Talk:Martinian (emperor)

Third Civil War between Constantine and Licinius
Although the article states that Martinianus was elevated during the second civil war between Constantine and Licinius, it was in fact the third - the first was in 314, which included the Battle of Cibalae (where Licinius just managed to hold his own), the second was in 316-317, which included the Battle of Mardia, and the third which involved Martinianus occured in 324. Oatley2112 (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Cibalae and Mardia are usually considered to have been in the same campaign, with the year of the campaign being variously placed in 314 and 316 depending on conflicting sources. Cibalae and Mardia being in different campaigns makes no military sense.Urselius (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Naming
The title of this article should be changed to Martinian, to bring it in line with Valentinian, Justinian etc. etc. Urselius (talk) 08:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Full name
I reverted this edit which ascribes the name Marcus Martinianus to the emperor. His fuller name is only known as 'Mar. Martinianus' from coins. Mar. is most certainly not a praenomen, and so 'Marcus' is wrong (though 'Marcius' may be correct). I removed the reference for it since it's a tertiary source with no particular focus on the subject, and the older secondary source was superior. Avilich (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is essentially a numismatic-based question as coins are the only source of any of the names of Martinian, other than Martinian. While some coins of Martinian have the inscription "DN MAR MARTINIANVS PF AVG", others have the inscription "DN M MARTINIANVS PF AVG", and in Roman usage M as part of a name is an abbreviation for the praenomen Marcus. Yet more coins have "DN C S MAR MARTINIANVS PF AVS", perhaps implying Sextus Marcius. I think that the full name of Martinian is essentially unknowable to any useful level of certainty. This should go to formal arbitration, or we agree that the name in the lead and infobox be limited to Martinian, and an explanation of the possible other name combinations be placed in the text. Urselius (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See: THE TETRARCHIES AND THE RISE OF THE HOUSE OF CONSTANTINE: THE COLLAPSE OF PAGANISM AND THE TRIUMPH OF CHRISTIANITY, DIOCLETIAN TO CONSTANTINE I, AD 284-337 Book Title: Roman Coins and Their Values Volume 4, Book Author(s): DAVID R. SEAR, Published by: Spink Books, Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvk8w0xx.7pp. 403-404
 * (Your link links to nothing.) "Mar. Martinianus" is undisputed and should probably at least appear in the infobox, though I'm fine with just "Martinianus" in the lede. "Marcus" (which is never abbreviated as "mar.") is probably incorrect, since a praenomen was exceedingly rare in the 4th century, and "Marcus Martinianus" doesn't follow traditional naming practices. "CS" could also mean "Caesar", but there's no way of knowing for sure. Avilich (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The link is to JSTOR, you need institutional or other permissions to access it. However, the reference shows all the coinage inscriptions I outlined. It comes down in favour of 'Sextus Marcius? Martinianus', so the version you favour is far from universally recognised, never mind canonical. I would disagree with your argument on praenomina, as usage on coinage, to which we are entirely beholden, was very variable. I think that we can be certain that the people at the mints, or some of the mints, were unsure of their new emperor's full name. This being the case, I really do not think that any addition to 'Martinian' is suitable for the lead or infobox, but that the various contenders should be explored in the body of the text. We can go down the formal arbitration route at any time you like. Urselius (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your jstor link literally links to nothing, the page is empty. Nobosy disagrees that Mar[something] Martinianus is his name, however, incomplete it may be. It appearing in the infobox causes no disruption to the main text, and so showing something like "Mar(...) Martinianus" on the infobox and simply "Martinianus" on the lede seems like a fair compromise. Avilich (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't use the link, then - go on JSTOR and search, as I did. Urselius (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That does not appear anything like a compromise, when the available secondary sources are very obviously split on the other names of Martinian. Your 'compromise' would give precedence to your personal favourite option. Urselius (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Which source exactly disagrees that part of his name was Mar(...) Martinianus? Avilich (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would argue that an abbreviation of an uncertain full version is not a name, for one thing. I have highlighted that primary numismatic evidence presents, and secondary sources interpret, Martinian's name in three different ways. Choosing one of these out of personal preference for more prominent treatment is: a) giving the impression that one version has more legitimacy than the others, which is untrue, b) a deeply unscholarly approach, and c) amounting to 'own research', which is not allowed on Wikipedia. The only reasonable encyclopaedic treatment is to give all three versions and all three interpretations equal weight within the text. Urselius (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources don't interpret his name in three different ways, don't be purposely obtuse. None of them disagree that 'Mar(something) Martinianus' was his name, the only uncertainty seems to be about the S at the beginning. People need to know that he had more names than simply his surname, and this should be displayed at the infobox, even if it's incomplete. Avilich (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't purposefully feign ignorance - you have provided secondary sources supporting "Mar.", I have provided secondary sources for both "Sextus Marcius?" and "Marcus". That adds up to three versions, all with supporting secondary sources, no single version is superior. As such, no version should be given undue prominence. We need external formal arbitration, as you do not seem grasp the fundamentals of the situation. Urselius (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, they all agree that Mar(...) was part of his name. Your own bloody source says "DN C S MAR MARTINIANVS PF AVS". Whether or not this actually means 'Marcius' or whatever is irrelevant. Avilich (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is also "DN M MARTINIANVS PF AVG", as I have pointed out before. Both you and me know that 'M' is a standard Roman abbreviation for 'Marcus', it is on the front of the Pantheon "M AGRIPPA ....", short for Marcus Agrippa. Also "Mar." is not a name! It is meaningless outside of some contextualising, which is impossible within the confines of an infobox. Urselius (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Surely you can notice that Marcus also starts with Mar. The very purpose of the infobox is to provide relevant information with little or no context, for which in turn the article itself exists. People need to know that his name is not limited to his single surname; they'll see something like 'Mar(...) Martinianus' on the infobox and the conclusion will be obvious: he had some other name which isn't known, and the main text will explain this. As I said before, putting this in the infobox and not in the lead sentence (where I originally placed it as well) is a fair compromise. Avilich (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Mar." is not a name, and will just confuse people reading the article. I think that "Martinianus - full name uncertain" is a more useful and accurate thing to put in the infobox. Urselius (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's part of a name, and not confusing even to the most brain dead of people. But sure, 'full name uncertain' can be added too. Avilich (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

From my perspective as a reader, I would want to know his full name, or as much as we know about it, somewhere in the article. If we don't know, than that should be addressed somewhere, in my opinion. As a history buff, I might come to Wikipedia to know the full name of an emperor, or as much as we know. Can't it just be pointed out that his name has appeared as "Mar(...) Martinianus" but that sources are unclear as to his full name? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, no, because it is an abbreviation, not a name. It gives essentially negligible information to the reader. Also the secondary sources give "Marcus" and "Sextus Marcius?", in addition to "Mar.". We cannot, as Wikipedia editors, second guess, when the sources are so divided, as this would definitely be be OR. If we have to have one name in a more prominent position than the other possibilities, and I don't know why we need to have such, I would much prefer "Marcius?". At least this is a name. Urselius (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Would it make sense to add a section that describes what you just said, labeled "Name", so that readers aren't left wondering? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I have been advocating. Something along the lines of "Martinianus - full name uncertain - see text" in the infobox and the lead, and a section or paragraph in the body of the article about the evidence for the names and the interpretations of secondary sources. The sticking point has been User:Avilich's insistence on having "Mar. Martinianus" in the infobox. Urselius (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My opinion may be worth nothing here, and I suggest requesting further comment if my thoughts don't benefit this conversation, but I think having "Mar." in the lead or infobox does nothing for the reader and is a tad confusing. Explaining the lack of full name in a separate section would be helpful to me as a reader, though. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion here:Third opinion. Urselius (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Mar(...)" (for example) instead of "Mar." shouldn't be confusing. It will be obvious that there's more to it, and the issue will naturally be clarified in a 'Name' section which doesn't yet exist. Avilich (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be happy with either "Marcius? Martinianus - full name uncertain" or "Martinianus - full name uncertain", plus a direction to the text. I do not think that an abbreviation is useful in an infobox or lead. Urselius (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to muddy the water even further, in The Imperial Families of Ancient Rome, Maxwell Craven · 2019 he is given the name Martius Martinianus. That makes Marcius, Sextus Marcius, Marcus and Martius all contenders. Urselius (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and did more or less that, adding a name section. I did not add "Martius" because it's apparently only a rare anglicization of "Marcius". "Marcus" is also extremely unlikely since that violates the tria nomina rule, praenomina were not used by 4th-century emperors, and the source you used for that isn't very good. Avilich (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is fine as far as it goes. However, I do not think that you are empowered to either censor information that is available from secondary sources or decide which secondary sources are are 'good' quality or not. Timothy Barnes appears to be a classical scholar of impeccable credentials. I will act accordingly. Urselius (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your source for 'Marcus' was tertiary, not secondary, and is too broad in scope and demonstrably careless with minor details. Avilich (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Tertiary, piffle! Also Martius is not a modernism, the name was found in the Vindolanda tablets - correspondence between Martius and Victor. You do not seem to hold infallible access to knowledge and I will not treat your opinions as if they originate from such. Urselius (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure 'c' and 't' were sometimes interchanged in Latin words (eg. Bonifatius/Bonifacius and Lepcis/Leptis Magna), so presumably the same thing happened with Marcius/Martius, especially since both names share the same root. 'Martius' in particular seems to be quite rare in comparison to 'Marcius', and it's not difficult to imagine that it became more common due to usage by later English speakers (cf. Portia and Porcia in Shakespeare). Your Handbook is a generalist tertiary source written by archaeologists, evidently not designed as a guide to small details like this. So, my judgement stands. But suit yourself. Avilich (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The following blows it all wide open: Cambi, Nenad. "Tetrarchic Practice in Name Giving". Diokletian und die Tetrarchie, edited by Alexander Demandt, Andreas Goltz and Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2012, pp. 38-46. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110914603.38 In this in-depth look into the naming practices of the Tetrachy and early House of Constantine. In it the author argues that the praenomen and nomen of Martinian are unknown and the two names are both cognomina, being Mar(tinus) Martinianus. The latter being derived from the former, with a more grandiose ending added, much as Diocletianus was originally Diocletius (Diocles). Urselius (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I added that one to the article, along with a few others, but it's strange that the author offers zero explanation or source for his choice aside from a context which includes little more than simply a lot of names ending with -anus. In fact, not one of the tetrarchic and Constantinian emperors used more than a single cognomen at any one time, which makes "Martinus Martinianus" unprecedented according to his own analysis. The author also refers to Maximinus Daza as "Daia", which I believe is deprecated. I added your source to the article, but I didn't like it very much. Avilich (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Licinianus Licinius. Urselius (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Licinius' is a nomen ending in -ius, 'Martinus' isn't, so that's obviously an invalid parallel. With 'Martinus' you have to assume Martinian's nomen is otherwise unknown, and Cambi himself doesn't give any explicit reason why that completely unattested name should be regarded as Martinian's original name. He also assigns the praenomen Gaius for a bunch of emperors who are not known to have had it, including COnstantine, and so again, not a very good source. Avilich (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)