Talk:List of Roman emperors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former FLC List of Roman emperors is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated List-class, Top-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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Early discussion[edit]

Should this page perhaps include an exact or at least vague idea of the number of Roman Emperors from Augustus to 395AD? Or for that matter, an indication of the number of Latin-speaking Emperors? I think its something like 147 in sum -suggestion

i dont know this info so some one else will have to do it. But this page does not say about Caesers and Augustuses and all that messy business if your trying to make a table of it :-s - fonzy

Except that those titles don't even carry the same meanings over time. Look up the Tetrarchy. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-writing the Gordian Dynasty: justification.

The history of this bit of the third century was confused when I found it. What actually happened is as followed:

1) Maximinus Thrax siezed the throne. He was basically a thug, did horrible things to the Senate, tortured kittens, yada yada yada.

2) Outraged, Gordian I was drafted into seeking the emperorship. As he was about 79, he insisted that his son also be made emperor. So we should treat their reign as one entry -- can't talk about the one without the other.

3) Dick Head II is killed; father commits suicide out of grief for his son.

4) The Senate, understandably nervous about this sudden loss of leadership, elects Pupienus and Balbinus as Co-Emperors. Again, we should treat their reign as one entry -- can't talk about the one without the other.

5) Maximinus Thrax is murdered by his own men. Maybe there's some folk in the Roman army who don't like to watch kittens being tortured. ;-)

6) The Pretorian Guard (need to write an article about this power behind the Imperial throne), realize that the threat of Maximinus is past, see this as their opportunity to sieze power, & kill Balbinus & Pupienus Maximus. The ensuing intrigue results with the young Gordian III as Emperor.

I've combined the entries for Gordian I & II into one. The entry for Gordian II needs to be deleted. If people agree with me. llywrch 02:29 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC)

I disagree. Couldn't we make Gordian II a #REDIRECT to Gordian I? This would allow linking to G II from other articles. -- JeLuF 08:05 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC)
Well, I've checked all of the pages that link to the Gordian II, & relinked them to the Gordian I page. There shouldn't be any links to G II. llywrch 01:40 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC)
That sounds like a bad way to work. IF someone now decides to take the two apart again, we have all kinds of links going to the wrong place. Changing 'Gordian II' to a redirect does the same thing, but with less work, less problems if things are changed back, and works for future links as well as past ones. In fact I'm tempted to undo those relinks, but there's so much more to do here... - Andre Engels 12:19 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC)
Actually, all I've done is:
1) Rewritten the Gordian I article,
2) redirected the links,
3) stated my reasons here. And defended them.
I've not touched the Gordian II page, merely asked that it be deleted. If the consensus is that I'm wrong about this, all that needs to be done is to move the links back. (Although I'd like an explanation why I'm wrong about this.) -- llywrch 18:38 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC)

One more note: since I'm probably breaking this page for all of the translators, allow me to offer my apologies. But as a when a broken sword is reforged becomes stronger, so as I fix this page of its errors it will become more useful for you to transport into your native tongue. llywrch 03:38 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC)


Since Julius Caesar has been given mention, should earlier despots of similar natures be listed?

Strictly speaking, Julius Caesar should not be added to this list. And if his presence on his list is seen as an allowance to add other figures from Roman Republican History (e.g., Pompey, Crassus, etc.) then he should be removed.
However, it is a very wide-spead misconception that Caesar was an emperor: in many languages the word for "Emperor" is derived from his name (e.g., German Kaisar, Russian Czar). Therefore he is a borderline case, many people would come to this entry looking for him, & thus he needs some kind of mention here. -- llywrch 02:47 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)
(I think it is a mistake to say that the popularity of the term "Caesar" and it's use in later German or Russian history is due to Julius Caesar; it was Augustus Caesar as the first emperor who really put the name on the map (excuse the pun) -- User:Morphax 02:03 Nov 29, 2005 (EST) )

Moved the following contribution from the article body:

technically all were princepts untill hadrian and not emperors

This is a list of Emperors, not of their actual titles (which varied greatly over the centuries, & does need documentation somewhere). --llywrch 16:34 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Reversion of this article: justification.

A few days ago, this was a simple, clean list of individuals. Perhaps not all of the names were correct, or in the correct form -- but a reader could, with a glance, find the Emperor ashe/he wanted, click onthe link & access the article.

Then it became a slab of text dificult to read.

Because of this unfriendly look, I'm reverting it. And I'll be asking some of the other folks who contribute to Roman topics to discuss this change. Is this really what we want this article to look like? -- llywrch 03:39, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I cannot say that I agree. In the first place, I don't agree that my edit made the article difficult to read; no more than a moment or two is necessary to familiarise oneself with the format, which is explained earlier in the document. The names are in Latin, yes, but the customary names of the individuals are clearly labeled after the more correct names. Furthermore, the list as I rewrote it traced the history of the imperial dignity in a more accurate and more orderly manner, indicating lesser co-emperors, full colleagues in the Tetrarchy, and later dynastic divisions between East and West (especially after the deaths of Constantine and Theodosius).
In the second place, I feel that the overview I wrote to explain the Roman conception of the emperor and the titles and ranks associated with it was a much-needed addition to a list which made no effort to explain what precisely a Roman emperor was (it certainly was not a modern monarchical emperor, at least not until the Dominate).
You have proposed that this be discussed amongst those who contribute to Roman topics. I am willing to defer to just such a discussion; however, since the discussion is whether or not "we" want to keep the simplistic document or my more detailed version, I am reverting the document to my version for the present time so that the contributors can see it and judge it as it is. -- Publius, 05 Dec. 2003
The rewrite is interesting, but yes, way too verbose. Full titles are good detail for individual articles, but very bad for list lookup speed, which is the main purpose of the indexes that WP calls lists for historical reasons. Also, we like to keep the textual headers of lists short and sweet, putting the detailed explanations in separate articles (Roman Emperor would be a sensible choice, instead of having it be a redir). The rewrite is a sort of hybrid list/narrative that is unique, and worth keeping, but as a distinct article - call it Narrative of Roman Emperors or maybe rework as Timeline of Roman Emperors. Go to the bare list to find "Consta-something", go to the timeline to understand the succession of emperors better than by piecing together from a half-dozen individual emperor articles. Stan 04:57, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I rather like this suggestion, which certainly solves the problem, in my opinion. llywrch, what do you think of using the "complicated" text for Roman Emperor and leaving the list in the "simple" version? A few more explanatory notes in the "complicated" narrative and it could be altered to focus more strongly on titular and dynastic developments, leaving the simple chronological order and contemporary names to the "simple" list. Publius

Hmm...like Stan, I kind of like the new page, but I think it's far too complicated for the list page. Some sort of separate article might be a good idea, although a bit odd to have two articles with such similar content. An alternative would be to remove the introduction to a "Roman Emperor" article. Remove the names, which are more appropriately given on each individual Emperor's page, but leave the clearer listing of co-emperors. john 05:35, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I like the idea of adding the new stuff to Roman Emperor - there is a similar Roman dictator article already. Adam Bishop 06:42, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Incidentally, Adam, if the "complicated" version I wrote (now found at Roman Emperor) seems similar to Roman dictator, that's probably because I wrote that article, too. Publius

The more complicated version is a lot harder to use. The paragraphs added should be moved somewhere else, and this should stay as a simple list. Maximus Rex 06:45, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with the general comments above. One one hand, the list stop being a list and its difficult reading - the last version was a lot more useful. On the other Publius had a lot of work and added an extremely nice overview that its a pity to loose. I suggest that overview and the discussion of the titles should go to Roman emperor - not as a redirect - but an article on his own. In this way the verbose parts, as well as the distinction between dinastic and non-dynastic could be saved and given the proper attention, and the list remains a practical thing to use. Curiously, i used this idea (previous to see this discussion) in the new Roman usurper and List of Roman usurpers. Muriel Victoria 07:55, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be that the "complicated" list would be better as Roman Emperor, so I have provisionally placed it there and reverted to the "simple" list. Publius

Wow. If only all disagreements on WP could be handled so amiably & maturely. My thanks to all. -- llywrch 17:28, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Tables[edit]

I suppose I overreacted by completely reverting JohnArmagh's recent additions, with everything organized into tables. However, I feel that these tables, while somewhat more aesthetically pleasing at the moment with borders, are unhelpful and do not improve the look of the article. I don't think it is necessary to include so much information here, since it is just a list - you can find their real names and regnal names etc. in the articles themselves. It also just repeats the more detailed information on the Roman Emperor page, which looks better without tables, in my opinion (it also makes this article obsolete, but we already discussed that months ago, see above). Hopefully other editors interested in this page can express their opinions as well, for or against. Adam Bishop 19:13, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My intention has been to incorporate something of the flavour of the subject into the list, so that it is more than a mere list of names and dates: whilst retaining the simple list to the left, with a little more in-depth to the right.

The layout, of course, is something I would like to get to meet two criteria:-

a) it is in a format which most readers would like to see and
b) that the format is consistent (or forms a precedence for consistency).

Whilst the detail to the right of such a table may largely be covered in the biographical details of the subject, this per se does not facilitate the advantage of a table format, i.e. at-a-glance comparison, between items in the table, of selected details.

The comments of Adam Bishop are, as usually gratefully received, and I do invite comments from anyone else with an opinion.

--JohnArmagh 20:09, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't like the table format either - we have articles on all these guys, with plenty of room for specialists' details like how their names might appear on coins or inscriptions. The purpose of the list is to find a particular one when given sketchy info for which computerized searching is useless ("shortly after Marcus Aurelius", or "the fourth emperor, N-something I think". Each list entry needs at most years (unlinked imho), and a short phrase "thumbnailing" the emperor. The table does have some desirable info, but let's get the content into the articles instead, where it's also convenient to cite the references for the info (citations and tables don't play nice together). Another possibility is to have two separate articles, one a plain list and the other tableized - feasible since the basic data isn't likely to change much anymore. :-) Stan 20:18, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
BTW, really useful additional tables/lists would be ones sorted by common name, gens, and cognomen. Stan 20:21, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Seems I can't win - within seconds of posting an additional Simplified list of Emperors it is listed for Votes for Deletion. --JohnArmagh 05:49, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that - there are some avid deletionists who list on VfD without bothering to learn why the article was created. Often if I create something that looks like a dup, I'll immediately add a note to the talk page explaining the situation and xrefing over to the other article - even the most aggressive of deleters will take a moment to look at the talk page. The other way to go is to put it under your user page and move later. Don't worry, we'll get this all sorted out, and every bit of content is saved in history, even for deleted articles, so nothing will be lost. Stan 16:28, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you want my frank opinion about this new look? One word: Ugh.

I know, that's a cruel way to express it -- & also unhelpful -- but I like the old list for more than the simple reason that I'm used to it. These reasons include:

  1. Simplicity. The emperor's name was quickly findable, with a few quick pointers of the dates of his reign, the dynasty he was part of, & any significant usurpers. And my understanding is that this list serves as a means to find the ruler & follow the relevant link -- not to overwhelm the reader with detail. And visible or invisible, I just don't like this table.
  2. Definition of dynasties. The earlier version followed more closely the scholarly groupings of dynasties. There is no "'Later Claudian' Dynasty" -- it's all part of the Principate or Julio-Claudian dynasty. And although the term "Illyrian Emperors" can be found, it assumes that there is more of a connection between them than the fact one died & was followed by another; & if this grouping is admitted, then should we not include Diocletian & Constantius Chlorus, both of whom were born in Illyria, & get rid of the "Tetrarchy"? If these grouping don't work, could we have an explanation why?
  3. Treatment of Usurpers & Break-away Regions. The ancient Romans didn't consider many of these usurpers the equal of recognized Emperors, any more than a modern US citizen might consider Jefferson Davis the equal of any elected US president or a UK citizen would consider Bonnie Prince Charlie or the Old Pretender the equal of any British King or Queen. We've handled some of these cases with a "See also" down at the bottom, & many of the rest with a note explaining that so-&-so also claimed the throne.

If more information about individual rulers are needed, I'd like to see a justification. As I said above, the earlier list worked for me. -- llywrch 04:30, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK - it is all down to a matter of taste and preference - which could go on forever without agreement.

Therefore then if you wish to revert, please do so - I will not interfere further.

I have kept the detailed version on my own user sub-page for my own information and should anyone feel they wish to look at it at any point.

The way I see it, what I add to Wikipedia is a contribution for future generations. Of course it is then up to them whether they wish to remove it.

--JohnArmagh 07:32, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I rather like the 'new' look. It is still possible to quickly find an emperor (date and common name) and the extra information is very usefull. For instance if some one wanted to look op information about a name he found on a coin the old list wouldn't have been very helpfull but the new list will quickly point him to the right article. Further the tabled look is easy on the eye and the screen seems very uncluttered. For what it's worth it gets my vote :)

The look of capitals[edit]

The use of capitals is consistent with how Latin was written, but large amounts of upper-case text looks like SHOUTING and is UGLY. How about the use of elegant SMALL CAPS? EGO EXISTIMO SERMONEM LATINVM SIC PVLCHRIOREM ESSE.

Those emperors' names also look bad with the justified alignment pulling them apart. Wouldn't left alignment be better? — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 10:21, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As you correctly surmise my choice of lettering in the Latin was deliberate (despite the modern-day interpretation of capitals imitating a raised voice) - the fact that the writing of the time was all in capitals (majuscule) as miniscule had not yet been invented.

I had also intended to use • instead of spaces to separate the words however that had a nasty effect on the column/page widths so I had to regretfully abandon that idea.

I was considering changing the capitals to small capitals whilst I was compiling the list, but I am glad that I refrained from so doing, thus allowing comments on the matter to be raised.

The article is currently listed for Votes for Deletion. If the article is not deleted then it will be worth my while reducing size of the capital text, which I will then implement.

--JohnArmagh 15:13, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Notes[edit]

Wasn't Caesar Augustus murdered by his wife (or so it says in I Claudius) and if he was, shouldnt it be in the notes section of the table GingerM

Tacitus (who is usually reliable) only reports it as a suspicion, Dio Cassius reports it as a rumour, and it's absent from the account of Suetonius, so it has little credibility. The reports in the articles Caesar Augustus and Livia should be enough; I don't think it needs to be mentioned here. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


On the name at birth for Gordian II is it supposed to say Narcys Antonius Gordianus because on the Gordian I page it says his son was called Marcus Antonius Gordianus. GingerM

Augustus' name[edit]

Was "IMPERATOR CAESAR DIVI FILIVS" really a title of Augustus's before his accession? Or does that all depend on when we decide actually counts as the "accession of Augustus" and that, by saying this, I've opened some huge can of Internet argument worms? UnDeadGoat 03:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This is an ancient question, but I thought I'd answer it: Octavian began using that formula as his formal name (it means "Imperator Caesar, son of the God") pretty much right after Julius was deified not long after his assassination (in 44 or 43 BC, I think). The date of when Augustus "acceded" as Emperor isn't clear, mostly because he pretty much invented the concept of the Roman Emperor over a period of some years, but just about everyone thinks it's after Julius' deification. --Jfruh (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for that, and for referring to "Octavian." I get antsy about casual references to "Augustus," as if it were his given name -- especially in the possessive, as in the first paragraph. ("Augie" to his friends, perhaps?) --Michael K. Smith (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Charlemagne[edit]

Should Charlemagne be added to the list as a "Western Emperor" since he was formally made and recognized as Roman Emperor by his contemporaries... -Alex 12.220.157.93 14:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not think so, sir, for was not a Roman emperor in the original sense (and not an immediate successor).--Anglius 01:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. Romulus Augustulus, whose reign ended in 476, was the last emperor in the West in the sense of this list. The pope revived the title for Charles I for quite different reasons that had nothing whatever to do with the "real" Roman empire. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I will agree with the previous on this topic. Charlemagne was NOT at all a Roman Emperor. Moreover, the Roman Empire lasted (in the East) at least other six centuries, where are all these Emperors, not listed here, but having direct success from the ancient ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.111.166 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Titles[edit]

Gentlemen, I think that the honourific titles in many of their reignal names are somewhat confusing. For instance, was not Pronconsul more of an office than an agnomen? In addition (please answer this question), if any of the emperors had received the title of Rex Roma (King of Rome) or Rex Regis (King of Kings) from the Senate, would it become a part of their imperial name? --Anglius 01:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Proconsul" was a job, a position, similar to the position of "governor." It was an appointment that was held for a time and then relinquished. Rex Roma and other, similar titles were just that: extra titles. The emperor was also pontifex and a dozen other things, none of which were part of the ruler's most commonly used reference-name. (As a comparison, a full list of all the titles and "jobs" of Queen Elizabeth would fill half a dozen pages.) --Michael K. Smith (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Emperor Krisp?[edit]

One of my historical books in Serbian claim that there was Roman emperor Krisp who was proclaimed emperor in Sirmium. I do not know what was his Latin or English name. Crisp? Crispus? Can somebody tell me is there a Wikipedia article about such emperor? PANONIAN (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


I found it: Crispus. However, he is not listed in this article. Should somebody add him here?. PANONIAN (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


For the period of the Tetrarchy and after, the list as we have it now only includes those figures who became (or claimed to be) full-fledged emperors (augusti), not caesares, who can be thought of as sort of "junior emperors." A lot of Ceasars went on to become Auguti (it was one of the titles that were often given to imperial heirs, particularly adults in the 4th century), but not all of them did: Crispus was one who never became a full-fledged emperor in his own right. There are others; Gallus Caesar is another example.
In my opinion, the list ought to be kept to Augusti only. It's cluttered enough as it is. --Jfruh 21:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but is there another list with names of the Caesars too on Wikipedia? If not, it should be written. PANONIAN (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


Claudius' method of death is given as 'poisoned' but I feel this is open to debate. This is a rumour that was made credible as his wife (Agrippina or Agrippinilla) and his step-son (Nero) have come to be regarded as monsters. However, according to a programme I saw on one of the history channels, there was no poison available in those days that could have worked as quickly as to kill him in the time it is supposed to have taken between him falling ill and dying.

Five Good Emperors[edit]

The abovementioned section seems to have Commodus misfiled. Though I like Commodus as much as the next man, I think it's a bit confusing to have him under the section, as it both makes the section somewhat less "good", and the total number of Emperors in the section something more than "Five". A whole break between Severan dynasty and the Antonine would probably be ill-advised, but Commodus should be excluded from this category. Perhaps you could change the heading to "Nervan-Antonian dynasty", which is the one used in the infoboxen. It doesn't really matter all that much, it just struck me a little off guard to have a section titled "Five Good Emperors" containing more than 5 Emperors, bad Emperors, and people who were never even Emperors at all. Good luck with everything. Geuiwogbil 23:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Vindex[edit]

A few usurpers are listed here, it would probably be appropriate to include Vindex who was proclaimed new emperor in Iberia before his defeat. Further, Galba minted coins with Vindex on them, I believe as Imperator, so in some sense he had posthumus recognition as at least a pseudo-emperor (I'm posting this here instead of doing it because I have no idea how to edit the list and don't want to screw everything up. Avraham 06:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

I think that this article would be better if it were like the List of United States Presidents and had the pictures of the emperors. They all have their pictures through the images of the sculptures made of them. The article would be a much better list if this was done--Uga Man 18:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent - I love it - really nice. --JohnArmagh 16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoever included the busts/pictures; awesome job. So helpful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.120.88 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Bold italic?[edit]

Number of emperors shown in bold italics: zero. So what's the point? 86.146.232.235 01:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Text amended to clarify the point. --JohnArmagh 05:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Serbia?[edit]

What's going on with Emperors hailing from Serbia? There was no Serbia at that time. I recommend altering this, or adding in other modern nation-states for consistency (Some of the Gauls were from what is now France, for example.)66.57.228.49 (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, let's not use modern national names. It's anachronistic and confusing. "Pannonia" is not the same as "Hungary," "Dacia" is not the same as "Roumania," etc. Just use the contemporary Roman names of the provinces, as mentioned in the works of the Latin historians from which the information comes in the first place. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Put the western roman emperors back (and the earlier Eastern ones too)[edit]

Chopping off the list of Roman Emperors at 395 AD is ludicrous. The "Western Roman Empire" is not some entity that is distinct from the Roman Empire as a whole, and to pretend otherwise flies in the face of just about all modern historiography of the period. --Jfruh (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. Almost any source one cares to name ends the empire in the West at 476, with the overthrow of Romulus Augustulus by the Goths. And why 395, specifically? There were Eastern and Western emperors and co-emperors, and all that, well before that date. I would say that before 476, the term "Roman empire" refers to the whole entity, regardless of how it was variously sliced from one reign to the next, with junior partners bumping off their seniors, and so on. After that date, there is only the "empire" in the East, based in Constantinople. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the list should continue with Western and Eastern Roman Emperors. Although the Western and Eastern Roman Empires WERE indeed new independent countries (and distinct in that sense), they both continued the numbering scheme of the preceding Roman Empire, albeit each in its own way. I can, however, answer the "why 395" question. In his will, Emperor Theodosius I partitioned the Empire into 2 separate countries, which was a rather different concept from the Co-Emperors, Vice Emperors, and pretenders of the earlier Crisis and Dominate. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.184.155 (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this article[edit]

Hey. I'm a complete layman when it comes to Roman history, but stopped by while researching historical cognomens and would like to thank the authors of this article. It's the most informative look into the subject that I've ever seen and the use of portraits and coins, original or not, was a stroke of genius. The formatting of imperial names is conspicuously pleasant to the eye as well. To see that the list is a FAC seems fitting, so the best of luck with gaining your earned recognition. --Kizor 08:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I, too, am a complete novice at Roman history, and I am very grateful for all who put this list together. Nonetheless, I couldn't help but notice that I can't find Constantine I in this list! I there a standard reason for this, or am I being obtuse? Can someone help me? paddy (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing Emperors[edit]

There is no listing of the Emperors from the period between 260 and 284. There were several Emperors during this time, most notably Aurelianus.

Is there a reason that this portion has been excluded?66.27.114.113 (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am currently re-working this list to included more information, and those missing emperors! Watch this space! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Probus-cap.JPG[edit]

The image File:Probus-cap.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


Formating[edit]

This page is all screwed up. Who did that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.162.19 (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Coat of arms"?![edit]

In the infobox, a generic legionary standard is reproduced, with the heading "Coat of Arms of the Roman Empire"! This is an inaccurate use of the term even if the Romans had "coats of arms," it's completely anachronistic in terms of heraldry -- it's just silly, period. I don't know enough about the architecture of infoboxes to mess with it, but somebody please fix this. It's embarrassing. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

True. I always meant to get rid of it, but never quite got round to it. I'll do it now! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Order of columns in table?[edit]

This is probably picky, but anyway. The columns are presently, in left-to-right order: Name / Born / Reigned / Succession / Portrait / Died. Shouldn't it logically be: Name / Born / Reigned / Died / Succession / Portrait? On the other hand, unless there's some mechanism to move the contents of an entirely column auto-magically, that's probably a lot of work. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If the order is going to be changed, the portraits ought to be first on the left, in my opinion.71.179.198.254 (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Date of Tiberius' accession[edit]

Tiberius had been granted full and equal powers with Augustus in AD 13. He did not, however, receive the title of "emperor" (Augustus) from the Senate until 18 September AD 14, fully a month after Augustus' death. So, he either reigned in practice from AD 13, or in title from 18 September AD 14. The one date that does not commence his reign is Augustus' death on 19 August AD 14, yet that's the date given here. ðarkuncoll 11:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Date of Claudius' accession[edit]

Although Claudius was proclaimed emperor by a faction of the army shorty after Caligula's assassination on 24 January AD 41, this was an illegal act not ratified by the Senate until the following day at the earliest. In the meantime the Senate had actually abolished the office of emperor and restored the republic. Claudius' accession was therefore not on 24 January, but either on the 25 or 26 (depending on sources). ðarkuncoll 11:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's talk succession and numbering for a second.[edit]

The articles on the individual emperors tend to contradict each other in Infoboxes when it comes to who was whose immediate successor or predecessor. One of these days, I will print out this complete list (which I'm pretty sure is accurate, having paid attention in Latin class and various history classes) and rectify those irregularities for good. When I do that, DON'T anyone make the succession boxes all confused and contradicting each other like they are now. Kapiesh?

Yes, there was always a main Emperor, even with Co-Emperors (Vice Emperors as it were) and pretenders. The Tetrarchy (a Co-Emperor for each of 4 regions) existed ONLY under Diocletian, just ask my History 115 Professor, or yours for that matter. Don't give me nonsense about when else you thought it was. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.184.155 (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, ask your History 115 Professor who was the "main Emperor" and who the "Vice Emperor" among Constantine II, Constans and Constantius II. --TakenakaN (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I still run into him sometimes since that class ended, so I just might do that. I'm remembering more from the textbook than from what he himself said when I say the true Tetrarchy was only under Diocletian. Anyway, I might be wrong, but I seem to remember that despite a degree of co-rule, the office theoretically passed from Constantine I to Constans, Constantine II, and Constantius II in that order, each with a fairly brief reign. Then again, those lists may have been rectified based on the order in which their reigns ended, and that can only done in retrospect, even if the earliest such lists were written during Julian's reign. From Julian to Theodosius I is fairly straightforward, with Valentinian II considered a full Emperor, while Valens and Gratian were Co-Emperors under him. Note that unlike Valens (Eastern Co-Emperor), Valentinian II directly ruled the region (West) that included Rome. Valentinian II was then succeeded by Theodosius I in 392.
Finally, in 395, Theodosius I partitioned the Roman Empire into 2 new independent countries with the end of his own reign. As no doubt you knew, each country then continued the numbering scheme of the Empire that they both replaced, starting with Honorius in the Western Roman Empire and Arcadius in the Eastern Roman Empire. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.184.155 (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I need strong sources for the orderly succession of Constantine I's sons, as this is the first time I hear something like that. The three sons took power on September 337 on separate parts of the Empire, I do not recall any act, any law that could support a sequence like the one you propose. --TakenakaN (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The scenario outlined by El Willstro is completely wrong-headed. Not even going into the arbitrary, retrospective nature of it, the fact is that Theodosius most certainly did not split the empire up into "2 new independent countries". The only significance of that particular division is that no emperor managed to directly rule both halves again - until Justinian, that is. As had already been the case for some time, the ruler based at Constantinople retained seniority and was the only one with full legislative powers for the whole empire (east and west). ðarkuncoll 01:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you. Just a note: it was not the Eastern Emperor who was the "senior", but the ruler who had been in office for a longer time, often the Eastern one, but sometimes the Western Emperor (see the case of Honorius and Theodosius II). --TakenakaN (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ulpia Severina[edit]

The article about Empress Ulpia Severina states that she was briefly a Roman empress regnant in 275. I find this hard to believe but if it's true, shouldn't she be included in the list? Surtsicna (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, that's just a speculation. --TakenakaN (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment re legitimate/usurper definition[edit]

The criteria selected for defining the list is rather arbitrary but works well enough except in the case of Vetranio who, going by the criteria, should not have been included since his brief reign was not recognized outside of northern Italy. If a justification can be found by which to include him then Nepotian should as well since he has a stronger claim to legitimacy having been based in Rome and under consent of the Senate.

A stronger model would accept as legitimate all those emperors whose title was recognized in Rome (and/or Constantinople post-395) Rasiel (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Cant seem to find refereance to VICTORIANUS(?) Gallo-Roman Empeor[edit]

Have a gallo-Roman coin from Victorianus.Yet,havent been able to loocate this rular in list of Empeoros of Gallo-Roman Empire thanks!SPQRANDRE (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Andre' SND10161121stcent.

The emperor on that coin is the emperor Victorinus. There is no emperor "Victorianus".--Tataryn77 (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"For a simplified list, see Concise list..."; "For a more exhaustive list, see Concise list..."[edit]

At the top, why is the concise list referenced again? I'm pretty sure the "more exhaustive list including usurpers" should be linked to the correct list, right? 76.185.6.231 (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Byzantium / Later Roman Emperors (redux)[edit]

Why is there such a stigma attached to the rightful heirs of Rome? If we're going to include the Britannic and Gallic Empires, the list should continue until 1453(61). -Chris5369 19:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well we already have a separate list for them. Adam Bishop 06:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Seems unneccessary. Make that a redirect to here. -Chris5369 17:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why? Despite their own beliefs (and apparently some current beliefs), it's a completely different empire. Adam Bishop 00:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And you're basing this on? -Chris5369 06:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, my own knowledge of the Byzantine Empire I suppose. We even have a whole other article for it, because, like, it's a whole other thing. Why not just stick it at the end of the Roman Empire article? Adam Bishop 06:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, I think we ought to remove those Emperors from this list, even though the argument could be made that they were technically usurpers. But it is a common practice to exclude the Byzantine Emperors from the list of Roman Emperors; it most likely arose from an ancient mistrust in Western Europe with the surviving half of the Empire. The disagreement, however, is over just where to draw the line: state that Diocletian was the first Byzantine emperor? Or would it be Theodoius the Great? Would the last Roman Emperor be Alexander Severus? Some historical accounts assume so. Some accounts end with Constantine the Great, & others end with Romulus Augustulus.
Their choices all depend on just which version of the Roman Empire the authors want to look at: the institutions evolved & changed over the centuries. The princeps of Augustus' time was not the emperor of Severus' time, nor was it the Augustus of Constantine I's time, nor the basilleus of the Byzantine Empire. -- llywrch 19:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well said. My point has been, if we are to include these rebel/sucessor states, then why not Constantinople? We list Romulus Augustulus (weak claim at best), but not Zeno, Leo, or Justinian. The Empire evolved, people shouldn't try to deny it. -Chris5369 22:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is less useful for readers to have only one list. At the same time, I think Adam is simply wrong that the eastern Empire was "a whole different empire." At least until 1204, there was full continuity between the old Roman Empire and the eastern Empire. That is not to say that the empire did not drastically change, but there was still continuity. That said, my preference would be to have our lists overlap. This list can give eastern emperors up through Zeno, noting that the list of eastern emperors continues until 1453 and is at List of Byzantine emperors. That list should start with Constantine, and note that it is listing only eastern emperors, and that western emperors continued until 476. Also, the idea that the list of barbarian kings of Italy is a continuation of Roman emperors seems wrong - Odoacer and the Ostrogoths both recognized the (theoretical) authority of the Emperor in Constantinople. It wasn't until the Lombards that you have kings of Italy who do not recognize the suzerainty of "Rome." Rome itself continued to acknowledge the eastern emperors as their sovereign until the 8th century, sort of at least...it's entirely too complicated, isn't it? john k 00:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History, and human affairs in general, are seldom simple affairs. ;) -Chris5369 03:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
John, isn't that what we have with the lists now? I'm saying we should keep it like that. By the way, Decius has also suggested moving the Byzantine Empire article to Eastern Roman Empire, see Talk:Byzantine Empire if you are interested in a similar topic. (I don't know why I'm getting so flustered over these things, so I apologize for seeming so annoyed both there and here.) Adam Bishop 04:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the list is basically like that, although I wonder why the eastern emperors from 395 to 491 are listed at the bottom as an afterthought. I noticed the Byzantine Empire thing on my watchlist already, you'll see. john k 04:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whether anybody wants to admit or not, the problem (calling it Roman Empire vs calling it Byzantine) stems from the fact that western historians, falling under the influence of the Catholic church (directly or indirectly), began to use the term Byzantine (and have popularized it well) as a way of not recognizing the eastern Roman Empire as a Roman Empire, though objectively speaking, the Empire was a Roman Empire, as it accurately called itself. Whether people realize it or not, calling it Byzantine is a way of bowing your head to the conceits of an antiquated Catholic church. Decius 05:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I'm not sure I see your point. English is full of words whose origins are less than honorable, or whose meanings have radically changed over the centuries. Trying to remove these words because of some idea fossilized inside of them can be futile -- & it is in this case.
But I'll happily concede this point to you if you first convince the entire US Conservative movement to stop treating "Liberal" as if it something bad, because doing so promotes autocracy over freedom. The Latin liber (whence the word "Liberal") is Latin for "free", "unrestricted", "outspoken", so by your reasoning every time Rush Limbaugh & his ilk rant against Liberals, they are ranting against freedom. -- llywrch 05:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I'm just referring to this one case, not the other rough examples that are not parallel examples. If you like contemporary examples, here is one for you: African-Americans were formerly officially referred to as "Negroes", but now we refer to them as African-Americans (in the United States). "Byzantine" is a derogatory term, just as "nigger" and "negro" is. It originally implied that one does not recognize the Roman heritage of the Empire; also, by referring to the empire by the old pagan name of the city (rather than Constantinople), there is an implication of paganism or loose religion. Decius 05:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Negro" is an obsolete word, one which I haven't heard since I was a kid, many years ago; & it was never considered in any way as offensive as "nigger." As for your claim that "Byzantine" is equally as derogatory, you seem to be the only person to hold this POV. A search on Google with the words "Byzantine" & "derogatory" failed to turn up a single statement that "Byzantine" is derogatory. (The 2 words together return a number of hits, but based on Google's algorhythm of ranking results by the proximity of the 2 words, I'd expect this statement to have appeared in the first few pages of results if there were others who expressed this opinion.)
I'm sorry that the word "Byzantine" offends you, but it is undeniably part of the English language, & is used primarily to neutrally connote a specific period, place & people. Your claims that it is "derogatory", & that it "conceits of an antiquated Catholic church" increasingly appear to be based on your own personal beliefs. And your statement about the Catholic church is offensive, & does not help your argument. -- llywrch 22:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If I may I'd like to stick my oar in. Firstly, as a practicing Roman Catholic myself I personally don't find offence in the references to the 'catholic church' (though I perceive that there are those who would). Secondly, the term Byzantine is the generally accepted nomenclature for the empire centred on the city of Byzantium in the same way as Roman is the accepted term for the empire centred on Rome. The name Byzantium itself, as far as can be ascertained had no derogatory origin - it is thought to be derived from the 7thC BCE Greek founder of the city, Buzas of Megara. No more offence could be taken at the term Byzantine in its historical context than could be so inferred by using the word Vandal for the Germanic peoples of Dark Age Europe and North Africa merely on the basis of the current usage of the word vandal; likewise one does not refrain from using the word frog when referring to that amphibian merely because that word is in use as a derogatory term for a French person. --JohnArmagh 22:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to extensively beat out this debate further in Wikipedia for the time being, but I anticipated the comparison to Rome, which is not quite the same thing: the name of Rome was not ceremoniously changed, it remained Rome. On the other hand, the old Thracian name Byzantion (Byzantium in Latin) was officially changed to Nova Roma, then later popularly changed to Constantinople, and this new name was also symbolic of the new Christian era, and also of the birth of the Eastern Roman Empire. And the fact remains that using the old name for the city to apply to the Empire is implying (for most people, subconsciously) paganism, and overtly implying that the Empire is somehow not Roman. Decius 00:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where you get that from - "Byzantine" implies Eastern Orthodoxy to me. I suspect that, since so many people use "Byzantium" to refer to the Empire rather than for the ancient city (as I noticed when I once fixed all the links to point to the right places), hardly anyone consciously or subconsciously links "Byzantium" to "paganism." Adam Bishop 02:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is all getting a bit silly. Decius - could you please point to a source that says that the term Byzantine is offensive because it suggests they were Pagans? If you can't, then you are conducting original research, which is not allowed in wikipedia. john k 02:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There was never a "byzantine empire". No contemporary people referred to the medievil roman empire as the "byzantine empire". It was a later invention of western european historians in the 18th century i believe, a french guy, cant remember his name. The list of roman emperors should rightly go from Augustus to Constantine XI in 1453. For the people who say it shouldnt and that it is a "completely different empire" please state at what point the direct continuation of the roman state became a "byzantine empire" and how a Emperor who was called the roman emperor by all his peers suddenly become a byzantine emperor. FInally, somebody said "the term Byzantine is the generally accepted nomenclature for the empire centred on the city of Byzantium in the same way as Roman is the accepted term for the empire centred on Rome" Does he not realise the seat of the western capital was Ravenna, NOT ROME, for almost the last century of existance of the western empire. DOes this make it a "ravennan empire", i think not. What about when Milan was the seat of the emperor before Ravenna, was that a "milanese empire". By separating the roman emperors prior to 476AD from the emperors after that, claiming they ruled a different empire, is baseless and bias history

Does anyone know if there is a wikipedia page with a complete list of Roman Emperors up to 1453AD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.47.34 (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This list is ridiculous. By not going past the Justinian dynasty Wikipedia is basically claiming that the Byzantine Empire had nothing top do with the Roman Empire. Wikipedia seems to think the Roman Empire fell in 476! This should be fixed and Byzantium's place as part of the Roman Empire acknowledged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.77.6 (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The two lists should be merged. ðarkuncoll 23:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

::The fact that there is a link to the Byzantine list with the phrase "Continue to," however, is a clear implication that it is really already Page 2 of the same list. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.184.155 (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I added that link as better than nothing, but I wasn't happy about it. It has become a convention to label Western Roman emperors as Roman and Eastern Roman emperors as Byzantine, but it is in no way accurate. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that this discussion (all in small type) which occurred in 2005 never really came to a concensus. Another user in 2008 brought up a good question: Is there a complete list of all of the Roman emperors. Then in 2009 the question as to why this list is incomplete was brought up yet again. This page, which claims to be a list of Roman emperors is incomplete because it only contains the Western emperors. My opinion is that there ought to be a complete listing of all of the emperors of Rome if the list is to be validly called a list of Roman emperors. I understand that there is a separate list of Byzatine emperors. However, that doesn't resolve the question of why this page is called a list of Roman emperors. This list should be expanded to include all Roman Emperors from Agustus Caesar through the last Eastern Roman Emperor who reined until 1453. I can take on the project of making this complete with all emperors of the Roman Empire (Eastern & Western) in the near future. Let me know if anyone has any objections. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

After further thought, due to the size of this page, perhaps a better place to have an "all-inclusive" Roman Emperor list (West + East) could be the Concise list of Roman Emperors page. I'll bring it for discussion there. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The fact that the list follows the Eastern Roman Emperors up to Irene and then switches to Charlemagne is absurd. I quote: "However, she was not recognized by Pope Leo III, who crowned Charlemagne Roman Emperor in 800." And then it goes right down to the last Holy Roman Emperor, who was beaten by Napoleon! I do of course know how the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople played important roles in issues of succession after the Christianization of the Empire, but this is neither the Roman Catholic nor the Christian Orthodox Encyclopedia, it's Wikipedia. The fact that the Pope did not recognize an Emperor should be noted, but if the Eastern Roman Empire is going to be included in the list, it has to follow the Emperors through the Latin Empire, the three successor states, and eventually right down to Constantine the Eleventh, disregarding what this or that bishop thought. Gennadius accepted a position in the new Ottoman government of Sultan Mehmed the Second, who assumed the title of "Caesar of the Romans." Should the Sultan be counted as well? Either have a list of Roman Emperors going down to the last one to rule the Western portion, or, better yet, have a concise list of Roman Emperors going from Augustus to Constantine Palaiologus. --CHTZ (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


Yes, but after Irene, it was the Western Emperors that were recognized universally. The Greek Emperor Michael I recognized Charlemagne as Emperor in 814. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.0.112.152 (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As Emperor of the Franks, not of the Romans. The Eastern Roman Emperor wouldn't just say, "OK, you're the boss out West, so I might as well scamper back into my hole and just pretend that the Eastern half of the Empire has not been the whole Empire since the Roman Senate recognized the sole Imperial authority of the Constantinople court." At its core, the issue is about two quarreling bishops, and there was nothing universal about it. In the days of Charlemagne, of course, the restoration of the complete Roman Empire through the union of the slowly declining Eastern Roman Empire with the new power in Western Europe was still a political aim. But Pope and Patriarch drove East and West apart irreparably, and historians have inherited this conceit of the Eastern Empire not being the Roman Empire as a result of what the Popes cultivated: that the Emperor in Constantinople was a schismatic usurper. The Patriarchs were more than reciprocal in their hatred, and here we are. The truth is that Constantinople inherited the Imperium Romanum whole, and everyone called the people of the Eastern Empire Romans until long after Constantinople had fallen. If the Holy Roman Emperors are listed, it's ridiculous not to list the Eastern Roman Emperors. --CHTZ (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • For the unsigned commentator's benefit, I would like to add that not even Charles himself claimed to be the ruler of the Roman Empire (or, "the Empire" as he would have most likely understood it). Here are two ways he styled himself: "Karolus serenissimus augustus a Deo coronatus magnus pacificus imperator Romanum gubernans imperium qui et per misericordiam Dei rex Francorum et Langobardorum, and, in a letter to the Eastern Emperor Michael Rhangaves from 812: "Karolus, divina largiente gratia imperator et augustus, idemque rex Francorum et Langobardorum, (dilecto et honorabili fratri Michaeli glorioso imperatori et Augusto)." Notice how laboriously Charles made sure to tiptoe around the fact that he had been crowned "Roman Emperor" so as not to endanger his relationship with the Eastern Emperor, as the validation of the Augustus and Imperator titles rested on recognition by Constantinople. His strategy worked, and he was recognized as a "vasileus" by Michael. Going through the bibliography and the sources will leave you no doubts about the fact that Charlemagne did not want at any point to supplant the authority of the legitimate Roman Emperor in Constantinople.––CHTZ (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to chime in by suggesting that, since now we have a list of all of the emperors of Rome including all of both the Western and Eastern Emperors, this list has been made fairly redundant. Maybe we could consider merging any information not in the general list of Roman emperors on both this page and the list of Byzantine Emperors into the general list of Roman emperors and deleting the two separate lists? I Feel Tired (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I would heartily second that notion. Failing such a simplifying merger, it seems clear to me that the title of this particular entry needs to change, as it only covers Roman emperors through 518. To take the position, as some have on this talk page, that Emperor's thereafter are not Roman is both contrary to contemporary scholarly opinion (it is consistent with 18th and 19th century opinion, however) and takes a side in a popular controversy, which wikipedia, per force, should avoid. TheCormac (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
It is not inconsistent with contemporary scholarship, which recognizes that while periodization is always arbitrary, and time doesn't actually come with borders, it's impractical not to focus on units that can be studied coherently. Of course there is a transitional period in the Eastern Empire. But when the capital is no longer Rome, the religion is no longer the "religion of Numa", and the "language of power" is no longer Latin, a different body of knowledge is required to make sense of the culture conventionally called "Byzantine". Those of us who trained as classicists, who studied ancient Greek and Latin and the texts and material culture of classical antiquity, are not equipped to make sense of Constantinople in 1200, as is true vice versa for medievalists. Ths same scholars who write about the reign of Augustus or Marcus Aurelius do not in fact write about the Komnenos dynasty. Why? Because they require such a different knowledge base. The culture of Imperial Rome under Trajan differs so dramatically from that of the medieval Byzantine court that it simply makes no sense to present and study them together. Annalistic succession and titular claims are extremely limited ways to approach these complex civilizations. Look at the Ara Pacis and look at the mosaics at Hagia Sophia: how on earth can these be said to be products of the same cultural milieu? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
But legally it was still the Roman Empire, and it's rulers continued unbroken from the same line of Roman Emperors. Even if massive changes did occur in the nearly 2 millenniums of the existence of the Roman State, that doesn't mean that it's not still the same entity. I Feel Tired (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

General List of Roman Emperors[edit]

What happened to the page "General List of Roman Emperors?" It was a useful page, it provided a convenient list of all the Emperors of both Eastern and Western Rome and let the reader see a clear chronology. Now the link just redirects here. I Feel Tired (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"Byzantine" emperors should be listed as Roman emperors[edit]

- Byzantine Empire's native name was the Roman Empire - Odoacer sent crown of Western Roman Emperor to Eastern Roman Emperor - They used regnal numbers of the Roman Empire - There is no evidence that it fall before 1204, so there is no foundation of the Byzantine Empire - Abandoning Latin to Greek doesn't effect the title - The Eastern emperor was considered the senior emperor - Professors agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locavag (talkcontribs) 23:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The proper place to list Eastern emperors is List of Byzantine emperors. All the data you wanted to place here is already posted there. I absolutely see no reason to duplicate material, not to mention merging this article with List of Byzantine emperors. If we do that, we can also merge Holy Roman Emperor here, and that would be truly ridiculous... Also, this article explain why it list Eastern emperors only up to the 7th century. By the way, even your timeline shows emperors only up to that period. I'm letting other users to say what they think on this issue. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
You mean this: "The listing of the Eastern Emperors in this article ends at the start of the 7th century with Maurice, last of the Justinian dynasty, whose reign concludes the final era of Late Antiquity." That's idiotic, period is the reason? So you think there should be different title for every period? So now list of popes goes 33 A.D to present, and that includes Classical antiquity, Middle Ages, Early modern period and Long nineteenth century, so with that we you think we should make four different list of popes and give everyone ahistorical names. Also from the your link, I gathered this: "All Byzantine emperors regarded themselves as "Roman Emperors," the term "Byzantine" being coined by Western historiography in the 16th century. The use of the title "Roman Emperor" became contested after the Papal coronation of the Frankish Charlemagne as "Holy Roman Emperor" (25 December 800 CE), done partly in response to the Byzantine coronation of Empress Irene, whose claim, as a woman, was not recognized by Pope Leo III." I didn't find part that "explain why it list Eastern emperors only up to the 7th century." What I quoted earlier would explain list would be only to 800 A.D, but it isn't and about the Holy Roman Emperors… For starters Pope Leo III didn't crown Charlemagne as "the Holy Roman Emperor", he crowned him as "Emperor of the Romans", title "Holy Roman Emperor" that was granted to Otto I was different, both of these titles are different from title "Roman Emperor" that Emperor in Constantinople called him/herself. So just to bear titles and their meaning: Byzantine Emperor - Title made up 19th century historian to portray late period of the Roman Emperors. Never created/claimed by anyone. Emperor of the Greeks - Used by Western Christian in later centuries from Roman Emperors. Never created/claimed by anyone. Holy Roman Emperor - De jure title granted by Pope John XII to King of Germany Otto I in 962 A.D to replace Emperor of the Romans, and obtain certain borders of the empire. Roman Emperor - Title created by Augustus who became de facto emperor as a result of the 'first settlement' between himself and the Roman Senate in 27 B.C it was held by over one hundred and fifty emperors between years 27 B.C and 1453 A.D, title was shared with multiple emperors during Tetrarchy and 395-476 A.D. So you think still think "This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." Are as legit as "Byzantine Emperors". For starters title of Roman Emperor was never destroyed, when Odoacer ended Western Roman Empire (who junior empire btw), Eastern half was only thing left and was as legit as it was during 27 B.C Than we're getting to what Pope did, for starters Pope's title was equal to King's and king doesn't have authority to crown kings to emperors, but this isn't even a debate, it's a fact and you're just refusing to admit it even if all the evidence proofs you otherwise, just thinks about it if university professors agree that it's true how can you disagree? Title that was never created, never existed. If you really want to make justice for term "Byzantine" I suggest following: List of post 7th emperors to 1453 is added below section Eastern Roman Emperors and called Byzantine Emperors, List of Byzantine Emperors is deleted. About the timeline, how're you even referencing it against me? I made it from 27 B.C to 602 A.D, to make it match with current article, than I decided to correct the list, so article had Roman emperors from 27 B.C to 1453 A.D and timeline of Roman Emperors from 27 B.C to 602 A.D, so it was bit of out date, but it still served purpose, so when you undo it back to 27 B.C to 602 A.D you didn't have any reason to take the timeline that is accurate with 27 B.C to 602 A.D out, so what's your excuse for it? And I've expanded it from 602 A.D to 1453 A.D.Locavag (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
This article list emperors from the founding of the Empire, up to Maurice, because his reign is considered the end of Late Antiquity. That is not "idiotic", but correct - if we use your logic, we need to merge Byzantine Empire with Roman Empire, which is totally ridiculous to even mention. In the first centuries of its existence, Byzantine Empire followed Roman customs, etc but in the later centuries and at its end it was clearly something much different than the original Roman Empire. Not to mention Russian emperors, who also considered themselves as "heirs of the Roman Empire" (the "Third Rome" concept), and even Ottoman sultans (by virtue of their conquest of Constantinople). The current version is also practical - your preferred list is extremely large, and very hard to navigate... I'm letting other users, with much more knowledge on the matter than myself, to decide whether we need separate lists for Roman and Byzantine emperors. I'm convinced we do. As for your timeline, I removed it with the rest of your edits and I'm ready to put back timeline from 27 B.C to 602 A.D. although I don't see why that timeline is relevant (article looked good so far without it). I don't think we need it. --Sundostund (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It is absurd to separate into two lists the rulers of a single, continuous state. The state evolved, certainly, but so do all states. To relegate a millennium of fully legitimate Roman Emperors to a different page is simply perpetuating the biases of early modern Europe. The Holy Roman, Ottoman and Russian Empires are all red herrings. Whatever their pretensions might have been, they were different states. ðarkuncoll 23:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Historians separate Rome and Byzantium for the good reason that tackling them as if they were one thing is too complicated. It's not reader friendly and it's not condusive to discussion. While it might make sense in terms of 'truth' to put the two lists together, it's not really going to improve anything. We're just gonna end up with a really big list of names that stretch two distinct time periods. It's simpler for readers and editors to keep them separate. On the other hand, a list of people who've held the title Emperor of Rome/the Romans(?), might be useful but that would include a lot of people.Lord0fHats (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is, historians can never decide exactly where to separate the two lists, for the very good reason that there is no actual break. Here's a question: was Britain ever part of the Byzantine Empire? It was if you start the list with Constantine, which just shows up the absurdity of the situation. As has been pointed out already, we don't separate the list of Popes into two or more, just because they run over two or more distinct time periods, e.g. Antiquity and the Middle Ages. And the Popes are an even bigger list. ðarkuncoll 16:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the list should not be expanded to include everyone who ever called themselves Roman Emperor. That would result in an unfocused and sprawling article. For instance, the rulers of the Romanian Empire called themselves Roman Emperor but were entirely unconnected with either the Western or Eastern empire both culturally and genealogically. Personally, I would include on the list only those who were actually emperor of Rome (that is, I would truncate at Romulus Augustulus) but the usual way of settling this kind of issue on Wikipedia is to look at what reliable sources do. Here is what I got from book sources on gbooks,
Title Publication date Begins Ends Range
From Rome to Byzantium 1998 Augustus Anastasius I 31 BC–518
Who's who in the Roman World 2002 Augustus Jovian 27 BC–364
Encyclopedia of Roman Empire 2008 Augustus Zeno 27 BC–491
A Pocket Dictionary of Roman Emperors 2006 Augustus Romulus Augustulus 27 BC–476
A History of the Roman Emperors 1825 Augustus Constantine XI 28 BC–1453
I am not putting forward any of these as being the most authoritative. They are simply those books which allow preview and include a list of "Roman Emperors". I offer it here as data for discussion. SpinningSpark 05:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
This just shows that no one can decide where to make the completely arbitrary break. Furthermore, when the two lists are presented separately, there is always an overlap, since lists of "Byzantine" Emperors often start with Constantine. We should also note that the List of Roman consuls makes no such break. ðarkuncoll 16:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, at the very least there ought to be a note at the end of the list about the arbitrariness of the end of the list, although I actually would support including all of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine emperors there. A 2011 book by James J. O'Donnell, a professor at Georgetown University, directs readers[1] to the following website (hosted by Loyola University Chicago) for a full list of Roman Emperors (up to 1453): The Imperial Index: The Rulers of the Roman Empire From Augustus to Constantine XI Palaeologus. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
We might have a better/simpler/more convenient/more easily defined split if we say "After Diocletian, only the Western Emperors are listed here". Granted, I'd prefer that we include everyone until Constantine the Last, but if we don't include all those who were βασιλεύς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ Ῥωμαίων, we'd probably do best to cut it off as the Empire is split. Should we make such a decision, we'll have no possible dispute over when to stop including people, since pretty much nobody disagrees on who was Western Emperor or who was Eastern Emperor at a given time. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • If our articles are split into Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire, it follows that the list of emperors should be divided in the same way. I oppose this proposal. AGK [•] 15:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia also has articles on the Principate and the Dominate, two different phases in the history of the empire, but the list of emperors is not split to take account of this, and nor should it be. The existence of a series of articles simply allows for a more detailed account. ðarkuncoll 23:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
AGK, we have an article on the Western Roman Empire as well, but it doesn't mean that we should exclude those emperors from this list for that reason (although the suggestion by Nyttend above about cutting off this list when the empire is split under Diocletian is interesting). AmateurEditor (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Splitting the list at Diocletian would create a real mess. What do we do with the three sons of Constantine, for example, who divided the empire between them into three parts? In actual fact, in Roman law the state was never divided. One of the emperors - usually, but not always, the one residing in Constantinople - was the senior emperor, and only he had the power to issue legislation, and did so for the whole empire, not just the part under his direct administration. ðarkuncoll 12:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I know it's a little late, but I agree with Locavag and TharkunColl. Any distinction drawn between "Byzantine" and "Roman" is completely artificial and if we were draw distinctions between the rulers of what were legally one state, we should also separate the Roman into separate articles for the Dominate and Principate, and Byzantium into separate articles for pre and post Fourth Crusade. You know, there used to be a really nice article titles "General List of Roman Emperors," that solved a lot of these issues. Whatever happened to that article? Either way, I support this proposal.I Feel Tired (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

31 The Majority of Europe[edit]

"The empire was developed as the Roman Republic invaded and occupied the majority of Europe."

I didn't know the Europe were numbered. How many were they?

DavidLJ (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably in square Roman miles, or, today, in square kilometers. The empire was tri-continental, as the continents are usually defined, in that it also included much of northern Africa and parts of western Asia. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)