Talk:Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD

Date of the eruption
The section "Date of the eruption" of the present version of this article begins, "The year of the eruption is pinned to AD 79 (that is, the corresponding year of the Roman ab urbe condita calendar era)" -- which contains a significant mistake. The ancient Romans never used the ab urbe condita dating on a regular basis, in part because there was no consensus which year Rome was founded in (the "traditional" date of 753 BC was only one of many used; when Jerome wrote his Chronicle in the 4th century AD, he stated the year of Rome's founding as 755 BC!), but mostly because the accepted practice would have been to date the year by the presiding Consul Ordinarius. For AD 79, those consuls would have been Vespasian & Titus. I'd correct the text, but I don't know which primary source -- if any -- provides the consuls who presided in this year, let alone the primary sources that provide the information that provides the date. -- llywrch (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The "date of the eruption" section seems to follow one source (Rolandi): I provided a non-paywall link to that paper. The paper doesn't talk about ab urbe condita at all. I'm concerned that the whole section could be giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minority viewpoint. But, I'm certainly not an archaeologist or classicist, so I don't know. —hike395 (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Later --- apparently, the "ab urbe condita" phrase was put in by an IP editor (in this edit) who was trying to make the section less WP:POV. It doesn't look supported by any source, so we can delete it. —hike395 (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The eruption happening in the course of AD 79 has never been seriously questioned by any notable historians or archaologists in the modern age. I figure there are a number of different things about the references to the eruption itself in ancient written sources that pinned it down to that year (Pliny isn't the only one mentioning it). The distinction between AD years and AbUC years was probably just added to remind the reader that Roman writers of the day did not use the BC/AD convention (of course!). It doesn't say that Pliny actually dated it by means of ab urbe condita.


 * The real issue with that section, a few years back, was that one opinionated editor (Botteville aka Dave), tried to WP:OWN that bit and push the view that scientific consensus had settled on a date in the autumn, not 24 August, for the eruption. There is an ongoing discussion about this, because certain aspects of the findings don't seem to square very well with an August date, and it is reflected in the text here, but Botteville wanted to make the article appear as if it was an open-and-shut thing and 99% settled. In doing so he ran over other editors, flatly rewrote major parts of the article without discussion and drenched that section in hopelessly arcane and weaselly prose to bend things to his point of view. This stuff was corrected after a while and after quite a few bad-faith edits. Strausszek (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Should we delete the section, condense it, or leave it as is? —hike395 (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks fairly good as it is now. The issue of the date is important, it just shouldn't become overly technical or POV-pushing. It's also an interesting example of how methods of dating ancient events really operate in practice. I left the comment also because Botteville sometimes revisits his old contributions, and he can be very tenacious. ;) Strausszek (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have changed the date in the infobox from "24 August 79 AD or 24 October 79 AD" to "24-25 August 79 AD (probable)". First of all, it is a known fact that the eruption occurred over a two-day span. This was not noted in the infobox before. In addition, mainstream scholarly consensus has always favored August 24 as the date of the eruption, and, as I said in an edit summary, that date "should be given preeminence." I am not exactly an expert on the mountain or the eruption, but I have read some material about it and watched the Pompeii the Last Day documentary, and I can say that reading this article is the first time that I can recall the mention of a date other than August 24. I also find the section "Date of the Eruption" to be confusing and poorly sourced. Display name 99 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This new find could tip the scales in favour of late October or November, but we should await the scientific discussion which will surely follow, before we make any definite change of date: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/16/archeological-find-changes-date-of-pompeiis-destruction 83.254.130.142 (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with the IP editor above -- there is a new finding in the Regio V excavation of Pompeii that indicates an October date, but that has only been reported in the popular press. I cannot find a scientific paper about that finding, only a web site posting. There will clearly be a scientific debate: let's not get ahead of it. —hike395 (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello; I'm writing with regard to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Vesuvius and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruption_of_Mount_Vesuvius_in_79_AD

I've just finished a 9-year project on the Eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in AD 79, and the Letters of Pliny the Younger about that event. The book will be published by Routledge in March 2022. The book offers a number of corrections and clarifications to the nature, sequence, and date of the eruption, and the evidence for each.

I have posted some results on my professional blog: https://quemdixerechaos.com/2022/01/07/the-date-of-the-ad-79-vesuvius-eruption-in-the-textual-sources/

This link contains a video presented last week to the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America. It specifically explains why the Aug. 24 date is the date that Pliny the Younger recorded in the written sources. There is also a link to the book at the publisher's website; the book examines all the archaeological evidence for alternate (autumn) dates.

There has been much debate about the date recently; this book project has been an effort to clear that up.

I have not previously engaged in any requests for edits on Wikipedia, so I apologize if I don't yet understand all the protocols; I just want to provide the public with the most recent and sound arguments and evidence. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Pedar W. Foss, Professor of Classical Studies DePauw University, Greencastle, IN USA Pfoss (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Calendar months aligned with seasons
"(Note that the Julian calendar was in place throughout the first century AD – that is, the months of the Roman calendar were aligned with the seasons.)"

Well, not more "aligned with seasons" than in today's Gregorian calendar. I really have no clue what was meant here, but the remark in the brackets, as is, is absurd. 83.28.217.137 (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Can we remove all the “citation needed”?
All the info comes from the well-known two letters by Pliny the Younger, as mentioned in the text. There are no other contemporary sources for the eruption, and all we know about it, we know from Pliny. There is no need to add reference to every sentence. The text transmits Pliny’s information accurately. 76.14.8.195 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I added references to a secondary source (Sigurðsson, et al., 1982). The overall "Nature of the eruption" section is still undersourced: it relies heavily on that source and (Zanella, et al., 2007). I left the "more citations needed" tag at the top of the section. — hike395 (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)