This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Ricimer's mother (Wallia's daughter) would have been unlikely to marry a Suevic prince before Wallia himself became king in 415, and most likely not till the end of the war between the Suevi and the Visigoths in 418. A date of birth of 410 for Ricimer is therefore about 10-15 years too early.
I have not seen it stated explicitly but it would seem that Ricimer was the full brother of Rechiar, since they both were sons of Rechila and the Wallia's daughter. If that is so and if Ricimer was born in 405 then that would make him at least ten years older than Rechiar (who apparently was born after 415). Which would raise the question why Rechiar, the younger brother, succeeded Rechila and Ricimer, the older brother, was sent off to Rome to be a soldier, a career usually taken by younger brothers. These questions go away if Ricimer was actually the younger brother, born ~420. RMcPhillip (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Describing Ricimer as a "barbarian" is inappropriate in an encyclopedia such as this. The word is culturally loaded (then and now). I suggest some other, neutral word be substituted. Salim55503:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. The word does have cultural loadings in certain contexts, but now as then it is also used in historiography to describe anyone not Greek or Roman. Every culture has such a word, the modern English equivalent is 'alien'. --Jmullaly (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very amusingly: there was a program about him (on the History Channel, or something "serious") and half of the good doctors said his name with a "k", and the others with an "s". So, it would be nice to have an expert on the subject close this debate. Greswik (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is from this statement: Ricimer was married to Alypia, born c. 455, a daughter of Anthemius and Marcia Euphemia. They had a son, Comes Aunemundus, born c. 470?
What source give the information? --Kvestor (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If his mother was the daughter of Wallia, king of the Wisigoths from 415/16 until 418/19, Ricimer was not born ca 405 but later, after 415.92.90.19.34 (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is, assuming that Sidonius was being totally specific and meant that Wallia was king at the time of Ricimer's birth. PLRE doesn't give a date for Ricimer's birth. He was a comes by 456 and a birth date after 415 doesn't seem unreasonable. I don't have Sidonius's text conveniently to hand, but I'd require a little persuasion to suppose that anything so exact was intended. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't He since He killed all the leaders and not of his where ever accepted as true leaders. He basically was the biggest cause of the Political Fall of the Roman Empire. Obviously there where many other reasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.91.76 (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that the seal is "lost", but I find that dubious. The object was last kept at the BnF Museum in Paris, to whom it was donated in 1976. For recent (2007) high-resolution photographs of the seal, see here. Why the 2008 book by Kornbluth would say that it is lost (as claimed in this thread on Reddit, which appears to be the source) is beyond me. Renerpho (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]