Talk:Roman Empire

The Catiline Conspiracy

I'm curious of to what extent the Catiline Conspiracy about 63 B.C. had of importance for the transition from republic to empire. The Playwright Henrik Ibsen's first play "Catilina" suggests this to mark the beginning of the transition. If that has historiographic ground, shouldn't it then be written in the opening passage about the transition? --Xact (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The picture The Christan Martyr's Last Prayer

The picture is inaccurate. The Christans were not killed in the Colleseum in any way. The persecution of the Jews was mostly during Nero's time, in 64 a.d. The Colosseum wasn't even built until the 1st century a.d. Because of Hollywood and inaccurate research, people some how believe they were killed in the Colosseum. If christens were to be killed, then sand piles would of been put in the streets for the christens to die in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronCochrane (talk • contribs) 05:25, 15 November 2009 (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.

Infobox

Why does the successor in the infobox now link to the "Late Roman empire (after 312)" (a nonexistent article)? Only recently, there were links to the Byzantine Empire and the Western Roman Empire. Hayden120 (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed rather, maybe the author wanted to write a new article, but that still seems misplaced i see no real significance in the date of 312, other than the (early) rise of constantin maybe (his 312 conquest of Rome), which may have somewhat changed the original 4 emperor model by diocletian, however i never saw that as an explicit distinction in literature. another oddity the infobox contains now is, that western empire starts in 284 (diocletian) but the eastern empire in 330 (building of constantinopel). But assigning it this way means there was an western empire without an eastern part, which makes no sense.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

SPQR?

Apropos the Info box: I'm not perfectly knowledgeable in this, but isn't it always S.P.Q.R. with abbreviation dots? I believe abbreviation dots were obligatory for the Romans. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm going to answer it myself: images such as on [1] shows that it was customary to skip the dots on coins. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The dots in ancient Roman inscriptions do not represent abbreviations (punctuation was largely inexistent in antiquity), but divide words from one another. If you take a look, for instance, at the Pantheon inscription, the dot appears even after complete words (Agrippa, tertium). These were by no means obligatory - you'll find a lot of inscriptions without them. Regards, Varana (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Capital

Look ppl, we have to clarify the issue of the capital. I'm inclined to agree with the current:

• Rome was the sole political capital until AD 286
• Under the Tetrarchy there were several political centres, while Rome continued to be the nominal, cultural, and ideological capital of the entire empire.
• Under the rule of Constantine the empire changed capital from Rome to Constantinople.
• After the division of the empire to its east and west part, the west part had Mediolanum then Ravenna as capital.

However the last two sentences can be further improved, perhaps:

• Constantine established the city of Constantinople as the new capital in (date - with the link). Milan was its western counterpart during the increasingly often divisions of the empire.
• After the death of Theodosius in 395 came the final division. The western imperial court was reallocated to Ravenna in 402.

This is just a proposal, and can be changed. Flamarande (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mistranslation of SPQR

SPQR, or Senatus Populusque Romanus has been mistranslated in this article as "The Senate and People of Rome". Romanus is a second declension adjective; the noun is Roma, a first declension noun. The correct translation would be "The Roman Senate and People", as Romanus is modifying Senatus and Populus. For it to translate as "The Senate and People of Rome", the Latin would have to read "Senatus Populusque Romae" with Roma in the genitive possessive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.235.158 (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You should raise this point at the respective article: SPQR. Flamarande (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Latin adjective Romanus, Romana, Romanum means "Roman" which, in itself, means "of Rome", so the original translation should stand without emendation. MAKLatin (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; one has to realize that translations are by their very nature a tricky business. Sometimes the literal (word for word) translation gives a different result as the 'translation of the whole sentence'. The second kind tries to follow the original meaning (spirit). IMHO the second one is (most of the time) simply better. "The Senate and People of Rome" stays. Flamarande (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We need a statue bust for Claudius II Gothicus!

He was a good emperor despite his short reign, and I've seen busts of him out there. We finally gave Galerius a statue bust recently. We're gradually improving the articles of emperors!--Tataryn77 (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

han

okay here you go with the old stuff we need new things that is about the old history and all of thAT good stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.146.148 (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

should we use bce or bc; ad or ce

i was wondering in order to be politically sensitive to non Christians should we refer all bc as bce. historians are using bceJaviern (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of the English-speaking world uses BC/AD. To be "politically sensitive" is twisting a language along political correct lines. Flamarande (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

However, the overwhelming majority of scientists, educators, scholars and non-Christian religious leaders have been using the BCE and CE designations for many years now, and in Jewish scholarship it has been used for over a century. It has nothing to do with politically correct and everything to do with being impartial and not favoring one religion over the other, as the use of BC and AD are exclusively Christian in nature and do not apply to most cultures on Earth.Saloli 21:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saloli (talk • contribs)

Current vs Past Tense

In the last sentence of the antepenultimate paragraph of the section "Crisis of the Third Century and the later emperors (235–395)," "choose" is used despite "chose" being the grammatically correct choice. I'd fix it myself, but the article is locked. Humicroav (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

This article has been page protected since 17 March 2009.[2]
Abbot's (1901:312) characterization of Domitian is only his opinion,[3] and should not be presented, as it is here, as fact.98.203.142.17 (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

In theory, semi-protection means that IPs post to the talk page, where established editors then evaluate their proposed changes.

In practice, semi-protection means that IPs' posts are ignored, since they can't change the article anyway.98.203.142.17 (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)