Talk:List of late imperial Roman consuls

This list does not seem to distinguish the eastern empire consuls and the western? -fonzy


 * That's not a bug, it's a feature. ;-)


 * Seriously, the source I took this from did indicate Eastern & Western consuls, but at the time (& to a fair degree now) I am still not clear how this is determined. So instead of uncritically copying this over, I stripped it off. (And I suspect that in copying this list over, I may have also made some mistakes in the names.) Feel free to correct. -- llywrch 17:29 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

I gave you that source, and the right side i think is the eastern ones, teh left is the western. Or visa versa i would do it myself except. Thsoe latin names confuse me abit. -fonzy


 * I thought you had supplied me the source, but when I looked on your Talk page, I didn't see any sign of our discussion. I should have looked on my own Talk page before responding the first time.


 * The problem with all of the consular lists is that they need more work. This one, for example, needs proofing of the names, & for someone to go thru & make links to all of the appropriate articles. (In theory, there should be adequate biographies for every Roman consul since -- I'm guessing -- 390 BC; the consuls were the most powerful & well-know men of their generation. Unfortunately, the historical record has quite a few holes in it, & there are periods since 390 BC -- most noteably the mid-3rd century & from the 5th century onwards -- where we know little more than the name of the consul.)


 * The guidelines to Wikipedia say "always leave something to do"; there is an awful lot of work waiting for a motivated person to do with these lists. I'm willing to offer some advice & knowledge, but completing the work here is a job for someone else.


 * BTW, Fonzy, your help in furnishing the material for these lists was an important contribution. for that alone we are indebted to you. -- llywrch 23:08 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

I discovered earlier today amongst my notes some photocopy from a book I found at the UC Berkeley library that lists the consuls from 394-516. (I think the title may be I Fasti Consulari Dell'Impero Romano, but the pages are definitely 86-97.) Comparing these against the version we're using as the base here in Wikipedia, I noticed several things: I do know where I can find a reliable list for the consuls between c.250 - 395, but it may be a while before I can use it to check those entries. Further, the entries from 516 onward still need verification -- perhaps the most obscure part of the list. Oh well, we are told to always leave something undone for the next person who comes along. -- llywrch 05:06 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * The source tended to add "Flavius" before every name that appears as a single word; i.e., if a consul was recorded as, say, "Smith", our source would record it as "Flavius Smith". Unfortunately, from one point in the fourth century onward, Flavius tended to be an honorific given to members of the imperial family and military generals in the later Roman Empire, & many consuls from the fourth century onward were civilians who had never been in uniform, let alone commissioned officers.
 * At several points, starting with 477, consuls were not announced. I know this from other histories, but our source has decided to deal with this by duplicating entries. I fixed all of them except for the three consulships of Belisarius, because I can't find quick verification if he was consul only one time. (ISTR that he was consul only once, but I'd rather be sure before I make the edit.)
 * One or two copying errors -- which I have fixed.

Looks like no next person has come along for 3 years. I certainly don't intend to be that next person (no time!) but would point out there's a standard work which differentiates Eastern and Western consuls - Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz & Worp, Consuls of the Later Roman Empire (Atlanta, Georgia, 1987). I suggest they could be differentiated here simply by (E) and (W) rather than (East) and (West) - saves keystrokes. Also, why no suffecti after the first year, 193? I have copious if not always reliable info on suffects up to the end of the Severans, I think - after that the evidence seems to be very sparse. 193 - just looking at that year - is incorrect anyway, I believe. Erucius Clarus was consul-designate but Pertinax inaugurated the year (his cos. III) and Clarus became another suffect. There was also a suffect Silius Messala in May-June of the year (got this from Syme, somewhere). Maybe I should just add bits and pieces as and when I can? As I say, I don't really have the time to do anything comprehensive.Cenedi 15:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

After Justinian

 * I will change the table according this: . Beginning with Justinian's successor, Justin II., each emperor took the office of consul on 1 January of the year following the year of accession. The years were then counted as "post-consular" years.--Dojarca 09:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)