From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Dominus et deus[edit]

See for instance Section: 1.9. Coin of Aurelian with the title dominus et deus. Google gives more, like Aurelian was also sometimes officially called dominus et deus: the principate had definitely been succeeded by the dominate. Interestingly, there are more German language pages than in English. The entry about Diocletian saying that Diocletian claimed it first needs to be changed, too.

Fine with me. But I think you should explain in greater detail the meaning of this contribution. You just dropped this sentence out of nowhere, without an explanation of its meaning and importance.--Panairjdde 16:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought it was "generally known" - my mistake. It came as a big surprise to see the different coverage in German and English web pages.
As for the text, I am not yet certain how to fill it in. The single sentence I gave was a stub and should rather be expanded. - 15:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

End of the "Crisis of third century". In this article it is said that Aurelian brought this period to an end, while in the article about Diocletian it is said he was the one who did it. Latre 20:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's highly dubious as to whether Domitian actually demanded he be referred to as Dominus et Deus. The page would be on much safer ground by citing Suetonius as the source rather than simply stating it as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not according to the majority of modern historians - I don't know why you would think otherwise. Domitian ruled as an absolute monarch, with no regard to the Senate. A fine administrator, but he made enemies with much of the nobility in Rome. (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aurelian shows his strength[edit]

Was it Aurelian who stood on an elevated platform, with his troops arrayed out on either side of him in order to impress the Goths? Where does this anecdote come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Destruction of the Musaeum[edit]

The Bruchion, the section of Alexandria that had included the Musaeum, was entirely destroyed by fire on the orders of Emperor Aurelian in 272.

This "highly successful soldier-emperor", as the article so lovingly refers to him over and over again as if we should suddenly forget his greatness in mid-paragraph, was responsible for the destruction of the Musaeum. This is covered in the "Attack of Aurelian, third century" section of the Library_of_Alexandria article. Strangely enough, not one word is mentioned about Aurelian's role in the section on "Conquest of the Palmyrene Empire". Another fine hagiography. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Totally correct per WP:ONEWAY. Aurelian is relevant to the Musaeum, but the Musaeum is not relevant to Aurelian. Culture is a fringe topic and must be treated analogously to fringe theories.
More seriously, our main source for this event seems to be The Straight Dope, and a quick and unsystematic search on Google Books didn't show anything obvious. Hans Adler 11:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you could translate for the unwashed plebes graced by your glorious presence. I'm looking at Google Books right now and see plenty of information. Viriditas (talk)
I assure you I have no affiliation whatsoever with ... [Where are those silly royalty fans when you need them? Shouldn't this article have a "Titles and Styles" section?] ... his Imperial Majesty Aurelianus Caesarus [I hope that will do. Is it plausible enough?]. There is no COI. And do not trust the base rumours that you find on Google Books. The company is owned by barbarians who try to disparage our glorious leader. Hans Adler 11:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
His list of crimes grow longer the more I read about him. Now I see he was responsible for executing Cassius Longinus. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He just put the logorrhetic doter out of his mysery after his collaboration with a rebellious slave. Hans Adler 12:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's how history portrays it, but we see he was accused of cruelty not once, but many times, and he apparently killed someone in his own family during a dispute. And as for Palmyra? His revenge was not to just kill a few people, but genocide. In his own words: ""We have not even spared mothers; we have slain children and old men and put to death the inhabitants of the country." Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every effective statesman has enemies. This wasn't "genocide" (a horrible POV term that should be banned from Wikipedia). It was a measured response to a huge threat against world peace. The killed women and adolescents were trained terrorists. Hans Adler 12:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roman propaganda. To get the ball rolling on inclusion, here are two links to the event, one in the Encyclopædia Britannica (1911) and the other in a book about the History of Rome (1886). Viriditas (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The chronology and events of third century are very confused and unsafe. Don't trust everything you find on the net. Expecially 90 and 120 year old books or random websites with no sources and author. (For example the letters from Aurelian to Zenobia mentioned in Historia Augusta are fictitious and probably the words of Aurelian you mentioned. See also Source evaluation) Good reading is Alaric Watson's Aurelian and the Third Century. Every statesman has done something "bad" (what is bad and what is good?). I personally see Aurelian kinder than many other Roman Emperors. After all he spared Tyana and many cities of Anatolia and Syria as well as Tetricus, Emperor of Gaul. But this is not the place to discuss about what Aurelian did. So please focus on the article, not the Emperor. --Barosaurus Lentus (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point is and remains: Aurelian is implicated in the destruction of the Musaeum. Why is this not mentioned in the article? Viriditas (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe because no one has written it yet? I am going to add a line or two to the article. You can edit if you want. I have also read that library probably was destroyed during 270's but its not entirely certain. --Barosaurus Lentus (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks. 273 is the date, I think. This link, while old, might have some useful primary sources, and at least places the incident in the correct historical context. The Encyclopædia Britannica entry for "Libraries" also mentions Aurelian twice. Viriditas (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aureus is wrong[edit]

The aureus displayed on Aurelian article is actually issued by emperor Probus. Somebody should replace it with right one. And delete my post.

You are right. I remove it now. Thank you! --Barosaurus Lentus (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fixed the image and put it back in the article. I must have accidentally uploaded it twice, once as Probus and once unknowingly as Aurelian. Sorry for the trouble!--Tataryn77 (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Twice mentioned the title of 'Germanicus Maximus' for two separate but chronologically close events. Is this right?

JS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It seems to me that the legacy section is partially based on speculation and assumption, specifically: "His death prevented a full restoration of political stability and a lasting dynasty that could end the cycle of assassination of Emperors and civil war that marked this period. Even so, he brought the Empire through a very critical period in its history and without Aurelian, it would never have survived the invasions and fragmentation of the decade in which he reigned." I'm by no means an expert in this time period or on Aurelian in general, so I don't feel comfortable making any edits, but I wanted to raise an issue I saw as an uninformed reader. Jayvan (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it only took nine years, but multiple editors are on it. You were right, of course. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do we know about his murder?[edit]

The story of his death is mightily intresting, so I have searched the source in this article and didn't see it. Can anyone please help? Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aurelian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Milošević and Körner references[edit]

In 2015, anon updated the place of birth, relying on a reference identified only as "Milošević(2010:pp 106-7)". Perhaps that was related to shifting boundaries in the Balkans? Anyway, the only relevant text I can find is "Petar Milošević, Arheologija i istorija Sirmijuma, Novi Sad, 2001." as referenced in similar Wikipedia articles (online here). If anyone speaks Croatian, perhaps they can determine if this is indeed the right reference, and if it is reliable?

Second, it's not clear whether earlier authors intended Körner 2001 and Körner 2008 to be the same source. Maybe a comparison would help elucidate. @Barosaurus Lentus: are you still around to help? David Brooks (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Illyria, Dacia, or both?[edit]

"The ancient sources are not agreed on his place of birth, although he was generally accepted as being a native of Illyricum." cf. "Like Aurelian she was from Dacia." … Did Dacia at one time include Illyricum, or are these separate places? Asking for a friend. Mannanan51 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Different places. (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Family Tree[edit]

What is the "Family Tree" doing in this article? It is not a family tree and its purpose is entirely unclear. I suggest it be deleted. Deipnosophista (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


One section has a title about defeating the Iuthungi, but the word never occurs within the section itself -- or any-where else in the article except in the ToC. who were the Iuthungi? The answer is found at Juthungi. This should be incorporated into our article. Kdammers (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the section about the Roman Empire in the 270s[edit]

Why exactly does the article need the section? The section doesn't mention anything about Aurelian, it only talks about events that happened before him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewf9h-bg (talkcontribs) 15:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]