Talk:Year of the Five Emperors

Untitled

I believe that "New Year's Eve" and "New Year's Day" in this context are anachronisms. --Wetman 18:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling them by those names might be, but Julius Caesar declared that Roman years would begin on January 1st in 45 BC. Thus, January 1st did indeed begin the Roman year in that year. And in any case, calling them anything in English is technically anachronistic, since that language didn't yet exist back then... --199.73.167.75 20:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Renaming this article

[The following discussion relates to when this page was called Year of the Six Emperors.]

Should this page really be called year of the six emperors? There were really only five. Flavius Sulpicianus never actually asserted any claim to the title, he just bidded in an auction and lost, and played no further part, unlike the other five who all claimed the purple. Since there is already another year of six emperors (238), which deserves its own article, I suggest moving this page to "Year of the Five Emperors." Comments? Richard75 19:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Commodus is being counted as the sixth emperor, not Flavius Sulpicianus - it is not entirely clear at what time Commodus was killed on the night of 31 December 192 / 1 January 193. On the other hand, it also seems a bit of a stretch to include Clodius Albinus, since he supported Septimius Severus for a time.

Nevertheless, the listed external sources do call this the "year of the six emperors"; on the other hand, there are also some that call it the "year of the five emperors" (example), including, I see, Herodian (example). Perhaps this article should be moved to Year of the Five Emperors, and a new article created about 238 (Maximinus I, Gordian I, Gordian II, Pupienus, Balbinus, Gordian III)... -- ALoan (Talk) 13:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved. See Year of the Six Emperors for 238. Richard75 22:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any precedent among historians for calling either 193 "The Year of the Five Emperors" or 238 "The Year of the Six Emperors?" I have never read any history book that labeled them as such, even though there is the famous "Year of the Four Emperors" in 69. While I would be willing to say that 238 would qualify for the title, I think it's dubious to give such nomenclature to 193. The chief reason is that all six emperors in 238 were at some point recognized as such by the Senate. However, in 193, neither Pescennius Niger nor Clodius Albinus were ever recognized--they were usurpers. I've never seen any "canonical" listing of the Roman Emperors which includes Niger or Albinus, but every such list does include all six from 238. So my recommendation would be to eliminate the entry for the "Year of the Five Emperors" altogether, since all of that information is duplicated in the articles regarding Niger, Albinus and Severus. This would remove any potential for novices to think that historians go around referring to 193 by this nomenclature, which they don't.

I notice that nobody has addressed this query whether historians actually call 193 the Year of Five Emperors. If, in fact, there are no references outside of Wikipedia calling this "the year of five emperors", Wikipedia shouldn't add this appelation. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I've read books and articles using that name. Here's one example study. I mean, I really don't care one way or another about the name but I'd like to see this article remain. Yojimbo1941 (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems that the study you linked (someone's master's thesis), and perhaps others which you may have found online, use Wikipedia as a reference in calling it the year of the five emperors. So if there are no primary or reliable secondary sources calling it such, I think it should be renamed. Nikolaih^☎️📖 23:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Auction

"Auction" does not really cover the prolonged bargaining, threats, promises and backstairs diplomacy of the competing bids for Imperial power. It's become a set fixture of popular imagination and historical works. Too good to resist, I suppose - not to mention (though I will) that wonderful jumping-up-and-down "orgy" that finishes off Mann's "The Fall of the Roman Empire" to a background of "I'll give you ten million!" "No, I'll pay twenty million". Brilliant stuff, and I'm sorry to misquote... Anyway, I'll do something about it, and drop some citation in at the same time. Haploidavey (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

References Error

Hello,

I cannot seem to find the location of the missing </ref> at the end of a citation. If someone could figure this out it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Klemm8 (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Klemm8

Disputing the Fate of Cleander

Under the section "Fall of Commodus", it states that Commodus' sanity began to unravel after the assassination of his close advocate, Cleander. However, on both Commodus' page describing the events and on Cleander's page talking about his own death it's very blatant that Cleander is not assassinated but instead put to death by Commodus himself. The original author could have been intending to talk about Saoterus, but there's no proof of this information. I'm petitioning to have the sentence removed from the "Fall of Commodus" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.153.161 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Clodius Albinus

I notice that the entry under Clodius Albinus here differs in many details from what is in the Clodius Albinus article. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

What in particular? Nikolaih^☎️📖 23:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)