Talk:Roman Empire/Archive 3

Critical Mass!

Thank Jove! Alright, then.

Some thoughts: 1. A History of the Roman Empire article may be overkill... Ancient Egypt covers a specific geographic area over a very long period of time. The Roman Empire is a political entity. I think that its opening para should point to the entity from which it evolved out of and its final paragraphs should point to the entities which evolved out of it, to wit, Latin Europe, the Byzantine state, and the Islamic Caliphate. I think the issue of history is best addressed through a brief overview linking to the other topical articles. Each of the Emperors has a full Wikipedia article; several of the political periods, such as the 'Good' Emperors, the Third Century Crisis and the Tetrarchy, have articles; all a history overview should nees to do is link to them. 2. I really liked the Dutch article; it was a featured article of the nl.wikipedia site. I encourage everyone here to eyeball it, to get a sense of its length and how it covered the topics, even if you can't understand all of the words.

Ddama 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the article in question, and frankly I didn't really like it from what I saw. It is much too small IMO, and from what I can see it lacks a lot of the gateway and organization features I want to bring to the english version. Essentially the current article is a history of the Roman Empire, not specifically about the polity or the empire itself.

--Masamax 01:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. I was thinking of the Finnish article. I did like the Dutch article for its admirable brevity, but the Finnish article is the one that has history, climate, trade, culture, and historiography, each covered in brief, usually just a paragraph, with handoffs to other articles. I have no strong feelings on climate as a topic and I think the Finnish history section is too long... yes, too long!

I think the Roman Empire article should have a brief, broad sketch of the history of the Empire, pointing both to the main article on the history of the Empire and also to the more in-depth discussions of the various epochs that have articles, i.e., Crisis of the third century, etc. Someone coming to look up the Roman Empire won't need to drown in a list of emperors and dates; someone who wanted more depth could access that article, which would link both to the various imperial biographies and to the more in-depth articles. The next project would be to make the in-depth articles actually in-depth... ;-)

Ddama 04:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

We could also call the Roman Empire 'the Latin Empire'

The city of Rome was founded by the Latin people on a river in the center of Italy. It was a good location, which gave them a chance to control all of Italy. It put them near to the midpoint of the Mediterranean Sea. Two other groups lived in what is now Italy: the Greeks in the south, and the Etruscans in the north. The Latins borrowed some ideas from both peoples. In 509 B.C., Latins overthrew the Etruscan king who had ruled over his people and over Latium. The Latins said Latium was now a republic. The people had the power to vote and choose leaders. -- For full discussion see: [1]

I'm somewhat confused about what this is exactly?

--Masamax 06:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It was copy pasted from here: [2], where it sort of fits in the discussion. I don't know whether this was meant as vandalism or as a serious edit, maybe the editor User:69.211.74.60 (according to Talk:Latin his name is Mohammad al-Assad) could comment on it . For now, I'll delete the comment from the second paragraph onwards, and link to the discussion page it came from.--Hippalus 07:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it was copied and pasted from here: [3] by someone of the name Constantine. One who obviously believes the term 'Roman Empire' should be swapped with the term 'Latin Empire'.69.211.92.115 14:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Mohammad al-Assad

No, we couldn't. The Latin were a people leaving in central Italy, in Latium, and Rome was (despite some mixture) a Latin city, but the Empire was conquered by the Romans and not by the Latins. The Empire has always been called "Roman". Last but not least, there is an entity called "Latin Empire", existing from 1204 to 1261 in the city of Constantinople. Str1977 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved over

I moved the following over from the article, as I don't understand its rationale in the historical narrative, especially in an overview section.

In Alexandria, dreams of a "Christian Empire" with genuine continuity were shattered when a rampaging mob of Christians were encouraged to sack and destroy the Serapeum in 392. ... In Athens the end came for some in 529, when the Emperor Justinian closed the Neoplatonic Academy and its remaining members fled east for protection under the rule of Sassanid king Khosrau I; for other Greeks it had come long before, in 396, when Christian monks led Alaric I to vandalize the site of the Eleusinian Mysteries.

Str1977 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Section called: Christian Empire (324–395)

Why is this the "Christian Empire"? Constantine to Theodosius? Julian the Apostate doesn't count? Christendom, the Christian Empire, is generally dated from 390 to the present.

The section title is problematic but for other reasons.

Julian only reigned for a few years and thus can be glossed over as an intermission.

What is more problematic is that the section ends with 395, whereas the "Christian Empire" lasted way beyond that date. (That's like writing a section on the Migrations and calling it Middle Ages). Also, officially the Empire became Christian only in 390.

Maybe, something like "Constantine and successors" would fit better.

Also, there is an inaccuracy about the Thessalonica riots. The people rebelled because Theodosius had a famous cart driver arrested (who was accused of homosexuality), but they didn't rebel against any new laws.

The same passage was inaccurate in another way, overstating the importance of Ambrose's act. It confirmed the place of the Emperor inside and not above the Church. It didn't lead to a Church dominance over the Emperor and it hadn't anything to do with the Church "outlasting" the Western part of the Empire. That had reasons in military, economics, politics and the routs of the migrating people. Str1977 23:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I don't understand is why the article has a sections "Constantine & successors" and "Late Antiquity in the West" and then returns to Constantine again? Wouldn't it be better to move forward chronologically? Str1977 23:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand the title "the Christian Empire" - dealing with the Empire becoming Christian. I have retitled it again and moved it to a better place. I also moved "Late Antiquitiy in the West", retitled, to a better place. Str1977 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are interested in giving an opinion or help with the article, you'd be better off putting your energy into the Roman Empire/reorganization article. We could use the help! --Masamax 05:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The 3D pictures have been replaced by 2D thumbnails

The glasses icon now take a visitor to the 3D pictures, which have been reprocessed to have far fewer artifacts. Free glasses are available on line. Google "free glasses". There were over 30 million glasses shipped in 2005, so it has great potential, especially with young people. A group of editors has been working on the new dual link approach for 3D.3dnatureguy 23:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

The following recently deleted text contains useful information, which should be returned to the article, if it could be presented as a report of a referenced source:

It is interesting to note that while the constitutional rule of the republic was replaced with despotic rule as early as Julius Caesar (or possibly even Sulla), the people of Rome, at the time, didn't notice any difference. The period of the Social War and the dictatorship of Sulla, then the period leading into and during the Civil Wars of the 1st century BC, and finally reign of Augustus and his immediate successors, seemed to be a single epoch to the average Roman. Perhaps the people of Rome willingly let go of the republic due to the charisma of Augustus. Also interesting is that of all the civil wars of the later empire, not a single one was fought for a return to the constitutional rule of the republic.

Apart from the last sentence, the paragraph seems to be idle speculation.--shtove 19:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Even the last setence is hardly more than speculation, or perhaps an outright lie, given that Cato's final war against Caesar in Africa was motivated almost entirely by a return to constitutional rule. --Masamax 03:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Masamax, it is not a lie. The paragraph talks about "the civil wars of the later empire" - this a bit awkward (though the vagueness of "later" redeems the misusing of "Empire" common on WP - up to the title). By this it refers to the civil wars of 68/69 or 193 or of the 3rd century. No one tried to return to a government without a princeps (except the Senate in 41). Str1977 09:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Cato's war against Caesar? This article is about the EMPIRE isn't it? We aren't talking about the Republic. By later empire, one means after Augustus in this context. Cato (along with Pomphey), fought to save the republic, not to restore it as, at the time, it still existed. One of the primary reasons for the civil wars of the first century, as soon as Caesar had conquered Gual, was over if the republic would last or not. Caesar was assassinated by senators who wanted to save the republic. The 1st and 2nd Triumvirates (Caesar, Pompey and Crasus, then Octavian, Antony and Lepitus) where made of either Republicans (such as Pompey and Antony) or Caesarians (such as Caesar and Octavian). The fighting THEN was over republic or empire. As soon as the first couple of generations after the Augustus became emperor had died, no one was interested in a restoration of the republic. No one wanted to go back to the dual co-consul system. No one had any faith in the senate. No one thought that there was anything good about the republic. They saw the republic as good to rule a small city-state in central Italy, but ineffective to rule a world empire. Most even didn't see any difference between the days of the later republic and the times they were living in. Remember, republics didn't even become fashionable until the 18th century AD. Political theorists such as Montesquieu thought monarchies were best. The Roman Emperor was thinly vieled at least as a constitutional monarchy until about the reign of Diocletian. No one was interested in a restoration of the republic. The only way this can be proven conclusively is if we can find somewhere a list of the reasons for EVERY civil war the empire ever fought. I think the paragraph is fine.Politicaljunkie6 12:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

Does anyone know how much traffic this or other similar Roman threads get? How many people actively edit these types of threads?Politicaljunkie6 13:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Some suggestions

Something needs to be done about "cultural developments," "sources" and "Christianization of the empire." These are somewhat irrelevent. This should look more like a timeline than it does.

There is somewhat of a proportionality problem. Does Commodus really deserve so much more attention than all the Antonines combined? Trajan alone should get far more written about him than Commodus.

There isn't that much on the crisis of the third century, which there should be.

Do we really need a section (a whole paragraph at that) on the 1,100 year history of the Byzantine empire in this article?

Plus the organization is a mess. It really should be organized by dynasties.

How is the reorganization coming?

(this unsigned comment was made by Politicaljunkie6)

"Romaioi" and Greeks

I have made an adjustment to the end of the section on the byzantine empire. The Byzantines did call themselves Roman up to their demise, but "Romaioi" had also confusingly been taken up by Greeks as a self-identifier, meaning a Greek-speaker or a Roman citizen of greek ancestry. "Romaioi" has been out of favour in Greece for more than 200 years , and contrary to the previous edit, paradoxically denotes greeks rather than Romans in modern greece.

'Romioi' was used by the majority of Greeks until well into the 20th century and it's still used in some regions. Miskin 16:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization

I just did a major overhall to this page over on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire/reorganization. It basically is the same as what we already have, only it is much more organized and flows much nicer. Would anyone object towards me replacing the current page with this new page? Most of what is on the new page I just copied and pasted, so there weren't any major changes.Politicaljunkie6 01:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. If this is to be a replacement, then please make sure the edit history remains available. In the overhaul, do the two maps at the top include the latest edits on the Rhine & Danube borders? Because of pasting, there remain a lot of problems with flow, idiom, and speculation/non-NPOV. Reorganisation was much needed, but the intro is too long for WP and should be whipped into a shorter form. If Politicaljunkie6 is a Homer Simpson, then fair dues in strangling Bartulus for the sake of putting manners on the little bugger. But the article still requires work in every paragraph.--shtove 02:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As concensus was reached on Talk:Roman Empire/reorganization that Politicaljunkie6's overhaul wasn't the much needed reorganization after all, his additions have been moved to Talk:Roman Empire/reorganization/Politicaljunkie's additions for further discussion. As such, the reorganization of the Roman Empire is now again incomplete. So feel free to help complete it on Roman Empire/reorganization, or discuss the project on Talk:Roman Empire/reorganization.--Hippalus 13:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That will work. No offense to anyone, but what they were working on in the original reorganization was a mess. It was a collection of Roman links, and not a whole lot else. Roman history is what we already had in the main article: a timeline, centered on the emperors.Politicaljunkie6 01:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Once all the existing Roman Empire sub-sections have been fitted into the developing outline, we can begin to work out some text that will be more than a timeline of Emperors and battle dates, which does remain one aspect of an improved article nevertheless. Talk:Roman Empire/reorganization remains an open forum for suggestions and progress reports. --Wetman 06:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Greeks and Romioi

Here is wikipedia's own page on the Byzantine empire :

"The Byzantines identified themselves as Romans (Rwma?oi – Romans) which, by the 12th century, had already become a synonym for a Hellene (?llhn – Greek). However, the term was used for mainly legal and administrative purposes. The Byzantines preferred to call themselves Romioi (Rwmio? – Christian Greeks with Roman citizenship)."

We need maps about the Roman empire, can you help?

Does anyone have the map of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent? ThanksZmmz 05:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

We have this map on Commons which is a bit more detailed than the maps in our article; unfortunately, the caption is in German, but I could create a version with an Englich caption with little effort. Are you looking for a more detailed map? -- Ferkelparade π 16:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am looking for a "map of the Roman Empire under Emperor Claudius" (which would include Britannia and would not include Dacia or Mesopotamia), and I am also interrested in a map which shows the "divided empire" (with the Western Roman Empire in red, and the eastern Roman Empire in purple, please? pretty please?). Thanx

If you happen to see an map which I can use, will you please tell me? I would be much obliged

I tried to contact the author of the single map of Western Roman Empire, to ask him for more maps but I can´t find him (the imagepage hasn´t any history sheet), so if any of you know an user who would be willing to make the maps I need, would you please tell me? Thanx a million Flamarande 10:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a map in 400AD [4]

Map in 1 AD (Claudius reign)

[5]

Another in 395 AD

[6]

--Hadrian1 16:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

why do you want the West in red, and east in purple? --Astrokey44 13:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is purely because of esthetical reasons. Purple had a great symbolic value to the ancient world (e.g. he rose to the purple = he became king). I also read here and there that only the emperor could be clad interely in purple. Today, we largely use the two colours to color the maps which show these empires (e.g. Rome Total War and its expansion Barbarian Invansion, but this also happens in other games and books) and somehow the Eastern Roman Empire got the purple and the Western Empire got the red. Flamarande 14:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured

It is also a Dutch featured article. General Eisenhower 22:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Legacy

Shouldn't the section on the Roman Empire's legacy say that the intellectual history derived from the Greeks applies to the Western world rather than the world as a whole? scotsboyuk

The "reorganization article" was abandoned and will logically be deleted

Okay, as anyone can see by the history of the reorganization article, it has been largely abandoned. It is simply way to booring to continue it singlehandledly, and thereby I propose a merge asap. Hopefully it will improve the article (I believe it will). Flamarande 14:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove the picture of Augustus.

It's a good picture but it's in a bad place in the article. I'm going to just remove it for now and can someone elese put it somewhere elese in the article: [[Image:Statue-Augustus.jpg|left|thumb|200px|Octavian, widely known as [[Augustus]], founder of the Roman empire]] --Scott3 01:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved it to "Augustan culture", as the actual section on Augustus alsready had a picture of him. I also changed the "Octavian, widely known as Augustus" tag to simply "Augustus", as that's more correct. Varana 13:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Goth

Please do not use the word "Goth." Use either Ostrogoth or Visigoth, as they are two distinct Germanic tribes. Thanks,MedievalScholar 19:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet before spliting into two distinct groups (East (ost) and west (Vis)) they where but one people. I do not know were this specific mention of Goth lies but should it be meant to describe the wandering masses from northern europe towards the black sea then it seems appropriate, afterwards, when the political division was clear, the word should of course be replaced by the appropriate term.--Dryzen 13:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction problems

The starting and introductionary paragraphs are bluntly confusing. What is this nonsense of senators being executed and all? I wanted an introduction to What the Roman Empire was (thankfully its still there) and not what happened to senators. If, When and maygbe when I need to know that, I shall visit the area of wikipedia which deals with that areas. Arctic-Editor 16:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There many very technical scholars (aka ruleslawyers) who like to define everything very precisley. Ostensibly (in theory), the Roman republic never really ended and continued through the leadership of Augustus. In reality, he had all the real power and most of the republican institutions were only there for the show. If you want to improve the paragraph, fine. Just explain clearly that Augustus subverted the republic (or someone very technical will begin to argue that Tiberius (Claudius, Vespasìan, whatever) was the first emperor. User:Flamarande

Largest Classical Empire?

The calculation for the area of the Roman Empire seems terribly precise (and pedantically unecessary!) But was it really the largest of the Classical Empires? What about that of Alexander the Great or, more to the point, the Empire of China? White Guard 02:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It was larger than Alex's Empire and I believe it was larger than China, at the time.Cameron Nedland 13:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Does this include the Mediterranean? --Dryzen 14:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, sorry.Cameron Nedland 02:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right about the empire of Alexander, though it may be interesting to do a comparison. China, I think, is slightly more problematic. By the time of the Han Dynasty (206BC-220AD) imperial power had extended west to Xinjang, and into the northern parts of Vietnam and Korea. This is a significant area of land and must be equal to-if not greater than-than the maximum extent of the Roman Empire under Trajan? White Guard 02:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You myt be ryt, I'm not shur. Sorry.Cameron Nedland 13:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

here's an interesting webpage. The comparison really hinges on the value of the Mediterranean...--Dryzen 18:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Rome certinly looks larjer, its much mor impressiv du to th fact that it controls th Mediteranean.Cameron Nedland 02:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It really should only be land area that is taken into consideration, and I imagine the calculation in this article has been determined on that basis alone. White Guard 04:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The size spoken in this article is the land surface.--Dryzen 13:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Han Empire was larger. See largest empire of the ancient world. White Guard 02:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization subpage

The reorganization subpage needs an ample amount of work! So instead of editing the main article, make edits to the reorganization subpage to speed up the process. Also, I suggest breaking the subpage article into different articles - a perfect example of this would be the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. SGFF 17:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Stability of the Roman Empire

What made the Roman Empire successful enough to establish 250 years of relative peace and stability starting around when Caeser and Augustus where in control?

The Roman Empire was never truely stable. In fact that 250 year period of peace you are refering to, the Pax Romana was the the begining of the end for the Roman Empire. What happened during that period of time was this: the Romans ceased any further major campaigns which ended the flow of plunder money which for every constantly expanding empire is critical, they began to integrate germanic tribes and other northern Europeans into their armies. This inparticular is a key factor for why the empire fell. At the begining of the Roman Republic the armies we loyal to the country and to the government, when the Roman Empire came around the people were begining to become more loyal to the general rather than the goverment.(that is why you see generals walking into Rome, taking over with miltary dominance and then being assassinated later on.) When the Roman Republic was active, which is arguably Rome's climax, the army was mainly Italian soldiors that fought for their country, when the germnas were integrated during the Roman Empire they felt no attachment to the empire and were more dedicated the the man that payed them and led them to victories, the General. This is what truely marks the begining of the end for the Roman Empire. Cmatos1991 17:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a good answer, but perhaps a little bit old fashioned, decline and fall style, if you do not mind me saying so. The Empire did in fact achieve quite a high degree of stability during the second century, the apogee of which was the reign of Antoninus Pius. There are a whole range of reasons for the subsequent 'decline', economic, social and political; you have highlighted one factor only, and not necessarily the most significant. But I think the real point is that the Empire was in constant transition; and what the Victorians once viewed as corruption and decay from a spurious 'ideal' was really just a process of transformation. After all the Byzantine version of the Empire was to become, for a time, one of the greatest of the Medieval states. White Guard 22:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah this is true but something I forgot to do yesterday was that I firmly believe that Christianity had a key role in the fall o the empire. If you think about it when Christianity was introduced into Roman culture with it's beliefs of Peace Love and Harmony it could have negativly affected the war-like attitude of the Roman War Machine. Yes I agree that this was the process of transformation. I did not finish what I had fully intended to say yesterday because I had to leave that is why the passage ended so suddenly. Cmatos1991 17:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I have to disagree with virtually everything. The Empire *brought* stability, compared with the Republic, which was, with short interruptions, a frenzy of external and internal wars, many of which led it to the brink of destruction. The Empire organized what the Republic had conquered, and in this organization lay one of the reasons for its success. Authority and power were clearly distributed (or better: concentrated), administration of the provinces was put into a working and defined system (while earlier, provincial "administration" meant little more than organized plunder), a certain amount of legal security was introduced, and so on. In the beginning, Rome dominated the Mediterranean because of its armies. Later on, that domination was complemented by mutual interest: Rome provided peace, stability, prosperity and opportunity and a certain degree of freedom to most of its inhabitants. That contributed to its internal stability; armed force and the lack of enemies made it stable towards the outside. For two hundred years, many people did not experience war, but almost constant prosperity despite a highly militaristic society - how that can be discounted as "not stable", is beyond me. The end of the stable phase came when a transforming Empire was hit by heavy outside pressure: the Germans and the Persians of the 3rd century had also progressed and transformed. To look for the reasons of the crisis of the Empire only within the Empire, seems very one-sided to me.

That the soldiers of the Republic fought only for their fatherland: I also disagree. Ever since the Marian reforms, they had been professional soldiers; and Caesar's or Pompey's legions certainly fought for the glory of their generals and their personal profit, and the civil wars have enough examples where the soldiers and veterans risk the stability and well-being of the whole state in order to be paid. On the other hand, the legions of the Empire also fought for their homeland - their immediate homeland, be it Germania or Pannonia or Syria or elsewhere along the border provinces.

Christianity preaches peace and forgiving, yes. The impact on the Empire shouldn't be overrated, though. "Christian" nations have waged at least as many wars as others, and the Christianity of a ruler never really deterred him from attacking. The Roman emperors went to war *in the sign of the cross* - as Christians, in the name of Christ, and secure that Christ was on their side, and the church usually blessed their doing. That is not to say that Christian morality didn't have *any* effect, but it surely was quite a minor one. Varana 17:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it had any effect at all, for Roman wars were just as bloody after the introduction of Christianity as they were before. The Italian campaigns of Justinian in the sixth century, fought between two sets of Christian powers, were pursued with as great a savagery as any of the Pagan wars.

Anyway, on the wider issue, you seem to be simply amplifying a point that I had already made about Imperial stability. However, the Pax Romana, it has to be said, was of brief duration, coming to an end, as I suggested, with the death of Antoninus Pius. During the time of Marcus Aurelius the Romans acquired a foretaste of the coming horrors of the third century, particularly in the Marcomani Wars. There is also something else you may be overlooking. You are right when you highlight the political instability of the late Republican period. However, after the death of Nero, and the end of the process of 'legitimate' succession, the stability of the Empire was to depend more and more on the character of the Emperor and, perhaps more important, the attitude of the army. When there was harmony between the two, especially evident during the reign of the 'Good Emperors' of the early part of the second century, the succession issue was submerged. In the third century it became much more of a problem, so much so that even 'good emperors', like Aurelian, were not safe in the midst of their troops. The middle Empire was thus just as politically unstable as the Republic, though obviously in a different fashion. This whole problem was only solved when the 'Republican Empire', if one may use such a term, began to translate into Byzantine Absolutism from the time of Diocletian onwards.

On the question of the army, there was still, as I understand it, a connection between military service and duty to the fatherland, even after the Marian reforms-more so perhaps because plebeian soldiers were promised land at the conclusion of their term in arms. The later federates had much less of a connection in this regard, and thus much more prone to condone regime change because of the financial rewards these tended to bring-hence another cause of instability. White Guard 00:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, finally I'll have to agree and while this discussion could go on I believe that the points you have made have throughly defined the problem. Glad to have had this discussion with you. Cmatos1991 01:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Borders of the Roman Empire

I have just finished this article, but i'm afraid my english is not very good, would someone like to take a look? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 19:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I just polished a little of the wrought spots, a nice read and would like to see a more fleshed out article in the future should you and other authers be inclined.--Dryzen 12:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The SPQR flag

Shouldn't this be on this page?

Paul W 23/10/06

There was none.--Panarjedde 16:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Hi all...just changed the dates at the top of the article to reflect the standard interpretation; it seems to me that listing the "ancient" Roman Empire as ending is 1453 is problematic at best and, at worst, completely disregards the enormous differences between Byzantium (especially after the mid-7th century) and the old empire. Dppowell 04:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Me again. Roydosan reverted my date change without discussing here; I've restored my edit and invited him to engage me here. I hope others will also join the discussion. If we're going to have "birth" and "death" style dates at the head of the article for such an important topic, it seems to me that they should reflect common usage among historians. My use of the term "successor state" to describe Byzantium was not a personal invention; it's one of the ways that historians address the very significant adjustments the East had to make to remain viable after the fall of the West. No one studying the period today would describe the entity that the Ottomans conquered in 1453 as the Roman Empire, and the fact that there was continuity between the two (at least until the mid-to-late 7th century) is admirably addressed by the last paragraph in the existing intro. The Byzantine Empire has its own, featured article (a fact which betrays its modern perception as a successor to ancient Rome), and it doesn't need to be extensively addressed here. As always, I invite other viewpoints. Dppowell 14:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No you are completely wrong on this. Contemporary historical scholarship recognises that the 'Byzantine Empire' was the continuation of the Roman Empire - that is the Roman Empire itself. I suggest you read the following which will confirm this for you:

• Browning, R. The Byzantine Empire ISBN: 0813207541 revised edition published 1992
• Haldon, J. Byzantium at War ISBN: 1841763608 published in 2002
• Haldon, J. Byzantium: A History ISBN: 0752434721 published in 2005

Byzantine scholars also asserted their continuity as the Roman Empire. See:

• Comnena, A The Alexiad ISBN: 0140449582
• Procopius The Secret History ISBN: 0140441824

Also look at this list of Roman emperors. If you insist on the date 476 then the article should be renamed the Western Roman Empire Roydosan 15:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point; none of those books have "Roman Empire" anywhere in their titles. I'm not disputing (did it really appear that I was?) that the Byzantine Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire. Nor do I dispute that the Byzantines considered themselves "Roman." But using the "Roman Empire" label today to refer to the political entity based in Constantinople during the Middle Ages is highly misleading. When historians refer to the "Roman Empire," they're usually not talking about anything that happened after 476...and maybe, in some conversations, the reign of Justinian. I agree that dates can be contentious, but using 1453--when Rome itself was well into the Renaissance--as the date for the end of the "Roman Empire" is ludicrous. I'm going to remove the date range entirely (it didn't exist until last week, anyhow) until a consensus can be reached on this. Dppowell 16:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to be completly accurate you must change the date to 395 AD, with the final separation into the Eastern and the Western Roman empires after the death of Theodosius. The reason for this is simple and completly logical: both of the empires were Roman, but both of them couldn't be the old empire at the same time (you divide something and you obtain two halfs; never two originals). Therefore neither one were the old empire. To proclaim that the WRE was the same entity as the old Roman empire is simply neglecting and ignoring the ERE (aka BE) AND vice-versa. Flamarande 17:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Flam's point is well taken. I don't insist on the date 476. I do insist on a date that would enjoy more support than 1453, which, short of tying the existence of the "Roman Empire" to the imperial heir who died penniless in Italy in 1503, is the most extreme possible interpretation of a date range for that label. There are lots of dates which historians have put forward in attempts to delineate when Classical Rome ended and Late Rome or Byzantium began. Among these, I've seen 180 (the end of Gibbon's "Five Good Emperors"), 212 (when Caracalla granted universal citizenship), 235 (the end of the Principate's final dynasty), 284 (accession of Diocletian and the advent of the Tetrarchy), 330 (capital moved to Constantinople), 395 (permanent division), 410 (Visigothic sack) and 476. Using dates to split up history has always been a somewhat arbitrary process, and each of these dates has its problems. 476 is simply the one that historians are most able to agree upon. If Wikipedia's main article on the Roman Empire is going to deviate from that by almost 1,000 years, it just opens our community up to ridicule.

And to be extra clear, I'd happily support an end date of 395 for the article. It's an academically defensible date for the use of the label (as is 476). Dppowell 17:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote for deleting the dates. We have them in the infobox, we even discuss the issue in the introduction at length. The date range at the start adds no information; it is even misleading, as the next sentences explicitly mention several proposed dates for establishment and end without giving precedence to one. Varana 17:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaning more on Varana's point, but if a date is to be used, the split(395) would the the one I'dd back.--Dryzen 19:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dppowell I haven't proved your point at all. You might also like to read:

Gibbon, E. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: v. 4-6 ISBN: 1857151925

which concludes when? In 476? No. It concludes in 1453. More recent scholarship has stressed the continuation of Rome through the ERE as you will find if you bother to look at the books I cited above. And yes you did dispute that the Byzantine Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire - you claimed it was a successor state. To be a successor state there would need to be some sort of break between the first state and the succeeding state. Search high and low cause you ain't going to find one. Also it is far from ludicrous to claim that the Roman Empire ended in 1453 because that is what happened. Claiming anything else is nothing but ignorance and a continuation, knowingly or otherwise, of the enlightenment intellectuals prejudice which sought to denigrate and diminish the place of the Byzantine Empire in history. Roydosan 10:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And you are correct that a lot of historians use the date of 476 as a cut off point for histories of teh Roman Empire. However they invariably state that it continued in the East until 1453. Roydosan 10:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This might be difficult for you to believe, but I've studied the period in some depth, myself. Your suggestion that there were no breaks in continuity between Rome and Byzantium is so utterly ridiculous that I feel a little bit silly even spelling it out here, but I feel compelled to do so by the concern that your interpretation might somehow find its way into the article. By the end of the 7th century, the "Roman Empire" in Constantinople would have been incomprehensible to, say, Marcus Aurelius. The language and culture had been almost completely delatinized. The old state religion was completely gone. The imperial administrative structure had been largely or completely overhauled at least three times. The security threats to the empire bore little resemblance to those faced in 180, and the military had changed accordingly. Yes, you can draw an unbroken line of "succession" in the occupants of the imperial throne (especially if you include all the usurpers who seized power through force), but using that thread of continuity as a basis for representing the Roman Empire as a 2,000 year old monolith reeks of tap room pedantry. The academic consensus on this issue (those "prejudiced enlightenment intellectuals" you so casually dismiss) is well-established; deviating from it would constitute "a novel historical interpretation" and therefore would violate Wikipedia:No original research. Dppowell 16:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Roydosan: If there were a date which undeniably marks the end of the Empire, it would have been in the article long ago. ;=) The view that the Roman Empire of Late Antiquity gradually changed into something different, conveniently called "Byzantine Empire", was and is the commonly held view, and to draw the distinction between Roman and Byzantine has proven useful for researching and understanding the history of those states. It is not a random distinction. As the shift was gradual, it is somewhat random to single out one fixed date to mark it, and that's why I'd like to avoid it. The shift of the centre from Rome and Italy to Constantinople and Anatolia; the loss of Latin as language of state, army, and law; the explicitly Christian character of the medieval Empire; the vanishing of ancient cities and municipal structures; the loss and sometimes conscious vilification of ancient (i.e. pagan) culture - this and more contribute to a vastly different society, where the (modern!) label "Roman" would lose almost every content if we applied it to everything until 1453.

To see and point out those differences between ancient and medieval Empire, does not denigrate Byzantium's role in history. It is the underlying view that "Roman" somehow "ennobles" a thing, which should be deprecated as a leftover of renaissance and enlightenment idealising of everything ancient. To call the medieval Empire "Byzantine" and stating that it emerged from the ancient Roman Empire does not make it any worse; it only acknowledges the fact that it was different.

After all, if we go there, we might also put 1806 in there, when the last Holy Roman Emperor [[Francis II] abdicated - as the Roman Empire had no clear rule of succession, the Franks' claim of resurrecting it was not that far off. ;=)

Not that I actually propose that, but I want to stress that "Roman" as used historically, whether in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, or even by the Sultanate of Rûm, is a different thing from our modern usage of "Roman" for the ancient Empire and "Byzantine" for the medieval Eastern Empire. Varana 17:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dppowell, your assertion that because Marcus Aurelius would no longer recognise it the empire can no longer be termed Roman is utterly ridiculous. Are countries supposed to remain in a time warp if they are to keep their names according to your definition? Yes of course it transformed to the extent that it would have been beyond recognition to someone from the first-third centuries AD - but that doesn't mean it wasn't Roman; that's just progress. As for your claims about OR - this just proves your ignorance about the matter. Try reading some books on the subject. Varana, I'm not disputing the use of Byzantine to distinguish between the early and late empires. The terminology is useful and I wasn't arguing against it. My point is that if dates are to be used then 1453 is clearly the only definitive date for the end of the empire. This isn't revisionism but just what almost every book on the subject states - that after the fall of the empire in the west the empire of the east continued for a thousand years. The fact that many people are ignorant of this is no reason to deny it. Encyclopedias should state the facts not confirm people in their mistaken views - especially when the date of 1453 is corroborated by most academic scholars. Roydosan 10:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done more than read books on the subject; I've written about it (and received top marks from people who study it to earn a living). I'm checking out of the discussion. As long as your non-standard interpretation stays out of the relevant articles, I'm content. Dppowell 14:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok well maybe you should actually read the rest of this article and then you will discover that your interpretation is at variance with it as well as with modern scholarship. If all you can do is claim that you have a better knowledge of the subject without offering any evidence in favour of your inaccurate assessment then it seems to me like you've lost the argument. Roydosan 15:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Roydosan, if believing that you've defeated me in an argument 1) makes you happy and 2) relieves you from the urge to paste "1453" into a date bracket at the beginning of the article, I believe we have a win-win situation. Dppowell 15:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No I don't think so since I see no good reason not to restore the dates to the beginning of the article. If you can come up with no better argument than you have read and written on the subject without coming up with some good reasons why you are right I fail to see how you have proved your point. Roydosan 16:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're starting to make this more about me instead of the article; if it makes you happy, please disregard my arguments and review those made by the three other people in this thread (all of whom agree that if bracketed dates are to appear at all, 1453 shouldn't be one of them). Please don't make edits contrary to the consensus. Dppowell 16:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What consensus? Two other people commented. Hardly enough for a consensus and you are the one who started this by removing the dates in the first place. If anything they should have been left in place before a consensus was reached. Instead you arbitrarily removed them from the article. Roydosan 16:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Three other people, actually. And if you check the article history, you'll see that the date bracket was only inserted a week or so ago. My removal of it was an attempt to defuse the controversy that its insertion spawned. Dppowell 16:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In any event, in accordance with Wikipedia's conflict resolution guidelines, I'm going to stay away from the article (notwithstanding reversions of blatant vandalism, such as those earlier today) for a while. I feel comfortable that I'm not the only person in the discussion who feels the 1453 date is inappropriate for your proposed usage. For the time being, I leave the matter in their hands. Dppowell 16:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Roydosan: "If dates are to be used" - exactly. As I already said: we do not simply continue the false assertion that the Empire "fell" in 476. We state that this date is traditionally used, although the Empire continued in the East until 1453 - all this in the third paragraph of the article, even before the TOC. The question of beginning and "fall" of the Empire is complex, and we shouldn't lead the reader to the false assumption that there are no problems (by flatly giving dates as fact). Varana 18:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

From Flamarande's earlier post we have a good way to logicaly sort this out. The Roman civilisation, Spanning from the mythical date of 753 to the fall of the last statelet in 1461, can be divided into segments based on its political structure: The Kingdom, the Republic, the Empire, the Division and the Byzantines. Each has dates, with the Division hold two, one for the west in 476 and the east 602 (contested date, but Phokas broke the clear leaniage and Heraclius'following empire became increasingly hellenised). As such should date be implemented I would support intergrating the segment of the empire wich ended, folowing this logic, in 395.--Dryzen 16:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.