Talk:Messalina

date inconsistency
The top of the article lists Messalina's birthdate as 25ad, the categories section puts it at 17ad.

I don't really know the subject matter too well, so I won't change it and run the risk of picking the wrong date, but from checking a few Roman history sites, she was 15 when Calligula had her marry Claudius, apparently as a joke. By my math, that puts her birth year at 23ad. ChrisU 7 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)

Claudius indifferent to her death?
What is the source of the anecdote about Claudius blithely asking for more wine when told of her death? It contradicts Graves' account in Claudius the God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.193.209.34 (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's from Tacitus (Annals 11:38. Suetonius (Claudius 39) says Claudius went to dinner immediately after having her executed, and "absent-mindedly" asked why she wasn't there. The primary sources agree he appeared unmoved by her death. Claudius the God is a work of fiction, and Graves (who translated Suetonius for Penguin Classics) was obviously taking a bit of artistic licence. --Nicknack009 22:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph about Claudius the God. That's more of a comparison between the novel and history than part of her biography. It belongs over at the page on I, Claudius. Remember that the novel is told from Claudius' point of view, and so he reacts in a personal way that cannot be confirmed in the historical record. All we have are second-hand reports - and they indicate that he was not exactly devastated at her downfall and execution. Suetonius suggests that Claudius was more concerned at the time with surviving the coup attempt than any love between them (Suetonius, Life of Claudius, 36). LaurenCole 06:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And note that even in the novel Claudius the God, Claudius behaves as Tacitus describes (blithe and unconcerned at Messalina's death). In the novel, this is because Claudius had been drugged by his physician so he could function; he doesn't grieve until later, when the drug is removed. Narsil 00:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Pic of Messalina
I found a lovely pic of Messalina at this website http://italianalmanac.org/biografie/messalina.htm, but I don't know how to create an external link from the Wikiarticle to the page in question. But since the pic is public domain I have already placed it on Messalina's page. The Fading Light 8:14, 28 March 2006

I like the new picture of Valeria Messalina. I have seen this picture on a series on the Roman Empire in the first century, when they were talking about her in the reign of Claudius. Anriz 30 March 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anriz (talk • contribs) 04:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Messalina's grandfather
According to very reliable sources, Messalina's grandfather is not Marcus Valerius Messala Messalinus but Marcus Valerius Messala Barbatus Appianus, a Claudius Pulcher by birth (son of Appius Claudius Pulcher, cos. 38BC) adopted by Marcus Valerius Messala, cos. suff. 32BC (see Levick, Claudius, Table 2 "Messalina's connections"). Also, Messalina never had a brother called Corvinus and her father was never consul (see Anthony Barrett, Agrippina, Appendix II: The husbands of Domitia and Lepida). I noticed that many wikipedia entries related to members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty contain a lot of false or erroneous information (for instance, Antonia the Elder's full name was NOT Julia (???) Antonia Cretica (???) Major but just Antonia Major; the daughter of Drusus II was not named Claudia Livia Julia Helena but just Julia (she's generally refered to as Iulia Drusi filia, even if some writers call her Livia Julia or Julia Livilla); Agrippina the Younger's full name was not Julia VIPSANIA (????) Agrippina Minor and she's called Agrippinilla only in Robert Graves' novel I, Claudius; Domitia Lepida's sister is not named Domitia Lepida Major, but just Domitia, etc.).

I suspect some fellow to just make up information about Julio-Claudian family members. It's very sad, because this makes wikipedia a not very reliable source of information. Are there not people at Wikipedia who verify the information contained in their articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.132.11 (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Messalina's grandfather is Marcus Valerius Messalla Messallinus. You can check in Tacitus, annals and the Caligula the movie, family page. Messalina's father Marcus Valerius Messalla Barbatus was consul in 19AD, at the time when his cousin Germanicus Caesar died. Check Tacitus, annals again. According to Modern historians, he either died in 20 or early 21AD and not much is known of him. Messalla Barbatus, is known in Suetonius as Marcus Valerius Messalla Barbatus and in Tacitus he is known as Marcus Valerius Messalla Messallinus II. So all I have written in the article about Messalina's family is true and reliable. 14 April 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.35.43 (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if your sources appear reliable (except for the "Caligula movie page"; frankly, this is not what I call a 'reliable' source), I see that you misinterpret a lot of things and you seem to make easy connections very rapidly. First of all, the Valerius you refer to was consul in 20 AD, not in 19 AD (the consuls of 19 were M. Iunius Silanus Torquatus and L. Norbanus Balbus; check your source correctly). Second, this Valerius is named M. Valerius Messala Messalinus, not BARBATUS, so check again. Third, this Messalinus was the son of another Messalinus, consul in 3 BC, who was not linked at all with the Julio-Claudian dynasty (please refer to the Prosopographia Imperii Romani, which is considered as the 'Bible' of the 'Who's Who' of the Roman Empire).

You say that according to modern historians, Barbatus' date of death has been establish. But which historians? Please, be more precise than that.

And on what basis do you identify the Barbatus from Suetonius with the Messalinus from Tacitus? What is your reference for such a bold affirmation?

I suggest you refer to serious sources like the ones published by Yale University Press (and written by renown scholars like Barbara Levick and Anthony Barrett) rather than solely on your frail intepretation of the Ancient sources or on Robert Graves' novels (they may be great books of fiction with a good historical basis, but they contained many fictionalized aspects).

I guess you're Anriz, surely a well-intended person who wants to participate to the Wikipedia project but who seems sadly ill-informed. Don't be afraid, I won't edit this article again (anyway, every time I do it, it seems to upset you a lot and you promptly revert every edits I make). I'm quite new with Wikipedia and I thought that really serious people were involved in this project. But I see I was wrong, so I won't waste my time anymore with Wikipedia.

So, enjoy yourself, Anriz! 206.172.132.88 April 15, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.208.208.130 (talk) 07:35,15 April 2006 (UTC)

Messalina's age upon marriage.

 * In keeping with the historical views at the time the novels were written (1934), Messalina is portrayed as a young teenager at the time of her marriage.

Not saying this is false, but can anyone enlighten me as to why historians changed their opinion of her birthdate/age? SnowFire 04:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Messalina's family
Anriz, would you please stop deleting constantly referenced material regarding Messalina's grandfather and replacing it by irrelevant information. This is not very polite from you. Thanks. --Johnnyfrank 9:00, january 3 2008 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added at 01:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just edited two paragraphs about the use of suspect sources and the caution we should use in approaching them. Messalina was hard done by! She was a shrewd politician and she could have commanded Rome. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.229.203 (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

um i dont know about you but i would leave the sex part out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.142.228 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Asteroids etc
Can there be a section at the bottom for all the random modern uses of her name? The Asteroid 545 being named after her shouldn't be up there in the top of the page 108.41.172.143 (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Valeria Messalina → Messalina – Normally known as just plain "Messalina", already redirects here, use common name. PatGallacher (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Can't imagine why there would be any question about this. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The biographical part of the article has been radically revised after discussion with User:Cynwolfe, who tagged it as unreliable on 14 June, remarking on its 'well-intentioned content' that 'much of this is OR based on primary sources, full of interpretation without attribution to secondary sources'. Books are listed at the end, but there are no citations to back statements such as that 'in character she was very insecure' (a 20th century speculation) and that 'Ancient Roman sources...claimed her negative qualities were a result of her inbreeding'. Even if they did (and this is disputable), the general consensus now is that the historians were arguing from a biased and self-interested standpoint and cannot be taken as reliable. It is therefore necessary to take a more objective view, rather than repeating malicious and salacious tittle-tattle from the past. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Most don't like the idea. (non-admin closure) Avilich (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Messalina → Valeria Messalina – General convention by WP:ROMANS is to use full name. This page's subject is undoubtedly the most famous Messalina, but there's also a Statilia Messalina who was likewise an empress and thus of equal rank to her. Cf. also Messalina (disambiguation). There's no wikipedia rule which necessitates that a single name be the article title of its most famous bearer, unless said person's notability is exceptional. Avilich (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Stongly disagree. Sometimes "the law (and in this case English WP convention) is an ass". In English literary usage, this empress has generally been known simply as "Messalina" for centuries and WP users will be confused if the direction is changed. The lead presently specifies that this Messalina was also known as Valeria M., and that ought to be enough. Possibly there might be a clarificatory note on the disambiguation page explaining that a later empress, Statilia M., also bore the name. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oposse WP:COMMONNAME is without a doubt simply Messalina.★Trekker (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Clear common name and primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think the addition of Valeria adds much to the identification, and would perhaps be more confusing. She is obviously the primary subject, much more famous than the relatively obscure third wife of Nero. Precisely, I think her "notability is exceptional" in Roman history. She is one of the best known empresses. T8612  (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * NB Crassus and Brutus, both of which are (1) primary topics, (2) use full name, and (3) rank higher on notability than Messalina. Avilich (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't relevant. And by the way, there are those (such as I) that would support moving those to the short names as well. As for your last comment, Jesus being more famous than Muhammad doesn't change how notable, "main topicy" or famous Muhammad is.★Trekker (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In case of Brutus or Cassius, Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Licinius Crassus are also famous, not as much as them, but still famous. Few people know about Statilia Messalina. The main argument is still that Valeria Messalina is more confusing, because she is rarely named as such. T8612  (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME in the manner of mononymous main title headers such as Augustus, Tiberius, Germanicus, Nero, Claudius, Caligula, Livilla, Albucilla, Terentia or Urgulania, to name but ten. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Emperors are an exception to the rule and the latter examples are people with single names. "Livilla" is a nickname. Avilich (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would any of that matter?★Trekker (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For members of WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy or those who may have a passing fancy for mononymous Roman women, a glance at subcategories under Category:Roman women by century, starting with Category:1st-century BC Roman women, will reveal numerous examples. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was questioning why Livilla being a nickname or the other people being emperors had an impact on how their Wikipedia pages got their names. I agree with you, the vast majority of Roman women were mononymous.★Trekker (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Messalinas' actual history
The section "Messalina's history" provides a single sentence:

'After her accession to power, Messalina enters history with a reputation as ruthless, predatory and sexually insatiable, while Claudius is painted as easily led by her and unconscious of her many adulteries.'

which is about as leading a sentence as you can get, and then proceeds to list the ways in which this view may be wrong. At no point does it deal with her history. The next section is spattered with pieces of information - of her 'victims'. Only does "Downfall" provide a a proper, bare-bones description of historical events, and it is reasonably well referenced.

My suggestion is that the article give an actual chronology of events, with appropriate headings, and separate sections for "reputation". I would do this myself, right now, but the reason I'm writing this is that I arrived here for a basic overview of Messalinas' history because I didn't know it, and was treated to a polemic against a reputation I knew very little about to begin with, and scoured the article for information describing the person and their place in history, with... mixed results.

It's an encyclopedia and it has a controversial reputation, and this kind of content is one of the myriad reasons why. Please provide information before you provide arguments, and don't enforce an opinion about a subject you've barely introduced and haven't given any information on. Seneillion (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Statue depiction
The caption for the statue at the head of the article is that it is of Messalina and her son. This is directly contradicted in the "Erasure from Memory" section. I am not experienced enough to evaluate which should remain, or if the caption should be edited, but I thought it should be brought to attention 98.212.157.201 (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If you'd read the section you cite, you'd see that the statue is mentioned as an exception. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Picture mention
Where in the section on Erasure from Memory is the explicit sex picture mentioned, ? Maybe I’m reading it too fast, but the only visual media I’m seeing mentioned in this section are 3 busts and 2 sardonyxes (sardonices?). Triplingual (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Discussion is in the third para of the next section, ending ("see above"). The picture is placed in the previous section to illustrate the calumnies against Messalina also discussed there. Sweetpool50 (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I see what you say, and I may still be green as an editor, but it should be in the section where it’s mentioned for clarity’s sake, but reallly it should be removed per WP:Offensive — the pic doesn’t add to the article, wouldn’t detract from it if removed, and is explicit for no real gain. “ Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.” (Personally I don’t think the clause about an alternative is relevant here, but I didn’t want to cherry-pick from the quoted statement.) Triplingual (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Er, Offensive_material Triplingual (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Now I've had time to think the matter through, I believe you're onto a loser, . The guidelines mention that the illustration must be relevant which, given the reputation of Messalina, it certainly is. The image occurs in a section that mentions two authors (the relevant passages of whose work are freely available on scholarly sites) who describe the empress' activities in the brothel. This gave rise to the Renaissance set of sexual positions by an established Italian artist in which Messalina occurs as one, discussed in the following paragraph. What is more, the whole set of I Modi has an article to itself in which the image you question also appears. There can be no question concerning its appropriateness, therefore. But, in addition, I Modi are part of art history and worthy of scholarly consideration - and WP is meant for scholars. Your objection can only be POV and falls outside WP guidelines, which allow for relevant discussion. And to add my own POV, I don't find the Messalina image in the least titillating; it's too much of its centuries-ago age and is even amusingly so. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Gotta say, despite your language of detachment and the spurious claim of WP being for scholars (something editors don’t agree on, and certainly something article content doesn’t support), it sounds like you like the pic and so it must stay. I’m at least trying to get outside my bias by looking at policy. The Offensiveness guidelines also say that if the article won’t be reduced by its removal, certainly the case here, it should go. Uncensored != intentionally explicit and all that. I may be green as an editor, but I know how these lopsided status arguments go and I’m going to move on. Triplingual (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)