Jump to content

Talk:Nerva/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 12:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Marcus Cocceius Nerva → Nerva – The Emperor is universally known as Nerva. And nothing in the disambiguation page is as famous as him.--Panairjdde 13:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

SURVEY

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Year of Birth

Many Wikipedias state, that Nerva was born in 30, and a few say he was born in 35. Which is the correct year of birth? Ludde 15:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

From [1]:
"Aurelius Victor records the year as 35 (Caes. 12.11), Dio (68.4.4) as 30. The latter has been more widely accepted."
--Panairjdde 16:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (enough images: lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Excellent article! I do have a few small concerns, however, before I go ahead and pass it for GA status.

  1. The first bit of the second paragraph under "Administration" could use some cleanup. Especially with all the inline citations, the long sentence that begins with "Nerva granted..." is far too long and confusing - it might be better to reorganize it into two separate sections. The last two sentences are confusingly worded too - I'm a bit unclear about the bit after the semicolon "many sacrifices, games and horse races were abolished." I'm assuming you meant to say "many sacrifices to the gods..." but that is not directly obvious to someone unfamiliar with Roman history. Also, try to avoid starting sentences with words like "however" and "from" etc. because they tend to complicate the sentence and could be rewritten in a more proper fashion (eg. "Large amounts of money were obtained from..." for example). I think I caught a lot of them, but please check for and fix any ones that I might have missed.
  2. This sentence — "Archaeological excavation started on this forum in 1999, and continues to the present." — requires a citation.
  3. Under Crisis of succession, this sentence needs to be split up, as it is far too long: "Upon his accession Nerva had ordered a halt to treason trials, but at the same time he still allowed the prosecution of informers by the Senate, a measure that led to chaos, as everyone acted in his own interests while trying to settle scores with personal enemies, leading the consul Fronto to remark that "it was bad to have an emperor under whom nobody was permitted to do anything, but worse to have one under whom everybody was permitted to do everything.""
  4. The last two sentences require a citation.

In order to give you time to make these minor fixes, I am placing the article for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Given the caliber of work thus far, I suspect that I shall soon be passing it; a job well done. Cheers, CP 03:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time! I've fixed the article in accordance with your suggestions. A few remarks:
1) I've tried to sort this out as best as I could, but I'm still not completely satisfied with the way it reads, especially Nerva's financial reforms. His measures against overexpenditure I think I've made more concise, and flows better as a paragraph.
2) I've removed this sentence altogether. It was basically a remnant of the original article, but doesn't seem to be based on any fact. Apparently excavation of Nerva's forum was well underway before World War II. I guess it sort of goes without saying that it has continued to the present. Not sure if it really deserves mention.
3) Sentence split in two.
4) All referenced except the supposed statue of Nerva in Narni. There does seem to be a street named after him (Via Cocceio Nerva), but I can't immediately find a source on the existence of the statue, which is further complicated by the fact that most of the websites I'm directed to are in Italian. I'm not sure what I should do with this.
Regards. --Steerpike 19:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the article looks great as it is, and I will be passing it into Good Article status. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 20:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Succession policy

I would like more and more modern citations than a 1936 paper from some Russell Geer before undercutting ancient historians and historians like Gibbon and Rostovtzeff, as is done with the line "Likewise, Edward Gibbon's assertion that Nerva hereby established a tradition of succession through adoption among the Five Good Emperors has found little support among modern historians.[45]" which is redundant and not cited the first time: "By adopting Trajan as his heir, Nerva is said to have established a tradition of succession through adoption among the emperors which followed. Recent historians, however, have revised these opinions." I see only a single historian who isn't especially modern/recent and thus it would be fair to say only 'At least one historian has disputed this view.'

I'm not saying the Wikipedia article is *incorrect* - only that little reason to accept its assertion is presented.

216.77.227.14 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The section could do with some tweaking, yes, but I would like to point out that it's not uncommon in the field of classical studies to reference papers that are over 60 years old (or even more). That's just the nature of this area of research. Unless radical evidence turns up (e.g. a complete edition of Tacitus' Histories), interpretations often change little over the course of 50 years. It's not a fast evolving field like regular sciences. And Geer is by no means an obscure historian, btw. --Steerpike (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Trajanov otac.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Trajanov otac.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Trajanov otac.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Era style

Out of respect for the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty, it would be preferred that "BCE" and "CE" be used instead of "BC" and "AD" since these people had no affiliation, or liking to Christianity. If you object, please provide a valid reason as to why. Lupus Bellator (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no call to switch from one convention to the other, per WP:ERA.--Cúchullain t/c 20:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree with Cúchullain. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
No to changing or deleting era designation, per the "Plotinus example" at WP:ERA. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Despite?

Given that Vespasian didn't claim the throne, as far as I'm aware, until after Otho's death, and that he took arms against Otho's murderer, Vitellius, why would it be surprising that Nerva would have supported him? 71.185.0.165 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The date of his father's consulate

I've adjusted the date of his father's suffect consulate from a more or less precise AD 40 to "reign of the emperor Caligula". My reasoning is that Paul Gallivan's opinion on the matter (see the citation in List of undated Roman consuls) has more weight than John Grainger's. Although Gallivan's study of the consuls of this period is 40 years old, to my knowledge there has been no new information -- or re-evaluations -- concerning his judgments. And Grainger's focus in his book is not on Nerva's parents, but on the Roman succession following Domitian's assassination. So unless more information comes forth -- say another archive of documents with dates from Pompeii or Herculaneum -- better to approximately accurate than precisely inaccurate. -- llywrch (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Regnal titles

Why are people revoking my edit on simply moving his regnal or imperial name to the regnal name info box? His name with Imperial titles can be considered a Regnal name. So why can't we use the regnal name infobox:? Do we actually need sources on this? If this is the case, that doesn't make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapnut1207 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, he adopted the name Caesar as well which basically makes it a regnal name besides the name or you could say title of Augustus.

Per WP:BRD, please achieve consensus before re-reverting. I'm taking your edit out. It appears @GenQuest: was objecting to the formatting, in particular that "regnal name" usually is the name itself, not the titles. Let's hear from him before any further action. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I will comment on several of the titles. Imperator was always a title - in the republic, it was how legions hailed a leader whom they regarded as suitable to wield imperium, usually after a successful battle. Caesar and Augustus started out as names, but by the time of Nerva were already essentially titles (indeed, Caesar eventually became Kaiser and Tsar).
I'm not a particular expert on royalty or the Roman empire, but I'm uncertain whether the "regnal name" field is appropriate in this case; from reading the article, it suggests that it's intended for cases where a monarch reigns under a name completely unrelated to his original name (e.g., Karol Józef Wojtyła reigning as John Paul). That didn't happen with Nerva - he just added titles around his previous name. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no problem if consensus is with keeping the current listing as below (which is clear if not entirely correct), dividing the two names as before and after accession:
Marcus Cocceius Nerva
(before accession);
Imperator Marcus Cocceius Nerva Caesar Augustus
(as emperor).
Please note, though, that the "Caesar Augustus" was by this time a title and no longer a name; also, "Imperator" was always a title, and not a name and they should all probably should be included in a title field as opposed to a name field. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 05:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

A regnal name in my opinion is correct since it's basically their name used at the start or commonly assiocated with their name. Their titles are basically part of their names and appears on the coins of Roman Emperors. It also makes them Roman Emperors or usurpers. Caesar was still a name although to be fair, it was used more as a title like you have said. But regnal names are correct since it was their reign name. Regnal name also means the name they use in their reign. Doesn't have to be completely different. Also Augustus had a regnal name for sure (in your definiton) when he became Emperor as we call it in modern days. Since he had the birth name of Gaius Octavius Thurinus and changed his name about three to four times to make his name Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus. My defintion for regnal names is simply the name with their titles (Roman Emperors usually include their titles in inscriptions, coins and so on) they had during their reign. I admit, Roman naming conventions is complex and I do not fully understand except for the basics. But for various reasons, Roman Emperors sometimes addded even more titles to their names which makes their names of course longer like Persicus Maximus or Germanicus Maximus. But I usually don't add those titles in their names (although Roman Emperors apparently use those titles in official paperwork and sometimes coinage if I am correct). mainly since sometimes, they have too much Victory titles. Slapnut1207 (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Also I believe that due to Roman naming conventions, Imperator became their Praenomen if I am correct. Augustus became a cognomen of his and Caesar, became his nomen/cognomen if you weren't a relative of the Julia gens. (Family/Clan name) In my opinion, Roman Regnal names for the Roman Emperors are basically their titles combined with their name after they became Emperor. Since their titles sort of technically became parts of their names in Roman naming conventions. I know, it's complicated and sometimes doesn't appear to make sense honestly. Slapnut1207 (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slapnut1207: I believe you are incorrect. Imperator was always a title, never a praenomen - I have never seen a reference to Imperator in any context other than an accolade bestowed upon a leader. Augustus gave himself his cognomen, making it a name. After his death it became a title, as a result of efforts at establishing continuity. As for the rest, please read the article on Regnal name. Ratzinger's regnal name is "Benedictus", not "Pope Benedict", or "Pope Benedict Joseph Ratzinger Bishop of Rome", or anything of that nature. It's the name, not the collection of titles. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Slapnut1207 (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC) So what was the Praenomen of Augustus when he removed the names Gaius Julius from his name on his ancension. Besides why can't we make a different meaning for regnal names on Roman Emperors? The way Roman Emperors had regnal names when they reign is different from Kings, Popes or anything else. You use regnal names as if he was a pope or king. The titles Imperator, Caesar and Augustus became part of their names. This article says Roman Emperors used the title Imperator as a Praenomen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_naming_conventions# Praenomen along with some others, I did not edit this one. People also call the Regnal names of Roman Emperors, Imperial names or name as Emperor but in reality, it's basically a Regnal name. It's just like calling a President, President Donald J. Trump for example. Except in this case, the Roman Emperors gave himself the names of whoever adopted him (if adopted of course) and the titles of Caesar, Augustus and Imperator. Those three titles then became parts of their praenomen and cognomen. Although I admit, it's a confusing practice done by Roman Emperors. One example is Trajan: Imperator Caesar Nerva Trajanus Divi Nervae filius Augustus. He adopted the cognomen Nerva and added that he was the son of the deified Nerva. Also Imperator as shown, was definitely his Praenomen. Because he abandoned his praenomen Marcus and his Nomen, Ulpius. Couldn't that be considered a reign name? Regnal name simply means (at least in my opinion) the name or names (with titles that fit into the name, if he or she had some) a ruler had in their reign as King, Emperor and so on. The Roman Naming conventions make Imperator, Caesar and Augustus a praenomen or cognomen in their rule. Although Imperator does not seem like Praenomen, it is a praenomen that goes with the other praenomens of Roman Emperors if he still had a Praenomen that he didn't discard upon his adoption and ascension. Slapnut1207 (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Read Praenomen. ...most people were called by their praenomina only by family or close friends... You'd be claiming that only an emperor's family called him imperator, which is absurd. You're diving deep into WP:OR and confusing name with formal titles. For comparison, Elizabeth II's regnal name is "Elizabeth". Her full titled panoply (comparable to what you are using for Roman emperors) is Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. By no stretch of the imagination is that her name, regnal or otherwise. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

But Praenomens were still part of their name. In my opinion. The regnal name for Roman Emperors were the names combined with the titles that they had that became part of their names. You make it sound like a Roman regnal name is like a more modern European Regnal name. It is not. This is really a matter of opinion. My definition of Regnal name is simply the name/names of the Roman Emperor during his reign as Emperor. Those titles became parts of his name officially in law. For a regnal name, it does not have to be completely different from his or her's previous name. Slapnut1207 (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Also I didn't claim that, what I meant is that Emperors considered Imperator as a praenomen and Roman law did recognize Imperator as a Praenomen as well. The troops usually hailed an Emperor or Usurper, Imperator along with any other imperial titles. Besides the person that typed that forgot that Imperator was a praenomen and that the troops would usually hail his as Imperator or some other title if they made him Emperor/Usurper Emperor.Slapnut1207 (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Besides the Emperor's Regnal name was usually on his coins and it usually had IMP C (Caesar) Names AVG (AVGVSTVS) for late first to fourth century Emperors at least. I don't believe that a Roman regnal name could be compared to a modern european regnal name.Slapnut1207 (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It is somewhat similar to European regnal styles but not the same when you translate the name of Roman Emperors. A basic translation that might not be perfect would be Commander Caesar, son of the deified one and Majestic/Venerable. The regnal name of Augustus when translated. Anyway, it doesn't sound a lot like a European regnal styling/name with titles. Another example could be Constantine: IMPERATOR CAESAR FLAVIVS VAlERIVS? AVRELIVS? CONSTANTINVS PIVS FELIX INVICTVS AVGVSTVS (I just copied and pasted from a citation) , a basic translation would be this: Commander Caesar Flavius Constantinus, the Pious, the happy/lucky, the Unconquered and Majestic/Venerable. Slapnut1207 (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slapnut1207:
  • ...Emperors considered Imperator as a praenomen and Roman law did recognize Imperator as a Praenomen as well. Cite, please? I'd never head that claim before, and it sounds nonsensical.
  • ...The troops usually hailed an Emperor or Usurper, , Imperator along with ... The title of Imperator long preceded the empire. Many commanders were hailed Imperator without becoming head of the Roman state. Being hailed Imperator later became a prerequisite for high office, but at no point did it become a name.
  • I don't believe that a Roman regnal name could be compared to a modern european regnal name. In that case, why are you using the field? From the article the field refers to, the term is explicitly directed at cases where a monarch reigns with a different name than their given name.
Please read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome#Standardizing_Roman_Emperor_names_in_lede/infobox where such a discussion appears to be ongoing. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I said a Roman regnal name could be considered somewhat similar to European royal styling. I simply got that from the Praenomen page about Emperors recognizing Imperator as a praenomen. Under the empire, confusion seems to have developed as to precisely what constituted a praenomen and how it should be used. A number of emperors considered Imperator as a praenomen, and thus part of their names. Roman law basically allowed the use of Imperator as a Praenomen, A couple of Emperors did so. Regnal names for Roman Emperors could be considered different from European regnal names. You use the definition of Regnal names when it is applied to European Rulers that ruled after the fall of the WRE. In my opinion and probably some others, the Regnal name when it is applied to Roman Emperors is the name/names they used in their reign as Emperor. Imperator, Caesar and Augustus became parts of their names so it can be considered part of their regnal name. Imperator was the praenomen of Augustus. Imperator (Praenomen) Caesar (Nomen, Family name), Divi Filius (Son of the deified one) Augustus (Majestic) Slapnut1207 (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

For their full name, without any imperial titles: |full name=praenomen nomen cognomen For their regnal names, with imperial titles: can be either |full name=Imperator Caesar praenomen nomen cognomen Augustus (emperors) or |full name=praenomen nomen cognomen Caesar (Caesars)

The one that said this says For their regnal names, with Imperial titles: That means they should be using the regnal name box instead of full name. They say it should be |full name=Imperator Caesar praenomen nomen cognomen Augustus (emperors) or |full name=praenomen nomen cognomen Caesar (Caesars). The regnal name box should be used instead of the full name box.

Anyway, I think I will stop talking since this discussion is basically about our different definitions of regnal names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapnut1207 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Please take it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome#Standardizing_Roman_Emperor_names_in_lede/infobox. The discussion is ongoing. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nerva/Archive_1&oldid=1137041435"