Talk:Ancient Rome

This article was chosen as Article Improvement Drive article of the week on Sunday, 11th December 2005. The archive of the selection process can be found at Talk:Ancient Rome/AID vote archive

---

Linear Format Issues

While perusing the article, I noticed a fairly informative section on the Circus Maximus in the "Culture: Games and Activities" section. Imagine my horror as I scroll down to the "Great Roman Buildings" section only to find the exact same information worded in a different manner! I understand neither section can be completely removed while retaining the relativity of each topic. I would suggest a smaller reference to the Circus Maximus in the "Games and Activities" section, and leave the mass explanation for later. Thanks. -ExNoctem 22:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the detail on subjects like the Circus Maximus and other buildings is inappropriate for this article. I'd like to see them replaced with links to the appropriate article elsewhere. Other opinions? Mlouns 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Change in gross error

Forgive me for coming in and just editing but I could not help myself. The original file for the Temple of Iulius Caesar stated it was the temple of Sean Taylor; and the text goes on to talk about Taylor. This must be an act of vandalism or someone's joke, in either case I changed it to what is should read.

Neos Dionysos 07:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Phil, 11/23/06

Vandal deletion on 3 May 2006 still not reinstated

A heap of info was deleted by a vandal in this diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Rome&diff=51351666&oldid=51307108) on the 3rd of May, about 150 edits back. None of it is in this current version of the article. This is likely to be a high traffic article. We need to be more careful.

Any volunteers to patch this article back up? I'm going to do the government and law sections patching up since that's where I was reading when I couldn't decipher the sentence! — Donama 07:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: I already fixed it -- only a few edits have been allowed to go through since then and, except for changing the spelling to American, I've been reasonably happy with the edits. — Donama 00:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

One edit changed "princeps" to "imperator" but I'm not sure either word should be used since we normally say emperor. — Donama 00:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• (And I suppose nobody cares about the fact that this article's entire "History" section was deleted a couple of weeks after the aforementioned incident, and has, apparently, yet to be noticed by a single editor? Fun.) -Silence 05:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• The 'legends' section of the history page has been vandalised. 81.132.23.254 19:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Somebody correct me before I edt, but didn't Rome allow any religion to pertain in its civilization? There was no religious persecution, I believe, and I'm pretty sure military service was mandatory. Oyo321 22:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Depends when you mean. In the early republic, military service was more or less mandatory of you owned any property (although I imagine the sons of the very rich could find ways out of it - a trip to Rhodes to study under a master of rhetoric, perhaps). If you had no property at all you weren't eligible for military service. After Marius it became a professonal volunteer army, and by the late Empire virtually no Romans served - the army was largely made up of provincials and foreign federates.

As for religion, in pre-Christian times observing the Roman state religion was a matter of allegiance to the Roman state, so as long as you were prepared to sacrifice to Jupiter and so on on official occasions I think they were more or less happy to let you do what you liked on your own time. Other pagans could fit in reasonably easily by identifying their gods with the Roman ones, and some foreign deities, like Isis, became popular in their own right. Jews and Christians were a problem, because they believed their god was the only one and worshipping any other was an affront to him, so they weren't prepared to sacrifice to Jupiter publicly and worship their own way in private. There were periods of persecution of both religions (and I believe of other foreign cults) from time to time, because they were effetively refusing to swear allegiance to Rome. Eventually the Empire made the mountain go to Mohammed by making Christianity their official religion, so by worshipping their own god in their own way the Christians were swearing allegiance to Rome as well. After that there were periods of persecution of paganism and of heretical versions of Christianity.

So, mostly, you're wrong. There was religious presecution, and military service wasn't mandatory. --Nicknack009 00:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. The Roman army was made up of many "disposable" armies of mercenary and only the legions were true Roman decendents. I'm pretty sure military service was mandatory in order to remain in the Roman Empire. I see you are right about religious persecution. I must have been misinformed. Before an ethnic group could enter Roman boundaries to serve under Rome for their protection. Oyo321 00:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Druidism in Gaul was another example of a religion that was officially banned by the Romans and whose adherents were persecuted. Ostensively because their worship involved human sacrifice. I believe I read that in Gibons' "Decline and Fall".

Persecutions were not common, but they definitely existed. Essentially, the ancient Romans mostly left people free to practise whatever religion they wanted, as long as that did not involve human sacrifice, and as long as it did not represent a threat to Rome's political supremacy. Celtic druidism, for example, was actively persecuted for both reasons: it did involve human sacrifice, and druids, being not just "priests", but also intellectuals and to some extent judges, acted as an important focus to rally celtic opposition to Roman rule. So, they had to go. As for early Christianity, in the very early days they were heavily influenced by mysteric cults that were all the rage in the Roman Empire; they practised their rites in the privacy of people's homes, not in public temples, so they were always eyed with suspect by authorities. As with any "secretive" sect, at that point you can attribute to them pretty much any practice you despise, so they were accused of human sacrifices (no evidence of that ever emerged), and of infiltrating the political structure of the Empire (this was essentially true, as the religion spread among Roman patricians), and consequently perceived as a threat and persecuted. --Nehwyn 07:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Etrucean

There should be a section on "Roman" numerals and its origins. We accidently call it "Roman", but the numerals are actually Etrucean. Oyo321 13:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I take you mean Etruscan? Any source? --Nehwyn 07:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Glaring Omission

I was looking over this article, and something really important just wasn't there. the influence of rome on modern culture. Almost every section of modern Euro-American society takes at least a few things from rome. All I'm hoping for is a section header and a {{mainarticle}} template pointing to wherever that is discussed. If there's no such Article, then that's even worse. i kan reed 19:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Now this is a very good observation. Such a "legacy" section would be a bit complex to write, though, and possibly difficult to source. --Nehwyn 07:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Studies section

I'm not sure how this is related, but i think as it is its extremely unclear, with lots of references that someone looking for information on Ancient Rome wouldnt necessarily be looking for. I think it needs some attention. Miles 18:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Population 4,937,000 in 14 AD

Currently there is a chart of the population of Ancient Rome and the title indicates the area of the City of Rome. The estimate of is 4 million in 14 AD. Today, the city of Rome is only 2+ million. I wondered if that chart was accurate. (If so, feel free to delete my comment here on this talk page.) Jeff Carr 04:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That is the total citizen population of Italy, not Rome.

About the population of Rome see this article

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/journals/CP/29/2/Population_of_Rome*.html#note6

-Fco

Potential Source and Lack of Content

I've been reading Niccolo Machiavelli (sp?) Discourses on Livy. He makes multiple references to the history of the Roman Monarchy, citing names and events. Whereas I have not yet waded through the original text (the first ten books of Titus Livius) I assume that history can be found there.

Good Article Review

This article has failed its good article review. There are a number of reasons, which are discussed below, but crucially it simply does not have enough references. It is a good read, and I realise that it is an "A" on the Wikiproject's scale, which is above GA. Wikiprojects can review to their own standards, whereas I obviously have to adhere to the good article criteria in order to pass it as a GA. Numbers in brackets refer to the good article criteria that assessment covers.

Well written: Pass. The article is written in compelling prose (1a). Jargon is explained, and where necessary wikilinked (1d). It also follows a logical, hierarchical structure (1b). All Latin and other non-English words are italicised.

Factually accurate and verifiable: Fail. This article has a staggering 8150 words, and only 16 references! Out of 42 total sections, 37 have no references, including major topics such as Military, Scholarly Studies, Class Structure and Government (2a). As a result, the article is almost totally unverifiable, and looks in many cases to have been originally researched(2, 2d). The references given had not been cited correctly, and as such make it difficult for anyone wanting verification to even check the statements which have been referenced. For all cited sources, you must give (preferably in this order):

1. The author
2. The year published of the version you are using
3. The title, including any subtitles
4. The edition
5. the translator and/or editor if applicable
6. The city of publication
7. The publisher

e.g. Plato (2003), The Republic Reissued 2nd edition, tr. Lee, Desmond (London:Penguin)

In this article, currently only the short forms are used for most of the sources, e.g. Plato (2003) p.34. You need to add full references for Livy, Tuomisto, Bagnall, Meier, Suetonius, Johnston and Frontinus. Wikipedia has templates to make this easy. Go to WP:CTT and click on "Citations of generic sources" in the ToC to get templates for books and scholarly journals.

Broad in its coverage: Pass - but is not without its problems. Mostly this article is brilliantly broad, but one section is woefully small for such a massive subject: scholarly studies. Every major university in Europe and most of the major ones in the States have classics departments. They churn out tonnes of literature and have done since their inception. This section deserves to be better written, researched ("The interest in studying ancient Rome arose presumably during the Age of Enlightenment in France" - this is not acceptable in a good article) and expanded.

NPOV: Fail. Examples of weasel words and POV are to be found throughout the article(4). e.g. "The Roman army was a marvel of discipline, which arguably made it one of the best armies of its time" Who argued that? If you, that is both lack of NPOV and original research. "Roman legionaries had comparatively less skill at fighting than most of their opponents" - again, your point of view, and possibly original research.

Stable: Pass. The article does not change substantially from day to day, save vandalism which does not count and is always rapidly dealt with in any case (5).

Pictures: Fail. The pictures you have are good. Their captions are not. The word "garb", for example, is unencyclopedic. Captions include NPOV problems: "Roman sculpture was at its most original...", and OR problems: "The Roman abacus, the first portable calculating device...". They make unsubstantiated comments: "It is one of France's top tourist attractions" which are also arguably non-notable trivia (6a, 3b)

So, a lot of work to be done, but it is achievable. The article is a great read, and if the statements made in it can be substatiated then that is half the battle won. I suggest that this is made one of the Wikiproject's "collaboration of the month" to bring it up to the required standard. Well done for all your good work so far, and I hope to see this reapplying for (and passing) GA in the next couple of months. Chrisfow 15:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

i believe that this page has some information that is unverified.

Forvm Romanvm

Just a questions: isn't the extremely long part on the forum romanum inappropriate for this article? 15:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree; way too much redundant detail. I'm removing most of it. Kafziel ^Talk 15:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: In fact, after a second look, it was completely redundant. I've taken the whole thing out. Kafziel ^Talk 15:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Organization of References

Towards the end of the page is the Notes-section. It is slightly confusing since it seems to contain two different number-series, as well as a bullet list. What is the standard way to do this for WP? Should it all be converted to ref:s, or should some of it be split of into a section of its own? It is clearly not good to have several concatenated lists. VLE 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Slavery in Ancient Rome

Was there any slavery of Black Africans in Ancient Rome as I saw the film Gladiator which had a black man as a forced gladiator

I think the Romans could be termed equal-opportunity enslavers -- slaves came from many backgrounds, and race was not a major factor. So, yes, they'd enslave Africans, but also Greeks or Britons. Mlouns 22:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, slaves were mostly war captives or their descendents, and Rome fought several wars in Africa, so they'd have had opportunity to enslave black Africans. --Nicknack009 01:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: "In the mid-1st century BC, three men, Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus, formed a secret pact—the First Triumvirate—to control the Republic. After Caesar's conquest of Gaul, a stand-off between Caesar and the Senate led to civil war, with Pompey leading the Senate's forces. Caesar emerged victorious, and was made dictator for life.[6][7] In 44 BC, Caesar was assassinated by senators fearing that Caesar sought to restore the monarchy..."

I don't know much about Roman history, but...

I believe the paragraph on Julius Caesar is factually misleading, although in line with most scholarship down through the centuries. The idea that Julius Caesar and his his allies formed a secret pact "to control the republic," and that Caesar was assassinated "by senators fearing that Caesar sought to restore the monarchy" has been the conventional view since his own time, but it is surely misleading and probably quite false. In his extensively documented The Assassination of Julius Caesar, Michael Parenti clearly demonstrates, as far as I can see, that Caesar was assassinated by Senators who feared that his power and influence were detrimental to the interests of the oligarchs, since throughout his career Caesar had sided with the lower classes and opposed the narrow interest of the oligarchs. The suggestion that Caesar was a usurper (despite his title usually translated as "dictator") and that the assassins and their allies acted on republican principles will probably not stand up to critical scrutiny.

Walter M. 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Walter M.

Julius Caesar's assassination

RE: "In the mid-1st century BC, three men, Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus, formed a secret pact—the First Triumvirate—to control the Republic. After Caesar's conquest of Gaul, a stand-off between Caesar and the Senate led to civil war, with Pompey leading the Senate's forces. Caesar emerged victorious, and was made dictator for life.[6][7] In 44 BC, Caesar was assassinated by senators fearing that Caesar sought to restore the monarchy..."

I don't know much about Roman history, but...

I believe the paragraph on Julius Caesar is factually misleading, although in line with most scholarship down through the centuries. The idea that Julius Caesar and his his allies formed a secret pact "to control the republic," and that Caesar was assassinated "by senators fearing that Caesar sought to restore the monarchy" has been the conventional view since his own time, but it is surely misleading and probably quite false. In his extensively documented The Assassination of Julius Caesar, Michael Parenti clearly demonstrates, as far as I can see, that Caesar was assassinated by Senators who feared that his power and influence were detrimental to the interests of the oligarchs, since throughout his career Caesar had sided with the lower classes and opposed the narrow interest of the oligarchs. The suggestion that Caesar was a usurper (despite his title usually translated as "dictator") and that the assassins and their allies acted on republican principles will probably not stand up to critical scrutiny.

Walter M. 04:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Walter M.

The idea that Caesar "sought to restore the monarchy" probably comes more from Shakespeare than history, but the Roman Republic (or at least its establishment) was implacably opposed to anyone holding absolute power. I also think Caesar's "siding with the lower classes" was no more than populism. There are a lot of ways Caesar's rise and assassination can be interpreted, and this article can't go into individual episodes in too much detail, but I've reworded the passage slightly. Hopefully that should be a bit more accurate. --Nicknack009 11:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Cicero claimed that if he had succeeded in opposing Caesar, the Republic would still be standing. Quae si valuissent, res publica staret, tu tuis flagitiis, egestate, infamia concidisses. Phillipics 2.24. One should realize that the interests of the oligarchs and the interests of the senate were one and the same because the senate was composed entirely of patricians. The plebs had their own council and were the sole electors of the tribune. It is not difficult to characterize his plebian popularity as a direct threat to the senate. Caesar's heir officially ended the Republic when he was granted tribunician power for life in 23 BCE. At the time Caesar was assassinated, he was consul with Mark Anthony, possessed military imperium, was pontifex maximus, and most importantly he was granted the powers of the censor. Throughout much of history, Caesar's assassins have been characterized as restorers of the Republic. In the 18th century, "Brutus" the author of several of the Anti-Federalist Papers wrote against the creation of a Federal government more powerful than the states. He wrote that a Federal Army would be "abhorrent to the spirit of a free republic", and more typical of a "monarchy". But the best argument against Michael Parenti's views is that they reflect a modern Marxist ideology projected on history. Certainly a Marxist would characterize the struggle as one between classes, and we can expect that Dr. Parenti would be no friend to the patrician class in Rome. From a Marxist perspective, Caesar would be a usurper of the proletariat and this would fit the contention that Communism is part of a historical progression as Karl Marx wrote. If this theory came from a classicist, I would find in more plausible, but Parenti is no classicist and he has some very radical views. Legis Nuntius 00:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Merge with Rome Romw

> I vote no. Rome is more general, and includes the Renaissance and modern cities, with just a touch of mention of the ancient city. This seems right. Also, each article is already plenty big enough. They should be separate. Mlouns 00:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

> No merge. Merging Ancient Rome into Rome, resulting in a major new section of Rome, creates a cleaner and more encyclopedic whole. While keeping the subject seperate aid the historical, and rather thematic apperance as of present. Depends (as always) on what one would prefer to be the main goal of the article, and I tend to favour the latter, as even an encyclopedia needs a balance of the two. Martinor

Sorry, but a well-intended editor "corrected" the "typo"; the typo exists in the original article, Romw, which I have recommended be mined for any useful material and then AfD'd. Askari Mark (Talk) 06:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Map Doesn't Work

Seems like the little map in the top right of the article showing the size of the empire doesn't work. Could whoever put it there fix it please? I don't know how.SmokeyTheCat 15:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

where are the real facts that we need for maybe homework...?

where are they? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.19.108.17 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

If this article lacks the information it needs, please inform us of what this information is. Asking where the "real facts" are is not helpful. Galanskov 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect

I think we should semi-protect this page. It gets quite a bit of vandalism, and vandalism on such a prominent article is not good for Wikipedia's image. Galanskov 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, as of this morning Rome was "a stupid civilization" What's that about? Ross.

I've made a request for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 17:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor capitalization correction

In the "Government" section, 5th paragraph dealing with the provinces. The paragraph starts with "the" rather than "The".

Praefectorian 19:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Series of illustrations showning the expansion and decline of Roman territory

Is there any way that we can insert an image into the series which shows the brief Roman conquest of Mesopotamia during Trajan's reign?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead Poisoning

This section is misleading and at least partially inaccurate. While lead was used for plumbing, it was not used exclusively and was apparently known to be harmful, according to Vitruvius. Terracotta was preferred (also according to Vitruvius), though lead was easier to work with. The other issue is a chemical one. In order to cause lead poisoning, the water flowing through the pipe must be corrosive, causing lead to leach into the water. Evidence suggests that much of the water used by the Romans was actually scale-forming, which protected the water from the lead pipes. This is discussed by Frontius, when he mentions that older pipes would become crusted with deposits, reducing the flow. Other causes of lead poisoning have been debated, but lack sufficient evidence, especially regarding the possible magnitude of such a problem. (Yicpa2 22:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

If you feel that there are factual problems, please fell free to make the necessary corrections. Your corrections must cite claims by reputable sources.Galanskov 07:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)