Talk:List of Roman emperors/Archive 1

Early discussion
Should this page perhaps include an exact or at least vague idea of the number of Roman Emperors from Augustus to 395AD? Or for that matter, an indication of the number of Latin-speaking Emperors? I think its something like 147 in sum -suggestion

i dont know this info so some one else will have to do it. But this page does not say about Caesers and Augustuses and all that messy business if your trying to make a table of it :-s - fonzy
 * Except that those titles don't even carry the same meanings over time. Look up the Tetrarchy. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-writing the Gordian Dynasty: justification.

The history of this bit of the third century was confused when I found it. What actually happened is as followed:

1) Maximinus Thrax siezed the throne. He was basically a thug, did horrible things to the Senate, tortured kittens, yada yada yada.

2) Outraged, Gordian I was drafted into seeking the emperorship. As he was about 79, he insisted that his son also be made emperor. So we should treat their reign as one entry -- can't talk about the one without the other.

3) Dick Head II is killed; father commits suicide out of grief for his son.

4) The Senate, understandably nervous about this sudden loss of leadership, elects Pupienus and Balbinus as Co-Emperors. Again, we should treat their reign as one entry -- can't talk about the one without the other.

5) Maximinus Thrax is murdered by his own men. Maybe there's some folk in the Roman army who don't like to watch kittens being tortured. ;-)

6) The Pretorian Guard (need to write an article about this power behind the Imperial throne), realize that the threat of Maximinus is past, see this as their opportunity to sieze power, & kill Balbinus & Pupienus Maximus. The ensuing intrigue results with the young Gordian III as Emperor.

I've combined the entries for Gordian I & II into one. The entry for Gordian II needs to be deleted. If people agree with me. llywrch 02:29 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Couldn't we make Gordian II a #REDIRECT to Gordian I? This would allow linking to G II from other articles. -- JeLuF 08:05 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC)


 * Well, I've checked all of the pages that link to the Gordian II, & relinked them to the Gordian I page. There shouldn't be any links to G II. llywrch 01:40 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a bad way to work. IF someone now decides to take the two apart again, we have all kinds of links going to the wrong place. Changing 'Gordian II' to a redirect does the same thing, but with less work, less problems if things are changed back, and works for future links as well as past ones. In fact I'm tempted to undo those relinks, but there's so much more to do here... - Andre Engels 12:19 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC)


 * Actually, all I've done is:
 * 1) Rewritten the Gordian I article,
 * 2) redirected the links,
 * 3) stated my reasons here. And defended them.


 * I've not touched the Gordian II page, merely asked that it be deleted. If the consensus is that I'm wrong about this, all that needs to be done is to move the links back. (Although I'd like an explanation why I'm wrong about this.) -- llywrch 18:38 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC)

One more note: since I'm probably breaking this page for all of the translators, allow me to offer my apologies. But as a when a broken sword is reforged becomes stronger, so as I fix this page of its errors it will become more useful for you to transport into your native tongue. llywrch 03:38 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC)

Since Julius Caesar has been given mention, should earlier despots of similar natures be listed?


 * Strictly speaking, Julius Caesar should not be added to this list. And if his presence on his list is seen as an allowance to add other figures from Roman Republican History (e.g., Pompey, Crassus, etc.) then he should be removed.


 * However, it is a very wide-spead misconception that Caesar was an emperor: in many languages the word for "Emperor" is derived from his name (e.g., German Kaisar, Russian Czar). Therefore he is a borderline case, many people would come to this entry looking for him, & thus he needs some kind of mention here. -- llywrch 02:47 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * (I think it is a mistake to say that the popularity of the term "Caesar" and it's use in later German or Russian history is due to Julius Caesar; it was Augustus Caesar as the first emperor who really put the name on the map (excuse the pun) -- User:Morphax 02:03 Nov 29, 2005 (EST) )

Moved the following contribution from the article body:
 * technically all were princepts untill hadrian and not emperors

This is a list of Emperors, not of their actual titles (which varied greatly over the centuries, & does need documentation somewhere). --llywrch 16:34 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Reversion of this article: justification.

A few days ago, this was a simple, clean list of individuals. Perhaps not all of the names were correct, or in the correct form -- but a reader could, with a glance, find the Emperor ashe/he wanted, click onthe link & access the article.

Then it became a slab of text dificult to read.

Because of this unfriendly look, I'm reverting it. And I'll be asking some of the other folks who contribute to Roman topics to discuss this change. Is this really what we want this article to look like? -- llywrch 03:39, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I cannot say that I agree. In the first place, I don't agree that my edit made the article difficult to read; no more than a moment or two is necessary to familiarise oneself with the format, which is explained earlier in the document. The names are in Latin, yes, but the customary names of the individuals are clearly labeled after the more correct names. Furthermore, the list as I rewrote it traced the history of the imperial dignity in a more accurate and more orderly manner, indicating lesser co-emperors, full colleagues in the Tetrarchy, and later dynastic divisions between East and West (especially after the deaths of Constantine and Theodosius).


 * In the second place, I feel that the overview I wrote to explain the Roman conception of the emperor and the titles and ranks associated with it was a much-needed addition to a list which made no effort to explain what precisely a Roman emperor was (it certainly was not a modern monarchical emperor, at least not until the Dominate).


 * You have proposed that this be discussed amongst those who contribute to Roman topics. I am willing to defer to just such a discussion; however, since the discussion is whether or not "we" want to keep the simplistic document or my more detailed version, I am reverting the document to my version for the present time so that the contributors can see it and judge it as it is. -- Publius, 05 Dec. 2003


 * The rewrite is interesting, but yes, way too verbose. Full titles are good detail for individual articles, but very bad for list lookup speed, which is the main purpose of the indexes that WP calls lists for historical reasons. Also, we like to keep the textual headers of lists short and sweet, putting the detailed explanations in separate articles (Roman Emperor would be a sensible choice, instead of having it be a redir). The rewrite is a sort of hybrid list/narrative that is unique, and worth keeping, but as a distinct article - call it Narrative of Roman Emperors or maybe rework as Timeline of Roman Emperors. Go to the bare list to find "Consta-something", go to the timeline to understand the succession of emperors better than by piecing together from a half-dozen individual emperor articles. Stan 04:57, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I rather like this suggestion, which certainly solves the problem, in my opinion. llywrch, what do you think of using the "complicated" text for Roman Emperor and leaving the list in the "simple" version? A few more explanatory notes in the "complicated" narrative and it could be altered to focus more strongly on titular and dynastic developments, leaving the simple chronological order and contemporary names to the "simple" list. Publius

Hmm...like Stan, I kind of like the new page, but I think it's far too complicated for the list page. Some sort of separate article might be a good idea, although a bit odd to have two articles with such similar content. An alternative would be to remove the introduction to a "Roman Emperor" article. Remove the names, which are more appropriately given on each individual Emperor's page, but leave the clearer listing of co-emperors. john 05:35, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I like the idea of adding the new stuff to Roman Emperor - there is a similar Roman dictator article already. Adam Bishop 06:42, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, Adam, if the "complicated" version I wrote (now found at Roman Emperor) seems similar to Roman dictator, that's probably because I wrote that article, too. Publius

The more complicated version is a lot harder to use. The paragraphs added should be moved somewhere else, and this should stay as a simple list. Maximus Rex 06:45, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with the general comments above. One one hand, the list stop being a list and its difficult reading - the last version was a lot more useful. On the other Publius had a lot of work and added an extremely nice overview that its a pity to loose. I suggest that overview and the discussion of the titles should go to Roman emperor - not as a redirect - but an article on his own. In this way the verbose parts, as well as the distinction between dinastic and non-dynastic could be saved and given the proper attention, and the list remains a practical thing to use. Curiously, i used this idea (previous to see this discussion) in the new Roman usurper and List of Roman usurpers. Muriel Victoria 07:55, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * The consensus appears to be that the "complicated" list would be better as Roman Emperor, so I have provisionally placed it there and reverted to the "simple" list. Publius

Wow. If only all disagreements on WP could be handled so amiably & maturely. My thanks to all. -- llywrch 17:28, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Tables
I suppose I overreacted by completely reverting JohnArmagh's recent additions, with everything organized into tables. However, I feel that these tables, while somewhat more aesthetically pleasing at the moment with borders, are unhelpful and do not improve the look of the article. I don't think it is necessary to include so much information here, since it is just a list - you can find their real names and regnal names etc. in the articles themselves. It also just repeats the more detailed information on the Roman Emperor page, which looks better without tables, in my opinion (it also makes this article obsolete, but we already discussed that months ago, see above). Hopefully other editors interested in this page can express their opinions as well, for or against. Adam Bishop 19:13, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My intention has been to incorporate something of the flavour of the subject into the list, so that it is more than a mere list of names and dates: whilst retaining the simple list to the left, with a little more in-depth to the right.

The layout, of course, is something I would like to get to meet two criteria:-

a) it is in a format which most readers would like to see and b) that the format is consistent (or forms a precedence for consistency).

Whilst the detail to the right of such a table may largely be covered in the biographical details of the subject, this per se does not facilitate the advantage of a table format, i.e. at-a-glance comparison, between items in the table, of selected details.

The comments of Adam Bishop are, as usually gratefully received, and I do invite comments from anyone else with an opinion.

--JohnArmagh 20:09, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't like the table format either - we have articles on all these guys, with plenty of room for specialists' details like how their names might appear on coins or inscriptions. The purpose of the list is to find a particular one when given sketchy info for which computerized searching is useless ("shortly after Marcus Aurelius", or "the fourth emperor, N-something I think". Each list entry needs at most years (unlinked imho), and a short phrase "thumbnailing" the emperor. The table does have some desirable info, but let's get the content into the articles instead, where it's also convenient to cite the references for the info (citations and tables don't play nice together). Another possibility is to have two separate articles, one a plain list and the other tableized - feasible since the basic data isn't likely to change much anymore. :-) Stan 20:18, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * BTW, really useful additional tables/lists would be ones sorted by common name, gens, and cognomen. Stan 20:21, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Seems I can't win - within seconds of posting an additional Simplified list of Emperors it is listed for Votes for Deletion. --JohnArmagh 05:49, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that - there are some avid deletionists who list on VfD without bothering to learn why the article was created. Often if I create something that looks like a dup, I'll immediately add a note to the talk page explaining the situation and xrefing over to the other article - even the most aggressive of deleters will take a moment to look at the talk page. The other way to go is to put it under your user page and move later. Don't worry, we'll get this all sorted out, and every bit of content is saved in history, even for deleted articles, so nothing will be lost. Stan 16:28, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you want my frank opinion about this new look? One word: Ugh.

I know, that's a cruel way to express it -- & also unhelpful -- but I like the old list for more than the simple reason that I'm used to it. These reasons include:
 * 1) Simplicity. The emperor's name was quickly findable, with a few quick pointers of the dates of his reign, the dynasty he was part of, & any significant usurpers. And my understanding is that this list serves as a means to find the ruler & follow the relevant link -- not to overwhelm the reader with detail. And visible or invisible, I just don't like this table.
 * 2) Definition of dynasties. The earlier version followed more closely the scholarly groupings of dynasties. There is no "'Later Claudian' Dynasty" -- it's all part of the Principate or Julio-Claudian dynasty. And although the term "Illyrian Emperors" can be found, it assumes that there is more of a connection between them than the fact one died & was followed by another; & if this grouping is admitted, then should we not include Diocletian & Constantius Chlorus, both of whom were born in Illyria, & get rid of the "Tetrarchy"? If these grouping don't work, could we have an explanation why?
 * 3) Treatment of Usurpers & Break-away Regions. The ancient Romans didn't consider many of these usurpers the equal of recognized Emperors, any more than a modern US citizen might consider Jefferson Davis the equal of any elected US president or a UK citizen would consider Bonnie Prince Charlie or the Old Pretender the equal of any British King or Queen. We've handled some of these cases with a "See also" down at the bottom, & many of the rest with a note explaining that so-&-so also claimed the throne.

If more information about individual rulers are needed, I'd like to see a justification. As I said above, the earlier list worked for me. -- llywrch 04:30, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK - it is all down to a matter of taste and preference - which could go on forever without agreement.

Therefore then if you wish to revert, please do so - I will not interfere further.

I have kept the detailed version on my own user sub-page for my own information and should anyone feel they wish to look at it at any point.

The way I see it, what I add to Wikipedia is a contribution for future generations. Of course it is then up to them whether they wish to remove it.

--JohnArmagh 07:32, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I rather like the 'new' look. It is still possible to quickly find an emperor (date and common name) and the extra information is very usefull. For instance if some one wanted to look op information about a name he found on a coin the old list wouldn't have been very helpfull but the new list will quickly point him to the right article. Further the tabled look is easy on the eye and the screen seems very uncluttered. For what it's worth it gets my vote :)

The look of capitals
The use of capitals is consistent with how Latin was written, but large amounts of upper-case text looks like SHOUTING and is UGLY. How about the use of elegant SMALL CAPS ? E GO EXISTIMO SERMONEM LATINVM SIC PVLCHRIOREM ESSE.

Those emperors' names also look bad with the justified alignment pulling them apart. Wouldn't left alignment be better? &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 10:21, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As you correctly surmise my choice of lettering in the Latin was deliberate (despite the modern-day interpretation of capitals imitating a raised voice) - the fact that the writing of the time was all in capitals (majuscule) as miniscule had not yet been invented.

I had also intended to use • instead of spaces to separate the words however that had a nasty effect on the column/page widths so I had to regretfully abandon that idea.

I was considering changing the capitals to small capitals whilst I was compiling the list, but I am glad that I refrained from so doing, thus allowing comments on the matter to be raised.

The article is currently listed for Votes for Deletion. If the article is not deleted then it will be worth my while reducing size of the capital text, which I will then implement.

--JohnArmagh 15:13, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Augustus' name
Was "IMPERATOR CAESAR DIVI FILIVS" really a title of Augustus's before his accession? Or does that all depend on when we decide actually counts as the "accession of Augustus" and that, by saying this, I've opened some huge can of Internet argument worms? UnDeadGoat 03:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is an ancient question, but I thought I'd answer it: Octavian began using that formula as his formal name (it means "Imperator Caesar, son of the God") pretty much right after Julius was deified not long after his assassination (in 44 or 43 BC, I think). The date of when Augustus "acceded" as Emperor isn't clear, mostly because he pretty much invented the concept of the Roman Emperor over a period of some years, but just about everyone thinks it's after Julius' deification. --Jfruh (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that, and for referring to "Octavian." I get antsy about casual references to "Augustus," as if it were his given name -- especially in the possessive, as in the first paragraph. ("Augie" to his friends, perhaps?) --Michael K. Smith (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Charlemagne
Should Charlemagne be added to the list as a "Western Emperor" since he was formally made and recognized as Roman Emperor by his contemporaries... -Alex 12.220.157.93 14:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not think so, sir, for was not a Roman emperor in the original sense (and not an immediate successor).--Anglius 01:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Romulus Augustulus, whose reign ended in 476, was the last emperor in the West in the sense of this list. The pope revived the title for Charles I for quite different reasons that had nothing whatever to do with the "real" Roman empire. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I will agree with the previous on this topic. Charlemagne was NOT at all a Roman Emperor. Moreover, the Roman Empire lasted (in the East) at least other six centuries, where are all these Emperors, not listed here, but having direct success from the ancient ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.111.166 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether the later western Roman Emperors are "real" is hardly for people on this board to say. In fact it is ill-informed, misplaced, and a little obnoxious to climb up on that wobbly a horse. They believed themselves to be the successors to the Roman Empire, and aspired to reestablish it. While I don't think Charlemagne and his Carolingian augustii successors, or the later Ottonian "Holy" Roman Emperors should be put on the list as direct imperial occupants, the page is incomplete without some reference, and an indication should be made to the fact that the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (it's final formal title), existed for a thousand years after AD800. A link to that effect should be provided as relevant, and for completeness. I will do so, unless someone here loudly objects. Regards, Sych (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll object to this unless it is made very clear that the HRE =/= the Roman Empire. This list pertains to Roman Emperors. A vast majority of "lists of Roman emperors" in reliable sources, what Wikipedia is based on, either stop at 476 (or some other point in Late Antiquity, e.g. 480, 610, 641) or feature Byzantine rulers up until 1453. They all disregard the German emperors. The imperial office established through the coronation of Charlemagne and Otto I was fundamentally different from the ancient office, and from the office held by the rulers of the Byzantine Empire not only in the powers actually held by the monarch, but also in imperial and religious ideology. One problem, as can be seen through the Problem of two emperors article, is that if the Holy Roman Emperors get a big mention, then the Russian, Bulgarian and Latin emperors as well as the Ottoman sultans all need prominent mentions as they too derived their use of the imperial title from proclaiming themselves as incarnations/successors/heirs of the Roman Empire. Arguably the Bulgarians (since the Byzantines gave them the title) and the Ottomans (since they took Constantinople) have better claims to "Romanness" than the HRE. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Titles
Gentlemen, I think that the honourific titles in many of their reignal names are somewhat confusing. For instance, was not Pronconsul more of an office than an agnomen? In addition (please answer this question), if any of the emperors had received the title of Rex Roma (King of Rome) or Rex Regis (King of Kings) from the Senate, would it become a part of their imperial name? --Anglius 01:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Proconsul" was a job, a position, similar to the position of "governor." It was an appointment that was held for a time and then relinquished. Rex Roma and other, similar titles were just that: extra titles. The emperor was also pontifex and a dozen other things, none of which were part of the ruler's most commonly used reference-name. (As a comparison, a full list of all the titles and "jobs" of Queen Elizabeth would fill half a dozen pages.) --Michael K. Smith (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Emperor Krisp?
One of my historical books in Serbian claim that there was Roman emperor Krisp who was proclaimed emperor in Sirmium. I do not know what was his Latin or English name. Crisp? Crispus? Can somebody tell me is there a Wikipedia article about such emperor? PANONIAN  (talk)  20:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I found it: Crispus. However, he is not listed in this article. Should somebody add him here?. PANONIAN  (talk)  21:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For the period of the Tetrarchy and after, the list as we have it now only includes those figures who became (or claimed to be) full-fledged emperors (augusti), not caesares, who can be thought of as sort of "junior emperors." A lot of Ceasars went on to become Auguti (it was one of the titles that were often given to imperial heirs, particularly adults in the 4th century), but not all of them did: Crispus was one who never became a full-fledged emperor in his own right. There are others; Gallus Caesar is another example.


 * In my opinion, the list ought to be kept to Augusti only. It's cluttered enough as it is. --Jfruh 21:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but is there another list with names of the Caesars too on Wikipedia? If not, it should be written. PANONIAN  (talk)  22:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Claudius' method of death is given as 'poisoned' but I feel this is open to debate. This is a rumour that was made credible as his wife (Agrippina or Agrippinilla) and his step-son (Nero) have come to be regarded as monsters. However, according to a programme I saw on one of the history channels, there was no poison available in those days that could have worked as quickly as to kill him in the time it is supposed to have taken between him falling ill and dying.

Five Good Emperors
The abovementioned section seems to have Commodus misfiled. Though I like Commodus as much as the next man, I think it's a bit confusing to have him under the section, as it both makes the section somewhat less "good", and the total number of Emperors in the section something more than "Five". A whole break between Severan dynasty and the Antonine would probably be ill-advised, but Commodus should be excluded from this category. Perhaps you could change the heading to "Nervan-Antonian dynasty", which is the one used in the infoboxen. It doesn't really matter all that much, it just struck me a little off guard to have a section titled "Five Good Emperors" containing more than 5 Emperors, bad Emperors, and people who were never even Emperors at all. Good luck with everything. Geuiwogbil 23:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Vindex
A few usurpers are listed here, it would probably be appropriate to include Vindex who was proclaimed new emperor in Iberia before his defeat. Further, Galba minted coins with Vindex on them, I believe as Imperator, so in some sense he had posthumus recognition as at least a pseudo-emperor (I'm posting this here instead of doing it because I have no idea how to edit the list and don't want to screw everything up. Avraham 06:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures
I think that this article would be better if it were like the List of United States Presidents and had the pictures of the emperors. They all have their pictures through the images of the sculptures made of them. The article would be a much better list if this was done--Uga Man 18:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent - I love it - really nice. --JohnArmagh 16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoever included the busts/pictures; awesome job. So helpful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.120.88 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Bold italic?
Number of emperors shown in bold italics: zero. So what's the point? 86.146.232.235 01:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Text amended to clarify the point. --JohnArmagh 05:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Serbia?
What's going on with Emperors hailing from Serbia? There was no Serbia at that time. I recommend altering this, or adding in other modern nation-states for consistency (Some of the Gauls were from what is now France, for example.)66.57.228.49 (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, let's not use modern national names. It's anachronistic and confusing. "Pannonia" is not the same as "Hungary," "Dacia" is not the same as "Roumania," etc. Just use the contemporary Roman names of the provinces, as mentioned in the works of the Latin historians from which the information comes in the first place. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Put the western roman emperors back (and the earlier Eastern ones too)
Chopping off the list of Roman Emperors at 395 AD is ludicrous. The "Western Roman Empire" is not some entity that is distinct from the Roman Empire as a whole, and to pretend otherwise flies in the face of just about all modern historiography of the period. --Jfruh (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Almost any source one cares to name ends the empire in the West at 476, with the overthrow of Romulus Augustulus by the Goths. And why 395, specifically? There were Eastern and Western emperors and co-emperors, and all that, well before that date. I would say that before 476, the term "Roman empire" refers to the whole entity, regardless of how it was variously sliced from one reign to the next, with junior partners bumping off their seniors, and so on. After that date, there is only the "empire" in the East, based in Constantinople. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the list should continue with Western and Eastern Roman Emperors. Although the Western and Eastern Roman Empires WERE indeed new independent countries (and distinct in that sense), they both continued the numbering scheme of the preceding Roman Empire, albeit each in its own way. I can, however, answer the "why 395" question. In his will, Emperor Theodosius I partitioned the Empire into 2 separate countries, which was a rather different concept from the Co-Emperors, Vice Emperors, and pretenders of the earlier Crisis and Dominate. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.184.155 (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this article
Hey. I'm a complete layman when it comes to Roman history, but stopped by while researching historical cognomens and would like to thank the authors of this article. It's the most informative look into the subject that I've ever seen and the use of portraits and coins, original or not, was a stroke of genius. The formatting of imperial names is conspicuously pleasant to the eye as well. To see that the list is a FAC seems fitting, so the best of luck with gaining your earned recognition. --Kiz o r  08:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I, too, am a complete novice at Roman history, and I am very grateful for all who put this list together. Nonetheless, I couldn't help but notice that I can't find Constantine I in this list! I there a standard reason for this, or am I being obtuse? Can someone help me? paddy (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing Emperors
There is no listing of the Emperors from the period between 260 and 284. There were several Emperors during this time, most notably Aurelianus.

Is there a reason that this portion has been excluded?66.27.114.113 (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am currently re-working this list to included more information, and those missing emperors! Watch this space! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Probus-cap.JPG
The image File:Probus-cap.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Formating

 * This page is all screwed up. Who did that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.162.19 (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Coat of arms"?!
In the infobox, a generic legionary standard is reproduced, with the heading "Coat of Arms of the Roman Empire"! This is an inaccurate use of the term even if the Romans had "coats of arms," it's completely anachronistic in terms of heraldry -- it's just silly, period. I don't know enough about the architecture of infoboxes to mess with it, but somebody please fix this. It's embarrassing. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * True. I always meant to get rid of it, but never quite got round to it. I'll do it now! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Order of columns in table?
This is probably picky, but anyway. The columns are presently, in left-to-right order: Name / Born / Reigned / Succession / Portrait / Died. Shouldn't it logically be: Name / Born / Reigned / Died / Succession / Portrait? On the other hand, unless there's some mechanism to move the contents of an entirely column auto-magically, that's probably a lot of work. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If the order is going to be changed, the portraits ought to be first on the left, in my opinion.71.179.198.254 (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Date of Tiberius' accession
Tiberius had been granted full and equal powers with Augustus in AD 13. He did not, however, receive the title of "emperor" (Augustus) from the Senate until 18 September AD 14, fully a month after Augustus' death. So, he either reigned in practice from AD 13, or in title from 18 September AD 14. The one date that does not commence his reign is Augustus' death on 19 August AD 14, yet that's the date given here. ðarkun coll 11:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Date of Claudius' accession
Although Claudius was proclaimed emperor by a faction of the army shorty after Caligula's assassination on 24 January AD 41, this was an illegal act not ratified by the Senate until the following day at the earliest. In the meantime the Senate had actually abolished the office of emperor and restored the republic. Claudius' accession was therefore not on 24 January, but either on the 25 or 26 (depending on sources). ðarkun coll 11:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's talk succession and numbering for a second.
The articles on the individual emperors tend to contradict each other in Infoboxes when it comes to who was whose immediate successor or predecessor. One of these days, I will print out this complete list (which I'm pretty sure is accurate, having paid attention in Latin class and various history classes) and rectify those irregularities for good. When I do that, DON'T anyone make the succession boxes all confused and contradicting each other like they are now. Kapiesh?

Yes, there was always a main Emperor, even with Co-Emperors (Vice Emperors as it were) and pretenders. The Tetrarchy (a Co-Emperor for each of 4 regions) existed ONLY under Diocletian, just ask my History 115 Professor, or yours for that matter. Don't give me nonsense about when else you thought it was. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.184.155 (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, ask your History 115 Professor who was the "main Emperor" and who the "Vice Emperor" among Constantine II, Constans and Constantius II. --TakenakaN (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I still run into him sometimes since that class ended, so I just might do that. I'm remembering more from the textbook than from what he himself said when I say the true Tetrarchy was only under Diocletian. Anyway, I might be wrong, but I seem to remember that despite a degree of co-rule, the office theoretically passed from Constantine I to Constans, Constantine II, and Constantius II in that order, each with a fairly brief reign. Then again, those lists may have been rectified based on the order in which their reigns ended, and that can only done in retrospect, even if the earliest such lists were written during Julian's reign. From Julian to Theodosius I is fairly straightforward, with Valentinian II considered a full Emperor, while Valens and Gratian were Co-Emperors under him. Note that unlike Valens (Eastern Co-Emperor), Valentinian II directly ruled the region (West) that included Rome. Valentinian II was then succeeded by Theodosius I in 392.


 * Finally, in 395, Theodosius I partitioned the Roman Empire into 2 new independent countries with the end of his own reign. As no doubt you knew, each country then continued the numbering scheme of the Empire that they both replaced, starting with Honorius in the Western Roman Empire and Arcadius in the Eastern Roman Empire. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.184.155 (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I need strong sources for the orderly succession of Constantine I's sons, as this is the first time I hear something like that. The three sons took power on September 337 on separate parts of the Empire, I do not recall any act, any law that could support a sequence like the one you propose. --TakenakaN (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The scenario outlined by El Willstro is completely wrong-headed. Not even going into the arbitrary, retrospective nature of it, the fact is that Theodosius most certainly did not split the empire up into "2 new independent countries". The only significance of that particular division is that no emperor managed to directly rule both halves again - until Justinian, that is. As had already been the case for some time, the ruler based at Constantinople retained seniority and was the only one with full legislative powers for the whole empire (east and west). ðarkun coll 01:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Just a note: it was not the Eastern Emperor who was the "senior", but the ruler who had been in office for a longer time, often the Eastern one, but sometimes the Western Emperor (see the case of Honorius and Theodosius II). --TakenakaN (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ulpia Severina
The article about Empress Ulpia Severina states that she was briefly a Roman empress regnant in 275. I find this hard to believe but if it's true, shouldn't she be included in the list? Surtsicna (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, that's just a speculation. --TakenakaN (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment re legitimate/usurper definition
The criteria selected for defining the list is rather arbitrary but works well enough except in the case of Vetranio who, going by the criteria, should not have been included since his brief reign was not recognized outside of northern Italy. If a justification can be found by which to include him then Nepotian should as well since he has a stronger claim to legitimacy having been based in Rome and under consent of the Senate.

A stronger model would accept as legitimate all those emperors whose title was recognized in Rome (and/or Constantinople post-395) Rasiel (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Cant seem to find refereance to VICTORIANUS(?) Gallo-Roman Empeor
Have a gallo-Roman coin from Victorianus.Yet,havent been able to loocate this rular in list of Empeoros of Gallo-Roman Empire thanks!SPQRANDRE (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Andre' SND10161121stcent.


 * The emperor on that coin is the emperor Victorinus. There is no emperor "Victorianus".--Tataryn77 (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"For a simplified list, see Concise list..."; "For a more exhaustive list, see Concise list..."
At the top, why is the concise list referenced again? I'm pretty sure the "more exhaustive list including usurpers" should be linked to the correct list, right? 76.185.6.231 (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

General List of Roman Emperors
What happened to the page "General List of Roman Emperors?" It was a useful page, it provided a convenient list of all the Emperors of both Eastern and Western Rome and let the reader see a clear chronology. Now the link just redirects here. I Feel Tired (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Byzantium / Later Roman Emperors (redux)
Why is there such a stigma attached to the rightful heirs of Rome? If we're going to include the Britannic and Gallic Empires, the list should continue until 1453(61). -Chris5369 19:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well we already have a separate list for them. Adam Bishop 06:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems unneccessary. Make that a redirect to here. -Chris5369 17:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Why? Despite their own beliefs (and apparently some current beliefs), it's a completely different empire. Adam Bishop 00:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * And you're basing this on? -Chris5369 06:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, my own knowledge of the Byzantine Empire I suppose. We even have a whole other article for it, because, like, it's a whole other thing. Why not just stick it at the end of the Roman Empire article? Adam Bishop 06:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think we ought to remove those Emperors from this list, even though the argument could be made that they were technically usurpers. But it is a common practice to exclude the Byzantine Emperors from the list of Roman Emperors; it most likely arose from an ancient mistrust in Western Europe with the surviving half of the Empire. The disagreement, however, is over just where to draw the line: state that Diocletian was the first Byzantine emperor? Or would it be Theodoius the Great? Would the last Roman Emperor be Alexander Severus? Some historical accounts assume so. Some accounts end with Constantine the Great, & others end with Romulus Augustulus.


 * Their choices all depend on just which version of the Roman Empire the authors want to look at: the institutions evolved & changed over the centuries. The princeps of Augustus' time was not the emperor of Severus' time, nor was it the Augustus of Constantine I's time, nor the basilleus of the Byzantine Empire. -- llywrch 19:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well said. My point has been, if we are to include these rebel/sucessor states, then why not Constantinople? We list Romulus Augustulus (weak claim at best), but not Zeno, Leo, or Justinian. The Empire evolved, people shouldn't try to deny it. -Chris5369 22:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is less useful for readers to have only one list. At the same time, I think Adam is simply wrong that the eastern Empire was "a whole different empire." At least until 1204, there was full continuity between the old Roman Empire and the eastern Empire. That is not to say that the empire did not drastically change, but there was still continuity. That said, my preference would be to have our lists overlap. This list can give eastern emperors up through Zeno, noting that the list of eastern emperors continues until 1453 and is at List of Byzantine emperors. That list should start with Constantine, and note that it is listing only eastern emperors, and that western emperors continued until 476. Also, the idea that the list of barbarian kings of Italy is a continuation of Roman emperors seems wrong - Odoacer and the Ostrogoths both recognized the (theoretical) authority of the Emperor in Constantinople. It wasn't until the Lombards that you have kings of Italy who do not recognize the suzerainty of "Rome." Rome itself continued to acknowledge the eastern emperors as their sovereign until the 8th century, sort of at least...it's entirely too complicated, isn't it? john k 00:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * History, and human affairs in general, are seldom simple affairs. ;) -Chris5369 03:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * John, isn't that what we have with the lists now? I'm saying we should keep it like that. By the way, Decius has also suggested moving the Byzantine Empire article to Eastern Roman Empire, see Talk:Byzantine Empire if you are interested in a similar topic. (I don't know why I'm getting so flustered over these things, so I apologize for seeming so annoyed both there and here.) Adam Bishop 04:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the list is basically like that, although I wonder why the eastern emperors from 395 to 491 are listed at the bottom as an afterthought. I noticed the Byzantine Empire thing on my watchlist already, you'll see. john k 04:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whether anybody wants to admit or not, the problem (calling it Roman Empire vs calling it Byzantine) stems from the fact that western historians, falling under the influence of the Catholic church (directly or indirectly), began to use the term Byzantine (and have popularized it well) as a way of not recognizing the eastern Roman Empire as a Roman Empire, though objectively speaking, the Empire was a Roman Empire, as it accurately called itself. Whether people realize it or not, calling it Byzantine is a way of bowing your head to the conceits of an antiquated Catholic church. Decius 05:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * And I'm not sure I see your point. English is full of words whose origins are less than honorable, or whose meanings have radically changed over the centuries. Trying to remove these words because of some idea fossilized inside of them can be futile -- & it is in this case.


 * But I'll happily concede this point to you if you first convince the entire US Conservative movement to stop treating "Liberal" as if it something bad, because doing so promotes autocracy over freedom. The Latin liber (whence the word "Liberal") is Latin for "free", "unrestricted", "outspoken", so by your reasoning every time Rush Limbaugh & his ilk rant against Liberals, they are ranting against freedom. -- llywrch 05:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I'm just referring to this one case, not the other rough examples that are not parallel examples. If you like contemporary examples, here is one for you: African-Americans were formerly officially referred to as "Negroes", but now we refer to them as African-Americans (in the United States). "Byzantine" is a derogatory term, just as "nigger" and "negro" is. It originally implied that one does not recognize the Roman heritage of the Empire; also, by referring to the empire by the old pagan name of the city (rather than Constantinople), there is an implication of paganism or loose religion. Decius 05:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * "Negro" is an obsolete word, one which I haven't heard since I was a kid, many years ago; & it was never considered in any way as offensive as "nigger." As for your claim that "Byzantine" is equally as derogatory, you seem to be the only person to hold this POV. A search on Google with the words "Byzantine" & "derogatory" failed to turn up a single statement that "Byzantine" is derogatory. (The 2 words together return a number of hits, but based on Google's algorhythm of ranking results by the proximity of the 2 words, I'd expect this statement to have appeared in the first few pages of results if there were others who expressed this opinion.)


 * I'm sorry that the word "Byzantine" offends you, but it is undeniably part of the English language, & is used primarily to neutrally connote a specific period, place & people. Your claims that it is "derogatory", & that it "conceits of an antiquated Catholic church" increasingly appear to be based on your own personal beliefs. And your statement about the Catholic church is offensive, & does not help your argument. -- llywrch 22:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If I may I'd like to stick my oar in. Firstly, as a practicing Roman Catholic myself I personally don't find offence in the references to the 'catholic church' (though I perceive that there are those who would).  Secondly, the term Byzantine is the generally accepted nomenclature for the empire centred on the city of Byzantium in the same way as Roman is the accepted term for the empire centred on Rome.  The name Byzantium itself, as far as can be ascertained had no derogatory origin - it is thought to be derived from the 7thC BCE Greek founder of the city, Buzas of Megara.  No more offence could be taken at the term Byzantine in its historical context than could be so inferred by using the word Vandal for the Germanic peoples of Dark Age Europe and North Africa merely on the basis of the current usage of the word vandal; likewise one does not refrain from using the word frog when referring to that amphibian merely because that word is in use as a derogatory term for a French person.  --JohnArmagh 22:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to extensively beat out this debate further in Wikipedia for the time being, but I anticipated the comparison to Rome, which is not quite the same thing: the name of Rome was not ceremoniously changed, it remained Rome. On the other hand, the old Thracian name Byzantion (Byzantium in Latin) was officially changed to Nova Roma, then later popularly changed to Constantinople, and this new name was also symbolic of the new Christian era, and also of the birth of the Eastern Roman Empire. And the fact remains that using the old name for the city to apply to the Empire is implying (for most people, subconsciously) paganism, and overtly implying that the Empire is somehow not Roman. Decius 00:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you get that from - "Byzantine" implies Eastern Orthodoxy to me. I suspect that, since so many people use "Byzantium" to refer to the Empire rather than for the ancient city (as I noticed when I once fixed all the links to point to the right places), hardly anyone consciously or subconsciously links "Byzantium" to "paganism." Adam Bishop 02:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is all getting a bit silly. Decius - could you please point to a source that says that the term Byzantine is offensive because it suggests they were Pagans? If you can't, then you are conducting original research, which is not allowed in wikipedia. john k 02:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There was never a "byzantine empire". No contemporary people referred to the medievil roman empire as the "byzantine empire". It was a later invention of western european historians in the 18th century i believe, a french guy, cant remember his name. The list of roman emperors should rightly go from Augustus to Constantine XI in 1453. For the people who say it shouldnt and that it is a "completely different empire" please state at what point the direct continuation of the roman state became a "byzantine empire" and how a Emperor who was called the roman emperor by all his peers suddenly become a byzantine emperor. FInally, somebody said "the term Byzantine is the generally accepted nomenclature for the empire centred on the city of Byzantium in the same way as Roman is the accepted term for the empire centred on Rome" Does he not realise the seat of the western capital was Ravenna, NOT ROME, for almost the last century of existance of the western empire. DOes this make it a "ravennan empire", i think not. What about when Milan was the seat of the emperor before Ravenna, was that a "milanese empire". By separating the roman emperors prior to 476AD from the emperors after that, claiming they ruled a different empire, is baseless and bias history

Does anyone know if there is a wikipedia page with a complete list of Roman Emperors up to 1453AD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.47.34 (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This list is ridiculous. By not going past the Justinian dynasty Wikipedia is basically claiming that the Byzantine Empire had nothing top do with the Roman Empire. Wikipedia seems to think the Roman Empire fell in 476! This should be fixed and Byzantium's place as part of the Roman Empire acknowledged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.77.6 (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. The two lists should be merged. ðarkun coll 23:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

-The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.184.155 (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I added that link as better than nothing, but I wasn't happy about it. It has become a convention to label Western Roman emperors as Roman and Eastern Roman emperors as Byzantine, but it is in no way accurate. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that this discussion (all in small type) which occurred in 2005 never really came to a concensus. Another user in 2008 brought up a good question: Is there a complete list of all of the Roman emperors. Then in 2009 the question as to why this list is incomplete was brought up yet again. This page, which claims to be a list of Roman emperors is incomplete because it only contains the Western emperors. My opinion is that there ought to be a complete listing of all of the emperors of Rome if the list is to be validly called a list of Roman emperors. I understand that there is a separate list of Byzatine emperors. However, that doesn't resolve the question of why this page is called a list of Roman emperors. This list should be expanded to include all Roman Emperors from Agustus Caesar through the last Eastern Roman Emperor who reined until 1453. I can take on the project of making this complete with all emperors of the Roman Empire (Eastern & Western) in the near future. Let me know if anyone has any objections. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * After further thought, due to the size of this page, perhaps a better place to have an "all-inclusive" Roman Emperor list (West + East) could be the Concise list of Roman Emperors page. I'll bring it for discussion there. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that the list follows the Eastern Roman Emperors up to Irene and then switches to Charlemagne is absurd. I quote: "However, she was not recognized by Pope Leo III, who crowned Charlemagne Roman Emperor in 800." And then it goes right down to the last Holy Roman Emperor, who was beaten by Napoleon! I do of course know how the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople played important roles in issues of succession after the Christianization of the Empire, but this is neither the Roman Catholic nor the Christian Orthodox Encyclopedia, it's Wikipedia. The fact that the Pope did not recognize an Emperor should be noted, but if the Eastern Roman Empire is going to be included in the list, it has to follow the Emperors through the Latin Empire, the three successor states, and eventually right down to Constantine the Eleventh, disregarding what this or that bishop thought. Gennadius accepted a position in the new Ottoman government of Sultan Mehmed the Second, who assumed the title of "Caesar of the Romans." Should the Sultan be counted as well? Either have a list of Roman Emperors going down to the last one to rule the Western portion, or, better yet, have a concise list of Roman Emperors going from Augustus to Constantine Palaiologus. --CHTZ (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but after Irene, it was the Western Emperors that were recognized universally. The Greek Emperor Michael I recognized Charlemagne as Emperor in 814. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.0.112.152 (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As Emperor of the Franks, not of the Romans. The Eastern Roman Emperor wouldn't just say, "OK, you're the boss out West, so I might as well scamper back into my hole and just pretend that the Eastern half of the Empire has not been the whole Empire since the Roman Senate recognized the sole Imperial authority of the Constantinople court." At its core, the issue is about two quarreling bishops, and there was nothing universal about it. In the days of Charlemagne, of course, the restoration of the complete Roman Empire through the union of the slowly declining Eastern Roman Empire with the new power in Western Europe was still a political aim. But Pope and Patriarch drove East and West apart irreparably, and historians have inherited this conceit of the Eastern Empire not being the Roman Empire as a result of what the Popes cultivated: that the Emperor in Constantinople was a schismatic usurper. The Patriarchs were more than reciprocal in their hatred, and here we are. The truth is that Constantinople inherited the Imperium Romanum whole, and everyone called the people of the Eastern Empire Romans until long after Constantinople had fallen. If the Holy Roman Emperors are listed, it's ridiculous not to list the Eastern Roman Emperors. --CHTZ (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to chime in by suggesting that, since now we have a list of all of the emperors of Rome including all of both the Western and Eastern Emperors, this list has been made fairly redundant. Maybe we could consider merging any information not in the general list of Roman emperors on both this page and the list of Byzantine Emperors into the general list of Roman emperors and deleting the two separate lists? I Feel Tired (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For the unsigned commentator's benefit, I would like to add that not even Charles himself claimed to be the ruler of the Roman Empire (or, "the Empire" as he would have most likely understood it). Here are two ways he styled himself: "Karolus serenissimus augustus a Deo coronatus magnus pacificus imperator Romanum gubernans imperium qui et per misericordiam Dei rex Francorum et Langobardorum, and, in a letter to the Eastern Emperor Michael Rhangaves from 812: "Karolus, divina largiente gratia imperator et augustus, idemque rex Francorum et Langobardorum, (dilecto et honorabili fratri Michaeli glorioso imperatori et Augusto)." Notice how laboriously Charles made sure to tiptoe around the fact that he had been crowned "Roman Emperor" so as not to endanger his relationship with the Eastern Emperor, as the validation of the Augustus and Imperator titles rested on recognition by Constantinople. His strategy worked, and he was recognized as a "vasileus" by Michael. Going through the bibliography and the sources will leave you no doubts about the fact that Charlemagne did not want at any point to supplant the authority of the legitimate Roman Emperor in Constantinople.––CHTZ (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I would heartily second that notion. Failing such a simplifying merger, it seems clear to me that the title of this particular entry needs to change, as it only covers Roman emperors through 518.  To take the position, as some have on this talk page, that Emperor's thereafter are not Roman is both contrary to contemporary scholarly opinion (it is consistent with 18th and 19th century opinion, however) and takes a side in a popular controversy, which wikipedia, per force, should avoid. TheCormac (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not inconsistent with contemporary scholarship, which recognizes that while periodization is always arbitrary, and time doesn't actually come with borders, it's impractical not to focus on units that can be studied coherently. Of course there is a transitional period in the Eastern Empire. But when the capital is no longer Rome, the religion is no longer the "religion of Numa", and the "language of power" is no longer Latin, a different body of knowledge is required to make sense of the culture conventionally called "Byzantine". Those of us who trained as classicists, who studied ancient Greek and Latin and the texts and material culture of classical antiquity, are not equipped to make sense of Constantinople in 1200, as is true vice versa for medievalists. Ths same scholars who write about the reign of Augustus or Marcus Aurelius do not in fact write about the Komnenos dynasty. Why? Because they require such a different knowledge base. The culture of Imperial Rome under Trajan differs so dramatically from that of the medieval Byzantine court that it simply makes no sense to present and study them together. Annalistic succession and titular claims are extremely limited ways to approach these complex civilizations. Look at the Ara Pacis and look at the mosaics at Hagia Sophia: how on earth can these be said to be products of the same cultural milieu? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But legally it was still the Roman Empire, and it's rulers continued unbroken from the same line of Roman Emperors. Even if massive changes did occur in the nearly 2 millenniums of the existence of the Roman State, that doesn't mean that it's not still the same entity. I Feel Tired (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Saloninus as legitimate emperor
Is there any evidence that Saloninus was in 260 after his usurpation officially accepted as Augustus by the Roman Senate and thus became legitimate emperor ? During the Principate, the recognition by the Senate was a condition for becoming legitimate emperor bearing the title Augustus. Even also in the situation when a man was natural son of ruling legitimate emperor (in this case Gallienus) and himself had already held title Caesar. If no such evidence exists, we should remove Saloninus from this list of legitimate emperors such as e.g. Pescennius Niger or Clodius Albinus, who are for this very reason not placed in this list.Lucullus19 (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

"Byzantine" emperors should be listed as Roman emperors
- Byzantine Empire's native name was the Roman Empire - Odoacer sent crown of Western Roman Emperor to Eastern Roman Emperor - They used regnal numbers of the Roman Empire - There is no evidence that it fall before 1204, so there is no foundation of the Byzantine Empire - Abandoning Latin to Greek doesn't effect the title - The Eastern emperor was considered the senior emperor - Professors agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locavag (talk • contribs) 23:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The proper place to list Eastern emperors is List of Byzantine emperors. All the data you wanted to place here is already posted there. I absolutely see no reason to duplicate material, not to mention merging this article with List of Byzantine emperors. If we do that, we can also merge Holy Roman Emperor here, and that would be truly ridiculous... Also, this article explain why it list Eastern emperors only up to the 7th century. By the way, even your timeline shows emperors only up to that period. I'm letting other users to say what they think on this issue. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean this: "The listing of the Eastern Emperors in this article ends at the start of the 7th century with Maurice, last of the Justinian dynasty, whose reign concludes the final era of Late Antiquity." That's idiotic, period is the reason? So you think there should be different title for every period? So now list of popes goes 33 A.D to present, and that includes Classical antiquity, Middle Ages, Early modern period and Long nineteenth century, so with that we you think we should make four different list of popes and give everyone ahistorical names. Also from the your link, I gathered this: "All Byzantine emperors regarded themselves as "Roman Emperors," the term "Byzantine" being coined by Western historiography in the 16th century. The use of the title "Roman Emperor" became contested after the Papal coronation of the Frankish Charlemagne as "Holy Roman Emperor" (25 December 800 CE), done partly in response to the Byzantine coronation of Empress Irene, whose claim, as a woman, was not recognized by Pope Leo III." I didn't find part that "explain why it list Eastern emperors only up to the 7th century." What I quoted earlier would explain list would be only to 800 A.D, but it isn't and about the Holy Roman Emperors… For starters Pope Leo III didn't crown Charlemagne as "the Holy Roman Emperor", he crowned him as "Emperor of the Romans", title "Holy Roman Emperor" that was granted to Otto I was different, both of these titles are different from title "Roman Emperor" that Emperor in Constantinople called him/herself. So just to bear titles and their meaning: Byzantine Emperor - Title made up 19th century historian to portray late period of the Roman Emperors. Never created/claimed by anyone. Emperor of the Greeks - Used by Western Christian in later centuries from Roman Emperors. Never created/claimed by anyone. Holy Roman Emperor - De jure title granted by Pope John XII to King of Germany Otto I in 962 A.D to replace Emperor of the Romans, and obtain certain borders of the empire. Roman Emperor - Title created by Augustus who became de facto emperor as a result of the 'first settlement' between himself and the Roman Senate in 27 B.C it was held by over one hundred and fifty emperors between years 27 B.C and 1453 A.D, title was shared with multiple emperors during Tetrarchy and 395-476 A.D. So you think still think "This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."  Are as legit as "Byzantine Emperors". For starters title of Roman Emperor was never destroyed, when Odoacer ended Western Roman Empire (who junior empire btw), Eastern half was only thing left and was as legit as it was during 27 B.C Than we're getting to what Pope did, for starters Pope's title was equal to King's and king doesn't have authority to crown kings to emperors, but this isn't even a debate, it's a fact and you're just refusing to admit it even if all the evidence proofs you otherwise, just thinks about it if university professors agree that it's true how can you disagree? Title that was never created, never existed.  If you really want to make justice for term "Byzantine" I suggest following:  List of post 7th emperors to 1453 is added below section Eastern Roman Emperors and called Byzantine Emperors, List of Byzantine Emperors is deleted. About the timeline, how're you even referencing it against me? I made it from 27 B.C to 602 A.D, to make it match with current article, than I decided to correct the list, so article had Roman emperors from 27 B.C to 1453 A.D and timeline of Roman Emperors from 27 B.C to 602 A.D, so it was bit of out date, but it still served purpose, so when you undo it back to 27 B.C to 602 A.D you didn't have any reason to take the timeline that is accurate with 27 B.C to 602 A.D out,  so what's your excuse for it?  And I've expanded it from 602 A.D to 1453 A.D.Locavag (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This article list emperors from the founding of the Empire, up to Maurice, because his reign is considered the end of Late Antiquity. That is not "idiotic", but correct - if we use your logic, we need to merge Byzantine Empire with Roman Empire, which is totally ridiculous to even mention. In the first centuries of its existence, Byzantine Empire followed Roman customs, etc but in the later centuries and at its end it was clearly something much different than the original Roman Empire. Not to mention Russian emperors, who also considered themselves as "heirs of the Roman Empire" (the "Third Rome" concept), and even Ottoman sultans (by virtue of their conquest of Constantinople). The current version is also practical - your preferred list is extremely large, and very hard to navigate... I'm letting other users, with much more knowledge on the matter than myself, to decide whether we need separate lists for Roman and Byzantine emperors. I'm convinced we do. As for your timeline, I removed it with the rest of your edits and I'm ready to put back timeline from 27 B.C to 602 A.D. although I don't see why that timeline is relevant (article looked good so far without it). I don't think we need it. --Sundostund (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It is absurd to separate into two lists the rulers of a single, continuous state. The state evolved, certainly, but so do all states. To relegate a millennium of fully legitimate Roman Emperors to a different page is simply perpetuating the biases of early modern Europe. The Holy Roman, Ottoman and Russian Empires are all red herrings. Whatever their pretensions might have been, they were different states. ðarkun coll 23:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Historians separate Rome and Byzantium for the good reason that tackling them as if they were one thing is too complicated. It's not reader friendly and it's not condusive to discussion. While it might make sense in terms of 'truth' to put the two lists together, it's not really going to improve anything. We're just gonna end up with a really big list of names that stretch two distinct time periods. It's simpler for readers and editors to keep them separate. On the other hand, a list of people who've held the title Emperor of Rome/the Romans(?), might be useful but that would include a lot of people.Lord0fHats (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The trouble is, historians can never decide exactly where to separate the two lists, for the very good reason that there is no actual break. Here's a question: was Britain ever part of the Byzantine Empire? It was if you start the list with Constantine, which just shows up the absurdity of the situation. As has been pointed out already, we don't separate the list of Popes into two or more, just because they run over two or more distinct time periods, e.g. Antiquity and the Middle Ages. And the Popes are an even bigger list. ðarkun coll 16:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the list should not be expanded to include everyone who ever called themselves Roman Emperor. That would result in an unfocused and sprawling article.  For instance, the rulers of the Romanian Empire called themselves Roman Emperor but were entirely unconnected with either the Western or Eastern empire both culturally and genealogically.  Personally, I would include on the list only those who were actually emperor of Rome (that is, I  would truncate at Romulus Augustulus) but the usual way of settling this kind of issue on Wikipedia is to look at what reliable sources do.  Here is what I got from book sources on gbooks,


 * {|class=wikitable width=100%

!Title!!Publication date!!Begins!!Ends!!Range
 * From Rome to Byzantium||width=10%|1998||Augustus||Anastasius I||31 BC–518
 * Who's who in the Roman World||2002||Augustus||Jovian||27 BC–364
 * Encyclopedia of Roman Empire||2008||Augustus||Zeno||27 BC–491
 * A Pocket Dictionary of Roman Emperors||2006||Augustus||Romulus Augustulus||27 BC–476
 * A History of the Roman Emperors||1825||Augustus||Constantine XI||28 BC–1453
 * }
 * A Pocket Dictionary of Roman Emperors||2006||Augustus||Romulus Augustulus||27 BC–476
 * A History of the Roman Emperors||1825||Augustus||Constantine XI||28 BC–1453
 * }
 * A History of the Roman Emperors||1825||Augustus||Constantine XI||28 BC–1453
 * }


 * I am not putting forward any of these as being the most authoritative. They are simply those books which allow preview and include a list of "Roman Emperors".  I offer it here as data for discussion.  Spinning  Spark  05:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This just shows that no one can decide where to make the completely arbitrary break. Furthermore, when the two lists are presented separately, there is always an overlap, since lists of "Byzantine" Emperors often start with Constantine. We should also note that the List of Roman consuls makes no such break. ðarkun coll 16:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, at the very least there ought to be a note at the end of the list about the arbitrariness of the end of the list, although I actually would support including all of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine emperors there. A 2011 book by James J. O'Donnell, a professor at Georgetown University, directs readers to the following website (hosted by Loyola University Chicago) for a full list of Roman Emperors (up to 1453): The Imperial Index: The Rulers of the Roman Empire From Augustus to Constantine XI Palaeologus. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We might have a better/simpler/more convenient/more easily defined split if we say "After Diocletian, only the Western Emperors are listed here". Granted, I'd prefer that we include everyone until Constantine the Last, but if we don't include all those who were βασιλεύς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ Ῥωμαίων, we'd probably do best to cut it off as the Empire is split.  Should we make such a decision, we'll have no possible dispute over when to stop including people, since pretty much nobody disagrees on who was Western Emperor or who was Eastern Emperor at a given time.  Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If our articles are split into Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire, it follows that the list of emperors should be divided in the same way. I oppose this proposal. AGK  [•] 15:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia also has articles on the Principate and the Dominate, two different phases in the history of the empire, but the list of emperors is not split to take account of this, and nor should it be. The existence of a series of articles simply allows for a more detailed account. ðarkun coll 23:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * AGK, we have an article on the Western Roman Empire as well, but it doesn't mean that we should exclude those emperors from this list for that reason (although the suggestion by Nyttend above about cutting off this list when the empire is split under Diocletian is interesting). AmateurEditor (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Splitting the list at Diocletian would create a real mess. What do we do with the three sons of Constantine, for example, who divided the empire between them into three parts? In actual fact, in Roman law the state was never divided. One of the emperors - usually, but not always, the one residing in Constantinople - was the senior emperor, and only he had the power to issue legislation, and did so for the whole empire, not just the part under his direct administration. ðarkun coll 12:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I know it's a little late, but I agree with Locavag and TharkunColl. Any distinction drawn between "Byzantine" and "Roman" is completely artificial and if we were draw distinctions between the rulers of what were legally one state, we should also separate the Roman into separate articles for the Dominate and Principate, and Byzantium into separate articles for pre and post Fourth Crusade. You know, there used to be a really nice article titles "General List of Roman Emperors," that solved a lot of these issues. Whatever happened to that article? Either way, I support this proposal.I Feel Tired (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it should be noted that the equivalent page for Roman Empresses also provides a complete list of Byzantine Empresses . If we do not list Byzantine Emperors together with Roman Emperors, why list their wives together? For the record, I think that this page should include a complete list of Byzantine rulers. JCKaine (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, so I decided to be bold and make the change. I Feel Tired (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Woman emperors
Thanks to anonymous edits on 24 May 2015‎ (by 142.129.141.105) and 28 July 2015‎ (by 96.237.232.169), the article now states that Roman emperors includes "men and, very rarely, women". With respect to women, I'm afraid this is just untrue, at least in the classical period. If we're thinking of Zenobia, she actually proves the opposite as she was nominally her son's regent (and only in a breakaway eastern section). Are we calling Elagabalus a trans-woman? I don't think that would withstand scrutiny either. If we're thinking of Byzantine empresses regnant, like Irene and Theodora, well, fair enough, but we probably should put a disclaimer on that, since (rightly or wrongly) many historians and lay people don't think of Byzantine (= mediaeval) as Roman (= ancient). Better still, why not do away with the gendered language? I'll see what I can do in that regard. Q·L·1968 ☿ 22:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Claudius Gothicus or Aurelian?
I think it would be helpful to at least alert readers to the possibility that the bronze bust currently listed in the table next to Claudius Gothicus may actually depict Aurelian. It's one of six bronze busts found beneath the Capitoline temple in Brescia, *two* of which have been generally identified as Claudius II based on what we know of his appearance from coins. The identification has been disputed, though, because of how similarly the two emperors are depicted on coins, how different the two busts are, and because of the apparent illogic of preserving two busts of Claudius beneath the temple and not one of Aurelian (all the other busts evidently depict different emperors - no doubles). There's a ton of bust confusion on the internet, as I'm sure many of you have noticed, and I thought it'd be a good idea to attempt to clear this one small dispute up. Any thoughts?

PlautusCincinnatus (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Jovian
In cause of death for Jovian it states that he died of natural causes, suffocation on fumes. There seems to be a general consensus among both Late Roman Sources (Ammianus Marcellinus ) and modern historians (David Potter, among others)that this is false and that his death was almost certainly either assasination or suicide in the aftermath of the Persian Campaign and its related peace. Thoughts? Zachary Hawson (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Roman emperors. 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/20120831060912/http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/ to http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/

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) 07:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

31 The Majority of Europe
"The empire was developed as the Roman Republic invaded and occupied the majority of Europe." I didn't know the Europe were numbered. How many were they? DavidLJ (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably in square Roman miles, or, today, in square kilometers. The empire was tri-continental, as the continents are usually defined, in that it also included much of northern Africa and parts of western Asia.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * However, the majority of Europe (to the Urals) was never part of the empire - no Scandanavia, Germany, or any part of Europe north/east of the Danube (with a couple of small exceptions.)50.111.46.18 (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Moving the date ranges to the beginning of the dynasty subsection headers
I would like to move the year ranges in the dynasty subsection headers back to the beginning of the headers (for example, "Leonid dynasty (457–518)" would again become "(457–518) Leonid dynasty"), but because it was reverted I want to get some feedback here first. Putting the years first was enacted with this edit on December 28, 2016 and the years were moved to the end of the headers with this edit on December 10, 2017. I think it is better to have the years first for the following reasons: AmateurEditor (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC) I'll give this a few more days. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * the list is arranged chronologically and with the years put first they will become aligned visually in the table of contents, which makes it easier to scan the table of contents for a year you are interested in, or see any year gaps or overlaps,
 * it makes this page consistent with List of Roman and Byzantine Empresses,
 * it serves to visually unify the sections "The Principate", "The Dominate", and "Eastern/Byzantine emperors" in the table of contents to convey the idea of continuity between them, rather than the sharp breaks implied by having the separate sections.
 * Done. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Era style
Apologies for jumping the gun with this edit. As observes, this is a matter that should be discussed here first. I prefer the Common Era style (BCE/CE) to the BC/AD style, but would not argue against the consensus. Whichever is more common now among current classical scholarship is probably better. There are other editors here who can attest better than me to which is used more. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * you've been doing great work standardizing the table formatting and thank you so much for that. I think the BC/AD style for dates is most appropriate for this article for historical reasons, but I will also support whatever consensus is arrived at here. Please note that the BC/AD style is the first style used by a major contributor to the article (it was used in the first edit to the article back in 2001), so it should be the default style absent a new consensus, per MOS:NUM ("Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."). AmateurEditor (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments! Well, if no one else picks up on this, I'm quite happy to let this one lie. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Addition of junior co-emperors in the Byzantine period
Is there any case for adding a junior co-Augustus who did not rule in their own right, using the WITH format? I'm thinking of the likes of Theodosius (son of Maurice), who could be listed in the same cell as Maurice (emperor), along the precedent of Herennius Etruscus listed in the cell with Decius (as well as many other listed in this way during the classical period)? —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of consistency thoughout the list I would be for this, if junior emperors are listed before 476 they should also be listed afterwards. The only thing I could think of that would speak against this is that the entries for some emperors might become a bit cluttered; both Romanos I and Michael VII had three co-emperors each. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree we should be consistent, but we have a variety of options. List of Presidents of the United States uses a separate column to list Vice Presidents in the same row as the Presidents they served under and includes multiple Vice Presidents in the same row (see the row for Thomas Jefferson, for example). That could work here. Another option would be to differentiate the junior emperors with a different color. The Finnish version of this article does this to distinguish ruling emperors, usurpers, and Caesars. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The difficulty with a separate column is that for most of the period pre-286, there were very few junior Emperors or co-Emperors, so that there would be empty cells. I wouldn't particularly favour giving a distinct row to co-Emperors, as their time holding the title is very much linked to that of their father, as it was in most of the instances where they did not succeed. But I'm open to all options here. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

For comparison's sake, here is how the entry for Romanos I and his co-emperors would look with 1) the current format used for the classical emperors (maybe it isn't too cluttered?);

and 2) with separate and distincly colored rows for his co-emperors (on a side-note it does appear like Stephen Lekapenos reigned for a few weeks as senior emperor before being overthrown, should he be added in an entry of his own?);

One downside of doing the method with new rows is that a lot of the co-emperors are obscure figures with not much known and many of them completely lack images whatsoever to use (though this is not the case for the sons of Romanos) and that we'd need to apply this format to the classical emperors as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for laying out the options clearly I much prefer the former option. Including them reflect the formality that they were named as Augustus, but including them within the reigns of their father (as it usually was), reflects the de facto reality that they did not rule in their own right. It also reflects most lists used, where their reign is dated from the death of their predecessor in the case of those who did rule in their own right.
 * If we do adopt this model, is there a slight anomaly in how Caracalla and Geta are dated. Should we then date them from the death of Septimius Severus in February 211, but note in the Succession box that they had been named as co-Augustus by their father at earlier dates? —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I prefer option 1 as well. As for the anomaly with Geta and Caracalla, I also noticed a similar anomaly with Honorius and Arcadius, dated beginning with 393 and 383 respectively (rather than 395, the death of their father and senior emperor). Emperors should probably be dated beginning with them becoming senior emperor (where applicable), not since they were proclaimed as Augustus, since that is how most lists do it (academic or otherwise), but it would also be wortwhile to include information on how long they were co-emperors prior to becoming senior emperors (seeing as this was often very important for assuming the "throne"). I did add in "co-emperor since..." under "succession" in a number of the Byzantine emperors when I was standardizing the format for the last few dynasties and something like that could be applied to the earlier emperors as well.
 * Another question; in many cases co-emperors died before their fathers, or long after them in exile, during Byzantine times (often a big reason for them not succeeding to rule in their own right), so their "reigns" do not necessarily completely overlap (in the case of Stephen Lekapenos he actually was senior emperor for a few weeks after overthrowing his father but he is for some reason considered just a co-emperor?). Should this be reflected under "reign", "succession" or "death"? I saw that the entry for Licinius puts all co-emperor information under "succession" whilst the entry for Magnus Maximus has the information on his co-emperor Victor's death in the normal "death". Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the dates of these various co-emperorships be given (where known), perhaps in reduced size font? TharkunColl (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So (using Romanos I as an example again, now with co-emperor information added) something like this?

Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, as long as it's clear to whom the dates belong. TharkunColl (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added all the Byzantine co-emperors, this format should be okay and the content added could easily be modified if there was something I missed or got wrong. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding a column with small map images?
Would it be possible to add a column on the right side with small images showing the territorial extent of the empire associated with the emperor, like this example? AmateurEditor (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, but considering that we then need territorial maps for each of the ~200 rulers (which isn't the case right now, particularly in the "byzantine" period) I don't think it's feasible at the moment. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Augusti, augustae, and Co-emperors in earlier imperial period.
The lead of the article does not give a word to the title augustus but makes vague reference to "the full imperial title". It also makes reference to the reforms of Diocletian, but not a word (or link) on the Tetrarchy. As I understand it, "the full imperial title" ought to be augustus; some mention of caesar ought to be clarified early as well. There are many instances of co-emperorship and the granting of caesar and other junior imperial titles, from the early empire on, including lots of imperial heirs that predeceased their seniors. Some discussion of this in the lead would not go amiss.

The lead should probably also make reference to the female counterpart of the emperors, the augustae, about whom not a word in the introduction (and there could be multiple augustae). Obviously, as Rome's religio-legal paterfamilias, an emperor needed a materfamilias and chief of the Roman matronae.

I know it's complicated, but I also think the "co-emperor with ..." comments in the comments section are obscured by the processional, linear format which makes it look as though Geta came after Caracalla, which is a bit silly since Geta was only an emperor before and during Caracalla's reign, and so on. I propose the format used in the Byzantine period tables be moved to the earlier periods as well; there's no indication, for instance, that Constantius III was co-emperor with Honorius, Valentian III was made caesar by Arcadius, Constantine was co-emperor with Crispus and then his other sons, Maximin Daia (and the other Tetrarchs) was never sole emperor as rather implied &c., &c. GPinkerton (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that "the full imperial title" doesn't have to mean augustus (are we forgetting basileus?). Making clearer what the full imperial title is would be good, I agree. I've been working on an article on Roman imperial titles for a while but progress has been slow since I've been busy elsewhere but the point is that the full imperial title changed throughout the centuries. For Augustus himself the imperial title would probably be princeps right? In the really early empire germanicus nearly eclipsed augustus as the most important title of the emperors. I also agree that it is a bit confusing that Geta is listed before Caracalla (and similar cases) but this is a structural necessity and convenience. The reason they aren't grouped together like the Byzantine co-emperors is because Wikipedia has to follow what other sources says (not necessarily the actual "political truth" of the time) - both Geta and Caracalla are often counted as "full emperors" while Byzantine junior co-emperors often aren't, this is reflected in the structure of the list. As for mentioning the augustae in the introduction, consorts usually aren't brought up in the introductions of articles listing monarchs but I would not object if you decided to add it in. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My point about augustus was really that the junior emperors/co-emperors who wore the title caesar are not included on this page, even though they were most certainly emperors and are addressed as imperator and DN in inscriptions. All the augusti are. The imperial title was always geminate in its ideal form, just as the consulship was - what's the sense of including the Byzantine Caesars when the Roman ones aren't, not even for the Tetrarchy? I'm intrigued by your argument that: this is a structural necessity and convenience. How is it convenient to exclude the holders of the junior imperial office? And:The reason they aren't grouped together like the Byzantine co-emperors is because Wikipedia has to follow what other sources says (not necessarily the actual "political truth" of the time) - both Geta and Caracalla are often counted as "full emperors" while Byzantine junior co-emperors often aren't. Often when? What sources, by whom? And: really? Even in the Tetrarchy!? I agree that excluding usurpers and so on is all very well, but excluding all the earlier caesares when the Byzantine ones are included is just bizarre. As I have tried to express, the augustae were not just consorts; mothers and daughters of emperors were sometimes so elevated, not being limited to one at a time (Constantine's mother, wife, and daughter were all augustae) and there is the question of what status the augusta Pulcheria had, being more or less the female heir and briefly regnant in her own right. What are these sources you refer to that justify the splitting of co-emperorships to present the appearance of a strict monarchy in the Principate but an imperial college in the Byzantine period? GPinkerton (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh yes and basileus is not the full imperial title for much of this list. A first century emperor would insulted with such demeaning language. Basileis ruled little provinces like Judaea or Thrace or Numidia then, kings at the beck and call of emperors. Greeks called the earlier emperors sebastos but that doesn't continue after Constantine, so Augustus and its Greek transliteration must be the "emperors" referred to in the title, since all the emperors who were mere caesares are excluded. GPinkerton (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, so a couple points:
 * 1) Can you name some examples of junior-co emperors with the title caesar but not augustus that still used imperator and DN?
 * 2) Byzantine caesares included? Where? Byzantine junior emperors are included, yes, because they had the title basileus just like the senior emperors but caesares? Here are just some of the Byzantine caesares that are excluded from the list: Alexios Angelos Philanthropenos, Manuel Angelos Philanthropenos, Bardas, Theodore Branas (made caesar by the Latin Empire) and Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger. Byzantine junior emperors are included the same way that Roman junior emperors are (without full entries but mentioned nonetheless).
 * 3) With "this is a structural necessity and convenience" I was referring to the situation with Geta and Caracalla and similar cases. They ruled together yes, but neither of them were "more senior" than the other - they were equals - and they are often counted as such in modern sources. The relation in power between Geta and Caracalla is not the same as say, the relation in power between Basiliscus and Marcus where one is clearly junior to the other and usually left out of modern lists of Roman emperors.
 * 4) Because Wikipedia is not built on the truth per se, but on what reliable sources say, we have to follow other lists of Roman emperors when making ours. The emperors who get "full entries" here are the ones who are usually counted in such lists, and junior emperors mentioned together with them are office-holders with the same titles that were junior to whoever else was reigning at the time. I don't know why you interpret this as symbolizing some form of imperial college.
 * 5) I'm well aware that women often held considerable power in the Roman (and at times the Byzantine) world but they are still ultimately consorts to the monarch at the time (with some exceptions such as Pulcheria, Irene, Zoe and the Theodoras). There is already a List of Roman and Byzantine Empresses (though it could do with a bit of an upgrade) and if you look at other lists of monarchs on Wikipedia you'll see that consorts are rarely given much of a mention in the introduction, regardless of the power they had. But as I said, if you want them to be mentioned in the lede, that's fine by me. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Byzantine title of Caesar was a "senior court title", but no longer used by the Emperors. It was granted to 1) second- and third-born sons, 2) politically influential relatives of the Emperor, 3) rulers of allied states, such as Bulgaria and Georgia, 4) courtiers ranking below the titles of Sebastokrator and despot, 5) prominent nobles, and 6) rulers of the Balkans, such as the princes of Vlachia, Serbia and Thessaly. Dimadick (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is why I questioned the idea that Byzantine holders of the title Caesar are included in the list. They aren't... Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Kazdan says that Caesar as a non-imperial title was only instituted after Alexios I. It was used by plenty of Byzantine emperors.
 * As I say, there were several augustae that were never imperial consorts, not least Saint Helena, and their titles were not about power so much as being the Republic's chief woman of the state (or women), which distinguishes them from the mediaeval and other queens. Notably, D.N. applied in some instances to augustae. I describe it as an imperial college because the PMBz, among many others, describes it as such, notwithstanding the explicit use of the term in Tetrachic times. Does this list need to be based on other lists? Why can't we simply use the ordinary reliable sources? The case of Geta and Caracalla especially shows that they probably need to be counted in the same row, as joint emperors (like the Byzantine co-emperors are and the Tetrarchs conspicuously aren't), since the current layout makes it look as though Geta succeeded Caracalla, which is nearly the opposite of what happened. Geta was only ever emperor with Caracalla, during Caracalla's tenure. When I spoke of the later Byzantine caesars, I was being inexact; what I mean is that the co-emperors of the Roman period - the casares - are not properly indicated, as they are in the later sections, and neither are the augusti. Leo II, for instance, was a caesar and co-emperor of Leo I. Constantine, from this list, ruled alone, rather than as the senior emperor of as many as four others or as junior emperor in an earlier set of four. The caesar Crispus does not appear at all. Constans son of Constantine III, does not appear, and neither does Basilicus, made caesar by Zeno, or Gallus, co-emperor with Constantius II and Julian. Licinius son of Licinius appears nowhere, but Maximin Daia, who never went near Rome or achieved anything like nominally uncontested control of even half the empire gets a whole row to himself as though he were sole augustus, a title he gave himself! Junior emperors referred to as D.N. include: the aforementioned Crispus and Marcus son of Basilicus, as well as Licinius II, Constans I, Valentianian III, and doubtless others. GPinkerton (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Julian is known to have used dominus noster as caesar, before assuming the augustus title, as is Constantine himself, his father, &c. GPinkerton (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Could this list do with a format upgrade which better indicates co-emperor relationships? Yes. Should those changes be what you suggest? No. "Does this list need to be based on other lists" is the fundamental flaw here - yes it needs to be. It isn't a 100 % based on other lists at the moment, which lowers its quality and violates Wikipedia principles. The Augustae (with the exceptions of the ones that actually ruled - e.g. Pulcheria, Irene, etc.) are never included in such lists in the same way as the full-on emperors. Geta and Caracalla are always included as full emperors in their own right, junior emperors such as Marcus son of Basilicus or the Byzantine junior emperors never are and those who never used the title Augustus at all (e.g. Licinius II and Crispus) are extremely rarely (if at all) included. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not proposing that any more women be added to the list than are there now (and I'm not really sure why Justinian's Theodora counts). I propose that the junior emperors be added and the Tetrarchy and Constantinians especially be reformed. Can you point to some specific Wikipedia policy that demands lists like these be based specifically on other lists? I suspect this idea is spurious. I'd also like to point out that the sources cited (thinly) for this article are all of them non-specialist works, at least one of which, by the way, the Timeline of Roman Emperors, happens to include lots of women known to have issued coins! Why are we to exclude sources like the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, the Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, the PMBz, and the PLRE? GPinkerton (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect a lot of what we are disagreeing on in the case of this list is actually based on me misunderstanding you and you misunderstanding me. Justinian's Theodora shouldn't be on this list, no. Neither should the earlier Ulpia Severina, these are the problems I'm talking about that arises when this list is not based on other cited lists (Wikipedia is as you know built on citing reliable sources, not on original research) - keeping rulers in this list that are left out of lists elsewhere would be going against policy. I've been slowly working on a format update which better takes into account co-regencies and clearly cites overarching lists for each period and individual information on each emperor, over at User:Ichthyovenator/List of Roman emperors. If you're interested in improving the format and content of this list, we can continue our discussion there and maybe collaborate on some points. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that none of the sources used (or cited) so far is really what qualifies as a reliable source, still less the internet lists. I would suggest that the sources I mentioned are much more reliable and authoritative that the ones hitherto cited. They have more exact dates, for example, and have been academically peer reviewed. The lists mentioned at the foot of the article are ... not. Also, another point is that the German version of this page (not so attractive a format) lists a great many more ephemeral emperors than does this page, which if nothing else makes it easier as a reference to use with Ctrl+F (note the unfortunate search mentioned by a user on this page that came looking for Crispus). It also has a lot of titles and epithets, which is interesting, if bulky.
 * I looked at that draft and I quite like it, although the column with co-rulers should be further over to the left, for visibility. I also think that dates ought not be rounded up to the year as they appear to be at present. We have quite specific dates for many of them, dates which would be useful on this page as a reference, especially the (if different) dates at which the men became caesar and augustus. This was and important part of the state and it ought not to be left out for the sake of conformity with other periods in the list! Otherwise the form looks good, though missing a good many co-augusti of east and west. Then there is the question of how to differentiate the western and eastern caesares; if the co-augusti are listed, should the co-caesares be paired? So, Licinius II would be paired with Crispus under both Constantine I and Licinius (at least, until their resumption of hostilities after 324), Galerius would be paired with Constantius under Diocletian (just like in their portraits!) and under Maximian Maxentius would be listed separately to the Diocletianic tetrarchs, Maximinus would be listed with Severus under Galerius, and so on. (Obviously they should retain their separate rows, but each augustus's co-rulers, junior and equal, should appear under their entry. GPinkerton (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources: yes I agree that the sources cited in the current article are not good - this is one of the problems I am hoping to fix with my draft (note that each broad section - Principate, Crisis of the Third Century, Dominate and Eastern cites lists in reliable sources for which emperors to include and which to not include and that there is a new ref-column for each entry - not yet filled for most of them). Do your supplied sources include full lists of emperors? I'm aware of the German version but as you say, unattractive format and it lists usurpers and claimants (which I don't think we should). The titles are interesting but it's something I've removed completely in the draft I'm working on as they are hard to implement in a non-bulky and consistent form (as it is, this article picks and chooses which titles to represent and can't do it consistently).
 * The draft is of course an early work-in-progress (most of the emperors have yet to get full on entries or even by placed into tables yet); the date problem you mention is something I'm meaning to fix (each emperor should of course have the most precise dates possible). If you think emperors are missing in the draft you are more than welcome to tell me which ones. You touch on an important issue; the list doesn't just need to represent the succession of emperors in a factual manner (or at least a manner that corresponds to the sources cited) - it also needs to be readable and (hopefully) look good. That's why I think the East-West emperors should get separate entries in the list (though indicated with color or through some other method as an eastern or western ruler), that makes listing their co-emperors and caesares easier and makes the whole thing look less cluttered.
 * On having the co-ruler column further to the left, I don't think that's a hugely important issue. It's where it is right now since many emperors did not have any co-rulers at all and I don't think having so many empty spaces to the far left would look good. This is again part of the appearance and readability versus representation of information problem. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes the new bibliography is much better - but seems the PLRE and PMBz are missing and these are probably the most detailed sources for individuals' dates and offices (and the other prosopographies for earlier periods). The Dictionary of Late Antiquity is obviously newer and more up-to-date than the ORB but I have noticed at least one glaring error (Galla Placidia is described as Honorius's mother, rather than sister!). I'm also curious that sometimes it says: co-emperor and other times "augustus with" or "co-augustus". I think it should just be explicit what title they had; augustus or caesar (or basileus for Heraclius and after). Another suggestion would be to break the tetrarchs from the Constantinians - before and after Constantine's supremacy - and have a separate table with a separate layout for them specifically. It's a little artificial because the multiple-emperor system carried on for another century or more but the early fourth century saw so many comings and goings in parallel in a system at least notionally non-dynastic, time-limited, and geographic, different both from the system beforehand and in other ways from the Constantinian dynastic imperial college that emerged after all the other tetrarchs died off. GPinkerton (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll look at the PLRE and PMBz - still a work in progress as I said. Co-emperor/co-augustus will be rectified as well, "co-emperor" should be co-augustus or co-basileus/symbasileus (symbasileus has a connotation of being inferior to the senior emperor which is true in most cases but not all) in most places me thinks. About Constantine and the Tetrarchy, I agree that the Constantinian dynasty is a different arrangement of power than the Tetrarchy but the main problem there is that they are contemporary. Maxentius, Licinius and Maximinus Daia all become emperors after Constantine I but they are associated with the tetrarchic system. To get chronological, clean and separate Tetrarchy and Constantinian sections we'd need to either list Constantine twice or begin the separate Constantinian section with his sons (Constantine II). Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So list Constantine twice; once as co-emperor of the tetrarchs (under their entries?) and then at the head of his own section - Diocletian could get same treatment, before and after the raising of Maximian; for comparison the article List of heads of state of Russia does list both Putin and Yeltsin twice, for different reasons: break in continuity of the constitution and non-consecutive terms. (I'm not suggesting Maximian be listed twice, though, even though he unretired.) One thing I've noticed is that it might be worthwhile putting the Born section's information in the same column as the name, perhaps with cells split horiziontally; both columns take up a lot of precious space but don't contain much data. Another thing is that colour-coding for east/west; how will Licinius's colour be decided? The name and birthdate column might look like this:

As an example. Obviously the co-emperor column needs to go in and much else, but the the birthdate and place I think can be relegated to a split cell. It would be interesting to have a place of death where known, in the same column. (Possibly burial place is a little too far to stretch and is probably the subject for a new article).


 * (I am also, on an unrelated note, fairly certain the plaster cast in the photo is from a bust that represents Diocletian or Galerius, even Licinius, more likely than it represents Maximinus Daia. Various identifications are proposed in the literature, but as far as I can ascertain, the only source that claims the bust (in Cairo) was Maximinus is the actual label on the plaster cast, (in St Petersburg) in defiance of a century of published debate. I haven't been able to find a Commons photo of the Cairo bust, or of a suitable issue of Maximinus's coins, but it's a deeply unsatisfactory portrait nonetheless and its prominence on the Maximinus II article has itself led to some very questionable medical speculation. GPinkerton (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good lord, that "Maximinus" bust is used for him all over Wikipedia (in multiple language versions). Definitely a major issue if that's the case. I'm not a huge fan of listing emperors more than once. Take the case of Constantine for instance; his position relative to other major players (emperors) in the Roman world obviously changed throughout his tenure as ruler but he was still an emperor continously from 306 or 310 (depending on how you look at it) until 337; listing him twice might get people to think that there was some break in the continuity there, which there wasn't (same goes for Diocletian).
 * On the color coding for East/West - yes it's not a perfect system. In most cases it would work, there's really only a few emperors who went from governing one half to governing the whole or "switched" half (e.g. Licinius - though he never exercised much real power in the west). I just wanted to get away from the current (EAST) and (WEST) format, which I thought was ugly and looked cluttered - maybe there really is not good alternative to that.
 * Not a fan of putting the birth data in the same column as the name, but I do like some of your ideas. What do you think of this format (represented with good old Maurice)?: Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively if one skips the full imperial titles and just sticks to the "name-parts" (this is how it's been done at the List of Byzantine emperors) and removes the precise length of their reigns in days/months/years (which is absent in many other lists and might clutter this one up a bit), here's a more simplified and perhaps more clean-looking version: Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This is much better than what I laid out and still gets rid of the extra columns! I think the length of reign could be useful, and with more co-emperors and details listed under other entries I think there will be space to fill in that column without it. The Roman names should be in small caps!, but I agree that the full styling isn't necessary (a different page perhaps), just the actual names, especially as titles would have changed over the lifetime and varied regionally. Interestingly, Justinian II is listed twice, but since it's non-consecutive it's obvious that there was a break in continuity, while the first century's worth of emperors after Constantine are listed on List of Byzantine emperors and on this page. I think the baseline minimum level of confusion is just the price we pay for periodization. And yes, that bust in Cairo is definitely not Maximinus, (in my view) he ruled too briefly to have had such things made and instaled in Egypt, and in any case all the tetrarchic portraits are deliberately homogenized. See Last Statues of Antiquity. According to the most recent study, it was almost certainly commissioned by Diocletian, who visited Egypt at least twice. Why no Wikipedia image exists of the bust itself I don't know ... Looking closer at the other portraits, it would seem that the coin used for Licinius not only depicts him with Licinius II, but also describes the latter, a caesar, as dominus noster - in case you wanted a definite example. GPinkerton (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Great! I might tinker with it a bit more (yes, will make Roman names be in small caps and leave the length of reigns in). Yeah, cases like Justinian II and John V Palaiologos are fine to list several times I think (precisely because they are non-consecutive and there is a clear break in continuity). About minimum level of confusion, yeah it's a sad downside of trying to represent chaotic periods such as the collapse of the Tetrarchy in clean-looking lists. I suppose we could represent Constantine I twice, once as a western emperor during the Tetrarchy until 324 and then as sole emperor and the first entry under the Constantinian dynasty. Updating the format of the list and adding in references for everything is going to be a time-consuming task and I'll also be kept busy by other projects (on Wikipedia and elsewhere) at the same time, but I can notify you on your talk page once I've finished some sections in the draft (with the newer format above) if you'd like to take a look then.
 * On Licinius II; huh! I thought dominus noster would be one of those full emperor-only titles (it means "our lord" after all!) but yes, looks like you were right. I'll still not give Licinius II a full entry of his own of course as I'm going to do my best to follow the lists of emperors cited in the draft as to who to include and who to relegate to the co-ruler column or not include at all but it is interesting to think about - the lines between senior Augustus, junior Augustus and Caesar may not have been so clear, then. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This coin [|one] of Licinius II has D N VAL LICIN LICINIVS NOB C: dominus noster Valerius Licinianus Licinius nobilissimus caesar. This one [], of Crispus, also has dominus noster Crispus nobilissimus caesar - note the imperial group on the reverse. It's more often that the title appears in combination with an augustus, so the letters DD NN mean domini nostri - "our masters". (Master I prefer to lord, since dominus is a slave's owner and "lord" has mediaeval connotations that don't really fit.) I know of epigraphic examples of D N or DD NN for all the caesares I mentioned above. This thing [], with three augusti, has the especially fun legend DDD NNN AAAUUUGGG: Domini nostrorum, x3 augusti, though one (Theodosius the younger) is clearly of lower rank, more like a caesar. A collegiate office, as I say. And yes, I would say Constantine-Crispus-Licinius-Licinius is the last tetrarchy, ending in the early 320s! After Licinius, a new table. Let me know how you get on! GPinkerton (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent change
In your most recent edit you appear to have removed the word Augustus without justification. The source you have added says the nothing about "Augustus" being dropped; that's not right at all. It says they dropped the name Imperator Caesar which the prior emperors used as their praenomen. There's no reason to remove Augustus. It's particularly egregious to arbitrarily remove it at at this point when when almost each and every illustration has the legend, which as I'm sure you know I'm going to tell you continues to be part of the emperors' names long after 306. Please put them back in. GPinkerton (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Should the Byzantine emperors be included?
So I am aware that this issue has been raised before (at the latest in 2015 it seems) but I actually have a reason for bringing it up again. I've been working on-and-off on an new version of this list for a while now, with some help from GPinkerton, with the main concern of resolving one of the biggest issues which kept this article from becoming a featured list in 2008: a critical lack of references. What has become immediately apparent from working with this is that with proper references included, the article size will skyrocket if the Byzantine emperors remain included. Article size states that articles above 100 kB are generally to be divided and with proper references my version of the list is already above 80 kB (and that is with the vast majority of the entires only being placeholders). This article in its current state is already slightly above 100 kB and that's with barely any references at all.

Now, I'm an enormous Byzantinophile. I will defend the Byzantines as true Romans until the day I die, but if dividing the list (as Wikipedia:Article size seems to recommend if such a thing is possible) is a solution in this case then the most clear-cut way of adding in citations (which should be in this list regardless of if making it a featured list is the goal, this is Wikipedia and things should be referenced) while keeping the size of the list at a reasonable level would be to omit the Byzantine emperors in the same way that virtually all (if not actually all?) other language-versions of Wikipedia do. We could potentially even resurrect the Concise list of Roman emperors or General list of Roman emperors which appears to have been a simpler version going from Augustus to Constantine XI for the full experience. I also think that there is an argument to be made that published lists of Roman emperors (see below) which go all the way to Constantine XI are decidedly in the minority, with most lists ending at some point in the 4th–7th centuries.

Books

Websites

Keep in mind that this is not me denying the "Romanness" of the Byzantines or the continuity between Rome and Constantinople; in the best of all worlds the term "Byzantine" would not even exist and the medieval rulers would be unequivocally recognized as Roman emperors. My concerns are 1) article size in case this list is improved with sources and clarifications as well as 2) most other published lists of emperors not going all the way to Constantine XI.

There is also the obvious problem of where to end the list if it is decided that the later Byzantines not be included; the most common options appear to be Zeno, Anastasius I or Maurice. If my concerns are unfounded I'd be more than happy to just continue working on a new list going all the way to Constantine XI but I do believe it would be good to have an updated set of opinions on this, preferably with arguments based on what reliable sources say rather than on personal opinions (as it appears to have been last time in 2015). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about the article size, and keep all the emperors in one place. Wikipedia is meant to be "vast and complete", and it would hardly be as complete or as vast if it lacked a full list of all the emperors. This article is a list and the article size guidance specifically excludes "lists, tables and summaries", which is most of what this page contains. Meanwhile, Byzantine Empire is 200,000+ and we still don't have an article devoted to the Middle Byzantine period (Heraclius–1204) or the Late Byzantine period (1204–1453), or even an Eastern Roman Empire page to cover the period detailed by our Western Roman Empire page. GPinkerton (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally, this is my angle too; any split (even if if it is one of the common ones) will seem arbitrary, there is for instance no fundamental difference between the position of Maurice and Phocas. I do however think it will be useful to get some more opinions on this. I won't have the time do any more huge work on Wikipedia for most of the remainder of this month anyway (but then the emperor list will be top priority) so waiting and seeing how others tackle the concern on Wikipedia diverting from other published sources should be just fine. Good point on article size, I've struck that one out above. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I sympathize with the argument that the Byzantine Empire was the literal continuation of the Roman Empire. But history demands pragmatic solutions, and splitting the list doesn't equal some sort of official conclusion that the Byzantines weren't Roman—just a recognition of the fact that people usually use "Roman" to refer to the period through the late fifth century, and Byzantine afterward.  I think we should split the list into "Roman" and "Byzantine" articles simply because readers are likely to be looking for one or the other, but not both of them stuck together.  Precisely how to divide it, and whether to have a single dividing line, or perhaps allow some overlap between the lists, is a complex decision.  But I think that ending the Roman list with Constantine the Great or Jovian is simply absurd.
 * At a minimum I think that the "Roman" list needs to include all of the Theodosian dynasty, even those who ruled in the East. I think the most intuitive and practical place to divide the lists is here, assigning the Leonids to the "Byzantine" list.  The later emperors of that dynasty weren't really contemporary with the Western emperors, and they seem to have had, at best, sort of a limited, nominal influence over events in the West.  An advantage of including the Theodosians and excluding the Leonids, is that you can end the list with Romulus Augustus, who has a symbolic importance as the last emperor of the West.
 * As an alternative, I might continue through the Justinian dynasty, ending with Maurice, because, as many scholars have noted, the history of the Western empire didn't really end with the deposition of Romulus Augustus—there's no sharp dividing line, but the fact that consuls continued to be appointed, and the Gothic kings still sought to obtain the acknowledgement of the Eastern emperors to support their rule, and that Justinian briefly reconquered Italy, there's a degree of historical continuity within the Roman world through this period—but by the Heraclian period that was gone. So as a secondary choice, I would include the Leonids and Justinians in both lists.  I would not consider stopping the "Roman" list with Anastasius, who is neither contemporary with the Western emperors nor as well known as Romulus Augustus and Justinian.
 * Now, just to raise another issue, I think I would get rid of the faux-Latin capitals in the second column, and use normal English orthography for the Roman names, without boldface—the boldface is redundant, since the most common form of the name in English is already put above the full name. But given the choice between "Flavius Claudius Julianus" and "FLAVIVS CLAVDIVS IVLIANVS", I'd use the form that English speakers would recognize, and leave the latter for monumental inscriptions.  P Aculeius (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , thanks for your work on this. I don't think the list should be split. WP:SIZERULE says "These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means), and each kB can be equated to 1,000 characters." While the total size shown on the article history page is about 100 kB, the readable prose is only about 10 kB and excludes references (per DYK check, this list has a 9865 characters (1602 words) "readable prose size"). There is no natural dividing point for this list, as was noted during the previous discussion about this, and the list of sources you posted shows this to be a point of inconsistency in the sources. WP:SPLITLIST says "Lists, tables, and other material that is already in summary form may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method. If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to either keep it embedded in the main article or split it off into a stand-alone page. Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy." If you are concerned about too much data in the list, you could always streamline it by removing the Birth column or something, but I don't think even that is necessary. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The list should not be split. If an article must be longer than the guidelines advise, then that's what should happen. Have a look at List of pharaohs for example, which even includes the Roman ones at the end. The fact that no one is sure where to split the Roman emperor list is a pretty good indication that it shouldn't be split. TharkunColl (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why some people would actually have the entire List of Byzantine emperors overlap with this one. Your average person who is willingly checking this page probably won't be looking for, say, Byzantine emperors in the lower middle ages. The arbitrariness of a hypothetical division isn't really a good argument: for the sake of convenience anything can be worked out. Avis11 (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Edit – everyone after Zeno should be discarded and addressed in the Byzantine counterpart. Avis11 (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the logic of excluding Anastasius? Or excluding Justinian? Isn't it his Corpus Juris Civilis that's mentioned in the first paragraph of Roman law's article?
 * Convenience takes precedence over logic here given that those individuals will still be displayed, only in another list. The list of Roman emperors would still have a sentence at the bottom saying "for further entries, see list of Byzantine emperors", so it's not like we'd be excluding Byzantine emperors from the category 'Roman'. And, for all one could argue in favor of the Roman-ness of the Byzantine empire, the latter still evolved into a distinct entity and is itself the subject of a wholly distinct scholarly tradition. Again, average people who got to this article intentionally won't be interested in most Byzantine emperors, especially when there is already a separate article for them.
 * The arbitrariness of where to draw the splitting line is a secondary problem at best. I prefer Zeno since the extinction of western empire during his reign would have removed the context of the greater Roman world his predecessors were familiar with, and caused the eastern empire to exist as its own distinct entity. Zeno's article even says "Historians commonly refer to his reign as the start of Byzantine imperial history". Avis11 (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The absurdity of splitting the list anywhere can be summed up by asking a simple question: Was Britain ever part of the Byzantine Empire? TharkunColl (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it was al-Idrisi that believed it still was in his day. Certainly there was a British province named for a "Byzantine" emperor. Some parts of Britain took fighting under the cross after their king saw a cross appear in the sky before a great battle ... GPinkerton (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * TharkunColl: no, it wasn't, therefore Byzantine empire =/= Roman empire and thus the need to split lists. Avis11 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Britain was part of the empire that Constantine and many of his successors ruled from Constantinople. Are you saying that Constantine was not a Byzantine emperor? If he wasn't, why not? TharkunColl (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Constantine is universally called a Roman emperor, and even if the Byzantine label isn't incorrect per se it's still an irrelevant technicality. That the entire list of Byzantine emperors is rendered redundant by your proposal is a more pressing issue than details like this. Avis11 (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The redundancy suggests to me that List of Byzantine emperors should actually be a redirect to this article. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that practically none of the sources given above do what you're proposing, and this isn't about denying the 'Roman-ness' of the Byzantines, as Ichthyovenator said. Avis11 (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I feel that one could consider the fact that Wikipedia diverges from other lists of emperors to be an issue. I included the published lists I could find, so it is possible that there are more lists out there that could cement a "common" breaking point (or be more in favor of including all the Byzantines). The Byzantines were of course Roman, beyond the obvious continuity there are innumerable examples of Roman "stuff" that carried over all the way to Byzantium's last days. Though I myself cautiously favor a list of emperors from Augustus to Constantine XI in some form, I am wary of this conflicting with most of the sources I could find, especially since Wikipedia is built on published sources. I don't think we have to discuss where exactly the list would be divided (I think Maurice would be best if the decision is made, though) until there is consensus to actually go through with such a division (at the moment it looks like 2 in favor of dividing and 3 against). Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the argument is not (or at least should not be) whether the Byzantines were Roman (they were), but whether that means they should be in this list, even if that conflicts with other published sources. That the split is somewhat arbitrary (and that some sources do go all the way to the Palaiologoi) does somewhat speak in favor of including the Byzantines I think. I've noticed that List of Yuan emperors and List of Northern Yuan khans are split, which might be a similar case to our predicament (they had the ostensibly the same titles and were even all part of the same dynasty, though the Northern Yuan governed considerably less territory). Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that the non-1453 list sources are actually claiming to be complete lists. The universally regarded classic by Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, included the eastern emperors. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is true. I'm gonna note that the issue of whether to merge the List of Byzantine emperors (potentially to a new List of Roman and Byzantine emperors to fit with the List of Roman and Byzantine Empresses) was brought up in 2017 and hotly debated, though it appears the consensus then was to not merge. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI Avis11, GPinkerton has since removed the unsourced sentence "Historians commonly refer to his reign as the start of Byzantine imperial history" from Zeno's article. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's an argument: the List of Roman emperors needs to be separate because the List of Byzantine emperors contains (or rather, should contain) a number of non-Roman Byzantine emperors, namely the Latin emperors. If we take the list of Byzantine emperors as beginning with Constantine in May 330 with his inauguration of Constantinople, by virtue of it being possessor of Constantinople that above all else makes one a "Byzantine" emperor, then the 13th-century non-Roman emperors of Byzantium should surely figure on one list but not on the other. The Oxford History of Byzantium`s end-of-the-book "Chronology" arranged by emperors lists the Latins and Nicenes both, in a list that begins with the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. GPinkerton (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, that's an argument for not splitting the list. A state can change its capital as often as it wants to, and still be the same state. The point about Constantine being a "Byzantine" emperor is that it highlights the absurdity of making any distinction between Roman and Byzantine. The emperors who ruled from Nicea are Roman Emperors, just as are the emperors who ruled from Rome or Constantinople (or Milan or Ravenna). As for including the Latin emperors, this makes no difference to whether the list should be split or not, but I note that we don't include Odoacer in Italy. It's possible to argue, of course, that the Nicean emperors are only legitimate Roman Emperors in retrospect, since they later re-took Constantinople, and that, for example, the emperors of Trebizond had just as much, or almost as much, claim to the title. If one argues this, then one might accept that this list should be split at 1204, but I suspect that this will be very unsatisfying for the proponents of splitting it. TharkunColl (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not suggesting splitting the list, just having two separate ones like we have now. GPinkerton (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Pinging the users involved in the aforementioned 2017 discussion over at the Byzantine list in regards to a potential merger to see if they have an opinion in regards to this discussion;, , , , , , , ,. If we establish proper conensus in regards to this, either in keeping or removing the Byzantine emperors, this discussion will not have to be raised again. The main arguments for keeping the Byzantines in appear to be the continuity between Rome and Constantinople (Byzantium and Rome being the same state with a continuous line of emperors all referring to themselves as Roman emperors), that any point where a split is made is going to be arbitrary since there is no obvious single point where Rome transforms into Byzantium (note that various lists of Roman emperors stop at different points) and that there is only a single list of empresses (List of Roman and Byzantine Empresses, which is in a quite poor state as well) for both Romans and Byzantines (one could argue that the lists of emperors should thus be merged into a single List of Roman and Byzantine emperors). The main arguments against keeping the Byzantines in would be that this differs from other published lists of Roman emperors which typically end in the 4th–7th centuries and that despite their continuity, modern studies treat research into ancient Rome and research into Byzantium as two different fields and that lists of emperors of both should thus be split accordingly. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi to all. For me, the situation is simple: as long as we distinguish the Byzantine Empire from the Roman Empire (the reasons are irrelevant, we all known them and have our opinions on this topic, but let's accept as a fact that it is, and will for some time to come remain, both common-name and scholarly usage, and therefore Wikipedia practice) it makes eminent sense to deal with the rulers of the two in the same way. As long as Byzantium is regarded as a distinct topic, whatever the continuities between the two, this should be reflected in all content associated with it (e.g. Byzantine law is a direct continuation of Roman law, and one of the areas in which Byzantine culture arguably remained most 'Roman' throughout, but we have a different article on it). There will be an overlap between the two, at least in the 330-395 period, but that is inevitable: a list of Byzantine emperors can only begin with Constantine I, and any treatment of the 'early Byzantine period' probably would begin with at least some coverage of the Diocletian and the Dominate. OTOH, the Latin Empire was so different an entity that I completely disagree that its rulers should be included in full; a link should be provided, yes, but although they were "Emperors of Constantinople", they were definitely not "Roman" in any sense, whether classical or otherwise. Constantine  ✍  15:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. If Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire are distinct topics then the emperors are so too. Avis11 (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They are different topics or they are the same topic, depending on what source you are looking at (but they are not distinct topics, as any general source on the "Byzantine" empire takes care to explain), so the most reasonable solution for this article is to combine them, as we have done. An additional benefit is that this helps us sidestep the otherwise unsolvable inconsistencies between reliable sources on when the Byzantine empire began. Splitting the lists is essentially taking sides in an ongoing academic disagreement, which we are not supposed to do. I don't really care whether we rename this article "List of Roman and Byzantine emperors" or not. I am fine with not renaming it. The articles Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire can exist without it having any bearing on this list the same way that the existence of the articles Western Roman Empire, Principate, and Dominate do not justify splitting off those emperors from this list. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The academic disagreement is more accurately zero: all but one source cited above list all emperors from 27 BC to AD 1453. Where to draw the line is a different issue and irrelevant to the matter at hand. There would still be a note at the bottom of the page saying "for further entries, see list of Byzantine emperors", so it's not like a hard division being made anyway. Historiography treats Roman and Byzantine history as two different topics, whence their different names (obviously?). Principate and Dominate have nothing to do w/ all this. Roman and Byzantine Empire are different pages and different historiographical traditions, therefore it's only common sense that their respective emperor lists be so too. Your average person interested in Roman emperors certainly won't be looking for late-medieval Byzantine rulers in this page. And, of course, the Byzantine list becomes entirely redundant if the Roman one encompasses everyone up to 1453. Avis11 (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Avis11, the sources listed above are not actually claiming to be comprehensive lists of all the Roman emperors (except for the one that goes to 1453). I have started assembling a more comprehensive list of sources on personal subpage and looking into the ones that stop short for language addressing the reasons and the clear pattern is that these are explicitly subset lists of emperors in which the line is acknowledged to proceed to the Byzantine period. If there is a case to be made for lack of disagreement in the sources, it falls on the side of including the Byzantine emperors on this page. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I added a new list of sources in a new section below (which includes the ones listed above) that shows most sources treating Byzantine emperors as a type of Roman emperor. AmateurEditor (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In regards to "splitting the lists is essentially taking sides in an ongoing academic disagreement, which we are not supposed to do"; considering that virtually every single list of Roman emperors has a different ending point, there is simply no way that we are going to be able to produce a list which does not "take a side". Having the list go all the way to 1453, while accurate in so far as all emperors on it referred to themselves as Roman emperors, is definitely taking a side. The objective of this discussion is to come to some sort of agreement in regards to which side is the most appropriate to take. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Having the list go all the way to 1453 is not so much taking a side, as simply being inclusive. Any other option would definitely involve taking a side, because we would have to decide who is the last person who can legitimately be called a Roman Emperor. TharkunColl (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No. There would still be a note at the bottom of the page saying "for further entries, see list of Byzantine emperors", so it's not like a hard division being made anyway. Avis11 (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm agreeing with, exclude the Latin Empire. Otherwise we'll need to include other competing Roman-ish entities like the Gallic Empire & Empire of Trebizond, to name two of the most significant. -- llywrch (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the Latin emperors should be excluded from this list. One could actually make a case for including the Gallic emperors (they were indisputably Roman and they were also emperors), who are listed in some of the sources linked above (notably Livius and The Imperial Families of Ancient Rome) but that would probably be more trouble than it's worth and make arranging the list difficult, not to mention not reflecting the actual political situation at the time. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Theodosius is listed twice for some reason, this needs to be fixed. Also, it is not true to say that all the emperors who ruled from Constantinople were eastern emperors. Legally speaking, from 480 onwards they were emperors of the whole empire. TharkunColl (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tagging me Ichthyovenator. I'm definitely for including both the Eastern and Western Roman Emperors on this list for the sake of completion. Having a single article makes it easier to navigate without having to jump between two, and there's less arbitrary division between who goes on which list. Although I do agree with that we don't need the Latin Emperors. I Feel Tired (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the point of the monster list of sources below? The only point I can see is trying to prove that the list should not be split based on number of sources that combine Rome and Byzantium into a single topic.  However, this argument has long since ceased to be a discussion of scholarly sources, and has become a political football being kicked back and forth between those who feel that Rome and Byzantium are two separate topics, and those who think they're the same topic.  This list is rather useless, IMO, since it's cherry-picked for a specific purpose, and pretty much ignores every published source between 1825 and 1997, and actually only includes two sources before 1997.  We don't determine truth by counting the number of published sources for any period of time.  This discussion is a matter of opinion concerning the best way to treat a long list, based on reader expectations, and it doesn't have an absolute right or wrong based on the sheer volume of publications over the last twenty-three years that follow each approach.  But as far as I'm concerned the point of the discussion was lost long ago in a debate about whether the Byzantines were "Roman" or not—that should never have been the point.  One group of editors will never allow this article to be split, so the whole discussion seems like a colossal waste of time now.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * P Aculeius, the point of the list below is to refocus our discussion away from editor opinions and preferences and back to the facts of what published sources say, so that we can achieve a consensus and not waste our time. Without that focus, our discussion is indeed about editor opinions and a big waste of time. Some editors seemed to be using the very short list of sources posted above as evidence that most sources do not include consider the Byzantine emperors as Roman, so they should not be included here. The sources below are based on what I could find online and show that this is not the case. A comprehensive list is important to establish a common understanding between editors of whatever consensus there may be among reliable sources. I tried to include everything I could find, but if you have additional sources that you think should be included please add them (or point me to them and I will add them for you). AmateurEditor (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the whole point: you cannot prove anything about whether the list should be split by listing dozens of books/websites that do A, B, or C. It is not a matter of empirical fact, it is a question of opinion and judgment.  The fact that people are still arguing as if you could just count the number of sources that do anything at any point in time proves that this entire discussion has been a complete waste of time, as no consensus is possible when people are demanding truth instead of basing their decisions on reasonable and pragmatic grounds.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree "it is not a matter of empirical fact, it is a question of opinion and judgment", but it is a question of the opinion and judgment of reliable sources, not wikipedia editors. It is critical that we editors have a common understanding of what the reliable sources, as a group, have said. We need only agree with each other on the facts of what reliable sources' opinions on the subject are and what wikipedia policy requires. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Cambridge Medieval History mentioned by Mango seems worthy of inclusion, as would whatever position the New Cambridge Medieval History has to say on the matter. J. D. Bury's History of the Late Roman Empire (1889) is prefaced by a discussion of the terminology that preserves "Roman Empire" until 1453, criticizes Gibbon for the idea of a "Fall of the Western Roman Empire", refers to the phrase "Byzantine Empire" as "dangerous" and "highly objectionable, because [it] ... tend[s] to obscure an important fact and perpetuate a serious error", opines that the idea of Eastern and Western empires in Late Antiquity before 476 "both incorrect in itself and leads to a further confusion", reserves Eastern Roman Empire for the period after Charlemagne only, says that "No one talks about two Roman Empires in the days of Constantius and Constans; yet the relation of Arcadius and Honorius, the relation of Theodosius II and Valentinian III, the relation of Leo I and Anthemius, were exactly the same as the political relation which existed between the sons of Constantine", continues with "The resignation of Romulus Augustulus did not even shake the Roman Empire, far less did it cause an Empire to fall", and concludes that "it will be probably long time yet before the inveterate error of assigning a wrong importance to the year 476 A.D. has been finally eradicated." Bury also makes reference to George Finlay, and his position should probably be included as one of the rare non-anti-Byzantine historians of the period. GPinkerton (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I added the sources you suggested, along with your comments for Bury, although the GoogleBooks previews of the appendices of the volumes of the New Cambridge Medieval History were extremely limited for me and I don't think what I added there was very useful beyond confirming that Leo III is not being treated as the last Roman emperor/first Byzantine emperor in volume II. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What your own source list shows is that there is much variance in written sources, so it's pointless to go through that angle. What is clear is this: Byzantinism is its own area of historical study – a category within, but also distinct from, Roman imperial studies. It is perfectly reasonable to select an arbitrary point in the list (Zeno, Maurice or whatever), cut the list there, and link to the already existing Byzantine emperors' list – specifying, if you must, the continuity whose relevance to this debate you unduly emphasize (again, the OP specifically said this isn't about whether Byzantines were Roman or not). Wikipedia policy recommends against having two pages WP:OVERLAP content. There is already a perfectly good Byzantine list, a second one isn't needed. Avis11 (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Selecting an arbitrary point to divide this list would be a kind of original research on our part. We are supposed to follow what the reliable sources do, and there is no consensus among them to make such a break. In fact, although some of the sources use the "Byzantine" label beginning at different points as a subdivision of the emperors list and some of them have narrower scopes in their publications than others, geographically or chronologically, the consensus is clearly that the Roman/Byzantine empire was a single polity that evolved over time. WP:OVERLAP states that overlap is a good reason to merge pages, not to keep them separate. The reasons listed for not merging articles are "The resulting article would be too long or "clunky"; The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles; The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short". No doubt the articles Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire are separate due to the first two reasons, since there is an enormous amount to write about for each of them and they definitely are not discrete subjects. As mentioned earlier, article length in a list article applies only to readable prose and this article is very far from the recommended limit. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not original researh at all: if you link to the Byzantine list at the bottom, it will still imply that Byz emperors are Romans, and 2 lists being used rather than 1 bears nothing on the fact that all emperors are still being displayed on Wikipedia as a whole. Ending the Roman list at, say, Maurice, followed by a sourced note explaining the problems of an exact categorization, and the logic behind the one adopted for that list specifically, cannot in any way be construed as original research. The fact that there is no consensus in written sources just means that drawing the line on just about anybody will still be consistent with the Wpolicy that reliable sources must be used.
 * Regarding merging policy, reason no. 2 of WP:OVERLAP is very much relevant here as well: having standalone, cross-linked articles is the best course of action here, and the current list is in fact too long and clunky as well. If you support maintaining Byz emperors here, you necessarily either (1) support merging the two articles (bad idea) or (2) having the two lists overlap. Nobody up til now has provided any practical, non-abstract reason to do number 2. It defies all WP:COMMONSENSE, it's uneconomical and it's wasteful. The overwhelming majority of people looking for, say, a late medieval Byzantine ("Roman") emperor will be doing so in the Byzantine list, not in the Roman one. Avis11 (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "if you link to the Byzantine list at the bottom, it will still imply that Byz emperors are Romans". Even implications can be original research. WP:OR states "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Excluding the Byzantine Emperors from the Roman Emperors list implies that they were not Roman, not that they were, otherwise they would have been included in the Roman list to begin with. We shouldn't be implying that because the implication contradicts what appears to be a clear consensus in the reliable sources that the Byzantine emperors were Roman.
 * The fact that there is no consensus in written sources just means that drawing the line on just about anybody will still be consistent with the Wpolicy that reliable sources must be used. The lack of a consensus among the sources about when the Byzantine period of the Roman Empire began (or even if the term should be used at all) means that we need to, in the words of WP:NPOV, include "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This means that it isn't enough to be able to point to one reliable source for a division, we have to consider all of the reliable sources as a whole. The only way to include all the various sub-categorizations found in reliable sources is to include them all on the same list and explain in a separate prose section what the various views among reliable sources are regarding terms and divisions. By splitting the list into two articles, we would be inappropriately reducing (or eliminating) the weight of those reliable sources that label various Byzantine emperors after the arbitrary cut as Roman (and we do have reliable sources that label as Roman all of the Byzantine emperors).
 * having standalone, cross-linked articles is the best course of action here, and the current list is in fact too long and clunky as well. WP:OVERLAP states merging is to be avoided if "The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles". The two separate lists cannot be expanded separately without creating overlap with each other. As you said earlier, "Wikipedia policy recommends against having two pages WP:OVERLAP content." The idea that this list is too long has already been addressed several times (it isn't too long according to WP:SIZERULE); see List of pharaohs and List of popes.
 * If you support maintaining Byz emperors here, you necessarily either (1) support merging the two articles (bad idea) or (2) having the two lists overlap. I support merging the articles into this one as the best idea. If you also want to rename this article to "List of Roman and Byzantine emperors", I am ok with that but I don't think it's necessary. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) I said it before, I'll say it again. If you put a note on the bottom of the list saying the rest of the 'Roman' emperors can be found at the list of Byzantine emperors, you are precisely not saying the Byzantine emperors aren't Roman.
 * 2) Sorry but there is no real dispute that Byzantine is a thing in itself. To show all significant views on when it begins, that's... exactly what I think should be done. A paragraph or even a footnote at the bottom would be enough to enumerate all the varying criteria. By doing such a thing one is sure not to be 'picking sides', even when arbitrarily choosing a random emperor to stop the list on. No one is picking sides: it's just better to display them all in 2 lists instead of 1, especially when an easy & widely-used criteria for division – non-Byzantine vs Byzantine Roman – is available.
 * 3) Yes, an overlap will always be there, but pushing it through the entire Middle Ages past Classical Antiquity is just stupid.
 * 4) Merging is just a bad idea. Byzantine is a thing in itself, it has it's own WP page (and that's b/c of historians' consensus, not WP article size concerns) and merits it's own list. Avis11 (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Right: you aren't saying that Roman and Byzantine are different with a separation like that, you're just strongly implying it (which is also a problem, per WP:OR, as explained in my previous comments). We do not have that problem with a single merged list.
 * 2) "Byzantine" is a topic, I agree. It is not undisputed among significant reliable sources that it is a label that should be used, as multiple sources in the list below demonstrate, including the last one (the best one). In order to allow for those sources that call all the Byzantine emperors Roman, we must have all the emperors in one list. There is no getting around the fact that having the separate lists without any other rationale to justify it in Wikipedia's policies is the same as us taking a side in that dispute, no matter how much rationalization language we add to justify the division to the reader. The "Roman Empire" and "Byzantine Empire" articles are acceptable as separate because they do have another rationale: expansion of the articles beyond what one article would allow. In addition to contradicting policy, two lists is worse than one because someone who doesn't know better may have to check multiple articles to find what they are looking for.
 * 3) No overlap will exist if "List of Byzantine emperors" redirects here, which is a third reason that one list is better than two.
 * 4) Byzantine is a subtopic of Roman, not a "thing in itself". This is made clear in both the lede and sidebar at Roman Empire. The Roman Empire article also has 137,399 characters of readable prose, well beyond the 100 kB rule of thumb at WP:SIZERULE ("each kB can be equated to 1,000 characters"). Byzantine Empire has an additional 96,726 characters of readable prose, so size definitely prevents them from being merged. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

List of Roman consuls is not split at any point, and continues to the 9th century when the office was abolished by Leo VI. Will the advocates of splitting this list be equally as vocal in wishing to split that list too? And if not, why not? Needless to say, it is also a very long list, going all the way back to the 6th century BC. TharkunColl (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, the List of Roman Consuls has been proposed for splitting several times, although generally between consuls of the Republic and those under the Empire. The key difference is that the portion of the list dealing exclusively with the Byzantine period (from AD 535) is a very small portion of the list, and not particularly notable as a stand-alone topic, compared with say, Byzantine emperors.  Republican consuls were the chief magistrates of the state; though greatly reduced in power and prestige, they continued to fulfill important administrative duties in imperial times; but from the sixth century onward the consulship was little more than a title assumed by some of the emperors and occasionally bestowed on others, with no more than symbolic value—a value derived from the continuity of the office with antiquity.  The problem here is that editors are trying to make the List of Roman Emperors seem much more important by including all of Byzantine history (except for those nasty little Latin emperors, slumming up the place, who needs to know about them?).  Which, IMO, makes continuing this discussion largely political and pointless.  The goal should be to improve the encyclopedia, not to magnify the glory of Rome—which apparently isn't impressive enough unless you tack on all of Byzantine history.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt that anyone here is motivated by a desire to glorify Rome. As you say, it hardly needs it. Not to mention the fact that some might argue that a bunch of obscure potentates ruling a tiny, impoverished rump state at the end of the Middle Ages, hundreds of miles from Rome itself, is not necessarily a dignified end to the empire of the Caesars, and yet that's exactly how it ended. My own motivation is to not falsify history by implying that the "Byzantine" empire is somehow not the Roman Empire. Also, in a more general sense, I'm an inclusionist, rather than an exclusionist. As for the list of consuls, to splitters, it really shouldn't matter that the "Byzantine" list will be short. After all, they can hardly complain about short articles, after complaining about long ones. If they truly believe that the "Byzantine" empire is a different empire to the Roman Empire (by which I mean, different enough to require a different article when listing its rulers), they should apply this principle across the board. TharkunColl (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the alert, responding to this late as I am. I've grown convinced that it makes sense to separate Byzantine emperors from the standard list of Roman emperors. I saw this as someone who spent a fair bit of time two years ago trying to regularise the Byzantine emperors so that they would appear in the same format in the table on this page. A break does not in itself imply that Constantine XI is not a successor to Augustus, but it does reflect the separate scholarship and scope of the separate lists. A break in pages doesn't mean we are implying that the people in Constantinople would have noticed any great change in the state they were living in in 476. There's a reality to the two lists being maintained separately, by enthusiasts of the separate periods. The best period to break is probably to include the Eastern emperors up to Zeno on this page, so that they can compared against the Western emperors. That has an overlap from the time of Constantine with List of Byzantine emperors, but not the complete duplication with have at the moment. Anyone reading the pages on the Byzantine Empire here, or the list of emperors, should find evidence making it clear that is the Roman Empire continuing on, rather than a new institution. There's nothing innovative in separating the lists, or treating the periods quite separately; scholars and libraries have been doing so for centuries. I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place for us to make the grand stand of treating later Byzantium as only Rome in continuation. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we should be basing our decisions on wikipedia policies and reliable sources alone. Otherwise there is no hope of consensus. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see much potential for a clear consensus. The reliable sources draw their lines at different historical eras, and Wikipedia's policies themselves do not exclude presenting contradictory POVs. Neutral point of view clearly states: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Dimadick (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking over this now (unless I counted wrong, which is a real possibility), it looks like there are 4 people for excluding the Byzantines and 4 people for including them, i. e. a classic case of no consensus, so I am not sure how this should be resolved. In regards to 's comment above, about presenting and discussing opposing contradictory views, I am not sure that this is possible in this case since the list cannot end both in Late Antiquity and at the end of the Middle Ages. I don't follow along with the argument that the list going all the way to 1453 is some way of not taking a stand in regards to the issue at hand. Regardless of when we choose the list to end, we are going to make a choice that contradicts a majority of published lists of Roman emperors (since a vast majority of them end at different points in time). Making the list end in 476, 480, 602 or 641 are big stands to take, but so is making the list end in 1453. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are already two separate lists, and both sides seemed to agree that the current overlap of one w/ the other is stupid. This leaves the option of either (1) going through the rather complicated process of merging of both lists (which only 2 people here have explicitly suggested) or (2) cutting the Roman list somewhere, which is easily reversible. As you accurately said, someone is going to be upset over this one way or another, and opting for 1453 is just as much taking a side as picking any other date.
 * I counted two people who were categorically in favor of 1453, with a third making a brief comment about the list needing to be 'complete', w/o addressing any of the problems you just mentioned. The arguments presented here against using two Wikipedia pages instead of one – 'taking a side' on academic debate, 'completeness' – are abstract and inconsequential. Because there is no definite consensus on whether to use 1 or 2 lists, but there is one with regards to having fewer duplicate content, it might be better in the end to just cut the list at the 7th-century on the basis that reverting such measure is easy. If this deadlock is kept up, the problem of two lists excessively overlapping will remain. Avis11 (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In case I hadn't made myself clear, I am categorically in favour of 1453, because this is the only option that is both complete, and avoids having to make a POV judgement about where to split the list. As for List of Byzantine emperors, this is clearly a redundant article. It's like having a List of US presidents since the Civil War or some such arbitrary division. Making it a redirect to this one is clearly the best option. TharkunColl (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we already have the merged list here. The simplest solution in my view is to rename this article List of Roman and Byzantine emperors, describing in prose the various divisions proposed in various sources (but in effect leaving it up to the reader as to where any division in the list between "Roman" and "Byzantine" might be), and redirecting List of Byzantine emperors here. Having one list go all the way to 1453 is the only way to represent all the various sources because any split is a de facto rejection of those reliable sources that list Roman emperors up to 1453. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Renaming this article as List of Roman and Byzantine emperors is fine by me. TharkunColl (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Can we please just preserve the status quo? I don't see any reason to change anything drastic. Having two lists is fine. List of Byzantine emperors contains different information. It has the names in Greek. It could contain more Christianity-related stuff than could the longer general list of Roman emperors - who convened what councils, adhered to what heresies. It could contain more Byzantium-specific material - who built what forum, what cathedral, what honorific column, what aqueduct. A "List of Byzantine emperors" is frequently encountered in the sources, and is at least as common as is a "List of Roman emperors", of whatever length each might be. To be vast and complete, we should have lists of both categories of emperors, whether or not many members happen to populate both sets. One list begins with Constantine, the other with Augustus. Both end the same way. This encyclopaedia is not printed on paper. Please just let's improve both lists rather than arguing for destruction of one or the dismemberment of both. GPinkerton (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Iconography of Roman and Byzantine Emperors
There seems to be some disputes between me and other users about which images should be used to portray the emperors. Whenever I replace a coin portrait w/ a bust, another user changes it back. Anyone willing to resolve this dispute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diet Coke Diego (talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The best way to solve it would be to provide your reasoning for wanting to change the images. Also pinging who reverted you; I think everyone's growing tired of discussions in regards to this list by now but perhaps both clearly providing their reasoning here will avoid more edit-warring. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you had looked at the edit summaries I left, you wouldn't have arrived here clueless of what's up. First of all, there's nothing wrong with using coins: some of the coins provide better likenesses than actual statues. Of the several emperors whose images you changed, the following ones I care to talk about: Pertinax, Didius Julianus, the two Gordians, Philip II, Volusianus, Claudius Gothicus, Galerius, Constantius I and II, Licinius, Maximinus Daia, Constans, Valentinian I and II, Gratian, Theodosius I, Honorius and Heraclius.


 * 1) Coins offer better likenesses than the statues you posted with regards to Pertinax, Claudius Gothicus, Galerius, Constantius II (arguably), Gratian and Valentinian II. Some of these aren't even confirmed likenesses. The one of Claudius is in any event too elongated for this list. The one you added for Constantius I is too ugly, the previous one (which was actually a statue too, not a coin) was better.
 * 2) There is no reliable confirmation in Wikimedia Commons of the authenticity of Pertinax, Gordian II, Philip II (uploaded by a sock account), Volusianus, Licinius, Maximinus Daia, Valentinian I, Theodosius I and Honorius. If you had taken a few extra seconds to examine their Wikimedia pages you'd notice this. Some of their entries just make an attribution w/o any justification at all, some explicitly say that the attribution is uncertain, and others don't match the likenesses of their respective coins. You, in fact, uploaded Licinius a couple days ago w/o providing a source. You also added Heraclius and posted it on Wikipedia w/o checking if it would stay permanently.
 * 3) The Louvre website has a question mark besides the so-called Constans bust.
 * 4) This is more of a guess in my part, but I think the Gordian I bust isn't actually the emperor either. Avis11 (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can confirm the Aphrodisias portrait is indeed Theodosius, and is firmly archaeologically associated with the rest of the monument of which it was a part, on which is inscribed the name of the emperor Theodosius in big letters. (But which? ...) GPinkerton (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I believe that the Aphrodisias bust is of Theodosius I ("The Great"). Below I'll give my reasoning as for why.

Firstly, The Aphrodisias specimen is clearly devoid of any facial hair, whilst appears to show him with a mustache, as well as a chinstrap. Aditionally, Theodosius I was not known to have had any facial hair, and he is not depicted as such on any coin portraits of his, nor on his missorium. Secondly, The aformentioned depiction of Theodosius I on his missorium bears many similarities to the Aphrodisias bust, especially in the shape of the subjects chin and jawline, the curls in the hairline, the rather lengthy ears and the fairly short, almost stubby nose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diet Coke Diego (talk • contribs) 04:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * These are all convincing enough arguments, but the Wikimedia entry needs it's own sources. Avis11 (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Commons entry for the photo of the bust of Theodosius has this link as its source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diet Coke Diego (talk • contribs) 05:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The site doesn't itself give a reliable source explaining why that man is Theodosius. Avis11 (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The source is R. R. R. Smith: "Late Antique Portraits in a Public Context: Honorific Statuary at Aphrodisias in Caria, A.D. 300-600." The Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 89, 1999, pp. 155-189..

Pulcheria?
I am relatively new to Wikipedia so apologies if I am doing this wrong. But shouldn't Pulcheria be listed here? Her article claims she was empress regnant from July to November of 450, after Theodosius II's death and before she married Marcian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maolcraoibhe (talk • contribs) 14:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, she should be. There are multiple sources which list her among the other rulers, even 19th-century ones such as Elton (1825), and she is frequently referred to as a reigning empress, such as (LINK REMOVE FOR COPYLINK VIO); "Pulcheria was virtually sole empress for a month-long interregnum". She used to be in the list, don't know why she was removed but I've added her back in. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? The title 'Augusta' which she gained in 414 was but an honorific, and being a de facto ruler tells nothing about her being a de iure empress. I seldom find her in lists of Roman emperors. Avis11 (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless if one considers Pulcheria to be a co-ruler of Marcian or Theodosius II, she was the de facto and (arguably?) de jure ruler of the eastern empire for a month following the death of Theodosius II. She does appear in some lists, but without concrete lists being cited for inclusion/non-inclusion of emperors across the board, I don't think the argument that she appears in few lists really holds up. There are a lot of lists that exclude emperors like Philip II, Saloninus, Maxentius and Vetranio. Some of the usurpers-turned-emperors in this list, such as Eugenius and Joannes seem to be very rarely included as well. Some co-rulers in the list (i.e. Victor and Marcus (Basiliscus's son)) are also typically left out. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Little as I know about her person specifically, I was always under the impression that she just ruled informally during some sort of interregnum, rather than becoming nominal head of state. Wasn't Irene the first to hold the office? Avis11 (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Define: "je jure empress" and "nominal head of state". GPinkerton (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The terms mean what they convey at face value... I'm not sure what else you can come up with. An emperor was de jure or nominal head of state of the Roman empire. Her exercise of power does not necessarily make her nominal head of state, i.e. empress (no more than Aetius or Ricimer). Avis11 (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about her specifically either, but I do think my point still stands; she is featured in some lists. The list already includes male rulers who are rarely listed (i.e. Vetranio, Eugenius, Joannes) and pretty much never listed (Victor, Marcus). She was the head of the Theodosian dynasty, augusta and the former guardian/regent of her brother; as far as I understand she does appear to have held supreme power in the east. Marcian only became emperor through marrying Pulcheria; this appears to be similar to the later and complicated co-regencies of Zoë, Romanos III, Michael IV, Michael V, Theodora III and Constantine IX. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I'm increasingly sceptical of this. All your examples are men, and Vetranio, for instance, was recognized by the only 'legitimate' emperor, Constantius II, so there's no question about his own legitimacy. Your own source – "Pulcheria was virtually sole empress for a month-long interregnum" – undermines your argument. An interregnum precludes any idea of Pulcheria being empress regnant, and the word "virtually" suggests that she was empress in all but name... and if she wasn't empress in name then she wasn't empress at all. Having supreme power says nothing about her nominal position (Aetius and Ricimer weren't emperors). The title augusta is an empty feminine honorific with no nominal authority attached, and her marriage was just a political move to give Marcian informal dynastic legitimacy. I have seen not one list which includes Pulcheria as an equal to, say, Diocletian. Avis11 (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What I was getting at is that regardless of authority, the argument that Pulcheria does not appear in a majority of lists does not hold up if the same inclusion criteria is not applied to men who are included. Essentially I believe that it's sexist unless emperors who also do not appear in a majority of lists (or even any lists outside Wikipedia, which as I pointed out is the case for some of them) are also removed. If "appears in most lists of emperors" is the inclusion criteria it should be consistently applied. I did show one example of a list, granted it's a poor example since it's from 1825. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think appearance in lists is not the best of criteria. I think this list should be left for all the men to have been emperor or co-emperor, and the handful of women that ruled as empress in their own right for a significant time. Whether Pulcheria should be included is a question similar to whether Ariadne should be, or Helena. Probably not, ultimately. I have argued before that it would be nice to have a list where augusti, caesares, and augustae could all be arrayed together, perhaps together with some of the more substantial "usurpers". I think the desire to include Pulcheria is a horror vacui, and part of a drive to account for the month or so when there was only one augustus (Valentinian III) and no emperor at Constantinople for the first time in ages - but there's no need to fill a "head of state" box for every day that passed in the Roman empire. There weren't any augusti at all between spring 337 and the acclamation of his sons as augusti in September that year. Does that mean there was a reign of the augusta Constantina? Probably not. GPinkerton (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also like the type of list that you're describing but I think that it agains raises the issue of whether the list on Wikipedia should diverge to such an extent from other lists of emperors. To make myself extra clear, I'm for excluding Pulcheria as long as there are clear criteria for inclusion/exclusion that are applied consistently (and I think I've argued sufficiently that there aren't at the moment). Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Required Reading:
 * Burgess concludes: The idea that Marcian only became emperor through marrying Pulcheria is not correct. Marcian became emperor by virtue of his acclamatio and coronation at the Hebdomon and by vote of the Senate. Since there was no augustus to invest him with the purple (Valeninian III was, improperly, not consulted), he probably put it on himself. It is also possible that he was crowned again by the Patriarch at Hagia Sophia, as was Leo I, or appeared in the Hippodrome, as did Anastasius. The reason for the marriage, according to Burgess, was the unification of the new emperor's family with the Valentinianic-Theodosian dynasty to which Valentinian III belonged, to forestall the likelihood that Valentinian would have nominated Olybrius as his eastern colleague, just as Gratian had nominated Theodosius I and Theodosius II has nominated Valentinian III. Pulcheria and Marcian may well have been married only after the acclamation of Marcian. Burgess argues Aspar arranged the whole thing, that Marcian and Pulcheria were both pawns of his, and that the wedding may have been after the beginning of Marcian's reign. Holum writes the opposite. GPinkerton (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a significantly stronger argument against Pulcheria's inclusion than her absence in most lists of emperors. I concede that I was probably mistaken on just how far-reaching Pulcheria's authority was. I think my point still stands that if she's not included some of the more ephemeral male rulers should also be removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Burgess concludes: The idea that Marcian only became emperor through marrying Pulcheria is not correct. Marcian became emperor by virtue of his acclamatio and coronation at the Hebdomon and by vote of the Senate. Since there was no augustus to invest him with the purple (Valeninian III was, improperly, not consulted), he probably put it on himself. It is also possible that he was crowned again by the Patriarch at Hagia Sophia, as was Leo I, or appeared in the Hippodrome, as did Anastasius. The reason for the marriage, according to Burgess, was the unification of the new emperor's family with the Valentinianic-Theodosian dynasty to which Valentinian III belonged, to forestall the likelihood that Valentinian would have nominated Olybrius as his eastern colleague, just as Gratian had nominated Theodosius I and Theodosius II has nominated Valentinian III. Pulcheria and Marcian may well have been married only after the acclamation of Marcian. Burgess argues Aspar arranged the whole thing, that Marcian and Pulcheria were both pawns of his, and that the wedding may have been after the beginning of Marcian's reign. Holum writes the opposite. GPinkerton (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a significantly stronger argument against Pulcheria's inclusion than her absence in most lists of emperors. I concede that I was probably mistaken on just how far-reaching Pulcheria's authority was. I think my point still stands that if she's not included some of the more ephemeral male rulers should also be removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

5 column style
Can we go back to the previous 5-column format? I know I'm not the only one that think it was way better (as pointed above). I post this to avoid any possible edit conflict. Tintero21 (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC) (Sorry for the guy that edited the whole list just to add those columns)
 * Your link shows the list with two different column formats:
 * From 27 BC to 602 AD it used: Portrait; Name; Reign; Succession; Life details.
 * From 602 to 1453 it used: Portrait; Name; Birth; Succession; Reign; Time in office; Death. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the whole byzantine section needed to be re-edited. My idea is to apply the 5 column format to all tables. Tintero21 (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to that, but it was less work at the time to go the other way and apply to the whole page what most rows were doing already. I also liked two things in particular from the 7 column format: that the information was presented chronologically from left to right (the 5 column format put reign before succession) and that the "Life details" column was made more specific and so less prone to accumulate WP:FANCRUFT over time. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Understandable. I don't like the 7-column style primarily because, well, it's a large number of columns. It has too much stuff, basically. Probably most readers would be more comfortable reading 5 large columns instead of 7 small and compressed ones. For the chronological issue, I would argue that the old order (Name, Reign, Succession, Life) was (forgive the redundancy) ordered by relevancy, because most people are more concern about knowing the reign dates of an emperor rather than his birthday. I personally thing that putting the Reign before Succession looks better, although I wouldn't really mind if it's changed. Finally, "Life details" could be renamed as "Lifespan" to avoid innecesary details, with the section only showing the birthday and cause of death. I would gladly edit the whole thing if necessary, altought I saw that User:Ichthyovenator already made the canges in his working draft.Tintero21 (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As can be gathered from my draft, I support a change back to the 5-column format. I agree with every point made by Tintero21. I also agree that if "Life details" is too vague, we can change it to "Lifespan" or something similar. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I originally put Life details so that relevant details of interest about someone could be included. For example, in Julian there could be a brief sentence/remark about him being the last non-Christian emperor of Rome, since that would probably of interest to readers. Manner of death is also arguably something worth including. Simple lifespan seems too brief, especially since we don't know when everybody was born or died. Avilich (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also a valid point - if called "Lifespan" it also doesn't really fit if we include details on the end of the reigns for those (few) emperors who abdicated or were deposed but allowed to live. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * True. Another option could be to place those details in "Succession and notes" (Trajan's entry says: Adopted son and heir of Nerva. His reign marked the geographical peak of the empire). By the way, Ichthyovenator, I feel that putting the full imperial name of each emperor is kind of unnecessary, as they are extremely long and take up a lot of space. I think way the Wikipedia’s list handles names is really good. Tintero21 (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's also true. I think including/omitting the full imperial name of the emperors seems like sort of a personal choice if you look at RSs. They don't have to be included by any means but I referenced three separate RSs that do list the emperors with these styles - they're how the emperors title themselves on coins and inscriptions, so how they officially presented themselves. I think it's a nice thing to include and I don't like how the current list uses Imperator only for Augustus, and Caesar & Augustus only until the mid-Nerva-Antonine dynasty. It's apparently referenced to a source but it feels arbitrary to use it in the beginning and not later (the note says that they stopped being inheritable names, but Augustus to Antoninus Pius was not a genealogical dynastic line so I don't see how that applies). As I said, personal opinion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Tthe term 'inherited' is not altogether inappropriate since those names indicated continuity with predecessors (though I changed the wording now). In any event, what the source says is that the form "Imperator Caesar [full name] Augustus" became standard from the time of the Antonines onward. Specifically, the names 'Caesar' and 'Augustus' were transmitted down to each emperor in the same way regular names were inherited by traditional adoption procedure. This was not the case anymore with M. Aurelius, who, according to the source cited, received 'Caesar' as a title (not a name inherited by adoption) to denote his status as heir-apparent, and switched his name to 'Augustus' upon his accession. Since basically every emperor afterwards used 'Caesar' and 'Augustus' this way, it makes sense to stop mentioning these two titles at that point. Avilich (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * New note is more clear. Yeah, I'm not opposed to either approach - the current method with just the names works. Perhaps we could put together something like a "Style of the Roman emperors" article (similar to Style of the British sovereign, Style of the Georgian sovereign, Style of the Dutch sovereign etc.) eventually, because I think it is worth including and discussing the full titles somewhere (alternatively expanding Roman emperor, which talks about it a bit but not in the way I'm envisioning). Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Change image of Constantine XI?
I've found that on most pages this image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Constantine_XI_Palaiologos_miniature_(cropped).jpg is used for the portrait of emperor Constantine XI The other image seems more detailed but this one is used more PolarWafflez🐶 (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, I believe that the was painted long before the currently used image, and in this page there are also paintings from the same codex. I'm not sure, just a suggestion. PolarWafflez🐶 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the image you link is preferrable over the one that is used in this list. It's from the Mutinensis gr. 122, a 15th-century codex, so it is nearly a contemporary depiction. The other one is from some form of religious icon done later. I've changed the image. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. PolarWafflez🐶 (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I think The Constantinian dynasty should have its own section
I think The Constantinian dynasty (excluding Constantius Chlorus and Constantine I) should have its own section as The Constantinian's weren't necessarily the Tetrarchy. Yaxops  Banter  21:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Eugenius, Magnentius, Constans (II) and other "problematic" emperors
I know the usurper / legitimacy discussion has been going for a while, so I'll be brief. This is my proposition: Add Magnentius and Constans, son of Constantine III, and include the following criteria: "Any emperor post-286 that has had (if breafly) de facto rule over any half of the Empire is included." This way the entire list maintains more or less the same criteria without using some arbitrary turnpoint like 395. Eugenius and Magnentius have basically the same story ("usurpers" in the West defeated by the Eastern emperor), yet one is included and the other omitted (and they were both pre-395). I know these emperors are not often (if ever) listed in books, but… like, come on, this whole list is already too disconnected from any academic list. If, on the other hand, you think using the 395 division is better, then Eugenius should be excluded and Constans included. Tintero21 (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that if figures like Joannes and Eugenius are in, there is no reason to leave out Magnentius - all of these are figures that are sometimes regarded as legitimate emperors and sometimes as usurpers. My idea for a consistent approach would be to include all such figures, but clearly mark those whose legitimacy is disputed by historians, like here where my approach is to define inclusion criteria with academic references (WP:LISTCRITERIA), include all figures who fit those criteria and then mark those of these figures that some regard as illegitimate anyway. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm very impressed with your work, I really liked how you handled the issue (and how you show the co-emperors too). I'm not quite sure about adding rulers like Nepotianus and Uranius, specially the latter. Adding these clarifications would make things much less confusing. Tintero21 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll see if this draft ever gets near finished (not my first attempt). Uranius is easily the most flimsy inclusion, yes, so will have to see if I keep him in down the line. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Constans II is complicated since he was an appointee of someone whose right to appoint wasn't recognized, and he died shortly afterwards anyway. Avilich (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you but figures like Eugenius and Joannes were never recognized at all by the emperors in the east so it seems recognition cannot be the sole determining factor. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations
I just discovered that this list was first created on 13NOV 2001. That means that it is over 20 years old now. That is longer than most roman emperors reigned!

Congratulations to everyone who contributed to making this list into what it is today.

DutchHoratius (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Content of the lead
This article is a list of emperors. The lead paragraphs should contain some information about the title, and an explanation of the East-West divide, but a more general discussion of the empire's shifting borders and territorial gains and losses is not called for here. I've deleted some sentences that don't assist the reader's understanding of the list. Richard75 (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been reverted with the edit summary "An emperor rules the empire; the territory is important." It would be important in another article (such as Roman Empire), but nobody is coming to List of Roman emperors to learn about the territory. It's just a list of individuals; we have another article for the empire and its history and geography. Richard75 (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the territory over which the holder of the title exercised authority is highly relevant and we can afford to have a few sentences briefly explaining this in the lead. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)