Talk:Roman Empire/Archive 7

Permanent division
Thinking about the following phrase in the intro


 * However, after the death of Theodosius I in 395, the two halves were permanently divided.

I wonder if this is really a historically accurate statement. Granted this is the traditional way most Western texts have written about it. But setting aside the artificial historical partitions I am not sure this reflects reality. If we follow the history
 * In 395, Theodosius dies passing the Empire to his two sons who separately rule over the East and West.
 * A succession of emperors following keeps East and West separate.
 * In 476, Odoacer kills the de facto Western rule Orestes and deposes the figurehead Romulus Augustus.
 * Eastern emperor Zeno grants Odoacer the title of Patrician and Odoacer acknowledges (nominally) Zeno's supremacy effectively making Zeno ruler of East and (what's left of) West
 * Odoacer, and later Theodoric rule Italy in the name of Eastern emperor nominally maintaining a unified Empire (the East had no real control, of course, and battles ensued).
 * It was not until the 8th/9th century that what remained of loyalty in Rome to the Eastern emperor was finally severed with the coronation of Charlemagne.

Legally speaking the Empire was considered united at the end of the 5th century even if that was in name only. Granted, I am not arguing that East and West had not split before Charlemagne but stating that East and West were permanently divided after the 4th century is perhaps overstating things (at least being misleading).

Perhaps a statement like


 * However, after the death of Theodosius I in 395, no emperor would again have genuine supremacy over a united Roman Empire, although the Eastern emperors claimed such supremacy from the late 5th century onward.

is preferable.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mcorazao, a honest warning: accusations of "POV-wording" have a way of blowing up into one's face. IMHO to "Rule" or "hold genuine supremacy" means the same (the first one is simply shorter). Flamarande (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, certainly no offense was intended but I have to give a reason for my edits. Obviously the average person would not think about this deeply enough about this that the subtlety in wording would actually matter. But still I believe the distinction is important. For the sake of brevity I did remove the final clause in my proposal above although, since you are suggesting a lack of clarity, maybe a clause like that one does belong. The point is that there is a lot of historical controversy about who ruled what. Legally-speaking the Eastern empire did assert dominion over the Western empire and this was at least recognized by Italy (including Rome) and to lesser extents other parts of the West. Aside from that, Justinian reconquered much of the West, albeit temporarily, and claimed to rule over an undivided empire (and indeed he did have actual control over territories in the East and West although the portion of the West that he controlled was a shadow of the former Empire).

I you have a preference in wording by all means put it in. I am simply saying that we should try to avoid being misleading wherever possible (it is impossible for a summary to not be misleading to some degree but this is a case where we can at least be less misleading).

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Time for a change
With all the hoopla we've had to listen to over this article you would think it would be in reasonable shape by now (months, years later) but no. So if you do not mind (if that would not be too, too objectionable) I plan to start taking a hand in all the small ways that count at first and then we will see. First is the notion that the republic is in any way an "empire" or was ever called that outside of the silver screen, whose fans are now winging it on Winkipedia. An imperator before Augustus was a military commander, forbidden by law to cross the Rubicon in that capacity on penalty of death. If anyone in any contexts had used the term of himself or anyone else in Rome he would have shared the fate of Julius Caesar. Long after the empire was an established fact the emperors were still acting in the name of the SPQR. Let's get this article squared away now. How long do you want to jerk it around? You'll be all grown up by the time it is finished. Sorry, but you merit this call to action.Dave (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "All the hoopla... (months, years later)"? I have begun to improve this article on a more regular basis since the 9 of July (more or less) and I believe that the article is slowly gaining in clarity and in details. I admit that the work is slow going, but better slow and well than quick and lacking. It isn't that easy as I'm trying my best to be objective besides providing proper sources in the correct places. Still, serious edits are always appreciated. Flamarande (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't you love hypocrites? They complain about the problem but dont do anything usefull beyond whinning. Get some muscle boy, do it yourself.--Jakezing (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * He is right in one thing: the subject more than deserves an excellent article. However, I made it quite clear that I'm going to take some breaks from time to time in order not to burn out. It would also easier to simply write away but I want to provide credible sources in all the correct places, and THAT takes a lot of time. Well this week I have a couple of days... Flamarande (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Im bogged down at the kosovo reaction and the settia and ab. reaction pages for the time bein. We have some pretty big fights, when we had a maop that shows recognized, nuetral, not recognized and soon to reco. and concern, it was pure war, we had alot of fights over malasia, so i'd help, but i can't.--Jakezing (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

117 AD Map
The current 117 map shows that the Roman Empire did not have access to the Persian Gulf nor the Caspian Sea. The fact that Trajan's annexation of Armenia would have opened over a thousand miles worth of Caspian access via the Kura River - control of the river mouth would have been imperative in many ways. A detachment of Legio XII Fulminata was also at the shores of the Caspian on multiple occasions in the previous decades.

Trajan himself was in Charax in 116 - with a detachment of his troops of course. All Persian sovereignty over the region was no longer in effect. For Trajan, complete naval access to the Persian Gulp via the Euphrates would have been vital for any expedition against Persia in the future.

--Tataryn77 (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm are you claiming that Roman empire reached the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf, or are you telling us that it should have done so?


 * In the case of the first I can only advise you to find a credible and serious source that confirms this. I vaguely remember hearing a story (decades ago) that Trajan reached the Gulf, drank a bit of its water and began to cry because he was too old and ill to continue his conquests towards India (I'm not vouching for the accuracy of the story, it is eerily similar to Alexander and Caesar and is probably hypocritical). If you could find the exact borders of the provinces Mesopotamia and Assyria the issue could be verified.


 * In the case of the second, simply forget it. Cheers Flamarande (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm obviously not here to discuss alternate histories.. that's for another time and place. Wikipedia itself attests to Trajan being at Charax, and Danny Danzigers 'Hadrian's Empire' also mentions Trajan being in Charax.

Wikipedia mentions a Roman presence in Baku on multiple occasions, though sourcing that may take a few days. Many other maps also show the Roman Empire reaching the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf in 117 AD.

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/maps/romanempire.jpg http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst372/readings/maps/RomanEmpire.html http://coursedocs.slcc.edu/huma/1100/roman%20empire.jpg http://worldcoincatalog.com/AC/C5/RomanEmpire/RomanEmpire.jpg

--Tataryn77 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the maps. I'm not sure in the current map that it shows the Romans did capture the city of Susa. That city was in modern day Iran near the Persian golf. Trajan captured that city in his battles against the Parthians.Someone might want to edit the map and explain what the two different green colors mean. --Titus001 (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea for sure, somebody should just edit the map accordingly to a median 117 map precedent. Also, indicating the Bosporan Kingdom, and is the Parthian green supposed to indicate Parthamaspates' domain? --Tataryn77 (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a wiki map of the Roman Empire at greatest extent from the italian wiki Roman Empire map. I was looking at the other languages for the Roman Empire and most of them use the map I posted.It shows the Romans made it to the persian golf and caspian sea. What do you think of the map? http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:LocationRomanEmpire.png --Titus001 (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the temporary conquests of Trajan (those which were returned by Hadrian) should simply get a different colour. Come on guys, the Roman empire held Mesopotamia and Assyria for more or less three years, nothing more. See the Sassanid Empire. There was one successful ruler who managed to conquer great territories (modern Egypt, Israel, Syria, and Turkey), but in the end the Sassanids lost them again. Here we have the same situation and IMHO we should follow the same policy. Other than that the map is fine. Flamarande (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the current map still seems to be somewhat off, in particular the light green does not really display the areas that hadrian abandoned again. The light green area to left was never conquered by trajan, while the dark green areas in mesopotamia/Iraq and armenia where actually abandoned by Hadrian. See also the links further up displaying some historic maps from other sources. Some of the other Interwikis used more accurate maps, these for instance display the siutation in the east more accurately: ,,.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-Write
I have just finished some major changes to this article. I will still need another day or two to do some cleanup, most of which will consist of shrinking the article. Right now it is at about 100 KB, and should probably be brought down to at least 80 or 70 KB. Ideally I would like to get this article promoted to GA status. I don't think I have to remind anyone that this article had major issues before. I decreased the amount of information on the emperors, and increased the sections on government, culture, and campaign history. I think that the biggest problem with the article before was that there was too much information on the emperors. Discussing Vespasian's Spanish policy, for example, is a topic best left to the article on Vespasian. Even topics such as Sejanus and Caligula's horse are too specific for an article on the entire Roman Empire. The overall point of this article is to appeal to an audience of non-experts, who may not be interested in every detail. The article before was simply too overwhelming (and disorganized) to accomplish this goal. The article before, for example, had 60 items listed in the contents box (half of these on the emperor alone). It now has about 20 overall.

Most of what I added simply came from other Roman articles. Most of the rest of the changes were simply a reorganization of information already on this article, or the deletion of information too specific or too complex for the scope of this article. Given the additions on culture in particular, I was still only able to reduce the overall size from about 130 KB to 100 KB, which is why more deletions will be necessary. 100 KB is simply too long and too overwhelming for most non-experts. If they want specifics, they can go to the article on that particular topic.

I will detail what I did specificaly. You can see the older version here:. History, Major Conquests , Rebellions , Byzantine Empire , and revival of the empire , have all been removed. These were either not germane to the topic (or at least not enough to justify the excess complexity they added to the article), or were simply redundant. As I said, we want non-experts to be able to read this without being overwhelmed.

All remaining sections, other than the sections on the emperors, were moved into either the new sections on the Roman government, culture, or military and provinces. This was mostly just a reorganization, and I didn't delete too much. I did, however, add a significant amount of information on Roman culture and Roman government. These topics were not addressed to an adequate level before.

I have attempted to transform the old sections on the emperors into two sections: one on the military campaign history, and a second on the emperors. I have tried to minimize my discussion of military topics on the section about the emperors. Most of the important military matters that were discussed in the old emperor sections have simply been moved to the section on campaign history. This has been done, in part, to remove some of the unnecessary complexity from the article.

I have not yet had a chance to look at the legacy section.RomanHistorian (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the sections "The Emperors" and "Campaign History of the Roman Empire" should be combined in a single section called "History". Also, the former section "395–1453: Survival in the East: Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire" should be readded (since the name of this article is "Roman Empire", not Western Roman Empire). Cody7777777 (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article certainly still needs some improvements, and and two paragraphs, one about the Western Roman Empire and another about the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire are a must, and will be included. RomanHistorian, I think that your edits are appreciated (Being very honest I think you changed a bit too much in a very short amount of time, but what the hell). On the the other hand, I don't agree with having very few but too large sections; subsections are not a bad thing as they give an easier overlook (of course there is also the danger of overdoing it). Flamarande (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I admit that the changes were a lot over a short period of time, but as I see it, this thing sat here for years like this, not really getting any better (as in, less overwhelming or more organized). RomanHistorian (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I do have a life (work, computer games, TV, friends, family, etc) besides Wikipedia. I began improving this article on a more regular basis only since the 9th of July (please take a look at the article before this date - I think that it is somewhat better). I fully admit that it is a slow process and I'm not against your improvements. One problem is that I like to provide hard sources (and primary or ancient secondary sources are simply better) and that takes time. Still go ahead. how about a "Foreign relations" section? Flamarande (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think one reason why change on this article was as slow as it was, was because people were writing things de novo. An article like this, which covers such a broad range of topics, should not have any original work on it. The original work should be on other articles regarding the specific topic (such as Domitian or Roman Religion). Thats why the article now is just an ordered summary of information found on other Roman Empire articles. Also, ancient sources are typically not ideal for a wikipedia article, because they are often inaccurate, biased, or mythological. Livy's first 10 books, for example, are mostly mythological, but no one (including Livy) realized this until about the year 1900. Modern sources are better, because they filter out as much of this inaccuracy as possible. RomanHistorian (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to clean up the Notes section a bit as well. Imho the article lists way to many books and some of them are only remotely related to the content of the article (like general books on antiquity, the greek world, or the roman conquest od scotland, ...). To exaggerate it a bit, right now it looks like every author working on the article added every book he knew being related to ancient Rome. Ideally the Notes section in the article shouldn't be much bigger than the current external links section, i.e. a few good books on the Roman empire and that's it. Books that are only needed for particular references should go in the references section, books only dealing with special issues (like the conquest of Scotland) should go to main articles on those specialized subjects. And if people feel the need for an extensive reading list on Rome, that probably should be moved to separate main article as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree and have made the changes. RomanHistorian (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Roman Empire
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Roman Empire's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nameOfRomeP358": From Siege of Pirisabora: In the Name of Rome, p. 358 From Campaign history of the Roman military: Goldsworthy, In the Name of Rome, p. 358 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This issue has been resolved. RomanHistorian (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

the most sofisticated adminstration?
how aobut china or india or persia etc. i can understand that his wiki is sorta western-centric but still to make such a claim seems a bit chavinist

please give me the different kinds of ROMAN EMPHIRE ( EMPEROR ) BECAUSE THIS KIND OF RESEARCH IS A PROJECT OF MY NEPHEW. KINDLY REPLY WITH MY REQUIRE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.229.110 (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Caligula
The man acted in an evil way. But just because he was declared insane after his assassination does not mean that he WAS crazy.211.225.37.54 (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

He made a horse, Incitatus by name, a senator. Not the action of an entirely sane and level-headed man.Urselius (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitatus suggests that Caligula may have done the Incitatus stuff to ridicule and anger the Senate, rather than as an act of insanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafinnerty (talk • contribs) 11:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How could we know? The historians had a tendency to describe emperors as easily catching emperor-madness, but for whome did the historians write? Were they part of a certain fraction of the upper class, or who where they? I've heard that kremlologists and secret service analysts have achieved a considerable skill in reconstructing reasonable event development explaining a mysterious outward surface of politics, so we may consult such analyses in order to get a reasonable authoring basis for the articles. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

391
The infobox mentions that in 391 the religion changed from Roman religion to Christianity. No where in the article is 391 mentioned. Can someone elaborate? Kingturtle (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 380 it should be acc2 Theodosius I. I'll make a try to elaborate on it. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed in the infobox, and added 380 in the section Christianity. Not very much to do: just some reformulations and relinkings. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

2 Military 2.2 Auxillia
The Auxilia are described as being paid less than Legionaries.

Wiki article "Auxiliaries (Roman military)" states that knowledge of pay for the Auxilia and Legionaries is at best scant, and that only educated guesses are possible. The section "Quality and combat capability" actually states "Equites cohortales (cohort cavalry) were paid the same as legionaries, and equites alares (ala cavalry) about 20% more.".

Could the Roman Empire article be both edited to reflect the above and linked to the "Auxiliaries (Roman military)" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafinnerty (talk • contribs) 08:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I have a couple of books about the Roman army and they tell that the roman troops were paid more. A legionary (infantry soldier) recieved more than an infantry auxilia. The mistake comes from the comparision of infantry with cavalary. Cavalry were paid more than infantry (they also had to pay the fodder of their mounts). Flamarande (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC) PS: that section in particular is already linked towards the article "Auxiliaries (Roman military)".

If the article had singled-out infantry, then fair enough; but it doesn't. Given the content of the Wiki artcle I referred to, it makes no sense to state that the Auxilia were paid less. However, dropping the reference to their pay and allowing the reader to rely upon the Auxilia article does make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafinnerty (talk • contribs) 10:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The comparision of pay can stay and it is a interresting fact. The auxilia were paid less (an auxilia infantary soldier was paid less than a Roman infantary soldier - comparing ancient infantary with cavalary would be more or less comparing modern tanks with planes). You will have to wait a couple of days while I check yet again my sources to explain the diffrence of pay. Flamarande (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good article, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafinnerty (talk • contribs) 11:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Linking to Comparison between Roman and Han Empires?
Hello. There has been recently repeated attempts by User:Teeninvestor to link his article Comparison between Roman and Han Empires to this main page. Comparison between Roman and Han Empires Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (notably, the Rome portal was not notified of the deletion process, so it was kept by 11:8). It still remains under scrutiny, and it does not tell a single new thing about the Imperium Romanum. Could somebody else please tell the user that his faintly disguised NPOV and synthesis article has no place here? There are at least a dozen or two articles on the empire which would rather merit an entry under "see also". Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of information in the article about the Roman Empire, in economic, military, medicine, science, technology and other subjects, which is not covered in the Roman Empire article and can add to the interest of the reader.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This plenty is covered in the numerous other articles on the Roman Empire from which you copy & paste material to your article. There is really no reason to take a look at the Roman Empire by artificially comparing it with another state with which it only had the faintest of contact, when all topics related to here have already long been covered by specific articles. Why should the views of the China Institute of America on Rome (!!) be in any way relevant to readers here? Please get some perspective and stop pushing your POV. We have hundreds of articles on the Imperium Romanum based on scientific sources and specialist scholarship, why should we want to link to your article on which there was not even consensus if it was actually OR? You have half a dozen editors who have expressed serious doubts about your article and you move around here on the most important page on the Roman Empire, as if yours were a featured article. This is not acceptable. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Sino-Roman relations would be a better choice for a link in the see also section if such a Chinese/Roman link was desired? --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the point is that there is no reason for the link being desired. If we feel like linking to other ancient empires or peoples, we obviously should start with the Sassanids, Carthaginians, Etruscans, Celts, Samnites, Germanic peoples, Hellenistic kingdoms etc. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not quite accurate, there's a (good) reason for comparing both empires from a structural point of view and the perspective of longterm historic processes, which btw do not exist for any of the empires you've mentioned with the possible exception of the sassanid/persian empire (though that is debatable). From the structural point of you look at cultural influence an empire exerts on a larger region and crudely speaking you can argue the role thatt Rome played for the Mediterranean and Europe was played in East-Asia by the Chin and Han empire. So it can make sense to link such a comparison to main articles for the Roman or Han empires.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Change in map?
Why was the green map that showed the greatest extent under Trajan removed and protected? This map should be used or the Trajan map in the 3rd link.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Roman_Empire_map.svg/250px-Roman_Empire_map.svg.png--

Here is a new map I found. http://www-tc.pbs.org/empires/romans/_graphics/timeline/pic_map_trajan.jpg

From the Trajan wiki page. This map is like the map used now only it shows the Roman Empire at it's greatest extent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RomanEmpire_117.svg

The point is almost all empires on wiki always show a particular Empire at it's greatest extent. Example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanid Titus001 (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that removed map seems to be wrong - at least compared to other published maps in literature, the light green area was never under roman control, the current map however (=the 3rd from Trajan's article) seems rather accurate. The discussion further up also deals with the problems of the older map for 117 AD. In the case of the roman empire there are also many maps floating around showing the situation during Augusts' reign or just showing the area that remained under constant Roman control until the split in 395 AD, those maps often exclude trajan's short lived extension in the east (Armenia,assyria,mesopotamia) and sometimes the regnum bospori (crimea),Dacia and the agri decumates as well. --Kmhkmh (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Question
If someone was to move this article to Italian Empire, would you use the term "vandalism" when you were reverting the idiots move? VartanM (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I probably would. That refers, however only to this particular article and has to be checked for every case individually. I explicitly do not want my answer to your question used to justify any nationalistic turf wars in other corners of the world. Varana (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * in the best case it is an ignorant editor who meant well and in thw worst case it clear vandalism.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Emperors without Busts
Many emperors worthy of busts don't have any on their articles. Surely there must be statues of Valentinian or Theodosius? I found a great bust of Galerius which should be put on his article. I also found busts of Julian, Licinius, Gratian, and Honorius.

Galerius bust: http://www.imperiumromanum.com/personen/kaiser/galerius_01.htm Licinius bust: http://www.futura-dtp.dk/SLAG/images/Licinius.jpg Julian bust: http://www.utexas.edu/courses/romanciv/Romancivimages23/julian.jpg Gratian bust: http://www.landesmuseum.de/sonder/2005/imperium/spaetantike.htm Honorius bust: http://www.livius.org/ho-hz/honorius/honorius.html Theodosius(?): http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ocla.ox.ac.uk/images/portrait_gehn_theodosius.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ocla.ox.ac.uk/biog_gehn.shtml&usg=__bn5rDKjOUm-7TauuZzZ4oZk0K8w=&h=262&w=175&sz=10&hl=en&start=303&tbnid=49WryWBGA1MqCM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=75&prev=/images%3Fq%3DTheodosius%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D288

--Tataryn77 (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Capital" in infobox
Could we please remove this overly long and tedious enumeration of cities which served as the seat of an emperor at one time or another from the infobox? That's a box for a short overview, not the place for in-depth discussion. Just "Rome", maybe with a short note to the effect of "Constantinople for the Eastern Roman Empire" should be enough. Varana (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

BC -> BCE & AD -> CE
I would be bold do the find&replace for it but the article is locked. So could someone else please update it? --199.227.86.10 (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me be blunt: drop dead. I despise political correct ppl who want to rewrite everything around their little pink "neutral" political correct view. Invent your own neutral dating system instead of twisting the most popular dating system of the world (BC & AD). Thanks Flamarande (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with Flamarande. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't really matter which dating system is used imho, but in either case it is wikipedia wide decision affecting all history articles, therefore this is not the place to discuss and decide such an issue.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have a guideline at WP:ERA which says " It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." It would not be a Wikipedia wide decision.

The end of the Pax Romana
In this article it states that the Pax Romana or "Roman Peace" ended in 235 with the assassination of Alexander Severus. However, most historians, including Edward Gibbon, would place the Paz Romana as ending with the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180. Also, due to the fact that the existing wikipedia articles on the Pax Romana and History of the Roman Empire both state that the death of Aurelius ended the Pax Romana, the part of this article stating that it ended in 235 should be changed to the year 180 with the death of Marcus Aurelius. Hopefully someone with proper access can do this since the article is locked and I cannot access it myself. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.6.12 (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Done Flamarande (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually afaik there is no exact dating for the term and it varies with different authors (however AD 180 might be the most common date). There are good reason for and against each date. Pax romana is usually used to indicate a relative border security towards foreign enemies and a relative internal security (rule of of law, safety for citizens from arbutrary prosecution). 235 makes sense since from then on there no stable dynasties anymore but just "soldier emperors" and quite often widespread civil war (various generals and "emperors" fighting each other), also soon after the pressure from outside will strongly increase and result in the crisis of 260. 180 might make sense because Mark Aurel is considered the last of the 5 good emperors, on the other hand under his reign the increased pressure on the borders was basically as big as under the Severian dynasty until 235 and the pax romana in any case refers to a time frame far beyond the 5 good emperors anyhow (since it starts with augustus).--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Pax Romana never really was due to border security, there were countless foreign wars between the reigns of Augustus and Aurelius, the term indicated internal security, with the exception of the year of the four emperors in 69 CE there were no civil wars between the Octavian's defeat of Marc Antony in 31 BCE and the death of Aurelius in 180 CE. After Aurelius things started to internally fall apart, hence the end of the Pax Romana.  If its a debate between the dates of 180 and 235 as to when it ended we should look at the internal struggles between those years.  After 180 almost every emperor through alexander Severus was assassinated or rose to power through bloodshed and civil war.  That fact contradicts what the Pax Romana was all about which was internal Roman peace.  It is therefore clear, and most widely agreed upon by scholars, that the Internal Roman Peace ended in 180 with the death of Marcus Aurelius.
 * I somewhat disagree "pax romana" concerns relative border security as well and border security influences the inner stability anyhow. It is true that after Mark Aurel assassination of emperors increased, but there was nevertheless a somewhat stable dynasty (the severian). Also note that assassinations (or violent death) and some civil war existed during the pax romana before the 5 good emperors as well. For instance consider the end of caligula, nero, domitian and the year 69 with 4 emperors and widespread civil war. Keeping those things in mind the period from 180-235 was worse but not that different from the pax romana time before 96. However after 235 volatility (lack of dynasty) and internal and external warfare increased significantly.Anyhow I'm not claiming 180 is a false date, i'm just saying there's a fair argument for both dates and not all authors date date the phrase excactly and pick 180. Btw another option would be AD 192 (i.e. include the reign of commodus, since civil war and chaos started breaking out towards the end of his reign and not with Mark aurel's death)--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

On that note the term dominate (235-395) seems to used faslely as well. At least in German the term dominate ist used for the 284-395 starting with reorganization of the empire of diocletion (who also adopted the title dominus et deus iirc, from which dominate is derived), for the period from 235-284 the term "soldier emperors" or Barracks emperor is used.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree, the term dominate should only be used after the reorganization of the empire by Diocletian, because that is when the Roman government changed from the Principate to the Dominate. Anything before Diocletian should stillbe considered part of the Principate.  Or as you said between 235 and 284 they should only be called Barracks emperors
 * Actaully it seems in the English speaking world the 235-284 period is separated in barracks emperors and illyrian emperors (though structurally being similar anyhow), while in German the term "soldier emperors" (Soldatenkaiser) is used for the whole period, but in both languages dominate refers to the time after 284. Therefore I went ahead and corrected the concerned headline.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

soldiers in the rome normally served for the roman army between 20 to 25 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.25.80 (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Third Roman Empire
In the Legacy section it mentions how a few empires have claimed to be the third roman empire (i.e. Russia, Holy Roman Empire, and the Ottomans). Couln't we also include Nazi Germany in this list? They did claim that Germany was the third Reich i believe. 98.196.78.26 (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That term was meant not to refer to the Roman Empire but to the two preceding German polities: the medieval Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire of the Hohenzollerns from 1871 to 1918. Iblardi (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Francesco Carotta
... has some interesting ideas about Biblical history ... interesting in a way that I think is the fringe of the fringe. There is thus a vote for deletion here. Those of you who are knowledgable and care about 1st century Roman history, please check it out. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Map in Legacy
Is it just me, or is the map in section Legacy just POVish, inaccurate and plain wrong? There is no such division of the world in these cultures/civilizations, not to mention that many areas of the world have multiple cultures influenced by multiple civilizations, and this does not go along national borders. Besides, why is Latin America classified as having its own "civilization", separate from the Western European? I could point hundreds of other flaws in that map. Hús ö  nd  15:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You aren't mistaken, and the map is better removed with extreme prejudice asap. AFAIK this map is more or less the product of Samuel P. Huntington who argued and presented the (in)famous Clash of civilizations analysis. Some readers of this book (or readers of its basic summary) have accepted it without any critiscism or further ado. The true fame came from 9/11 (the author wrote that a clash between Muslim VS Westerners/Christians was inevitable). IMHO (I don't read such obvious garbage) he seems to have a couple of valid points which were blown out of proportions by politicians and political correct as*holes (all of them so "eager" to avoid the predicted clash). The author later retracted most of his reasoning but most of the readers of 'Clash of civilizations' don't bother themselves with this minor detail. Flamarande (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So indeed. Thank you for removing that before I did. :-) Hús  ö  nd  18:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I my opinion, the idea of having a map there showing which countries are part of the "Roman Legacy" is not bad (although it may be hard to define which countries are part of this legacy, or rather which countries have been mainly influenced by this legacy), but that map obviously had errors. It should have shown only the Roman Legacy (blue colors, no other cultures), Latin America should have the same color as the west, and also Bosnia and Albania should have the same color as Turkey. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Flag of the West
I notice that Cody7777777 added the Christian Labarum (Chi-Rho) flag as the flag of the Western Roman Empire. Granted there was really no official flag at that time so anything we would put is just symbolic but I am not sure the logic in using the Labarum. This is not unique even to the Western Church today and in ancient times the East was far more Christian than the West. For lack of anything better an image of the single eagle with the wreath seems more appropriate. Granted this is not actually unique to the West but it is at least more appropriate.

-Mcorazao (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't meant to say that is unique to the west, I placed it there because it had no flag and I was inspired by the Spanish wikipedia, and the period of the western Roman Empire (4th-5th centuries) coincided somewhat with the period when the Labarum flag was adopted by the Romans. I would have rather used it for this article, but since the current content of this article is mainly about the ancient period, the Vexilloid is probably better here. However, feel free to change it, if you wish. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Christianity
Could some one put this template in ther article: .... thanks.

CassiasMunch added a little bit of detail to the opening paragraph in the section on Christianity, specifically the exploits of Peter and Paul. I believe, however, that these details are inappropriate. To begin with they are very fine-grained details for such a brief overview so I am not sure why they are necessary at all. But regardless, the history of Christianity's origins is extremely obscure and most details that appear in literature have more to do with tradition and faith than objective history. That Peter and Paul really did spread the faith in the ways purported in the Bible and by most Christian churches is not agreed upon by historians in general. There does not start to be a lot of historically verifiable details about Christianity until the late 1st and 2nd centuries.

As a general rule, using the Catholic Encyclopedia and other religious resources as authorative references for history should be done with caution. Religions by their nature can mix proven fact and articles of faith without differentiating. Wikipedia, however, needs to be more objective.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Iberia
On the very first map of the Roman Empire on this page (AD 117 under Trajan) it shows the Caucus Mountain region (around Chechnya) labeled as Iberia. Is that true? I've never heard that, ever. I know of Spain and Portugal being called Iberia, but never that area north of Turkey. Is the map crazy or am I? 24.160.145.53 (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Read Caucasian Iberia. Flamarande (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

End of Roman empire now described as 476 / 1453 AD
What do people think of this change? I don't like it, but if there is a consensus for it... Dougweller (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverted, the AD has to appear first. Flamarande (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * LEave iut alone, we've had to many arguments over this: --Ssteiner209 (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Empire/Archive_5#27_BC-1453_AD Just read most of that archeive, theris has been argued alot, and it's best to leave it as it is--Ssteiner209 (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This argument will be around long after we're all gone. Personally, I think it should say 1453, period, because that's when the continuously in existence state finally came to an end. I loathe the silly term "Byzantine Empire." It was the surviving part of the Roman Empire and everyone knew it as such. But...there are many reasonable dates for the "end" of the Roman Empire: AD 476, when Odoacer took over; AD 480, when Julius Nepos lost the last surviving part of the Western Empire to Odoacer; AD 620, when Heraclius changed the official language of the Empire to Greek and dropped the Roman titles of "Caesar" and "Augusus" in favor of the Greek Βασιλεύς; AD 1204, when the Empire lost Constantinople and effectively went into exile for 57 years; AD 1453, for obvious reasons; or even AD 1461, when Trebizond, which claimed to be the true successor state after 1204, was captured. The Turks would even say AD 1922, since the Ottoman sultans after 1453 assumed all of (and revived a few of) the former Roman titles. 72.148.45.37 (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Template
Hi, could somebody put this template in the article: Jack1755 (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the Principate ought to be viewed as the same sort of monarchy as the others listed in your navbox and would counsel against placing it at the bottom of the article. There are far too many boxes down there as it is. Aramgar (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Template (2)
There are some mistakes in the template Infobox Former Country:
 * Augustus 24 BC-13 AD (correct dates: 27 BC-14 AD)
 * Romulus Augustus 474-475 (Romulus Augustus was deposed by Odoacer in 476)
 * Theodosius I 380-396 (he died in 395)
 * Constantine XI 1451-1463 (he died in 1453 fighting the Turks that besieged Constantinople)--93.44.111.17 (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, corrected. Varana (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Roman Arabia
The 117 AD map of the empire shows the south and eastern limits of Arabia Petraea as maybe 30 miles east of Bostra, south to Leuke Kome, just east of the Gulf of Aqaba on the Red Sea coast.

This was not the limit of Roman control. A military presence was maintained at Dumatha, over 200 miles southeast down the highway from Bostra. Also, the Romans stationed an ala dromedariorum and an ala Veterana Gaetulorum at Hegra (Mada'in Salih), at least 150 miles southeast of Leuke Kome, over 100 miles inland along the highway to Arabia Felix (Sabaens).

The map should be changed to reflect Roman military control at Dumatha and Hegra. --Tataryn77 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Template (2)
There are some mistakes in the template Infobox Former Country:
 * Augustus 24 BC-13 AD (correct dates: 27 BC-14 AD)
 * Romulus Augustus 474-475 (Romulus Augustus was deposed by Odoacer in 476)
 * Theodosius I 380-396 (he died in 395)
 * Constantine XI 1451-1463 (he died in 1453 fighting the Turks that besieged Constantinople)--93.44.111.17 (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, corrected. Varana (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Roman Arabia
The 117 AD map of the empire shows the south and eastern limits of Arabia Petraea as maybe 30 miles east of Bostra, south to Leuke Kome, just east of the Gulf of Aqaba on the Red Sea coast.

This was not the limit of Roman control. A military presence was maintained at Dumatha, over 200 miles southeast down the highway from Bostra. Also, the Romans stationed an ala dromedariorum and an ala Veterana Gaetulorum at Hegra (Mada'in Salih), at least 150 miles southeast of Leuke Kome, over 100 miles inland along the highway to Arabia Felix (Sabaens).

The map should be changed to reflect Roman military control at Dumatha and Hegra. --Tataryn77 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Empire's Size
I think this article seriously underestimates the size of the Roman Empire. It only includes land area. There can be no question that the Roman Empire owned the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, and the English Channel. With those measurements added to the land area, the total size of the Roman Empire is 7,937,594 square kilometers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.36 (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if the Romans owned the Black Sea. If we include sea area in this article we would have to follow the same logic in all other country-articles. It would very hard to justify, very easy to challenge, and almost impossible to prove. Flamarande (talk) 04:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You may be right, but they undeniably owned all the land around the Mediterranean, and its area should be included in the empire's size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.56 (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * They certainly did at certain times, but that is no reason to include its area. Seas are different from land.  (You may be able to travel more easily, but you can't settle there!)  Basically, any measure of area will have some limitations.  Including the Mediterranean will just have a different set of limitations than what we have now -- and it will, as Flamarande says, give us an additional set of headaches as well.  Jmacwiki (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Including the sea is a very bad idea, since it makes numbers uncomparable, as the usual/traditional measure includes land mass only (same for current countries).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I corrected the figure now (note old version included the mediterranean sea but spoke land mass, which was total nonsense) and referenced it too some sources. Now the figure is comparable to country sizes and figures used elsewhere in literature or wikipedia itsself.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

rome had surprassed all empires of the antiquity even all persian empires,the empire of alexander the great,kushan empire and the maurya empire on india,my calculations about the true size of the Roman Empire at his maximum territorial peak on 117bc, including his maritime positions,the Mediterranean Sea,the black sea,the part of the coast of the persian gulf of the mesopotamian roman province,the part of the coast of Caspian sea of armenia as a roman province,the part of the red sea betwen egypt and arabia petrea,the english channel and the coasts and land of the roman britain to south of antonine wall in scotland,with those measurements added to the land area,the total size of the Roman Empire was about 10,155,407 km2,if this is proven,this would mean that the Roman Empire would be the most largest and magnificent empire of antiquity, and only surpassed by a few in al history,in this page show the conquest of trajan as a expeditios and quests even if the roman empire held mesopotamia and armenia for 3 or 4 years, still they are valid conquest for rome ,show some respect for the most powerfull roman emeperor on history, and the roman soldiers who die in that battles defeating the parthian empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.97.234 (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from that fact parts of your argument look somewhat questionable to me, the only way to include this in the article, is to provide a reputable reference explicitly stating that number.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Date of Caesar's dictatorship is wrong
It is listed as 42 BC, which is two years after his death. As far as I can tell from the Julius Caesar page, he was made dictator perpetuo in 44 BC. Someone please fix this (the page is locked). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.236.37.41 (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, corrected. :) Varana (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see a mention of the mythical founders of Rome?
Perhaps Romulus and Remus mythical founder of the city of Rome. Dont belong in the article on the Roman Empire? Yet, no "myth? no longing for greatness thus NO ROMAN EMPIRE! Perhaps a link to Wikipedia article on Rome, Romulus/Remus Thanks! SPQR!DayWeddatedVIIIXIIXxxIcentdecidedE.A.J.VICTORIANUS (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean romus and remulus and all thar jazz, that belong to Roman mythology. Possibly it could be mention in a section on the culture/religion of the empire though.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Roman Empire came into existence a long time after the founding of Rome. There is a wikilink to Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 21:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Help me out with Galerius
I put a picture of a bust of Galerius on his page but I don't know how to do the liscencing stuff. In order to keep the picture it needs liscencing or else it will be removed! I know it's Galerius because its from his biography on imperiumromanum.com, if they're wrong then we should find a bust of him. Previously all he had was a cruddy coin to represent his likeness. He sacked Ctesiphon and issued the first Edict of Toleration for the christians. He deserves better than a dirty coin. Same goes for Claudius II aswell, I know there's busts of him out there.

--99.232.150.148 (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Principate vs Dominate
I skimmed through here and didn't notice any mention of the changing from Principate to Dominate, which I think was a substantial event, and which many respected historians dating all the way back to Gibbon consider the cause of the Western Roman Empires fall, should we add it in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScriptusSecundus (talk • contribs) 00:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Only if we at the same time acknowledge that the shift from "Principate" to "Dominate" was not an "event", but (if anything) a process, and that it esp. didn't happen all of a sudden with Diocletian; and also, that the fall of the Western Empire cannot be attributed to one cause alone... and basically, that Gibbon wrote when modern historiography just started out, and scholarship has somewhat advanced since those times. ;) Varana (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it is mentioned in the military section (the partition in principate, barrck& illyrian emperors, dominate and decline). However personally (I'm not a prfofessional historian though) I haven't read any description claiming that the dominate was the cause for the decline, on the contrary the dominate was an (at least partially successful) attempt to react to the crisis of the 3rd century. Also Gibbons is very important figure the history of historical research, but his knowledge/information is outdated by more than 200 years now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the answers. I am aware Gibbon is not a reliable source today, and don't plan on citing him. I will also take special care to mention that it was a process instead of event, but the change in system from an Emperor not above law who is first amongst equals, and a only one possible source of law along with Jurists liscensed by the Senate, and the Senatus Consultam is worth mentioning. Leaving out the Dominate changes would be like leaving out the concept of absolutist control from Louis XIV.--ScriptusSecundus (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Legionary time of service
Hey guys,

[]

I'd like to say that from what I have read in different books about Rome, the standard service was 20 years. Then five years as 'veteran' soldiers. According to the book I was reading the veteran soldiers did not have to take part in major offenses and had excused duties. They only really had to take part in the defense of the base they were stationed at. the role of the veterans i would not be as confident of as that they did not have to stay for the additional five years.

I am writing this for your opinion if I can go ahead and edit the statement: "Instead of serving the standard 25 years of the legionaries." okty (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless those 5 years counted as military service and on given emergencies the veterans could be called upon to participate on offensives. Goldsworthy clearly states that "...although the soldier enjoyed these advantages, they came at the price of 25 years of service". There are specialized articles which explain the subject on detail. Don't change the text. Flamarande (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A book by Peter Connolly gives 25 years for the (standard) service of a legionaire. An authoritative German source (Zabern/Junkelmann) gives 25 year total under Augustus (20 years sub aquila and 5 year sub vexillo) and says that the practical difference between sub aquila and sub vexillo might have been relatively small. Also in reality legionaires sometimes served longer, either because in a particular case the emperor required to serve them some additional time or when they became officers, who often stayed with the army for a longer time. In addition it states 25 years of auxiliar troops and 16 years praetorians. The sub aquila time was actually increased from 16 to 20 years in 6 CE by Augustus. Conclusion: the 25 years as a general figure are fine. However the article could mention the partition of the service into sub aquila and sub vexillo.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I also read something about these legionaries serving longer under some emperors. I agree with kmhkmh that we should add both that sometimes thy served longer and about the 'additional' five years.okty (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well. let me give the exact citation in case anybody want to use it:
 * Markus Junkelmann: Die Legionen des Augustus. Philipp von Zabern Verlag 1986, ISBN 3-8053-0886-8, p. 103-104
 * If we decide to add that information and lack an authoritative english source, i can provide a translated quote from the book for the footnotes.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of your message, no offense meant by the way. Do you mean you have some source that proves what i put forward in this topic? okty (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Kmhkmh gave the exact citation for what he called above "(a)n authoritative German source (Zabern/Junkelmann)", in case you want to have your claim referenced. ;) As it's a German book, he would even translate the passage. Hope that's clearer, Varana (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So he means that we can add this info to the page? okty (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the information i outlined in my first posting could be integrated. However some other editors might consider that as too much detail in a general article on the empire and that the information belongs in more specialized article like Roman legion or some other articles dealing with the roman military only. So before i spend time on translating that German source for footnotes or making changes in the article, I'd like to make sure that we have some editorial consensus here first. And coming to think of it personally i tend to consider a more specialized article to be a more appropriate place for that piece of information.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but we will need to include something not 'standard' 25 years, but just, '25 years'. Good point, I might look into the Roman Legion article. okty (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Accurate figures for the size of the empire under Trajan
I'm a bit vary regarding the new figure of 6.5 million that replaced the earlier 5 million. The cited book Empite stops here by Philipp Parker seems ok at the first glance, but I'm not that sure how reliable/reputable the author is. The earlier 5 million figure was backed by an academic publication (Peter Turchin, Thomas D. Hall and Jonathan M. Adams, "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires", Journal of World-Systems Research Vol. 12 (no. 2), pp. 219-229 (2006)). Though that source does not explicitly states that it refers to the size under Trajan, it still seems a reasonable assumption, since other reputable sources give significantly smaller figures for the roman empire in general (Seidel: 4 million) or more specifically at the death of Augustus (Goldsmith, Raymond W. (1984), “An Estimate of the Size and Structure of the National Product of the Early Roman Empire” : 3.3 million, Taagepera, Rein (1979), “Size and duration of empires: growth-decline curves, 600BC – 600AD,” Social Science History : 3.4 million, both figures are quoted in this university source.) I also did a rule of thumb calculation to get a feeling whether 5 or 6.5 is more appropriate. Starting with the 3.3/3.4 figure for Augustus, which is stated in 2 independent academic sources, I considered the areas added after Augustus' death and added approximate modern day equivalents, that can be looked up easily. After Augustus the empire added mauretania (half of morocco), britannia (wales+England), agri decumates (Baden Württemberg), Dacia (Romania), Thracia (Bulgaria), Arabia (Jordan),Cappadocia, Assyria, Mesopotamia (half of Turkey+ Armenia+Georgia+Irak). So we have 3400+446/2+(130+21)+36++238+110+92+(784/2+29+70+438)=5179 or starting with 3300 we get 5079. This seems to speak against that 6.5 by Parker. It would be nice if somebody were to provide an academic figure for the size that either confirms the 5 or the 6.5 for the area under Trajan. Alternatively an exact computation based in map from an academic source might do as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked the Philip Parker and unfortunatly he doesnt give any reference for the size, however in the ancient rome wiki page 6.5 is also listed, its reference is Scarre 1995 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoloney (talk • contribs) 22:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm personally i'm still a bit wary, but Chris Scarre is a professor for archeology at Durham university so his book is an reputable academic source in a way, therefore that should be good enough. Thanks for checking.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've no personal argument with the figure, but may I ask why it is written as "6,5..."? Normally, I would see that written with a period separating the 6 and 5 (6.5). Maybe I'm just an ignorant American or something, but I thought I'd ask. Thanks! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

get rid of gibbon
This may sound a bit polemic, but i've noticed that many footnotes still rely on Gibbon and imho that is not acceptable in the long run. Don't get me wrong, Gibbon is famous figure, but his knowledge is outdated by 200 years. Knowledge and interpretations have changed significantly since then and this article needs to rely on current reputable sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Catiline Conspiracy
I'm curious of to what extent the Catiline Conspiracy about 63 B.C. had of importance for the transition from republic to empire. The Playwright Henrik Ibsen's first play "Catilina" suggests this to mark the beginning of the transition. If that has historiographic ground, shouldn't it then be written in the opening passage about the transition? --Xact (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The picture The Christan Martyr's Last Prayer
The picture is inaccurate. The Christans were not killed in the Colleseum in any way. The persecution of the Jews was mostly during Nero's time, in 64 a.d. The Colosseum wasn't even built until the 1st century a.d. Because of Hollywood and inaccurate research, people some how believe they were killed in the Colosseum. If christens were to be killed, then sand piles would of been put in the streets for the christens to die in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronCochrane (talk • contribs) 05:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

SPQR?
Apropos the Info box: I'm not perfectly knowledgeable in this, but isn't it always S.P.Q.R. with abbreviation dots? I believe abbreviation dots were obligatory for the Romans. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 15:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to answer it myself: images such as on shows that it was customary to skip the dots on coins. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³  ) 15:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The dots in ancient Roman inscriptions do not represent abbreviations (punctuation was largely inexistent in antiquity), but divide words from one another. If you take a look, for instance, at the Pantheon inscription, the dot appears even after complete words (Agrippa, tertium). These were by no means obligatory - you'll find a lot of inscriptions without them. Regards, Varana (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Capital
Look ppl, we have to clarify the issue of the capital. I'm inclined to agree with the current:


 * Rome was the sole political capital until AD 286
 * Under the Tetrarchy there were several political centres, while Rome continued to be the nominal, cultural, and ideological capital of the entire empire.
 * Under the rule of Constantine the empire changed capital from Rome to Constantinople.
 * After the division of the empire to its east and west part, the west part had Mediolanum then Ravenna as capital.

However the last two sentences can be further improved, perhaps:


 * Constantine established the city of Constantinople as the new capital in (date - with the link). Milan was its western counterpart during the increasingly often divisions of the empire.
 * After the death of Theodosius in 395 came the final division. The western imperial court was reallocated to Ravenna in 402.

This is just a proposal, and can be changed. Flamarande (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
Why does the successor in the infobox now link to the "Late Roman empire (after 312)" (a nonexistent article)? Only recently, there were links to the Byzantine Empire and the Western Roman Empire. Hayden120 (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed rather, maybe the author wanted to write a new article, but that still seems misplaced i see no real significance in the date of 312, other than the (early) rise of constantin maybe (his 312 conquest of Rome), which may have somewhat changed the original 4 emperor model by diocletian, however i never saw that as an explicit distinction in literature. another oddity the infobox contains now is, that western empire starts in 284 (diocletian) but the eastern empire in 330 (building of constantinopel). But assigning it this way means there was an western empire without an eastern part, which makes no sense.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Late Antiquity is seen as having started after The Crisis of the Third Century. If we were going to label a "Late Roman Empire", it would be then.Frank Scipio (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mistranslation of SPQR
SPQR, or Senatus Populusque Romanus has been mistranslated in this article as "The Senate and People of Rome". Romanus is a second declension adjective; the noun is Roma, a first declension noun. The correct translation would be "The Roman Senate and People", as Romanus is modifying Senatus and Populus. For it to translate as "The Senate and People of Rome", the Latin would have to read "Senatus Populusque Romae" with Roma in the genitive possessive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.235.158 (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You should raise this point at the respective article: SPQR. Flamarande (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Latin adjective Romanus, Romana, Romanum means "Roman" which, in itself, means "of Rome", so the original translation should stand without emendation. MAKLatin (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed; one has to realize that translations are by their very nature a tricky business. Sometimes the literal (word for word) translation gives a different result as the 'translation of the whole sentence'. The second kind tries to follow the original meaning (spirit). IMHO the second one is (most of the time) simply better. "The Senate and People of Rome" stays. Flamarande (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A clearer map, please
I had to stare at the map of the extent of the Roman Empire for some time before I realized what I was looking at. Perhaps it's evident to someone more intimately familiar with the geography (I'm from the US, not Europe / Africa) but in its current state it looks like one of those what-is-it optical illusions or a Rorschach inkblot test.

How about something as simple as labeling the Mediterranean Sea

Thanks.

This should be renamed Holy Roman Empire, or at least have (Holy) in parenthesis as it is well known that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.139.15 (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We need a statue bust for Claudius II Gothicus!
He was a good emperor despite his short reign, and I've seen busts of him out there. We finally gave Galerius a statue bust recently. We're gradually improving the articles of emperors!--Tataryn77 (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

han
okay here you go with the old stuff we need new things that is about the old history and all of thAT good stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.146.148 (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow.Frank Scipio (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

should we use bce or bc; ad or ce
i was wondering in order to be politically sensitive to non Christians should we refer all bc as bce. historians are using bceJaviern (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The overwhelming majority of the English-speaking world uses BC/AD. To be "politically sensitive" is twisting a language along political correct lines. Flamarande (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

However, the overwhelming majority of scientists, educators, scholars and non-Christian religious leaders have been using the BCE and CE designations for many years now, and in Jewish scholarship it has been used for over a century. It has nothing to do with politically correct and everything to do with being impartial and not favoring one religion over the other, as the use of BC and AD are exclusively Christian in nature and do not apply to most cultures on Earth.Saloli 21:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saloli (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry, but BCE/CE has everything to do with political correctness. The English language is a product with an undeniable Christian background and to twist it into "an impartial product" is playing politics. This is supposed to the the English language wiki and not the impartial/political correct wiki. The overwhelming majority of English books, films, TV documentaries use BC/AD, and BCE/CE is largely unknown in many quarters.


 * BC/AD is only the most common dating system, nothing more and nothing less. To argue that a non-Christian is automatically hurt by the use of BC/AD is laughable, and one can only wonder how/why such a person cared to learn such a "Christian language" at all. Flamarande (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It should stay BC/AD.Frank Scipio (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Current vs Past Tense
In the last sentence of the antepenultimate paragraph of the section "Crisis of the Third Century and the later emperors (235–395)," "choose" is used despite "chose" being the grammatically correct choice. I'd fix it myself, but the article is locked. Humicroav (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Page protection
This article has been page protected since 17 March 2009. Abbot's (1901:312) characterization of Domitian is only his opinion, and should not be presented, as it is here, as fact.98.203.142.17 (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In theory, semi-protection means that IPs post to the talk page, where established editors then evaluate their proposed changes.
 * In practice, semi-protection means that IPs' posts are ignored, since they can't change the article anyway.98.203.142.17 (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My name is Nakeisha Danielle Moore and i go to yorktown middle school —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.195.229 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

End Year (Eastern)
I agree that we should have the end time for both the Eastern and Western Empires. I was wondering though if we should include the fall of Trebizond in 1461. That really was when the last remnants of the Empire fell. Maybe it would be better to edit this into the Byzantine Empire article. Thoughts?Frank Scipio (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Careless paragraph on Christian persecution
"As the historian Edward Gibbon noted, however, most of the recorded histories of Christian persecutions come to us through the Christian church, which had an incentive to exaggerate the degree to which the persecutions occurred. The non-Christian contemporary sources only mention the persecutions passingly and without assigning great importance to them."

This is one historian's (likely controversial) opinion and doesn't belong slotted amidst otherwise informative text. Check out the diocletianic persecution page if anyone wants to argue this or try persecution of "Christians in the Roman Empire". There's plenty of historical evidence on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.144.115 (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

End Year (Western)
Romulus Augustus was deposed in 476 but Julius Nepos, the last Western Roman Emperor didn't die until 480. During that time he was actively trying to retake Italy. I am aware that most historians name Romulus Augustus's(spelling?)deposition year as the end of the West, but facts are facts.Frank Scipio (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Italy and Rome had fallen into the hands of Odoacer; the leftovers are considered of little importance. They are mentioned in the proper places. Flamarande (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Introductory summary
Introductory summary is quite negative! It only describes de decline of the Roman Empire. Should it not be more EQUILIBRIUM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CantorFriedman (talk • contribs) 13:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd have said it gives quite a good impression of the extent and duration of the Empire, and I'm not sure that it needs changing. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This should be added:Rome was the superpower of its day, boasting an army with the best training, biggest budgets and finest equipment the world had ever seen. No one else came close.
 * Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/18/usa.comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.148.118 (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice idea, probably wrong. See Han Dynasty. Please provide RS for figures and gain consensus before inserting any such thing. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

'Preceded by'
In the infobox, more and more peoples and states that were conquered by or otherwise incorporated into the Empire get added as predecessors. I think that's taking the intention of the 'preceded by' category way too far; the Roman Republic should stay there as the only entry. This list needn't be exhaustive in every detail; it's just for a short, simplified overview.

Regards, Varana (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Flamarande (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Procededs are more important to show how big was the Roman Empire. and also Empire had effected from some of those countries for example the Isis Cult had came from Ptolemic Egypt. Armenians, Thracians, and Britons were the greatest part of Roman Legions. They should stay as preceded countries. Celikadam1 13:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celikadam1 (talk • contribs)


 * To see how big the Empire was, take a look at the map conveniently provided in the Infobox. It tells us all of this and so much more, because I doubt that many people will read "oh, the Sapaeans preceded the Empire, how most impressive!" No one doubts the peoples you mention influenced the Empire in some way or other, but please, we have an article for that! What you wrote may be mentioned in the article, explained in sentences, so that the reader can understand how these peoples contributed to Roman society. Varana (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I essentially agree with Varana and Flamarande above (and i guess Dougweiler does too). The infobox is already too long as it is. It is supposed to provide a quick info at one glance. and listing all successor/predecessor states is imho totally out of the question, so is a rather arbitrary (NPOV) subset of them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support removal of long list of predecessors, per Varana, Flamarande, Dougwell, and Kmhkmh. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to confirm that I support the removal of the list. See my user page for my opinion of Infoboxes. :-) Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Science and technology section of the roman empire.
I am not an expert in this area by a long shot, but i have noticed several other articles on empires that have a section specifically devoted to this and it is an area of interest to me. The Romans (to my understanding) advanced plumbing, materials science including concrete, construction, metallurgy, accounting, cartography and probably a lot more. Should a separate section be created for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.126.236 (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In case you were wondering, there is already a separate article on Roman technology, so perhaps any section added here could simply summarize the information found in that separate article.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 22:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea to me. It's one of the things that Rome is most known for and that has left visible remains, and one of the ways they maintained their empire (interesting to think about in the context of Paul Romer's ideas about "charter cities," though that would be OR by WP standards). Cynwolfe (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm of the opinion that Rome is best known for kicking everyone's ass (militarily), while it was mainly the Greeks under Roman rule who were better known for their technological aptitude. Regardless, the Romans were superb architectural engineers and clearly rivaled (if not surpassed) the Greeks in that field.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 16:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Дунгане's overemphasis on homosexuality is unbalanced
Today, User:Дунгане has created new subsections "art," "literature," and "taxes" which are otherwise needed, but he has filled these with information exclusively focused on homosexuality in Roman society. Homosexuality is important and should be discussed, preferably in a cultural sub-section on sexuality as a whole, but to create sub-sections on these topics for the sole purpose of discussing homosexuality is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. I am in favor of either removing his material or shifting some of it into a new cultural sub-section on sexuality, which can focus on both heterosexual and homosexual relations and love.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 22:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Those in favor of removal or partial removal (by shifting some information to a new sub-section), sign here:
 * Nominator.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 22:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It adds imbalance to the article. For example the only mention of taxes was Дунгане's addition. To focus on the taxation of one group without looking at the bigger picture produces an imbalance. Nev1 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment I recommend checking Дунгане's additions against the sources. I've just discovered three instances of copyright violation, where text was lifted from a source, in some cases verbatim, in others with only a word or two changed. 1 2 3 Nev1 (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Further "His statues stood erect in Roman gardens to threaten intruders with sexual assault" sounds awfully close to "Statues of Priapus stood erect in Roman gardens to threaten intruders with sexual assault". Not too extreme admittedly, however there's more. Compare "Sextus Proptertius, a poet in the 1st century B.C., prayed that enemies would fall in love with women and friends with boys" with "Sextus Propertius, a poet of the first century B.C., prayed that his enemies would fall in love with women and his friends with boys". I've not exhaustively checked each source, but it's enough for concern. Nev1 (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Taxes are definitely notable and should be added (Rome had one of the highest tax burdens in the world in the late empire and it was a key cause of the empire's fall) but the references to homosexuality should be deleted; it would merit perhaps one sentence in the culture of the roman empire article (when that's set up).Teeninvestor (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this was so unbalanced and misleading that I considered it potentially harmful in an article with as large a generalist readership as this one. I deleted the sections. Homosexuality in Roman literature is a theme (see this section in Quintus Lutatius Catulus that I contributed), but not a major one that is distinctively Roman and thus worth exploring to such an extent in a survey of the whole Roman Empire; certainly not as major as it could be argued to be in Greek literature. The passage quoted was unrepresentative of Latin literature as a whole, not to mention that Catullus was an author of the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empire. it seemed like an attempt to include obscene content for the sake of it. And notice the inclusion of Tibullus and omission of Ovid. The homoerotic material in Vergil is hardly the major theme of his work, to be highlighted in a survey of the Roman Empire. The art section was grossly misleading in the same way. I don't usually delete something so radically, particularly if it's sourced, but this failed standards of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I appreciate the call for discussion and consensus, but I felt this required immediate attention (especially given the emphasis on the non-Imperial era Catullus). Some of the material can always be restored, and Pericles is right to point out that the sections themselves are needed. Apologies if I was too bold. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cynwolfe, I respect your decision, as it was not irrational, but since you took the initiative to delete the content, it would be helpful if legitimate sub-sections on these topics could be added. I'm working on a rewrite of Marian reforms at the moment, so I am a bit busy. Do you have access to academic sources which cover literature, taxes, art, etc.? These sections seem pretty vital, and it is surprising they haven't been added before this point.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 01:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * On the subject of taxes, I'd have to beg off, as Roman "taxation" is rather complicated and isn't something I'd want to sort out at this time. A section on literature I might be able to do quickly, and know what sources should fly for a survey, but I'll be offline for a couple of days. I'm less familiar with overview sources for Roman art history. And again, I have to apologize, as normally I am strongly anti-deletionist, but I honestly felt that the treatment did more harm than good, particularly since "Literature" was primarily represented by Catullus, a writer of the Republic, not of the Empire. It gave such an erroneous impression that I just felt the article was better off without it. There is some coverage of literature in the culture section already, but I just noticed the mention of Lucretius — also a Republican author, dead before Caesar came to power. I haven't read this article closely, and I hope this doesn't mean that Republic and Empire are that mixed up throughout. I'll try to look at this when I can, but anybody who wanted to pursue a literature section should feel free to do. A 'see also' is already given to Latin literature at the top, so the reader is not left without resources. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Дунгане and copyvio
See WP:ANI Dougweller (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Latin name
What is the Latin name of the empire. Thanks. Ryomaandres 13:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure I understand your question: the answer that comes to mind is simply Roma, but I may not know what you mean. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend reading the article, esp. the top of the infobox and the first note. ;) At least that's how I understand the question. Varana (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And that is quite a hefty footnote. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"The Riddle of Roman Concrete"
The article refers to the idea that Roman Concrete has "remained a riddle" because the buildings have stood for so long, but the supposed mystery has long been solved. This article details the composition of Roman concrete, and what has made it so particularly durable. I'm not sure whether the article would best benefit from an edit which reflects our understanding of the special properties of Rome's concrete, or simply a deletion of the claim that its durability or composition are a "riddle." Either way - please consider an amendment to this section!

http://www.romanconcrete.com/docs/spillway/spillway.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.99.221 (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

'Today part of'
Does the 'Today part of' section in the infobox really do what an infobox should do? That, if an infobox is a "quick read" look at stats and the most basic info a schoolchild might want, what does this long list accomplish? In addition to its prolixity, I have two other problems with it: If the list is useful, could it be placed instead in columns in the appropriate place in the body of the article? Or if it must be in the infobox, could it be reformatted into columns? Could the section be collapsed/hidden, so that a user seeking this info could click to drop down the list? Cynwolfe (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The wording reflects a backwards logic. The Roman Empire is not part of these modern entities; these modern entities exist on territories that used to be part of the Roman Empire. (They are part of the former Roman Empire.)
 * The length has a negative impact graphically, and takes up space that might be better used for informative images.


 * No one has an opinion on this? Does this mean I can just go delete the list altogether? Cynwolfe (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just caught this. That surely is one heavily overloaded box. It lacks only a cyber-bedroom and kitchenette. If we must have infoboxes (some find them useful and who am I to argue?) they should be readable, pretty much at a glance. Succinct. Not weeny essays and mind-bogging statistics and huge lists, all in barely readable print. I'd rather see the whole thing stripped back to the useful minimum; maybe including the list of nation states, but reformatted, multi-column and tucked into a collapsed box. So I opine. Haploidavey (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Katiewoz, 10 November 2010
Under the "Christianity" section in the 3rd paragraph please change "ultimately it served to strength Christian defiance." to "ultimately it served to strengthen Christian defiance." Katiewoz (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Stickee (talk)  05:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

do u guys think that this info was useful i think it was kinda useful what do u guys think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.196.28 (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction about largest extent
We have the statement that the RE reached its largest territorial extent:

1. during the reign of Trajan, ca.115.

2. in 210, during Septimius Severus's reign (in the first map's caption).

Google turns up this discussion of the issue and treats the attribution to Trajan as a common misunderstanding (but supports a date of 202, under S.S.): https://rambambashi.wordpress.com/tag/trajan/

We need to choose one. The 2nd claim cites Alaric Watson (apparently (c)2004, although the citation is incomplete), so perhaps that should be the choice. However, I have not turned up any compendium of territorial extents by year, nor even by emperor. So I do not if the claim for S.S. is as problematic as the one for Trajan.

Does anyone know? Jmacwiki (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I certainly wouldn't call Jona Lendering an unreliable source, but the blog in and of itself doesn't meet the usual standards for scholarly sourcing. It seems to me that the Cambridge Ancient History ought to be one sound source for this kind of information. Much of CAH is available in preview online, and it's standard enough to be found at most libraries of any heft. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's virtually a known fact that the Empire reached its greatest extent under Trajan, and we'd need some pretty good evidence to show otherwise. Something other than a classics blog would be nice. 169.234.109.145 (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

various maps
Looking over some changes in the map used, there seem to be a couple of issues. --Kmhkmh (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The map for the barbarians invasion is somewhat incorrectly titled as in facts it only shows the large late invasions,when the empire ultimately crumbled. But the invasion during 3rd century crisis and before are basically missing, hence the maps description invasion from AD 100-500  is rather misleading.

Dacians as Slavs, Costoboci uncertain on the Roman Empire Map?
Dacians are marked with the same color as Slavs which is completely incorrect and unfortunate. While Costoboci and Carpi, considered by most historians as Dacian, are in a blue/uncertain color. While Bastarnae who are a Celtic-Germanic mix with possible Dacian elements is marked as Germanic for sure. This is raising serious questions about the map and its neutrality. I suggest at least a distinct Dacian color and section in the legend. The map is here: commons:File:Roman Empire 125.png. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your example of the Bastarnae points to what I would see as the real problem: trying to force various ancient peoples to conform to our ethnic labels. In my view it's the color-coding that should go, period. The ethnonyms themselves suffice for telling us what distinct groups of people existed where, and no need for this kind of contentious labeling. Unfortunately, I lack the means to manipulate the map. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but there is also the grouping by Germanic, Slavic, Celtic, Dacian (now gone) not just colors. Note that util November 19, 2010, Dacians were depicted using a proper, different color. Something dubious happened at that time. The map originates from here: commons:File:Roman Empire 125.svg, where the actual changes took place.--Codrin.B (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I would say that the various "Barbarian" peoples don't need to be categorized as Celtic, Germanic, and so on in the first place. To me such labels as "Bastarnae," "Marcomanni," and "Suebi" are sufficient in themselves. (It would be different if the purpose of the map were to show linguistic distributions.) But I'm probably missing your point. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did indeed fail to agree clearly with a point raised by Codrin.B: because the broader "ethnicity" of some of these polities or peoples is disputed, to affirm them as one or the other on the map as "Slavic," "Celtic," "Germanic" or Lilliputian does strike me as violating both NPOV and WP:SYNTH. A map isn't merely an illustration, but conveys information, and is subject to these policies. To avoid violating them, I suggest again that each of these peoples simply be located, and coded only to indicate whether they're under Roman rule or not in 125 AD. Unless, as I said, the map is meant to convey linguistic distribution, which doesn't seem to have been its purpose. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not in disagreement with your suggestion for removing the groupings altogether, although most major tribes are clearly known to what groups they belong. See Celtic tribes, Germanic tribes, Dacian tribes etc. What I was saying is that I disagree with marking incorrectly some groups based on controversial theories or political reasons. And another broader point is this: Due to the hard work of the author, this map is used by a LOT of pages, and significant changes to it should involve more discussions and scrutiny from now on. It can no longer be updated with radical changes without impacting other articles. Otherwise it becomes some sort of Trojan horse, pushing incorrect information to many articles in one shot.--Codrin.B (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. (But in the matter of the Celts, for instance, notice that color-coding implies that "Celts" are relegated to Hibernia and Caledonia. The problem of defining "Celts" in antiquity is well known, but the map implies that by 125 no Celts exist outside the Isles, nor in southern Britain, for that matter. So the map also depicts a magical and sudden loss of local "ethnicity" because the polity was brought under Roman rule, and those who study provincial art and archaeology don't see it that way. The communal identities of the Gallic civitates endured to such an extent that their pre-Conquest borders coincide largely with early bishoprics. Along the Rhine and in Belgic Gaul, the division between "Celt" and "German" was a vexed question even in Julius Caesar's day. So I'm not sure how useful these labels are in a map, where they can't be explained.) The omission or minimizing of the Dacians is a fault, as you noted. Thanks for noticing what's up with the map. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great points! I don't think the removal of the Dacians is a fault though. As you can see it the Dacians were there on all versions of the map, this being the last. The changed happened November 19, 2010 and I think it has to do with a very disputed theory that Dacians have something to do with Slavs or even more the Baltics which were far far away. These theories and actions sound like very political, forced justifications of early presence of Slavs in Balkans, politics which are very inconvenienced by the presence of a different, ancient group of people. A never ending story of Balkans about who was here first... They have no place on an encyclopedia. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I second Cynwolfe, the color-coded tribes should be removed. Thus I think the OR tag should stay, because it presents a biased image of a Roman Empire fighting all kind of Germanic, Celtic, but also Baltic and Slavic tribes! Daizus (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

hi
in the end of the article, at the end of the page, it is written: "There was one war I think between the Greeks and the Romans." which I suppose it shouldn't be there. It is between the autocollapse menus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikmix (talk • contribs) 13:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out, as it affected a number of pages. The stray sentence had been added to the bottom of the page at Template:Ancient Greek and Roman Wars, and therefore didn't show up inside the template itself, nor on an article page where the template was used when the page was opened in edit mode. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know...
... what this is supposed to mean: "Many great of the great minds of history, from the Greek philosophers to the Jesus of the Canonical gospels, indeed Christianity itself were a product of the Roman Empire. [6]" (from the introduction)

The Greek philosophers were a product of the Roman Empire? I think part of this sentence is missing, because it has no sense (Greek philosophers lived centuries before the Empire). Jesus and Christianity a product of the Roman Empire? Yes, obviously Rome has been the center of Christianism from the 4th century AD until nowadays, but the religion of the Roman Empire for most of its history was pagan and of course Christianism was not invented by Romans. In fact, most emperors, beginning with Nero, persecuted Christians and considered them a menace to the Empire. Can anyone correct this paragraph? I would do it, but the article is protected. I believe there are many things that the Romans have truly left for humanity (Roman law, language, architecture, etc.) to have to write in the introduction false information about their legacy, which can be considered an insult to their memory. Thanks :) --Bucephala (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Christianity as we know it was a product of the Roman Empire. From Paul who was a Roman citizen to Constantine who was a Roman Emperor it is difficult to deny this fact. Nor is it possible to deny the impact of Christianity. The only possible issue would be if Christianity was a "good thing". - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Christianity is not a product of the Roman Empire. Christianity *spread throughout* the Roman Empire and later on (very late indeed, in the peak of its decay -4th century AD) the Roman Emperor embraced it, which contributed to Christianism being the religion of the majority of the Westerners. That is, Rome did not create Cristianism, but helped, in its decay, to extend the power and influence of this religion. Those are very different things, don't you think? ;) --Bucephala (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a grandly vacuous sentence and should be rewritten along the prudent lines you've suggested. I don't have time to do that right now, but will delete it and hope for something better. I don't think you need to get into the whole who-persecuted-whom thing — since the empire actually fell after it became Christian from the top down, and since I don't see any Temples of Minerva next to all the Baptist Churches in my community. Just sayin'. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the sentence. The point of the sentence is to stress the lasting importance of the Empire. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the content, the sentence makes no sense: "Many great of the great minds of history … were a product of the Roman Empire." I deleted the paragraph again, until it could be written to make sense syntactically. I'll look for some views on this, but as far as I know the Romans themselves regarded astrologers as a foreign influence, and regularly tried to give them the boot. The traditional view was that astrology was Babylonian in origin. The Romans liked "Chaldaean" as a descriptor. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I deleted the references to astrology, both here and later in the article. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The claim that "Christianity itself was a product of the Roman Empire" is highly dubious. It is a complex question that should not be presented like something resembling a sales speak in one sentence in the lede. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides, the following sentence is already in the lede: Because of the Empire's vast extent and long endurance, the institutions and culture of Rome had a profound and lasting influence on the development of language, religion, architecture, philosophy, law, and forms of government in the territory it governed, particularly Europe, and by means of European expansionism throughout the modern world. This seems reasonable, fair, and cautious. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems reasonable to me as well. Thank you all for your work :) --Bucephala (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "...grandly vacuous..." Lol. I'm going to have to remember that. Cynwolfe calls it as it is!-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 15:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Labarum of Constantine
The old picture of the Roman standard with the Aquila (imperial eagle) and SPQR insignia has vanished and been replaced by the Labarum of Constantine. I don't think this change is appropriate for a page concerning the period from 27 BC - 476 AD. Constantine became emperor and started using the Labarum as his battle standard in the first half of the 4th century (early 300s AD). So for approximately 330 years out of the 503 years from the period in question the Labarum was not in use. It is also important to note that the Aquila was not replaced or discarded when Constantine started using the Labarum. Flags with eagles on them were still flying over Constantinople in 1453, over 1000 years after Constantine founded the city. If the Romans were here to see that somebody took the eagle off of a Wikipedia page about their empire, they would riot and burn things in outrage. It would be analogous to taking the American Flag off of a page about the United States. However, including the Labarum on this page would not be inappropriate if it was placed in a relevant section rather than at the top.

All that being said, I have no idea how to change it back to the old picture.

Pharaoh of Byzantium?173.31.145.155 (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the edit in question, made on March 2nd by User talk:TRAJAN 117. Any edit on Wikipedia can be undone with the click of a button (see the link, or go to the "history" tab at the top of each article to undo edits). The old image is "Vexilloid of the Roman Empire.svg", replaced by "Labarum of Constantine I.svg". Insert the word "File" with a colon ":" before the image name of the "Lebarum" image and voila! You can insert the Lebarum picture into another appropriate place in the article if you find that necessary. Just remember to add the link marks and necessary separators for specifying thumbnail image size and description, which would make the whole thing look like this:


 * Labarum of Constantine I.svg


 * Which, on the page, looks like this image to the right. -->


 * I hope this helps. Cheers.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 20:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Christian POV Pushing??
I have carefully read though this article and found that references to Jesus, Christianity and the Catholic church are being deleted. I have posted solid references and links that have also been deleted. Please explain. I am truly confused. - Ret.Prof (talk)


 * This is a misrepresentation. Your additions to the introductory section have been deleted, as placing undue emphasis (others have pointed out inaccuracies as well). For instance, one could also pull out Roman law and its effect on Western and other legal systems, or Latin literature, or the influence of Roman Republicanism on the ideas of America's founders, or any number of topics. There is already an umbrella sentence in the lede that addresses the influence of the Roman Empire in many areas, including religion. There is already a substantial section on the empire and Christianity. I'm removing the tag as unfounded (BTW, I've had nothing to do with the writing of this article.) Cynwolfe (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Right. This is about condensing material in the lead section to best summarize the article as a whole, not some blatant POV pushing. Every single topic can't be addressed at length in the lead. Otherwise, you could make the same argument that there's not enough information on the legacy of Roman law, Roman engineering, or Roman literature and their influence on the Western world, and claim that the article has a bias against these topics.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 16:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, the relevant sentence is: Because of the Empire's vast extent and long endurance, the institutions and culture of Rome had a profound and lasting influence on the development of language, religion, architecture, philosophy, law, and forms of government in the territory it governed, particularly Europe, and by means of European expansionism throughout the modern world. Each of these has a section. Within the religion section, the subsection on Christianity is longer than the ones on the traditional belief system of the Romans themselves and on Judaism (despite the long history of Romano-Jewish relations), and almost as long as the section on Imperial cult. If the section on Christianity omits something that ought to be there, that's where editing efforts should be directed. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Imperial cult
Hello, two things about that section 87.64.23.202 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC) :
 * "Seneca the Younger parodied the notion of apotheosis in his only known satire The Pumpkinification of Claudius, in which the clumsy and ill-spoken Claudius is not transformed into a god, but into a pumpkin." To be correct, the "pumpkinification" isn't a really fitting translation of the Latin title, since pumpkins didn't reach Europe until after the discovery of the Americas.  It likely referred to gourds instead (see http://www.marrows.com.au/marrows-articles/1999/9/11/oh-my-gourd/, or the French article on that subject for discussion of it http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocoloquintose).  It's not very important, but I think that the specific link to the "pumpkin" article puts too much emphasis on an information that isn't exact.  I'd vote for leaving the text as it is, to avoid going into those details, but unlink "pumpkins".  Not sure if it's worth a note on the bottom of the page, probably not.
 * Same paragraph, last sentence : "In fact, bitter sarcasm was already effected at Claudius' funeral in 54." In the given reference, I cannot see any mention about bitter sarcasm, nor elsewhere on that chapter. Perhaps references got mixed up or something there?   ("69 : At last, at midday, on the thirteenth of October, the palace gates swung suddenly open, and Nero, with Burrus in attendance, passed out to the cohort, always on guard in conformity with the rules of the service. There, at a hint from the prefect, he was greeted with cheers and placed in a litter. Some of the men are said to have hesitated, looking back and inquiring:— "Where was Britannicus?" Then, as no lead to the contrary was forthcoming, they acquiesced in the choice presented to them: Nero was carried into the camp; and, after a few introductory words suited to the time, promised a donative on the same generous scale as that of his father, and was saluted as Imperator. The verdict of the troops was followed by the senatorial decrees; nor was any hesitation evinced in the provinces. Divine honours were voted to Claudius, and his funeral solemnities were celebrated precisely as those of the deified Augustus, Agrippina emulating the magnificence of her great-grandmother Livia. His will, however, was not read, lest the preference of the stepson to the son should leave a disquieting impression of injustice and invidiousness upon the mind of the common people. " http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/12B*.html)


 * Agree with delinking pumpkin; I'm going to try the sentence with "pumpkin or gourd." Will delete the "bitter sarcasm" sentence for now, because I'm not sure how to rewrite it. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Neat, thank you for the gourd part. About the second part, what about using The Annals, XIII,3 instead? I should have read further.  It would clearly support that point. 87.64.91.217 (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will look at it again. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Emperors in the Summary section
In the summary on the right hand side of the page: Is this list incomplete on purpose? I'm trying to work out if it's supposed to indicate start of dynasty, or if it's just an incomplete list. L3p3r (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

AD = CE
My apologies if this subject has been discussed but would it be possible to change AD to CE. AD means Anno Domini, Year of our Lord. To all non Christians the Lord referred to is not their lord and so the PC expression is CE - common era. All modern historical essays and books I have read now use CE. BC is now BCE. Actually I find BC and BCE are not used much in American texts but as Wiki is world wide I recommend the change. Robotics1 (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "The PC expression is CE"; and I suppose that we have to use Political correctness? Are we politicians perchance? Flamarande (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:ERA, which says the era convention established in an article should remain unless there is a substantial reason to change it and a consensus among editors who discuss the change on the talk page. Also, I wonder whether you're aware that although CE means "Common Era," many people think it means "Christian Era," and in fact it's a purely (as you say) decorative PC name change, since the turning point of the dating system is still the same Christian event. So in my own opinion, I don't know why people find it worth so much trouble. Christopher Hitchens hasn't changed his first name because it was brought into English usage for its religious connotations. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Let's please leave these utterly harmless conventions alone. I often use BC/AD in editing, and often read it, and never once have I taken it as an editorial, authorial or personal espousal or recommendation of Christian faith. It makes no claim on anyone, whosoever they be or whatsoever their belief or non-belief. I use and read BCE/CE less, because it's less used in my modern anglophone sources. Perhaps we have very different reading lists. And of course, BCE/CE still zeroes in on... ooer, guess-who. Anyway, I can see no good reason to change from what we already have in the article. For convenience, here's a link to the most immediately relevant policies. The article's era convention ain't broke. There's nothing to fix. And... erm, reading the above; when I first came across CE I too thought it meant "Christian Era". Haploidavey (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Christian Era would be acceptable to a non Christian like myself and indeed it is an alternative meaning. See Common Era. Even BC is just a factual statement. But AD means year of our Lord and he was not my lord nor the lord of the majority of people on the planet. The reason I object to it is I find it offensive that people would suggest this guy is or was *my* Lord and so, no, it is far from harmless. It's offensive because it makes an assumption about the reader's religion and beliefs. "Christian" name instead of "given" name is another example. Because you can't see the offense does not mean others are not offended by it and believe me many are. To retain AD will continue to cause offense to many readers. Sorry you can't see that. The other effect it has is to make the article look dated since those conventions are fast disappearing from modern texts. In fact that was the first thing that hit me when I came across this article. Even the Wiki article on Jesus himself uses both conventions. Robotics1 (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Even the Wiki article on Jesus himself uses both conventions" - please check the article's history. AFAIK it began with BC/AD but then became an unfortunate victim of persistent vandalism (in which the BCE/CE crowd constantly imposed their "neutral system" over the original one through sneaky unwarranted changes - such a behaviour is commonly called vandalism.). It was decided that stability was preferable so they changed it in order to please all parties. IMHO they simply caved before vandals. Flamarande (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Two sections above I get accused of being anti-Christian, and now I'm apparently subjecting the planet to the dominion of Jesus. I just can't make up my bloody mind, can I? Look, read WP:ERA. If this article doesn't conform to the convention, it can be changed. If you disagree with the WP guideline, argue about it there. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I consider BC/AD to be a completely offensive pro-Xtian POV. But I'm intelligent enough to read an article and ignore it, even though it is disgusting to me.  And I don't want my watch list hit with constant reversions, so that the article enters the Wikipedia Annals of Lame Edit Wars.  Just wish we could get rid of BC/AD permanently. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strange, I'm an atheist and I wish we could get rid of BCE/CE permanently. Flamarande (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Cynwolfe. This is Wikipedia.  You'll ALWAYS be on the wrong side of everything.  The only way to not be is become a useless admin, or edit vandalism.  :)   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ppl who use BCE/CE didn't invent a new calendar (with its own beginning) confusing a lot of readers who never saw CE/BCE before (it honestly confused me first time I saw it). They are simple "twisters" (they want to twist something around their own personal views).
 * IMHO what's BCE/CE? It's simply a pitiful measure of political correctness and nothing more and we know it: "the PC expression is CE - common era". That's the same reasoning which changed the word "nigger" into "slave" in the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
 * It's something like this: we are now going to use this religious neutral "BCE/CE", if you like it or not. It is neutral because I say so. This way we and everybody else can still use the western calendar but officially deny its cultural and religious origins in order not to hurt the personal feelings of NON-Christians.
 * No reasonable person is going to fall for that one. Does anyone for a second believe that a atheist, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or any non-Christian is going to be offended in his personal sensibilities by the use of AD/BC when he is using the English language? He will be offended only if he wants/wishes to be offended by it. Most of us will be offended (as I am) by this pitiful PC attempt to deny the impact of Jesus of Nazareth and his teachings upon world history in the name of political correctness or even worse, that "you" think that we are ignorant fools and don't know this and that we will be somehow deceived by the use of BCE/CE.
 * I'm in favour of using BC/AD. I'm an atheist living in the Western world but I'm not an anti-Christian zealot. Many who are the second (anti-Christians) claim that they are the first (atheists). They give serious and honest atheists a bad reputation.
 * I am not telling anyone that Christianity is good or bad, for that truly depends upon one's personal POV, but its cultural influence (good and bad) upon the world is simply undeniable.
 * BC/AD is simply the most widely used dating system in this world. Its religious origins and meaning are undeniable but utterly irrelevant. Nobody can reasonably argue against these facts. In fact, they are only really used when somebody is writing about ancient history.
 * We live in a increasingly globalized World, which as a whole was and still is culturally influenced by Western civilization if anyone likes it or not. As such the world simply uses the western calendar and that means BC/AD to a overwhelming extent.
 * As far as I can judge this matter BCE/CE is something invented and mostly used by Americans. We shouldn't copy their political correct bullshit - Death to the American dogs! (joke).
 * actually no - it is predominantly American texts that use AD - I suppose because so many Americans assume Christianity is a given, in spite of the second amendment. Robotics1 (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * BCE/CE is all but unknown in Europe. Flamarande (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * To subvert the English language for the sake of political correctness is simply disgusting. As a matter of fact BCE/CE isn't being recognized by the automatic text corrector of Firefox. I can only conclude that BCE/CE is not even a common feature of the English language at all.
 * but surely it has been subverted by Christian culture irrespective of any offense to non Christians. Christian name is another example - the number of times I get asked for it. "I don't have one, thank you!"
 * So is "bless you" when you sneeze (comes from "god bless you"). So are the names of the week (names of the old Germanic gods). Fact is that the English language has undeniable Christian influences. Your particular choice (and you're certainly free to make it) should not be imposed upon others. Flamarande (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * not interested in PC? OK try introducing nigger into the article and see how long it lasts. If a word causes offense it should be removed. Robotics1 (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I despise PC but I like good manners (give me plain honesty and good manners any time of the week). The word 'nigger' appears constantly in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. I'm not in favour of censoring it into 'slave'. Are you? Flamarande (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The compromise in Wikipedia is reasonable and should be respected. AFAIK it wasn't respected in the article Jesus.
 * I despise political correct ppl who want to rewrite everything around their little pink "neutral" political correct view. Try inventing your own neutral dating system instead of subverting the most popular dating system of the world (BC/AD). Much obliged. Flamarande (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Um, OK, but I still think this general discussion of era convention doesn't belong on this page, and it's preferable to keep comments in order, without interpolations that distort who said what when. Here our only issue is whether the article Roman Empire complies with WP:ERA. From what I see in the edit history, it does. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, this article stood out to me because there were so many ADs right through the article. I don't want to change anything but truly it does look dated. People just don't write like that anymore, leastways not outside of the US. I promise to drop the subject. Robotics1 (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You made a honest proposal and you followed the rules. Notice that most articles about ancient history use lots of "BC/AD". Flamarande (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

SPQR
"Senatus populusque Romanus" actually means "The Senate and the Roman People." Romanus is an adjective which describes populus, -que is a suffix which means "and". If it meant the people of Rome, it would translate as "Populus Romanorum." The translation of SPQR should be changed to "The Senate and the Roman People" to reflect the correct translation. 24.104.127.1 (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not right about populus Romanorum (which would indicate "the people of the Romans," and would make no sense), but the phrase seems to be translated fairly equally in English scholarship between "the senate and the Roman people" and "the senate and the people of Rome." I don't see much difference. Although populus Romanus is a standard phrase, the senate is surely Romanus too. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The best place to challenge, dispute and debate the translation of SPQR is Talk:SPQR. This article "here" is rather about the whole Roman Empire. Flamarande (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The expansion of rome picture
the picture supposed to show the expansion of rome doesn't work (atleast not for me). There were a working animation on this page a while ago, why was it removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.211.170.204 (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Light green on map?
It isn't clear what the light green on the map represents. Borisblue (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed.--Tataryn77 (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Odoaker's ehtnic in the lead ?
Actually though not being overly important, it does make some sense here, as it indicates/symbolizes that the western empires fell to Germanic tribes, see also the information on Constantinopel and the Ottomans afterwards. So providing his ethnic and/or alternatively a reason for the collapse does create a more informative lead. Note that if his non Roman ethnic is not mentioned, then it is entirely unclear to a reader (not knowing the background already) why this is considered the end of the empire (rather than theoderic's conquest later for instance). I mean why would a (Roman) general removing an emperor would end the empire, all that would do is creating a new dynasty (as it happened many times before).--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The information about his etnhicity is IMHO very relevant to the Western Roman Empire and not so important to this article. However it may be include in this article as long as the two other users debate his Germanic/the other orgins in this talkpage FIRST avoiding reverts. Flamarande (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC) PS: there was a mistake in my edit but there were many tiny improvements. Please be just a bit more catious with a full-scale revert (I was going to take care of it). Flamarande (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the sentence in the lead was about the western empire. Sorry for resetting other stuff due the format error, but if you are attempting various improvements over several edits, it is a good idea to use the template to indicate that you're still working on it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

population is hugely inflated
the roman empire population is never estimated over 70million whereas the article mentions figure of 70-80million which is nothing but propaganda of few roman empire admirer and it should be removed.ROONEYGIBBS6 (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC ) Striking through sockpuppet edit. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. If you can find reliable sources giving other figures these can be added in a suitable way to show the range of estimates. Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * IIRC the claim above is not true anyway for the roman empire there exist various (academic) estimates from roughly 40 million to over 100 million, this large range is due to different assumption used for extrapolating the known incomplete historical data into a population total.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well the article currently says the Roman Empire had a population of 88 million in 117 AD. This doesn't seem unreasonable considering the most populous regions of the Parthian Empire were within the Roman Empire during that date. The populations of Ctesiphon, Seleucia, Babylon, Charax, even Susa would all be included in the 117 AD total.--Tataryn77 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * fake gesture by western people once again as expected, why will we consider 88million as its population and why not 50million, thnx to some western historian the population of roman empire is hugely inflated to make western people more proud otherwise the deviation is huge and its not possible this is simply rantings by the western people their are many books which put roman population around 50-60million at peak so how did the hell it can be assumed to be on the higher side.115.240.58.118 (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place for litigating any pro-European bias. Wikipedia merely reports scholarly consensus. If there is disagreement in the scholarly literature, it may be possible to include alternate points of view in the article. Please provide sources. I will look for some right now. Speciate (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea that overreporting the population of the Roman Empire could somehow "make western people more proud" is ridiculous. No one in contemporary Western society cares how many people lived in the Roman Empire. Pais (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * this seems to be a rather misguided "my empire is bigger than yours"-scenario, unfortunately such POV stuff is pushed often in historic articles (in particular on the various empires).--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV observation.
The last two sentences in the second paragraph under Religion state: "As the historian Edward Gibbon noted, however, most of the recorded histories of Christian persecutions come to us through the Christian church, which had an incentive to exaggerate the degree to which the persecutions occurred. The non-Christian contemporary sources only mention the persecutions passingly and without assigning great importance to them."

It is worthy of note that Edward Gibbon's works openly attacked the character of organized religions with biased and emotional words. (Compare "An Examination of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Chapters of Mr. Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" with "A Vindication of some passages in the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" as evidence of personal bias and the use of fringe theories among Gibbon's analyses.) Those statements in the Wikipedia article directly agree with Edward Gibbon's personal analysis regarding Christianity instead of making its own original and unbiased citations. The statements accuse Christianity of having a motive for deceit without original citation. The organization of the sentences imply that the lack of non-Christian sources for persecution is evidence of the lack of persecution. Similar tactics have been used in the fringe theory denying many events during the Holocaust. The possibility that the persecution was acceptable and so commonplace as to not warrant constant notice by non-Christians is equally logical, but nobody offered that in contrast.

Please, I ask that someone revise the statements to exclude theories of self-interested deceit on the part of Christianity if there are no independently verifiable sources. Otherwise, please to cite unbiased, verifiable and original sources that confirm the statements.

Thank you. 130.74.175.69 (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Virtually every source for a history article is biased in some way. You are welcome to add a source meeting our criteria at WP:RS that counters Gibbons. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this assessment of Gibbon. He is not the best and most reliable source available - too dated, too openly biased. His comments should be confined to a discussion of the historiography of the roman empire. Carinae986 (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Carinae986's assessment, but would also point out that Gibbon is a classic work that one might still find referred to in the New York Review of Books: not as a source, but as a classic, in the way one might reference Montaigne as a classic thinker without imagining that Montaigne was a "source." And I'm afraid that I must point out, as I always do, the logical problem with the notion that the pagans persecuted the Christians to extinction. I believe it was the other way around, as a matter of historical fact. This often seems to be overlooked. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this.Carinae986 (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

At first glance Gibbon's assessment or general idea (bias of christian sources) seems correct to me. However it is true that Gibbon's is not a good source for "factual" description or for portraying current scholarly assessment or opinion. The content can possible be kept but it should be sourced with recent scholarly work/academic publications rather than with Gibbon.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Addition to the page
Navy The Roman navy (Latin: Classis, lit. "fleet") not only aided in the supply and transport of the legions, but also helped in the protection of the frontiers in the rivers Rhine and Danube.It also had to delivered messages to the Legions in Africa and other places. Another of its duties was the protection of the very important maritime trade routes against the threat of pirates. Therefore it patrolled the whole of the Mediterranean, parts of the North Atlantic (coasts of Hispania, Gaul, and Britannia), and had also a naval presence in the Black Sea. Nevertheless the army was considered the senior and more prestigious branch.[24]

The bold is what I want to add in. I got told this information by my teacher. He read it out of the teachers hand book — Preceding unsigned comment added by HHCS1 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Broken Animated GIF
There is a lovely animated gif under the 'history' section which works fine if you open it in a new browser window but doesn't seem to animated when scaled, on my computer at least (Google chrome browser & IE tried). Seems a shame as it's a really nice graphic (albeit simplifying things a bit). It could do with a distinction between AD and BC though just for added clarity. Looks like the file was superceded but then never updated. could someone look into fixing this?

M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.177.176 (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Resizing might help. For some reason Mediawiki cannot animated arbitarily resized gifs, so playing around which the size might fix the problem.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S.:I replaced it by the ogv file that is available now--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Somewhere along the way there was a change in the MediaWiki software and it stopped playing animated gifs that were above a certain size. I tried to cut down on the file's size, but as it attempts to span ~2000 years of history, there was just no way I could possibly get it within the limits. It can just be modified to say "click to open", but I haven't been able to get around to it. The ogv works, though it's based on a previous version of the gif that's not terribly correct.  Swarm   X 20:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Denial
"As the historian Edward Gibbon noted, however, most of the recorded histories of Christian persecutions come to us through the Christian church, which had an incentive to exaggerate the degree to which the persecutions occurred. The non-Christian contemporary sources only mention the persecutions passingly and without assigning great importance to them."

What incentive is that, precisely? Would you dismiss other groups' historical accounts of persecution in this insulting way? And why should we care that "contemporary, non-Christian" historians consider the persecution of Christians unimportant? What does that prove, other than that they are callous? I bet if you threw Edward Gibbon to the lions, he would consider it a matter of the very greatest importance.

I suggest you reword the first sentence as follows:

"Most of the recorded histories of Christian persecutions come to us through the Christian church, which, according to historian Edward Gibbon, had an incentive to exaggerate the degree to which the persecutions occurred."

It's a superficially minor change, but it removes the bias. It doesn't confirm or deny Gibbon's claim, it merely states that he made it. That's important, because what Gibbon said is supposition, not documented fact.

I further suggest you replace this sentence:

"Some non-Christian contemporary sources only mention the persecutions passingly and without assigning great importance to them."

with some kind of citation that relates to Gibbon's claim. As I noted above, the fact that some people consider a persecution unimportant doesn't mean that it didn't happen; or even that those people believe it didn't happen; or even that those people don't believe it happened to the degree the persecuted group claims. All it means is that those people don't care, and that is not useful information.

If you want to support Gibbon's claim, you need to cite some sources that actually support it. For example, if some reputable historian has claimed that only a handful of Christians were in fact executed by the Romans, and has backed this up with serious research, as opposed to mere supposition and insinuation, by all means, cite him. Or if any specific instances of persecution have been shown to be spurious, or even just suspect, by all means, mention those instances. But what you are doing now is (1) presenting supposition as fact, and worse, (2) presenting attitude as evidence.

One way or another, someone has simply got to fix this. Rosekelleher (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)