Talk:Magnus Maximus

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


Untitled[edit]

What a great name. It's like a transformer or something.

His name means something like "Greatest Big". Wow.Hattes 22:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the Save[edit]

As I have made a little research regarding Maximus in Battle of the Save I believe that the battle occured at Siscia and not Emona (see talk:Battle of the Save). Navportus 18:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Consequences for Britain[edit]

Should be more about how he removed Roman troops from Britain to support his bid to be Emperor, which weakened Roman Britain's defenses, and was in fact the beginning of the end of Roman Britain... AnonMoos 18:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The effect on Britain's defences is a matter of debate, but his establishment of the two military bases in Armorica and Galicia had long-term benefits for European civilisation. Galicia repelled the Moors and began the Reconquista. Armorican forces (in particular, archers) were essential to the defeat of Attila the Hun in 451. In the 900s, descendants of the troops Magnus left in Armorica inflicted crushing defeats on both the Loire and Seine Vikings, thus ending a long series of raids on both England and France. In 1066, Armoricans, speaking languages descended from Gallo-Roman and Romano-British, reclaimed Britain. (Contrary to the popular view, most of William the Conqueror's ancestors were native Armoricans, not Vikings.) Zoetropo (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Clemens[edit]

As far as I know, the attribution of nomen is not properly confirmed (see entry in PLRE?) and should probably not be included here. Anyone know different? fluoronaut (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Clemens" is mistakes. see here [1] From page 445 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikythos (talkcontribs) 06:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Since there seems to be some debate on here I have done a bit of internet research and will summarise it here.

The 'Clemens' nomen is a mistake, as you said. Here's the link above in English Google. Go to the top page listed (p.445, n. 91) and you will see the following excerpt from Sulpicius Severus:

Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.49.5: "iam tum rumor incessant clemens, Maximum intra Britannias sumpsisse imperium ac brevi in Gallias erupturum."

The note on this (which is correct) says:

For 'clemens' meaning 'gradual' cf. Tac. Ann. 13.38, Hist. 3.52. The reading clementem led to the mistaken view that the emperor was called Magnus Clemens Maximus, reproduced e.g. by J. Ziegler, 'Zur religiosen Haltung der Gagenkaiser' (1970), 74, and B. Vollmann, RE Suppl. 14 (1974), 506, in spite of W. Ensslin, RE 14 (1930), 2546.

Basically it's an error in the reading of Sulpicius which was compounded by later historians not checking their sources. I have removed the information about Clemens from the page.

fluoronaut (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So, the Historians allowed that mistake to endure until the author of that article on Collier's Encyclopedia, Volume 15, Longinus to Meta, pg. 574. Yours is is a good Historical and research work, though! Dgarq (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, can't trust those sneaky Historians! fluoronaut (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Geoffrey and legends[edit]

Currently the article reads, "According to Geoffrey of Monmouth's fictional Historia Regum Britanniae (ca. 1136), basis for many English and Welsh legends...". Is this correct? Are many legends that have been recorded at later dates demonstrably based upon readings of Geoffrey? Or has the writer of these words meant to say that Geoffrey's work contains early versions of many legends? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Lots of problems[edit]

The article is largely citation free, it confuses what is known about the historical Magnus Maximus with conjecture, legend and tradition in a totally unstructured and uncritical manner. In particular, the familial connections of Maximus are presented as fact, when they are largely conjecture. It is believed that there might have been a familial connection between Maximus and Theodosius the Great, possibly by marriage (Maximus's wife being related to Theodosius), but we are presented here with the two men being first cousins, with no caveats. The lower section has Maximus being the ancestor of Ambrosius Aurelius, the figure named by Gildas as "Almost the Last of the Romans", this is entirely based on legend, but this is not presnted as such. As it stands at present the article should be treated with extreme caution by any reader. I suspect that the article would benefit by being split into two articles, one entirely concerned with established historical fact, the other containing Maximus's place in legend and the 'Matter of Britain'. Urselius (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)