|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Galerius article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on February 24, 2005, February 24, 2006, and February 24, 2007.|
Galerius was born near Serdica or near Sardica ? i know there was a Sardis in N-W Asia Minor. wasn't Serdica/Sardica the capital of Dacia Aureliana ?
This just occurred to me after getting the email with this and the Gregorian calendar: how do we deal with dates in different calendars? The persecuting christians edict was issused 24 Feb in whose calendar? Their current or our modern one?
Serdica (modern Sofia) is meant here.
Dates in ancient history are usually given as what they were referred to by the sources, without any regard to possible alterations by later calendar reforms. So February 24 is the day the ancient sources name (Roman calendar), whatever the adjusted date in whatever calendar may have been. Varana 21:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
However, in 297, advancing through the mountains of Armenia, he gained a decisive victory over Narses, with an enormous amount of booty that included Narses' harem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
"Identified with Dacians?"
The bit about his being a Dacian avenging angel sounds like pretty boilerplate political hyperbole, questioning his credibility as a Roman, imputing traitorous intentions towards the Empire, etc. Should it perhaps be contextualized here? If it is credible, than by all means, say so, but as is it's just "Person Y said X" without a whole lot of info for newcomers to this person and his numerous political enemies. 18.104.22.168 02:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- yes, I would like to have the Lactantius' text about Galerius' avenging his dacian ancestors contextualized in the article. I find that side of Galerius biography interesting. But i am not sure i can formulate it in the best way. So i will just report "Lactantius about Galerius: etc". Criztu (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I have used similar talk spaces to suggest bibliographic resources for revision and expansion. It appears that David Woods plans to publish an article in a forthcoming Studia Patristica on Galerius' deathbed conversion. "The Deathbed Conversion of Galerius Maximianus to Religious Tolerance: Fact or Fraud?" As stated on his page at UCC. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Oatley2112 hs undone one of my edits with the astounding edit summary "Undid revision 523207852 by Paul Barlow (talk) This section refects the view of Lactantius, a Christian writer, whose view of Galerius was extremely prejudiced. Galerius was not "anti Roman!". Perhaps Oatley2112 should actually read the section before making such utterances. This is the entire content of the section (none of it written by me. I just retitled it):
- According to Lactantius, Galerius affirmed his Dacian identity and avowed himself the enemy of the Roman name once made emperor, even proposing that the empire should be called, not the Roman, but the Dacian Empire, much to the horror of the patricians and senators. He exhibited anti-Roman attitude as soon as he had attained the highest power, treating the Roman citizens with ruthless cruelty, like the conquerors treated the conquered, all in the name of the same treatment that the victorious Trajan had applied to the conquered Dacians, forefathers of Galerius, two centuries before.
In other words, the section is clearly about anti-Roman attitudes. But of course "Galerius was not 'anti Roman!'" - how absurd!, you imply. He was Roman emperor! This merely shows you haven't even read what it says. The whole point is that Lactantius claims he wanted to treat the city of Rome as part of his empire like any other, with no special status, or even that he wanted to somehow avenge his defeated Dacian ancestors. The section says nothing whatever about "Christian" attitudes. The fact that Lactantius was a Christian is on the face of it utterly irrelevant, since his comments have nothing to do with Christianity. The word "Christian" is not even once mentioned in the section! Of course one can claim that Lactantius's view is linked to his Christianity, but that has to be argued in the content and placed in context. Even then it is just his view, not "Christian views", since no one else is quoted, nor is any evidence presented that he represents Christians in general. If you have problems with the content, alter that, but the title has to reflect the content of the section. Paul B (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sigh... it’s good to see you are passionate about such things Paul. Passion is good. Sneering comments about how a fellow editor did not read the section... not so cool.
- Leaving aside for the moment that Lactantius is a primary source, and should be used with caution, like most primary sources, this whole section deals with Lactantius’ view of Galerius, which borders on caricature. It is not an unbiased modern historical appraisal of Galerius’ reign, but a propagandist, invective filled diatribe where Galerius is painted as an “unRoman” monster, who had an satiable blood lust which he took out on the Christians. No modern historian takes seriously, for instance, Lactantius’ claim that Galerius wanted to rename the Roman Empire as the Dacian Empire. It is fiction, dressed up as history, and it’s only purpose here in this article is to demonstrate the effect the Diocletianic Persecutions had on the Christian communities, and their view of Galerius as represented by the writings of Lactantius.
- In short, Lactantius’ writings had a profound impact upon the traditional Christian view of Galerius, who was one of the key architects of the last great Roman persecution of Christians. Because he was a Christian, and he was writing on behalf of the Christians who had suffered under Galerius, his writings were given great weight by the Christians (and the Christian states) which followed him, and it is still the accepted version of history that the Christian churches subscribe to. However, modern historians take a less emotional view of Galerius’ reign, and they discount much of the fantasy which Lactantius speaks about. See Elizabeth DePalma Digeser, The Making of a Christian Empire: Lactantius & Rome (2000) for an excellent modern account of Lactantius’ version of history and the political points he was seeking to make with his revisionist account of Galerius’ reign.
- However, in order to reach a quick consensus, we could rename this section as either “Lactantius’ view of Galerius” or “Anti-Roman accusations”, which is essentially what Lactantius accused Galerius of. Are one of these acceptable to you? Oatley2112 (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sigh... what you call 'sneering' is merely a statement of fact. It derives from the fact that you quite clearly did not check the section before reverting, or you would not have written the edit sumnmary you did. You made a "knee jerk" reversion on the basis of what seemed superficially "obvious" to you. Your charge also displays double-standards, since the 'sneering' originated with your own edit summary, so your reproof about "Sneering comments" about "a fellow editor" boomerangs. Not so cool. The rest of your homily is largely irrelevant to the issue at hand, since at no point have I claimed that Lactantius was unbiassed or even accurate. If you wish to expand on these points in the section you may, of course do so. I have already suggested that. "If you have problems with the content, alter that, but the title has to reflect the content of the section." I am of course happy with either of the alternatives you suggest, both of which had occured to me too. I think the latter option is better, because it describes the essential content of the claims. Paul B (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)