Talk:Severus Alexander

Year of birth

According to the Augustan History (Ælius Lampridius, The Life of Severus Alexander, Part 3, 60), Alexander Severus died at 29 years, 3 months, 7 days ("He ruled for thirteen years and nine days, and he lived for twenty-nine years, three months, and seven days."). He was born in 205.--Sirius2044 (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The dates in ancient history are often dubious, and the sources are often not clear. According to WP:PSTS, we shall use "secondary sources" and not "primary sources", i.e. we shall look for some modern scholar that has compared and checked all the primary sources and not take for good any primary source even if ancient. A ntv (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

B.C. & A.D. What happened here? Why are these historical references (Charlemagne adopted system of dating historical events,) omitted? Was Emperor Severus Alexander born 1 October 208 A.D.? or was it B.C.? This is no small matter here. I know this omission is likely due to pc rules i.e. to appease liberal Jewish element. But it's still wrong. Our history should remain as it was. Yes, just as male and female should remain as they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.238.140 (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Page title

Why is the page titled "Alexander Severus" when in almost every source I've seen it is rendered "Severus Alexander"? This is especially odd considering that the introductory paragraph uses "Severus Alexander" as well.--172.190.48.70 (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree this is rather odd. Is there a specific reason he is "Alexander Severus" in the page title? Otherwise I would propose it be moved. Tom (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It isn't odd and is an extremely common form of the name. It's fine if the COMMON ENGLISH form in RS is Severus Alexander now but the other one should be mentioned. — LlywelynII 03:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Persian and German wars

Please note. Germanic is not same as german. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.39.45.166 (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

The math here is erroneous. If 46.5% is 1.41g silver, then denarius is 3.03g If 43% is 1.30g silver, then denarius is 3.02g If 45% is 1.46g silver, then denarius is 3.24g If 50.5% is 1.41g silver, then denarius is 2.97g Did the total weight of the denarius really fluctuate 0.27 grams? That would be over 8%, and we are talking about a time of relative peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.254.188 (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Introduction,

Hi, there

We are a group of Colgate University students who are interested in editing this page for our end of the year project. We will begin our edits within the coming weeks, while trying to specifically add to the information regarding his legacy, marriages, and his name-change adoption. Looking forward to getting started!

Charlie, Mike, Sarah (Cvallee4, Mcallesen, Sarscoy23)

"Sicilia located in Britain"

This phrase was added 30 Apr 2014 to the Section "Death". Can anybody elaborate? Is "Sicilia" supposed to be the name of a place in Britain? Or is this nonsense that was never caught and corrected? -- 176.94.112.129 (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The statement is an accurate reflection of what the Historia Augusta says: "And finally, while he was in quarters with a few men in Britain, or, according to some, in Gaul, in a village named Sicilia..." (Vita Alex 59:6). While this is wrong, for once this is not a fiction that the author of the Historia Augusta invented; it is sourced from an error in Aurelius Victor De Caesaribus, 24:4: "agentem casu cum paucis vico Britanniae, cui vocabulum Sicilia, trucidavere".

So while an accurate quote, it is not correct, and should be removed. There is no doubt that Severus Alexander died near Mogontiacum. Oatley2112 (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Date of death

As it currently stands, the article states Severus Alexander died 22 March 235, offering as confirmation a calculation from the date of his ascension, 13 March 222. However, more recent research throws some doubt on this. Michael Peachin ("P.Oxy. VI 912 and the Accession of Maximinus Thrax", Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 59 (1985), pp. 75-78) points out not only do the primary sources differ on the length of his reign (given as 13 years 9 days, 13 years 8 days, or 13 years 8 months 9 days), but contemporary records offer conflicting evidence about his death (i.e. one document on papyrus, dated 4 April 235, mentions Alexander as still living; another dated 20 April of that year, mentions a cohors with his name, which would have been promptly renamed after his death; while an inscription notes he was co-opted into the sodales Antoniani 25 March 235). Peachin concludes Alexander met his death "about mid-March 235" -- in other words, there is no reliable source for such a precise date. -- llywrch (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• 8 or 9 days may well mean the same thing, that he died on 21 March, through exclusive or inclusive reckoning respectively -- the underlying tradition may be thus identical. The extra 8 months comes from the Chronograph of 354, which may have just mixed these two dates up. Papyri are often unreliable, since Egyptian towns may have taken a while to find out that an emperor died. Peachin usually ignores literary sources in his book, which explains his imprecise date, but Cooley's Manual to Latin Epigraphy gives 21 March, which is more or less compatible with "about mid-March 235". Avilich (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• The latest edition of the standard reference Kienast, Dietmar, Eck, Werner, & Heil, Matthäus. 2017. Römische Kaisertabelle : grundzüge einer römischen kaiserchronologie. 6th ed. p. 172 & p 176 gives the death as "Febr./März 235, (zwischen 18. Febr. und 9. März?)". Furius (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It boils down to how much one trusts literary sources. I suppose the choice here would be to give either 21 March or just c. March. Avilich (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The general principle is to follow the reliable secondary sources. If the situation is uncertain, we shouldn't be hiding that from readers. Furius (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not really "hidden". The lede has "19/22 March" and the "Assasination" section has a brief note about the matter. I don't know where Kienast's 9 March comes from. I always wondered why ancient historians had to make these intricate calculations instead of, I don't know, use putting the date? And they are not even consistent. Dio and others use both normal and inclusive reckoning at different times. Tintero21 (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Chronology of the ancient world is a complex subject. Sometimes we have an exact date: a complete military diploma will report the date of its creation in as many as 3 different ways, & a godsend for calculating events. Part of the problem is that there was no one commonly used manner of keeping dates: for example, dating by consuls was never adopted by all literate inhabitants of the Roman Empire, & different peoples had different names for months & what parts of the year they covered. (And then there is the matter of the pre-Julian Roman calendar.) Then we face the issue that few ancient people were sufficiently number literate to keep track of the exact dates events in their life occurred; all but a few people over 25 were unable to give you their correct age. (This is attested behavior for all numerically illiterate people: analysis of censuses have shown that people in third-world countries will report various numbers for their age, often saying they are older than they actually are.) So when it comes to chronology, it's always safer to cite a reliable secondary source than to offer our own calculations. -- llywrch (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• My point was that the citation for this date was entirely based on the interpretation of one primary source & ignoring the evidence of all of the other primary sources. While citing primary sources is often not problematical (& I actually am in favor of citing primary sources, especially when all of the secondary sources cite that source), when one encounters problems with primary sources that require an expert to untangle we should cite secondary sources -- especially when experts disagree on the interpretation. Not provide an explanation in a footnote that minimizes the controversy over the possible information. That -- inappropriate sourcing -- is the problem that needs fixing. As for Cooley, her chronology in Manual to Latin Epigraphy is a conflation of other authoritative sources; she uses Peachin's Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, AD 235-284 (1970) as a source for this period, yet in his book Peachin states Severus Alexander died "mid-march 235" (pp. 26f) -- she does not provide a source or reasoning for her exact date. Thus I mistrust the date of "21 March" for Severus Alexander's death.
  FWIW, I came to this because our articles on emperors during the turbulent 3rd century provide dates for when emperors came to power & died without providing reliable sources -- which is important for a time when the historical material is so thin. I suspect some of these dates were taken uncritically from out of date sources such as the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. While Peachin's Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, AD 235-284 is the latest authority for these dates I have been able to find, I am reluctant to cite it because it was published 30 years ago; while I trust his scholarship, there has been enough time since that work was published for an inscription or a papyrus to be published that would overturn at least one of his dates. Nonetheless, we have a block of articles with data lacking reliable sources, & possibly a simple way to address this need. -- llywrch (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, many articles need sources, that's true. I personally think "19/22 March" works well enough here because that's the range of dates used by modern scholars, as every author seem to have its own personal interpretation. As Avilich mentioned, papyri aren't that reliable in this case, hence why almost no book gives April as his death date. I assume that's what you mean with "other primary sources"? Tintero21 (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'll point you to Peachin's article for a complete list of "other primary sources", but they include more than just papyri. I am puzzled that Avilich rejects papyri so readily. Their texts are written at the same of the events, & rarely have any reason to misrepresent facts. If he is concerned about the dating formulas -- i.e. names of the consuls or which emperor was nominally controlling the Empire at the time -- consuls were typically selected well in advance of the year of their office, & Richard Duncan-Jones in his Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy has provided calculations to show just how long it took for official proclamations of the ascension of new emperors to reach Egypt from Rome. (In short, IIRC about 120 days during winter & about a month for the rest of the year.) Experts can adjust for these vagaries, & so should be cited; we are not experts, so we should not indulge in original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llywrch (talk • contribs) 19:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not rejecting papyri so easily, it's just that there are many cases of papyri recording emperors well after they have died. I'm simply pointing out that either you take the literary sources (and their precise reign lengths) at face value or you don't: you gave sources written by people who don't, I gave one which does. What we do from there is not a matter of original research, but editorial discretion. I will point out, however, that the range 19/22 March has no authority: the former date is simply 13 years and 8 days counted from Elagabalus's death (c. 11 March 222). Avilich (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Some books use 19 March, but maybe they just didn't knew of the Feriale Duranum? Tintero21 (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources that don't explicitly deal with chronology are next to useless on this regard, I'm afraid. Your second one, for example, incorrectly says Severus Alexander became emperor on 11 March (his dies imperii is the 13th). And the first one is Gibbon, come on. Avilich (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand, sorry. Tintero21 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

no worries Avilich (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)