|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I was under the impression that it was Valerian who was staunchly anti christian and that Gallienus being a smart man as he was realised it was to clever to piss of a minority even to use them as scape goat and relaxed some of the persecuting edicts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
Right! This is one of the most ominous blunders I read on Wikipedia. Gallienus NEVER was sole emperor. His whole rule was one big catastrophical calamity. One usurper after another. He lost nearly half of his empire to Postumus and another main part to Palmyra. This should be made clear right in the intro and take THE main place in the article without silly euphemisms and redefinitions on Gallic Empire or Gallienus usurpers. johanthon 15:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Johanthon you are completely missing the point. Gallienus was recognized as co-emporer for a time with his father and then as sole emporer. The term "sole emperor" is used in literature to distinguish the two different periods. This is done in every source of roman literature i have on the period. Lets also remember that the others were usurpers to the title, pretenders, not recognized by the senate. Every reign in roman imperial history dealt with rebellion and attempted seizure of royal sovereignty. Ingenuus, Macrianus, Quietus, Balista, Domitianus of Gaul, Regallianus, Zenobia, Celsus, Odenathus, Trebellianus, Piso, the Gallic secessionists and possibly many more whose names are lost to history all usurped the throne only to have met crushing defeats by the forces of Gallienus. And while for a time Postumus was the de facto ruler of the western roman empire after the death of Saloninus he was never recognized by Rome as emporer. Infact Postumus ended up with his own senate, consuls, and praetorian guard completely seperate from that of Rome. That is why he ruled over what is called the Gallic empire and not the Roman empire. While much territory was lost Gallienus was in little position to do much about it. Gallienus was battling several usurpers out east and could not avenge his brothers death. The fragmentation of the empire, while aggravated by Gallienus luxerious life style, was a good deal a product of the times. I think a balanced outlook on his reign that has other focal points besides the loss of territory is best(much of which was brought back under control within the decade). Lets not forget that he was also successful in repelling wave after wave of barbarian invaders as well as finally defeating Postumus after a prolonged period which saw the two in battlefields on three different occasions. -Dylan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odin1 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- The senate of Rome? You mean that silly-old-wives-debating-club-without-any-power? Do you mean that senate of Rome? And do you think these idle man were of any importance? In that case I foresee that this article will remain disputed for a very long time.
- BTW1: Wikipedia is not about what literature writes. It is about presenting a well understandable article that contains all relevant facts in an ordentical way. Wikipedia itself states that readers of the article should be able to find it's claims in the primary sources and not a single primary source I know disputes that Postumus ruled the western half of the Empire and was recognized at such by it's citizens.
- BTW2:I didn't know that there was any literature on Gallienus that didn't spent most of its word on his dramatical position. So why wikipedia should differ with presenting such an unbalanced outlook? johanthon 10:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Gallienus was the emperor of the western roman empire, whenever theres a usurper they dont split the leadership, most usurpers dont gain territory, some dont even form armies, Gallienus was the sole emperor 260 - 268 ad GET THAT THROUGH YOUR SKULL the gallic empire is considered a seeprate enttitty, a breakaway empire that might have laid claim to the rest of the roman empire but Gallienus was still recognised as the official emperor. And please stop being so emotional about it its a good article and impartial.
These may have been changed maliciously but certain phrases seem meaningless.
"Gallienus has been dealt with well by ancient historians, partly due to the secession of Gaul and his ability to get it back."
He didn't get Gaul back, Aurelian did.
Also in an earlier part there is mention of Gallienus not preserving Roman history and sense of nationhood then there are several passages about how he promoted the Hellenistic aspects of Roman culture, what is meant by this?
Urselius 15:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- That got vandalized. The correct version stated that ancient historians treated him poorly and modern historians now see him as more positive. It's sad this kind of vandalism can go unfixed for so long. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Finished some sections but it is still grossly incomplete. I need a few more days to finish it. Dipa1965 (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Just finished the 'Life' section. I think a re-write of Policy is needed, because of inappropriate language and a number of important omissions and unsupported facts. It would not be an easy task, though. --Dipa1965 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Even though I am the main contributor of that entity, I agree with you. It needs some copy-editing.--Dipa1965 (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Family, death date
- Other Wikipedia articles, like Cornelia Salonina, should not be used for justifying an edit. Both John Bray and Alaric Watson (I have both of their books) do not mention but three sons: Valerianus, Saloninus, Marinianus. The existence of a third son and a daughter MUST be supported by a reliable secondary source.
- As with most of the events of the second half of 3rd century, it is extremely difficult for any modern historian to determine the month during which Gallienus died, let alone the exact day. Please find yourself a reliable source before inserting the "22 March" theory. It would be a much better practice than inserting a bogus date and demand others to find a reference for it.