Jump to content

Talk:Fasces: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
I would like to see better sources than some pop-history books from someone who isn't a historian
Line 41: Line 41:
:Added picture. [[User:T8612|<span style="color:yellow;background-color:navy">T8612</span>]] [[User talk:T8612|(talk)]] 15:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
:Added picture. [[User:T8612|<span style="color:yellow;background-color:navy">T8612</span>]] [[User talk:T8612|(talk)]] 15:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
::Fantastic. [[User:Ifly6|Ifly6]] ([[User talk:Ifly6|talk]]) 18:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
::Fantastic. [[User:Ifly6|Ifly6]] ([[User talk:Ifly6|talk]]) 18:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


== Sources ==
Essentially the source for this entire article is a book by this guy Brennan, who has a PHD in philosophy and a Masters in art, ie, who is not a historian, and honestly seems like a quack.
The content of the page seems biased and inaccurate (the fasces is a symbol of oppression and terror reee!, the concept of strength in unity is a myth reee!, Roman empire bad reee!). Really comes off as your typical ahistorical political/woke nonsense (wherein western history = bad and needs to be vilified and misrepresented). I don't find this article trustworthy at all. So I would like to see better sources than some pop-history book from someone who isn't a historian.
--[[User:anonymous]] 16:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:24, 30 October 2023

Cincinnatus

I've added the image of Cincinnatus, but I'm not sure if it is too much for the page -- some people don't like multiple pictures in a small article. I thought it was a good illustration of the object; what do you think? Rdikeman 23:02, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Cincinnatus is important.

I think the inclusion of Cincinnatus is important. What about including a link to or information about the Society of the Cincinnati ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.183.119 (talkcontribs) 12:08, 11 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some text about the occasion in Cincinnatus' career and the significance of the portrayed gesture is essential. Anyone want to give this a paragraph? The connection between Roman Cincinnatus and the Society of the Cincinnati should be explained at Society of the Cincinnati, but not here at Fasces: too peripheral. --Wetman 18:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alternative Fasces

I remember seeing an illustration of a fasces used as a papal symbol. It was from a book on the history of Christianity, whose name I have forgotten, but it was part of a frieze. The interesting this about this fasces was that it used a candle in place of an axe... Anyone know anything else about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.34.107 (talkcontribs) 03:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Symbols Containing the Fasces

In the interest of keeping the main un-cluttered would it be a good idea to make a seperate article called "List of Symbols Containing Fasces"? I think it would be immensely helpful for resaerchers of symbolism to have a list of images containing the fascses (or any symbol for that matter), as a reference and also to be able to compare and contrast different usages. 24.18.35.120 01:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would keep the main page uncluttered. The Mace of the United States House of Reprensentatives is one historical example. GuitarTesseract (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RIC IVa 422A

@T8612: Hey there! I have yet another question about coins. Brennan, in Fasces (2022), cites the sestertius which shows the redesigned fasces as RIC IVa 422A (id at p 229 n 37; formatting verbatim). Do you know if we have an image of it? Happy holidays! Ifly6 (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added picture. T8612 (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic. Ifly6 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Sources

Essentially the source for this entire article is a book by this guy Brennan, who has a PHD in philosophy and a Masters in art, ie, who is not a historian, and honestly seems like a quack. The content of the page seems biased and inaccurate (the fasces is a symbol of oppression and terror reee!, the concept of strength in unity is a myth reee!, Roman empire bad reee!). Really comes off as your typical ahistorical political/woke nonsense (wherein western history = bad and needs to be vilified and misrepresented). I don't find this article trustworthy at all. So I would like to see better sources than some pop-history book from someone who isn't a historian. --User:anonymous 16:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]