simply been copied over from the EB11 article that needs to be cited to it or the EB9 original. — Llywelyn II   13:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey there thanks for your edits formatting and slightly expanding the article. One minor thing; with regards to citation 4 could you fill it out to the full extent as it's standard across the entire article and this is a current GA nomination. The expectation at GA is that the citation format will be consistent across the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I did it myself since you put the links above. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Up to you (and thanks for your work improving the place) but you do realize (a)that the formatting you're using is redundantly repeating redundant information that is already provided in a redundant fashion to no real purpose and (b)that the redundantly redundant formatting you're using removed the automatic link to the full bibliographic entry and (c)therefore removed the automatic link to the direct source. I can understand not wanting to redo all the existing citations here but you might notice how much worse the formatting you're using is and try to do it terser and more helpfully on the next article.
 * So I've been told. I'll try use the sfn format next time around. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I also just realized something else; Further, given that this is Wikipedia, there's probably plenty of text that's simply been copied over from the EB11 article that needs to be cited to it - I re-wrote practically the entire article and I don't use EB at all. There used to be one EB citation but I removed it in favour of better sources. So, I doubt that there is any text taken from EB 11. If you find anything ping me and I'll take a look at it. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good on you. It was a generic observation that almost all of the legacy text in our articles originally came from cribbed EB11 articles. If it has been overwritten and the EB11 text isn't used at all, that's fine, and there may not be a reason to include the EB11 citation except for here on the talk page. I suppose it could be used as a citation for the alt form "Caracallus", but it might be so uncommon as to be non-notable. — Llywelyn II   19:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced material, needs citation
I've removed what appears to be a good faith edit from the article because no citation has been provided for the material. I'll have a look and see if I can find a source for the material. All material must be sourced to reliable sources, if you have a source for the material feel free to add it with an inline citation. The removed material is provided below;

Beneath the baths are a large complex of underground tunnels including an impressive Mithraeum. The Farnese Bull was discovered here in 1542. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Trivial information, this has already been covered in the article on the Baths of Caracalla and is unrelated to Caracalla - the sculpture was made years after Caracalla's rule had ended during the rule of Alexander Severus. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the "the" issue on the article
Consensus across all "Roman Emperor" articles is not to say "was the Roman Emperor from ... to ...". Refer to the various FA's and GA's that set this standard; Augustus, Elagabalus, Macrinus, Nero, Caligula, Domitian, Trajan, and literally any other Roman Emperor; Titus, Vespasian, Septimius Severus, etc, etc. My understanding for this is the one that I provided in my edit summary and I could well be wrong on the explanation, but, I can say with certainty that the consensus is "was Roman Emperor from ... to ...". I won't force through edit-warring that this remain as is, but, I'd like this article to stick to the established form. I'd rather this not become a dispute over one word thiat started with a vandalism issue. , your English is far superior to mine, perhaps you know why all of the aforementioned articles follow this standard. Was it a design choice or is there a linguistic reason behind it? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind an opinion from someone other than BlueMoonset, I'd like to say that technically, Johnbod is right. "Caracalla was Roman Emperor from AD198 to 217" is not really the best English. It really should be "Caracalla was the Roman Emperor from AD198 to 217," or even "Caracalla was the Roman emperor from AD198 to 217." Another way to express this that avoids the problem is "Caracalla was the emperor of Rome from AD 198 to 217". However, I think, because the position of emperor of Rome – Roman Emperor – is so well known, and there was only one at a time, that an exception can be made, and "the" can be omitted. Compare this to "Mr.Smith was mayor from 1995 to 1997." This would be all right (at least in American English) if the town had already been made clear. If it hadn't been, we'd write, "Mr.Smith was the mayor of Riverton from 1995 to 1997." We might write, "Mr.Smith was Riverton's mayor," but we probably wouldn't write, "Mr.Smith was Riverton mayor" or Mr.Smith was Riverton Mayor." Besides, if the form without "the" before "Roman Emperor" has already been discussed and accepted at other emperor articles, I think it should stay as it is.  – Corinne (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've no intention of running into a storm of pedantry, but of course it is not the best English, and it sticks out to native speakers, perhaps especially users of British English. "Caracalla ruled as Roman Emperor" I think avoids this problem & might be better. But whatever. Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * yeah sure anybody's opinion is fine. I pinged BlueMoonset because they a) did the GA review, and b) have a more technical grasp of English than I do. I am for all intents and purposes a native speaker of English, but, I wouldn't say that my grasp of English is of a professional level in any sense of the term. the only reason I'd like it kept as is, is because this is standard across all of the articles on this topic; here it's been in this form since 2003. Meh, I don't think it's worth our time arguing over 4 bytes, if I'm reverted I'll leave it. Otherwise I really wouldn't be bothered by something so slight. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Oh, btw, Corinne there were two emperors of Rome after the Roman empire split in the 4th century AD. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mr rnddude. It shows you what I know, or don't know. – Corinne (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, it's easy to miss, forget or otherwise simply not know that the Byzantine empire was spawned from that split. In fact while we consider the Roman empire to have fallen with the abdication of Romulus Augustulus to a new Germanic King; Odoacer, the Roman empire did technically survive well into the 15th century and only officially disappeared in 1453 AD with the fall of Constantinople. The name of the Byzantine Empire comes from the city which was its capital; Byzantium -> Constantinople during Constantine I's rule -> Istanbul in modernity (Istanbul I believe means "to the city" and was used by those living outside Constantinople's walls to refer to it; presumably on trips to the city). Istanbul as a name was used for hundreds of years but did not become the city's official name until 1928. So for about a century between 395 and 467 AD there were always two co-emperors; one in the Western Roman Empire and one in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. Funnily enough this rather short period actually accounts for the rule of more than a dozen Western Roman Emperors. They had a short career span for a variety of reasons, usually intrigue resulting murder/assassination, deposition and more rarely loss of life in battle. The more you know *rainbow*. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Johnbod You are absolutely right. "Caracalla ruled as Roman Emperor" sounds the best. I hadn't thought of that. I'm a little puzzled by something you said. Were you saying that what I wrote in response to Mr – rnddude's query was "a storm of pedantry"? If so, I'm just curious as to why you found it so. Was my comment too long? If so, I'll try to keep my comments shorter. Did I come across sounding too much like a teacher? If so, I am sorry, and I'll try to avoid that. I was just trying to be helpful. I've always admired and respected your opinions, and your knowledge of art and art history. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not about your comment at all, Corinne! Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

More likely directed at me. Sorry, if I was a bit uppity about a rather minor issue. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Johnbod. I'm glad to hear that. Mr rnddude Uppity? I don't see that at all. I'm always glad to learn something new about history. – Corinne (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Monetary Policy
"In 215 Caracalla introduced the antoninianus, a coin intended to serve as a double denarius.[52] This new currency, however, had a silver purity of about 52% for the period between 215 and 217 and an actual size ratio of 1 antoninianus to 0.634 denarii. This in effect made the antoninianus equal to about 1.5 denarii." Are we sure that the 'size ratio' is not back to front? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.10.198 (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll double check the source, but, I'm almost positive that you're right. The antoninus was meant to be twice the size of a denarius, it wasn't exactly twice the size but it was close. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Have struck the above and have rectified the article. Thank you for noticing that, it was quite the blunder. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Cloak
Is it of Gaulish or of Oriental origin?--Kwame Nkrumah 16:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Gaulic. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 06:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL! it's aramaic of origin (His family was oriental/Syrian).  If you have any sources mentionning it is of Gualic origin, prove it. ANON IP


 * Septimius Severus was of African origin.104.169.18.0 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The cloak is actually Gallic: see Aurelius Victor's Epitome de Caesaribus 21:

"At cum e Gallia vestem plurimam devexisset talaresque caracallas fecisset coegissetque plebem ad se salutandum indutam talibus introire, de nomine huiusce vestis Caracalla cognominatus est." Also check out Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Caracalla.html


 * The sources provided for the origin of Caracalla's nickname were, well, not very helpful. The first is given as "Spartianus, Scriptores 32". Spartianus is one of the six scriptores (supposed authors) of the Historia Augusta, who supposedly wrote the biography of Caracalla which forms part of the collection - but it is possible that all six scriptores are pseudonyms of a single writer. I've found two references to Caracalla's cloak in two of the books ascribed to Spartianus, neither of which mention its country of origin, and linked them from the footnote. Secondly, "Jerome, Epistles 128". The letter in question is online in translation here, and while there's a mention of a cloak (I haven't found a Latin text, so I don't know whether it's a caracalla or not, but presumably it is), there's no mention of it being the source of the emperor's nickname, so I've deleted it as irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I've also added a reference to Cassius Dio (thanks to Bill Thayer for pointing that out). --Nicknack009 21:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Lede, 1st paragraph
On the first paragraph it says "Caracalla's reign featured domestic instability and external invasions by the Germanic peoples". Is this pertinent here, or even accurate? In the article Germanic invasions are only mentioned briefly, and as being in limited scale. As for domestic instability, the article doesn't really pick up on this at all: there were Caracalla's massacres, but there is nothing to suggest that things spiraled out of control into serious 'instability', and that he lost control of the situation. Rather, one gets the impression that the empire was still strong and resilient enough to manage a ruler like Caracalla. One could instead say "Caracalla's reign featured massacres against the people of Rome and elsewhere in the empire, as well as border warfare against the Parthian Empire and Germanic peoples", though this already appears in the paragraph below.

Further, is the birth name Lucius Septimius Bassianus even necessary on the lede? It can be seen in the section immediately below, and in the infobox immediately to the side as well. Avis11 (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Julius Martialis
There seems to be barely any information about "Julius Martialis", Caracalla's assassin, that I could find on the Internet or on Wikipedia, or in general about Caracalla's assassination. Can somebody shed a little more light on Julius Martialis' life than what is mentioned in the article? Or is there not much information about him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.41.63 (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Fn 11 Suggestion
Cooley has no long footnote, it is this ? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Caracalla, the dancers!
I was just checking if Wikipedia has any information about Caracalla, the most famous Lebanese dance group, when I found out that Caracalla is actually a Roman emperor! In fact, the Lebanese group is called after Abdel-Halim Caracalla, the founder. Isn't it a proof that the emperor was of a Syrian origin? :)


 * Maybe if time was flowing backwards ...

Diala, Lebanon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.98.136.35 (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

The Syria of today is not the Syria of yeasteryear, today's Syria is an Arab country whereas yesteryear Syria was't. As the Arabs didn't arrive until AD 650(ish) it was mostly populated by Greeks, Assyrians, and Arameans and so forth. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There were multitudes of Arabs in Syria prior to the Islamic Caliphate.104.169.18.0 (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Arabs were in Syria since a thousand years before Caracalla was born, and by the time he was they formed a substantial segment of its demographics. Julia Domna Ba&#39;al (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Changing "Artabanus V" to "Artabanus IV". Warning: Nitpick
As warned in the title this is more of a nitpick but in the section on his Parthian war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracalla#Parthian_war) one of the Parthian king of kings (civil war) is reffered to as "Artabanus V" instead of "Artabanus IV". I do not know if this is due to the person who wrote it being informed by older scholarship or if it's a typo but it is incorrect and since i cannot correct it myself due to the article's protected status I decided to put it in the "Talk" thingy. That's it. I warned you it'd be a nitpick. Do note that if i am breaking any rules or code of conduct on Wikipedia writing this it is likely due to me making this account two hours ago, therefore i would welcome any suggestions. That is all and good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagine a random username here, okay? (talk • contribs) 18:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Resolved. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I hope i'm doing this correctly. Imagine a random username here, okay? (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah you're doing god's work. Keep it coming. Julia Domna Ba&#39;al (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

NAME OF EMPERORS
Everywhere in the article the name CARACALLA appears, because this name was popularized.

However, since Wikipedia aims to be a serious encyclopedia, should not the article be named MARCUS AURELIUS ANTONINUS? And the lead be changed to "also known as Caracalla" or, if you insist, "known as Caracalla"?

And should not Elagabalus and Caligula refer to articles bearing the ACTUAL NAMES?

Given that only these three emperors have nicknames as article names, and all the mass of the others are plainly called by their correct names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.68.40 (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No. — Llywelyn II   13:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually it was Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus. Maat777 (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No, wikipedia uses common names. Same for Augustus and Philip the Arab and people who aren't emperors too. See this part in the rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names Julia Domna Ba&#39;al (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Undo the picture change
Someone changed the excellent infobox picture into a clearly inferior one. Please undo. HonestManBad (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the infobox picture that was used is better than its short-lived replacement, but I also agree with the stylistic concern of the bust looking off the page. Nearly all other images have the subject looking on the page or at the reader, a dual image of a coin being the sole exception. If there is an equal quality image of a bust of Caracalla looking on the page, it would be an improvement to switch it in for the present bust image. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But the statue is created quite deliberately to not be looking straight ahead! Why shouldn't the "objective" angle to view this bust be the same as for David? HonestManBad (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the purpose of an image in a biography is to illustrate the subject, not to show off a particular statue. If there is concern about which direction the bust is facing, it could just be flipped in the y axis. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The subject can in this case only be illustrated through a statue, and I see no reason to pick the lower-quality, more bruised (and aesthetically inferior) statue. It really doesn't illustrate the subject better in any way. Although if a bust looking left rather than right is preferable (I haven't heard a reason), then do go ahead and flip it. By the way, the infobox picture for Augustus, being quite zoomed out from his face, is clearly there to show off the statue, not to illustrate the subject. Why is it not swapped with one of the busts, like this one - which, by the way, is looking straight ahead (if straight is supposed to be better than left)? Furthermore, why are so many of the photos, like this one, taken so that they don't look straight ahead? Should we make up a standard saying this is a problem, instead of just going with the convention that it's fine? HonestManBad (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, plenty of pages have infobox pics where they look off to the right. To say this is a problem appears to be a completely made-up standard, not something widely practiced on the site. HonestManBad (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Exact same picture change again with the exact same stated reason, please undo. HonestManBad (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2022
Please add the category Category:Sons of Roman emperors. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Terasail [✉️] 03:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit protection
Hi, just wondering why this article is extended confirmed protected — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRTheodore (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, real talk, I'd like to know too. Is it because I've seen Caracella used as a meme (Google: Disdain for Plebs) and shitbirds are vandalizing the page? SpicyMemes123 (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Edit wars over his ethnicity. Julia Domna Ba&#39;al (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation should have æ, not ʌ
The pronunciation given at the start is contrary to the source reference. According to the AHD referenced, the pronunciation is "kăr′ə-kăl′ə", where the "ă" symbol is used for the vowel of pat, ie, IPA æ. IPA ʌ (the vowel of cut) is instead ŭ in the AHD scheme, as shown here. 194.193.191.203 (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Error in the infobox
In the infobox it says that Caracalla began to rule alone from April 4, 211, however, he really began to rule only after the assassination of his brother, at the end of that same year. As senior emperor, if that is what the infobox refers to, he began on February 4 and not on April 4, the date of his father's death. --BlaGalaxi (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)