Talk:Gratian

Untitled
About Slavery in wikipedia, it's mentioned that Gratian ordered to burn any slave that accused his master of a crime, does anyone know about a source?

'Full' name
Given that Flavius is a nomen, not a prænomen, it seems dubious that this was actually his full name. Was he a Gaius or a Publius or a what? or had personal names really somehow gone out of fashion during this period? — Llywelyn II   13:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. Seems to be addressed: it had become a prænomen by the late Classical period. — Llywelyn II   14:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gratian. 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/20081025063840/http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/imperial-laws-chart-364 to http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/imperial-laws-chart-364

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this English?
"On other side his tutor Ausonius which has worked toward religious tolerance, has lost influence with time as bishop Ambrose' influence over Gratian grew. This has resulted with Roman Senate protests and fall of emperor popularity."2A02:AA1:161B:17D9:6D6E:16F3:7408:1B3B (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Big revert
This is drastic ... GPinkerton (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This could've been done more carefully. Removal of 'bad sources' was the justification for the edit, but the action was essentially a rollback which deleted practically the whole bibliography and instead brought back Gibbon. I reverted and then deleted two of the 'bad sources' in question. Avilich (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not feel it was drastic at all. I removed what are clearly unreliable sources and the information along with it.


 * "...and instead brought back Gibbon."
 * Mon Dieu! Do not be stomping all over the god-in-the-flesh Gibby! Someone might start sifting through your edits. :-o You will notice that I offered a simple link to a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard and instead someone else made it personal.
 * Also, all information referenced by those unreliable sources will be removed until sources by authors who clearly meet all our criteria can be found. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I like Gibbon too, though you clearly didn't think the source was good enough when nominating the article for good status. You had basically rolled back everything you had done so far! Avilich (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not blame me, when others make things personal. I see no reason for those type of individuals to benefit from my work. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Kienast?
Somebody has added a load of stuff referencing "Kienast" who ... is not explained anywhere. In this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gratian&direction=next&oldid=991643493

Ah looks like stuff from the "Valentinianic Dynasty" article, copied and pasted without due care.

Alans practiced human sacrifice?
The article says Gratian's Alan bodyguard were hated because Alans practiced human sacrifice. Really? This particular assertion is not footnoted. If it is true, it should be mentioned in the article on Alans. If it is false and was simply used to smear the Alans, the article should qualify it accordingly. RMcPhillip (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This statement was introduced on 29 April 2022 by an unknown user account, they are only identified by the IP Address. Here is the archived page where it was added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gratian&oldid=1085274609. Looking at their user contributions, it appears that many of this user's additions were reverted. I agree that it is not supported by any source, and certainly I've never heard of this particular accusation. It can safely be deleted. Oatley2112 (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. RMcPhillip (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)