![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Thinking about the following phrase in the intro
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
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
is preferable.
--Mcorazao (talk) 21:35, 18 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).
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)
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)
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)
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: [1],[2],[3].--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
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: [4]. History [5], Major Conquests [6], Rebellions [7], Byzantine Empire [8], and revival of the empire [9], 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)
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 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":
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Auxilia are described as being paid less than Legionaries.
Wiki article "Auxiliaries (Roman military)" [10] 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)
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)
Fair enough. Good article, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafinnerty (talk • contribs) 11:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
... 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)
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. Húsönd 15:50, 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Hi, could somebody put this template in the article:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pre-Roman period |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ancient Rome |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Medieval and Early Modern states |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
French Revolutionary and Napoleonic eras (1792–1815) |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Post-Napoleonic states |
|
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)
There are some mistakes in the template Infobox Former Country:
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)
There are some mistakes in the template Infobox Former Country:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Hey guys,
[[11]]
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)
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)
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)
So he means that we can add this info to the page? okty (talk) 16:30, 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)
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.[12]) 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 (mbork³) 15:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Look ppl, we have to clarify the issue of the capital. I'm inclined to agree with the current:
However the last two sentences can be further improved, perhaps:
This is just a proposal, and can be changed. Flamarande (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I agree. It should stay BC/AD.Frank Scipio (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
This article has been page protected since 17 March 2009.[14]
Abbot's (1901:312) characterization of Domitian is only his opinion,[15] and should not be presented, as it is here, as fact.98.203.142.17 (talk) 08:59, 11 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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
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).
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)
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 ([16] [17] [18] [19]). 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 AthensTalk 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:
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)
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)
See WP:ANI#Repeated copyright violations by User:Дунгане Dougweller (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
What is the Latin name of the empire. Thanks. Ryomaandres 13:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{Edit semi-protected}}
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)
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)
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)
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)
Looking over some changes in the map used, there seem to be a couple of issues.
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)
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)
... 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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello, two things about that section 87.64.23.202 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC) :
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)
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)
"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)
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)
It isn't clear what the light green on the map represents. Borisblue (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)