From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Mythology (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Greece (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Media franchises (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hercules as demigod[edit]

It is true that Heracles (greek name) is a demigod (half god half mortal) and that he is also a "hero" for many things. User:Po132 08:02, 29 April 2006

He was also a hero in the very booby specific Greek sense, of course.--Wetman 00:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
To what are you referring? AFAICT, this article does not describe Hercules as a god or demi-god. It only calls him a "hero".

Tuf-Kat 05:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hercules as historical person[edit]

Hercules (or Heracles, Ηρακλής) was a prince of Royal House of [Perseids], a dynasty of Achaean Empire, in Argos, Tiryns and Mycenae, in 2nd millenium BC. He headed some campaigns against adversaries of Achaean Empire in Peloponesos (Elis, Laconia), Middle Greece (Aetolia, Boeotia), Thessalia, Epirus etc. u suck

Later, every success of Acheans are ascribed to him.

--IonnKorr 20:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hercules elsewhere[edit]

Eqivalent or like figures include Ger Starkadr & Hindu Sisupala. Trekphiler 04:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


Is there really value in having separate articles at Heracles and Hercules? Should the two be merged? And if so, which name should prevail — the more ancient Heracles or the more common Hercules? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 05:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't confuse Hercules of Roman myth, the Renaissance and Saturday television with the Greek Heracles, any more than you'd confuse Minerva with Athene. --Wetman 05:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote for a merge. "Greco-Roman" gods fall into two categories.

First, there are native Roman gods who were at one point or another more-or-less arbitrarily associated with Greek gods. Your example of Athena and Minerva is a good case of that. In these cases, I advocate separate articles, with the Roman one focusing on cult practices - i.e. those traits which were not the result of borrowing.

But second, there are Greek gods that had no native Roman equivalent, and were simply imported. Apollo is the best example. But Hercules is one too. With Minerva, poetic descriptions take on Greek clothing, but the powers and rites keep on going on as if there'd been no Athena. With Hercules, it's a Greek borrowing and in constant dialogue with the Greek cult right from the start. I say merge. Bacchiad

The idea that Roman Hercules is in dialogue with Greek Herakles means that there's differences between the two, which is a good argument for having two articles. Less redundancy would be good, though--the section "The Greek Legend" can be eliminated from the Hercules article. Instead, we can have stuff about Hercules' links with Italy and the western Mediterranean--his fight with Geryon and all the little events that happen on his way back from that labor figure in a lot of local legends in western areas colonized by Greeks, and this seems to be a big factor in his popularity with the Romans. Akhilleus 18:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You're being sophistic. Minerva was a Roman goddess from way back in the mists of time. The Romans said, "hey, she's kinda like Athena". Minerva and Athena should be two separate articles. Hercules never existed until the Romans came in contact with the Greeks. They took him direct, only they happened to mispronounce his name.

If this does not sway you, however, consider that if we keep Heracles and Hercules separate, we should also have separate articles on Apollo and Apollon, Ulixes and Odysseus, Aeneas and Aineias, Oedipus and Oidipous. Bacchiad

If Ulixes had as many temples as Hercules, and was as different from Odysseus as Hercules is from Herakles, then, sure, they'd warrant separate articles. Instead of the standard you're proposing for whether there should be separate articles, try this one: how much is there to write about the different Greek and Roman figures? Would the section on the Roman version compare in length and interest to the Greek version? Then it's worth considering separate articles.
For Hercules, you can write a lengthy, informative, and interesting article that doesn't overlap much with Herakles, because Hercules was fairly important to Roman religion and literature. Ulixes, not so much, so that material should be covered in a section in the Odysseus article. Apollo doesn't seem to have many distinctive Roman features. Aineias is not very important in Greek culture, central in Roman, so one article.
It's worth noting that the Oxford Classical Dictionary has separate articles on Herakles and Hercules, on Athena and Minerva, but only one article for Aeneas, Odysseus, and Oedipus. There are definitely worse models than the OCD. Akhilleus 22:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on Ulixes; what about Apollo/Apollon? And how, specifically, is Hercules so radically different from Heracles? The article at present doesn't say; adding some well-argued text about that would be the best case against merging.

But you point to the real nut of this question, which is the overabundance of Her**les' popularity from the Greek Dark Ages up until today. The OCD has to deal with the Her**les of myth and the Her**les of cult in Greece and Rome. They take the sensible route of separating myth and Greek cult into one compartment and Roman cult into another. Also, the OCD - since it is a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia - has an editorial preference for short articles over long.

We have an extra wrinkle: beyond Greece and Rome, we have the Hercules of post-Roman culture and Saturday morning TV. I do not believe that having one article on the twelve labors and Greek temples and one on the Ara Maxima in the Forum Boarium and saturday morning cartoons makes much sense. First, the division lacks proportion. Second, those readers who come looking for the historical background on the pop-culture character are going to be better served by the material in the Greek article. The OCD entry on "Heracles" has the stuff that the average uninformed reader is going to want to find first. OCD's "Hercules" is specialist stuff. It makes sense for them, but I'd suggest not for us.

Since our subject is threefold rather than twofold, and since we do not have the same space restrictions as the OCD, I still say that a single article would be the best way to put all of the disjecta membra in proper context and proportion.

Let me be clear, however, that I do not want to establish a general precedent of merging Roman and Greek mythology articles together. I believe we've argued ourselves to a standstill here. Perhaps we should seek outside opinion? Bacchiad

You make good points. I agree that we need to structure the articles so that the general reader can find the information they need/are interested in. And, I agree that having one article on Greek Herakles and another on Roman Hercules + pop culture Hercules isn't the most logical way to divide things. So, I don't oppose a merge.
However, I do think that the potential length of a combined article may warrant *some* kind of division. Furthermore, the existing Heracles article could use more material--for instance, I think it would be useful to have separate sections on Herakles in tragedy, comedy, and philosophy, because each genre has a strikingly different idea of who "Herakles" is. Such an expansion would make Heracles pretty long, and merging in the Roman and later material might make an excessively lengthy article. I'm not sure if there's a consensus about how long is too long, though--the 32kb size seems like a guideline rather than a firm rule.
If we maintain separate articles, it should be easy to direct readers between the two with appropriate cross-references--that way we can ensure that users find the information they need. And I'll point out that edits are continuing on both articles, so there doesn't appear to be popular demand for a merge. I'll just leave it up to other contributors... Akhilleus 05:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Cross-references are in the opening paragraphs of each article, so we certainly aren't discussing possible confusion on the part of the Wikipedfia reader here. --Wetman 06:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The pages have been merged by Bacchiad, an action that I feel to be without consensus. Please comment, and notice the comments from Talk:Heracles below (this posted by Nihiltres 03:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)):

What?!?!? I appreciate the work that Bacchiad put in to merge this with Hercules, but I thought that most people contributing to the talk were in favor of keeping the two separate. Others, please comment. Did I miss some major decision? What does the merge of this with Hercules mean for other mythological articles. If a merge of Hercules and Heracles is insisted upon, then I think the community should follow suit by merging the names of all of the articles on gods, heroes, and characters who have different names in both Greek and Roman mythology. Abhorsen327 14:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
No. Hercules and Heracles are a special case. See this section below pasted in from the Hercules talk page. Bacchiad 15:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Either way, Bacchiad, there is no general consensus in favour of a merge, either on the Hercules page nor the Heracles page. Please revert your merge so that proper consensus can be reached.Nihiltres 02:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Easy there, Nihiltres. There has been a merge notice up there for weeks. Only two anti-merge advocates posted in that time, and one of them seemed willing to give the merge the benefit of the doubt. Since you and Abhorsen didn't speak up until after the merge, I couldn't really take your opinions into account now, could I?

That being said, I'm open to a more scientific poll. If we can measure consensus in some more feasible way than talk-page discussions that move nowhere, I'll abide by the decision either way. As for undoing the merge: if you want to do so, I won't get into an edit war. I'm content to stand back until a better opinion-measuring process is proposed and completed.

Sorry for stepping on toes. Bacchiad 03:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem; I just want consensus, and I prefer the status quo in the meantime. Sorry about the boldness - that was a bit zealous of me. As for Abhorsen327 and I not expressing our anti-merge opinions, I must express the irony of checking on Talk:Heracles and not Talk:Hercules.

In the meantime, a summary of the major points might be useful for a poll, although I won't be able to do that since I need sleep - it's around midnight where I am. Nihiltres 03:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

My main frustration with this entire process is that nothing was posted on the Heracles page other than one comment under the proposed submission to Featured Article Candidates, which was replied to by two users, and was never discussed again on the Heracles talk page. If there is to be a consensus for the merge of two pages, I feel that there should be a consensus among the editors of each page. I had never posted on the Hercules article, and had neither that article nor its talk page on my watchlist. If I had been aware of the move to merge, I would have posted my opinion against the merge on the talk page. While I see the organizational advantages of a merge, I am opposed to the merge for these reasons:

  • Size concerns, as per Akhilleus. If the Heracles article is expanded to Featured Article size, as Akhilleus plans, then I see the potential for the article to grow large, beyond easy loading or easy readability.
  • The current standard on Wikipedia is to separate articles on similar Greek and Roman mythological figures, and I feel that Her...les fits into this category.
  • The two different mythological traditions cover this character separately, and thus the two pages should be kept separate, as per Wetman.

I'm sure that we can find some way of keeping these separate, but referencing each to the other for easy reference by readers. Hopefully we can reopen this merge discussion, so that a consensus is reached on both pages as to whether the merge should be kept or not. Abhorsen327 03:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my previous comments that there is greater utility in having a separate entry for Hercules and his Roman manifestations and modern revival. Haiduc 11:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be the consensus, now that all parties have had a chance to view their opinions. I'll consent to a de-merge, therefore. Let me add, for my friends who frequent the Heracles page but were not watching Hercules, that I'm sorry you all were left out of the initial discussion. Bacchiad 06:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course you should merge, Hercules and Heracles are the same exact thing same as Minerva and Athena and Zeus and Jupiter/Juno.


Even a glance at Minerva and Athena, Zeus or Jupiter would take the bloom off User:Po132's pose of perfect ignorance. User:Po132 was pulling our leg here, but this was a perfectly serious matter. --Wetman 00:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is Hercules in Prophet Mohammad a.s pbuh period?[edit]

Is this man same as Hercules here?

I read a book "The Shock of the World Horrible Events Mark emergence of the Mahdi by Muhammad Isa Dawud"

Among the important point is the incident:

1. Hercules, here portrayed as a Roman Speaker country of Syam

2. Narrated by Yunus Bakir, bin Muhammad bin Ishaq, al-Zuhri, Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utbah, Abdullah bin Abbas, Abu Sufyan, Bishop Christian

3.Contents of the letter "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. From Muhammad, Messenger of the God to Roman Hercules Speaker. Security to those who follow guidance. Embrace Islam so that you will be safe and Allah will give you a double reward. If you refuse, then you will get people Akkbar sin."

4. Hercules called his men and said, "O Romans, have reached me a letter Ahmad truly, as he is a prophet of God which we look forward to. We recognize the signs and his time in the book. We follow him you may be safe in the world and in hereafter."

Among the words of Hercules;

"By God, I have not seen a more powerful forces are lies, but he(Hercule) can close the needless lies",-Abu Sufyan

The emperor asked Abu Sufyan, "What kind of family does Muhammad belong to?" "Noble", replied Abu Sufyan "Has there been a king in his family?" Hercules asked. "Are the people who have accepted his religion poor or rich?", Hercules questioned again. They are poor", replied Abu Sufyan. Hercules was now becoming more and more interested and he went on asking questions. His next question was, "Are his followers on the increase or decrease?" "Increasing", Abu Sufyan replied shortly.

"Have you known him to tell lies"? asked Hercules. "No", admitted Abu Sufyan."Does he ever go against his convents?", Hercules once again asked. "Does he ever go against his convents?", Hercules once again asked. "Does he ever go against his convents?", Hercules once again asked.

"Not so far. But we have to see whether he carries out the new agreement made between us and him", Abu Sufyan answered lengthily for a change."Have you ever fought him in wars?" Hercules questioned. "Yes", answered Abu Sufyan "What has been the result?" Hercules asked, getting more and more interested. "Sometimes we have won, sometimes he", replied Abu Sufyan. "What does he teach?" asked Hercules "Worship One God, join no partners with Him, carry out your prayers, be chaste, speak the truth and keep union with your relatives", answered Abu Sufyan, even surprised at his own answer as it sounded like he was preaching Islam.

"If all you said is true, then I am sure that this Prophet's Kingdom will reach here where I am standing. I was certain that a Prophet was coming, but I didn't know that he would be born in Arabia. If I were to go there, I would embrace Islam and wash the Prophet's feet with my own hands." -Hercules

Hercules & Islam

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC) 


Since there has been, apparently, a consensus that Heracles and Hercules should be different pages, I would like to go through the two pages and make sure that there is as little overlapping information as possible in the two articles; that no information is omitted from one that is found in, but does not properly belong, to the other; and that where there is relevant information in Heracles that needs to be referenced in Hercules, it should be via link, and vice versa. However, I'd like to get some idea of what the reaction is going to be before attempting this. RandomCritic 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As there was no objection, I went ahead with the separation. RandomCritic 17:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The merge tag was recently reapplied, after all: I removed it. The two articles need to remain complete: some overlap in text is a result of the very same cultural overlap we've been distracted by here.
I'm not sure about the merge/split history here; but the article, as it stands today, starts out with the first two sections making a big deal of the difference between Hercules and Heracles, then, the Character section talks about Hercules (Roman) being the illegitimate son of Zeus (Greek) rather than the Roman Jupiter, as in the very first sentence. It then proceeds to drag Hera into the picture (for which Juno may be presumed to be justly displeased). I'm interested in the split between the Greek vs Roman myths, and this article, after pointing out that there is a difference, proceeds to muddy things up by conflating them once again. rowley (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Straying from the texts[edit]

When we report what we remember of what the nuns taught us and don't look back at the sources, we may stray into unexpected territory, thus: "Hercules later decided to elope with Iole, and realizing he was not dressed for the occasion, requested that his wife send him a coat." --- mm, was that the Chesterfield with the velvet collar or the midnight blue alpaca? --Wetman 16:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't he actually elope with Iolaus instead? Haiduc 16:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


I deleted the following because I can find no evidence that this film actually exists. If it's not a spoof, it needs a title and release date:

  • A short film by Steven Spielberg depicting Hercules as a gay bartender living in 1940's Croatia.

Questions about the Video Games section on the article page[edit]

One part of this currently reads:

*Heracles is a PlayStation 2 game where he must free Pegasus from the clutches of the evil god Poseidon.

Is this supposed to read Heracles or is it a typo that should be corrected to Hercules? I am not familiar with either such game for the PS2, so I have no good way of verifying this. If Heracles was the intention, perhaps that tidbit should be moved over to the page dedicated to Heracles. Thanks. Santorummm 01:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Pop Culture Herc[edit]

Would it be a good or bad idea to split off the "Hercules in popular culture" section into its own article -- something like Hercules (popular culture) or Hercules (film and comics)?RandomCritic 02:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

When an articles gets long, it's common Wikipedia practice to make a new article (Hercules in popular culture), cut-and-pasting all relevant material but retaining a succinct condensed version of the material here at the trunk article, under the heading For the main aricle, see Hercules in popular culture. --Wetman 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure about you guys, but the section on his charachter looks a little wrong. I don't know anything about his charachter other than what I saw about him in the disney movie, but I'm sure that he wasn't reknowned for errotic adventeures with men. ~Rustyfence 02:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is true. The Disney movie was a rather faithful adaption of the Hercules story and I enjoyed it very much. The whole notion of any bit of homsexuality in Hercules's character is absurd. Whoever wrote that section has no idea what they're talking about. ~bluemangroupfan666 01:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you only know what you saw in a disney movie then you can't be 'sure' and it's not surprising you know nothing about his reputed sexual character. Homosexuality is hardly a common topic in mainstream US cinema! There is some more detail of this aspect of his character in the Heracles article. It's worth remembering that homosexuality has not always had the same cultural perceptions and connotations. I believe that to the ancient greeks this part of the story simply amplified his reputation for sexual prowess. Slinky Puppet 10:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


They weren't about him becoming a god, they were to cleanse/purify himself of his murders. Even though the Disney movie was good,it doesnt really matter Hercules is not what you think. He killed his wife and children.

Disney's Great, But Not Historical[edit]

I recently saw Disney's production of Hercules (yeah, I'm a little behind the times ;) ) for a project in Greek Mythology in a class I'm taking.

I loved the movie--it was EXTREMELY well done--and I like where they went with their own plot, but, in relation to an above comment, it is not factual whatsoever.

The Fates which Disney expressed as ugly creatures who share only one eyeball (Gorgons, actually, are known to share one eyeball), but, as far as I know, the Fates were beautiful, powerful (the gods had to go by what they said), and mysterious.

At the beginning of the movie, it shows Hera and Zeus as the happy parents of Zeus. This is half true. Hercules was, in fact, the son of Zeus, but his mother was a mortal named Alcmena. Because of this, there goes half of the movie. Since Hercules is only half god, Hades (not really a bad guy--he was just'd be too if you hung out with dead people your entire life) wouldn't have visited him on Mt. Olympus, and never gave him a potion, and never made him mortal. He was mortal from the begining (though he really did have extreme strength). Hades never had a reason to make Hercules mortal, or to get him dead. Hercules also didn't meet "Meg" when training with "Phil" because of the following slightly complicated...thingy:

Hercules, in the movie, wanted to be a hero so that he could regain his immorality and become a true god again and live with his real parents with them on Mt. O. Hercules, for real, though, was never a true god in the first place, thus never had a reason to go to Mt. O. He really married Meg (I'm not sure when) and had lots of children. However, since Zeus was cheating on Hera when he made Hercules, Hera has been out to get the mortal since his birth. She's constantly trying to kill him. Finally, she makes him temporarily crazy, and he kills his wife and all his children. Hera, afterwards, brings him back to his senses so that he realizes what he's done. He feels horrible, and for him everything's a mess--for he really loved his family. Zeus is trying to protect his son, and realizes that it wasn't his fault he went crazy and killed his family--it was put upon him by Hera. So in order to cleanse himself, Hercules must complete 12 labors.

He isn't, never was, and never will be immortal.

In short, there are a lot of messed of facts that Disney screwed up that I don't have near the time to cover--these were just a few main ones--(the did a great job on the movie, I won't deny, and it's pretty funny, too) so I thought I might just straighten that out. Thanks for reading, respond if you want.

--ElvenLady~HobbitGirl 02:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)ElvenLady~HobbitGirl

Typo? 'Hera and Zeus as the happy parents of Zeus' 01:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hercules did become immortal. When he died, he became a god. In fact, Hera accepted him as a god and let him wed her daughter, Hebe (the goddess of youth, and cup-bearer to the gods). Hercules (acually Heracles in greek) had a happy ending after all. This is all stated in the book "Mythology" by Edith Hamilton, and mentioned by other authors as well.

There is also an upcoming film which will star Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson as the lead. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Kellan Lutz and Dwayne Johnson are missing from the list of actors who have portrayed Hercules in film. (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

41 versions reverted[edit]

I've just reverted 41 versions of scribbles and blanking and editorial struggles. Not to semi-protect this page seems unfair to adult Wikipedians. --Wetman 05:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made some corrections today as a result of a couple of bits of vandalism. I think I've got them right, but apologies if i've got the wrong version up now, it got very confusing. This article seems to be getting vandalised every other day, and some protection really would seem to be a good idea. No idea how we go about organising/requesting this. Ged UK (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In Sports[edit]

Iraklis Thessaloniki is named after him and several other clubs in Greece and Cyprus.Also in Holland they have a team called Hercules and there is a team called Heracles in Spain.We should add this too i think. Eagle of Pontus 10:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


What is this nonsensical line about Antony's enemy "romanus" associating himself with Apollo? Is this an unclear reference to Octavian claiming to have been the son of Apollo? If so, then say it. There is no such person as "Romanus." Also, the link takes you to something completely unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Etruscan Circle?[edit]

This part needs sourcing. Ifnkovhg (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the bit about Heracles fighting at Thermopylae in 480 BC.[edit]

What utter nonsense. The Spartan King Leonidas, who died at Thermopylae, claimed Heracles as an ancestor. Ifnkovhg (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Much of this article is poorly (i.e., not at all) sourced. Ifnkovhg (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning scribbles and vandalism[edit]

I have vetted and cleaned the article of scribbles from 01:47, 15 October 2007 to date. Closer adult supervision is needed. --Wetman (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection will help. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree theres like no info in this article. im doing a project and a book has more info than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myky101 (talkcontribs) 14:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


This article seems to be under vandalism on a constant basis, a dozen times per day. Some type of protected status is necessary. (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Vandalism appears again under Death of Hercules, "He was killed by Frenz Marlon Ocariza and John Paul Actas". Just Googling those names, they both seem to appear in the lists at "". Maybe that might help in IP-origin-specific protection? (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)MJR Michael Rudmin


Herculaneum seems to have originally been a Greek settlement called Herakleion. Ifnkovhg (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The "Character" section as it stands is pretty thin, and needs to be sourced. The article seems to indicate that the lionskin and club were peculiar to Roman Hercules, when we actually find the same iconography in Greek Heracles. I think adding that Hercules became an emblem of Cynic and (especially) Stoic philosophy in Roman authors such as Seneca might be worth mentioning. Also, there are some particularly Roman myths about Hercules in Vergil and Lucan that could be included. Ifnkovhg (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Merge Hercules and Heracles[edit]

Why is this article different to Heracles? Does anyone seriously believe that Hercules are Heracles were ever regarded as anything but the same person? I noticed there have been merging suggestions in the past and eventhough the majority voted for it, the merge was never realised. The arguments against the merge are pretty much backed up by subjective POV. It's a fact that the academic community worldwide uses two names for the same person, and doesn't recognise two different people. The fact that there are some distinctively Roman myths about Hercules doesn't mean that there's a different Hercules in Rome no more than there's a different St. George for every european country and its local folklore. The Greek demigod Heracles (or Hercules, as the Romans called him) was the son of a mortal woman named Alcmene and the supreme god Zeus. Source: If no-one replies I'll assume that there are no objections against the merge and I'll proceed with it. Miskin (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have also posted in Talk:Hercules explaining why this article is nothing less than a POV-fork. Miskin (talk)

I object. Roman Hercules is inspired by Greek Heracles, obviously, but is a distinct figure from the Greek, with an important place in Roman culture. There's enough material about the Roman figure to justify an article (the current form of the article may not reflect this, but that's a problem for another day). --Akhilleus (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Idem. There is enough material for two separate articles. Haiduc (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Please respond with sources rather than personal opinions. I just cited one and I can cite many more reliable sources where Hercules and Heracles are stated to be different names for the same person. I could reply to you by saying that, despite what you say, the Romans themselves did actually not view Hercules as a separate person from Heracles. In fact they only used one name, "Hercules" when they wrote in Latin and "Heracles" when they wrote in greek, so it was never really such a question to them. This becomes more than obvious if you read the Latin texts whether originals or translations from Greek where no distinction is made between a Roman and a Greek Hercules whatsoever. There are different myths about Saint George in pretty much every christian country in Europe. That doesn't mean that there's more than one persons. But let's just avoid personal opinions because they're pointless, you're old editors and you know the rules, please try to make a point by citing sources to backup your claims and I'll do the same. If things are as obvious as you claim, I'm sure you won't be having much trouble to prove it. Miskin (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as the quantity of material goes, that is largely irrelevant (and yes, it's not at all reflected in the article). If the Roman "updates" on the Herculian myths ever become large enough to qualify for a separate article, then that article should be called Hercules in Roman tradition or something along those lines, whereas Hercules/Heracles will be the main article about the persona. This would be something totally reasonable and acceptable, unlike the POV-fork of Hercules vs Heracles which implies that there's two different people with different stories. Miskin (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Miskin, just as there are different articles for Zeus and Jupiter, about whom someone could make the very same argument you have made about Heracles and Hercules, there should be separate articles about H and H. This is not a person we are talking about but a concept, and that concept varied between the Greek and Roman constructions. Ergo, two articles. Haiduc (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
And I don't agree with that either, if it were up to me I'd keep Zeus and Jupiter in the same article (Zeus/Jupiter or Jupiter/Zeus) for largely the same reasons but this is a different debate. So we shouldn't use a mistake to correct another mistake, let's just treat the Heracles/Hercules case independently like it deserves. The reason I don't agree with what you say is because in English, French and likely all the languages in the world, people tend to use the Latin derivative of the name for any myth related to the hero whether Greek or Latin. Similarly the vast majority of modern scholars follow the same practice. And the Romans themselves followed the same practice too. So no matter which way I try to look at it, it's impossible for me to understand where you're coming from. The only argument I see here is "it's like that, take it or leave it". But I'm afraid that's not good enough. Miskin (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
If you can't tell the difference, then no doubt you'd want to merge Aphrodite/Venus and Artemis/Diana. Frankly, I see no reason why you should care. Or ever read anything on the subjects. And I see no problem in a separate article for each Simpsons episode, either. Long, developed Wikipedia articles tend to be split along their inherent fault lines, such as Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) and Mother of God yada yada yada. Never an issue there, is there? Find something useful to do. --Wetman (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In the previous discussion, I think that the point that the Oxford Classical Dictionary has separate entries for Heracles and Hercules is relevant. That's a reliable source treating the two subjects as distinct. In narrative mythological terms, there may be little difference, but there was in how the two cultures treated him. You say that you wouldn't object to an article on Hercules in Roman tradition, but that's essentially what Hercules is. Heracles discusses the original Greek myth, and Hercules discusses the Roman "take" on the mythological figure. This isn't a POV split, it's a spin-out in keeping with WP:SUMMARY and WP:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 21:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I would appreciate if you could talk to me in the same civil manner that I have been talking to you. Wetman, if you can't abide by WP:CIVIL then don't reply at all. Personal attacks of the type "what do you care" or "what do you know about it" and "go find something better to do" are not very constructive and will probably backfire at you. Secondly, if you have a problem with the Simpsons episodes or the Virgin Mary articles then take it to the corresponding place, which is clearly not here. Those examples aren't relevant and I'm not willing to discuss them. If you care to know why I should care, it is because anyone who would like to know more about Hercules will google the name and run into a poor and confusing article of nearly stub status, which not only doesn't mention any of the useful information on Hercules, but in addition implies that Hercules and the person who went through the 12 labours are two different people. If it's not important at all as you claim, then why would you go into the trouble of insulting and trying to bully someone from saying things that you don't agree with? Miskin (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Josiah thanks for your input. I'm not sure I understood the point you're trying to make. The Oxford Classical Dictionary, like any dictionary, will have an entry on any word that can be regarded as part of the English language, hence the fact that it has two entries merely proves that both are words of the English language. Therefore we shouldn't be looking at the entries of a dictionary but the entries of an encycopaedia and/or the relevant English-speaking literature. Speaking of reliable sources, Encycolpaedia Britannica for that matter has only one entry and that is Heracles. The description under the article title runs "Greek Herakles, Roman Hercules...most famous Greco-Roman legendary hero" [1]. This is the example that wikipedia should follow in order to simple "make sense" to someone who isn't very familiar with the topic (instead of just confusing them more). But I believe wikipedia should use Hercules as the article name and Heracles should redirect at the same place. And no, like I said earlier I would not object to an article Hercules in Roman tradition as that would truly be a spin-out article just as you described. An article's title can affect lots of things and I call the current article a POV-fork because it contains something like 1% of the information on the subject that article's name represents. Someone comes here to find out about Hercules and they are told to go elsewhere, as if we're telling them "oh what you heard was wrong, don't call it Hercules, call it something else like we do", which is not wikipedia's role I'm afraid. Anyways, if we were to rename this article to Hercules in Roman tradition and had Hercules redirect to Heracles or vice versa, that would solve the problem too. Anyone intrested in that easier solution? Miskin (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Miskin, the Oxford Classical Dictionary is not really a dictionary in the ordinary sense of the word--it's more like an encyclopedia that covers the classical world. The fact that it has separate entries for Heracles and Hercules indicates that classicists believe the two are separate topics. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Right sorry, for some reason I was typing 'classical' but thinking 'English' dictionary. I'm really not convinced by your interpretation on its entries though, especially with so many sources to contradict it. Classical or not, it still is a dictionary and they're obliged to have an entry for every term in existence. It's a specialised dictionary but a dictionary nonetheless. If what you said was true then I see no reason for Britannica to leave out an article on Hercules and merge together two terms that classicists believe to be separate (Heracles/Hercules). And you can even think about it in terms of common usage, everyone speaks of Hercules and they mean one unique person, whether Roman or Greek, while most people have probably not even heard of a 'Heracles'. I'm not sure if you see my point as to how this article is misleading... Miskin (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Another source I found is the Encyclopedia of Greco-Roman mythology by Mike Dixon-Kennedy. There's a main article "Heracles" with all the information on the person and there's an entry Hercules which acts as a redirection, stating only "The name by which Heracles was known to the Romans". I hope you all see how those sources are contradicting your claims and the claims of this article about a separate Roman hero called Hercules who was inspired by the Greek Heracles but without being the same person or sharing the same past. I have brought up so far 3 sources contradicting your claims here. Is there anyone with a source that would back up the opposing view here? Maybe posting some of the text from the Oxford Classical Dictionary to see if it implies something else? If I don't get an answer I'll assume that there's no interest for improvement and therefore I'll just start making edits and imitate Britannica's example of a merged article. So for those who do not consider themselves to be too smart for other people and are willing to fall down to my level and discuss this without personal attacks, this is the opportunity to do it. Miskin (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Work on the articles all you like--the quality is currently not great, so there's much room for improvement. But there' s no consensus to merge currently, so please don't do that. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Two more sources: (1) Brill's New Pauly (the English translation of a highly respected 18-volume German classical encyclopaedia), like the OCD, has different entries for Hercules and Heracles. (Incidentally, neither the OCD nor the BNP is a lexicographic work; their articles are about subjects, not words.) (2) Libraries which catalogue using the Library of Congress Subject Headings index books on "Hercules (Roman mythology)" separately from those on "Heracles (Greek mythology)".
I think separate articles here are justified on field-of-interest grounds; many people will be be looking for information on Roman culture but not Greek, or vice versa. I'd have no strong objection to renaming this article "Hercules in Roman culture", but I'm not sure that would actually be any clearer for readers. EALacey (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Akhilleus I won't do anything against editor consensus.. EALacey the second source that you posted is actually backing my point, the two categories labeled (Roman) and (Greek) are in fact referencing the exact same subject. The same subject that Britannica merges as "Greco-Roman Hero" simply because there was never a distinction of two heroes like this article implies. Have a look at the work titles under the category, Hercules (Roman mythology) and Heracles (Greek mythology), and you'll notice that the listings have the same subject, "Hercules : the twelve labors" and "The twelve labors of Hercules". There's nothing Roman-specific or Greek-specific respectively under those categories. You say that people "will be looking for information on Roman culture but not Greek, or vice versa", but do you really think this is a realistic scenario? How many people in the world will actually look up for "Hercules" in order to filter the Greek myths, and "Heracles" to filter the Roman myths? If we're gonna be realistic here you have to accept that some 99% of the people who type in the string "Hercules" will want every kind of information on the hero and certainly not just the Roman myths if at all (which are extremely limited anyway). So what's the result? The reader runs into a poor article which doesn't state half of what she was looking for. This is particularly shame for this article due to the fact that most readers are likely to be children. So readers will be mislead just because the editor consensus of this article decided that against all sources "Hercules" should refer to different things than "Heracles", even if it is nowhere cited as such. I think that's out of order. I have waited a really long time hoping to see those separate articles making sense but I now realise that they never will. So what I want to suggest is to simply rename this article to something else like Hercules in Roman culture for example, this way the merge can be avoided. If some people strongly wish to have a separate article which isolates the Roman-only myths of Hercules, then please accept not to monopolise the name aricle name "Hercules" which has a much wider scope. If this article gets renamed to something with a meaning, then Hercules should redirect to Heracles, or Heracles will get renamed to Hercules. Either way this article stays separate like you guys want it, just with a different title. Any thoughts on this proposal? Miskin (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)hercules is a loser.
I'd like to weigh in as an objective 3rd party. (I'd start out, though, by mentioning that the phrase "hercules is a loser" [sic] appears to be vandalism added to Miskin's entry, above.) The reason I want to weigh in is because I came to both articles (Hercules and Heracles) looking for just the sort of differences that have been discussed, above; i.e., I wanted to find out what were the differences between the Greek and Roman myths, the Greek vs Roman interpetations of the character, and the ways in which they have been (it seems inevitably) conflated. Specifically, I want to know whether there are some stories that originated in reference to Hercules but not to Heracles, and vice versa. If the Roman Hercules is, indeed, a retelling of the Heracles myths (plus whatever the later Romans could think of to add on later), I want to find out which parts were borrowed and which came solely from the Romans, rather than to just be told out of hand that "Hercules is just the Roman name for Heracles," or "Heracles is just what the Greeks called Hercules." I don't think the interest of this kind of research is served by merging the two articles. Or, at the very least, it deserves a section clearly illuminating the overlap between the Greek and Roman versions. I am no classical scholar, but it seems to me there is a basic and important difference between Greek Heracles and Roman Hercules. This is to say nothing of the neverending conflation of the Greek vs Roman characterizations of the deities. These two cultures thought differently about these things, and we can't afford to lose sight of that. rowley (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


Any sources connect Horagalles? If so it should go in the Horagalles article but if any authors make the connection, (and I don't see how they could have all overlooked it) someone should source and mention it. (son of the high God, wields a hammer/club, defender and champion of the gods, etc). (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Code is screwed up[edit]

and beyond me to fix.

-rudyard (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Ahh yes the simple fix we are working on it --//admin404 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


I think the artile should either stick with Roman references or Greek references, since in the intro, it states that Hercules is the son of Jupiter whereas in his "bio", it states that Zeus his is father... I get it that Zeus and Jupiter are the same person, but we might as well say that Hercules and Heracles are... Any suggestions? Papapavvv (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking exactly the same thing. I would welcome any further discussion but for now I am going to be bold and change Zeus and Hera to Jupiter and Juno. --Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"Zeus (the Roman equivalent of Jupiter)"[edit]

the first sentence reads as in the title, should this read "Zeus (the Roman equivalent is Jupiter)"

because Zeus is Greek and Jupiter is Roman, Zeus can not be the Roman equivalent of Jupiter. (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Roman Hercules[edit]

If this article is about the distinctively Roman version of Hercules, it should not simply repeat the 12 Labors, which are covered in Heracles. It should be only about the religious cult of Hercules and his role in Roman mythology, with a section that explains how Latin literature and iconography incorporate Greek elements to produce "classical mythology". Cynwolfe (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Bold proposal[edit]

I am proposing a bold but commonsense plan for addressing the problematic topic of "Hercules." Hercules is such a popular subject that it seems pointless and pedantic to try to make the main article under that name about the Roman Hercules. I propose that we have an article Hercules in ancient Rome or Hercules in the Roman era that deals with the religious and Imperial aspects of Hercules, represented in this article by a summary section. This article would then deal with classical mythology as the syncretic, popularized classical tradition. I also propose that we ruthlessly stamp out all efforts to pad the article with material that belongs in Labours of Hercules. Here we would have only a list, or discussion of how the individual labors were represented in notable works of art or "cultural depictions" (as WP likes to say; I'm still trying to figure out what non-cultural depictions would be). Being in a bold mood, I'm going to implement some of this. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, as usual jumped in there before realizing what a spectacular mess this all is. More specifically:
I propose that this article be an overview of the post-Greek tradition of Hercules. This will require sections on medieval mythography, Renaissance literature and art, and so on up to the 20th century, the era of pop culture depictions, which I now see has its own article Hercules in popular culture. The filmography here should be there. It will be a massive amount of work to sort this out, but I'll give it a shot if it's OK. Hercules is way too popular a subject to have these articles in such a state. Labours of Heracles is hardly illustrated, for example, and we have a lot of interesting examples at Commons. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, I'm starting the Hercules in ancient Rome article today. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Haven't heard any objections from those who watch this article, so I'm assuming the direction I'm heading in is OK. As I've worked with the material, it seems to me that we have this:
  • Main article Heracles dealing extensively and in detail with the myths and cult of Heracles in Greek sources
  • Hercules as the main article on the hero in classical mythology in general, as part of the classical tradition, with subsections pointing to:
    • Labours of Hercules, with only a list here (each of these also has its own article)
    • Hercules in ancient Rome, where those of us who like that sort of thing can put in all the pedantic details we want; this ugly little section here can be written more nicely once we have a main article to guide us.
    • Germanic associations, which I find intriguing, but given perhaps a bit of undue weight here; if it turns out this could support its own article, that would be cool, so this could be streamlined here
    • Medieval mythography, which I've started
    • Renaissance mythography, again started with a baby step
    • and so on (currently absent) till we get to the 20th century, for which we have various articles dealing with Hercules in popular culture and individual comics. Any of the existing sections, such as numismatics, could probably sustain its own article. I hope to outline i the historical development of the figure here, but am not sure how fully I'll develop any given section. So please feel free to chime in. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Why does the redirect page Herkules not lead here?[edit]

Herkules leads to Heracles, and not here. This is totally baffling. Is there a good reason for it?--Barend (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The Herkules redirect was set to Heracles during a time when this article was also redirected to Heracles. It seems that no one had thought to fix this in the seven years since. I have now corrected the redirect.--Khajidha (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014[edit]

hurcluse is the son of zeus (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. The article already says that. RudolfRed (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


The first occurrence of Hercle in this article needs to be wikilinked viz Hercle. I oppose the proposal that the articles on Heracles and Hercules be merged. Just as I would oppose the proposal that the article on Hercle be merged with either of the other two. (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[edit] should be on wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)