|WikiProject Biography||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
- By saying that Niger was of African descent, I think you're misunderstanding the source text. Here's the text again
"It seems that while Severus was in Pannonia the priest of Jupiter in a dream saw a black man force his way into the emperor's camp and come to his death by violence; and by interpreting the name of Niger people recognized that he (P Niger) was the black man in question."
So, he's saying that people recognized he was the "black man" in question because of his name...because he had the name "black". That doesn't refer to his skin color at all.
(Absolute garbage. Cassius Dio Book 75 states quite plainly <http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/75*.html> he was of Italian equestrian descent, dark in skin tone perhaps, but not 'black' as in of African descent. The logic isn't terribly difficult. Virgil61 19:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC))
^^^^ Wrong, that is your own belief, which Wikipedia calls 'original research' - the source makes no reference other than that Niger was a 'black man' no where does Dio suggest that he [Niger] was simply a dark Italian.
- Even the source doesn't agree with your logic, and let's face it you've never read Cassius Dio and it's doubtful you know much about him except for the one online transcript. He says he was an Italian equestrian--not an African one, not a Gaulish one, not a Greek one--and he was dark. Read it again, see above. Try and read the full text or get the Penguin translation by Ian Kilvert and you'll see Dio makes it very clear when an individual isn't a Roman or Italian by birth.Virgil61 07:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
And as someone below makes the point, by this time citizenship was granted to all sorts of races, and they were all refferred to as "Italian".
- You're being dishonest, YOU were the one who made the point below. Wikipedia makes it easy to see who has posted what even when they don't sign their name.
- You've clearly read very little about the Roman Empire. All citizens were not referred to as "Italian", especially since it would be Roman Citizenship and a reference to their being Roman that would be important. Find a reference for that if you can. Even in ancient times an "Italian" was someone from the region of Italy and mention would be made if his background were from elsewhere. Virgil61 07:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia makes clear that sources must be the basis of the information contained within it's pages, not the beliefs of individuals. As such until you can find a source which states otherwise the source is clear in it's description. Orasis 20:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Your own source doesn't agree with your sweeping bs. No, I've changed to be clearer already. Thanks for playing and do try and read up on your history from something other than a few web pages. Virgil61 07:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
By this time Rome had many a citizenship, I agree - the book says 'black', and if this man was part of the Roman Empire he would have been considered of Italian origin through his citizenship.
- No, you still don't understand Roman history. He would've been considered a Roman not Italian. Roman was the term for citizenship, Italy was a province and region like Gaul but home to Rome as well. Dio doesn't say "Roman equestrian", he says Italian. Virgil61 10:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I see no need to remove the claim that he was black, history through it's surviving sources bend more towards this end then any other. - Wikipedia is a source of information, and not one of fiction - as such it is fiction to completely remove the sentence which says "BLACK MAN". -
- Italy is not a 'fiction', nor is the statement he was an Italian equestrian either. Try and keep track of Dio's complete writings. Virgil61 10:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Let the readers through their own research reach their own conclusions. But to remove this historical data is no more than vandalism in my opinion. - It would be one thing if Book 75 said "dark man" or so forth, but it does not it says it clearly in black and white twice "black man".
If Wikipedia is to be a reliable source of information, one must provide sources - and it does seem that CD B75 refers to Pescennius as a black man, does anyone else have a source which can counter the claim? If not we should not create historic stories. - He [Cassius] does not say anything other than he was a black man, no where does he say that he was an italian with a dark olive or tan complexion.
- If it is to be reliable you need to use your common sense and know--which you obviously don't--that being an Italian is not to be black as in African, which is your ulterior motive you so coyly shy away from. I'll fix it so it is stated so. Virgil61 07:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You must provide documentation from another source which supports your argument. Cassius Dio does not use this term with other Italians who possibly had dark skin tone, he also does not say "dark man" he says "Black man."
If you have another source which states that Niger was an Italian of dark skin tone, the so be it - but at the moment from what I can see here it says clearly twice "black man." Americans for instance can be of all colors, so can British or Africans or those of any other nationality.
Please do not remove the fact that Niger was a black man, it is historical fact and shows up in Cassius Dio Book 75.
EXCERPT "It seems that while Severus was p181in Pannonia the priest of Jupiter in a dream saw a black man force his way into the emperor's camp and come to his death by violence; and by interpreting the name of Niger people recognized that he (P Niger) was the black man in question."
So yes please do not remove HISTORICAL information from a Wikipedia HISTORICAL page - especially when sources are there to back up the fact.
- Absolute garbage. Cassius Dio Book 75 states quite plainly <http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/75*.html> he was of Italian equestrian descent, dark in skin tone perhaps, but not 'black' as in of African descent. The logic isn't terribly difficult. Virgil61 19:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone newly created the Pescennius_Niger page. And filled it woth "Pescennius Nigga". This is dirt I guess? How to remove it? Should this become a blank page, or can we delete the page altogether? roan
- No need to now there's now a stub article -- V 18:00 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)
It should have been noted in this page that niger was not only a name but he was also a black man, and that fact is not debated it is recorded from historic texts during the time. - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/75*.html - especially that of Cassius Dio *Book 75*
The Historia Augusta claims that he was called Niger because his neck was black but the rest of his skin was white (something like a modern 'redneck' I suppose). Maybe the HA info should be included in the article? Aquinate 21:24 Aug 23, 2007 (CEST) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:25, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
- This whole thing about Pescennius Niger being black is ludicrous see the text in the SHA (6.5-6): 5 Fuit statura prolixa, forma decorus, capillo in verticem ad gratiam reflexo, vocis raucae sed canorae, ita ut in campo loquens per mille passus audiretur, nisi ventus adversaretur, oris verecundi et semper rubudi, cervice adeo nigra, ut, quemadmodum multi dicunt, ab ea Nigri nomen acceperit, 6 cetera corporis parte candidus et magis pinguis, vini avidus, cibi parcus, rei veneriae nisi ad creandos liberos prorsus ignarus. It is clear that he was said to have taken his cognomen because of his black hair, but he was white in the rest of his body ( cetera corporis parte candidus). As for interpretation of the omen, in Dio, it is clearly said that the men, after translating Niger's name into Greek and realizing it meant 'black' in Greek, realized he was the black man refered to in the dream. If Pescennius had been black, why all the wordplay and the interpretation, wouldn't it have been immediately obvious the black man was he? 126.96.36.199 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Historia Augusta is not a reliable source. In any case, there is no reason not to leave open the possibility that Pescennius Niger could have been a black man, as the reference by Dio is not clear. Saying that he was of Italian equestrian descent does not mean that he cannot have black ancestry from the 350 year period of Roman holdings in Africa. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
"History is written by the victors" is a cautionary proverb, not an instructive one. Surely we do not have to call all the losers in Caesarian self-elections Usurpers. Anarchangel (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)