Talk:Roman Empire/Archive 2

My two cents

I was always taught that the Roman Empire was the empire where, well, Rome was the capitol. Yes, my history teachers mentioned the Byzantine empire, but that was always considered something separate from the Roman empire proper. And, once the empire fell in the 5th century, what showed up later during the dark ages was considered something else.

So, I feel this article should cover just the Roman empire until the 5th century fall of Rome. Also, it's better to split up, since an article shouldn't be longer than 32k. Samboy 23:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The logical conclusion of this approach is that the "real" Roman Empire was over when the emperor moved to Milan.--Wetman 22:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that all periodization is to some extent arbitrary: leaving this article as it stands has the huge merit of being consistent with the majority of other works of reference. Anyone who is interested can soon see for themselves the continuities of history between Rome and Byzantium, and the successor states in the West. Djnjwd 22:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

True, because we could keep going after Byzantium into the various Holy Roman Empires to the Papal States and the into the present with the Vatican. So by all means, end this article in the 5th century AD.

How do you figure? The Byzantine Emperor referred to himself as the Roman Emperor--he tossed out ambassadors for referring to him as the Greek Emperor. Further, he is directly the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire had nothing to do with the Roman Empire, aside from receiving Papal support. And, as with the Vatican, that is not the Roman Empire. It's the Papal State. There's no connection. I'm all in favor of breaking the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, but please be aware that most everyone says that the Roman Empire continued until 1453. Directly. After that you're grasping at straws.

Cameron Nedland 01:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Official Language

I re-entered Greek as one of the two "official" languages in the infobox. Although no such thing existed during the Roman empire, neither in antiquity nor in the middle ages, if "official" is any indication of the importance and usage by the people or the state, Greek should by no means be absent from the infobox. "Official" presupposes an elevated status of importance for something. Modern constitutions state clearly what the official language of the state is. The Italian constitution states Italian is the official language of Italy. The EU has 25 official languages, one for each of its member states, as stated by EU law. Yet no such law existed in the Roman Empire to assign to any language "official" status. The Roman Senate enacted laws in Latin, which in theory applied to all four corners of the empire, but in practice were enforced only in a few, and in those cases "official" is a mute point. In the Senate itself, a speech could be delivered in Greek and every Senator was expected to understand it, even though it seldom happened. Beyond state afairs, Roman society, at least the aristocray, is best described as bilingual. Greek schools operated and Greek works were read in equal volume with Latin. Even so, after the foundation of Constantinople, laws were enacted in Greek as well as Latin, and at least in the East, Latin fell drastically out of use. I'm against the use of any box that tries to sum up in a few lines the characteristics of the Roman empire, escpecially for such a long living and changing entity. But if "official" should mean anything in Rome (and in Byzantium), it would only mean degree of use.

I go along with that. The existence of such things as the Res Gestae of Augustus in Latin and Greek support the idea of Greek as a language used by the administration (if that's what official means in this context). Djnjwd 14:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one was trying to argue that Greek wasn't important an important language and culture in the Roman world, but Ephestion's changes consistently brought a tone that Greek was the only important culture and language, which it obviously was not. --Masamax 18:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

latin and greek were both used in adminisration because that was practical.I agree that the term official language did not have the meaning that it has now.Or perhaps such a term did not exist at all.However,there existed in Rome a translations office which translated from Latin to Greek and from Greek to Latin.This was done because a great part of the known world at that time spoke the one or both of these languages.It was done ,in my opinion only due to practical reasons--Pelasgos80 29 June 2005 13:28 (UTC)

Latin was used in the west and Greek in the East, this should be noted.

Cameron Nedland 01:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The article says: "Latin also Greek in the eastern part"
Greek was not simply also used in the Eastern part. Apart from being the vernacular of Southern Italy and Sicily until at least the 11th century AD, Greek was very much alive in the city of Rome itself. Furthermore since the article regard Byzantium as a Roman Empire, then the official languages should be: Latin, Greek - period. To regard of course Byzantium in that way as a Roman Empire is of course a bit of an oxymoron, since the "Latins" of Italy and France and the "Greeks" of Greece and Asia Minor hated each other's cultures. Miskin 00:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that both greek and Latin should be presented as official languages. Both where quite ubiquituous in the Empire and both had a signifigant position in the arts and culture. As for cultural clashes I'dd say Hate is too strong a word for the relationship between the Greek east and the Frankish/Latin west. Both had signifigantly diffrent perseptions of protocol and honour. As can readily be seen in the first crusade when the Frankish lords enountered the Imperial court. This conflict though does not take away the East's clame of Roman continuity. The term Byzantine itself only appears a century after its demise. Prior to this, it and much of the "known" world called it the Roman Empire, even if this was in greek (Basileía Romaíon). I dont see any oxymoron in this.Dryzen 12:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's contradictory because as from the 8th c. AD, Westeners (and most non-Byzantines) would only recognise the "Byzantine state" as the "Kingdom of the Greeks". According to contemporary records, even Byzantines would use "Graecia" when they spoke to a foreigner. If they said "Imperium Romanorum", nobody would understand what they were talking about. Miskin 16:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Things had indeed changed but its was still the linear contignuation of the Roman Empire, therefore still had the right to be called as such. As to identifying themself to what the foreigners could comprehend its a rather normal costum that doesn't necesairily mean thats you telling the exact truth. words have meaning and the same word to multiple people can have multiple meanings, its all about conceptions. If the Byzantine didn't say he was a Greek, then the foreigners wouldn't get the proper conception. Its similar to when the Europeans went on Crusades, even if they where from England or Germany, they where known as Franks. but I think this is beside the poitn of this perticular discurions, we where discussion the Offical Languages of the Roman Empire. I believe that Miskin and I both agreed that Greek and Latin are valid Official Languages.Dryzen 14:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody was denying that Greek was an official language. But what re-started this discussion, was that Miskin was not satisfied with: "Latin also Greek in the eastern part" and proposes to replace it with Latin, Greek. What do I think of his proposal? Fine by me. Just do it. Flamarande 15:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed it Dryzen 14:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete Reorganization of Article

Starting this week I plan on writing a completely reorganized version of this article that will be a gateway article to Roman Empire related articles. I will be doing this on my home PC and uploading the new version all at once to avoid convolution. Once it is up, the wording can be reworked, but the organization and spirit will be done at once which I think will be hugely helpful. Here are the sections I plan on including in the article:

• Government
• History (very brief version of the current article, broken down as follows:
  • Age of Augustus
  • Julio-Claudians
  • Flavian Stabalization
  • Five Good Emperors
  • Crisis of the Third Century
  • Stabalization (Diocletian->Constantine)
  • Final Decline (361-476 AD)
  • Explainations for Decline
• Economy
• Culture
• Military

As well, the current parts of the article such as the "See Also" as well as Links will just be recycled.

If you have any suggestions for sections of the article please post here. I will upload the article as soon as it's done, and instead of reverting, if you see anything you disagree with please EDIT IT. Admitedly, my article may not stand up to complete Wikipedia standards, so I leave it up to the community to edit the new article I will create. I know this seems drastic, but the current article is unacceptable to most, but the scope of the work has just meant most want to stay away. --Masamax 08:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now that the Ephestion argument has (hopefully) subsided, I agree that a substantial rewrite of the main body is a good idea. For my part, the principal problem with the current article is the way in which it duplicates biographical information and event-by-event history per Emperor; I think what we should have in each of the sections is an overview of historical trends, rather than the detailed political history that we have now (as long as it's suitably linked by date, person and subject). Djnjwd 18:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reason I'm going to arrange the sections the way I've planned them is because in the early to middle empire the easiest way to organize the history is who was ruling at the time. I don't intend to do much biographical work, instead I will focus on the major events during each period, as well as the atmosphere of the Empire. --Masamax 20:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lifetime and Perspective

The text includes the statement:

"at Augustus's death, there would have been few living who could recall a time before Augustus himself. The average Roman had a life expectancy of only forty years."

I suspect this is a misconception (as well as being peripheral to the subject of the article).

In fact, it was quite normal for Romans of this period to live to the age of about 70 years. The reason for the low life expectancy was high infant mortality (ie almost half of newborns died during their early childhood).

I am very tempted to adjust the text, but not wanting to be percipitous, I wish to solicit viewpoints before making the correction. --Philopedia 23:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to adjust it, do so, as I agree, and I will work it into the new article I am currently writing (see above). --Masamax 06:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)by Julia adelman--68.239.124.14 17:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Very well. Done (and simplified). --Philopedia 10:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Formatting: "justified on the right for consistency"

It doesn't matter at this entry, for the simple reason that there are never two images on the screen at any one time; nevertheless, it should be generally understood that making images identical in size and "and justified on the right for consistency" makes poor layout, though sometimes insisted upon by Wikipedians. Perhaps the appeal of "justified on the right for consistency" is drawn from a political ideal rather than from visual experience. Certainly it makes a poor precedent. --Wetman 22:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Principate

Article states: "For many years historians made a distinction between the Principate, the period from Augustus until the Crisis of the Third Century, and the Dominate, the period from Diocletian until the end of the Empire in the West. According to this theory...We now know..."

I'm a history Phd candidate at Duke and can assure you both "principate" and "dominate" are accepted and still thriving terms.

The article does not say that the terms "principate" and "dominate" are obsolete , but that our knowledge of this period in time is more nuanced. That in reality neither the principate nor the dominate can be as easily generalized as the theory mentioned. --Tokle 11:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

A proposal

It may be a good idea to cut the aticle at 284 or 313, before the sweeping reforms introduced by Diocletian and Constantine. This would have two good reasons: on the practical side, it would render easier writing the general articles on Roman administration, culture and religion rending them more homogeneous and cut the length of the article; on the historical side, we could free ourselves of 476 and build un article on the late Roman Empire (284-610) which would include both the west and the east of the empire, starting with the Byzantine empire in the 7th century, the date generally accepted since its the years of the loss of the most important territories and the definitive waning of Latin. Opinions? Aldux 23:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that this approach might make some things easier, I would vote against it. I think it is essential that the reader learns that also the late period belongs to the history of the Empire and that Constantius II is as much a Roman Emperor as Domitian (for example); and that the Empire did not stay static, but transformed over time - a fact that often tends to be obscured with the common concentration on the "classical" period. To cut the article at 284 allows to present a picture that is too homogenous to be adequate, imho - not that that would necessarily happen, but it's very possible.

Also, that way we only substitute one caesura (476) with another (284).

The end section of the article as it stands, with a remark on the continuation of the Eastern Empire and a pointer to the Byzantine Empire article, in my eyes sufficiently shows that 476 wasn't the absolute end of the Empire. Varana 19:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but I can't help feeling uncomfortable with 476. Maybe an idea could be changing 476 with 610 or 637, since the definitive adoption of Greek and the loss of the empire's most important provinces to the Arabs does seem to me to sign to me a far more radical break than 476. After all, Odoacer, differently from Lombards and Arabs, continued to recognize the authority of Constinople. Aldux 10:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

During and after the reigns of Honorius and Arcadius the two halves of the empire essentially functioned as two separate states, something unprecedented when on previous occasions the empire was ruled by legitimate multiple emperors, like the Tetrarchs. This division was ended in a legal sense as well when the Senate of Rome sent the Western regalia to Zeno (474-5, 476-91) after Odoacer overthrew Romulus Augustulus (475-6) suggesting the Constantinopolitan emperor rule both East and West. But the West was never properly re-integrated, despite Justinian's short lived success in recovering much of the lost provinces. In my view, the developments that lead to the de facto seperation between East and West in the 4rd and 4th centuries are more important than those in the 6th and 7th, which had greater impact to the East anyway. For a matter of convenience Wikipedia holds seperate article for the Roman and Byzantine Empire, and since there is no academic consensus on the precise date that one ends and the other begins, as longs as both articles make clear that the changeover was gradual, I'll be happy. Colossus 14:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I won't insist on this, since the consensus is for keeping the present date :-) But it should be clear that the chart with the provinces in 120 is valid only for the early Roman Empire and that it was radically changed with Diocletian and his heirs Aldux 15:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

System of Government

"Constitutional monarchy with autocratic reserve powers" is listed as government in the box. In the respective article, this is explained as "a form of government whereby a Monarchy acts within a constitutional basis in practice, but in theory holds autocratic powers without reserve". It would be more correct, I think, to put it as the reverse: ruled by autocratic powers in practice, in theory restrained by a "constitutional" basis. (Though there never was any constitution.) Is there a term that reflects this?

Why is the Eastern Roman Empire called Byzantium?

From my understanding the traditional teaching in the West is that the Roman Empire fell, and I even remember trying to answer that culturally biased Exam question "Why did the Roman Empire Fall?". Only recently have I found the Eastern perspective of these events which see no collapse of the Roman Empire since the capital of Rome was tansfered. Byzantium was no longer called Byxzantium, it was called Nova Roma or Nea Rome (New Rome). Having done Roman History (from a western perspective) the coins used by the Roman Empire were locally made. This means that the Coins by convention had the face of the Emperors but would also have on them the local or commonly spoken language. In the West one would assume this would have been Latin, but surprisingly, they have both languages, Greek and Latin. In the East and the far East, Greek was used alone.

But we know that in the West Greek and Latin was the language of the nobility. The tutors and the pedagogues were deliberately chosen to be educated Greek servants and slaves. The whole education system in Italy Rome was based on Greek philosophy, mathematics and science. This is why the Greeks would later also enjoy Roman citizenship since their customs and religion and language were now the same as the Romans.

So why is the Roman Empire called the Byzantine Empire? In the early stages, it was never called this. "The Roman Empire of the East" and the "Roman Empire of the West" were the officially accepted terms. It was always Old Rome and New Rome. If you read the 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Church they were all written in Greek, and nowhere is there any mention of Byzantium or Constantinople. It is always refered to as NEW ROME. Only later (by the west firstly and then by the east) was it called Contstantines City out of respect for Constantine who helped Christianise the Entire Roman Empire. Under Constantine there was no East and West, only later , after he died were these names used.

sorry i'm not registered as a member yet.

It's all good. 66.205.108.8 23:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

--203.59.61.183 14:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

So far as I know, the term Byzantine was first used of the eastern empire in the 16thC. - probably coined by humanists to exclude the then (as now) muslim east. I have no refs for this.--shtove 21:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"The term Byzantine Empire was introduced in 1557, about a century after the fall of Constantinople by German historian Hieronymus Wolf, who presented a system of Byzantine historiography in his work Corpus Historiae Byzantinae in order to distinguish ancient Roman from medieval Greek history without drawing attention to their ancient predecessors. So far, it appears that there has been no study tracking the reasons why that term came to gain prominence."Dryzen 13:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire never called themselves 'Byzantines' - they called themselves Romans and believed themselves to live in the Roman Empire - not a successor state or inheritor of Rome but the Roman Empire itself. As citizenship had been extended in the 3rd century to all peoples within the Empire there is no inconsistency in this. The fact that they don't fit our modern perceptions of Romans (i.e. 1st century BC - 1st century AD) is I think why we have trouble identifying them as Romans - preferring to call them Byzantines or (even more inaccurately) Greeks. Of course they were very different culturally and politically from the Romans of Ancient Rome but that doesn't mean they weren't Romans. I'm sure the people of the present day US are very different from the Founding Fathers but that doesn't mean that ipso facto they are not Americans. Roydosan 15:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

'Greeks' is not inaccurate. It is the standard term used by non-Byzantines to refer to Byzantines, their contemporaries never called them Romans (except for the Islamic states maybe). As Ostrogrsky defines it "Byzantine" is was coined to differentiate between "ancient Roman and medieval Greek history". The thing is that the perception of the term "Romans" in the middle ages was different from the one of antiquity and modern times, which corresponds to the Latin speakers of the city of Rome and its domain. That explains terms such as Kaiser, Tsar, Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, Basileia Romaion etc. Furthermore the Byzantine Emperor who was known by the time of Heraclius as "Basileus ton Romaion" (Lord of the Romans) ended up in the Byzantine era as the "Basileus ton Hellenon" (Lord of the Hellenes). The political term "Roman" was a title of prestige which symbolised the absolute power and land claims beyond limit. Once those values became history in late Byzantium, the "Roman" title was of no use. Miskin 16:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not completely of no use. Greeks continued to call themselves Romans well past 1453. It was only in the late 19th century that "Roman" finally gave way to "Greek". Colossus 23:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

But Miskin the term Romans did not quite have the meaning in the middle ages you ascribe to it. The Byzantines saw themselves as Romans because they were Romans both culturally and politically. They did not see it as merely a title of prestige or power. It doesn't matter what their contemporaries called them - and actually only the western nations & states ever referred to them as Greeks (even then the Latin Empire set up by the crusaders after 1204 used the name Roman Empire) - the Arabs, Persians & Turks always called them Romans so your logic does not stand up to scrutiny. Roydosan 18:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it at all possible that the religious conflicts between eastern and western churches could have been part of the reason for the empire being refferred to as Byzantium and not Roman Empire. I know that there were many issues regarding the divinity of christ that left east and west at odds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.3.8.253 (talk • contribs) 16:23, July 11, 2006 (UTC)

Byzantinium became Constantinople, not new Rome67.81.203.74 21:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)willgfass

Tell that to the Byzantines. --76.188.161.254 07:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

External Link to History Forum

At the external links one is called "History Forum Simaqianstudio"... This Forum might be an interesting and good one, however this is not a Roman Empire discussion forum, all it has is a section called "Ancient Civilizations"...

There are (that i know) at least two true Roman Empire discussion forums that should be rather there (if we actually want to have a link to a discussion forum) for example: http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php dedicated forum to all things Roman and http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/ forum dedicated to the Roman Army

just a thought.. cheers robert

Hi all, I'm back...

...after my unfortunate time away.

Glad to see that the article has been significantly improved in my absence. Sad to see that the basic problem of the current article being a series of brief imperial biographies still persists.

I see that Masamax and some others have set forth some organizational schemes. Hmm... looking at his contribution page, which cuts off mid-July, looks like he got scared off. You guys still there? Ddama 19:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Some musings on other language pages

I just looked at the Dutch and Suomi pages, which were feature articles on their respective WP sites. The Dutch article was concise. Very concise. I'm awfully tempted to replace the mishmash we have here with an English language equivalentof the Dutch article. Even if we don't, everyone interested in working on this page should take a look at it, if only to get some gears turning.

I have no ability to read Suomi (any Finns in the house?), but that article is about the right length and seems to hit the right topics. Just eyeballing it, it seems a little heavy on the history and occasionally inconsistent, like when it jumps straight from Augustus to Trajan. Several people here have suggested a topical reorganization of the English article, and the Finnish seems to be a decent step in that direction.

Regrettably and shamefully, the Latin language page had the worst article in the bunch, consisting merely of a list of emperors. My time is too tight as is. Sigh. Ddama 08:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ddama, I'm being polite, but it is Wiki etiquette to post new talk sections at the bottom of the talk page. Thank you. --Alexander 007 09:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Grazie, and with pleasure. Ddama 06:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with English Wikipedia is that it attracts such a variety of contributors, each of whom is liable to fight to keep his contributions posted, regardless of the benefits of a major edit or reorganisation. The intro to Adolf Hitler is a good example - one group of contributors will have a month-long argument over the wording, and, after they've reached some daft compromise, another group will come barging in and heedlessly rehash the argument, with a different outcome. The reason for the success of the Dutch counterpart of this article may be down to one or two authoritative contributors, who don't have to put up with a bunch of cranks and egos. And I've come across one Dutch Wikipod who shuns Dutch WP as boring and contributes only to English WP, because there's so much going on here - all the poodles run to this house.--shtove 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Reorganizing the article

I would like to see some consensus before undertaking a major reorganization of the article. I feel like I had such a consensus 18 months ago, but subsequent events intervened, and there are sufficient new actors that I think it necessary.

I'm basically looking to Masamax's plan and the Suomi article for organization, with the entire history section being a redacted version of the history found now under the epochs section of Roman Emperor. I need to give it more thought and very much want to hear what the community has to say. Ddama 07:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not begin with a schema of proposed subheadings right here, in outline form, the way they'd appear in the revised Table of Contents box. Give editors a chance to suggest revisions to the new scheme. In general, I'd merely hope information doesn't get lost in the shuffle, and I'd hope for more space for cultural history to supplement dynastic relations, politics and wars. --Wetman 17:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking of something along the lines of:

• Disambig: Roman Emperors to list of Roman Emperors
• 1. Overview (3 paras)
• 2. Government (1 para)
• 3. History (4 paras, divided by epoch)
• 4. Economy (1 para, with links to a number of articles yet to be written)
• 5. Culture (4 paras, divided by epoch)
• 6. Evolution and Change (1 para)

If someone wants to add a military heading, they are welcome to, but don't expect me to write it; I don't think it belongs here, except in the most broad strokes. Ddama 04:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueller? Ddama 08:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is a big mess. It seems way much like a list of every single Emperor and their "mighty deeds". We should mention only the more important ones in the articles and be a little more "abstract" by describing better larger developments and their reasons. One of the paragraphs should be about the division and the reasoning behind itFlamarande

Well, I'm glad to see a man who is passionate about his topic of interest. :)

As I've mentioned before, I think the division is a footnote, and this seems to be emerging as a consensus in the heading below on the East-West thing. Modern scholarship recognizes a broad period of cultural transformation in the Mediterranean world between the years 314 and 800 and the conclusion of the article should discuss this transitional period in brief, really focusing on handing off readers to the various extant articles about cultural and political developments in that time.

Does anyone else have strong feelings about the proposed schema? It's been up for a month. Ddama 09:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, as a new member in the "wikipedia community" I don´t really know how the "reorganizations" are carried out. I suposse that we need to delete alot of the article and rewrite it. But won't it be reverted? As for your proposed schema its fine by me, but remember the old saying "no plan survives first enemy contact" (something like that) When do we begin? Flamarande

That's why consensus is of the utmost importance. If enough people agree to such a change, then a revert would be against the desires of the community. It's what Talk pages are for. Frankly, though, not many people seem interested at the moment. Ddama 18:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Look: "those who are silent, do not oppose". Let´s begin "the long anounced overhaul" in a calm and rational manner, with "little" improvements. If somebody begins to reverts them, we ask him to "defend his case" in the talk page (thats why it´s here for, anyway). I fear that if we do not start the overhaul, this article will remain the same (and quite sincerly, it´s not a very good article) until oblivion. Flamarande 16:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"Where should this article end?" + "East-West debate"

I honestly think that this whole article is flawed. It is simply too ambitious, for it tries to contain the whole "Roman" empire even after its division into to the western and the eastern empires. Doing that is (in my opinion) a big mistake. The debates of "how roman was the byzantine empire?" and "when did it stopped being roman and became greek?" "how can you describe the byzantine empire as roman if it didn´t even had Rome as the capital?" "Who was the Emperor when and was he recognized by the whole empire?" and others are the result.

I seriously think that this article should end with the final division (after Theodosius) along with a good explanation for it and the results ( and their precedents, just look at Octavian and Marc Antony). The problems (economic and military but also religious) the resources and most importantly the fates of both Empires were simply diffrent.

Just a few examples: the infobox says that the last Emperor was Romulus Augustus (or Julius Nepos) but he (or his predecesesors after the division) didn´t even rule over the "whole" Empire. If Rome was the capital city, what was Constantinople? They weren´t Joint Capitals. They were capitals of two (not so diffrent? that is soo debatable) empires Flamarande

The debate on the capital of Rome I fail to see where if anywhere this article talks about Constantine's desire to transform Rome into a christian empire. Rome at that time was mostly pagans who were taught to hate christians and jews and their beliefs, to have a emperor come and tell them they had to convert to christianity, and have their temples torn down to be replaced with christian churches caused an uproar. Constantine wanted a capital city to be a beacon for christianity, where he would not have to deal with the problems of converting so many unwilling people. There were of course other reasons for moving the capital, constantinople was a location that could be defended easier, this was done because of the incoming threats of invasion from the germanic tribes. In some books there is also talk of a plague that was occuring in Rome at the time. With all of these problems moving the capital probably seemed like a very good idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.3.8.253 (talk • contribs) 16:46, July 11, 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt this. There's still doubt as to how Christian he actually was, as he wasn't baptized until he was on his deathbed. You'd think someone with the goals you stated would be baptized earlier, wouldn't you? Note that the Edict of Milan legalized Christianity; it did not make it the state religion. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 20:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Continuing on the dreaded East/West topic, I dont think the article as it stands makes it clear enough that the Eastern Roman Empire was already much more important, economically and culturally, than the West in the fourth and fifth centuries.

I understand the reasons for treating this article as the story of the Western Empire - from a British, French, Spanish perspective the fall of the Western Empire is when the Romans ceased to affect our national history (and it seems that America has naturally inherited this slant).

Nonetheless it should be made much clearer that in doing so one is effectively choosing to follow the story of the junior partner from 330-476.

It is as if a hypothetical Polish Wikipedia article on Germany written in 1980, say, preferred to concentrate on the DDR rather than West Germany on the grounds that the former still had its capital as Berlin, it was "our Germany", etc, without registering the fact that the state based in Bonn was bigger, richer, etc, etc. Jameswilson 03:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The East-West thing is a red herring. Any serious encyclopedia article on the Roman Empire would include the fact that the East was where most of the people lived, most of the economic activity took place, and most of the culture was produced. Any serious encyclopedia article on the Roman Empire would also accept longstanding academic traditions, however flawed, as to what is "Roman" and what is "Byzantine." To debate, disprove, or argue those traditions is not within the mandate of a standard encyclopedia article or of Wikipedia.

That said, as I mention above, my article plan calls for a summary of how the Empire evolved in its later years, handing off to the many fine articles that already exist on such topics as the Gothic kingdoms, the Byzantine Empire, the Muslim Caliphate, and the Catholic Church. Articles on Late Antiquity, Gallo-Romans, and Romano-Britons, if they exist, will also be pointed to. The Roman Empire article should be the first place any student or knowledge-seeking individual looks to get information on Rome, but it should also be a launching pad for further study, leading to more advanced topics. If someone wants to have an article on the many opinions on when the Empire ended, if it ended at all (Thank you, Philip K. Dick...), great, we'll point to it, but it does not belong here. Ddama 08:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, in your opinion should the article (Roman Empire) end with the final division or with Romulus Augustus? That (in my opinion) is a key question in a eventual overhaul of this article. Does your article plan include a explenation of the reasons for the division of the "old" Roman Empire and the real reasons for the survival for one of the empires and the destruction of the other? Flamarande

That the division after Theodosius' death was "final", was coincidence, not exactly planned. Both parts had started to drift apart much earlier, but they regarded themselves as *one* Empire still after the division of 395.

So imho, the article on the Roman Empire should sketch out the development of *both* parts of the Empire until the dissolution of the West, and in the East until Justinian or the beginning of Heraclius' reign; and then link to articles where those periods are discussed in detail. Ideally, there should be an article on the Western Roman Empire which can be consulted for specific issues. An overview of the development after 395 within the "Roman Empire" article is nonetheless necessary, imho, as we still *are* talking about that same Empire. There has been much more continuity than sudden change when the Empire was "split". At the same time, the article on the Byzantine Empire needs to mention some basics on the "undivided" Later Roman Empire.

That is not avoidable, as we have to deal with a gradual development, where any fixed date is highly artificial and imposed from hindsight. Varana 22:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Look I am sorry if it appears that I am being stuborn, but let me present my case in a reasonable fashion. First there was the "old" Roman Empire who was more or less united until Theodosius I the LAST Emperor to rule over the whole Roman Empire. After him the Empire was divided in 395AD. That division had been done before, but this time it was final! (even if not planed).

This was the turning point and I defend that this article (Roman Empire)should end here. There should also be a good explenation for the reasons for this division and a mention of the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire as "equal" sucessor states and the survival of roman culture.

Then we had the Western Roman Empire (we have that article, but it is largely ignored) and the Eastern Roman Empire (also called Byzantine Empire). To say that the "old" Roman Empire (as a nation) "continued somehow" after that point is wrong. The "old" Roman Empire was gone, what survived was the roman culture and roman ideas. We had two Empires (who are better described as sucessor states) that had each a capital (Rome and Constantinople) a different Emperor, coinage, army, etc, etc. While sharing some enemies, they dealt with different problems in a different fashion. That said, they shared roman culture, tradition, law, religion, language (at least at the beginning) etc, etc. Most importantly, they both considered themselves Romans. The Western Empire was conquered in 476, while the Eastern Empire survived, changed and evolved being conquered by the Turks in 1453.

I question the fact that this article (Roman Empire) continues after 395 and "pretends" (harsh word, sorry couldn´t find any better) that the Western Empire is the same entity as the "old" Roman Empire and presents the Eastern Empire as "something else". If that were true what´s the point of the Western Roman Empire article?. Why should we present the Western Empire as "roman" and the eastern one as "byzantine"? Why should we pretend that the Roman Empire continued solely in the west (a claim no western emperor ever did) and was somehow "transformed" in the east? Being poetical why should we pretend that one of the twins was the "rightfull heir" and the other twin was the "bastard"? The only answer I can think of is that the teaching of 18th century scholars (who potrayed the eastern empire as alien, oriental, decadent and inferior) still lives on (and that vision is being challenged by modern scolars).

(see this Derogatory use of 'Byzantine' article)

Both of these Empires were "Roman". They were separate indentities. Neither one! was the "old" Roman Empire. They both were equal sucessor states. Flamarande

I fully agree with you that the article should present both parts as equal continuations *g* of the Empire. To prefer the Western part, is indeed somewhat flawed.

I do not agree (to repeat my point) that 395 is correctly described as "turning point" etc. Both states viewed themselves *together* as *one* Empire, even if divided in practice. Two (or more) emperors with two (or more) residences hadn't been a problem for at least a century; why should it become one now? Rome was acclaimed capital of the Empire and Head of the World, Constantinople was the New Rome, and which one was more important, depended on whom you asked. Constantinople had the additional advantage of being an imperial residence, together with Milan and Ravenna (and before 395, many other cities).

Probably a bit overstated, but to illustrate the point: What makes 364 (division between Valentinian I and Valens) and 395 different, is that some time in between, there happened to be an emperor who could claim to be sole ruler for a few years with the West intact. (The last point is important: There was only one emperor again after 480...)

So yes, the impression that the Western Empire was rightful and "real" heir of the united Empire is misleading. As is the impression that 395 was different from any other of the many divisions - but for the "conincidence" that the Western part rapidly declined and we today do not count e.g. Justinian as "sole emperor" like Theodosius. Varana 22:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think that my doubts are (somewhat) cleared and I quite agree that this article deserves a overhaul. So....when and how do we begin? Flamarande

Still, you must agree that the division was a major development (after all with the division a half of the old empire managed to survive) and not a mere "footnote". If it were unimportant and without purpose it wouldn't have happened in the first place. The division was due to the great extension of the old empire and the increase in enemy pressure in two major borders (the germanic tribes in the rhine and the neo-persians in the east) and the subsequent dual concentration of the legions (if there was only one emperor chances (chances? fact) were high that the general at the other front would try a revolt. The division was needed to satisfy both commanders. Flamarande

Should there be a "Roman" portal?

Hi folks, I'm contemplating the possibility of creating a portal for Ancient Rome, to replace Roman, which is a disambiguation page and has nearly 400 links pointing to it from articles (not counting the ones from Talk or Wikipedia pages).

If I was to go ahead with this, I would need help from other people on the content, as I don't know too much about the subject matter - my motivation for doing this is because it seems to be needed, and I believe I can figure out the technical aspects of making it happen.

Some possible issues:

1. It needs a suitable name. I'm thinking "Ancient Rome", but there may be other options. My intention would be to redirect Romans to the portal so that every vague reference and accidental linkage to "the Romans" would end up in a suitable place.
2. I think it would be appropriate to include Byzantium, and maybe Ancient Greece if it doesn't already have a "home".
3. Other uses of the word Roman currently listed on Roman would probably be moved to Roman (disambiguation), which is currently a redirect.
4. I would not like to become the sole maintainer. I would be willing to continue doing technical stuff, but selection of featured articles and suchlike should be done by somebody who can tell whether or not the content is accurate.

For examples of existing portals, see Portal:Egyptology, Portal:Star Trek, and many more are listed at Category:Portals.

I am interested in opinions on this idea, and I invite discussion on the topic at my test page User:LesleyW/RomePortal. Please feel free to copy this notice to other places where it might be noticed by knowledgeable people. I will be away for the next few days, and will pick up discussions early next week at the latest.

--LesleyW 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I would support this idea. What does it require? Ddama 08:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I support this idea, but I'm not sure what is meant by "should include" Greece and Byzantium; these shoiuld have their own portals. Djnjwd 23:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm still figuring out what would be required, but basically my idea is to use existing portals as inspiration, and take ideas from them as appropriate. The overall objective is to make the portal a place from where readers can find all information relating to ancient Roman topics. For example, one obvious idea for a content box would be a list of relevant categories, so that'll be on my list of things to do. Comments so far seem to be unanimous about not including Greece and Byzantium - that's fine by me, I was really just uncertain about where the topic boundary should be. --LesleyW 00:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there may be some overlap as a (poorly implemented) Classical Civilization portal seems to exist already. Ddama 09:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't spotted that one. It appears to have been created on 2005-11-28 (about the time I started thinking seriously about a Roman portal) and all the significant edits are by one person. It does complicate matters somewhat. --LesleyW 02:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Timeline

I'm currently reworking my timeline of the Roman Empire and plan to move it on a page of its own, leaving a little template box like the one on the right. I'd like to put the timeline in one line, widening it to 1600px, which would screw up the article layout. And the article is pretty huge even without the additional timeline. I would just ask for the template to stay somewhere visible near the top of the article. After all it gives an introductory overview at a glance which might make it interesting for a reader to notice it fast. Any comments? Ah, the icon is temporary, I'm working on a cleaner SVG version. --Dschwen 21:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Just uploaded and inserted the SVG version. --Dschwen 23:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope you value "plain old" honesty instead of "political correctness". I personally don´t like the "apresentation" of this timeline. It is (at least for me) confusing, ocupies far too much space and the timeline is simply ugly. No, I am not deleting it (at least until the "long-anounced" reform of the whole article). As for leaving a little template box and move the timeline to another page, it is a splendid idea. Look, I know that it took a lot of work to do it but... . I like the timeline of the Byzantine Empire better. Flamarande

I sure do, and have to agree on the looks. Have you checked the reworked version? Click on the link above in the template box. Suggestions for improvement are certainly welcome. The compilation was indeed a lot of work and I appreciate it beeing left in the article until now. After a long time I'm working on it again and still see lots of room for improvements. As for the Byzantine timeline, it is nice, but the approach with a graphical timeline is entirely different. I wanted to visualize correlation in time, what happened, who was emperor at that time, what was the period called, which famous people lived at that time, and what were the significant developments. --Dschwen 14:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, now I checked it out. What can I say? It´s still ugly :), but I can see the logic of it and agree with the data contained in it. Something I don´t like in the timeline is the fact it is horizontal, it simply too big: it doesn´t fit inside of my computer screen. With a "vertical apresentation" one could see all the fields (emperors, battles, etc they are 5 fields, I think) and one would easily "scroll it down".

A small suggestion: Make the template box in the article as wide as the infobox, as it is right below it. Perhaps you can even include the template box inside of the infobox, as another field (but don´t merge the two completly, as this would complicate new entries. --Flamarande

Right now the templatebox is a rip off of the commons media box. But I could make a new compact template for use in infoboxes. The vertical format allows the reader to read the timeline from left to right. Also it is easier to maintain it in a compact state, since vertical orientation with horizontal labels creates more overlap between unrelated objects. --Dschwen 16:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I, ahhh, improved the location of the templatebox. I think its very good now. What do you think? Flamarande 18:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Have to agree, looks nice. --Dschwen 18:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The Map

The map is very well done, however, it is a little inaccurate. Rome from 85-105 AD controlled a chunk of what's now eastern Scotland. Also, from 12 BC to 9 AD, Rome controlled all of what are now the Netherlands and all of what's now Germany west of the Elbe River. Cameron Nedland 01:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The Netherlands are part of the map if you look closely, as for Germania "east of the Rhine and west of the Elbe" it was a temporary conquest that was lost (thanks to Arminius) and the Rhine was "normally" considered the "last frontier". But still... if somebody finds a good map... . Flamarande 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope you're not mocking me because I am not trying to be funny, I just thought people ought to know. Cameron Nedland 01:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I´m not mocking you (where did you get that idea?) and I certainly apprieciate the fact that you presented your case in the talk page. I am willing to replace the prsent map with a more acurate one (showing the tempory conquests of Octavian in Germania, and other temporary conquests like Scotland), but as far as I have seen, such a map simply doesn´t exist in Wikicommons (until now). Flamarande 15:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong link

Can anyone edit the infobox? In the "official language" part it links Greek to the wrong article, it links it to Greek language instead of Koine Greek. I'm not saying the former would be a bad option, but the latter was the Greek spoken during the times of the Roman Empire and I think it should link to that article. Could someone link it correctly? --Thorri 16:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

allready done by Tokle.

Overhaul now !

I will begin a major overhaul of this article starting tomorrow. I invite everyone who is interrested in the future quality and presentation of this article to show his vision and opinion "here", along with any point he wishes to include.

This article deserves a major reorganization (personal opinion, but I hope you agree). In its present form it is "way too much" a list of every single emperor and his "mighty deeds". That information is certainly precious and valuable, I certainly grant "you" that, but I think that it should be in the single articles about "that" emperor.

I am planning to write certain paragraphs which describe better larger cultural, political, economical and theological developments of the Roman Empire. I will follow to a certain extent the "logic" of the articles about the Roman Republic and the Western Roman Empire which I and many others have reformed to a certain extent. These articles are not finished (is anything in Wikipedia ever? I hope not, there is always a aspect which can be improved) but I believe that they are good perhaps even better in some aspects than this article

I will certainly thank all colaboration and comments (even critical, especially constructive critics) If somebody does not agree with any of the improvements, then please don´t start a revert war (I certainly won´t start it), present your case "here" and hopefully we will reach a consensus. Flamarande 22:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Paragraphs devoted to larger cultural, political, and economic developments of the Roman Empire would be very welcome additions, especially if they are sited under existing broad sections ("Antonines"" "Christian Empire" etc) and offer examples linked to places and times while avoiding sweeping generalizations. Rather than making wholesale deletions, why not begin by writing or making summaries of specific articles like Roman agriculture and trade, Roman family, Roman roads, Cursus honorum etc then insert condensed versions of your articles, with a Main article... header? You'll find many articles at Category:Roman Empire that could be copied and pasted, edited down to a summary version and saved here. As they build up, patterns will emerge and they can be joined together. Good big articles are built of numerous good small articles, with some linking statements. Sweeping deletions are rarely steps forward. --Wetman 10:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have begun. I was thinking to change this article into a form a bit more similar to the Western Roman Empire article (and I plan to copy some paragraphs and to latter to adapt them). Take a look, tell me with what you agree or disagree.

Still, I am flexible, I read your case and now I am more planning to leave a summary versions of the Emperors (perhaps more of the single dynastys, and to insert a main article header) and then include the more relevant larger developments (like rebellions under Nero, christianity and east-west seperation under Constantine, etc) below them. Flamarande 22:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Good luck Flamarande! An overhaul is very necessary and will probably greatly improve the article. I very much agree you should take out most of the 'deeds of the emperors', to give more room to trade, social history, impact of the empire, etc.--Hippalus 10:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I made a new article (Romanization (cultural)) and I am currently working in it. It is quite vital in a overhaul (which I have not forgotten and which I will continue). Flamarande 13:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)\

I've Returned

Sorry for the abseence, my real life meant that I couldn't put the effort for this article. HOWEVER, since I am at the start of a term, I have time to do some work on this. Most certainly reorganization is necessary. I will remake the article soon, and I've read through some of your suggestions. However, I'd like to suggest that for the history section, for ease of organization, base it on on dynasties as I suggested several months ago. I am going to make a test article tommorow for you all to look at, most likely when I should be paying attention in my Poli Sci class. :)

--Masamax 10:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I couldn't wait, so I started a new article: Roman Empire reorganization. All I've done this morning was rewrite the introduction. I feel the current one is much too long, detailed, and for the most part useless. I've drawn out a basic one that focuses on what the entire article covers as it should be.

--Masamax 10:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be an excellent use for a subpage.--Dschwen 13:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I examined the proposed reorganization. It seems to be quite good but we have to include paragraphs (and link them to main articles) about certain issues like: romanization, rebellions, east-west divide. We have first to write these articles BEFORE the reorganization. Flamarande 13:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess creating new and very necessary articles, and a reorganization/overhaul of the central article, could very well be done simultaneously. I agree with Dschwen that it would be good to move the overhaul-article to a subpage, where it can be elaborated till it is ready for a place in the limelight.

By the way, maybe we should create a seperate History of the Roman Empire article which could contain a very consize version of the present article. Like Ancient Egypt <=> History of Ancient Egypt. Else we'll never get a balanced article, as most users obviously prefer to contribute to the political/emperors-history sections.

What do you think?

--Hippalus 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I boldly moved it (where no one moved it before) to Roman_Empire/reorganization. Hope it dosn't cause too much irritation. But I think this is a no-brainer, a temporary aticle does not belong in the root encyclopedia namespace. --Dschwen 22:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. If that is the case then the new gateway article does not need to be as detailed, or long. If that is the case, should we have any subsections under the new reorganized article?

--Masamax 22:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.