Talk:Year of the Four Emperors

Comments

This entry on Vespasian needs work. It was featured today, 12/20/05, as a feature article on the Wikipedia welcome page. Thus its quality reflects on the reputation of the compendium generally. Vespasian's life and career needs to be fleshed out more beyond the facts of the struggle for the throne in 68-69. His earlier life, his career in the army and his overall rise to power, his role in the suppression of the Judean revolt and his career as Emperor need to be detailed. Recently on NPR it was stated that Wikipedia articles are closely comparable to those in Encyclopedia Brittanica. At this point this article falls far short of that standard.

1. This article is not about Vespasian. It is about the Year of the Four Emperors.
2. Sign your comments if you expect them to be taken seriously.

-Ikkyu2 17:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Confusion?

I'm a little confused. Why is this period defined as a year when it takes place over a period longer than a year?

-Cerise 22:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It means the year 69. Nero who dies in 68 is not one of the four. I have added a new sentence at the beginning of the article to make this clear. Richard75 19:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"The forced suicide of emperor Nero, in AD 68"

"The forced suicide of emperor Nero, in AD 68"

I disagree with this. Nero was not forced to commit suicide. He stabbed himself in the throat among his loyal servants. He had wanted to kill himself as his career was destroyed anyways (when he was in the Rome palace, and asked for a gladiator to kill him).

It is true that Nero was declared a public enemy and it was ordered that he be beaten to death, but he was never FORCED to commit suicide as a way of execution. Although it was not uncommon for leaders to commit suicide when they had been defeated, it was still not forced upon Nero.

Usually, I would describe forced suicide as a way of execution. --Zybez (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"See also" list

A summary of some discussion held elsewhere regarding the cricket element of the Seealso list.

The appropriate guideline on the topic is WP:SEEALSO. It includes the following relevant text:

"Links ... should be used in moderation, as always. These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question."

The first three bullets correspond to the first half of the bolded sentence and the cricket-related one, the second half. And with just four links in total, the article's still in line with the "in moderation" aspect. Furthermore, the guideline says:

"Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent."

Hence, the slightly clunky explanation that follows the bullet.

Cheers --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

i give up! if you can't beat 'em, join 'em! i wonder how many "peripherally related" but entirely fucking useless and philistine links i can think of to add to academic articles. i'm sure there's some link between the tang dynasty and the fresh prince of bel air!

Actually, if you could discuss this constructively rather than resorting to swearing about it, we may get somewhere in achieving a consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you here. OK, this isn't an "academic article". It is, like all of Wikipedia's mainspace content, an encyclopedia article. That means everything here is encyclopedic, or should be deleted. Whether it's Roman history, the Simpsons or cricket. This is a topic peripherally related - the topic takes one of its notable names from this one. It's appropriate for a See also link. It does no harm, no reader will be offended by it, and it's within policy and guideline. Take a look around our articles, you'll find all kinds of weird and wonderful connections made through See also wikilinks - it's part of the charm and ease of use of a wiki-enabled encyclopedia. --Dweller (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

it's a dumb arbitrary policy probably only slightly better than "in popular culture" sections and i'm just going to constantly edit it so it's permanently semi-protected imho —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.111.61 (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a sad admission of defeat, but it's your choice. --Dweller (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

i'm only admitting the futility of seriously discussing the "see also" policy on a site this poorly administered. i'm just a realist, bro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.38.169 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The only way the site can become better administered is by people like you contributing and making it better. You're clearly intelligent and have a lot to offer. Lots of Wikipedia editors begin with being irate about something and trying to change it. Some succeed. If you seriously dislike the way the See also works, you can try changing the policy. I'm not sure I'll agree with you, but others may. If you're interested, drop me a line on my talk page and I'll help you happily. But we're going off topic for this particular page now. Cheers --Dweller (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can cite a source which indicates that the Summer of the Four Captains was intentionally named after the Year of the Four Emperors, and not just a coincidence, I would suggest that the two topics are not even peripherally related. They simply have nothing to do with each other, and to link from an Ancient Roman history article to a contemporary sports article looks flippant and makes Wikipedia look a bit silly. I'll try to get a consensus to undo it rather than remove it again by myself, but really do consider for a moment just why it is that you feel so strongly that this belongs here at all. WP:SEEALSO is all very well, but another relevant policy here is use common sense. Richard75 (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. And interestingly, I can't currently find a source explaining the origins of the summer of four captains name, perhaps because it's self-evident. Anyhoo, without a source, I tend to agree it should go from both this article and as speculation bordering on OR from the main article. If a source turns up, it belongs in both. The whole point of Seealso is to signpost the way to articles not otherwise linked from the article, ones that a reader may find interesting ... or may not. All the most obvious links will, of course, already be in the article. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

justice is done imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.139.172 (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

error in map

The map shows Arabia Petraea as a Roman province - however Arabia was only added under Trajan about 40 year after the battles of Bedriacum.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

See the map key, by clicking on the map. If you still think it's inaccurate, you can contact its draughtsman at User talk:Steerpike --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this map is far from perfect. The article certainly deserves better but at the time I could not find a free alternative or for that matter any map that gave a clear indication of who was where during 69, so I just kind of "improvised" this. I really call upon more experienced mappers on Wikipedia to improve this image. Ideally, the map would show how the allegiance of the different provinces changed over time, as well as major battles and the exact movement of the legions. If anyone's up for it... --Steerpike (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, the error regarding Arabia is still there and i agree with with the posting above that the map has other issues as well. Instead of one map for the whole year it might be easier to simply have a several maps (i.e. series) showing the different allegiances of the provinces and legions at a certain time and as well several uprisings that took place in parallel (Jewish revolt, Batavian in norther Rhine regions, etc.) Personally i'd suggest at least 2-3 maps, before Vespasian entered the scene (july) and after and the situation after he had won the emperorship.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm also wondering whether it might be useful to start a historical map project for antiquity (or do we have some already ?), because it might be a good idea to provide several vectorized geographical base maps (such as the mediterranean), which that can be used to easily create maps for various battles, kingdoms and empires. Also useful in that connection would be to store some statistical/geogrpahical/archeological data at a common place, which helps to establish borders at a certain pint in time. In particular the nature of the southern and eastern borders seems of sketchy and various maps printed in literature are often very not very precise in that area. There might be also some university projects out there dealing with that (no idea). Anyhow if somebody is interested of starting such project, i'd be interested to help out.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Cricket trivia

This article is about the history of the Roman Empire. References to West Indian cricket teams have no place here and to continually insert them after they are removed amounts to vandalism and will be reported to an administrator. Stop it. Richard75 (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

See above. --Dweller (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, to continually remove it amounts to vandalism. Please seek consensus to remove the link. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Richard, the above two users are admins. Despite the way it makes Wikipedia look, there is a long-standing consensus to include the link. Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And despite the way "it makes Wikipedia look", we act here by discussion and agreement, not unilateral decision-making and threat. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I was agreeing with you. In this instance, consensus reigns over common sense because it's policy. Nev1 (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. If it needs discussion (and Dweller tried this a couple of threads above), then let's start another discussion. Flicking "nuvola apps important.svg" in people's faces is a little too much. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll make my argument in the section above. Richard75 (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Three errors

1. Galba marched into Rome at the head of a single legion, VII Galbiana (later Gemina). As for the other legions mentioned, VI Victix was the legion Galba left behind in Spain, I Macriana liberatrix was in Africa, and I Adiutrix did not exist at that point - Galba instituted it shortly afterwards from the remnants of a body of marines he massacred at the Milvian Bridge before entering Rome. (Gwyn Morgan,'69AD The Year of the Four Emperors' 2006)

2. Galba did not promise the Praetorian Guard any donative - the promise was made without his authority by the Guards prefect Nymphidius Sabinus.

3. Otho invited Vitellius to become his father-in-law, not his son-in-law. Otho was unmarried and childless; Vitellius had a grown daughter. (Suetonius, Otho:8 and Tacitus,The Histories:13)

The Morgan book is the most authoritative modern source. Tacitus 'The Histories', the key ancient source, should also be referred to and listed as a source for this page.

Fredceedobbs (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well in the time it took you to say all that on the talk page, you could have put it in the article. Richard75 (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to settle any disputes beforehand rather than having an undignified tug-of-war with the text - I can see that's happened before with this article. Whoever listed those legions - unless he/she was just making it up - may have a source that contradicts mine. I am confident enough that my facts are correct and will change the article soon unless someone proves them wrong. Fredceedobbs (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Map caption edit

Once again, I've changed this caption from "generals" to "noblemen". Otho was not a general. He held no military command before becoming emperor. His province, Lusitania, had no legions. He suborned the Guards illegally - he was not their commander. It's thus inaccurate to refer to "four generals" in the caption. Fredceedobbs (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The year of Four emperors

You need more information lots more ! Helenagriffing (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Evaluating the Article

Lead section - The lead section provides a good overview of the article, providing major details that allow the reader to achieve a concise overview. It includes a brief description of of the articles major sections, in chronological order. The lead section is not overly detailed and does not include information that is not present in the article

Content - The article contains content that is relevant to the topic and appears to be up-to-date. The content is neither missing nor contain content that does not belong. The article does not have deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance - Throughout the whole article, a neutral point of view is established. There are no claims that are biased. There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented. There are no minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described. The article does not try to persuade the reader in anyway.

Sources and References - This article contains a general list of references. A lot of facts are not backed up by sources. The sources provided are thorough. Majority of the sources are about a century old. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors but do lack the voice of marginalized individuals. The sources provided are peer-reviewed articles, but the article does lack sources. Every source referenced is accessible.

Organization and writing quality - The article is well-written, clear and easy to read. It does not contain any grammatical or spelling errors. It is organized in chronological order of the history, providing major points of the topic.

Images and media - The article contains images that do not enhance the understanding of the topic. The images provided do not contain detailed captions. The images adhere Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images are laid out to compliment the adjacent paragraph, making it appealing to the reader.

Talk page discussion - Within the talk page, conversations of confusion and errors were talked about. This article is rated as C-class and there are two Wikiprojects that it is apart of. The Military history and Classical Greece and Rome Wikiprojects.

Overall impressions - The article's overall status is good, but it lacks sources and references to help back up the facts. The article also lacks images that help the enhance the understanding of the topic, and with that the caption of the images are not detailed. This article is not complete, as it lacks references but is somewhat developed. Nathangooi (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Lede section too long

Following today's edits, the new lede section seems inordinately long. What would be wrong with just having a brief summary in the lede, and putting all this detail in the rest of the article? Richard75 (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

How is it too long? There are many articles with much longer lede. T8612 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Never mind other articles, I'm talking about this one. The more detail you put in the lede, the more repetitive the article gets when the reader has to read it all again in the sections below the table of contents. The lede is just meant to be an overview. Also, I can't see how removing most of the sources is meant to be an improvement. Richard75 (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Revolt of the Batavi

The lead finishes with the followign sentence: "the new regime distorted the events—especially through the writings of the historian Tacitus—in order to remove the embarrassment of having relied on the Batavi to fight Roman legions. The Batavi were therefore said to have revolted against Rome, and the events dubbed the Revolt of the Batavi" The rest of the article text makes no reference to the Batavian revolt and, as phrased, sounds like a conspiracy theory. I've always understood the two events to be separate and I'm surprised at the idea of Tacitus as a pliant producer of official history. Furius (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

See T. E. J. Wiedemann, "From Nero to Vespasian", in Bowman et al., Cambridge Ancient History, vol. X, pp. 280–282:

The failure of the Rhine legions to accept Vespasian after Vitellius' death proved a major embarrassment to the Flavians, and to pro-Flavian historians. The events of A.D. 69/70 in the Rhineland had to be re-written in such a way as to avoid giving the impression that Vespasian had been supported by Batavians and (some) Gauls, while the citizen legions and (other) Gauls continued to constitute a 'Vitellian' force. In consequence, Tacitus' Histories describe the rebellion against Vitellius led by the Batavian leader Civilis as though it was an uprising by provincials against Roman rule. But Tacitus also has to admit that when the rebellion began, it was welcome to the Flavians: he says that at first it was only in secret that the rebel leaders expressed anti-Roman views. If Civilis was a traitor, he was a traitor to Vitellius. In the autumn of 69, at the behest of Antonius Primus, he took the oath to Vespasian and besieged a Vitellian legion at Vetera (Xanten). Tacitus misleadingly suggests that by the beginning of 70, the legions too had taken the oath of loyalty to Vespasian. In fact, the legate of Upper Germany, Hordeonius Flaccus (who had supported Civilis' action) was killed by his troops when he tried to administer the oath, and Vitellius' portrait restored. A pro-Vitellian legate, Dillius Vocula, came to the help of the soldiers at Vetera; when the legionaries tried to evacuate the camp there and march south in March 70, they were massacred by Civilis' Batavians (Tacitus emphasizes the presence of Germanic warriors from across the Rhine among Civilis' soldiers).

I never had the time to expand on this, nor check whether it was the academic consensus. T8612 (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'll do some investigation... .... ..... .... ... Here's what I've found:

• Ian Haines Blood of the Provinces (2013) p. 4 & n. 16: discusses this briefly "Even Civilis’ actions may be seen as legitimate intervention in the Civil War, rather than indigenous revolt against the Empire" note: "Urban (1985) and Wiedemann (1996) see the Batavian Revolt in these terms. Wiedemann (1996: 280) argues that Tacitus sought to conceal an awkward truth" (he's treating the view with respect, but I think the "may be seen" is significant and he's clearly treating it as Wiedemann's view rather than "the fact")
• B. Turner "From Batavian Revolt to Rhenish Insurgency" in Brill's companion to insurgency and terrorism in the ancient Mediterranean 2016. is largely about this issue. He speaks of "those historians who claim that Tacitus was part of some sort of imperial cover-up" and Civilis' "feigned support of Vespasian" (at p. 284 ff. he summarises views on the revolt)
• Wellesley, The Year of the Four Emperors (2000) p. 175 “cunning or caution impelled him [Civilis], tongue in cheek, to make his men swear allegiance to Vespasian.”
• Brunt, P. A. (1990a) “Tacitus on the Batavian Revolt,” Roman Imperial Themes. Oxford. Apparently criticises the Urban 1985 view very strongly.

Conclusion: I don't think this is the communis opinio, but it clearly has supporters. So, I think it should be discussed in the Revolt of the Batavi and perhaps in the body, here. I don't think it belongs in this article's lead (maybe something indicating that the civil war and the revolt appear entangled would be appropriate?) and I think the phrasing needs to be softened to make clear this is one suggestion. Furius (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)