Talk:Claudius Gothicus

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

St. Valentine[edit]

I've removed the section regarding St Valentine, since according to the articles on St Valentine and Valentine's Day, almost nothing is actually known about the man; the story about him "secretly marrying Claudius' soldiers" is a much later invention. FiggyBee 01:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a section on it because that is a major legend surrounding this emperor. The circumstances around and (lack of) historical evidence supporting this legend should be included in this section as well. -Schnurrbart (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I've created a section on St. Valentine and Claudius II, including scholarly criticism of this popular legend.-Schnurrbart (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the description of February 14th as "a commercially sponsored holiday dedicated to the expression of love and affection". Discussion of how Valentine's Day has been commercialized seems more appropriate for the article on Valentine's Day itself. Accordingly, I've linked to that article. Efindel (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Beloved"[edit]

The fact that Claudius was beloved by the Roman people is disputable. The divine status was given him by the Senate.

Article name[edit]

I prefer Claudius Gothicus as marginally more common and much less anachronistic; Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero were all Claudii. The three books which seem to have been written on this Claudius divide evenly between Claudius II. Claudius Gothicus, and Claudius II Gothicus. Please discuss here before reverting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Historia Augusta is a late-4th-century hoax[edit]

What do we deal with older secondary sources that rely on it? 71.191.233.216 (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As per my comments on the Talk:Philip the Arab page, while the Historia Augusta (HA) is a hoax, there is still enormous debate amongst historians about how much of the material is based upon legitimate sources, and without doubt there are nuggets of truth buried within it - even someone like Ronald Syme, who takes the minimalist position, acknowedges that much, and his minimalist position is by no means accepted by all historians. And there are certain things which we take as fact that are only mentioned in the HA, such as the Antonine Wall being built by Antoninus Pius. So we cannot completely dismiss the HA as a source. That being said, it should be treated with extreme caution, and its "facts" should be used only when verified as acceptable and legitimate by an authoritative secondary source. Now, when you say older secondary sources, just how old are you thinking? Gibbon, certainly, but anyone else? Oatley2112 (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)