Talk:Seven hills of Rome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Rome  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Prophecy[edit]

Prophecy and seven Roman hills relation is unsourced and looks like original research to me. I doubt it belongs to this article, even if it was sourced. I mean, many people believe that some of Nostradamus prophecies are related to assassination of J. F. Kennedy, but they too don't belong in Kennedy's article, do they? --Windom 14:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that in our century, the Revelation 17 reference is the best-known use of the term "seven hills" so it should remain in an article on that subject. In relation to the comment that this is "unsourced," I have added two references which say Revelation's "seven hills" are "the seven hills of Rome". Philwiki47 08:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

ideos on youtube who discusses the prophecy and its connection to Rome, anyway that section is perfectly unbiased so why is the tag still there? Are you actually wanting an unsourced tag? 88.107.87.231 09:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's one thing to talk about "prophecy" relating to Rome; it's another to say that the author is making a veiled reference to Rome through the phrase "seven hills." The liberal scholarship I've read (a.k.a., the footnotes in my NRSV Study Bible) affirm that this is a reference to Rome. I'd say it's not akin to citing Nostradamus when talking about Kennedy so much as maybe citing Orwell's "Animal Farm" when talking about Soviet totalitarianism. 01:44, 10 January 2008

Map[edit]

A map would be nice.

Even a hand-drawn one. f off Cheers

-- Hmmm...maybe suggesting a hand-drawn one wasn't a good idea.

Especially with this horrible color scheme. I have to differentiate teal and light green....

New image from wikimedia commons added. It's a bit better, but not fantastic.GideonF 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed map, hope you don't mind. Might it also be good to have this picture up, for the purposes of scale: [1]? Marm(t) 12:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Biblical Reference[edit]

I've pruned this section of much rambling, largely unreferenced material that would be better covered in the Book of Revelation article, and has no direct significance to an article on the seven hills of Rome.GideonF 18:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the pruning. I've reinstated the reference that the writer of The Revelation is saint John, however noting his apostleship as opposed to his sainthood. The book of Revelation is not a narration, but (as referenced by the title) is a revelation. S. L. Bonham - 21 November 2006

I may stick my nose into this one a bit over the long weekend, as there's a bit I just want to check on. This actually falls into an area I'm formally educated in (for once!), and one of my courses while getting a BA in Biblical Studies was The Johannine Literature. I should still have notes squirreled away somewhere, and one of the papers I wrote was on the attribution of the seven-headed beast as Rome. Obviously, in keeping with WP:NOR, I'd not use my own paper, but the references and quotes from peer-reviewed articles. The Dark 14:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
For the time being, I've removed the reference to the apostle John. "Narrator" may not be the perfect word, but modern scholarly opinion does not hold to the view that the author of Revalations was the apostle John.GideonF 17:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I think re: John the Apostle (of course, doubts about the identification of the author as the Apostle far predate modern scholarly opinion - Eusebius didn't believe that he was the Apostle John, either). But I altered it to "St. John" - a term sufficiently broad as to cover all interpretations of authorship - with a link to the article on John of Patmos, for the sake of fuller information. 66.31.47.139 02:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

RELEVANCE OF THE SEVEN HILLS IN ROMAN HISTORY[edit]

Not developing the importance of the seven hills makes this article amost useless. they played a major role in Rome's defense against neighboring "tribes", as it allowed the Romans to notice attackers from further distances and give them enough time be prepared for counter-measures as well. --Udonknome 09:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


RELEVANCE OF THE SEVEN HILLS IN REST OF THE WORLD HISTORY[edit]

I'd be interested to see some reference or discussion of the apparent custom of founding cities on seven hills in honour of the tradition of Rome - I know that some claims are made that Bradford, West Yorks. (UK), and Sheffield, S. Yorks (UK), are built on seven hills but I can't verify this. Also Cologne, Germany (Kóln) has it's famed Sieben Gebirge (7 mountains), and has a significant Roman history (and a highly renowned Roman museum in the city)

81.178.119.88 (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

REFERENCE FROM ANCIENT WRITERS PLEASE![edit]

This article needs a quote from (or reference to) ancient Roman writers which specifies the seven hills. Could someone oblige? - AG, Stockport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Seven hills of early Rome[edit]

The paragraph on this needs clarification (not to mention sourcing, as the whole article does). Why was there a different set of seven hills in early Rome, and where are they? A. Parrot (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello A. Parrot. I have just added the names of the seven hills in early Rome, according to the information I found (see Founding of Rome). The set of seven hills is different because they were the original ones of primitive Rome (the so-called Septimontium, or federation of the seven hills). Their names were: the Cermalus or Germalus, the Palatium, the Velia (these were the three peaks of the Palatine Hill), the Cispius, the Fagutalis, the Oppius (these were the three peaks of the Esquiline Hill), and the Sucusa (this name has to be checked since there is no information about it. I have seen the Italian and Spanish articles on this and the former does not include the Sucusa hill, but the latter does). Regarding the sourcing of the whole article, I am not sure but, probably, is the Italian article on the History of Rome. Best wishes!.--Alpinu (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you consulted the information regarding such websites as www.worldslastchance.com ? When one deems the information portrayed therein for example regarding the roles of those set upon said 'seven hills', as ; well founded biblical interpretation or information, there remains very interesting parallels which are worth bringing into this rather insignificant discussion of the Seven Hill's of Rome and biblical truth of the Revelations. Authorship one way or another the historicity of the bible is verified tried and true and the reference to the seven hills of rome is quite unmistakeable in Revelations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robemacp11 (talkcontribs) 11:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposals[edit]

This under-developed series of articles is a potentially valuable resource for a better understanding of ancient Rome's topology. Topography, even. I've been editing the ancient Roman material at the Aventine Hill article, but that article's organisation and structural problems seem to hold across the series, to a greater or lesser extent. I'd welcome a general discussion here.

Currently, most if not all the articles under this umbrella deal pay scant attention to chronology and structure. Their infoboxes are confused and sometimes they link to various articles on places and people not mentioned in the text. So, can we decide what this series is about, and what its limits should be? An entire historical swathe or just some eras? Of course, nothing stays put for very long on wikipedia, but if we can at least decide a basic outline for development, we might get somewhere other than disconnected bittiness. It's less vast an undertaking than it looks (or so I tell myself) because wikipedia articles exist for most of what's needed here. If not, they can be created. Haploidavey (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)