Talk:Hadrian/Archive 1

Barbarians
I've taken the phrase 'barbarians for the time being' out because it makes no sense. There is no barbarian 'lifestyle'. The Caledonians chose not to be Roman and the Romans defined them as barbarians. That's all there is to be said. Rcpaterson 03:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Antinous
Hi there. Under "Cultural Pursuits..." it says "Hadrian drew the whole Empire into his mourning, making Antinous the last new god of antiquity". I didn't change it in case I misunderstood something but what is written can't be what is meant. Many, many more men are deified in 'antiquity' including Emperor Hadrian himself as noted later in this very article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.149.245.2 (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

born place
He was born in Italica in a place near the adriatic see, then very young he moved in spain with trajan when he was governor of spain...

What is the source for this statement? Italica is nowhere near the Adriatic. It also isn't identical with Seville, which the article currently has as his birthplace (quite erroneously, I would think). I repeat from 'Where was he born?' above - Italica was his family's home town, not necessarily his own birthplace. The best sources suggest he was born at Rome.Cenedi 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've rejigged the heading paragraph and the start of 'Early Life' to try and lay this matter to rest - ie that Hadrian was born in Rome, where his father, as a senator, resided most of the time - but I have no faith this will be the end of the matter!Cenedi 13:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nowadays, Italica is part of the province of Seville. In the Roman period Italica and Hispalis (Seville) were different cities.

Antinous
I don't think we should assume that they were lovers, there is no concrete proof, and if they were it would have been known and in the open. Pederasty was quite well-known at the time and in practice, there was no need for Hadrian to hide it. A quick read through the pederasty section of Wiki will show anyone that their relation did not seem like an amorous one cause it does not fall within the usual rules. But the fact that he deified him is sort of suspicious as well. Antinous was considerd to be the most attractive male to have ever lived so who knows... MarcusAntoninus 17:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Modern scholarship has stopped pretending that they were not lovers. The scandal was not that they were, but that Hadrian wished to continue the relationship once Antinous reached the age of maturity (Birley 2-3, 158 184-185, 241) --Nantonos 09:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

 * Regarding the first requirement (It is well written) the article looks complained.
 * There are some problems with the 2nd requirement (It is well referenced), some sections and paragraphs are completely unreferenced:
 * "Securing power" section, 2nd paragraph;
 * "Hadrian and the military" section, 1st paragraph;
 * "Cultural pursuits and patronage" - almost completely unreferenced;
 * In "Hadrian's travels" section there is only one ref in 3 big paragraphs;
 * Prior to Hadrian's arrival on Great Britain there had been a major rebellion in Britannia, spanning roughly two years (119–121)...In many ways it represents Hadrian's will to improve and develop within the Empire, rather than waging wars and conquering. - an important paragraph without a ref;
 * this one now fixed --Nantonos 09:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll check back in seven day and see if the article deserves the GA promotion. Best regards, Eurocopter tigre 12:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Britannia" section - 1st paragraph;
 * Hadrian spent the final years of his life at Rome. In 134, he took an Imperial salutation for the end of the Jewish War (which was not actually concluded until the following year). In 136, he dedicated a new Temple of 'Venus and Rome' on the former site of Nero's Golden House. - really needs a ref;
 * "Death" section - completely unreferenced;
 * Regarding the third, fourth, fifth and sixth requirements (It is broad in its coverage / It is neutral / It is stable / Any images it contains are appropriate), the article looks compliant.

Second Roman-Jewish War
I added a section on the Second Roman-Jewish war and the role of Hadrian in it by combining the material already present with material from the Wikipedia site on the Roman-Jewish war, lightly edited to make it consistent. RFB —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

First bearded emperor
We wasn't. That honour goes to Nero (54-68), many of whose images - on coins and in statuary - show him sporting a beard (of the 'chinstrap' variety). He too was something of a philhellene. I have edited accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.82.115 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Vallum Hadriani
I'll add the original Latin name of the Hadrian's Wall: Vallum Hadriani. Fleabox (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Latin name of the wall is unknown (see the discussion on the Hadrian's Wall page). In any case, it's unlikely to have borne the builder's cognomen (Hadrianus), but his nomen gentilicium (Aelius), as this was the usual Roman naming practice for building projects (although there are a few exceptions).82.44.82.115 (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Edward Gibbon: "happiest era of human history"
In 1776, Edward Gibbon called Hadrian's epoch the "happiest era of human history". I found a good place where to insert this. Fleabox (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

- I am sorry, but I believe that it is not so. The Gibbon's famous quotation, in his chapter I, does not refer to Hadrian's reign concretly, but to the almost totality of the 2nd. century AD, exempting Commodus, be read here. I think you can anyway adapt it, or even to introduce the quote. --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You are totally right - thanks! What about this modification: In 1776, he stated that Hadrian's epoch was part of the "happiest era of human history". Fleabox (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

- Your welcome. Well, it would be much more exact, certainly. --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life
Why is the info about his personal life just mixed in with his career instead of having it's own section, like with most articles on famous people? I could not find his marriage, mention of why he had no children (one assumes, since the family tree indicates only an adopted "son" to secure the succession) and Antinous was written about under the heading "Cultural pursuits and patronage." For someone who is researching bisexual people in history, this article does not make that info very accessible, unlike many other articles. Sheela —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.219.250 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC) ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.219.250 (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Family tree
The name PLOTINA is written in a wrong style. I tried to fix it but couldn't reach the desired effect. Could anyone please help? Thank you.--Broletto (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Now it's ok. Maybe it was only a matter of time?--Broletto (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent Hadrian / Antinous sex picture
I think this picture should be removed. This article is not a sex-specific article in the same way that Erotic art in Pompeii and Herculaneum is. I don't think this erotic picture belongs in this article any more than a picture of Henry VIII in bed with Anne Boleyn or George Washington doing it with Martha belongs on theirs. Mlouns 17:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'm aware that Wikipedia is not censored, but per Profanity, potentially offensive images should be used "if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate". I don't think this painting is important enough to the topic of Hadrian to justify its inclusion. I can see better grounds for including it on the Antinous article, since artistic portrayals are a much larger part of what makes him important than is the case for Hadrian, but I would still incline to omit it if it isn't considered notable by art historians. EALacey 19:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I intend to remove the picture in the next few days. If someone objects, please state why this particular painting is especially important to include in the article. Mlouns 16:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I notice it crept back in - removed, again. Shimgray | talk | 20:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Britannia section
This section is really inaccurate: the purpose of Hadrian's wall was not, as is popularly believed, to safeguard the empire against attacks from Caledonia. This can be readily seen by the existence of trading posts that allowed unhindered access through the wall, along with the settlements that sprang up around them (see the first episode of Simon Schama's A History of Britain). The true purpose of the wall was to define the Roman Empire's geographical limits, which had never been previously done. It was basically Hadrian's way of saying, "this is as far as we'll go", and marked a transition from centuries of progressive conquest to the beginning of the empire's decline.

Can someone with more specific knowledge on this update the article? I don't have the sources or experience to really do it justice. -- Hux 02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree - it's most unsatisfactory. The section gives the impression that there had been no military activity in Caledonia prior to Hadrian's visit to Britannia, and that he abandoned the idea of "conquest" north of the Solway/Tyne isthmus in favour of building an impregnable barrier. Hadrian was reversing the misguided and unsustainable expansionist policies of previous emperors, retrenching within clearly defined borders, to best use the available military manpower.

Not only that, the section ties itself in knots. Firstly the wall was to be made of stone as there was "a lack of suitable wood in the area" (the largest forests in England are just north of the Wall, and it was even more heavily wooded in Hadrian's time), and then a substantial part was to be built of turf, as there was a lack of building stone! This ignores the fact that the turf wall and mile-castles had substantial wooden palisades on top, and that it was rebuilt in stone later!

It then goes on to suggest a lack of stone resulted in the narrowing of the wall in the eastern sector! Surprising then, that large 19th and 20th century quarries were dug, destroying whole sections of the Wall, and that the Roman architects were so dim as to plan a construction they couldn't complete with the materials available. Most of this section is conjecture, and poor conjecture at that. Rambler24 (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Birthplace, redux
Just above is an argument saying he wasn't born in Rome. Earlier today -- further up, another editor points to a book which says he must have been born in Rome. The article needs to reflect the dispute, it can't state where he was born, only that there is uncertainty, the locations suggested, and, attributed, the arguments for and against them, without trying to come to a conclusion. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Augustun84 (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Antinous
Aside from the wall, Hadrian's relationship with Antinous is what he is best known for, both today and in ancient times. The cult of Antinous was one of the most popular ancient cults, with his bust a very common archeological find. Googling yields a staggering number hits, presumably because of this relationship. The issue certainly deserves a mention in the lede. "Hispano" is the pre-Roman population in Spain. But here we don't mean that Hadrian was mixed race, but only that he came from Spain. "Spain" is just the anglicized form of Hispania, even if the borders are not quite the same. (After all, what country's borders have stayed the same over a 2,000 year period?) Kauffner (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Many books about Hadrian will mention the word homosexual, so a large number of hits isn't surprising, but 20,000 web hits, which is about what I saw when I clicked on your link, isn't staggering or proof of anything. If I do a search on Google books with the words Hadrian and emperor, I get about 449,000 (which may merit the word staggering). Replacing 'emperor' with 'homosexual' gives me about 4,710 results. That search on GScholar provides about 2,130 results, Hadrian and emperor about 23,000. The point being that far more books, journal articles, etc do not mention his homosexuality than do mention it. So, if your argument is that is what he is best known for, then I'd challenge your statement. I have found the statement "Hadrian is perhaps best known for his building legacy, especially in Athens, " which is certainly something he is well known for. So no, it doesn't belong in the lead. Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the 3rd paragraph in the lead belongs there either. Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the lede currently about Hadrian's building projects in Athens. In fact, the lede is full of trivia, especially the third paragraph, like you said. We could take out that paragraph, add the Athens projects and the Bar Kochba revolt, as well as Antinous, and easily stay under 500 words. A published summary of Hadrian's life typically mentions Antinous -- and that's what the lede should do. See here, here, here and even an article entitled "Hadrian the gay emperor" for examples. There is also an enormous amount of writing on the Web about homosexuality that uses Hadrian as an object lesson, as least if the results of this Google search are any indication: Kauffner (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Stoic-Epicurean
What is this supposed to mean? Stoicism and Epicureanism were often opposing each other (on philosophy of nature, on ethics derived from it, etc.) Daizus 13:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * i had the exact same question. i guess it means a god-fearing atheist. second tidbit, what is the difference between a "Jewish persecution" and an "anti-Jewish persecution"? The Jackal God 18:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * They seem to be in opposition to one another...69.105.172.143 (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this qualification can hardly be correct. Probably meant is a diluted Epicureanism, i.e. someone who loves life and the arts, etc. but who is not a follower of Epicurus, who himself led a sober life, and who adhered to atomism as explanation of the universe. But even calling him a Stoic seems like overdoing it: although he may have admired Epictetus, this not ncecessarily entails any adherence to Stoic philosophical views: possibly to some precepts for daily life. Probably here also a diluted Stoicism is meant, in the sense that Hadrian did not refrain from (sometimes) living the stern and sober life of a soldier when he was on campaign. (Marguerite Yourcenar makes him explicitly criticize the Stoics). Donjanssen (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"made love to a horse"??
This section perhaps needs some clarification


 * Another loser with no life thinking vandalism is clever. They never seem to realize that we can revert vandalism faster than they can write it, so it's pointless to try. Stan 16:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

the building work on hadrians wall started in 0122, not 0112, i found out in a reliable history book.


 * There is some useful material in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica that might be incorporated into the article to fill that gap. You can find it here. /Nicke L 21:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

That diagonal earlobe creases – a characteristic associated with coronary heart disease is practically medical urban legend. I'm not sure it fits here in wikipedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.198.40 (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This understanding is now outdated and wrong. ("Having one small abnormality in facial features, such as an earlobe crease, is not uncommon, and is usually not associated with a serious medical condition." Medline Plus) Extramural —Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

Whoever posted that was thinking of Caligula. Or it's just vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.234.234 (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Antinous, redux
As the previous section makes clear, Hadrian's relationship with Antinous attracted an enormous amount of attention, both in ancient and modern times. I hardly think that adding a few sentences to explain its context and significance constitutes WP:UNDUE or WP:COATRACK. Yourcenar's book is easily the best-known work on Hadrian and it has quite a reputation, as you can see from this review. There is no issue of using it as a source, but merely informing the reader that Yourcenar's view of Hadrian has been influential. Kauffner (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed for Italica?
It seems that a "citation needed template" affects the fact of Italica location close to Sevilla (Spain). I think it is a so obvious and well-known fact as to render any citation unnecessary.--Auró (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

HADRIAN DIDN'T ACTUALLY BUILD THE WALL DID HE???
In the hadrians wall article it suggests that the wall was planned and the construction began before Hadrian ruled in that area as - iT is contradicting to say Hadrian built the wall - If you have proof that Hadrian actually built the wall please cite your quotation or display evidence. A suggestion would be to rephrase this statement... perhaps that "the wall was built during the ruling of Hadrian?"

This is nonsense: "the construction began before Hadrian ruled in that area" What does this mean? The wall was built during his reign, under his orders. He built it. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Bar Kokhba's revolt for the corresponding discussion.  ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:21, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sexuality
Deleted this entire section - it anachronistically describes Hadrian as making it clear he was 'gay', a category that didn't exist at the time, and its only source is a newspaper article in the Independent. There ought to be a section on Hadrian's sexuality, but one with proper scholarly refs and an understanding of the different sexualities of the ancient world. 82.31.67.51 (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right. All that's needed is the Antinous section, which has been a long battle against the neo-Victorians who somehow think it's improper to suggest that H&A got it on. A "Sexuality" section can only contain half-baked psychologizing based on exiguous evidence: OR. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Era style
This article uses " BCE "/" CE " already. It would be preferred that you keep it this way, out of respect for the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty since they had no affiliation, or liking to Christianity. If you object, please provide a valid reason as to why. Lupus Bellator (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the article traditionally used the BC/AD convention until you changed it today. Your change was challenged and reverted per WP:ERA. The article should retain the established convention.Cúchullain t/ c 21:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose changing era style, or removing era designation per Plotinus example at WP:ERA. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

according to Elizabeth Speller...assessment of Hadrian beyond "good" and "bad"
Elizabeth Speller, while an accomplished novelist, was certainly not the first to remark on the complex character of Hadrian that comes down to us from ancient works. The difficulty of categorizing Hadrian as a "good" or "bad" emperor, even by ancient biographical sources that often had a penchant for moralizing caricature, was remarked upon as far back as Gibbon. See Gibbon's Decline and Fall (Methuen ed. 1909, p. 83) "Hadrian was, by turns, an excellent prince, a ridiculous sophist, and a jealous tyrant." While I have nothing against Mrs. Speller, the appearance should not be given that that observation was her original creation. Having the article read "according to Elizabeth Speller.." does give the impression of originality. Seeing that Mrs. Speller's authority on the subject rests on her novel "Following Hadrain" which is itself somewhat of a derivative work (of Marguerite Yourcenar's "Memoirs of Hadrian", an altogether superior work), I am hesitant to award to Mrs. Speller the credit for the observation.

Unless someone can persuade me otherwise, I will change the article to something more reasonable towards all of the Hadrian scholarship that has come before Mrs. Speller's time.


 * There are a number of other references to Speller. Surely an encyclopedia can cite better sources than a novel, i.e. a fictional account? --Nantonos 09:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is this person listed as a source along with page numbers but no reference to what those page numbers refer to. Someone's name and a page number with no work to tie the number to, hardly qualifies as a source. (though looking at her biography, it seems that she is not qualified to be a source anyway.) 98.121.92.169 (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"friend" of Antinous?
It seems well known that these men were lovers. The extreme display of grief by Hadrian following the death of Antinous speaks of a strong emotional connection. Taking a young man as a lover is consistent with the Hellene culture Hadrian was a fan of. Why is it not explicitly stated that these men were lovers when there is so much evidence for this? Also Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations disapproves of Hadrians pedophilia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Computatioi (talk • contribs) 10:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "When there is so much evidence for this"? you're drawing such conclusions based on him being upset due to his death? That's hardly 'evidence' to support anything let alone this. I was pretty distraught when my hamster died when i was little. I buried him and made a little hamster gravestone, does that make us lovers? please. you're pushing an agenda. keep it to yourself or source it with irrefutable evidence.69.105.172.143 (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The comparison between your reaction to the death of your hamster and Hadrian's reaction to Antinous's is so ridiculous it doesn’t really deserve comment, but nevertheless I will. The whole Roman world was put in a state of mourning and vast numbers of statues were erected at public expense. Antinous was a nobody, a greek boy from Bithnya and the level of grief displayed by Hadrian was immoderate and out of character for a man of such undoubted intellect as he. There was clearly something more than a conventional friendship going on. You are right of course that irrefutable proof is lacking but it is also true to say that there is no proof the relationship wasn't homosexual either. The evidence would seem to point towards bi/homosexuality however, especially given the nature of Roman morality. Roman views on bi/homosexuality were completely at odds with those of later times. It was a pre-christian world. What was morally unacceptable to the Romans, as all those who know the slightest bit about Roman history know, was for a man to be the submissive partner in a relationship (i.e. the 'receiver'). The gender of a man's sexual partners was irrelevant as long he was sexually dominant. Hence a lack of comment in the ancient sources to something which was not socially unacceptable is not unsurprising (how many mistresses of kings and Emperors are unrecorded in history). What was special, however, was Hadrian's reaction to Antinous' death. Finally, to suggest that an agenda is being pushed is a perversion of scholarship. What possible agenda could be pursued by suggesting Hadrian was homosexual? The allegation suggests that you have an agenda in ensuring that Hadrian not be seen as homosexual or bisexual. It is probable that Hadrian was at least bisexual, although debate on his relationship with Antinous is welcome and necessary to scholarship. It should have its own section in the article as does Alexander the Great's relationship with his alleged lover Hephaestion (also a man!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.128.11 (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hadrian's grief was modeled that of Achilles when Patroclus died, as well as on the Alexander/Hephaestion relationship. That is to say, there were specific things you were supposed to do in Greek culture when your catamite died, so this was Hadrian's opportunity to show how Greek-friendly he was. Hadrian obviously knew how well this sort of drama played in the Greek-speaking world, so well, in fact, that there is a good chance Hadrian offed Antinous to have it play out. Kauffner (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is also the possibility that he might have considered adopting Antinous, which was a common thing for emperors to do. Hadrian himself was an adoptive son of Trajan and he did after all have two other adoptive sons. Considering that Hadrian was a staunch Philhellene this would make sense. Maybe this possibility could be mentioned if this view is not considered to be original research... OTOH, Historia Augusta which seems to be the main source for the claim of something else between them has some credibility issues, i.e. it's hard to know what's gossip and what's not... Abvgd (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hadrian would not have adopted Antinous as his son. It would have been politically unthinkable, however Philhellenic he was. While adoption was indeed a common act by Emperors (Hadrian actually adopted two sons: Lucius Ceionius Commodus and Antoninus Pius), it was always done to signify an heir to the position of princips (or the throne if you prefer to speak plainly). Antinous was a nobody. He never held any office, never served in the legion and there is no evidence that he did anything but act as a companion to Hadrian. Both of the men adopted by Hadrian, the first predeceased Hadrian thus necessitating the adoption of Antoninus Pius, held consular rank. Antinous' only qualification was his not inconsiderable beauty. For Hadrian to have adopted him as his son would have looked to the Roman establishment as though his reason had been overtaken by lust, something Romans would have seen as an intolerable weakness in a princeps. Even had the relationship been entirely plutonic, which it almost certainly was not, it was still popular gossip that they were lovers. Worse than that he would not only have been seen as a lust blinded fool but incestuous father! The most plausible explanation for Hadrian and Antinous' bond was that it was founded upon on the Greek practice of pederasty which then continued into Antinous' adult life and developed into a full homosexual relationship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.89.191 (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We can only use what sources say - we can use Historia Augusta but should include academic commentary, not just the Historia. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is he still listed as his lover when it is pure speculation, and there is no credible resource to back it up?24.113.171.102 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Where was he born?
Is it Italica or Rome?
 * Italica was the birthplace of the Roman Emperors Trajan and Hadrian
 * Hadrian was born in Rome to a well-established family which had originated in Picenum in Italy and had subsequently settled in Italica, Hispania Baetica (originally Hispania Ulterior).

--hello,gadr e n 00:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Italica was Hadrian's patria, ie his family's home town, and some late Roman historians assumed that to be his birthplace, but he himself was born in Rome as is explicitly stated in the Historia Augusta, here almost universally considerd to be reproducing a good late 2nd or early 3rd century source.Cenedi

Birley's biography on Hadrian states that he was born in Flavian Rome. See also the Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd Edition, Vol XI: The Imperial Peace, p. 132.Neoaeolian

As of today we have his birthplace changed back to Spain, specifically Seville. On what grounds? Cenedi 10:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Will people please read the first paragraph of Anthony R. Birley's magisterial new biography of Hadrian, which explains that he had to have been born in Rome? His father was a senator, and senators customarily resided in Rome unless appointed as governors elsewhere. Moreover, his father was probably a praetor at the time of Hadrian's birth, another reason why the family would have to have been in Rome. http://www.amazon.com/Hadrian-Restless-Emperor-Imperial-Biographies/dp/0415228123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentor2 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

-- Well, there are far more sources that name Hispania as Hadrian's birthplace than not. Historian Alicia M. Canto "argues that only one ancient source gives Hadrian's birth as Rome (SHA, Vita Hadr 2,4, probably interpolated), opposite to 25 ancient authors who affirm that he was born in Italica. Among these ancient sources is included his own imperial horoscope, which remained in the famous Antigonus of Nicaea's collection (end of the 2nd. century)."

This is also backed by historian F.H. Cramer: "...Hadrian – whose horoscope is absolutely certain – surely was born in southern Spain... (in) SHA, Hadrian, 2, 4, the birth was erroneously assigned to Rome instead of Italica, the actual birth-place of Hadrian..."

Also, it's often claimed that his family is from Picenum, which is misleading because it is well known that his family lived in Hispania for several centuries. He had some Italian ancestry but very little of this ancestry can be proven outside of vague mentions of distant ancestors from Picenum who came to Spain several centuries before his birth. Also, His wife, sister, parents and grandparents are all known to be born and raised in Hispania, they were not ethnically Roman. Aesthetics101 (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Bar Kochba War and modern historiography.
I have found resistence when introducing present-day historians' accounts of the Bar Kochba War, specially in the work of Schlomo Sand, who argues about what he sees as the unhistorical character of the general Jewish exile on the wake of the war, which he takes, among other things, as a by-product of Late Antique Christian historiography (or "Christian mythology"). I am fully aware of the politically charged character of Sand's work and his thesis, however, I have to mention that his views exist and are part of the existing academic views on the war - or not? Abhorrent as the Sand's thesis may appear, he is a bona fide scholar with a teaching post in an Israeli universityCerme (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

N.B. What I have attempted in the biographies of both Trajan & Hadrian was, to the full extent of my limited knowledge, to update the historiography used, as to me seems a problem with many of the Roman Imperial biographies on the wiki. That's why I have introduced living authors such as Paul Veyne and Sand as sources into the biograph of Hadrian. As all history is, to a certain measure, present history.... Cerme (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policy calls out for "reliable sources," but Sand is a historical revisionist who seeks to reinterpret orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event, in this case Hadrian's war with the Jews. If, as you claim, it was somehow connected to Jesus's crucifixion, then you have made null and void the Roman governor's call for assistance against the war of independence waged by Bar-Kokhba, which, by all accounts, is the official reason for Hadrian's war against Judea.Davidbena (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I understand what you mean. Only the Late Antique Christian writers were not dealing with actual historical causes such as stating that the Roman governor asked for help because the Jews rebelled, they were pointing to what they saw as Jesus' prophecy fulfilled. But then, I have, en lieu of the book by Sand, found a, in my view, far less controversial source that simply states that the actual consequences of the war and its precise place in Hadrian's religious policies are still a matter for controversy. What I'm trying to convey it's simply that a controversy exists and I'm not trying to solve it - something Wikipedia explicitly forbids Cerme (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

homosexuality
shouldn't there be a brief mentioning of hadrian's homosexuality, like his relationship with antinous?


 * Yes, of course, including the death of Antinous - probably sacrificial - in the Nile, and more generally, how Hadrian was so far up the Greeks he he invented a new religion for him, building temples to Antinous across the empire. This page on Hadrian is pathetic, it misses out just about everything of importance, and misrepresents him seriously. Hadrian instigated the Third Jewish-Roman war and holocaust against the Jews: he is comparable to Adolf Hitler - mad, bad and dangerous to know. Now, who here is promoting him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extramural (talk • contribs) 20:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Gimme a break buddy, since when was a Roman emperor nice to ANYBODY?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.103 (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually if we are going to give Hadrian a label for his sexual orientation it would be bisexual, not gay or homosexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.234.234 (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hadrian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111106105715/http://dobc.unipv.it/dipscant/athenaeum/athenaeum.html to http://dobc.unipv.it/dipscant/athenaeum/athenaeum.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hadrian. 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/20071015233845/http://dobc.unipv.it/dipscant/athenaeum/athenaeum.html to http://dobc.unipv.it/dipscant/athenaeum/athenaeum.html

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) 05:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hadrian. 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/20120206191723/http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/ghi/02130181/articulos/GERI0303120305A.PDF to http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/ghi/02130181/articulos/GERI0303120305A.PDF

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) 08:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hadrian. 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/20170416045613/http://www3.nd.edu/~ujournal/wp-content/uploads/Full-Print-Edition-with-cover_09-10.pdf to http://www3.nd.edu/~ujournal/wp-content/uploads/Full-Print-Edition-with-cover_09-10.pdf

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) 16:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Article organisation and structure
I've been trying to deal with some of the problems pointed out by others, in the GA assessments above. The article has major problems in organisation; in effect, it's two articles, one of which says much the same as the other but within a different format; both seem over-detailed. In effect, it's probably more than twice as long as it could or should be; it's trying to do and say too much, and that makes for very hard reading. With most articles of this size, materials can be hived off into other articles, or provide a basis for new articles -- in this case, possibly not. An account of Hadrian's travels would be core to any article on him; and it's impossible to write such an account without reference to the what, why, who and when. But we also have several very long and detailed analytic, thematic sections; on cultural pursuits, the military etc., which seem to function (either by design or a quirk of the article's development) as preambles and postscripts to the travels; despite which, the travels offer almost exactly the same information. The article is not at all incomplete; much heavy lifting has been done by others; their dedication is admirable but the material needs quite drastic reorganisation. I'm inclined to do away with the thematic approach, and rewrite using a strict chronology; but I've a hunch that this will generate an entirely different set of problems. Any suggestions? Haploidavey (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've lately made two small corrections in the article, one establishing the relationship between Hadrian and Licinius Sura, the other offering a requested source with commentary. I would ask Haploidavey to make the final decision about whether the reorganization of the article is completed or not in terms of an hypothetical GA status, and (humbly) ask him to think about trying a similar effort on Trajan Cerme (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Cerme; sorry for the delayed response. Your addition of backgound on L. Sura helps immensely. This article still needs a basic restructuring; I don't think it's anywhere near ready for GA review, for reasons outlined above. I'm still inclined to deal with the material in strict chronological order, sources permitting; that might well involve reduction of the "Travels" to a series of bare outlines; an itinerary, more or less. I'll get back to you on Trajan (easier to deal with than his successor, in some respects) though probably not very soon... seasonal demands, and all that. Haploidavey (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Just an example of what I mean: the section on the bar Kokhba revolt is too long (because it's overdetailed, and attempts too much)> It might be better placed within the "Military" section, in strictly summary form. It should not be covered twice, either in this article or others. Nothing in the article should be covered twice. Yes? No? Maybe? Haploidavey (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Apropos of the above, and to help reduce the burden on some other sections (particularly the Travels) I plan to break out almost all content related to religion (including policies on Jews and Judaism, Imperial cult, Antinous, Christianity, etc.,) and place into a section on Religious policies. That should at least help to give a more reader-friendly, managable account. Haploidavey (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Length and readable prose
Just a quick, crude spot-check FYI. Current readable prose is currently 73,463 bytes; if we include citations and notes, it's 136,863 bytes. That's long, but now includes some material not previously covered. Appraisals (Personality, or what have you) need coverage. Some sections and simple statements of fact are probably over-sourced. Nowhere near ready for formal reassessment. Haploidavey (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Undue or dubious interpretations
In Hadrian, we have the following sourced material (sentences are consecutive - I've separated them for convenience);


 * In his Meditations, written during his reign as emperor, Marcus Aurelius lists those to whom he owes a debt of gratitude; Hadrian is conspicuously absent. [Frank McLynn,Marcus Aurelius: A Life. New York: Da Capo, 2010, ISBN 978-0-306-81916-2, p. 42]


 * Marcus' sympathies would have lain with the conservative, "serious", Roman outlook of Antoninus, not Hadrian's more open, "lewd", "Hellenic" outlook – including Hadrian's almost exclusive homosexuality. [Robert H. Allen, The Classical Origins of Modern Homophobia, Jefferson: Mcfarland, 2006, ISBN 978-0-7864-2349-1, p. 122. John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. University of Chicago Press: 2009, ISBN 0-226-06711-4, p. 85]

I'm not sure what to make of this; I don't think it's needed. The first (citing McLynn) is straightforward; Marcus doesn't include Hadrian in his list of "positive influences"; he doesn't include Augustus either. Or his tutor Herodes Atticus. So why the pointed conclusion? The second sentence reads to me like a whole baggage of speculation. Most secondary sources accept - more or less - Cassius Dio's assertion (missing from the article, as far as I can tell) that Hadrian, despite his very notable and undeniable successes, was "loathed by the people" for his executions of leading senators at the beginning and end of his reign. These notorious killings, along with his hyperactivity, emotional outbursts and paranoia, would hardly commend him to Marcus, or any emperor with aspirations to a Stoic lifestyle. Thoughts? Is this what's sometimes known as a WP:COATRACK? Haploidavey (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the second quote is speculative and well beyond what we would call a reasonable guess; but then Allen & Boswell are gender historians and therefore wont to speculate about how the perceptions of people in high places changed commonly-held views on homosexuality (Severus and Caracalla, according to Veyne, were already actively "gay-unfriendly"). The first sentence, however, is somewhat different. Marcus' political agenda differed widely from that of his adoptive grandfather, who was, nevertheless, the founder of the Antonine dynasty proper. What we have here is something like Augustus' embarrassment with Caesar's policies - but then Augustus acknowledged his debt to Caesar, even if only in passing. Marcus, however - who as an Stoic should be able to appreciate the necessity of Hadrian's role in his fortunes - took a step further in terms of deliberate rejection. Therefore the importance of Marcus'silence. Cerme (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Cerme. That's food for thought. I plan to include Dio's summation (as in my commentary above) then see how it reads; you evidently know the material much better than I; but while the first sentence seems quite pertinent, the second is less so; I'm not convinced that either one belongs here, unless in a section on ancient and modern reception. Haploidavey (talk)


 * Cerme, could you expand a little further on this with sources? Here would be fine, though under the "Appraisals" subheading would be better. What you've so lucidly expressed above is tantalising, and entirely relevant to appraisals of H's personality and reign. Haploidavey (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Article organisation and structure
I've been trying to deal with some of the problems pointed out by others, in the GA assessments above. The article has major problems in organisation; in effect, it's two articles, one of which says much the same as the other but within a different format; both seem over-detailed. In effect, it's probably more than twice as long as it could or should be; it's trying to do and say too much, and that makes for very hard reading. With most articles of this size, materials can be hived off into other articles, or provide a basis for new articles -- in this case, possibly not. An account of Hadrian's travels would be core to any article on him; and it's impossible to write such an account without reference to the what, why, who and when. But we also have several very long and detailed analytic, thematic sections; on cultural pursuits, the military etc., which seem to function (either by design or a quirk of the article's development) as preambles and postscripts to the travels; despite which, the travels offer almost exactly the same information. The article is not at all incomplete; much heavy lifting has been done by others; their dedication is admirable but the material needs quite drastic reorganisation. I'm inclined to do away with the thematic approach, and rewrite using a strict chronology; but I've a hunch that this will generate an entirely different set of problems. Any suggestions? Haploidavey (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've lately made two small corrections in the article, one establishing the relationship between Hadrian and Licinius Sura, the other offering a requested source with commentary. I would ask Haploidavey to make the final decision about whether the reorganization of the article is completed or not in terms of an hypothetical GA status, and (humbly) ask him to think about trying a similar effort on Trajan Cerme (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Cerme; sorry for the delayed response. Your addition of backgound on L. Sura helps immensely. This article still needs a basic restructuring; I don't think it's anywhere near ready for GA review, for reasons outlined above. I'm still inclined to deal with the material in strict chronological order, sources permitting; that might well involve reduction of the "Travels" to a series of bare outlines; an itinerary, more or less. I'll get back to you on Trajan (easier to deal with than his successor, in some respects) though probably not very soon... seasonal demands, and all that. Haploidavey (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Just an example of what I mean: the section on the bar Kokhba revolt is too long (because it's overdetailed, and attempts too much)> It might be better placed within the "Military" section, in strictly summary form. It should not be covered twice, either in this article or others. Nothing in the article should be covered twice. Yes? No? Maybe? Haploidavey (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Apropos of the above, and to help reduce the burden on some other sections (particularly the Travels) I plan to break out almost all content related to religion (including policies on Jews and Judaism, Imperial cult, Antinous, Christianity, etc.,) and place into a section on Religious policies. That should at least help to give a more reader-friendly, managable account. Haploidavey (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Length and readable prose
Just a quick, crude spot-check FYI. Current readable prose is currently 73,463 bytes; if we include citations and notes, it's 136,863 bytes. That's long, but now includes some material not previously covered. Appraisals (Personality, or what have you) need coverage. Some sections and simple statements of fact are probably over-sourced. Nowhere near ready for formal reassessment. Haploidavey (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)