Talk:Longinus (Roman governor)

Identity
This is a difficult article to write, primarily because we don't know the name of this governor. Consider the following an example of how the Wikipedia format can fail, unless an expert is involved. (And no, I'm not an expert. Just a sometimes obsessed amateur.)

All of our knowledge depends on a fragment of a military diploma,. The relevant lines of this document, which name the governor were published in CIL as ...]ANO LON[..., & suggests a fourth letter, G. Although the published text indicates much of the last two surviving letters was missing. But based on this publication, the name would be [...]anus Long[...].

Now Eric Birley (Journal of Roman Studies, 28 (1938), p. 228) argued for a different reading of the last two letters, offering the reading ...]ANO LEG[..., thus [...]anus leg. & not a second name. A subsequent attempt to re-examine the military diploma revealed that, despite conservation efforts, its condition had deteriorated & now the reading could not be confirmed (Margaret Roxan, Roman Military Diplomas 1954-1977, p. 26). So now the only certain part of this governor's name is [...]anus. Starting from this, Anthony Birley in 1981, although admitting that the termination "-anus" is very common, considered all of the men known to have been consul in the previous 10 years & offered three candidates: M. Servilius Silanus (cos. 152, II cos. 188) & Minicius Opimianus (cos. 155) -- about whom nothing further is known -- & Calpurnius Julianus who is not attested as having been consul yet is attested as governor of Upper Dacia. (Birley notes that several governors of Dacia went on to be governors of Britain.) So this is how the matter stood in the 1980s.

Despite its poor condition, scholars continued to work on the text of this document. One detail that had been problematic was its date, for which the day "[a.d.] VIII k. Jul." was known, but for the year only parts of the names of the two suffect consuls were available -- [S]everus & Flavus. After much speculation, & elimination of alternatives, the date was at last narrowed down to 24 June (or 25 May) AD 161, & the consul prior identified as C. Septimius Severus; the rest of Flavus' name remains unknown.

Yet a new possible name of this governor has been offered. From Roman Military Diplomas V (2006: p. 704): "A. R. Birley has argued that the governor's name can be read as [...]ano Lep[...] and that he can be identified as M. Pisiban(i)us Lepidus, suffect consul in 159." Paul Holder cites Birley's The Government of Roman Britain, pp. 150f. Holder then concedes, "This is attractive but not certain."

So while this governor could be [...]anus Long[...], or M. Servilius Silanus, Minicius Opinianus, Calpunius Julianus, or M. Pisibanius Lepidus -- the Wikipedian who created the original article decided on Longinus. Which is puzzling. This choice appears to be an act of original research, but then how could one properly explain all of the reasonable alternative POVs about this official's identity if one of these 5 names were used as the title? And picking the neutral [...]anus (Roman governor of Britain) would be a Wikisyntax headache, as well as a puzzle to the casual reader. (This possible renamed article might make for a memorable "Did You Know" item, though.)

Or we could merge this article into List of governors of Roman Britain, with a lengthy section explaining the issue -- which would make that page look awkward. Or we could just delete this article arguing it's too much of a headache to deal with at this time -- a.k.a., ignore all rules. -- llywrch (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)