Talk:Roman Empire

Template:FAOL

External link to map sites

At the external links, would be interesting to include more sites dedicated to visually show the evolution of the Roman Empire and its comparison with other kingdoms and empires of their own time or other, to complement the existing ones, like www.worldhistoricalatlas.com

Thanks and regards Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.46.21 (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

John Bagnall Bury

Since the above discussion comments on Bury and his work, a couple of passages might proove useful.

• Preface: "Although we know little of the details of the process by which the western provinces of the Empire became German kingdoms, one fact stands out. The change of masters was not the result of anything that could be called a cataclysm. The German peoples, who were much fewer in numbers than is often imagined, at first settled in the provinces as dependents, and a change which meant virtually conquest was disguised for a shorter or longer time by their recognition of the nominal rights of the Emperor. Britain, of which we know less than of any other part of the Empire at this period, seems to have been the only exception to this rule. The consequence was that the immense revolution was accomplished with far less violence and upheaval than might have been expected. This is the leading fact which it is the chief duty of the historian to make clear."
• Chapter 1:

  • For after the death of Theodosius the Great, who had ruled alone for a short time over a dominion extending from Scotland to Mesopotamia, the division of the Empire into two geographical portions, an eastern and a western, under two Emperors, a division which had been common during the past century, was finally established. This dual system lasted for eighty-five years, and but for the dismemberment of the western provinces by the Germans might have lasted indefinitely. In the constitutional unity of the Empire this arrangement caused no breach."

  • "Again, the death of Theodosius marks the point at which the German danger, long imminent over the Empire, begins to move rapidly towards its culmination. We are on the eve of the great dismemberment of Roman dominion which, within seventy years, converted the western provinces into Teutonic kingdoms. The fourth century had witnessed the settlement of German peoples, as foederati, bound to military service, on Roman lands in the Balkan peninsula and in Gaul. Through the policy of Constantine Germans had become a predominant element in the Roman army, and German officers had risen to the highest military posts and had exercised commanding political influence. Outside, German peoples were pressing on the frontiers, waiting for opportunities to grasp at a share of the coveted wealth of the Roman world. The Empire was exposed to the double danger of losing provinces to these unwelcome claimants who desired to be taken within its border, and of the growing ascendancy of the German element in the army. The East was menaced as well as the West, and the great outstanding fact in the history of the fifth century is that the East survived and the West succumbed. The success of the Eastern government in steering through these perils was partly due to the fact that during this critical time it was on good terms, only seldom and briefly interrupted, with Persia, its formidable neighbour."
  • "The diminished Roman Empire, now centering entirely in Constantinople, lasted for a thousand years, surrounded by enemies and frequently engaged in a struggle for life or death, but for the greater part of that long period the most powerful State in Europe. Its history is marked by distinct ages of expansion, decline, and resuscitation, which are easily remembered and help to simplify the long series of the annals of Byzantium. Having maintained itself in the fifth century and won its way through the German peril, it found itself strong enough in the sixth to take the offensive and to recover Africa and Italy. Overstrain led to a decline, of which Persia took advantage, and when this danger had been overcome, the Saracens appeared as a new and more formidable force and deprived the Empire of important provinces in Asia, while at the same time European territory was lost to the Bulgarians and the Slavs (seventh century). Then a period of resuscitation in the eighth and ninth centuries led to a new age of brilliance and expansion (ninth to eleventh centuries). When the Saracens had ceased to be formidable, the Seljuk Turks appeared, and the Empire found it difficult to hold its own against this foe as well as against the western powers of Europe, and the barbarians of the north. This period ends with the disaster of 1204, when Constantinople fell into the hands of the Crusaders, who treated the city with more barbarity than the barbarian Alaric had treated Rome eight hundred years before. After this the cycle begins anew; first, the period of revival at Nicaea, which became the temporary capital; then the recovery of Constantinople (1261), followed by a period in which the Empire could assert its power; finally, from the middle of the fourteenth century, the decline, and the last death-struggle with the Ottomans, ending in the capture of the city in 1453."
  • "The civilisation of the later Empire, which we know under the name of Byzantine, had its roots deep in the past. It was simply the last phase of Hellenic culture. Alexandria, the chief city of the Hellenic world since the third century B.C., yielded the first place to Byzantium in the course of the fifth century. There was no breach in continuity; there was only a change of centre. And while the gradual ascendancy of Christianity distinguished and stamped the last phase, we must remember that Christian theology had been elaborated by the Greek mind into a system of metaphysics which Paul, the founder of the theology, would not have recognised, and which no longer seemed an alien product."
  • "This division of the sovranty was an essential part of the system of Diocletian, corresponding to the geographical partition of the Empire which he introduced. From his time down to A.D. 480, the Empire is governed by two (or even more) sovran colleagues, who have all equal rights and competence, and differ only in seniority. Sometimes the junior Emperor is appointed by the senior, sometimes he is elected independently and is recognised by the senior. Along with these there may be co-regents, who exercise no sovran power, but are marked out as eventual successors. Thus the child Arcadius was for nine years co-regent with the Emperors Valentinian II and Theodosius the Great. No formal title, however, raised the sovran above the co-regent, though the latter, for the sake of distinction, was often called "the second Emperor," or if he was a child, "the little Emperor." When towards the end of the fifth century the territorial partition of the Empire came to an end, the system of joint sovranty ceased, and henceforward, whenever there is more than one Augustus, only one exercises the sovran power".
  • "There was a general feeling of attachment to a dynasty, and the history of the Later Empire presents a series of dynasties, with few and brief intervals of unsettlement. During the four centuries between 395 and 802, we have five dynasties, which succeed one another, except in two cases, without a break." The exceptions, given in a footnote, were (1)Phocas alone and (2)the emperors reigning between Justinian II and Leo III the Isaurian.
• "A few words may be said here about the unity of the Empire. From the reign of Diocletian to the last quarter of the fifth century, the Empire is repeatedly divided into two or more geographical sections — most frequently two, an Eastern and a Western — each governed by its own ruler. From A.D. 395 to A.D. 476, or rather 480, the division into two realms is practically continuous; each realm goes its own way, and the relations between them are sometimes even hostile. It has, naturally enough, proved an irresistible temptation to many modern writers to speak of them as if they were different Empires. To men of the fourth and fifth centuries such a mode of speech would have been unintelligible, and it is better to avoid it. To them there was and could be only one Roman Empire; and we should emphasise and not obscure this point of view."
  • "But it is not merely a question of constitutional theory. The unity was not only formally recognised; it was maintained in practical ways. In the first place, the Imperial colleagues issued their laws under their joint names, and general laws promulgated by either and transmitted for publication to the chancery of his associate were valid throughout the whole Empire. In the second place, on the death of either Emperor, the Imperial authority of the surviving colleague was constitutionally extended to the whole Empire until a successor was elected. Strictly speaking, it devolved upon him to nominate a new colleague. After the fall of the Theodosian House, some of the Emperors who were elected in Italy were not recognised at Constantinople, but the principle remained in force."
  • "The unity of the Empire was also expressed in the arrangement for the nomination of the annual Consuls. Each Emperor named one of the two consuls for the year. As a general rule the names were not published together. The name of the Western consul was not known in the East, nor that of the Eastern in the West, in time for simultaneous publication."
  • "Many passages in our narrative will show that the Empire throughout the fifth century was the one and undivided Roman Empire in all men's minds. There were "the parts of the East," and "the parts of the West," but the Empire was one. No one would speak of two or more Roman Empires in the days of the sons of Constantine; yet their political relation to one another was exactly the same as that of Arcadius to Honorius or of Leo I to Anthemius. However independent of each other or even unfriendly the rulers from time to time may have been, the unity of the Empire which they ruled was theoretically unaffected. And the theory made itself felt in practice." Dimadick (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Chapter 12:

• "The soldiers had proclaimed Odovacar king. But it was not as king over a mixed host of various German nationalities that Odovacar thought he could maintain his position in Italy. The movement which had raised him had no national significance, and if he retained the royal title of an East German potentate, it was as a successor of Ricimer, Gundobar, and Orestes that he hoped to govern the Italians. In other words, he had no idea of detaching Italy from the Empire, as Africa and much of Gaul and Spain had come to be detached. The legal position was to continue as before. But the system of Ricimer was to be abandoned. There were be no more puppet Emperors in the West; Italy was to be under the sovranty of the Emperor at Constantinople, and its actual government was to be in the hands of Odovacar, who as Master of Soldiers was to be a minister of the Emperor, while he happened at the same time to be king of the East Germans who formed the army."
  • "With this purpose in view Odovacar made the deposition of Romulus take the form of an abdication, and induced the Roman Senate to endorse formally the permanent institution of a state of things which had repeatedly existed in the days of Ricimer. A deputation of senators, in the name of Romulus, was sent to the Augustus at Constantinople to announce the new order of things. Zeno had already recovered the throne, from which Basiliscus had driven him, when the ambassadors arrived and informed him that they no longer needed a separate Emperor but that his sole supremacy would be sufficient; that they had selected Odovacar as a man capable of protecting Italy, being both a tried soldier and endowed with political intelligence. They asked Zeno to confer upon him the rank of Patrician and entrust him with the administration of Italy. They bore with them the Imperial insignia which Romulus had worn (A.D. 477)."
  • "At the same time messengers arrived from Nepos to congratulate Zeno on his restoration, to ask for his sympathy with one who had suffered the same misfortune as he, and to crave his aid in men and money to recover the throne. But for the existence of Nepos, the situation would have been simple. Zeno could not ignore his legal right, but was not prepared to support it with an army. He told the representatives of the Senate that of the two Emperors they had received from the East, they had slain Anthemius and banished Nepos; let them now take Nepos back. But he granted the other request. He sent to Odovacar a diploma conferring the Patriciate, and wrote to him, praising the respect for Rome and the observance of order which had marked his conduct, and bidding him crown his goodness by acknowledging the exiled Emperor. The fact that Verina was the aunt of the wife of Nepos was a consideration which helped to hinder Zeno from disowning him. Odovacar did not acknowledge the claim of Nepos, and Zeno cannot have expected that he would."
  • "The events of A.D. 476 have been habitually designated as the "Fall of the Western Empire." The phrase is inaccurate and unfortunate, and sets the changes which befell in a false light. No Empire fell in A.D. 476; there was no "West Empire" to fall. There was only one Roman Empire, which sometimes was governed by two or more Augusti. If it is replied that expression is merely a convenient one to signify what contemporary writers sometimes called the Hesperian realm (Hesperium regnum), the provinces which had been, since the death of Theodosius I, generally under the separate government of an Emperor residing in Italy, and that all that is meant is the termination of this line of western Emperors, it may be pointed out that A.D. 480 is in that case the significant date. For Julius Nepos, who died in that year, was the last legitimate Emperor in the West; Romulus Augustulus was only a usurper. The important point to seize is that, from the constitutional point of view, Odovacar was the successor of Ricimer, and that the situation created by the events of A.D. 476 was in this respect similar to the situation in the intervals between the reigns of the Emperors set up by Ricimer. If, on the death of Honorius, there had been no Valentinian to succeed him, and if Theodosius II had exercised the sovranty over the western provinces, and if no second Augustus had been created again before the western provinces had passed under the sway of Teutonic rulers, no one would have spoken of the "Fall of the Western Empire." Yet this hypothetical case would be formally the same as the actual event of A.D. 476 or rather of A.D. 480. The West came finally, as it had more than once temporarily, under the sole sovranty of the Emperor reigning at East Rome."
  • "The Italian revolution of A.D. 476 was, however, a most memorable event, though it has been wrongly described. It stands out prominently as an important stage in the process of the dismemberment of the Empire. It belongs to the same catalogue of chronological dates which includes A.D. 418, when Honorius settled the Goths in Aquitaine, and A.D. 435, when Valentinian ceded African lands to the Vandals. In A.D. 476 the same principle of disintegration was first applied to Italy. The settlement of Odovacar's East Germans, with Zeno's acquiescence, began the process by which Italian soil was to pass into the hands of Ostrogoths and Lombards, Franks and Normans. And Odovacar's title of king emphasised the significance of the change."
  • "It is highly important to observe that Odovacar established his political power with the co-operation of the Roman Senate, and this body seems to have given him their loyal support throughout his reign, so far as our meagre sources permit us to draw inferences. At this time the senators who counted politically belonged to a few old and distinguished clans, possessing large estates and great wealth, particularly the Decii and the Anicii. The leading men of these families received high honours and posts under Odovacar. Basilius, Decius, Venantius, and Manlius Boethius held the consulship and were either Prefects of Rome or Praetorian Prefects;Symmachus and Sividius were consuls and Prefects of Rome;another senator of old family, Cassiodorus, was appointed a minister of finance. The evidence indicates that while it was Odovacar's policy to appoint only men of Roman families to the Prefecture of the City, he allowed the Prefect to hold office only for a year, so that no man might win a dangerous political importance."
  • "Yet the Roman nobility were now compelled to contribute more largely to the maintenance of the military forces which defended Italy. The greater part of the land belonged to them, and by the new settlement one-third of their estates was taken from the proprietors, and Odovacar's barbarian soldiers and their families were settled on them. It is not probable that the number of these soldiers exceeded 20,000 at the most, and it has been reasonably doubted whether this measure was actually carried out throughout the length and breadth of the peninsula. We may suspect that the needs of the army were satisfied without a drastic application of the principle of partition. If the illustrious landowners had been mulcted on a large scale, it is hardly credible that they would have co-operated with the king as loyally as they seem to have done."
  • "Soon after the government of Italy had passed into his hands, Odovacar's diplomacy achieved a solid success by inducing Gaiseric, who died in January, A.D. 477, to cede to him the island of Sicily. He undertook indeed to pay for it a yearly tribute, and the Vandal king reserved a foothold in the island, doubtless the western fortress of Lilybaeum. The death of Julius Nepos has been mentioned. He was murdered by two of his retainers in his country house near Salona in May, A.D. 480. Odovacar assumed the duty of pursuing and executing the assassins, and at the same time established his own rule in Dalmatia. The claims of Nepos, so long as he lived, had embarrassed the relations between Zeno and Odovacar; Zeno's acquiescence in Odovacar's position and the wishes of the Senate had been ambiguous and reserved. The death of Nepos relieved the situation, and there was no longer any difficulty at Constantinople about acknowledging the western consuls whom Odovacar chose. But the relations between the Emperor and his Master of Soldiers in Italy were always strained, and in A.D. 486 there was an open breach. Though Odovacar did not help the rebel Illus in his revolt, there were negotiations, and Zeno may have been suspicious and alarmed. Odovacar prepared an expedition into the Illyrian provinces, then pressed hard by the Ostrogoths, and Zeno averted it by instigating the Rugians to invade Italy. Odovacar anticipated their attack by marching through Noricum and surprising them in the winter season (end of A.D. 487) in their territory beyond the Danube. Their king Feletheus and his queen were taken to Italy and beheaded, and with the death of his son, against whom a second expedition was sent, the Rugian power was destroyed."
  • "Of the internal government we know little. The Church was unaffected by his rule;as an Arian he held aloof from ecclesiastical affairs. As to the working of the Roman administration under a German ruler, acting as an independent viceroy, and the limitations imposed on his power, we have abundant evidence regarding Odovacar's successor, Theoderic, and when we come to his reign the details will claim our attention."

• "We have seen that there had been friction between the Emperor and his Viceroy in Italy, and that Odovacar had thoroughly defeated the Rugians whom Zeno had stirred up against him. The thought now occurred to Zeno or his advisers that he might at once punish Odovacar and deliver the Illyrian provinces from the menacing presence of the Ostrogoths by giving Theoderic a commission to supersede the ruler of Italy. Theoderic accepted the charge. A compact was made that (in the words of the chronicler) "in case Odovacar were conquered, Theoderic should, as a reward of his labours, rule in place of Odovacar, until Zeno came himself." The last condition is simply a way of saying that Zeno reserved all the Imperial rights of sovranty."
  • "At the head of his people, numbering perhaps about 100,000, Theoderic set forth from Moesia in the autumn of A.D. 488. Following the direct road to Italy, past Viminacium and Singidunum, he approached Sirmium, and here he was confronted by a formidable obstacle. This town was in the possession of the Gepids, who now blocked Theoderic's path. The place was taken after fierce fighting, but the Goths passed on with their booty and the Gepids reoccupied it. The winter, spring, and summer of the following year were spent somewhere between Sirmium and the Italian borders, and the causes of this delay are unknown. It was not till the end of August (A.D. 489) that, having crossed the Julian Alps, the Ostrogoths reached the river Sontius (Isonzo) and the struggle for Italy began. Of this memorable war we have only the most meagre outline. The result was decided within twelve months, but three and a half years were to elapse before the last resistance of Odovacar was broken down and Theoderic was completely master of Italy."
  • "It was perhaps where the Sontius and the Frigidus meet that Theoderic found Odovacar in a carefully fortified camp, prepared to oppose his entry into Venetia. He had considerable forces, for besides his own army he had succeeded in enlisting foreign help. We are not told who his allies were; we can only guess that among them may have been the Burgundians, who, as we know, helped him at a later stage. The battle was fought on August 28; Odovacar was defeated and compelled to retreat. His next line of defence was on the Athesis (Adige), and he fortified himself in a camp close to Verona, with the river behind him.117 Here the second battle of the war was fought a month later (about Sept. 29) and resulted in a decisive victory for Theoderic. The carnage of Odovacar's men is said to have been immense; but they fought desperately and the Ostrogothic losses were severe; the river was fed with corpses. The king himself fled to Ravenna. The greater part of the army, with Tufa who held the highest command, surrendered to Theoderic, who immediately proceeded to Milan."
  • "Northern Italy was now at the feet of the Goth; Rome and Sicily were prepared to submit, and it looked as if nothing remained to complete the conquest but the capture of Ravenna. But the treachery of Tufa changed the situation. Theoderic imprudently trusted him, and sent him with his own troops and a few distinguished Ostrogoths against Odovacar. At Faventia (Faenza) he espoused again the cause of his old master and handed over to him the Goths, who were put in irons. Theoderic made Ticinum (Pavia) his headquarters during the winter, and it is said that one of his motives for choosing this city was to cultivate the friendship of the old bishop Epiphanius, who had great influence with Odovacar. In the following year Odovacar was able to take the field again, to seize Cremona and Milan, and to blockade his adversary in Ticinum. At this juncture the Visigoths came to the help of the Ostrogoths and sent an army into Italy. The siege was raised and the decisive battle of the war was fought on the river Addua (Adda), in which Odovacar was utterly defeated (Aug. 11, A.D. 490). He fled for the second time to Ravenna. It was probably this victory that decided the Roman Senate to abandon the cause of Odovacar, and accept Theoderic. It made him master of Rome, southern Italy, and Sicily."
  • "The agreement that Zeno made with Theoderic had been secret and unofficial. The Emperor did nothing directly to break off his relations with Odovacar. But Odovacar seems some time before the battle of the Addua to have courted a formal rupture. He created his son Thela a Caesar, and this was equivalent to denouncing his subordination to the Emperor and declaring Italy independent. He probably calculated that in the strained relations which then existed between the Italian Catholics and the East, on account of the ecclesiastical schism, the policy of cutting the rope which bound Italy to Constantinople would be welcomed at Rome and throughout the provinces. The senators may have been divided on this issue, but the battle of the Addua decided them as a body to "betray" Odovacar, and before the end of the year Festus, the princeps of the Senate, went to Constantinople to announce the success of Theoderic, and to arrange the conditions of the new Italian government."
  • "Theoderic confidently believed that his task was now virtually finished. But the cause of his thrice-defeated enemy was not yet hopelessly lost. Tufa was still at large with troops at his command; and other unexpected difficulties beset the conqueror. The Burgundian king Gundobad sent an army into North Italy and laid waste the country. Theoderic had not only to drive the invaders out, but he had also to protect Sicily against the Vandals, who seized the opportunity of the war to attempt to recover it. Their attempt was frustrated and they were forced to surrender the fortress of Lilybaeum as well as all their claims to the island. It seems to have been in the same year that Theoderic resorted to a terrible measure for destroying the military garrisons which held Italian towns for Odovacar. The Italian population was generally favourable to the cause of Theoderic, and secret orders were given to the citizens to slaughter the soldiers on a pre-arranged day. The pious panegyrist, who exultantly, but briefly, describes this measure and claims Providence as an accomplice, designates it as a sacrificial massacre";and Theoderic doubtless considered that the treachery of his enemy's army in surrendering and then deserting justified an unusual act of vengeance. The secret of the plot was well kept, and it seems to have been punctually executed. The result was equivalent to another victory in the field; and nothing now remained for Theoderic but to capture the last stronghold of his adversary, the marsh city of Honorius."
  • "The siege of Ravenna lasted for two years and a half. The Gothic forces entrenched themselves in a camp in the Pine-woods east of the city, but were not able entirely to prevent provisions from reaching the city by sea. Yet the blockade was not ineffective, for corn rose to a famine price. One attempt was made by Odovacar to disperse the besiegers. He made a sortie at night (July 10, A.D. 491) with a band of Herul warriors and attacked the Gothic trenches. The conflict was obstinate, but he was defeated. Another year wore on, and it appeared that the siege might last for ever unless the food of the garrison could be completely cut off. Theoderic managed to procure a fleet of warships — we are not told whether they were built for the occasion,— and, making the Portus Leonis, •about six miles from Ravenna, his naval base, he was able to blockade the two harbours of the city (August, A.D. 492). Odovacar held out for six months longer, but early in A.D. 493 negotiations, conducted by the bishop of Ravenna, issued in a compact between the two antagonists (February 25) that they should rule Italy jointly. Theoderic entered the city a week later (March 5). "
  • "The only way in which the compact could have been carried out would have been by a territorial division. But Theoderic had no mind to share the peninsula with another king, and there can hardly be a doubt that, when he swore to the treaty, he had the full intention of breaking his oath. Odovacar's days were numbered. Theoderic, a few days after his entry into Ravenna, slew him with his own hand in the palace of Lauretum (March 15). He alleged that his defeated rival was plotting against him, but this probably was a mere pretext. "On the same day," adds the chronicler, "all Odovacar's soldiers were slain wherever they could be found, and all his kin." In three years and a half Theoderic had accomplished his task. The reduction of Italy cost him four battles, a massacre, and a long siege. His capital blunder had been to trust Tufa after the victory of Verona. We may be sure that throughout the struggle he spared no pains to ingratiate himself in the confidence of the Italian population. But when his rival had fallen, and when he was at last securely established, Theoderic's first measure was to issue an edict depriving of their civil rights all those Italians who had not adhered to his cause. This harsh and stupid policy, however, was not carried out, for the bishop Epiphanius persuaded the king to revoke it and to promise that there would be no executions."
  • "Two more services would be rendered to his country by Epiphanius before his death. The war had a disastrous effect on Italian agriculture. Liguria had been devastated by the Burgundians; King Gundobad had carried thousands into captivity, and no husbandmen were left to till the soil and tend the vineyards. Theoderic was prepared to ransom the captives, and he charged Epiphanius with the office of persuading the Burgundian king to release them. The bishop, notwithstanding his infirm age, undertook the cold and difficult journey over the Alps in March (A.D. 494), and was received by Gundobad at Lyons. To the arguments and prayers of the envoy, Gundobad, who was an excellent speaker, replied with the frank and cynical assertion that war permits and justifies everything which is unlawful in peace. "War ignores the bridle of moderation which you, as a Christian luminary, teach. It is a fixed principle with belligerents that whatever is not lawful is lawful when they are fighting. The object of war is to cut up your opponent's strength at the roots." He went on to say that a peace had now been concluded — it had been sealed by the betrothal of a day of Theoderic to Gundobad's son Sigismund,— and that if the bishop and his companions would return to their homes he would consider what it were best to do in the interests of his soul and his kingdom. Epiphanius had gained his cause. Gundobad set free all prisoners who were in his own hands, without charge, and those who were the slaves of private persons were ransomed. More than six thousand were restored to Italy. The last public act of Epiphanius was to induce Theoderic to grant a reduction of the taxation of Liguria. "The wealth," he urged, " of a landed proprietor is the wealth of a good ruler." Theoderic remitted two-thirds of the taxes for A.D. 497. Epiphanius caught a chill in the cold marsh air of Ravenna and died on his return home. He had played a considerable and beneficent part in Italian politics for nearly thirty years." Dimadick (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Chapter 13:

• "The rule of the Patrician Theoderic in Italy, if we date it from the battle of the Adda in A.D. 490, lasted thirty-six years. In its general constitutional and administrative principles it was a continuation of the rule of Odovacar. One of the first things Theoderic had to do was to settle his own people in the land, and this settlement was exactly similar to that which had been carried out by his predecessor. The Ostrogoths for the most part replaced Odovacar's Germans, who had been largely killed or driven out, though some of them who had submitted were permitted to retain their lands. The general principle was the assignment of one-third of the Roman estates to the Goths; but the commission which carried out the division was under the presidency of a senator, Liberius, so that we may be sure the senatorial domains were spared so far as possible." "A different view is maintained by Dumoulin (C. Med. H. I.447). He thinks that the lands assigned to the Germans both by Odovacar and by Theoderic were one-third of the State lands (ager publicus). It may be doubted whether the number of the Ostrogothic army exceeded 25,000. Hodgkin (III.202) puts it at 40,000, and the number of the whole nation at 200,000. This figure seems too high."
  • "We saw that Theoderic, after his victory in 490, sent Flavius Festus, the chief of the Roman Senate, as an ambassador to Zeno (above, p224). While Festus was still at Constantinople, Anastasius succeeded and refused to recognise Theoderic. A second embassy was sent in 492, led by another distinguished senator, Flavius Anicius Probus Faustus Niger (CIL VI.32,195), consul in 490, whom Theoderic had appointed Master of Offices. The result of the negotiations of Faustus was a partial recognition, as was shown by the fact that Anastasius permitted two western consuls to be nominated in 494. But Anastasius suspected Theoderic's intentions, and there was a breach. Faustus returned to Italy in 494. Then at the end of 496 (after the death of Pope Gelasius and the election of Anastasius II) Festus was again sent, and succeeded in concluding the definite arrangement of 497. The whole course of these negotiations has been ably examined by Sundwall (Abh. 190 sqq.), who makes it probable that they were closely affected by the ecclesiastical schism, and that the Synod of Rome held in May 495 by Gelasius and the intransigent attitude of the Italian bishops made it difficult for Anastasius to come to terms with the Senate, as the Senate itself was divided on the ecclesiastical question. That Theoderic depended mainly on the support of the Senate for regularising his position comes out very clearly in these transactions."
  • "For six years the Emperor Anastasius hesitated to define his attitude to Theoderic,but Theoderic carefully refrained from taking any measures that were incompatible with the position of a viceroy or that would render subsequent recognition difficult. At length they came to terms (A.D. 497), and a definite arrangement was made which determined the position of Italy and the status of the Ostrogothic kingdom. Theoderic still held the office of Master of Soldiers which Zeno had conferred upon him. Anastasius confirmed him in this office and recognised him as Governor of Italy under certain conditions, which in their general scope must have corresponded to the arrangement which Zeno had made with Odovacar. These conditions determined the constitutional position of Theoderic. Under this arrangement Italy remained part of the Empire, and was regarded as such officially both a Rome and at Constantinople. In one sense Theoderic was an independent ruler, but there were a number of limitations to his power, which implied the sovranty of the Emperor and which he loyally observed."
  • "The position of the Ostrogothic king as a deputy comes out in the fact that he never used the years of his reign for the purpose of dating official documents. It comes out in the fact that he did not claim the right of coining money except in subordination to the Emperor. Under Theoderic, and under Odovacar before him, gold coins minted at Ravenna and Rome bore the name and types of the contemporary Emperors. Odovacar struck silver and bronze coins with his own name and portrait (the thick moustache is realistic). Theoderic's silver coins have the Emperor's bust on the obverse and his own monogram on the reverse. The bronze have the Imperial bust on the obverse. The only known coin on which Theoderic's bust appears is a large triple solidus, obviously struck for some particular occasion. Only one specimen is extant. It has been supposed that the bust, which is almost a half-length figure, was copied from an actual statue or mosaic picture of Theoderic. We know that such figures existed. See Wroth, Catalogue of the Coins of the Vandals, etc. xxxi‑xxxii. Theoderic's coinage is "singularly neat and even elegant" (ib.)."
  • "It comes out, above all, in the fact that he did not make laws.110 To make laws, leges in the full sense of the term, was reserved as the supreme prerogative of the Emperor. Ordinances of Theoderic exist, but they are not leges, they are only edicta; and various high officials, especially the Praetorian Prefect, could issue an edictum. Nor was this difference between law and edict, in Theoderic's case, a mere difference in name. Theoderic did promulgate general edicts, that is, laws which did not apply only to special cases, but were of a general kind permanently valid, and which if they had been enacted by the Emperor would have been called laws. But the Praetorian Prefect had the right of issuing a general edict, provided it did not run counter to any existing law. This meant that he could modify existing laws in particular points, whether in the direction of mildness or of severity, but could not originate any new principle or institution. The ordinances of Theoderic, which are collected in his code known as the Edictum Theoderici, exhibit conformity to this rule. They introduce no novelties, they alter no established principle. We are told that, when Theoderic first appeared in Rome, he addressed the people and promised that he would preserve inviolate all the ordinances of the Emperors in the past. Thus in legislation, Theoderic is neither nominally nor actually co-ordinate with the ever. His powers in this department are those of a high official, and though he employed them to a greater extent than any Praetorian Prefect could have done, on account of the circumstances of the case, yet his edicts are qualitatively on the same footing."
  • "The right of naming one of the consuls of the year, which had belonged to Emperor reigning in the West, was transferred by the Emperors Zeno and Anastasius to Odovacar and Theoderic. From A.D. 498 Theoderic nominated one of the consuls. On one occasion (A.D. 522) the Emperor Justin waived his own nomination and allowed Theoderic to name both consuls — Symmachus and Boethius. But in exercising this right the Ostrogothic king was bound by one restriction. He could not nominate a Goth; only a Roman could fill the consulship. The single exception corroborates the existence of the rule. In A.D. 519 Eutharic, the king's son-in‑law, was consul. But it is expressly recorded that the nomination was not made by Theoderic; it was made by the Emperor, as a special favour."
  • "The capitulation which excluded Goths from the consulship extended also to all the civil offices, which were maintained under Ostrogothic rule, as under that of Odovacar." "It is to be noted that in most of his appointments to important offices Theoderic communicated his intentions to, or consulted with, the Senate." "There was still the Praetorian Prefect of Italy, and when Theoderic acquired Provence, the office of Praetorian Prefect of Gaul was revived. There was the Vicarius of Rome; there were all the provincial governors, divided as before into the three ranks of consulars, correctors, and praesides. There was the Master of Offices. There were the two great finance ministries." "A comes patrimonii was instituted, Odovacar's vicedominus (see above, p409) under another name. Goths were eligible for this post."

"There was the Quaestorship of the Palace." "All the officia or staffs of subordinate officials were maintained. In the State documents of Cassiodorus, officium nostrum means the staff of the Master of Offices. Both this minister and the Praetorian Prefect resided at Ravenna, but had representatives at Rome who, like themselves, were illustres." "It may be added that Goths were also excluded from the honorary dignity of Patricius. Under Theoderic no Goth bore that title but Theoderic himself, who had received it from the Emperor."

• • "The Roman Senate, to which Goths on the same principle could not belong, continued to meet and to perform much the same functions which it had performed throughout the fifth century. It was formally recognised by Theoderic as possessing an authority similar to his own".
  • "If all the civil offices were reserved for the Romans, in the case of military posts it was exactly the reverse. Here it was the Romans who were excluded. The army was entirely Gothic; no Roman was liable to military service; and the officers were naturally Goths." "The chief officers were called priors or counts." "Theoderic was the commander of the army, as Master of Soldiers, for, though he did not designate himself by the title, he had retained the office, and no Master of Soldiers was appointed, subordinate to himself." "Mommsen has illustrated this point by certain measures taken after Theoderic's death. His successor, Athalaric, was out of the question as commander of the forces, and the regent Amalasuntha appointed Tuluin, a Gothic warrior, and Liberius, a Roman, who was Praet. Prefect of Gaul, to be patricii praesentales. This involved two deviations from rule. Tuluin as a Goth was debarred from the dignity of patrician, and Liberius, as a Roman, from a military command. The office was simply that of mag. mil.; the moderation of the title illustrates the fact that the Mastership of Soldiers had become closely associated with the kingship through its long tenure by Theoderic. But I question whether Mommsen is right in assuming that Theoderic simply continued throughout his reign to hold the Mastership conferred on him by Zeno in 483. I conjecture that Zeno had appointed him mag. utriusque militiae in Italy before he set out (cp. above, p422), and that this was confirmed by Anastasius." "Though the old Roman troops and their organisation disappeared, it has been shown that the military arrangements were based in many respects on practices which had existed in Italy under Imperial rule."
  • "The various disabilities of the Ostrogoths which have been described depended on the fact that they were not Roman citizens. They, like the Germans settled by Odovacar, had legally the same status as mercenaries or foreign travellers or hostages who dwelled in Roman territory, but might at any time return to their homes beyond the Roman frontier. The laws which applied only to Roman citizens, for instance those relating to marriage and inheritance, did not apply to them. But what may be called the ius commune, laws pertaining to criminal matters and to the general intercourse of life, applied to all foreigners who happened to be sojourning in Roman territory; and thus the Edict of Theoderic, which is based on Roman law, is addressed to Goths and Romans alike. The status of the Goths reminds us of a fundamental restriction of Theoderic's power. He could not turn a Goth into a Roman; he could not confer Roman citizenship; that power was reserved to the Emperor."
  • "Their quality, as foreign soldiers, determined the character of the courts in which the Ostrogoths were judged. The Roman rule was that the soldier must be tried by a military court, and military courts were instituted for the Goths. But here Theoderic interfered in a serious way with the rights of the Italians. All processes between Romans and Goths, to whichever race the accuser belonged, were brought before these military courts. A Roman lawyer was always present as an assessor, but probably no feature of the Gothic government was so unpopular as this. Like the Emperor, Theoderic had a supreme royal court, which could withdraw any case from a lower court or cancel its decision, and this tribunal seems to have been more active than the corresponding court of the Emperor. It is indeed in the domain of justice, in contrast with the domain of legislation, that the German kings in Italy sharply asserted their actual authority." Dimadick (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Dimadick. I will always respect the work and books of the late John Bagnall Bury (who simply knew much more about the Roman Empire, the Western Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire than I will ever know - I'm just a simple amateur) but Encyclopedia Britannica's official website shows alltoo clearly what current academia and current historians think upon this mater: Roman Empire, ancient state, [27 bc-476 ad]. Don't take my word for it, you can check it at: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/507739/ . Notice also above that I have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that several recently published books written by widely respected historians regard 476 either as the end date of the Roman Empire, or alternatively as the end date of the Western Roman Empire. Either way this date belongs in the article, and especially in the template.

I have checked that source, and the Britannica Online Encyclopedia does indeed plainly state the Roman Empire to have been "an ancient state, [27 BC - 476 AD"]. That is a valid, argument-ending citation.
Goremite (+/- your various sockpuppets), you can insult and accuse all you want, but you do not have a leg to stand on: the date stays.
Wikiscient 22:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I do know that the issue ("When did the Roman empire end?") is widely a matter of interpretation. The teaching and knowledge of History is, as almost everything in human sciences, surely debatable and indeed sometimes slowly changes with the passing of time and new discoveries. But Wikipedia is not about the search for the truth, and its articles should and are supposed to reflect our knowledge of history as it is currently taught by historians and teachers. Some might argue that it is a largely 'Western historians POV' and I will only reply that in our 'Western influenced world' it is the de facto 'World-accepted POV'. I'm still willing to accept 476 - end of the Western Roman Empire - at the side of 1453 - end of the Byzantine Empire. I'm not willing to bow down before sock puppets and POV pushers (this last remark is not mean against Dimadick who AFAIK is serious contributor). Flamarande (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We could still use "(476 /) 1453" if we change the historical event to "(Deposition of Romulus Augustus /) Fall of Constantinople", at least if you or the pro-"only 1453" users (or anyone else) won't decide to attack it. (As I said before, I'm only trying to find a way to end this conflict.) Cody7777777 (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dimadick, thank you for the passages. Cody7777777 (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it is either '476 / 1453' or solely '476'. One of the two, and not your version. I'm being more than fair in this matter: "Roman Empire, ancient state, [27 bc-476 ad]". Flamarande (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The infobox should refer to the entire history of the "Roman Empire" and since the information in the article ends anyway around 395 AD, I can't really understand why you are so much against "(476 /) 1453", the Encyclopedia Britannica is not the only source on Earth (and I'm convinced you know that, and that's also mainly a pro-western source, and it can be argued that it is biased). Also, current scholarship, while does not seem to care about the opinions of the ancient people (and in my opinion it is simply "ridiculous" to study history, without "caring" about the opinions of these people, but maybe I don't understand something), current scholars still "care" about J. B. Bury, (it could also be argued that those new authors don't have yet the same experience as older ones and not all "modern historians" agree that 476 is a good convention, in the same book which you mentioned "Rome and her enemies", the author's shows the "Late Roman Empire" between 235-500). I have no other proposal left (at least not now), I wish you and the other users, Good Luck in solving this conflict. Cody7777777 (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't you worry, I'm getting there and I don't need any "luck" when I have evidence (like books and official websites of widely trusted encyclopaedias - who are certainly not infallible) at my side. Let me quote Brando130: "Funny how it seems like everyone wanting to introduce what would amount to original research on Wiki always comes and rails against the trends in scholarship." I believe that Brando really hit the nail with the hammer (is that the correct expression? I'm not a native English speaker)

Sir, you are exactly guilty of this kind of behaviour. Let me sumarize your post above in a clear manner: "Encyclopedia Britannica is a mainly a pro-western source and it can be argued that it is biased. Current scholarship, does not seem to care about the opinions of the ancient people and in my opinion it is simply "ridiculous" to study history, without "caring" about the opinions of these people..."

Sir, you have failed to provide a single credible source at all (you borrowed the one provided by Dimadick - I have no doubts that you would have failed to do so on your own) but we and Wikipedia in general are supposed to accept your personal view in this matter because you believe that you are right, but have been completely unable to prove so. You claim that: "I'm only trying to find a way to end this conflict." but you are unwilling to accept a more than reasonable compromise that was previously accepted by several users: 476 / 1453. Sir, you will have to forgive my honesty but you are a POV pusher and more than guilty of Original Research. Basicly you believe that you are right and it is reality and current modern academia: "Roman Empire, ancient state, [27 bc-476 ad]", especially modern historians of western cultural background, who are wrong, ridiculous, and biased. I close my case and I thank you for providing me with the undeniable evidence that I needed. I also thank you for your honesty and I do hope that you read some of the books that I mentioned above. Who knows? You just might learn something. I certainly will try to read some of the books (or webpages) of John Bagnall Bury when I'm able to do so. C U around. Flamarande (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't like to speak this way, but do you know what? I think you should tell me a historian who would claim, that the Roman Empire was entirely gone after 476, the fact that is a "convention" is something else (which is not seen well by many historians anyway, your own book proves it). The one claiming that "current scholarship" does not care too much about the opinions of ancient people is you (you can check your previous posts), also I specified in my opinion, it is "ridiculous" (and no one can deny my right to have this opinion regardless if they like it or not), I did not pretended everyone should consider it "ridiculous", and I have also said "but maybe I don't understand something", this means I don't claim that I am right, and you cannot prove something by "changing my words"), in this discussion I mentioned about J. B. Bury when you asked about sources, and I shown the following passage: "The diminished Roman Empire, now centering entirely in Constantinople, lasted for a thousand years, surrounded by enemies and frequently engaged in a struggle for life or death, but for the greater part of that long period the most powerful State in Europe...", then Dimadick showed more passages (and I thank him for it, also every user (not just me) can show passages), and that alone is enough (I don't need to waste my time to search some "new author" with his opinions, because of the simple fact that YOU don't consider his opinions to be part of "current scholarship". To me it seems clear that your only argument to keep "476 AD" there, is an "excuse" that some modern historians like this convention. There were enough arguments to justify "(476/)1453" as a reasonable compromise. If you don't believe, then reread the posts supporting it and if there is something false there, I would really want to be informed. Also, J. B. Bury was an "western modern historian", at this web page http://romanity.org/ , you can find the works of some "eastern modern historians" who claim some things very differently (although I don't agree with all of their opinions). Well then, just fight your "edit wars" with the pro-"only 1453", I have lost enough time already in these debates. And one more thing, you don't need to call me "Sir" (if you feel insulted by this post, I'm sorry, but you wanted it this way). Cody7777777 (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(The expression in English is: "to hit the nail on the head"). And, yes, I agree! ;) Wikiscient 23:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"The events of A.D. 476 have been habitually designated as the "Fall of the Western Empire." The phrase is inaccurate and unfortunate, and sets the changes which befell in a false light. No Empire fell in A.D. 476; there was no "West Empire" to fall. There was only one Roman Empire, which sometimes was governed by two or more Augusti. If it is replied that expression is merely a convenient one to signify what contemporary writers sometimes called the Hesperian realm (Hesperium regnum), the provinces which had been, since the death of Theodosius I, generally under the separate government of an Emperor residing in Italy, and that all that is meant is the termination of this line of western Emperors, it may be pointed out that A.D. 480 is in that case the significant date. For Julius Nepos, who died in that year, was the last legitimate Emperor in the West; Romulus Augustulus was only a usurper. The important point to seize is that, from the constitutional point of view, Odovacar was the successor of Ricimer, and that the situation created by the events of A.D. 476 was in this respect similar to the situation in the intervals between the reigns of the Emperors set up by Ricimer. If, on the death of Honorius, there had been no Valentinian to succeed him, and if Theodosius II had exercised the sovranty over the western provinces, and if no second Augustus had been created again before the western provinces had passed under the sway of Teutonic rulers, no one would have spoken of the "Fall of the Western Empire." Yet this hypothetical case would be formally the same as the actual event of A.D. 476 or rather of A.D. 480. The West came finally, as it had more than once temporarily, under the sole sovranty of the Emperor reigning at East Rome."

Flamandrito and his anon must have been spinning in agony when they saw that. I hope he will now take his comic books and edit somewhere else. Maybe you could go to the Kingdom of England article and argue the England kingdom fell when Edward II was deposed. Haha. I joke. Nice that this seems to have ended now. We can get rid of the dumb 476 date now? Goremite (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

An illustrative quote but imho it nevertheless creates a somewhat false impression, because it deliberately mixes the time before before AD 395 (from diocletian to this point "as it had more than once temporarily" is true) and after AD395 (from this point on "as it had more than once temporarily" is false). Also one needs to distinguish legal claims (east seeing itself as successor/heir of the west) and realities on the ground (the west was ruled by somebody else). If there are different views by historians on the subject, wikipedia may mention them all, however if it picks one or mainly focuses on one it has to go with the mainstream version.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It is true, that between 395 AD and the time of Justinian I, the Roman Emperor from Constantinople, didn't held direct control over the western parts. However, after 476/480 there was an indirect control, as most of the germanic rulers recognized him as the only Roman Emperor, such as the germanic rulers of Roman Italy, or the King of the Franks Clovis, (as far as I know, until Charlemagne made his own rival "Roman Empire", no one in the west contested the emperor from Constantinople). The main problem with the 476 end date is, that the end of the Western Roman Empire (in case we consider it a separate state), didn't meant the end of the (entire) Roman Empire. That's why I believe "(476 /) 1453" would make more sense. In my opinion, it would be better, if a new article called "Ancient Roman Empire" would be made, and that article could have 476 AD as an end date (and it would focus mainly on the empire's ancient period), then the Roman Empire article, which could have as an end date "1453" or "(476 /) 1453", would offer more general informations about the empire's entire periods, and provide links to the more specialized articles "Ancient Roman Empire" and Eastern Roman Empire. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually my comment was not really concerning the 476/1453 (or even 7th century) issue for end dates. I can live with all 3 and for all 3 there a valid arguments you can in literature. I was only arguing against the notion, thast there was no such thing as the western empire, that seemed to be put forward there as well and which i consider as incorrect for the reasons pointed out above. As far the end dates are concerned, as i said any solution is fine with me, as long as the historical significance of meaning of all 3 numbers is properly explained in the article, which imho is the really important thing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a valid and interesting perspective, and this point should most certainly be made clear (with proper citation) in the article, Goremite.
Who needs to spin in agony about it, though? The "dumb" 476 date stays (see above). Why make this such a bitter personal dispute? There is no need for that.
Wikiscient 22:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncivility will lead you nowhere, I'm way too old and too wise for that. You have a single source (which you did not provide) written in 1923 by John Bagnall Bury, certainly a widely respected historian. I have provided several published books written much more recently by widely respected historians.

'Rome and her enemies' ISBN 978-1-84603-336-0 by Tom Holland written in 2005, page 13 "Twenty-five years later, and the Empire itself, in the West at any rate, was over." (meaning 476). 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' ISBN 1-89880-048-0 by Michael Grant written in 1990, page 22 "And so, looking back, Byzantine historians of the sixth century canonized this year 476 as the epoch-making final moment of the long decline and fall. The Byzantine Emperor Justin I, ..., recognized the German kingdom of italy under Theodoric the Ostrogoth, ..., so that by that time 476, in retrospect, already seemed to represent something more than a purely temporary phenomenon. Scholars of the Italian Renaissance, and of later times, agreed that it was a major turning point." 'The complete Roman Army' ISBN 0-500-05124-0 by Adrian Goldsworthy written in 2003, page 7 "The western Empire eventually collapsed in the 5th century AD, but the eastern Empire ... endured,...".

I also have provided Encyclopedia Britannica's official website which shows very clearly what current academia and current historians think upon this mater: Roman Empire, ancient state, [27 bc-476 ad]. You can check it at: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/507739/ . I think that all these sources prove beyond any reasonable doubt that historians regard 476 either as the end date of the Roman Empire, or alternatively as the end date of the Western Roman Empire. Logic and objectivity tells us that both dates (476 and 1453) should be in the Infobox of this article. Do you want to challenge that or will you concede the issue (i.e.: both 476 and 1543 in the template) ? Simple question, but answer wisely: yes or no? Flamarande (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's incivility, not uncivility. The difference between you and me is that while I am actually a historian who already knows what historians say and think, you are someone who misunderstands and/or misrepresents the literature. History is not law, but you are free to search something along the lines of <1453 end of Roman Empire> on google books and scholar. Saying the Roman Empire ended in 476, which none of those "sources" actually say (you should reread them more carefully), would be no less idiotic said by a published writer (historian or not) than by an wikipedian enthusiast. In answer to your question, no, 476 is not in any way the end of the Roman Empire. It is quite unbelievably ridiculous to present that date like that. The Western Empire is a separate article and is not synonymous with Roman Empire. But for all the pseudo-history on this page, I see little discussion of other problems. Roman Empire is being succeeded by the Western and Eastern Empires, which is of course not very sensible, no more sensible with 476 as an end date than 1453. After all, it can't really be succeeded by states that allegedly ceased to exist the same year the Roman Empire allegedly ceased to exist (same in each case). Better would be Franks, Visigoths, Arabs, Bulgars, Ottomans, etc (you get the picture). Goremite (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for improving my knowledge of the English language, and I will ask again just for clarity's sake. Will you concede to accept in having both dates: 476 at the side of 1453 in the information template? This compromise was established before the recent edit wars, and IMHO is fair for all sides. In fact it might even strain the "No original research" policy endorsed by Wikipidia in favour of 1453. Or do you itend to deny that the Britannica Online Encyclopedia clearly states that the Roman Empire was "an ancient state, [27 BC - 476 AD"? I will add that Encyclopedia Britannica (which certainly is not infallible) is widely respected and, unlike Wikipedia, written and reviewed by professionals. I believe that the other sources that I provided ('Rome and her enemies' ISBN 978-1-84603-336-0 by Tom Holland written in 2005, page 13 "Twenty-five years later, and the Empire itself, in the West at any rate, was over." (meaning 476). 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' ISBN 1-89880-048-0 by Michael Grant written in 1990, page 22 "And so, looking back, Byzantine historians of the sixth century canonized this year 476 as the epoch-making final moment of the long decline and fall. The Byzantine Emperor Justin I, ..., recognized the German kingdom of Italy under Theodoric the Ostrogoth, ..., so that by that time 476, in retrospect, already seemed to represent something more than a purely temporary phenomenon. Scholars of the Italian Renaissance, and of later times, agreed that it was a major turning point." 'The complete Roman Army' ISBN 0-500-05124-0 by Adrian Goldsworthy written in 2003, page 7 "The western Empire eventually collapsed in the 5th century AD, but the eastern Empire ... endured,...".) clearly shows that the date of 476 has a tremendous importance, and thus needs to be at the side of 1453. I'm also asking you again because you haven't answered (something which you tend to do very quickly indeed) to the recent posts added by Wikiscient and he might have convinced you because of his arguments. In the case that you don't answer in 24 hours I will conclude that you will not dispute the issue any further and I will fell myself free to re-add the date of 476 to the information template. Flamarande (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intended to continue this debate (and I am amazed too, that Goremite remained indeed "inactive"), but since no one else has done this yet, I have to clarify (and it's only fair to do so), that the Encyclopedia Britannica does not so clearly state that 476 marks the end of the (entire) Roman Empire, please check the following http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/87186/Byzantine-Empire , here you will find that: "the eastern half of the Roman Empire, which survived for a thousand years after the western half had crumbled into various feudal kingdoms and which finally fell to Ottoman Turkish onslaughts in 1453." This clearly shows that the authors of "Britannica" are aware that "476" does not mark the end of the Roman Empire, (and that "infobox" should refer to the entire history of the Roman Empire, not just to parts of it). This seems to form some sort of contradiction with the article you shown, and this means that "Britannica" also agrees that 476 is contested and uncertain (so if we show both dates, it should be shown as "(476 /) 1453" to reflect this, and I know you won't like this too much Flamarande, but it is not my fault, that the authors of "Britannica" decided to include this contradiction in their works.). But, we still need to see what Goremite thinks of this (I also believe that Goremite has indeed shown enough sources to justify "1453" (although the works, of J. B. Bury were enough), you can check the following (if you hadn't done so yet) http://books.google.com/books?q=%3C1453+end+of+Roman+Empire%3E&btnG=Search+Books ). (And one more thing, I realize it is off-topic, and I expect some people will find this strange, but I trust "Wikipedia" more than "Britannica".) Cody7777777 (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Cody, your references clearly show that the Byzantine Empire is considered to have ended in 1453. That's fine. No one is disputing that. And it also seems clear that "Byzantine empire" is just the commonly-used name for "the eastern half of the Roman Empire" -- that, too, is fine and is not now in dispute. What has been in dispute is whether or not this page should mention the commonly-held view (in the West) that the Roman Empire came to an end on or around 476 C.E. I have added to the page the valid reference from a reputable source, suggested by Flamarande above, which satisfies all of the relevant standards and policies sufficiently well to make deletion of that date from this page an unambiguous act of vandalism, and makes further debate here about including that date on this page entirely gratuitous. It has a valid citation. You can have a different opinion about when the Roman Empire ended if you like -- you can even believe that it never ended, or that it never existed, or that it was called "The Martian Empire," whatever you prefer. Goremite can too. If you have a valid reference, put it in the article. But 476 stays in the infobox. End of story, and have a nice day. Wikiscient 13:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

476 makes no sense as a end date for the Roman Empire. It did not end in that date nor on anything like that date. It is not really that much of an important date in the long decline and fall of the empire. This has already been pointed out many times, but it seems to fly over the heads here, so will not repeat it. Twisting a citation of a peripheral source like Britanica for ipse dixit while bashing Bury seems to be the height of argumentative standards, so basically it comes down to edit power. Good luck to you Cody. Goremite (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This was already said, but it seems that you and Goremite, force me to do some clarifications once again. This dispute is, if "476" marks the end of the (entire) Roman Empire (and the topics of this discussion, prove that the dispute will not end as long as "476 / 1453" is there). The contradiction shown above, makes the reference shown, invalid to justify "476" as the end of the Roman Empire. Of course, it shows that "476" is a convention (and a temporary end of direct roman rule over the western parts). But, the contradiction also shows that it is a contested and uncertain convention, which causes confusion about the true end date of the Roman Empire. So, (if it is shown), it should be shown as "(476 /) 1453" (and the historical event changed to "(Deposition of Romulus Augustus /) Fall of Constantinople" ) to reflect this, ("it might even strain the "No original research" policy endorsed by Wikipidia in favour of" 476). (I would also like to add that, there should not be compromises with the Truth, (because true + false = false), but compromises are made to not upset people.) I believe there was said enough to "close this case" (and to apply the needed changes). "End of story", and have a nice day (actually, not just one) all of you. (I'm sorry if there are people who are unhappy about this, but the sources have shown this, so it is verifiable.) Cody7777777 (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the solution showing both numbers (possibly 1 in brackets) is ok. After browsing through the discussion I'd like to point out one aspect that might have been lost in some of the argument. It is important to note that "Roman Empire" is not the real name of the actual state (though it could be read as a translation of the the name), but it is (also) a retrospective term used by english speaking people/historians. The question here then is, what period are they usually referring to, if they talk about the "Roman Empire".--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know, the official name of the state in the first centuries AD, was still "Roman Republic" (I'm not sure when they changed that name). The emperor was some sort of "dictator for life" and considered himself the ruler of the "Roman Republic". However, after 284, with Diocletian, the emperor became officially an "autocratic monarch", also after this date, the terms "Romania" and "Roman Empire", became more popular. The official name of the empire during most of its time (I'm refering mainly to the times after Diocletian and Constantine), was "Empire of the Romans" (and as far as I know, "modern historians" don't deny this). However, Octavian Augustus is considered the first Roman Emperor and the founder of the empire by most historians, since he is the one who started the long list of the emperors, and although he was not considered an "autocratic monarch" he acted like one. I think it was shown in this (long) discussion that "modern historians" don't believe that the Roman Empire was entirely gone after 476 AD, (however there are historians who don't believe that "1453" is good, because they usually consider that the empire became transformed in the 7th-8th centuries, although there were some transformations earlier as well). (In my opinion, the empire suffered most of its transformations in the 3rd century, because before that century, "Rome was a great city with a large empire", after that century (following the extended citizenship by Caracalla in 212, and the reforms of Diocletian and Constantine) the empire became "Romania, a large empire, with many great cities (Rome, New Rome (Constantinople), Mediolanum, Nicomedia, Alexandria, Antioch, Trier)", and it should be also noted that, the terms "Greek/Byzantine Empire", were invented in the past to legitimate the "Holy Roman Empire", so they have "roots" in political conflicts.) I believe that "476 AD" as an end date for the Roman Empire was introduced by the scholars of the Italian Renaissance (and I believe they were biased because they considered the Romans from Italy to be more Romans than those from other provinces). I'm not saying that the event of 476 is not important, and the article should of course mention it, but it doesn't represent the end of the (entire) Roman Empire, it can represent only the end of the "Western Roman Empire" or of the "Ancient Roman Empire" (and since the name of this article is "Roman Empire", that infobox should refer to entire history of the empire, that's why I believe a new article called "Ancient Roman Empire" might help end these debates). It is true that (at least in the west) "common people" (I don't really like to use this term, since I don't consider other people more "uncommon", but it seems I have no choice) usually use the term "Roman Empire" to refer to the ancient periods (including the "Roman Republic"), but Wikipedia should show historic facts and what historians believe (and since "476" as an end date is contested, I believe "(476 /) 1453" shows this situation better). (I would also like to add, that the english wikipedia is more international, because of the influence of the english language, and many of the editors here are of different origins). Cody7777777 (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok just a short answer, though i disagree with parts of your description, I do agree with your conclusion, which is using in the infobox (476 /) 1453. Btw another way to see it, is that 476 and 1453 are simply stating the end of western and eastern roman empire (i.e. the 2 states that grew out of the original roman empire). Btw i don't think anybody claimed the (entire) roman empire ended in 476, that was would be a rather nonsensical position anyhow. Also there is no argument about the historic facts either, but the argument is about translations/later assigned technical terms by historians (such as roman empire,byzantine empire,tetrachie,soldier emperors, late antiquity, etc.). All these are not historical facts, but technical terms devised by historians, the facts are the the original latin/greek terms the people used to describe the empire at the time, i.e. things like imperium romanum,res publica (romana), etc.). And strictly speaking this article/lemma is about the english term "roman empire" (whatever that might comprise) and not necessarily about the "imperium romanum" (otherwise the lemma name has to be imperium romanum). Finally I#d like to emphasize what I've mentioned earlier. The exact date in the infobox is imho a minor issue anyhow, the really important thing is, that all the various dates and their significance are properly described in the article(i.e. what signficant change occured in 31/27bc,in 212 CE, in 235 CE, in 284 CE, in 476/480 CE, 7th century CE, 1453 CE).--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you solve a problem like Maria?

I wonder if the user Titus001 knew what kind of response he would solicit when he asked us all "What, if anything, is a Byzantine?" - His post set off the very long and drawn out chain of events here. The infobox originally didn't have 1453 as a date at all, and there were some besides myself who felt that this kept the article in conformity with most English presentations of the "Roman Empire" (i.e. talking about the Classical state, with a separate article for the Byzantine period) Leaving both dates in the infobox, however, was the compromise that ended an edit war that had led to the page's protection the first time..

The most recent edit war was far less reasonable, in my opinion, as it is done with not only no consensus, but really in lone-gunman fashion, as many of those arguing for a 1453 date in the infobox also agreed to a compromised version giving both dates.

The discussion here had gotten so philosophical, I'm glad to see its making somewhat of a turn back into a discussion of the sources. My own view is that of User:Dimboukas, who wrote back in Feb. that "The article is not constructed for an end after 476. So there is no reason for anyone to change the date."

By the way I love Gore's quote "The difference between you and me is that while I am actually a historian who already knows what historians say and think, you are someone who misunderstands and/or misrepresents the literature." - Now how many wiki disputes could that apply to? Innumerable, I'm sure. Brando130 (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that scholars, and also historians, also have debates about their subjects that sometimes really turn vicious. The big diff is that they are unable to revert each others work and that when someone begins to go personal he is usually shunned by his peers. I truly believe that this recent debate was exhausting (and for all intents and purposes it is hopefully over). ~~

You can solve the problem by relinquishing your biases. I can't say I am surprised at the western bias that sees the HRE as a legitimate heir to the WRE while dismissing the Eastern Roman Empire as one. The descendants of the people who almost destroyed the Roman Empire now have the gall to deny the romanity of the people who preserved it. Who's next? I shouldn't be surprised if the Turks make a claim on Romanity as well. Oh wait they 've allready done that. (Mehmet II signed his first letter to the Franks as Αμιράς Τουρκορωμαίων). Pathetic.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I should "relinquish my biases"? I have proper sources of proper historians. There is nothing more to say about this. Flamarande (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Pathetic. Like I said. Not to you btw. Which goes to show.--Xenovatis (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Reform

On a personal note I will add that all of this has utterly convinced me that this article needs to be reformed from top to bottom (and sooner than later). I hope that all of you agree that it is presently a huge clumsy beast (in other words: a big *ucking mess). Instead of being about the empire this article is truly about its history and very little else. IMHO we should turn this article into something more similar as the other present states-articles (France, Germany, etc). Several subjects (history, languages, economy, military, slavery, borders, politics, citizenship, culture, foreign relations, enemies, etc) will be summarily described in a short fashion and then provide links to specialized sub-articles (as in the present-day country-articles) which can go much further into detail. This article is simply too large already. Some of the sub-articles already exist. Others will have to created (I plan to create them mostly by transferring the overflow towards it).

I truly wanted to end the work at "Reconquista" first, but I changed my mind. I'm going to do it, and alone if I have to (I like to work mostly alone, to follow a single logic and order in an article guarantees consistency in form, style, and logic). Everybody can contribute but to be very honest I'm not demanding your help or expecting it at all. All of us older users let this article slowly degrade. I plan to do it in short small steps which will take plenty of time - months (with plenty of breaks: I don't want to burn out too anytime soon). I'm only going to ask you all for one thing: if you don't agree with something that I wrote then remove it once (and write a reason for it in the edit summary). If I happen to revert it then tell me of your doubts at the bloody talkpage (no gratuitous reverts, and no edit-wars - they are a waste of everybody's time and effort and really make Wikipedia look as a boxing ring of fanatics). I promise that I will look upon the matter (and I'm going to try my best to be fair and objective - as always, but I am human) and answer you doubts. If needed we will debate the issue ad absurdum and ad nauseam. I know that I'm not perfect, and that my knowledge about the Roman empire is quite limited. I fully acknowledge that in some issues (more than I will like) it will be shown that I'm mistaken. And NO I'm not taking this article over. First of all, the rules forbid it and second, I'm not a dictator wannabe. Remember what I said: short small steps which will take plenty of time - months. (I'm keeping my right to quit my efforts anytime I want or need to). Flamarande (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have begun. Just notice how the whole 'language section' is (IMHO) way too large and how it shows a whole Greek VS Latin approach that is simply neither fair or reasonable. Instead of recognizing that Latin and Greek were both the major languages of the empire and of describing this development in a short fashion the whole section seems to be largely a battleground (Greek VS Latin). Some of the conclusions are not referenced at all and IMHO they are straining OR), and many things should be rather in a 'legacy section', particularly the points that affect us in our 'current world' today. Flamarande (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry If I caused trouble with that article. I just felt the 476AD is an obsolete date and false. I feel that 476/1453AD is a good compromise. Any of you have an opinion on the article by Professor Fox? I think the article was well done. Here is the link if you are interested. WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IS A BYZANTINE?

http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm

I largely agree with him. However, the idea that modern Romania invented its name in the 19th century is false, because there is a "wallachian/romanian" letter from the 16th century which uses the name "Ţara Românească" for Wallachia. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think breaking up the article into different phases, which are more manageable, is probably a good idea. THe current article then would mainly serve as a a short overview and providing some general perspective and connection and other than that just serving as pointer to separate articles to the different phases of the empire.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning to do exactly that but it will take some time. The whole part of 'the emperors and their reigns' will be seriously shortened (reduced with "extreme prejudice"). Flamarande (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Languages

Folks, I haven't checked in a long while but I was a little disturbed with what was done with the Language section. Some time ago there were some anonymous edits which look to me like somebody was deliberately trying to water down what I written to push the traditional propaganda. I have modified this section to restore the section to what it was intended to be. To clarify my thinking

• First of all, although I have not discussed explicitly in this section (maybe we should) we need to bear in mind that Medieval and Early Modern Western Europe deliberately rewrote history to cast the Roman Empire as strictly "Latin" so as to deprecate and separate the Byzantine Empire. We need to divorce ourselves from that propaganda.
• Latin and Greek were both primary languages of the Empire. The suggestion that Latin was first language of most people and Greek was simply a popular second language is distortion of the reality.
• Greek was more widely spoken. This was not a "change" that happened after the fall of Rome. What happened after the fall of Rome is that the eastern Romans rapidly lost interest in Latin and assimilated most (not all) of the remaining Latin speakers in the Empire.
• It is important to recognize that Eastern provinces were more populous than the West. So when you talk about what language was more widely spoken you have to take that into account.
• Even in the West most educated people used Greek (although this began to change during the 4th century as the East and West began to split). Indeed according to some accounts Caesar's last words were Greek (the "et tu Brute" thing is a popular fiction). We tend to think that because a lot of the surviving texts from the West are Latin that this was the more scholarly language but one has to remember that

1. For a long time in the West literacy was almost gone and the little bit of literacy that remained tended to be in Latin (since that had been the language of the commoners in the West). So the Greek texts would have become about as useful as hieroglyphs to most people.
2. The Western Church was the one that preserved most of the scholarly materials in the West and the language of the Western Church was Latin. So they obviously there is reason to think that they gave preference to Latin documents.

--Mcorazao (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1. Please provide evidence of this deliberate rewrite of history. Hard sources are needed.
  2. Both languages were important, agreed, but Latin was the language of the Romans.
  3. Evidence.
  4. There is no doubt that the eastern provinces were more populous. However there were also other successful languages in the east. Greek wasn't the only language spoken there. You see, this reasoning is what we call OR. You begin with a statement (The eastern provinces were more populous - and for that we need a good source) merge it with your vision (almost everybody in the east spoke Greek) to reach your own truth/conclusion/reality (the major language of the empire was Greek). However the real situation is way more complicated than that. While Greek was widely spoken in the major (ancient Greek) cities (e.g.: Alexandria) many nations in the east spoke primarily other languages (their own).
  5. Not only Caesar's last words, many of his statements - which today are famous by their Latin translations, were in fact made in Greek. However the works of many Latin writers (like Caesar, Suetonius, Livy, etc) were written in Classical Latin. Latin was not solely the language of the common ppl, it (more precisely Classical Latin) was also a language of scholarship and intellectuals. See Category:Latin writers.
  6. Graecum est; non potest legi (It is Greek; it cannot be read). However this concerns the Middle Ages, and not Classical Antiquity.
  7. Again, this concerns the Middle Ages, and not Classical Antiquity. "So they obviously there is reason to think that they gave preference to Latin documents" seems at first hand to be logical, and I tend to agree with you to a certain degree, BUT Wikipedia wants facts (evidence) and not "the truth" (being way too rhetorical: Pilate: What is the truth? You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. Many of them are simple lies everyone wants to believe.).
  • This article has already suffered way too much because of the whole Greek VS Latin approach. This article is about the Roman Empire, and not a battleground for a Greek versus Latin fight.
  • Flamarande (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC) PS: Why did you do your edits under an anonymous IP?

Thanks for the feedback.

• 1 "deliberate rewrite of history" - Well, the section as it is currently written does not discuss this so let's set that aside for now. The point I was making was that we should not fall into that trap.
• 2 "Latin was the language of the Romans" - Well, this depends on what you mean by the word Romans. Obviously a point of historical contention has been who had a right to consider themselves a real Roman (and indeed this is the reason I stayed away from referring to "Romans" and just talked about languages spoken in the Empire). In any event during the imperial period the people living in the Empire who spoke Latin as a first language were a minority, albeit a very large minority. The major population centers were in the East and out there it was mostly administrators sent from Rome that used Latin. Everybody else used primarily Greek in formal settings (including when communicating with the administrators) and to varying degrees their local languages in other settings. Latin only really took hold in the Western provinces (because before then there had been no common language). In the East, though, Latin never made much penetration except for legal scholarship.
• 3 "language of scholarship and intellectuals" - Latin always had an important place in the Empire prior to the fall of the West and certainly it was used by many scholars and intellectuals. But if you look at the period from after the East was conquered to around the 4th century scholars largely did their discussions and writings in Greek although obviously not exclusively. Even through the 5th century that was still mostly the case although during the 4th and 5th centuries the Westerners began to push for Latin's taking a more prominent place in society. This can be seen as being somewhat similar to the history of England. One would think that as well entrenched as the English language is in England today that this has been the case since the Angles invaded. However there was a long period where anybody who was anybody spoke French. In case of England, of course, English was actually still the majority language, but it was mostly a peasant language. Yes, there were still intellectual works being written in English but these were minority works. Eventually, though, wanting to re-establish their English identity, they began to switch back to English and stamp out most use of French to the point of at times pretending that the French influence never existed. This is a more extreme example than the Roman Imperial situation but there are parallels.
• 4 "Middle Ages, and not Classical Antiquity" - Not sure what you are getting at. The point here is that we should be consistent with modern scholarship not the traditional stereotypes of Western Europe.
• 5 "not a battleground for a Greek versus Latin fight" - Agreed. That is why I want to keep this section consistent with modern scholarship rather than trying to push stereotypes.

6 My point is that we need to just stick to the facts. The notion that Latin was always the predominant language makes those of us in the West feel comfortable because it helps support a nice, neat version of history that has been passed down for the last several centuries. But the idea here is not to be comfortable but factual. If the facts make the picture less clear ... well, so be it.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. anonymous IP - Sorry. Are you suggesting there is some way to fix that because I am not aware that there is. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few pieces of reading on the subject if it helps anybody ...

Even in Rome, the chruch used the Greek language, as attested by the letter of Clement of Rome. ... Although both Latin and Greek were the official languages of the Roman empire, the dominance of Greek through the early centuries, especially in the east, is indisputable. ... The distinction between the Latin west and the Greek east is from a much later date: it came in with the political changes in western Europe that broke up the ancient image of the Roman empire and restricted it to the eastern Roman state, which came to be called the Greek Kingdom of Byzantium.

Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, pg. 487

Theodosius's Empire was firstly, and in a very profound sense, Roman. ... all correspondence written within the administration was also written in Latin. ... all communications addressed by cities, Church Councils, individual bishops, other members of the clergy, or private individuals to holders of office, from the Emperor down, were written in Greek, and received replies written in Greek. ... In its communications with its subjects, this was unambiguously a Greek Empire.

Millar: A Greek Roman Empire, pg. 84-85

It [Greek] became the lingua franca of the whole Roman Empire by the first century CE.

Wallace: Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pg. 18

Greek was still the lingua franca of the ancient world and still the primary language of education and culture. With the prosperity and stability of the Empire, Greek writers and educators enjoyed a wide audience and a broadening interest by both Greek speakers and Romans in what was emerging as Greco-Roman culture.

Nelson: The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Roman Empire, pg. 296

When the Romans ... conquered the eastern part of the Mediterranean world, they made no attempt to suppress the Greek language. On the contrary, the conquerors to a very considerable extent were conquered by those whom they conquered. ... The language of the Roman Empire was not so much Latin as it was Greek. ... Thus in the first century after Christ Greek had become a world language. ... at least in the great cities throughout the Empire—certainly in the East—the Greek language was everywhere understood. Even in Rome itself there was a large Greek-speaking population. It is not surprising that Paul's letter to the Roman Church is written not in Latin but in Greek.

Machen: New Testament Greek For Beginners, pg. 2

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1) So basicly you are unwilling/unable to provide credible evidence of a deliberate rewrite of history.
• 2) "Romans" as in the conquerors of the empire. If you want I can quote an occasion in which Claudius stripped a Roman citizen of his citizenship because said citizen only spoke Greek and was ignorant of Latin. You're forgetting the military colonies of discharged soldiers. Everybody else used primarily Greek in formal settings - you seem to be forgetting Armenian, Aramaic, and Coptic. I also wish to point out that I already wrote: Greek stood out. It was widely spoken in many cities and was used as the lingua franca in the eastern provinces. I mean what more do you want? I'm not going to write: Greek was the only language in the cities and in the eastern provinces.
• 3) "after the East was conquered to around the 4th century scholars largely did their discussions and writings in Greek although obviously not exclusively." . Let me repeat what I wrote: However the works of many Latin writers (like Caesar, Suetonius, Livy, etc) were written in Classical Latin. Latin was not solely the language of the common ppl, it (more precisely Classical Latin) was also a language of scholarship and intellectuals. See Category:Latin writers. Notice that I don't claim that Greek wasn't a language of scholarship, I'm just pointing out that classical Latin also had that status. Are you denying this point? The later decline of scholarship in the Latin language just might have something to do with the barbarian invasions, don't you agree? Latin scholarship didn't decline in particular, all scholarship declined as a whole.
• 4) "For a long time in the West literacy was almost gone and the little bit of literacy that remained tended to be in Latin (since that had been the language of the commoners in the West). So the Greek texts would have become about as useful as hieroglyphs to most people." - the whole sentence refers to the Middle Ages, and not to the Classical Antiquity. What has your sentence to do with the Roman Empire? Nothing at all.
• 5 and 6) Read section above. I wrote that: if you don't agree with something that I wrote then remove it once (and write a reason for it in the edit summary). If I happen to revert it then tell me of your doubts at the bloody talkpage (no gratuitous reverts, and no edit-wars - they are a waste of everybody's time and effort. You just had to revert again before presenting you new arguments didn't you? Let's carry on: I copied the older text below. Can you show me exactly where I wrote that Latin was the predominant language? Exactly where are you seeing a suggestion that Latin was first language of most people and Greek was simply a popular second language? Sorry to be blunt and honest, but I think that you are over-reacting/seeing things.

• • The language of Rome before its conquests was Latin. By the time of the imperial period Latin was in the situation of Diglossia, and consisted of two languages: the 'high' written Classical Latin and the 'low' spoken Vulgar Latin. While Classical Latin remained relatively stable, Vulgar Latin as with any spoken language was continually fluid and slowly evolving.

• • In the enormous and multi-ethnic empire many other languages were also spoken, but from among them Greek stood out. It was widely spoken in many cities and was used as the lingua franca in the eastern provinces and succeeded into becoming the favourite second language of the more educated layers of Roman society. One of the passages of the The Twelve Caesars, a book written by Suetonius, even tells us that, as a barbarian addressed emperor Claudius in both Greek and in Latin, the reply of the emperor began with: "Since you come armed with both our languages..." . The same passage also shows that Claudius in particular seems to have had a strong passion for Greek language and culture, to the point of even writing books in Greek.

• • Syriac and Aramaic were mainly spoken in the eastern provinces and, in addition to Greek and Latin, also used by the local elites [27]. Also important were Coptic around Egypt and Armenian around Armenia, while the use of Phoenician seems to have entered a period of slow decline.

• I didn't know that you own these sources (provide the ISBN, chapter, and pagenumber asap, thanks), I believed that you were changing sourced statements, my mistake. Still I'm very satisfied that someone (you) provides some hard sources/evidence. I was toying with the idea of writing a section (or even subsections of the main sections) about the developments of the Late empire and your sources seem to be mainly about this period of time. They are Christian sources and Christianity gains in strength and importance on a later stage of the empire's history. The New Testament was written in Greek exactly because Christianity as a whole was way stronger in the east. Theodosius ruled in the 4th century AD. Paul was born in Tarsus (modern Turkey) and I guess that's why he wrote in Greek rather than in Latin. If he had been born in Rome...

• I wrote that Greek was the lingua franca in the eastern provinces and that it became the second favourite language of the educated/high Roman society. I'm willing to point out that Greek was also a lingua franca in the western part besides Latin. I'm also willing to write that both Greek and Classical Latin were the major languages of scholarship in the empire. More than this will be very hard to achieve. Flamarande (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Even in the city of Rome itself Greek had become the language of the educated and the elite, and throughout the Empire had become the common language in the Church, the primary language of scholarship and the arts, and, to a great extent, the primary language of international trade.[26] By the 4th century the Latin language had reasserted itself (reflected in the later publication of the Latin Vulgate Bible) and the beginnings of the gradual Latin-Greek split of the Empire were emerging. .... Syriac and Aramaic were spoken in the far eastern provinces and had become established as literary languages by the Middle Ages.

AFAIK know official inscriptions in Rome are in Latin, the Senate in Rome spoke in Latin, the overwhelming majority of the emperors before the 4th century spoke mainly in Latin. The sentence: Even in the city of Rome itself Greek had become the language of the educated and the elite is dangerously unclear. Is it written like this in the book? Anyway: the Church appears later, and will require its own section 'Christianization of the empire' or something like that. What exactly are the far eastern provinces? Why do we need a comment about the middle ages in this section (a legacy section will deal with such stuff)? Flamarande (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• "deliberate rewrite of history" - I don't see a reason to pick fights over every detail of what we are saying in the talk page. Can't we just stick to what is written in the article? I provided you with the quote from Ferguson above which addresses this particular issue anyway. I could come up with a lot more but, again, this isn't even discussed in the article so what is your point?
• "Claudius stripped a Roman citizen" - This is a silly discussion to have. Roman citizenship was extended to all (free) inhabitants in the 3rd century. We could extend this section to categorize every subpopulation during every period in the Empire and say what the majority language of that subpopulation at each time was. That is too much detail. It is much more informative simply to discuss the populous as a whole without getting bogged down the political distinctions between every class.
• "Latin scholarship" - If you would like to rephrase a bit I have no objection as long as you maintain neutrality. Greek was the primary language of scholarship but it was not exclusive. Most original scientific treatises were in Greek. Latin translations might later appear but they were translations. Virtually all of Christian theology was in Greek until the 4th century. After that Latin theology increased but still took a backseat in the larger picture. The attempt here is not to slight Latin but simply to clarify a popular misconception. Again, if you think that some neutrality is in order feel free to edit. But the relative importance of Greek is important to bring out, particularly because of the popular misconception. And certainly trying to imply that Greek took a backseat to Latin as was written previously is a gross distortion.
• "the whole sentence refers to the Middle Ages" - I know. That was the point. During the Middle Ages a lot of Greek texts in the West were lost simply because nobody saw them as valuable.
• "exactly where" - Well, certainly I am not saying that you ever spelled out that Latin was the predominant language. You simply left the reader with no other conclusion. You named Latin as THE language of the Empire with no qualification and then referred to Greek as a second language. This in addition to the fact that most people would tend to assume Latin was dominant makes it POV regardless of whether you spelled it out. Bear in mind that Greek was the official administrative language of the East so it wasn't just some language that certain people happened to speak.
• "it became the second favourite language" - That's fine but it is a misleading statement. You're implying that everybody spoke Latin but lots learned Greek as well. In the West this tended to be true (although it was apparently the case that there were lots that did not know much Latin) but in the East knowledge of Latin was limited even in educated circles. Taken on the whole Greek was more widely known albeit not in every single corner of the Empire.
• "They are Christian sources and Christianity gains in strength and importance on a later stage of the empire's history" - The sources I just provided above are discuss the Empire's history from Caesar's time to the "late" Empire and they are certainly not all Christian. Actually Greek was more dominant in Caesar's time than in the later Christian times. It was during the later era when the Empire began to split that the Westerners gradually started to favor Latin more as a way to assert their own identity (and the Church in Rome saw this as a way to assert its independence of the other patriarchs).
• "If he had been born in Rome ..." - I do not believe that you are correct on that but obviously this is speculation on both our parts. That one sentence was not the point of the quotation (i.e. it could have been left out). The point, though, that I believe the author was trying to make is that it is interesting that, if Latin was so important, Paul did not seem to think it important enough to learn and clearly he expected the Romans to understand Greek. This doesn't prove anything. It was just an observation.
• "majority of the emperors ... spoke mainly in Latin." - Sort of true. Most emperors in the early history were from the West and so Latin would have been their first language. Additionally Latin was ALWAYS the language of the imperial administration and so Latin was used in the imperial court no matter what. Nevertheless outside of official functions it was common, to varying degrees, for emperors to use Greek to talk with other nobles and such (certainly Caesar did so).
• "dangerously unclear" - Well you can rephrase for clarity if you like. Certainly this sentence does not discuss all of the nuances but, the point is, that during most of the imperial period it was fashionable for educated people to talk to each other in Greek. During the very late period this became less true but still Greek was widely used. I don't see what is "dangerous" about the lack of specificity but feel free to add detail if you feel it is necessary.
• "What exactly are the far eastern provinces" - The provinces that were furthest east. ?
• "comment about the middle ages" - How do you mean? The only context in which I mentioned the Middle Ages was to say that Syriac and Aramaic gained status over the life the Empire. This is not discussing the Middle Ages. What is your point?

Anyway, as I say, we should stick to modern scholarship and not try to interject personal viewpoints or medieval prejudice into this. The quotes above say the same thing I have said. If you would like to rephrase feel free. All I am saying is that we need to stick to scholarly consensus and NPOV.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is what I propose:

• The language of Rome before its conquests was Latin and it was the language of the imperial Roman bureaucracy. By the time of the imperial period Latin was in the situation of Diglossia, and had evolved into two languages: the 'high' written Classical Latin and the 'low' spoken Vulgar Latin. While Classical Latin remained relatively stable, Vulgar Latin as with any spoken language was continually fluid and slowly evolving.

• In the enormous and multi-ethnic empire many languages were spoken, but from among all of them Greek stood out. Widely spoken in Rome, and in many cities, Greek was the lingua franca in the eastern provinces. In the western provinces it shared this status with Latin. Greek succeeded into becoming the favourite second language of Roman high society, and Greek and Classical Latin were considered the languages of education and scholarship. One of the passages of the The Twelve Caesars, a book written by Suetonius, even tells us that, as a barbarian addressed emperor Claudius in both languages, the reply of the emperor began with: "Since you come armed with both our languages...". (I'm planning to include here a very short note about the extinction of Etruscan - Claudius seems also to have been last known person to speak and to write Etruscan).

• Syriac and Aramaic were mainly spoken in the eastern provinces and, in addition to Greek and Latin, also used by the local elites. Also important were Coptic in Egypt and Armenian in Armenia, while the use of Phoenician seems to have entered a period of slow decline.

The part about the Christian church is a later development (and it will get its own section - as will the Romance languages). Everything about the Middle ages is not needed here - the article is about the Roman empire and not about the Middle ages. I'm willing to improve this section further, but I think that this is fair. All of this will of course have to be sourced (this will take quite some time). I honestly think that far eastern provinces is unclear. Assyria was furthest in the east, but AFAIK Aramaic was spoken in Judea. Jesus spoke in Aramaic. Flamarande (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is perhaps an improvement but it is still attempting to imply things that are not consistent with modern scholars. I guess the question you have to ask yourself is why is it important to you personally that this section push Latin so much. For my part if evidence came to light that scholars had been wrong and Greek had never been spoken it wouldn't bother me one bit to put this in this section. But I get the impression that if new evidence showed that Latin had never been spoken you would have a personal problem saying so in this article. The question to you is "Why is that?"

Anyway, to address specifics in your proposal:

• The first paragraph is fine.
• In the second paragraph you are still trying to relegate Greek to a distinctly second-class status. Although it was "technically" second-class from the perspective of the imperial court, it was first-class in every other sense and, in a variety of settings, ranked above Latin. This is important to clarify.
• "favourite second language of Roman high society" - This is a back-handed compliment. During most of the imperial period Greek was the favorite language of high society in general. In Rome and other Western cities you could call it a second-language to Latin but, in general, most of the elite would consider it more sophisticated to converse and write in Greek than in Latin (this began to change in the 4th century). Writing in Latin was considered more patriotic so Roman histories and such were largely done in Latin, but Greek most was used more for non-political writing (again, by the 5th century Latin was being used a lot more but by then the West was falling to pieces). And that was just in the West. In the East most educated people didn't even know Latin particularly well unless they were involved in politics (most people probably knew at least enough to get by in state ceremonies but not a lot more). Among the commoners Latin was virtually unknown except in certain enclaves. So although your statement could be said to be not exactly false it is clearly implying something that is not accurate.
• Your edits to the 3rd paragraph seem bizarre to me but I don't have a big problem with it if that really makes you happy. Why it is necessary to explicitly bring up Latin and Greek again here I don't understand but, again, if it makes you happy ... I still think it is valuable to point out that Syriac and Aramaic only gained formal acceptance in the "late Empire" (in the earlier period they were still regarded as "folk" languages). I tried to tell you that you could rephrase this if you don't like mentioning the phrase "Middle Ages" but instead you have chosen to just strip out the entire point.
• "Christian church is a later development" - This is patently false. The Christian became a formal institution in the 4th century and, by the 5th century, had become effectively a branch of the government. To say, or even imply, that this is not relevant to the history before the fall of Rome is grossly inaccurate (granted the Church's influence became even greater later but that is a separate point).
• "far eastern provinces" - You are nitpicking. I would argue that "eastern provinces" (what you had before) is at least as unclear (since there were lots of provinces in the East). If you want to mention specific provinces or even specific towns you can but I think that is pointless. I added a single 3 letter word because it narrowed things down without getting verbose. In any event this is a terribly trivial detail to be arguing over. This section is a brief summary. It cannot be expected to clarify every point to the most minute detail.

Anyway, I have provided a bunch of sources above for the general points and there are more available for general and specific points. But you first have to be willing to accept what they have to say.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Pushing Latin so far? Did you ever take a look in the previous language section (before I began improving the article)? It was a bloody slug-feast: Latin VS Greek. Several mighty sentences, IMHO straining POV and OR, and most sentences not sourced at all. I would have problem with such "new evidence" because I was in Rome and I saw some of the inscriptions - and they were in Latin and not in Greek or otherwise.

Latin is simply important because it is the language of the conquerors - the Romans. It was the main language of the government, military, and judicial affairs. AFAIK the imperial edicts were in Latin, the military used Latin, and Latin inscriptions are in the monuments. The Romans didn't simply stop talking and writing in Latin to speak only in Greek (this development happened later in the Byzantine Empire around the 6-7th century - and then the political/territorial situation was totally different). I think you didn't notice the: Greek was the lingua franca in the eastern provinces. In the western provinces it shared this status with Latin... Greek and Classical Latin were considered the languages of education and scholarship What more do you want? I'm not going to write that 'Greek was the lingua franca of the empire' and not mention Latin's status in the west. I'm not going to write that 'Greek was the language of education and scholarship' and not mention the importance of Classical Latin.

We can change 'Greek was the lingua franca in the eastern provinces. In the western provinces it shared this status with Latin' into: Greek was the lingua franca of the empire in the eastern provinces, while Latin achieved this status in the western provinces. If you have problems with: 'Greek succeeded into becoming the favourite second language of Roman high society' give me a serious alternative. Roman high society became increasingly bilingual?

The notion that 'Writing in Latin was considered more patriotic' is new to me. Sources?

The third paragraph deals with other languages which were also spoken and were also important. I had to work with a previous sentence that I didn't write and was sourced. I'm not keen in changing such sentences. I would like to add something about other languages (like the Celtic languages) but I don't know much about their history and importance (and I'm not going to make stuff up). Notice that the title in the article is 'languages of the empire' and not 'the two main languages of the empire'.

Christianity will get its own section, as in the beginning (in the first 300 years) it wasn't a Roman institution at all. It was a foreign religion, persecuted by some emperors and hunted very vigorously under Diocletian. A later major development like that gets its own section (Christianization of the empire). Your bunch of sources deal with the development of Christianity. And the "Theodosius" that is mentioned by the source isn't Theodosius the Great, but Theodosius II, whose empire was the Eastern Roman empire and didn't include the Western Roman Empire at all. I think that it is better to drop the 'far'. Flamarande (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

All the cases in which you mention Latin was used are correct, more or less, if a little overstated. Overstated because, although, it was the language of the imperial administration, the local administration in the Eastern provinces was virtually entirely in Greek, including the local courts.

In any event, I am not suggesting that we not discuss the importance of Latin. If you want to add more about that to provide balance be my guest. I am simply saying that the way you were trying to present it favors a misinterpretation of history.

You expose one misconception in your thinking when you state "Roman high society became increasingly bilingual". Remember that most of the ethnic groups in the Empire did not even know Latin (well, at least most of the people in those ethnic groups) when the Empire absorbed them. The people in the Eastern Mediterranean had been speaking Greek for hundreds of years whereas Latin had been confined to a small part of Italy until Roman expansion. In fact Greek was more widely spoken in Italy than Latin until the Rome began expanding. The reality was that it was far more the case that Greek speakers in the Empire were learning Latin than the other way around. There simply were far more Greek speakers. You also seem to perceive that Greek became more important when Christianity came to prominence and really the opposite is true. Greek had been the most widespread language before Christianity's advent but, at the same time as Christianity was becoming a formal institution the Empire was splitting and the Westerners began to try to differentiate themselves from the East gradually casting aside Greek and favoring Latin more. But by the time that really took hold the West was in shambles.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me present two sources which show that this issue is way more complicated. Even professional scholars don't seem to agree.

1. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/195896/history-of-Europe/276545/Late-antiquity-the-reconfiguration-of-the-Roman-world#ref=ref993804 Look carefully: Britannica says that: Except around the eastern Mediterranean, where Greek remained dominant, Latin became everywhere the language of commerce and eventually almost the universal language. Look in the chapter: Greeks, Romans, and barbarians » Romans
2. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/mango.html this source (seems to have been written by Cyril Mango, a respected Byzantinist and deals with the empire of Justinian) tells that: the western half of the Empire was solidly Latin and the eastern half solidly Greek in the sense that those were the languages of administration and culture. Nearly all educated persons in the East could speak Greek, just as all educated persons in the West spoke Latin, but a great proportion of ordinary people spoke neither. Read it carefully: in the east Greek was restricted to certain areas and cities, had competition in Syriac and Aramaic, and was not very popular in the countryside of certain areas like Egypt. Alexandria seems to have been kind of a Greek colony in a largely Coptic-speaking realm: the farther one travelled from Alexandria, the less Greek was spoken. Actually I think I have this book in particular. I'm going to check this out.

If professionals have divergent visions in this matter... But remember: the western provinces had been mainly inhabited by illiterate Celtic-speaking (various dialects) Gauls, Iberians, and Britons. If they wanted an education for their sons and daughters or to deal with the Roman bureaucracy they would AFAIK have to learn to write and speak mainly in Latin. In the east it was surely different exactly because the population and the bureaucracy had already an established lingua franca (Greek).

However the other cultures also resisted Greek language and culture to various degrees. And AFAIK all of these languages were written. Logic tells us that therefore their "resistance" was stronger and more solid towards Greek in the east, than the resistance of Celtic towards Latin in the west. Flamarande (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC) PS: Still I want to thank you. The Mango source gives precious details (dominance of Aramaic dialects, of which Syriac is a member, extended throughout Syria and Palestine to the confines of Egypt) which can and should be used in this section. If you hadn't raised this issue I wouldn't have looked or found it. I think the whole section can (and needs to) be improved. Flamarande (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, how about we just say that scholars differ as to the relative importance and roles of Latin and Greek in the Empire and not try to say that, apart from imperial administration, law, and such, one language or the other was more the "Roman" language than the other? Truthfully the issue is difficult to nail down precisely. For example, some sources I have seen say that the percentage of people living in the city of Rome than spoke Greek never went above 10-20% whereas other sources say at one point the majority of people in Rome spoke Greek. Who is right I have no idea. They are all ultimately guessing.

A minor note: The Britannica reference I take with a bit of a grain of salt. Encyclopedia sources can be great starting points for information but they also have a tendency to quote out-dated theories rather than keeping up-to-date with the latest scholarship.

--Mcorazao (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How does this sound as a compromise?

The language of Rome before its conquests was Latin and this continued as the language of the imperial Roman bureaucracy. By the time of the imperial period Latin and had evolved into two languages: the 'high' written Classical Latin and the 'low' spoken Vulgar Latin. While Classical Latin remained relatively stable, Vulgar Latin as with any spoken language was continually fluid and slowly evolving.

In addition to Latin, the Greek language, long established in the Mediterranean, was widely used as a language of literature and commerce throughout the Empire, and was the primary administrative language in the eastern provinces. One of the passages of the The Twelve Caesars even tells us that, as a barbarian addressed emperor Claudius in both Greek and in Latin, the reply of the emperor began with: "Since you come armed with both our languages...". Scholars differ as to the relative importance and usage of Latin and Greek during the imperial period but all agree that both were principle languages of the Empire. As Christianity took hold in the Empire, Greek was established as the language of the Church although Latin began to reassert itself in the Western Church during later centuries (as did other local languages in their respective provinces). By the time the Empire split in the late 4th century the western provinces had established a distinct Latin identity while the eastern provinces established a more Greek identity.

In the enormous and multi-ethnic empire many other languages were also spoken, some gaining limited official status during some periods. Syriac and Aramaic were spoken in the specific eastern provinces and, in addition to Greek, had become accepted literary languages by the local elite. Also important were Coptic around Egypt and Armenian around Armenia, while the use of Phoenician seems to have entered a period of slow decline.

Notes:

• I omitted the "situation of Diglossia" phrase as it is very awkward and is redundant anyway.
• I don't see a reason to include Etruscan in the discussion. By the imperial period Etruscan was all but dead (and was dead within a century into that period).
• I can't agree with the idea of deliberately leaving out Christianity and treating that as "non-Roman". I realize a lot of Romanophiles like look at it this way because of their affinity for the Republic but the republican era is not the subject of this article.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. A few references you might find interesting.

"Of the approximately six hundred Jewish catacombs inscriptions from Rome in the late empire, only 21 percent were in Latin, whereas 78 percent are in Greek."

Levine: Jerusalem

"Even after Rome became the world power in the first century BCE, Greek continued to penetrate distant lands. ... Consequently, even when Rome was in absolute control, Latin was not the lingua franca. Greek continued to be a universal language until at least the end of the first century. From about the second century on, Latin began to win out in Italy (among the populace), then the West in general, once Constantinople became the capital of the Roman empire."

Wallace: Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics

Christianity was non-Roman for the first three centuries. The Christianization of the Roman empire was a major change that needs and deserves its own section. This has nothing to do with the republic, but it has everything to do with the empire, so an accusation of: "a lot of Romanophiles like look at it this way because of their affinity for the Republic" is unwarranted.

The east-west split is also a later development which certainly needs and deserves its own section.

Your references are nice. Read the first one really carefully. It explains (again) that Greek was the lingua franca of the eastern provinces, and (at page 154) that two official secretaries were tasked with the official correspondence. The correspondence of the eastern provinces was in Greek and the correspondence of the western provinces was in Latin. The second reference is IMHO 'as accurate' as Encyclopedia Britannica.

• While current scholars differ as to their usage, all agree that both Latin and Greek were the major languages of the Roman Empire. The imperial bureaucracy worked in both languages, and two official secretaries dealt with the correspondence, in Greek for the eastern provinces, and in Latin for the western provinces.

• By the time of the imperial period Latin had evolved into two languages (the four words: "evolved into two languages" making a link towards "Diglossia") : the 'high' written Classical Latin and the 'low' spoken Vulgar Latin. While Classical Latin remained relatively stable, Vulgar Latin as with any spoken language was continually fluid and slowly evolving.

• Greek was the long established lingua franca in the Mediterranean, and very important inside the eastern provinces. The influence of Latin was stronger in the western provinces and there it would slowly gain in importance.

• Greek and Classical Latin were considered the languages of literature, scholarship, and education. One of the passages of the The Twelve Caesars even tells us that, as a barbarian addressed emperor Claudius in both Greek and in Latin, the reply of the emperor began with: "Since you come armed with both our languages...". Claudius is also the last known person to study and to write Etruscan which seems to have died out in the 1st century AD. (a single short sentence, it's not too much) Nearly all educated persons in the East could speak Greek, just as all educated persons in the West spoke Latin and Greek, but a great proportion of ordinary people spoke neither. (minor change in the last sentence but it gains in accuracy)

• In the enormous and multi-ethnic empire several other languages were spoken, some even gaining local official status during some periods. Syriac and Aramaic were spoken in certain eastern provinces and, in addition to Greek, had become accepted literary languages by the local elite. Also important were Coptic in Egypt and Armenian in Armenia, while the use of Phoenician seems to have entered a period of slow decline. Hard knowledge of the usage of the various Celtic dialects and languages is sadly lacking. Flamarande (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

To respond ...

• Christianity was non-Roman for the first three centuries. - You are quibbling over terminology. Christianity was born in the Roman Empire and the Jews that first practiced it were part of that Empire. Whether to call them Roman or not is a separate issue and not relevant (hence the reason I stayed away from that rathole in the writing). Certainly by the beginning of the 3rd century Christianity was a major social influence in the Empire even as it was persecuted. I am not sure when Christians became a majority in the population but that may have occurred in the 3rd century. The point is that from at least around 200 CE to 476 CE (or whenever you count the end of the classical Empire) Christianity was a major influence in the Empire regardless of how Roman it was.

• "The east-west split is also a later development which certainly needs and deserves its own section." - Sure. The point is that the linguistic aspects are interesting to mention. You seem to be trying to refocus the Language section on some specific segments of Roman history and I am not sure why that is. I intended this section to cover the entire classical history from the 1st century BCE to the 5th century CE. What is your intent?

• "Greek was the lingua franca of the eastern provinces" - Your are referring to the Levine text? I have never said Greek was not the lingua franca of the East. The point is that it was a lingua franca throughout the Empire particularly in the early centuries of the Empire (Latin became more established in the West during later centuries). The stuff on 154 does not dispute this. As far as the Wallace text I don't disagree that this one text is no more authoritative than Britannica. But the point is that Britannica is quoting a scholarly viewpoint that mostly died out after the early 20th century.

• I like your rewrite a lot better. The first sentence is a little strange. It dives right into the differences scholars have as though there was a previous discussion about Latin and Greek. Also the way it is written now it almost seems to imply that whereas Latin had a diglossia, Greek did not. A little strange. When I originally wrote the text I discussed the diglossia of both. Somebody removed the Greek diglossia discussion a while back. Maybe we should either remove that issue entirely or else just mention it for both at once.

• "in the West spoke Latin and Greek" - In the later centuries I would say that all educated Westerners knew Latin (and a greater proportion of commoners in the West knew Latin than commoners in the East knew Greek). In the earlier centuries, though, I don't know if that is true. Before Rome first expanded around the Med Greek was the language everybody around the Med saw as the language of culture. So if you were an educated person in Carthage, for example, you would be far more likely to know Greek than Latin. When Rome first conquered all of these lands certainly many educated people learned Latin but I am not sure whether how long it took before Latin was widely known among the educated in all of the western provinces. Equally I am not clear how widely known Greek was in the western lands even as it was so popular in the Med as a whole. The Romans actually helped to spread Greek in the Western lands in addition to Latin. Point is that this statement is certainly true for the later centuries but in the earlier centuries I honestly am not sure. Remember that the golden age of Latin literature only started around the beginning of the imperial period so, at least in the early years, there would have been far more Greek literature in existence than Latin literature.

• "ordinary people spoke neither" - Good point to bring out.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You are a hard customer, aren't you? To answer your points:

1. ) Christinanity's history and influence will get its own section. Major development -> own subsection. See below.
2. ) A big 'overall section' called ´Late empire" will be created (later and located below). All major developments (Christianization, military developments (limitaei, "barbarization" of the Roman army), east-west split, several capitals, inflation, reforms of Diocletian and Constantine, etc) will be described shortly inside of proper subsections (and proper links will be provided). That's why Chritianity is mentioned in Religions of the empire but the larger development is not. The larger development (Christianization) will get its own sub-section -> it changed the empire itself.
3. ) A short mention of the disglossia of both languages can be arranged.
4. ) We can begin with: "Both Latin and Greek..."
5. ) I agree somewhat about the Med (but don't underestimate Punic and the Carthaginian colonies - which hampered the extent of Greek colonies and Punic seems to have been replaced by Latin -> see the map inside of Mango's book), but on the inner and northern parts of Hispannia, and inside of Galia, Britannia, and Germania? Of course some few cities on the coastal areas of the western Mediterranean were ancient Greek colonies but they were way fewer, much less populous, their influence into the interior was negligible, and their connection to the distant Greek homeland fragile. AFAIK (and have read) these areas spoke various Celtic dialects and languages (Iberian, Gallic, Britonic) or Germanic. Languages which had no writing system - where Latin became the main language.

Now I get it - you're focussing yourself on the Med - but you're forgetting that the western provinces of the Roman empire extended way into the north-west (right to the Rhine and Caledonia - very few Greeks had ever travelled here). AFAIK (and have read) the overwhelming majority of the cities in this part of the Roman empire were founded as/became as Roman military colonies (i.e.: Latin-speaking colonies) whereas in the eastern provinces most of the major cities were ancient Greek colonies. The east had been conquered by the Alexander, and later governed by his generals, but not the west. I don't know a lot of the Jireček Line, but I believe that it shows how former "barbarian areas" conquered by the Romans received a mostly Latin-based colonization. The same process happened to Hispania, Gaul, Britannia and some parts of Germania. Flamarande (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow this is a long discussion ...

• "Greek colonies" - The issue is not the Greek colonies (although that is an important point to). Regardless of whether one was from a former Greek colony or not, before Roman expansion if one was an educated person anywhere in Europe that knew anything about the lands beyond their own country they almost certainly knew Greek. Alexander's Empire had made this the language in which knowledge was transmitted in all the lands that were anywhere near Asia (bearing in mind that Europe had not had contact with any other civilization with similar sophistication). Certainly it is true that most Europeans did not know Greek before Rome expanded but that is equivalent to saying that most Europeans were ignorant hicks prior to Roman expansion.
• Regarding the "colonization", my understanding is this. In the East the population was huge and most of the educated people there were more educated than the Romans that were conquering them. Therefore, other than wanting to understand their masters, they had no particular desire to learn Latin. The Roman conquerors were, in a general sense, in awe of Greek culture and therefore did not see a reason to try to force Latin on everyone (well, I have read, actually, that they did try at first but gave that up quickly). In the West, by contrast, populations were smaller and so, for one, when settlers came from Italy they had more influence by the shear numbers of them. More than this, though, the Italians coming over tended to be more sophisticated than the populations they entered and so those populations had more of a tendency to want to learn the ways (and language) of their conquerors. Even in the West, though, I do not believe it was so much that the Romans tried to stamp out the local cultures as that the local cultures were simply overwhelmed by a more sophisticated society. So it is less an issue of former Greek colonies vs. non-Greek colonies than sophisticated, wealthy urban centers vs. rural villages.
• I guess I am unclear about the reorganization efforts on the article as a whole that you keep mentioning. My thinking is that the old organization was actually good. That is, briefly go over the history in broad strokes, but then discuss the various facets of the Empire (e.g. language) without focusing too much on chronology. I believe to make the whole article chronologically based would make it less engaging and less accessible to novice readers (which, of course, is the target audience).

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bah, this is nothing (go to the last archive and go to "page protection", now that was a long discussion).

Points 1 and 2. They weren't called "hicks" but rather "barbarians" for a reason (those who don't speak Greek - ancient Greek pov, or those who don't speak Greek or Latin - Roman pov). Other than that I agree with you somewhat, and I believe that you're getting my point.

Point 3. The old organization wasn't good, it was bad, but really really bad. This article, instead of showing the various aspects of the Roman empire (military, government, people, foreign relations, economy, currency, etc - they are still not here but I'm slowly getting there), was largely focussed in the reigns of the various emperors and all their great/manly/crazy deeds. The mostly chronological part was transferred towards History of the Roman Empire. This article will in the end resemble current country-articles like German and France (various aspects of the country described in a short fashion leading to specialized articles). It is simply foolish to include a overly large history part in the main article (we can't go into too much detail - and thereby fail in showing all the history - but still manage to bloat the main article to a too large size. I was one of the responsible for this failed approach, this was a very bitter pill that I had to swallow. All the information of "the emperors" will be seriously reduced. For such information Wikipedia has 'History of the Roman Empire' and the individual emperor-articles (e.g. "Augustus", "Tiberius", "Caligula, etc). Specialization is the way to go, there is no sense in repeating the same information several times (once in the "Augustus"-article", then in the "Roman Empire"-article, and yet again in the "History of the Roman Empire". No, specialization is the best answer).

• Latin and Greek were the major languages of the Roman Empire. The imperial bureaucracy worked in both languages, and two official secretaries dealt with the correspondence, in Greek for the eastern provinces, and in Latin for the western provinces.

• By the time of the imperial period Latin had evolved into two languages: the 'high' written Classical Latin and the 'low' spoken Vulgar Latin. While Classical Latin remained relatively stable, Vulgar Latin as with any spoken language was continually fluid and slowly evolving. Greek had also evolved in the 'high' Attic Greek and 'low' Koine Greek. (I might be mistaken here)

• Greek was the long established lingua franca in the Mediterranean, and very important inside the eastern provinces. The influence of Latin was stronger in the western provinces and there it would slowly gain in importance.

• Greek and Classical Latin were considered the languages of literature, scholarship, and education. One of the passages of the The Twelve Caesars even tells us that, as a barbarian addressed emperor Claudius in both Greek and in Latin, the reply of the emperor began with: "Since you come armed with both our languages...". Claudius is also the last known person to study and to write Etruscan which seems to have died out in the 1st century AD. Nearly all educated persons in the East could speak Greek, just as all educated persons in the West spoke Latin and Greek, but a great proportion of ordinary people spoke neither.

• In the enormous and multi-ethnic empire several other languages were spoken, some even gaining local official status during some periods. Aramaic and Syriac were spoken in certain eastern provinces and, in addition to Greek, had become accepted literary languages by the local elite. Also important were Coptic in Egypt and Armenian in Armenia, while the use of Phoenician seems to have entered a period of slow decline. Hard knowledge of the usage of the various Celtic dialects and languages is sadly lacking.

Agree, disagree? Flamarande (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the history is way too long but I still think that it is better in a general article like this one to have only the history section be chronologically organized and the rest be more of a broad overview of each sub-category of the topic (like the Germany and France articles you mention). I think trying to have separate sections for, say, religion in the early Empire, religion at the height of the Empire, and religion in the late Empire just makes things more confusing for the novice (and inherently forces the article to be longer).

Neutrality-wise your proposal now is pretty good (I still think it does not emphasize some interesting aspects of the history but, for the sake of consensus, I say good enough). But you seem to moving toward increasingly awkward phrasing and trying to highlight some relatively trivial points (which is not the end of the world but is perhaps misleading in over-emphasizing them). As I mentioned Etruscan was mostly a non-issue during imperial times so I am not sure why you are so gung-ho about bringing it up. Phoenician perhaps was a little more significant but even that I think it was a relatively minor language in the Empire (with the exception of the Carthiginian region Phoenician was essentially dead at the outset of the imperial period). The Celtic languages are probably more significant to mention as they had more longevity but, as you point out, there is not a lot of info about them. Still, I would say something more useful than "knowledge ... is sadly lacking".

Regarding Koine vs. Attic, you statements about "low" vs. "high" are somewhat correct but I think a lot of scholars would argue this is overstating things. Certainly all authors regarded Classical Latin as being superior to Vulgar Latin and would almost never consider writing in the vernacular. By contrast Koine was a widely used written language even in the earliest imperial times and -- I believe -- was what most scientific and practical works were written in. My understanding is that Attic was more the choice for genuine literature, works about language and rhetoric, etc. (I am not 100% clear about where the division lay). So for a long time Attic was the more prevalent language for major literary works but, as a practical matter, probably more actual writing was done in Koine (e.g. I think imperial correspondence would have always been in Koine, not Attic). So to describe Koine as the "low" dialect perhaps implies something that is not precisely true.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Current scholars and historians use mainly "empire" and "Late empire" (there will be no "height of the Empire"-section). All the emperor-sections will be drastically reduced and merged into a single section (with proper sub-sections) replacing the current history-section at the beginning of the article. I think that the dying out of Etruscan can (and should) be mentioned in the present short fashion. It is just a single and short sentence. Replacing Phoenician with Punic can be done. I would like to say something about the Celtic languages, but alas, all my books speak little about this. If Greek wasn't low and high then we can simply write "Attic and Koine Greek".

• Latin and Greek were the major languages of the Roman Empire. The imperial bureaucracy worked in both languages, and two official secretaries dealt with the correspondence, in Greek for the eastern provinces, and in Latin for the western provinces.

• By the time of the imperial period Latin had evolved into two languages: the 'high' written Classical Latin and the 'low' spoken Vulgar Latin. While Classical Latin remained relatively stable, Vulgar Latin was, as with any spoken language, continually fluid and slowly evolving. Greek had also evolved into Attic Greek and Koine Greek.

• Greek was the long established lingua franca in the Mediterranean, and very important inside the eastern provinces. The influence of Latin was stronger in the western provinces and there it would slowly gain in importance.

• Greek and Classical Latin were considered the languages of literature, scholarship, and education. One of the passages of the The Twelve Caesars even tells us that, as a barbarian addressed emperor Claudius in both Greek and in Latin, the reply of the emperor began with: "Since you come armed with both our languages...". Claudius is also the last known person to study and to write Etruscan which seems to have died out in the 1st century AD. Nearly all educated persons in the East could speak Greek, just as all educated persons in the West spoke Latin and Greek, but a great proportion of ordinary people spoke neither.

• In the enormous and multi-ethnic empire several other languages were spoken, some even gaining local official status during some periods. Aramaic and Syriac were spoken in certain eastern provinces and, in addition to Greek, had become accepted literary languages by the local elite. Also important were Coptic in Egypt, and Armenian in Armenia, while the use of Punic seems to have entered a period of slow decline. Hard knowledge about the various Celtic dialects and languages is sadly lacking.

Well, I believe this text is ready to be included in the article. Flamarande (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Mcorazao, unless you see anything wrong with this text I'm going to include it tomorrow. It can/will be surely improved later (I'm not planning to do anything about it, but this section will need some watching). Flamarande (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I am disappointed in the current state of the "languages" section, albeit the intentions behind it appear to be very good (I don't know the recent evolution of the section - perhaps its undergone the usual vandalism). There was a version written a while back that was coherent and appropriately cited and, importantly, it worked in constructively with what was written before it. I am also gobsmacked to read the near-dismissal (here) of other languages that existed prior to the arrival of either Greek or Latin, and continued to thrive during the Greco-Roman period. This should not be a Greek vs Latin issue, nor is it a Western vs Eastern Church issue, or an anything else issue - it simply boils down to known facts. The deletion of a swathe a valid references and the text they support is tantamount to vandalism. When I get a chance (unfortunately in several weeks) I will search for the older version, double check it, and revert to it. Romaioi (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Map

Since Flamarande brought up Mango: there's a nice map in "Horrocks, G. Greek: a History of the Language and its Speakers" which depicts the linguistic situation in the RE during Justinian's time (after the re-conquest). It's sourced to the same work by Mango which was cited above, though I'm not sure if Horrocks makes use of the data to create his own map or simply replicates one. Despite depicting a rather late situation, at least with regards to the West which is mostly outside the RE and consequently not included in the map, it might be useful to have it here. If you think it's a worthy addition, I'll ask an editor involved in map-making that I have in mind and see if he has the time. (PS: this page needs some archiving. I'm getting massive lag.) 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec, that map is about the empire of Justinian the Great (ERE - BE) and it fails to show the languages of the western part of the old Roman empire before 395. I wouldn't include it here, but I would include it in the article Byzantine Empire.I don't know how to transfer parts of this talpage towards an archive but if anyone knows the proper procedure be my guest. Just leave the last four five sections. Flamarande (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the old (particularly nonsensical during Justianian's time) debate between "Byzantine" and "Roman". The reasons stated above on why the map is NOT good for the Roman Empire article are enough for me to pursue the matter no further. 3rdAlcove (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Permanent division

Thinking about the following phrase in the intro

However, after the death of Theodosius I in 395, the two halves were permanently divided.

I wonder if this is really a historically accurate statement. Granted this is the traditional way most Western texts have written about it. But setting aside the artificial historical partitions I am not sure this reflects reality. If we follow the history

• In 395, Theodosius dies passing the Empire to his two sons who separately rule over the East and West.
• A succession of emperors following keeps East and West separate.
• In 476, Odoacer kills the de facto Western rule Orestes and deposes the figurehead Romulus Augustus.
• Eastern emperor Zeno grants Odoacer the title of Patrician and Odoacer acknowledges (nominally) Zeno's supremacy effectively making Zeno ruler of East and (what's left of) West
• Odoacer, and later Theodoric rule Italy in the name of Eastern emperor nominally maintaining a unified Empire (the East had no real control, of course, and battles ensued).
• It was not until the 8th/9th century that what remained of loyalty in Rome to the Eastern emperor was finally severed with the coronation of Charlemagne.

Legally speaking the Empire was considered united at the end of the 5th century even if that was in name only. Granted, I am not arguing that East and West had not split before Charlemagne but stating that East and West were permanently divided after the 4th century is perhaps overstating things (at least being misleading).

Perhaps a statement like

However, after the death of Theodosius I in 395, no emperor would again have genuine supremacy over a united Roman Empire, although the Eastern emperors claimed such supremacy from the late 5th century onward.

is preferable.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Mcorazao, a honest warning: accusations of "POV-wording" have a way of blowing up into one's face. IMHO to "Rule" or "hold genuine supremacy" means the same (the first one is simply shorter). Flamarande (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, certainly no offense was intended but I have to give a reason for my edits. Obviously the average person would not think about this deeply enough about this that the subtlety in wording would actually matter. But still I believe the distinction is important. For the sake of brevity I did remove the final clause in my proposal above although, since you are suggesting a lack of clarity, maybe a clause like that one does belong. The point is that there is a lot of historical controversy about who ruled what. Legally-speaking the Eastern empire did assert dominion over the Western empire and this was at least recognized by Italy (including Rome) and to lesser extents other parts of the West. Aside from that, Justinian reconquered much of the West, albeit temporarily, and claimed to rule over an undivided empire (and indeed he did have actual control over territories in the East and West although the portion of the West that he controlled was a shadow of the former Empire).

I you have a preference in wording by all means put it in. I am simply saying that we should try to avoid being misleading wherever possible (it is impossible for a summary to not be misleading to some degree but this is a case where we can at least be less misleading).

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Time for a change

With all the hoopla we've had to listen to over this article you would think it would be in reasonable shape by now (months, years later) but no. So if you do not mind (if that would not be too, too objectionable) I plan to start taking a hand in all the small ways that count at first and then we will see. First is the notion that the republic is in any way an "empire" or was ever called that outside of the silver screen, whose fans are now winging it on Winkipedia. An imperator before Augustus was a military commander, forbidden by law to cross the Rubicon in that capacity on penalty of death. If anyone in any contexts had used the term of himself or anyone else in Rome he would have shared the fate of Julius Caesar. Long after the empire was an established fact the emperors were still acting in the name of the SPQR. Let's get this article squared away now. How long do you want to jerk it around? You'll be all grown up by the time it is finished. Sorry, but you merit this call to action.Dave (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"All the hoopla... (months, years later)"? I have begun to improve this article on a more regular basis since the 9 of July (more or less) and I believe that the article is slowly gaining in clarity and in details. I admit that the work is slow going, but better slow and well than quick and lacking. It isn't that easy as I'm trying my best to be objective besides providing proper sources in the correct places. Still, serious edits are always appreciated. Flamarande (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't you love hypocrites? They complain about the problem but dont do anything usefull beyond whinning. Get some muscle boy, do it yourself.--Jakezing (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

He is right in one thing: the subject more than deserves an excellent article. However, I made it quite clear that I'm going to take some breaks from time to time in order not to burn out. It would also easier to simply write away but I want to provide credible sources in all the correct places, and THAT takes a lot of time. Well this week I have a couple of days... Flamarande (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Im bogged down at the kosovo reaction and the settia and ab. reaction pages for the time bein. We have some pretty big fights, when we had a maop that shows recognized, nuetral, not recognized and soon to reco. and concern, it was pure war, we had alot of fights over malasia, so i'd help, but i can't.--Jakezing (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

117 AD Map

The current 117 map shows that the Roman Empire did not have access to the Persian Gulf nor the Caspian Sea. The fact that Trajan's annexation of Armenia would have opened over a thousand miles worth of Caspian access via the Kura River - control of the river mouth would have been imperative in many ways. A detachment of Legio XII Fulminata was also at the shores of the Caspian on multiple occasions in the previous decades.

Trajan himself was in Charax in 116 - with a detachment of his troops of course. All Persian sovereignty over the region was no longer in effect. For Trajan, complete naval access to the Persian Gulp via the Euphrates would have been vital for any expedition against Persia in the future.

--Tataryn77 (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm are you claiming that Roman empire reached the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf, or are you telling us that it should have done so?

In the case of the first I can only advise you to find a credible and serious source that confirms this. I vaguely remember hearing a story (decades ago) that Trajan reached the Gulf, drank a bit of its water and began to cry because he was too old and ill to continue his conquests towards India (I'm not vouching for the accuracy of the story, it is eerily similar to Alexander and Caesar and is probably hypocritical). If you could find the exact borders of the provinces Mesopotamia and Assyria the issue could be verified.

In the case of the second, simply forget it. Cheers Flamarande (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm obviously not here to discuss alternate histories.. that's for another time and place. Wikipedia itself attests to Trajan being at Charax, and Danny Danzigers 'Hadrian's Empire' also mentions Trajan being in Charax.

Wikipedia mentions a Roman presence in Baku on multiple occasions, though sourcing that may take a few days. Many other maps also show the Roman Empire reaching the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf in 117 AD.

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/maps/romanempire.jpg http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst372/readings/maps/RomanEmpire.html http://coursedocs.slcc.edu/huma/1100/roman%20empire.jpg http://worldcoincatalog.com/AC/C5/RomanEmpire/RomanEmpire.jpg

--Tataryn77 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the maps. I'm not sure in the current map that it shows the Romans did capture the city of Susa. That city was in modern day Iran near the Persian golf. Trajan captured that city in his battles against the Parthians.Someone might want to edit the map and explain what the two different green colors mean. --Titus001 (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea for sure, somebody should just edit the map accordingly to a median 117 map precedent. Also, indicating the Bosporan Kingdom, and is the Parthian green supposed to indicate Parthamaspates' domain? --Tataryn77 (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a wiki map of the Roman Empire at greatest extent from the italian wiki Roman Empire map. I was looking at the other languages for the Roman Empire and most of them use the map I posted.It shows the Romans made it to the persian golf and caspian sea. What do you think of the map? http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:LocationRomanEmpire.png --Titus001 (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the temporary conquests of Trajan (those which were returned by Hadrian) should simply get a different colour. Come on guys, the Roman empire held Mesopotamia and Assyria for more or less three years, nothing more. See the Sassanid Empire. There was one successful ruler who managed to conquer great territories (modern Egypt, Israel, Syria, and Turkey), but in the end the Sassanids lost them again. Here we have the same situation and IMHO we should follow the same policy. Other than that the map is fine. Flamarande (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the current map still seems to be somewhat off, in particular the light green does not really display the areas that hadrian abandoned again. The light green area to left was never conquered by trajan, while the dark green areas in mesopotamia/Iraq and armenia where actually abandoned by Hadrian. See also the links further up displaying some historic maps from other sources. Some of the other Interwikis used more accurate maps, these for instance display the siutation in the east more accurately: [1],[2],[3].--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-Write

I have just finished some major changes to this article. I will still need another day or two to do some cleanup, most of which will consist of shrinking the article. Right now it is at about 100 KB, and should probably be brought down to at least 80 or 70 KB. Ideally I would like to get this article promoted to GA status. I don't think I have to remind anyone that this article had major issues before. I decreased the amount of information on the emperors, and increased the sections on government, culture, and campaign history. I think that the biggest problem with the article before was that there was too much information on the emperors. Discussing Vespasian's Spanish policy, for example, is a topic best left to the article on Vespasian. Even topics such as Sejanus and Caligula's horse are too specific for an article on the entire Roman Empire. The overall point of this article is to appeal to an audience of non-experts, who may not be interested in every detail. The article before was simply too overwhelming (and disorganized) to accomplish this goal. The article before, for example, had 60 items listed in the contents box (half of these on the emperor alone). It now has about 20 overall.

Most of what I added simply came from other Roman articles. Most of the rest of the changes were simply a reorganization of information already on this article, or the deletion of information too specific or too complex for the scope of this article. Given the additions on culture in particular, I was still only able to reduce the overall size from about 130 KB to 100 KB, which is why more deletions will be necessary. 100 KB is simply too long and too overwhelming for most non-experts. If they want specifics, they can go to the article on that particular topic.

I will detail what I did specificaly. You can see the older version here: [4]. History [5], Major Conquests [6], Rebellions [7], Byzantine Empire [8], and revival of the empire [9], have all been removed. These were either not germane to the topic (or at least not enough to justify the excess complexity they added to the article), or were simply redundant. As I said, we want non-experts to be able to read this without being overwhelmed.

All remaining sections, other than the sections on the emperors, were moved into either the new sections on the Roman government, culture, or military and provinces. This was mostly just a reorganization, and I didn't delete too much. I did, however, add a significant amount of information on Roman culture and Roman government. These topics were not addressed to an adequate level before.

I have attempted to transform the old sections on the emperors into two sections: one on the military campaign history, and a second on the emperors. I have tried to minimize my discussion of military topics on the section about the emperors. Most of the important military matters that were discussed in the old emperor sections have simply been moved to the section on campaign history. This has been done, in part, to remove some of the unnecessary complexity from the article.

I have not yet had a chance to look at the legacy section.RomanHistorian (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the sections "The Emperors" and "Campaign History of the Roman Empire" should be combined in a single section called "History". Also, the former section "395–1453: Survival in the East: Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire" should be readded (since the name of this article is "Roman Empire", not Western Roman Empire). Cody7777777 (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The article certainly still needs some improvements, and and two paragraphs, one about the Western Roman Empire and another about the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire are a must, and will be included. RomanHistorian, I think that your edits are appreciated (Being very honest I think you changed a bit too much in a very short amount of time, but what the hell). On the the other hand, I don't agree with having very few but too large sections; subsections are not a bad thing as they give an easier overlook (of course there is also the danger of overdoing it). Flamarande (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I admit that the changes were a lot over a short period of time, but as I see it, this thing sat here for years like this, not really getting any better (as in, less overwhelming or more organized). RomanHistorian (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I do have a life (work, computer games, TV, friends, family, etc) besides Wikipedia. I began improving this article on a more regular basis only since the 9th of July (please take a look at the article before this date - I think that it is somewhat better). I fully admit that it is a slow process and I'm not against your improvements. One problem is that I like to provide hard sources (and primary or ancient secondary sources are simply better) and that takes time. Still go ahead. how about a "Foreign relations" section? Flamarande (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think one reason why change on this article was as slow as it was, was because people were writing things de novo. An article like this, which covers such a broad range of topics, should not have any original work on it. The original work should be on other articles regarding the specific topic (such as Domitian or Roman Religion). Thats why the article now is just an ordered summary of information found on other Roman Empire articles. Also, ancient sources are typically not ideal for a wikipedia article, because they are often inaccurate, biased, or mythological. Livy's first 10 books, for example, are mostly mythological, but no one (including Livy) realized this until about the year 1900. Modern sources are better, because they filter out as much of this inaccuracy as possible. RomanHistorian (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to clean up the Notes section a bit as well. Imho the article lists way to many books and some of them are only remotely related to the content of the article (like general books on antiquity, the greek world, or the roman conquest od scotland , ...). To exaggerate it a bit, right now it looks like every author working on the article added every book he knew being related to ancient Rome. Ideally the Notes section in the article shouldn't be much bigger than the current external links section, i.e. a few good books on the Roman empire and that's it. Books that are only needed for particular references should go in the references section, books only dealing with special issues (like the conquest of Scotland) should go to main articles on those specialized subjects. And if people feel the need for an extensive reading list on Rome, that probably should be moved to separate main article as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have made the changes. RomanHistorian (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Roman Empire

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Roman Empire's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nameOfRomeP358":

• From Siege of Pirisabora: In the Name of Rome, p. 358
• From Campaign history of the Roman military: Goldsworthy, In the Name of Rome, p. 358

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved. RomanHistorian (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

the most sofisticated adminstration?

how aobut china or india or persia etc. i can understand that his wiki is sorta western-centric but still to make such a claim seems a bit chavinist

please give me the different kinds of ROMAN EMPHIRE ( EMPEROR ) BECAUSE THIS KIND OF RESEARCH IS A PROJECT OF MY NEPHEW. KINDLY REPLY WITH MY REQUIRE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.229.110 (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Caligula

The man acted in an evil way. But just because he was declared insane after his assassination does not mean that he WAS crazy.211.225.37.54 (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

He made a horse, Incitatus by name, a senator. Not the action of an entirely sane and level-headed man.Urselius (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitatus suggests that Caligula may have done the Incitatus stuff to ridicule and anger the Senate, rather than as an act of insanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafinnerty (talk • contribs) 11:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How could we know? The historians had a tendency to describe emperors as easily catching emperor-madness, but for whome did the historians write? Were they part of a certain fraction of the upper class, or who where they? I've heard that kremlologists and secret service analysts have achieved a considerable skill in reconstructing reasonable event development explaining a mysterious outward surface of politics, so we may consult such analyses in order to get a reasonable authoring basis for the articles. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

391

The infobox mentions that in 391 the religion changed from Roman religion to Christianity. No where in the article is 391 mentioned. Can someone elaborate? Kingturtle (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

380 it should be acc2 Theodosius I. I'll make a try to elaborate on it. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed in the infobox, and added 380 in the section Christianity. Not very much to do: just some reformulations and relinkings. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

2 Military 2.2 Auxillia

The Auxilia are described as being paid less than Legionaries.

Wiki article "Auxiliaries (Roman military)" [10] states that knowledge of pay for the Auxilia and Legionaries is at best scant, and that only educated guesses are possible. The section "Quality and combat capability" actually states "Equites cohortales (cohort cavalry) were paid the same as legionaries, and equites alares (ala cavalry) about 20% more.".

Could the Roman Empire article be both edited to reflect the above and linked to the "Auxiliaries (Roman military)" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafinnerty (talk • contribs) 08:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No. I have a couple of books about the Roman army and they tell that the roman troops were paid more. A legionary (infantry soldier) recieved more than an infantry auxilia. The mistake comes from the comparision of infantry with cavalary. Cavalry were paid more than infantry (they also had to pay the fodder of their mounts). Flamarande (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC) PS: that section in particular is already linked towards the article "Auxiliaries (Roman military)".

If the article had singled-out infantry, then fair enough; but it doesn't. Given the content of the Wiki artcle I referred to, it makes no sense to state that the Auxilia were paid less. However, dropping the reference to their pay and allowing the reader to rely upon the Auxilia article does make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafinnerty (talk • contribs) 10:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The comparision of pay can stay and it is a interresting fact. The auxilia were paid less (an auxilia infantary soldier was paid less than a Roman infantary soldier - comparing ancient infantary with cavalary would be more or less comparing modern tanks with planes). You will have to wait a couple of days while I check yet again my sources to explain the diffrence of pay. Flamarande (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good article, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafinnerty (talk • contribs) 11:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Linking to Comparison between Roman and Han Empires?

Hello. There has been recently repeated attempts by User:Teeninvestor to link his article Comparison between Roman and Han Empires to this main page. Comparison between Roman and Han Empires Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (notably, the Rome portal was not notified of the deletion process, so it was kept by 11:8). It still remains under scrutiny, and it does not tell a single new thing about the Imperium Romanum. Could somebody else please tell the user that his faintly disguised NPOV and synthesis article has no place here? There are at least a dozen or two articles on the empire which would rather merit an entry under "see also". Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of information in the article about the Roman Empire, in economic, military, medicine, science, technology and other subjects, which is not covered in the Roman Empire article and can add to the interest of the reader.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This plenty is covered in the numerous other articles on the Roman Empire from which you copy & paste material to your article. There is really no reason to take a look at the Roman Empire by artificially comparing it with another state with which it only had the faintest of contact, when all topics related to here have already long been covered by specific articles. Why should the views of the China Institute of America on Rome (!!) be in any way relevant to readers here? Please get some perspective and stop pushing your POV. We have hundreds of articles on the Imperium Romanum based on scientific sources and specialist scholarship, why should we want to link to your article on which there was not even consensus if it was actually OR? You have half a dozen editors who have expressed serious doubts about your article and you move around here on the most important page on the Roman Empire, as if yours were a featured article. This is not acceptable. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Sino-Roman relations would be a better choice for a link in the see also section if such a Chinese/Roman link was desired? --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the point is that there is no reason for the link being desired. If we feel like linking to other ancient empires or peoples, we obviously should start with the Sassanids, Carthaginians, Etruscans, Celts, Samnites, Germanic peoples, Hellenistic kingdoms etc. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate, there's a (good) reason for comparing both empires from a structural point of view and the perspective of longterm historic processes, which btw do not exist for any of the empires you've mentioned with the possible exception of the sassanid/persian empire (though that is debatable). From the structural point of you look at cultural influence an empire exerts on a larger region and crudely speaking you can argue the role thatt Rome played for the Mediterranean and Europe was played in East-Asia by the Chin and Han empire. So it can make sense to link such a comparison to main articles for the Roman or Han empires.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Change in map?

Why was the green map that showed the greatest extent under Trajan removed and protected? This map should be used or the Trajan map in the 3rd link.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Roman_Empire_map.svg/250px-Roman_Empire_map.svg.png--

Here is a new map I found. http://www-tc.pbs.org/empires/romans/_graphics/timeline/pic_map_trajan.jpg

From the Trajan wiki page. This map is like the map used now only it shows the Roman Empire at it's greatest extent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RomanEmpire_117.svg

The point is almost all empires on wiki always show a particular Empire at it's greatest extent. Example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanid Titus001 (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that removed map seems to be wrong - at least compared to other published maps in literature, the light green area was never under roman control, the current map however (=the 3rd from Trajan's article) seems rather accurate. The discussion further up also deals with the problems of the older map for 117 AD. In the case of the roman empire there are also many maps floating around showing the situation during Augusts' reign or just showing the area that remained under constant Roman control until the split in 395 AD, those maps often exlude trajan's short lived extension in the east (Armenia,assyria,mesopotamia) and sometimes the regnum bospori (crimea),Dacia and the agri decumates as well. --Kmhkmh (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

If someone was to move this article to Italian Empire, would you use the term "vandalism" when you were reverting the idiots move? VartanM (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I probably would. That refers, however only to this particular article and has to be checked for every case individually. I explicitly do not want my answer to your question used to justify any nationalistic turf wars in other corners of the world. Varana (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

in the best case it is an ignorant editor who meant well and in thw worst case it clear vandalism.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Emperors without Busts

Many emperors worthy of busts don't have any on their articles. Surely there must be statues of Valentinian or Theodosius? I found a great bust of Galerius which should be put on his article. I also found busts of Julian, Licinius, Gratian, and Honorius.

Galerius bust: http://www.imperiumromanum.com/personen/kaiser/galerius_01.htm
Licinius bust: http://www.futura-dtp.dk/SLAG/images/Licinius.jpg
Julian bust: http://www.utexas.edu/courses/romanciv/Romancivimages23/julian.jpg Gratian bust: http://www.landesmuseum.de/sonder/2005/imperium/spaetantike.htm
Honorius bust: http://www.livius.org/ho-hz/honorius/honorius.html Theodosius(?): http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ocla.ox.ac.uk/images/portrait_gehn_theodosius.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ocla.ox.ac.uk/biog_gehn.shtml&usg=__bn5rDKjOUm-7TauuZzZ4oZk0K8w=&h=262&w=175&sz=10&hl=en&start=303&tbnid=49WryWBGA1MqCM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=75&prev=/images%3Fq%3DTheodosius%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D288

--Tataryn77 (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Capital" in infobox

Could we please remove this overly long and tedious enumeration of cities which served as the seat of an emperor at one time or another from the infobox? That's a box for a short overview, not the place for in-depth discussion. Just "Rome", maybe with a short note to the effect of "Constantinople for the Eastern Roman Empire" should be enough. Varana (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

BC -> BCE & AD -> CE

I would be bold do the find&replace for it but the article is locked. So could someone else please update it? --199.227.86.10 (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me be blunt: drop dead. I despise political correct ppl who want to rewrite everything around their little pink "neutral" political correct view. Invent your own neutral dating system instead of twisting the most popular dating system of the world (BC & AD). Thanks Flamarande (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Flamarande. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't really matter which dating system is used imho, but in either case it is wikipedia wide decision affecting all history articles, therefore this is not the place to discuss and decide such an issue.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The end of the Pax Romana

In this article it states that the Pax Romana or "Roman Peace" ended in 235 with the assassination of Alexander Severus. However, most historians, including Edward Gibbon, would place the Paz Romana as ending with the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180. Also, due to the fact that the existing wikipedia articles on the Pax Romana and History of the Roman Empire both state that the death of Aurelius ended the Pax Romana, the part of this article stating that it ended in 235 should be changed to the year 180 with the death of Marcus Aurelius. Hopefully someone with proper access can do this since the article is locked and I cannot access it myself. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.6.12 (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Done Flamarande (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually afaik there is no exact dating for the term and it varies with different authors (however AD 180 might be the most common date). There are good reason for and against each date. Pax romana is usually used to indicate a relative border security towards foreign enemies and a relative internal security (rule of of law, safety for citizens from arbutrary prosecution). 235 makes sense since from then on there no stable dynasties anymore but just "soldier emperors" and quite often widespread civil war (various generals and "emperors" fighting each other), also soon after the pressure from outside will strongly increase and result in the crisis of 260. 180 might make sense because Mark Aurel is considered the last of the 5 good emperors, on the other hand under his reign the increased pressure on the borders was basically as big as under the Severian dynasty until 235 and the pax romana in any case refers to a time frame far beyond the 5 good emperors anyhow (since it starts with augustus).--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Pax Romana never really was due to border security, there were countless foreign wars between the reigns of Augustus and Aurelius, the term indicated internal security, with the exception of the year of the four emperors in 69 CE there were no civil wars between the Octavian's defeat of Marc Antony in 31 BCE and the death of Aurelius in 180 CE. After Aurelius things started to internally fall apart, hence the end of the Pax Romana. If its a debate between the dates of 180 and 235 as to when it ended we should look at the internal struggles between those years. After 180 almost every emperor through alexander Severus was assassinated or rose to power through bloodshed and civil war. That fact contradicts what the Pax Romana was all about which was internal Roman peace. It is therefore clear, and most widely agreed upon by scholars, that the Internal Roman Peace ended in 180 with the death of Marcus Aurelius.

I somewhat disagree "pax romana" concerns relative border security as well and border security influences the inner stability anyhow. It is true that after Mark Aurel assassination of emperors increased, but there was nevertheless a somewhat stable dynasty (the severian). Also note that assassinations (or violent death) and some civil war existed during the pax romana before the 5 good emperors as well. For instance consider the end of caligula, nero, domitian and the year 69 with 4 emperors and widespread civil war. Keeping those things in mind the period from 180-235 was worse but not that different from the pax romana time before 96. However after 235 volatility (lack of dynasty) and internal and external warfare increased significantly.Anyhow I'm not claiming 180 is a false date, i'm just saying there's a fair argument for both dates and not all authors date date the phrase excactly and pick 180. Btw another option would be AD 192 (i.e. include the reign of commodus, since civil war and chaos started breaking out towards the end of his reign and not with Mark aurel's death)--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

On that note the term dominate (235-395) seems to used faslely as well. At least in German the term dominate ist used for the 284-395 starting with reorganization of the empire of diocletion (who also adopted the title dominus et deus iirc, from which dominate is derived), for the period from 235-284 the term "soldier emperors" or Barracks emperor is used.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, the term dominate should only be used after the reorganization of the empire by Diocletian, because that is when the Roman government changed from the Principate to the Dominate. Anything before Diocletian should stillbe considered part of the Principate. Or as you said between 235 and 284 they should only be called Barracks emperors

Actaully it seems in the English speaking world the 235-284 period is separated in barracks emperors and illyrian emperors (though structurally being similar anyhow), while in German the term "soldier emperors" (Soldatenkaiser) is used for the whole period, but in both languages dominate refers to the time after 284. Therefore I went ahead and corrected the concerned headline.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

soldiers in the rome normally served for the roman army between 20 to 25 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.25.80 (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Third Roman Empire

In the Legacy section it mentions how a few empires have claimed to be the third roman empire (i.e. Russia, Holy Roman Empire, and the Ottomans). Couln't we also include Nazi Germany in this list? They did claim that Germany was the third Reich i believe. 98.196.78.26 (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)