Talk:Roman Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Crystal Clear app file-manager.png This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
          This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated B-Class, Top-importance)
1868 Lawrence Alma-Tadema - Phidias Showing the Frieze of the Parthenon to his Friends.jpg This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Rome (Rated B-Class, Top-importance)
Colosseum gateway.jpg This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject History (Rated B-Class, High-importance)
Md apr2004 4.jpg
P history.png History portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Former Countries (Rated B-Class)
OrteliusWorldMap.jpeg This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Bclass-checklist.svg

Contents

[edit] A clearer map, please

I had to stare at the map of the extent of the Roman Empire for some time before I realized what I was looking at. Perhaps it's evident to someone more intimately familiar with the geography (I'm from the US, not Europe / Africa) but in its current state it looks like one of those what-is-it optical illusions or a Rorschach inkblot test.

How about something as simple as labeling the Mediterranean Sea?

Thanks.

[edit] Didn't see a mention of the mythical founders of Rome?

Perhaps Romulus and Remus mythical founder of the city of Rome . Dont belong in the article on the Roman Empire? Yet, no "myth? no longing for greatness thus NO ROMAN EMPIRE! Perhaps a link to Wikipedia article on Rome, Romulus/Remus Thanks! SPQR!DayWeddatedVIIIXIIXxxIcentdecidedE.A.J.VICTORIANUS (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you mean romus and remulus and all thar jazz, that belong to Roman mythology. Possibly it could be mention in a section on the culture/religion of the empire though.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The Roman Empire came into existence a long time after the founding of Rome. There is a wikilink to Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 21:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Accurate figures for the size of the empire under Trajan

I'm a bit vary regarding the new figure of 6.5 million that replaced the earlier 5 million. The cited book Empite stops here by Philipp Parker seems ok at the first glance, but I'm not that sure how reliable/reputable the author is. The earlier 5 million figure was backed by an academic publication (Peter Turchin, Thomas D. Hall and Jonathan M. Adams, "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires", Journal of World-Systems Research Vol. 12 (no. 2), pp. 219-229 (2006)). Though that source does not explicitly states that it refers to the size under Trajan, it still seems a reasonable assumption, since other reputable sources give significantly smaller figures for the roman empire in general (Seidel: 4 million) or more specifically at the death of Augustus (Goldsmith, Raymond W. (1984), “An Estimate of the Size and Structure of the National Product of the Early Roman Empire” : 3.3 million, Taagepera, Rein (1979), “Size and duration of empires: growth-decline curves, 600BC – 600AD,” Social Science History : 3.4 million, both figures are quoted in this university source.[1]) I also did a rule of thumb calculation to get a feeling whether 5 or 6.5 is more appropriate. Starting with the 3.3/3.4 figure for Augustus, which is stated in 2 independent academic sources, I considered the areas added after Augustus' death and added approximate modern day equivalents, that can be looked up easily. After Augustus the empire added mauretania (half of morocco), britannia (wales+England), agri decumates (Baden Württemberg), Dacia (Romania), Thracia (Bulgaria), Arabia (Jordan),Cappadocia, Assyria, Mesopotamia (half of Turkey+ Armenia+Georgia+Irak). So we have 3400+446/2+(130+21)+36++238+110+92+(784/2+29+70+438)=5179 or starting with 3300 we get 5079. This seems to speak against that 6.5 by Parker. It would be nice if somebody were to provide an academic figure for the size that either confirms the 5 or the 6.5 for the area under Trajan. Alternatively an exact computation based in map from an academic source might do as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked the Philip Parker and unfortunatly he doesnt give any reference for the size, however in the ancient rome wiki page 6.5 is also listed, its reference is Scarre 1995 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoloney (talk • contribs) 22:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm personally i'm still a bit wary, but Chris Scarre is a professor for archeology at Durham university so his book is an reputable academic source in a way, therefore that should be good enough. Thanks for checking.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've no personal argument with the figure, but may I ask why it is written as "6,5..."? Normally, I would see that written with a period separating the 6 and 5 (6.5). Maybe I'm just an ignorant American or something, but I thought I'd ask. Thanks! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help me out with Galerius

I put a picture of a bust of Galerius on his page but I don't know how to do the liscencing stuff. In order to keep the picture it needs liscencing or else it will be removed! I know it's Galerius because its from his biography on imperiumromanum.com, if they're wrong then we should find a bust of him. Previously all he had was a cruddy coin to represent his likeness. He sacked Ctesiphon and issued the first Edict of Toleration for the christians. He deserves better than a dirty coin. Same goes for Claudius II aswell, I know there's busts of him out there.

--99.232.150.148 (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Principate vs Dominate

I skimmed through here and didn't notice any mention of the changing from Principate to Dominate, which I think was a substantial event, and which many respected historians dating all the way back to Gibbon consider the cause of the Western Roman Empires fall, should we add it in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScriptusSecundus (talk • contribs) 00:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Only if we at the same time acknowledge that the shift from "Principate" to "Dominate" was not an "event", but (if anything) a process, and that it esp. didn't happen all of a sudden with Diocletian; and also, that the fall of the Western Empire cannot be attributed to one cause alone... and basically, that Gibbon wrote when modern historiography just started out, and scholarship has somewhat advanced since those times. ;) Varana (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Well it is mentioned in the military section (the partition in principate, barrck& illyrian emperors, dominate and decline). However personally (I'm not a prfofessional historian though) I haven't read any description claiming that the dominate was the cause for the decline, on the contrary the dominate was an (at least partially successful) attempt to react to the crisis of the 3rd century. Also Gibbons is very important figure the history of historical research, but his knowledge/information is outdated by more than 200 years now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the answers. I am aware Gibbon is not a reliable source today, and don't plan on citing him. I will also take special care to mention that it was a process instead of event, but the change in system from an Emperor not above law who is first amongst equals, and a only one possible source of law along with Jurists liscensed by the Senate, and the Senatus Consultam is worth mentioning. Leaving out the Dominate changes would be like leaving out the concept of absolutist control from Louis XIV.--ScriptusSecundus (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Legionary time of service

Hey guys,

[[2]]

I'd like to say that from what I have read in different books about Rome, the standard service was 20 years. Then five years as 'veteran' soldiers. According to the book I was reading the veteran soldiers did not have to take part in major offenses and had excused duties. They only really had to take part in the defense of the base they were stationed at. the role of the veterans i would not be as confident of as that they did not have to stay for the additional five years.

I am writing this for your opinion if I can go ahead and edit the statement: "Instead of serving the standard 25 years of the legionaries." okty (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless those 5 years counted as military service and on given emergencies the veterans could be called upon to participate on offensives. Goldsworthy clearly states that "...although the soldier enjoyed these advantages, they came at the price of 25 years of service". There are specialized articles which explain the subject on detail. Don't change the text. Flamarande (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
A book by Peter Connolly gives 25 years for the (standard) service of a legionaire. An authoritative German source (Zabern/Junkelmann) gives 25 year total under Augustus (20 years sub aquila and 5 year sub vexillo) and says that the practical difference between sub aquila and sub vexillo might have been relatively small. Also in reality legionaires sometimes served longer, either because in a particular case the emperor required to serve them some additional time or when they became officers, who often stayed with the army for a longer time. In addition it states 25 years of auxiliar troops and 16 years praetorians. The sub aquila time was actually increased from 16 to 20 years in 6 CE by Augustus. Conclusion: the 25 years as a general figure are fine. However the article could mention the partition of the service into sub aquila and sub vexillo.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I also read something about these legionaries serving longer under some emperors. I agree with kmhkmh that we should add both that sometimes thy served longer and about the 'additional' five years.okty (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well. let me give the exact citation in case anybody want to use it:
Markus Junkelmann: Die Legionen des Augustus. Philipp von Zabern Verlag 1986, ISBN 3-8053-0886-8, p. 103-104
If we decide to add that information and lack an authoritative english source, i can provide a translated quote from the book for the footnotes.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of your message, no offense meant by the way. Do you mean you have some source that proves what i put forward in this topic? okty (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Kmhkmh gave the exact citation for what he called above "(a)n authoritative German source (Zabern/Junkelmann)", in case you want to have your claim referenced. ;) As it's a German book, he would even translate the passage. Hope that's clearer, Varana (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So he means that we can add this info to the page? okty (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the information i outlined in my first posting could be integrated. However some other editors might consider that as too much detail in a general article on the empire and that the information belongs in more specialized article like Roman legion or some other articles dealing with the roman military only. So before i spend time on translating that German source for footnotes or making changes in the article, I'd like to make sure that we have some editorial consensus here first. And coming to think of it personally i tend to consider a more specialized article to be a more appropriate place for that piece of information.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but we will need to include something not 'standard' 25 years, but just, '25 years'. Good point, I might look into the Roman Legion article. okty (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] get rid of gibbon

This may sound a bit polemic, but i've noticed that many footnotes still rely on Gibbon and imho that is not acceptable in the long run. Don't get me wrong, Gibbon is famous figure, but his knowledge is outdated by 200 years. Knowledge and interpretations have changed significantly since then and this article needs to rely on current reputable sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Why does the successor in the infobox now link to the "Late Roman empire (after 312)" (a nonexistent article)? Only recently, there were links to the Byzantine Empire and the Western Roman Empire. Hayden120 (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed rather, maybe the author wanted to write a new article, but that still seems misplaced i see no real significance in the date of 312, other than the (early) rise of constantin maybe (his 312 conquest of Rome), which may have somewhat changed the original 4 emperor model by diocletian, however i never saw that as an explicit distinction in literature. another oddity the infobox contains now is, that western empire starts in 284 (diocletian) but the eastern empire in 330 (building of constantinopel). But assigning it this way means there was an western empire without an eastern part, which makes no sense.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SPQR?

Apropos the Info box: I'm not perfectly knowledgeable in this, but isn't it always S.P.Q.R. with abbreviation dots? I believe abbreviation dots were obligatory for the Romans. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 15:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm going to answer it myself: images such as on [3] shows that it was customary to skip the dots on coins. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 15:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The dots in ancient Roman inscriptions do not represent abbreviations (punctuation was largely inexistent in antiquity), but divide words from one another. If you take a look, for instance, at the Pantheon inscription, the dot appears even after complete words (Agrippa, tertium). These were by no means obligatory - you'll find a lot of inscriptions without them. Regards, Varana (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Capital

Look ppl, we have to clarify the issue of the capital. I'm inclined to agree with the current:

  • Rome was the sole political capital until AD 286
  • Under the Tetrarchy there were several political centres, while Rome continued to be the nominal, cultural, and ideological capital of the entire empire.
  • Under the rule of Constantine the empire changed capital from Rome to Constantinople.
  • After the division of the empire to its east and west part, the west part had Mediolanum then Ravenna as capital.

However the last two sentences can be further improved, perhaps:

  • Constantine established the city of Constantinople as the new capital in (date - with the link). Milan was its western counterpart during the increasingly often divisions of the empire.
  • After the death of Theodosius in 395 came the final division. The western imperial court was reallocated to Ravenna in 402.

This is just a proposal, and can be changed. Flamarande (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mistranslation of SPQR

SPQR, or Senatus Populusque Romanus has been mistranslated in this article as "The Senate and People of Rome". Romanus is a second declension adjective; the noun is Roma, a first declension noun. The correct translation would be "The Roman Senate and People", as Romanus is modifying Senatus and Populus. For it to translate as "The Senate and People of Rome", the Latin would have to read "Senatus Populusque Romae" with Roma in the genitive possessive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.235.158 (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You should raise this point at the respective article: SPQR. Flamarande (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Latin adjective Romanus, Romana, Romanum means "Roman" which, in itself, means "of Rome", so the original translation should stand without emendation. MAKLatin (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; one has to realize that translations are by their very nature a tricky business. Sometimes the literal (word for word) translation gives a different result as the 'translation of the whole sentence'. The second kind tries to follow the original meaning (spirit). IMHO the second one is (most of the time) simply better. "The Senate and People of Rome" stays. Flamarande (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] We need a statue bust for Claudius II Gothicus!

He was a good emperor despite his short reign, and I've seen busts of him out there. We finally gave Galerius a statue bust recently. We're gradually improving the articles of emperors!--Tataryn77 (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Empire"