Talk:Sack of Rome (410)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sack of Rome (410) article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on August 24, 2010.|
- 1 End of empire
- 2 Uncertain of categorization
- 3 Not Accurate
- 4 Citations are a mess
- 5 Which kind of pepper?
- 6 "Third siege and sack" section needs major work
- 7 Not violent because of religion? POV
- 8 Accuracy of date
- 9 1600 years gone by
- 10 Backman citation appears incorrect
- 11 Wrong link to "second battle of Adrianople" in the 1700s
- 12 Pejoratives
End of empire
The article says that the 410 sack of Rome is considered to be the end of the western Roman Empire, but the great majority of historians believe the year 476 marked its end with the deposing of Romulus Augustulus.
Uncertain of categorization
I'm not sure this should be categorized as a battle, since no actual fighting took place... Abou 02:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Page needs alot of work. I will do some tonight. Cheers, MedievalScholar 19:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Citations are a mess
Which kind of pepper?
"Third siege and sack" section needs major work
The section "Third siege and sack" has some major issues.
First of all, the line "This was the first time the city had been sacked in 800 years, and its citizens were devastated." appears to contradict Sack of Rome (387 BC). If for some reason the 387 one is somehow not considered a proper "sack", this needs to be elaborated. Otherwise, this line needs to be removed as it is false.
Reply: Bearing in mind that the Gauls sacked the city in 387 BC, this seems broadly accurate - the gap was 723 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Secondly, this line struck me: "On August 24, 410, slaves opened Rome's Salarian Gate and the Visigoths poured in and looted for three days." This one line says a lot about Roman society of the time. In many cases in the ancient world, where there was an institutionalized slave class, they mostly (with the occasional revolt) accepted their place, especially if there was a common outside enemy, and so society continued to function. Now we have slaves opening the gates of Rome to allow the enemy to pour in and rape and burn and pillage and loot? That one sentence makes it clear that Roman civilization had decayed to the point where a substantial subsection of the population hated their whole country. This REALLY needs to be elaborated, simply because it is so interesting. To leave it an almost casual comment as it is in the article is damn-near criminal to any readers who happen to be interested in the evolution of human society. Mbarbier (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Not violent because of religion? POV
Article-quote: "Because the barbarians had converted to the Christian sect Arianism, it was not a particularly violent looting with relatively little rape, murder and damage to buildings". End quote. This needs clarification. The phrase seems to suggest that the reason to why the looting was not severe, was because the "barbarians" was Christian. That is hardly very NPOV. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Accuracy of date
August 24th Gregorian reckoning, which was not used at the time? Julian reckoning? How is the date known? Was it originally given as anno Domini or as anno Urbis conditae? --22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
1600 years gone by
- No it didn't, the visigoths never conquered the western roman empire. we will have to wait until 2076 for the 1600th anniversary of the extinction of the western roman empire.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Backman citation appears incorrect
In Backman, Clifford R. (2009), The worlds of medieval Europe (2 ed.), Oxford University Press, p. 47 (footnote), ISBN 9780195335279 the quotation of Jerome appears to be wrong. This quote is currently in the lead text and I have changed it based on a direct quotation from Jerome's letter as repeated in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VI/The Letters of St. Jerome/Letter 127 paragraph 12. If anyone would care to verify Backman's form of the quotation I would be happy to see this changed to a different quote from Jerome. Fæ (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)