Talk:Roman Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roman Empire article.
The Roman Empire article is very slowly being reorganized at Roman_Empire/reorganization.

Feel free to help out, but please co-ordinate on the talk page in order to avoid edit conflicts.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Roman Empire as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Dutch or Finnish language Wikipedias.



Contents

[edit] Roman Empire

Archive 1


[edit] My two cents

I was always taught that the Roman Empire was the empire where, well, Rome was the capitol. Yes, my history teachers mentioned the Byzantine empire, but that was always considered something separate from the Roman empire proper. And, once the empire fell in the 5th century, what showed up later during the dark ages was considered something else.

So, I feel this article should cover just the Roman empire until the 5th century fall of Rome. Also, it's better to split up, since an article shouldn't be longer than 32k. Samboy 23:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The logical conclusion of this approach is that the "real" Roman Empire was over when the emperor moved to Milan.--Wetman 22:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The fact is that all periodization is to some extent arbitrary: leaving this article as it stands has the huge merit of being consistent with the majority of other works of reference. Anyone who is interested can soon see for themselves the continuities of history between Rome and Byzantium, and the successor states in the West. Djnjwd 22:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
True, because we could keep going after Byzantium into the various Holy Roman Empires to the Papal States and the into the present with the Vatican. So by all means, end this article in the 5th century AD.
How do you figure? The Byzantine Emperor referred to himself as the Roman Emperor--he tossed out ambassadors for referring to him as the Greek Emperor. Further, he is directly the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire had nothing to do with the Roman Empire, aside from receiving Papal support. And, as with the Vatican, that is not the Roman Empire. It's the Papal State. There's no connection. I'm all in favor of breaking the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, but please be aware that most everyone says that the Roman Empire continued until 1453. Directly. After that you're grasping at straws.

Cameron Nedland 01:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official Language

I re-entered Greek as one of the two "official" languages in the infobox. Although no such thing existed during the Roman empire, neither in antiquity nor in the middle ages, if "official" is any indication of the importance and usage by the people or the state, Greek should by no means be absent from the infobox. "Official" presupposes an elevated status of importance for something. Modern constitutions state clearly what the official language of the state is. The Italian constitution states Italian is the official language of Italy. The EU has 25 official languages, one for each of its member states, as stated by EU law. Yet no such law existed in the Roman Empire to assign to any language "official" status. The Roman Senate enacted laws in Latin, which in theory applied to all four corners of the empire, but in practice were enforced only in a few, and in those cases "official" is a mute point. In the Senate itself, a speech could be delivered in Greek and every Senator was expected to understand it, even though it seldom happened. Beyond state afairs, Roman society, at least the aristocray, is best described as bilingual. Greek schools operated and Greek works were read in equal volume with Latin. Even so, after the foundation of Constantinople, laws were enacted in Greek as well as Latin, and at least in the East, Latin fell drastically out of use. I'm against the use of any box that tries to sum up in a few lines the characteristics of the Roman empire, escpecially for such a long living and changing entity. But if "official" should mean anything in Rome (and in Byzantium), it would only mean degree of use.

I go along with that. The existence of such things as the Res Gestae of Augustus in Latin and Greek support the idea of Greek as a language used by the administration (if that's what official means in this context). Djnjwd 14:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one was trying to argue that Greek wasn't important an important language and culture in the Roman world, but Ephestion's changes consistently brought a tone that Greek was the only important culture and language, which it obviously was not. --Masamax 18:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

latin and greek were both used in adminisration because that was practical.I agree that the term official language did not have the meaning that it has now.Or perhaps such a term did not exist at all.However,there existed in Rome a translations office which translated from Latin to Greek and from Greek to Latin.This was done because a great part of the known world at that time spoke the one or both of these languages.It was done ,in my opinion only due to practical reasons--Pelasgos80 29 June 2005 13:28 (UTC)

Latin was used in the west and Greek in the East, this should be noted.

Cameron Nedland 01:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The article says: "Latin also Greek in the eastern part"
Greek was not simply also used in the Eastern part. Apart from being the vernacular of Southern Italy and Sicily until at least the 11th century AD, Greek was very much alive in the city of Rome itself. Furthermore since the article regard Byzantium as a Roman Empire, then the official languages should be: Latin, Greek - period. To regard of course Byzantium in that way as a Roman Empire is of course a bit of an oxymoron, since the "Latins" of Italy and France and the "Greeks" of Greece and Asia Minor hated each other's cultures. Miskin 00:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that both greek and Latin should be presented as official languages. Both where quite ubiquituous in the Empire and both had a signifigant position in the arts and culture. As for cultural clashes I'dd say Hate is too strong a word for the relationship between the Greek east and the Frankish/Latin west. Both had signifigantly diffrent perseptions of protocol and honour. As can readily be seen in the first crusade when the Frankish lords enountered the Imperial court. This conflict though does not take away the East's clame of Roman continuity. The term Byzantine itself only appears a century after its demise. Prior to this, it and much of the "known" world called it the Roman Empire, even if this was in greek (Basileía Romaíon). I dont see any oxymoron in this.Dryzen 12:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
It's contradictory because as from the 8th c. AD, Westeners (and most non-Byzantines) would only recognise the "Byzantine state" as the "Kingdom of the Greeks". According to contemporary records, even Byzantines would use "Graecia" when they spoke to a foreigner. If they said "Imperium Romanorum", nobody would understand what they were talking about. Miskin 16:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Things had indeed changed but its was still the linear contignuation of the Roman Empire, therefore still had the right to be called as such. As to identifying themself to what the foreigners could comprehend its a rather normal costum that doesn't necesairily mean thats you telling the exact truth. words have meaning and the same word to multiple people can have multiple meanings, its all about conceptions. If the Byzantine didn't say he was a Greek, then the foreigners wouldn't get the proper conception. Its similar to when the Europeans went on Crusades, even if they where from England or Germany, they where known as Franks. but I think this is beside the poitn of this perticular discurions, we where discussion the Offical Languages of the Roman Empire. I believe that Miskin and I both agreed that Greek and Latin are valid Official Languages.Dryzen 14:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Nobody was denying that Greek was an official language. But what re-started this discussion, was that Miskin was not satisfied with: "Latin also Greek in the eastern part" and proposes to replace it with Latin, Greek. What do I think of his proposal? Fine by me. Just do it. Flamarande 15:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I changed it Dryzen 14:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complete Reorganization of Article

Starting this week I plan on writing a completely reorganized version of this article that will be a gateway article to Roman Empire related articles. I will be doing this on my home PC and uploading the new version all at once to avoid convolution. Once it is up, the wording can be reworked, but the organization and spirit will be done at once which I think will be hugely helpful. Here are the sections I plan on including in the article:

  • Government
  • History (very brief version of the current article, broken down as follows:
    • Age of Augustus
    • Julio-Claudians
    • Flavian Stabalization
    • Five Good Emperors
    • Crisis of the Third Century
    • Stabalization (Diocletian->Constantine)
    • Final Decline (361-476 AD)
    • Explainations for Decline
  • Economy
  • Culture
  • Military

As well, the current parts of the article such as the "See Also" as well as Links will just be recycled.

If you have any suggestions for sections of the article please post here. I will upload the article as soon as it's done, and instead of reverting, if you see anything you disagree with please EDIT IT. Admitedly, my article may not stand up to complete Wikipedia standards, so I leave it up to the community to edit the new article I will create. I know this seems drastic, but the current article is unacceptable to most, but the scope of the work has just meant most want to stay away. --Masamax 08:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now that the Ephestion argument has (hopefully) subsided, I agree that a substantial rewrite of the main body is a good idea. For my part, the principal problem with the current article is the way in which it duplicates biographical information and event-by-event history per Emperor; I think what we should have in each of the sections is an overview of historical trends, rather than the detailed political history that we have now (as long as it's suitably linked by date, person and subject). Djnjwd 18:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The reason I'm going to arrange the sections the way I've planned them is because in the early to middle empire the easiest way to organize the history is who was ruling at the time. I don't intend to do much biographical work, instead I will focus on the major events during each period, as well as the atmosphere of the Empire. --Masamax 20:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Lifetime and Perspective

The text includes the statement:

"at Augustus's death, there would have been few living who could recall a time before Augustus himself. The average Roman had a life expectancy of only forty years."

I suspect this is a misconception (as well as being peripheral to the subject of the article).

In fact, it was quite normal for Romans of this period to live to the age of about 70 years. The reason for the low life expectancy was high infant mortality (ie almost half of newborns died during their early childhood).

I am very tempted to adjust the text, but not wanting to be percipitous, I wish to solicit viewpoints before making the correction. --Philopedia 23:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to adjust it, do so, as I agree, and I will work it into the new article I am currently writing (see above). --Masamax 06:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)by Julia adelman--68.239.124.14 17:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Very well. Done (and simplified). --Philopedia 10:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting: "justified on the right for consistency"

It doesn't matter at this entry, for the simple reason that there are never two images on the screen at any one time; nevertheless, it should be generally understood that making images identical in size and "and justified on the right for consistency" makes poor layout, though sometimes insisted upon by Wikipedians. Perhaps the appeal of "justified on the right for consistency" is drawn from a political ideal rather than from visual experience. Certainly it makes a poor precedent. --Wetman 22:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Principate

Article states: "For many years historians made a distinction between the Principate, the period from Augustus until the Crisis of the Third Century, and the Dominate, the period from Diocletian until the end of the Empire in the West. According to this theory...We now know..."

I'm a history Phd candidate at Duke and can assure you both "principate" and "dominate" are accepted and still thriving terms.

The article does not say that the terms "principate" and "dominate" are obsolete , but that our knowledge of this period in time is more nuanced. That in reality neither the principate nor the dominate can be as easily generalized as the theory mentioned. --Tokle 11:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] A proposal

It may be a good idea to cut the aticle at 284 or 313, before the sweeping reforms introduced by Diocletian and Constantine. This would have two good reasons: on the practical side, it would render easier writing the general articles on Roman administration, culture and religion rending them more homogeneous and cut the length of the article; on the historical side, we could free ourselves of 476 and build un article on the late Roman Empire (284-610) which would include both the west and the east of the empire, starting with the Byzantine empire in the 7th century, the date generally accepted since its the years of the loss of the most important territories and the definitive waning of Latin. Opinions? Aldux 23:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that this approach might make some things easier, I would vote against it. I think it is essential that the reader learns that also the late period belongs to the history of the Empire and that Constantius II is as much a Roman Emperor as Domitian (for example); and that the Empire did not stay static, but transformed over time - a fact that often tends to be obscured with the common concentration on the "classical" period. To cut the article at 284 allows to present a picture that is too homogenous to be adequate, imho - not that that would necessarily happen, but it's very possible.
Also, that way we only substitute one caesura (476) with another (284).
The end section of the article as it stands, with a remark on the continuation of the Eastern Empire and a pointer to the Byzantine Empire article, in my eyes sufficiently shows that 476 wasn't the absolute end of the Empire. Varana 19:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I see your point, but I can't help feeling uncomfortable with 476. Maybe an idea could be changing 476 with 610 or 637, since the definitive adoption of Greek and the loss of the empire's most important provinces to the Arabs does seem to me to sign to me a far more radical break than 476. After all, Odoacer, differently from Lombards and Arabs, continued to recognize the authority of Constinople. Aldux 10:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
During and after the reigns of Honorius and Arcadius the two halves of the empire essentially functioned as two separate states, something unprecedented when on previous occasions the empire was ruled by legitimate multiple emperors, like the Tetrarchs. This division was ended in a legal sense as well when the Senate of Rome sent the Western regalia to Zeno (474-5, 476-91) after Odoacer overthrew Romulus Augustulus (475-6) suggesting the Constantinopolitan emperor rule both East and West. But the West was never properly re-integrated, despite Justinian's short lived success in recovering much of the lost provinces. In my view, the developments that lead to the de facto seperation between East and West in the 4rd and 4th centuries are more important than those in the 6th and 7th, which had greater impact to the East anyway. For a matter of convenience Wikipedia holds seperate article for the Roman and Byzantine Empire, and since there is no academic consensus on the precise date that one ends and the other begins, as longs as both articles make clear that the changeover was gradual, I'll be happy. Colossus 14:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, I won't insist on this, since the consensus is for keeping the present date :-) But it should be clear that the chart with the provinces in 120 is valid only for the early Roman Empire and that it was radically changed with Diocletian and his heirs Aldux 15:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] System of Government

"Constitutional monarchy with autocratic reserve powers" is listed as government in the box. In the respective article, this is explained as "a form of government whereby a Monarchy acts within a constitutional basis in practice, but in theory holds autocratic powers without reserve". It would be more correct, I think, to put it as the reverse: ruled by autocratic powers in practice, in theory restrained by a "constitutional" basis. (Though there never was any constitution.) Is there a term that reflects this?

[edit] Why is the Eastern Roman Empire called Byzantium?

From my understanding the traditional teaching in the West is that the Roman Empire fell, and I even remember trying to answer that culturally biased Exam question "Why did the Roman Empire Fall?". Only recently have I found the Eastern perspective of these events which see no collapse of the Roman Empire since the capital of Rome was tansfered. Byzantium was no longer called Byxzantium, it was called Nova Roma or Nea Rome (New Rome). Having done Roman History (from a western perspective) the coins used by the Roman Empire were locally made. This means that the Coins by convention had the face of the Emperors but would also have on them the local or commonly spoken language. In the West one would assume this would have been Latin, but surprisingly, they have both languages, Greek and Latin. In the East and the far East, Greek was used alone.

But we know that in the West Greek and Latin was the language of the nobility. The tutors and the pedagogues were deliberately chosen to be educated Greek servants and slaves. The whole education system in Italy Rome was based on Greek philosophy, mathematics and science. This is why the Greeks would later also enjoy Roman citizenship since their customs and religion and language were now the same as the Romans.

So why is the Roman Empire called the Byzantine Empire? In the early stages, it was never called this. "The Roman Empire of the East" and the "Roman Empire of the West" were the officially accepted terms. It was always Old Rome and New Rome. If you read the 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Church they were all written in Greek, and nowhere is there any mention of Byzantium or Constantinople. It is always refered to as NEW ROME. Only later (by the west firstly and then by the east) was it called Contstantines City out of respect for Constantine who helped Christianise the Entire Roman Empire. Under Constantine there was no East and West, only later , after he died were these names used.

sorry i'm not registered as a member yet.

It's all good. 66.205.108.8 23:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

--203.59.61.183 14:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

So far as I know, the term Byzantine was first used of the eastern empire in the 16thC. - probably coined by humanists to exclude the then (as now) muslim east. I have no refs for this.--shtove 21:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
"The term Byzantine Empire was introduced in 1557, about a century after the fall of Constantinople by German historian Hieronymus Wolf, who presented a system of Byzantine historiography in his work Corpus Historiae Byzantinae in order to distinguish ancient Roman from medieval Greek history without drawing attention to their ancient predecessors. So far, it appears that there has been no study tracking the reasons why that term came to gain prominence."Dryzen 13:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire never called themselves 'Byzantines' - they called themselves Romans and believed themselves to live in the Roman Empire - not a successor state or inheritor of Rome but the Roman Empire itself. As citizenship had been extended in the 3rd century to all peoples within the Empire there is no inconsistency in this. The fact that they don't fit our modern perceptions of Romans (i.e. 1st century BC - 1st century AD) is I think why we have trouble identifying them as Romans - preferring to call them Byzantines or (even more inaccurately) Greeks. Of course they were very different culturally and politically from the Romans of Ancient Rome but that doesn't mean they weren't Romans. I'm sure the people of the present day US are very different from the Founding Fathers but that doesn't mean that ipso facto they are not Americans. Roydosan 15:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

'Greeks' is not inaccurate. It is the standard term used by non-Byzantines to refer to Byzantines, their contemporaries never called them Romans (except for the Islamic states maybe). As Ostrogrsky defines it "Byzantine" is was coined to differentiate between "ancient Roman and medieval Greek history". The thing is that the perception of the term "Romans" in the middle ages was different from the one of antiquity and modern times, which corresponds to the Latin speakers of the city of Rome and its domain. That explains terms such as Kaiser, Tsar, Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, Basileia Romaion etc. Furthermore the Byzantine Emperor who was known by the time of Heraclius as "Basileus ton Romaion" (Lord of the Romans) ended up in the Byzantine era as the "Basileus ton Hellenon" (Lord of the Hellenes). The political term "Roman" was a title of prestige which symbolised the absolute power and land claims beyond limit. Once those values became history in late Byzantium, the "Roman" title was of no use. Miskin 16:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Not completely of no use. Greeks continued to call themselves Romans well past 1453. It was only in the late 19th century that "Roman" finally gave way to "Greek". Colossus 23:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

But Miskin the term Romans did not quite have the meaning in the middle ages you ascribe to it. The Byzantines saw themselves as Romans because they were Romans both culturally and politically. They did not see it as merely a title of prestige or power. It doesn't matter what their contemporaries called them - and actually only the western nations & states ever referred to them as Greeks (even then the Latin Empire set up by the crusaders after 1204 used the name Roman Empire) - the Arabs, Persians & Turks always called them Romans so your logic does not stand up to scrutiny. Roydosan 18:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it at all possible that the religious conflicts between eastern and western churches could have been part of the reason for the empire being refferred to as Byzantium and not Roman Empire. I know that there were many issues regarding the divinity of christ that left east and west at odds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.3.8.253 (talk • contribs) 16:23, July 11, 2006 (UTC)

Byzantinium became Constantinople, not new Rome67.81.203.74 21:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)willgfass

[edit] External Link to History Forum

At the external links one is called "History Forum Simaqianstudio"... This Forum might be an interesting and good one, however this is not a Roman Empire discussion forum, all it has is a section called "Ancient Civilizations"...

There are (that i know) at least two true Roman Empire discussion forums that should be rather there (if we actually want to have a link to a discussion forum) for example: http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php dedicated forum to all things Roman and http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/ forum dedicated to the Roman Army

just a thought.. cheers robert


[edit] Hi all, I'm back...

...after my unfortunate time away.

Glad to see that the article has been significantly improved in my absence. Sad to see that the basic problem of the current article being a series of brief imperial biographies still persists.

I see that Masamax and some others have set forth some organizational schemes. Hmm... looking at his contribution page, which cuts off mid-July, looks like he got scared off. You guys still there? Ddama 19:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some musings on other language pages

I just looked at the Dutch and Suomi pages, which were feature articles on their respective WP sites. The Dutch article was concise. Very concise. I'm awfully tempted to replace the mishmash we have here with an English language equivalentof the Dutch article. Even if we don't, everyone interested in working on this page should take a look at it, if only to get some gears turning.

I have no ability to read Suomi (any Finns in the house?), but that article is about the right length and seems to hit the right topics. Just eyeballing it, it seems a little heavy on the history and occasionally inconsistent, like when it jumps straight from Augustus to Trajan. Several people here have suggested a topical reorganization of the English article, and the Finnish seems to be a decent step in that direction.

Regrettably and shamefully, the Latin language page had the worst article in the bunch, consisting merely of a list of emperors. My time is too tight as is. Sigh. Ddama 08:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ddama, I'm being polite, but it is Wiki etiquette to post new talk sections at the bottom of the talk page. Thank you. --Alexander 007 09:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Grazie, and with pleasure. Ddama 06:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem with English Wikipedia is that it attracts such a variety of contributors, each of whom is liable to fight to keep his contributions posted, regardless of the benefits of a major edit or reorganisation. The intro to Adolf Hitler is a good example - one group of contributors will have a month-long argument over the wording, and, after they've reached some daft compromise, another group will come barging in and heedlessly rehash the argument, with a different outcome. The reason for the success of the Dutch counterpart of this article may be down to one or two authoritative contributors, who don't have to put up with a bunch of cranks and egos. And I've come across one Dutch Wikipod who shuns Dutch WP as boring and contributes only to English WP, because there's so much going on here - all the poodles run to this house.--shtove 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganizing the article

I would like to see some consensus before undertaking a major reorganization of the article. I feel like I had such a consensus 18 months ago, but subsequent events intervened, and there are sufficient new actors that I think it necessary.

I'm basically looking to Masamax's plan and the Suomi article for organization, with the entire history section being a redacted version of the history found now under the epochs section of Roman Emperor. I need to give it more thought and very much want to hear what the community has to say. Ddama 07:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not begin with a schema of proposed subheadings right here, in outline form, the way they'd appear in the revised Table of Contents box. Give editors a chance to suggest revisions to the new scheme. In general, I'd merely hope information doesn't get lost in the shuffle, and I'd hope for more space for cultural history to supplement dynastic relations, politics and wars. --Wetman 17:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking of something along the lines of:

  • Disambig: Roman Emperors to list of Roman Emperors
  • 1. Overview (3 paras)
  • 2. Government (1 para)
  • 3. History (4 paras, divided by epoch)
  • 4. Economy (1 para, with links to a number of articles yet to be written)
  • 5. Culture (4 paras, divided by epoch)
  • 6. Evolution and Change (1 para)

If someone wants to add a military heading, they are welcome to, but don't expect me to write it; I don't think it belongs here, except in the most broad strokes. Ddama 04:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueller? Ddama 08:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is a big mess. It seems way much like a list of every single Emperor and their "mighty deeds". We should mention only the more important ones in the articles and be a little more "abstract" by describing better larger developments and their reasons. One of the paragraphs should be about the division and the reasoning behind itFlamarande

Well, I'm glad to see a man who is passionate about his topic of interest. :)

As I've mentioned before, I think the division is a footnote, and this seems to be emerging as a consensus in the heading below on the East-West thing. Modern scholarship recognizes a broad period of cultural transformation in the Mediterranean world between the years 314 and 800 and the conclusion of the article should discuss this transitional period in brief, really focusing on handing off readers to the various extant articles about cultural and political developments in that time.

Does anyone else have strong feelings about the proposed schema? It's been up for a month. Ddama 09:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, as a new member in the "wikipedia community" I don´t really know how the "reorganizations" are carried out. I suposse that we need to delete alot of the article and rewrite it. But won't it be reverted? As for your proposed schema its fine by me, but remember the old saying "no plan survives first enemy contact" (something like that) When do we begin? Flamarande

That's why consensus is of the utmost importance. If enough people agree to such a change, then a revert would be against the desires of the community. It's what Talk pages are for. Frankly, though, not many people seem interested at the moment. Ddama 18:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Look: "those who are silent, do not oppose". Let´s begin "the long anounced overhaul" in a calm and rational manner, with "little" improvements. If somebody begins to reverts them, we ask him to "defend his case" in the talk page (thats why it´s here for, anyway). I fear that if we do not start the overhaul, this article will remain the same (and quite sincerly, it´s not a very good article) until oblivion. Flamarande 16:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Where should this article end?" + "East-West debate"

I honestly think that this whole article is flawed. It is simply too ambitious, for it tries to contain the whole "Roman" empire even after its division into to the western and the eastern empires. Doing that is (in my opinion) a big mistake. The debates of "how roman was the byzantine empire?" and "when did it stopped being roman and became greek?" "how can you describe the byzantine empire as roman if it didn´t even had Rome as the capital?" "Who was the Emperor when and was he recognized by the whole empire?" and others are the result.

I seriously think that this article should end with the final division (after Theodosius) along with a good explanation for it and the results ( and their precedents, just look at Octavian and Marc Antony). The problems (economic and military but also religious) the resources and most importantly the fates of both Empires were simply diffrent.

Just a few examples: the infobox says that the last Emperor was Romulus Augustus (or Julius Nepos) but he (or his predecesesors after the division) didn´t even rule over the "whole" Empire. If Rome was the capital city, what was Constantinople? They weren´t Joint Capitals. They were capitals of two (not so diffrent? that is soo debatable) empires Flamarande

The debate on the capital of Rome I fail to see where if anywhere this article talks about Constantine's desire to transform Rome into a christian empire. Rome at that time was mostly pagans who were taught to hate christians and jews and their beliefs, to have a emperor come and tell them they had to convert to christianity, and have their temples torn down to be replaced with christian churches caused an uproar. Constantine wanted a capital city to be a beacon for christianity, where he would not have to deal with the problems of converting so many unwilling people. There were of course other reasons for moving the capital, constantinople was a location that could be defended easier, this was done because of the incoming threats of invasion from the germanic tribes. In some books there is also talk of a plague that was occuring in Rome at the time. With all of these problems moving the capital probably seemed like a very good idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.3.8.253 (talk • contribs) 16:46, July 11, 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt this. There's still doubt as to how Christian he actually was, as he wasn't baptized until he was on his deathbed. You'd think someone with the goals you stated would be baptized earlier, wouldn't you? Note that the Edict of Milan legalized Christianity; it did not make it the state religion. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 20:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Continuing on the dreaded East/West topic, I dont think the article as it stands makes it clear enough that the Eastern Roman Empire was already much more important, economically and culturally, than the West in the fourth and fifth centuries.

I understand the reasons for treating this article as the story of the Western Empire - from a British, French, Spanish perspective the fall of the Western Empire is when the Romans ceased to affect our national history (and it seems that America has naturally inherited this slant).

Nonetheless it should be made much clearer that in doing so one is effectively choosing to follow the story of the junior partner from 330-476.

It is as if a hypothetical Polish Wikipedia article on Germany written in 1980, say, preferred to concentrate on the DDR rather than West Germany on the grounds that the former still had its capital as Berlin, it was "our Germany", etc, without registering the fact that the state based in Bonn was bigger, richer, etc, etc. Jameswilson 03:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The East-West thing is a red herring. Any serious encyclopedia article on the Roman Empire would include the fact that the East was where most of the people lived, most of the economic activity took place, and most of the culture was produced. Any serious encyclopedia article on the Roman Empire would also accept longstanding academic traditions, however flawed, as to what is "Roman" and what is "Byzantine." To debate, disprove, or argue those traditions is not within the mandate of a standard encyclopedia article or of Wikipedia.

That said, as I mention above, my article plan calls for a summary of how the Empire evolved in its later years, handing off to the many fine articles that already exist on such topics as the Gothic kingdoms, the Byzantine Empire, the Muslim Caliphate, and the Catholic Church. Articles on Late Antiquity, Gallo-Romans, and Romano-Britons, if they exist, will also be pointed to. The Roman Empire article should be the first place any student or knowledge-seeking individual looks to get information on Rome, but it should also be a launching pad for further study, leading to more advanced topics. If someone wants to have an article on the many opinions on when the Empire ended, if it ended at all (Thank you, Philip K. Dick...), great, we'll point to it, but it does not belong here. Ddama 08:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


Well, in your opinion should the article (Roman Empire) end with the final division or with Romulus Augustus? That (in my opinion) is a key question in a eventual overhaul of this article. Does your article plan include a explenation of the reasons for the division of the "old" Roman Empire and the real reasons for the survival for one of the empires and the destruction of the other? Flamarande


That the division after Theodosius' death was "final", was coincidence, not exactly planned. Both parts had started to drift apart much earlier, but they regarded themselves as *one* Empire still after the division of 395.
So imho, the article on the Roman Empire should sketch out the development of *both* parts of the Empire until the dissolution of the West, and in the East until Justinian or the beginning of Heraclius' reign; and then link to articles where those periods are discussed in detail. Ideally, there should be an article on the Western Roman Empire which can be consulted for specific issues. An overview of the development after 395 within the "Roman Empire" article is nonetheless necessary, imho, as we still *are* talking about that same Empire. There has been much more continuity than sudden change when the Empire was "split". At the same time, the article on the Byzantine Empire needs to mention some basics on the "undivided" Later Roman Empire.
That is not avoidable, as we have to deal with a gradual development, where any fixed date is highly artificial and imposed from hindsight. Varana 22:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Look I am sorry if it appears that I am being stuborn, but let me present my case in a reasonable fashion. First there was the "old" Roman Empire who was more or less united until Theodosius I the LAST Emperor to rule over the whole Roman Empire. After him the Empire was divided in 395AD. That division had been done before, but this time it was final! (even if not planed).

This was the turning point and I defend that this article (Roman Empire)should end here. There should also be a good explenation for the reasons for this division and a mention of the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire as "equal" sucessor states and the survival of roman culture.

Then we had the Western Roman Empire (we have that article, but it is largely ignored) and the Eastern Roman Empire (also called Byzantine Empire). To say that the "old" Roman Empire (as a nation) "continued somehow" after that point is wrong. The "old" Roman Empire was gone, what survived was the roman culture and roman ideas. We had two Empires (who are better described as sucessor states) that had each a capital (Rome and Constantinople) a different Emperor, coinage, army, etc, etc. While sharing some enemies, they dealt with different problems in a different fashion. That said, they shared roman culture, tradition, law, religion, language (at least at the beginning) etc, etc. Most importantly, they both considered themselves Romans. The Western Empire was conquered in 476, while the Eastern Empire survived, changed and evolved being conquered by the Turks in 1453.

I question the fact that this article (Roman Empire) continues after 395 and "pretends" (harsh word, sorry couldn´t find any better) that the Western Empire is the same entity as the "old" Roman Empire and presents the Eastern Empire as "something else". If that were true what´s the point of the Western Roman Empire article?. Why should we present the Western Empire as "roman" and the eastern one as "byzantine"? Why should we pretend that the Roman Empire continued solely in the west (a claim no western emperor ever did) and was somehow "transformed" in the east? Being poetical why should we pretend that one of the twins was the "rightfull heir" and the other twin was the "bastard"? The only answer I can think of is that the teaching of 18th century scholars (who potrayed the eastern empire as alien, oriental, decadent and inferior) still lives on (and that vision is being challenged by modern scolars).

(see this Derogatory use of 'Byzantine' article)

Both of these Empires were "Roman". They were separate indentities. Neither one! was the "old" Roman Empire. They both were equal sucessor states. Flamarande

I fully agree with you that the article should present both parts as equal continuations *g* of the Empire. To prefer the Western part, is indeed somewhat flawed.
I do not agree (to repeat my point) that 395 is correctly described as "turning point" etc. Both states viewed themselves *together* as *one* Empire, even if divided in practice. Two (or more) emperors with two (or more) residences hadn't been a problem for at least a century; why should it become one now? Rome was acclaimed capital of the Empire and Head of the World, Constantinople was the New Rome, and which one was more important, depended on whom you asked. Constantinople had the additional advantage of being an imperial residence, together with Milan and Ravenna (and before 395, many other cities).
Probably a bit overstated, but to illustrate the point: What makes 364 (division between Valentinian I and Valens) and 395 different, is that some time in between, there happened to be an emperor who could claim to be sole ruler for a few years with the West intact. (The last point is important: There was only one emperor again after 480...)
So yes, the impression that the Western Empire was rightful and "real" heir of the united Empire is misleading. As is the impression that 395 was different from any other of the many divisions - but for the "conincidence" that the Western part rapidly declined and we today do not count e.g. Justinian as "sole emperor" like Theodosius. Varana 22:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think that my doubts are (somewhat) cleared and I quite agree that this article deserves a overhaul. So....when and how do we begin? Flamarande

Still, you must agree that the division was a major development (after all with the division a half of the old empire managed to survive) and not a mere "footnote". If it were unimportant and without purpose it wouldn't have happened in the first place. The division was due to the great extension of the old empire and the increase in enemy pressure in two major borders (the germanic tribes in the rhine and the neo-persians in the east) and the subsequent dual concentration of the legions (if there was only one emperor chances (chances? fact) were high that the general at the other front would try a revolt. The division was needed to satisfy both commanders. Flamarande

[edit] Should there be a "Roman" portal?

Hi folks, I'm contemplating the possibility of creating a portal for Ancient Rome, to replace Roman, which is a disambiguation page and has nearly 400 links pointing to it from articles (not counting the ones from Talk or Wikipedia pages).

If I was to go ahead with this, I would need help from other people on the content, as I don't know too much about the subject matter - my motivation for doing this is because it seems to be needed, and I believe I can figure out the technical aspects of making it happen.

Some possible issues:

  1. It needs a suitable name. I'm thinking "Ancient Rome", but there may be other options. My intention would be to redirect Romans to the portal so that every vague reference and accidental linkage to "the Romans" would end up in a suitable place.
  2. I think it would be appropriate to include Byzantium, and maybe Ancient Greece if it doesn't already have a "home".
  3. Other uses of the word Roman currently listed on Roman would probably be moved to Roman (disambiguation), which is currently a redirect.
  4. I would not like to become the sole maintainer. I would be willing to continue doing technical stuff, but selection of featured articles and suchlike should be done by somebody who can tell whether or not the content is accurate.

For examples of existing portals, see Portal:Egyptology, Portal:Star Trek, and many more are listed at Category:Portals.

I am interested in opinions on this idea, and I invite discussion on the topic at my test page User:LesleyW/RomePortal. Please feel free to copy this notice to other places where it might be noticed by knowledgeable people. I will be away for the next few days, and will pick up discussions early next week at the latest.

--LesleyW 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I would support this idea. What does it require? Ddama 08:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I support this idea, but I'm not sure what is meant by "should include" Greece and Byzantium; these shoiuld have their own portals. Djnjwd 23:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm still figuring out what would be required, but basically my idea is to use existing portals as inspiration, and take ideas from them as appropriate. The overall objective is to make the portal a place from where readers can find all information relating to ancient Roman topics. For example, one obvious idea for a content box would be a list of relevant categories, so that'll be on my list of things to do. Comments so far seem to be unanimous about not including Greece and Byzantium - that's fine by me, I was really just uncertain about where the topic boundary should be. --LesleyW 00:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there may be some overlap as a (poorly implemented) Classical Civilization portal seems to exist already. Ddama 09:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't spotted that one. It appears to have been created on 2005-11-28 (about the time I started thinking seriously about a Roman portal) and all the significant edits are by one person. It does complicate matters somewhat. --LesleyW 02:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

External Timeline
A graphical timeline is available here:

I'm currently reworking my timeline of the Roman Empire and plan to move it on a page of its own, leaving a little template box like the one on the right. I'd like to put the timeline in one line, widening it to 1600px, which would screw up the article layout. And the article is pretty huge even without the additional timeline. I would just ask for the template to stay somewhere visible near the top of the article. After all it gives an introductory overview at a glance which might make it interesting for a reader to notice it fast. Any comments? Ah, the icon is temporary, I'm working on a cleaner SVG version. --Dschwen 21:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Just uploaded and inserted the SVG version. --Dschwen 23:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope you value "plain old" honesty instead of "political correctness". I personally don´t like the "apresentation" of this timeline. It is (at least for me) confusing, ocupies far too much space and the timeline is simply ugly. No, I am not deleting it (at least until the "long-anounced" reform of the whole article). As for leaving a little template box and move the timeline to another page, it is a splendid idea. Look, I know that it took a lot of work to do it but... . I like the timeline of the Byzantine Empire better. Flamarande

I sure do, and have to agree on the looks. Have you checked the reworked version? Click on the link above in the template box. Suggestions for improvement are certainly welcome. The compilation was indeed a lot of work and I appreciate it beeing left in the article until now. After a long time I'm working on it again and still see lots of room for improvements. As for the Byzantine timeline, it is nice, but the approach with a graphical timeline is entirely different. I wanted to visualize correlation in time, what happened, who was emperor at that time, what was the period called, which famous people lived at that time, and what were the significant developments. --Dschwen 14:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, now I checked it out. What can I say? It´s still ugly :), but I can see the logic of it and agree with the data contained in it. Something I don´t like in the timeline is the fact it is horizontal, it simply too big: it doesn´t fit inside of my computer screen. With a "vertical apresentation" one could see all the fields (emperors, battles, etc they are 5 fields, I think) and one would easily "scroll it down".

A small suggestion: Make the template box in the article as wide as the infobox, as it is right below it. Perhaps you can even include the template box inside of the infobox, as another field (but don´t merge the two completly, as this would complicate new entries. --Flamarande

 Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
Right now the templatebox is a rip off of the commons media box. But I could make a new compact template for use in infoboxes. The vertical format allows the reader to read the timeline from left to right. Also it is easier to maintain it in a compact state, since vertical orientation with horizontal labels creates more overlap between unrelated objects. --Dschwen 16:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I, ahhh, improved the location of the templatebox. I think its very good now. What do you think? Flamarande 18:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Have to agree, looks nice. --Dschwen 18:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Map

The map is very well done, however, it is a little inaccurate. Rome from 85-105 AD controlled a chunk of what's now eastern Scotland. Also, from 12 BC to 9 AD, Rome controlled all of what are now the Netherlands and all of what's now Germany west of the Elbe River. Cameron Nedland 01:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The Netherlands are part of the map if you look closely, as for Germania "east of the Rhine and west of the Elbe" it was a temporary conquest that was lost (thanks to Arminius) and the Rhine was "normally" considered the "last frontier". But still... if somebody finds a good map... . Flamarande 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope you're not mocking me because I am not trying to be funny, I just thought people ought to know. Cameron Nedland 01:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I´m not mocking you (where did you get that idea?) and I certainly apprieciate the fact that you presented your case in the talk page. I am willing to replace the prsent map with a more acurate one (showing the tempory conquests of Octavian in Germania, and other temporary conquests like Scotland), but as far as I have seen, such a map simply doesn´t exist in Wikicommons (until now). Flamarande 15:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong link

Can anyone edit the infobox? In the "official language" part it links Greek to the wrong article, it links it to Greek language instead of Koine Greek. I'm not saying the former would be a bad option, but the latter was the Greek spoken during the times of the Roman Empire and I think it should link to that article. Could someone link it correctly? --Thorri 16:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

allready done by Tokle.

[edit] Overhaul now !

I will begin a major overhaul of this article starting tomorrow. I invite everyone who is interrested in the future quality and presentation of this article to show his vision and opinion "here", along with any point he wishes to include.

This article deserves a major reorganization (personal opinion, but I hope you agree). In its present form it is "way too much" a list of every single emperor and his "mighty deeds". That information is certainly precious and valuable, I certainly grant "you" that, but I think that it should be in the single articles about "that" emperor.

I am planning to write certain paragraphs which describe better larger cultural, political, economical and theological developments of the Roman Empire. I will follow to a certain extent the "logic" of the articles about the Roman Republic and the Western Roman Empire which I and many others have reformed to a certain extent. These articles are not finished (is anything in Wikipedia ever? I hope not, there is always a aspect which can be improved) but I believe that they are good perhaps even better in some aspects than this article

I will certainly thank all colaboration and comments (even critical, especially constructive critics) If somebody does not agree with any of the improvements, then please don´t start a revert war (I certainly won´t start it), present your case "here" and hopefully we will reach a consensus. Flamarande 22:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Paragraphs devoted to larger cultural, political, and economic developments of the Roman Empire would be very welcome additions, especially if they are sited under existing broad sections ("Antonines"" "Christian Empire" etc) and offer examples linked to places and times while avoiding sweeping generalizations. Rather than making wholesale deletions, why not begin by writing or making summaries of specific articles like Roman agriculture and trade, Roman family, Roman roads, Cursus honorum etc then insert condensed versions of your articles, with a Main article... header? You'll find many articles at Category:Roman Empire that could be copied and pasted, edited down to a summary version and saved here. As they build up, patterns will emerge and they can be joined together. Good big articles are built of numerous good small articles, with some linking statements. Sweeping deletions are rarely steps forward. --Wetman 10:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I have begun. I was thinking to change this article into a form a bit more similar to the Western Roman Empire article (and I plan to copy some paragraphs and to latter to adapt them). Take a look, tell me with what you agree or disagree.


Still, I am flexible, I read your case and now I am more planning to leave a summary versions of the Emperors (perhaps more of the single dynastys, and to insert a main article header) and then include the more relevant larger developments (like rebellions under Nero, christianity and east-west seperation under Constantine, etc) below them. Flamarande 22:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Good luck Flamarande! An overhaul is very necessary and will probably greatly improve the article. I very much agree you should take out most of the 'deeds of the emperors', to give more room to trade, social history, impact of the empire, etc.--Hippalus 10:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I made a new article (Romanization (cultural)) and I am currently working in it. It is quite vital in a overhaul (which I have not forgotten and which I will continue). Flamarande 13:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)\

[edit] I've Returned

Sorry for the abseence, my real life meant that I couldn't put the effort for this article. HOWEVER, since I am at the start of a term, I have time to do some work on this. Most certainly reorganization is necessary. I will remake the article soon, and I've read through some of your suggestions. However, I'd like to suggest that for the history section, for ease of organization, base it on on dynasties as I suggested several months ago. I am going to make a test article tommorow for you all to look at, most likely when I should be paying attention in my Poli Sci class. :)

--Masamax 10:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I couldn't wait, so I started a new article: Roman Empire reorganization. All I've done this morning was rewrite the introduction. I feel the current one is much too long, detailed, and for the most part useless. I've drawn out a basic one that focuses on what the entire article covers as it should be.

--Masamax 10:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be an excellent use for a subpage.--Dschwen 13:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I examined the proposed reorganization. It seems to be quite good but we have to include paragraphs (and link them to main articles) about certain issues like: romanization, rebellions, east-west divide. We have first to write these articles BEFORE the reorganization. Flamarande 13:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess creating new and very necessary articles, and a reorganization/overhaul of the central article, could very well be done simultaneously. I agree with Dschwen that it would be good to move the overhaul-article to a subpage, where it can be elaborated till it is ready for a place in the limelight.
By the way, maybe we should create a seperate History of the Roman Empire article which could contain a very consize version of the present article. Like Ancient Egypt <=> History of Ancient Egypt. Else we'll never get a balanced article, as most users obviously prefer to contribute to the political/emperors-history sections.
What do you think?
--Hippalus 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I boldly moved it (where no one moved it before) to Roman_Empire/reorganization. Hope it dosn't cause too much irritation. But I think this is a no-brainer, a temporary aticle does not belong in the root encyclopedia namespace. --Dschwen 22:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. If that is the case then the new gateway article does not need to be as detailed, or long. If that is the case, should we have any subsections under the new reorganized article?

--Masamax 22:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Mass!

Thank Jove! Alright, then.

Some thoughts: 1. A History of the Roman Empire article may be overkill... Ancient Egypt covers a specific geographic area over a very long period of time. The Roman Empire is a political entity. I think that its opening para should point to the entity from which it evolved out of and its final paragraphs should point to the entities which evolved out of it, to wit, Latin Europe, the Byzantine state, and the Islamic Caliphate. I think the issue of history is best addressed through a brief overview linking to the other topical articles. Each of the Emperors has a full Wikipedia article; several of the political periods, such as the 'Good' Emperors, the Third Century Crisis and the Tetrarchy, have articles; all a history overview should nees to do is link to them. 2. I really liked the Dutch article; it was a featured article of the nl.wikipedia site. I encourage everyone here to eyeball it, to get a sense of its length and how it covered the topics, even if you can't understand all of the words.

Ddama 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the article in question, and frankly I didn't really like it from what I saw. It is much too small IMO, and from what I can see it lacks a lot of the gateway and organization features I want to bring to the english version. Essentially the current article is a history of the Roman Empire, not specifically about the polity or the empire itself.
--Masamax 01:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, you're right. I was thinking of the Finnish article. I did like the Dutch article for its admirable brevity, but the Finnish article is the one that has history, climate, trade, culture, and historiography, each covered in brief, usually just a paragraph, with handoffs to other articles. I have no strong feelings on climate as a topic and I think the Finnish history section is too long... yes, too long!
I think the Roman Empire article should have a brief, broad sketch of the history of the Empire, pointing both to the main article on the history of the Empire and also to the more in-depth discussions of the various epochs that have articles, i.e., Crisis of the third century, etc. Someone coming to look up the Roman Empire won't need to drown in a list of emperors and dates; someone who wanted more depth could access that article, which would link both to the various imperial biographies and to the more in-depth articles. The next project would be to make the in-depth articles actually in-depth... ;-)
Ddama 04:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We could also call the Roman Empire 'the Latin Empire'

The city of Rome was founded by the Latin people on a river in the center of Italy. It was a good location, which gave them a chance to control all of Italy. It put them near to the midpoint of the Mediterranean Sea. Two other groups lived in what is now Italy: the Greeks in the south, and the Etruscans in the north. The Latins borrowed some ideas from both peoples. In 509 B.C., Latins overthrew the Etruscan king who had ruled over his people and over Latium. The Latins said Latium was now a republic. The people had the power to vote and choose leaders. -- For full discussion see: [1]

I'm somewhat confused about what this is exactly?
--Masamax 06:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
It was copy pasted from here: [2], where it sort of fits in the discussion. I don't know whether this was meant as vandalism or as a serious edit, maybe the editor User:69.211.74.60 (according to Talk:Latin his name is Mohammad al-Assad) could comment on it . For now, I'll delete the comment from the second paragraph onwards, and link to the discussion page it came from.--Hippalus 07:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it was copied and pasted from here: [3] by someone of the name Constantine. One who obviously believes the term 'Roman Empire' should be swapped with the term 'Latin Empire'.69.211.92.115 14:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Mohammad al-Assad

No, we couldn't. The Latin were a people leaving in central Italy, in Latium, and Rome was (despite some mixture) a Latin city, but the Empire was conquered by the Romans and not by the Latins. The Empire has always been called "Roman". Last but not least, there is an entity called "Latin Empire", existing from 1204 to 1261 in the city of Constantinople. Str1977 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved over

I moved the following over from the article, as I don't understand its rationale in the historical narrative, especially in an overview section.

In Alexandria, dreams of a "Christian Empire" with genuine continuity were shattered when a rampaging mob of Christians were encouraged to sack and destroy the Serapeum in 392. ... In Athens the end came for some in 529, when the Emperor Justinian closed the Neoplatonic Academy and its remaining members fled east for protection under the rule of Sassanid king Khosrau I; for other Greeks it had come long before, in 396, when Christian monks led Alaric I to vandalize the site of the Eleusinian Mysteries.

Str1977 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section called: Christian Empire (324–395)

Why is this the "Christian Empire"? Constantine to Theodosius? Julian the Apostate doesn't count? Christendom, the Christian Empire, is generally dated from 390 to the present.

The section title is problematic but for other reasons.

Julian only reigned for a few years and thus can be glossed over as an intermission.

What is more problematic is that the section ends with 395, whereas the "Christian Empire" lasted way beyond that date. (That's like writing a section on the Migrations and calling it Middle Ages). Also, officially the Empire became Christian only in 390.

Maybe, something like "Constantine and successors" would fit better.

Also, there is an inaccuracy about the Thessalonica riots. The people rebelled because Theodosius had a famous cart driver arrested (who was accused of homosexuality), but they didn't rebel against any new laws.

The same passage was inaccurate in another way, overstating the importance of Ambrose's act. It confirmed the place of the Emperor inside and not above the Church. It didn't lead to a Church dominance over the Emperor and it hadn't anything to do with the Church "outlasting" the Western part of the Empire. That had reasons in military, economics, politics and the routs of the migrating people. Str1977 23:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I don't understand is why the article has a sections "Constantine & successors" and "Late Antiquity in the West" and then returns to Constantine again? Wouldn't it be better to move forward chronologically? Str1977 23:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand the title "the Christian Empire" - dealing with the Empire becoming Christian. I have retitled it again and moved it to a better place. I also moved "Late Antiquitiy in the West", retitled, to a better place. Str1977 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are interested in giving an opinion or help with the article, you'd be better off putting your energy into the Roman Empire/reorganization article. We could use the help! --Masamax 05:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 3D pictures have been replaced by 2D thumbnails

The glasses icon now take a visitor to the 3D pictures, which have been reprocessed to have far fewer artifacts. Free glasses are available on line. Google "free glasses". There were over 30 million glasses shipped in 2005, so it has great potential, especially with young people. A group of editors has been working on the new dual link approach for 3D.3dnatureguy 23:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

The following recently deleted text contains useful information, which should be returned to the article, if it could be presented as a report of a referenced source:

It is interesting to note that while the constitutional rule of the republic was replaced with despotic rule as early as Julius Caesar (or possibly even Sulla), the people of Rome, at the time, didn't notice any difference. The period of the Social War and the dictatorship of Sulla, then the period leading into and during the Civil Wars of the 1st century BC, and finally reign of Augustus and his immediate successors, seemed to be a single epoch to the average Roman. Perhaps the people of Rome willingly let go of the republic due to the charisma of Augustus. Also interesting is that of all the civil wars of the later empire, not a single one was fought for a return to the constitutional rule of the republic.
Apart from the last sentence, the paragraph seems to be idle speculation.--shtove 19:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Even the last setence is hardly more than speculation, or perhaps an outright lie, given that Cato's final war against Caesar in Africa was motivated almost entirely by a return to constitutional rule. --Masamax 03:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Masamax, it is not a lie. The paragraph talks about "the civil wars of the later empire" - this a bit awkward (though the vagueness of "later" redeems the misusing of "Empire" common on WP - up to the title). By this it refers to the civil wars of 68/69 or 193 or of the 3rd century. No one tried to return to a government without a princeps (except the Senate in 41). Str1977 09:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Cato's war against Caesar? This article is about the EMPIRE isn't it? We aren't talking about the Republic. By later empire, one means after Augustus in this context. Cato (along with Pomphey), fought to save the republic, not to restore it as, at the time, it still existed. One of the primary reasons for the civil wars of the first century, as soon as Caesar had conquered Gual, was over if the republic would last or not. Caesar was assassinated by senators who wanted to save the republic. The 1st and 2nd Triumvirates (Caesar, Pompey and Crasus, then Octavian, Antony and Lepitus) where made of either Republicans (such as Pompey and Antony) or Caesarians (such as Caesar and Octavian). The fighting THEN was over republic or empire. As soon as the first couple of generations after the Augustus became emperor had died, no one was interested in a restoration of the republic. No one wanted to go back to the dual co-consul system. No one had any faith in the senate. No one thought that there was anything good about the republic. They saw the republic as good to rule a small city-state in central Italy, but ineffective to rule a world empire. Most even didn't see any difference between the days of the later republic and the times they were living in. Remember, republics didn't even become fashionable until the 18th century AD. Political theorists such as Montesquieu thought monarchies were best. The Roman Emperor was thinly vieled at least as a constitutional monarchy until about the reign of Diocletian. No one was interested in a restoration of the republic. The only way this can be proven conclusively is if we can find somewhere a list of the reasons for EVERY civil war the empire ever fought. I think the paragraph is fine.Politicaljunkie6 12:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Question

Does anyone know how much traffic this or other similar Roman threads get? How many people actively edit these types of threads?Politicaljunkie6 13:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Some suggestions

Something needs to be done about "cultural developments," "sources" and "Christianization of the empire." These are somewhat irrelevent. This should look more like a timeline than it does.

There is somewhat of a proportionality problem. Does Commodus really deserve so much more attention than all the Antonines combined? Trajan alone should get far more written about him than Commodus.

There isn't that much on the crisis of the third century, which there should be.

Do we really need a section (a whole paragraph at that) on the 1,100 year history of the Byzantine empire in this article?

Plus the organization is a mess. It really should be organized by dynasties.

How is the reorganization coming?

(this unsigned comment was made by Politicaljunkie6)


[edit] "Romaioi" and Greeks

I have made an adjustment to the end of the section on the byzantine empire. The Byzantines did call themselves Roman up to their demise, but "Romaioi" had also confusingly been taken up by Greeks as a self-identifier, meaning a Greek-speaker or a Roman citizen of greek ancestry. "Romaioi" has been out of favour in Greece for more than 200 years , and contrary to the previous edit, paradoxically denotes greeks rather than Romans in modern greece.

'Romioi' was used by the majority of Greeks until well into the 20th century and it's still used in some regions. Miskin 16:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

I just did a major overhall to this page over on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire/reorganization. It basically is the same as what we already have, only it is much more organized and flows much nicer. Would anyone object towards me replacing the current page with this new page? Most of what is on the new page I just copied and pasted, so there weren't any major changes.Politicaljunkie6 01:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. If this is to be a replacement, then please make sure the edit history remains available. In the overhaul, do the two maps at the top include the latest edits on the Rhine & Danube borders? Because of pasting, there remain a lot of problems with flow, idiom, and speculation/non-NPOV. Reorganisation was much needed, but the intro is too long for WP and should be whipped into a shorter form. If Politicaljunkie6 is a Homer Simpson, then fair dues in strangling Bartulus for the sake of putting manners on the little bugger. But the article still requires work in every paragraph.--shtove 02:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
As concensus was reached on Talk:Roman Empire/reorganization that Politicaljunkie6's overhaul wasn't the much needed reorganization after all, his additions have been moved to Talk:Roman Empire/reorganization/Politicaljunkie's additions for further discussion. As such, the reorganization of the Roman Empire is now again incomplete. So feel free to help complete it on Roman Empire/reorganization, or discuss the project on Talk:Roman Empire/reorganization.--Hippalus 13:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
That will work. No offense to anyone, but what they were working on in the original reorganization was a mess. It was a collection of Roman links, and not a whole lot else. Roman history is what we already had in the main article: a timeline, centered on the emperors.Politicaljunkie6 01:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Once all the existing Roman Empire sub-sections have been fitted into the developing outline, we can begin to work out some text that will be more than a timeline of Emperors and battle dates, which does remain one aspect of an improved article nevertheless. Talk:Roman Empire/reorganization remains an open forum for suggestions and progress reports. --Wetman 06:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greeks and Romioi

Here is wikipedia's own page on the Byzantine empire :


"The Byzantines identified themselves as Romans (Rwma?oi – Romans) which, by the 12th century, had already become a synonym for a Hellene (?llhn – Greek). However, the term was used for mainly legal and administrative purposes. The Byzantines preferred to call themselves Romioi (Rwmio? – Christian Greeks with Roman citizenship)."

[edit] We need maps about the Roman empire, can you help?

Does anyone have the map of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent? ThanksZmmz 05:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

We have this map on Commons which is a bit more detailed than the maps in our article; unfortunately, the caption is in German, but I could create a version with an Englich caption with little effort. Are you looking for a more detailed map? -- Ferkelparade π 16:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am looking for a "map of the Roman Empire under Emperor Claudius" (which would include Britannia and would not include Dacia or Mesopotamia), and I am also interrested in a map which shows the "divided empire" (with the Western Roman Empire in red, and the eastern Roman Empire in purple, please? pretty please?). Thanx

If you happen to see an map which I can use, will you please tell me? I would be much obliged

I tried to contact the author of the single map of Western Roman Empire, to ask him for more maps but I can´t find him (the imagepage hasn´t any history sheet), so if any of you know an user who would be willing to make the maps I need, would you please tell me? Thanx a million Flamarande 10:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a map in 400AD [4]

Map in 1 AD (Claudius reign)

[5]

Another in 395 AD

[6]


--Hadrian1 16:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

why do you want the West in red, and east in purple? --Astrokey44 13:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is purely because of esthetical reasons. Purple had a great symbolic value to the ancient world (e.g. he rose to the purple = he became king). I also read here and there that only the emperor could be clad interely in purple. Today, we largely use the two colours to color the maps which show these empires (e.g. Rome Total War and its expansion Barbarian Invansion, but this also happens in other games and books) and somehow the Eastern Roman Empire got the purple and the Western Empire got the red. Flamarande 14:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured

It is also a Dutch featured article. General Eisenhower 22:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy

Shouldn't the section on the Roman Empire's legacy say that the intellectual history derived from the Greeks applies to the Western world rather than the world as a whole? scotsboyuk

[edit] The "reorganization article" was abandoned and will logically be deleted

Okay, as anyone can see by the history of the reorganization article, it has been largely abandoned. It is simply way to booring to continue it singlehandledly, and thereby I propose a merge asap. Hopefully it will improve the article (I believe it will). Flamarande 14:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove the picture of Augustus.

It's a good picture but it's in a bad place in the article. I'm going to just remove it for now and can someone elese put it somewhere elese in the article: [[Image:Statue-Augustus.jpg|left|thumb|200px|Octavian, widely known as [[Augustus]], founder of the Roman empire]] --Scott3 01:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved it to "Augustan culture", as the actual section on Augustus alsready had a picture of him. I also changed the "Octavian, widely known as Augustus" tag to simply "Augustus", as that's more correct. Varana 13:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Goth

Please do not use the word "Goth." Use either Ostrogoth or Visigoth, as they are two distinct Germanic tribes. Thanks,MedievalScholar 19:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet before spliting into two distinct groups (East (ost) and west (Vis)) they where but one people. I do not know were this specific mention of Goth lies but should it be meant to describe the wandering masses from northern europe towards the black sea then it seems appropriate, afterwards, when the political division was clear, the word should of course be replaced by the appropriate term.--Dryzen 13:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greek influence

i think that the greek influence on the romans should be stated, i.e., most of their army tactics and what the romans used in every day life was invented by a greek or anotherWillgfass2 21:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)willgfass

Right sure, we all know how well the Romans used the Greek phalanx and the Companion cavalary to expand the republic, NOT. Flamarande 00:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Very true the Romans did take many things from the Greeks, (hence Greco-Roman civilization), but that was all based on culture, the Romans focused on mobile heavy infantry units, their infantry was their main bulk they never really expanded on their calvery, it has historically been considered their weak point in their army, but it was nontheless trained. My point is is that Roman culture was basically the same as Greek culture, such as the ideas of Democracy and Law. However, the Romans never used the Greek's miltary formations or tactics that I am well aware of, i believe thier military derived from the other latin cultures such as the Etruscans. Cmatos1991 17:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Etruscan aren't a Latin culture, their origin is shrouded in mystery. The Romans copied miltary tactics and formations from many cultures, but also invented many of them (perhaps event the more important ones). Ancient Greek Democracy did not have a great influence upon the Roman republic. As far as I know, the diffrent Roman tribes/classes (you belonged to one by birth) were consulted on some major decisions but it always began with the richest and if the richest classes agreed the poorest ones were not consulted anymore. You can even argue that the Roman republic was a aristocratic Oligarcy. About Law I must confess that I'm ignorant if the Romans invented many of our modern legal notions or copied them (I guess a little of both). But to defend that Roman culture was the same as Greek culture is a bit exagerated; the Romans copied many things (from the Greeks among others), but they also invented many things which influence us even today. Flamarande 18:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction problems

The starting and introductionary paragraphs are bluntly confusing. What is this nonsense of senators being executed and all? I wanted an introduction to What the Roman Empire was (thankfully its still there) and not what happened to senators. If, When and maygbe when I need to know that, I shall visit the area of wikipedia which deals with that areas. Arctic-Editor 16:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There many very technical scholars (aka ruleslawyers) who like to define everything very precisley. Ostensibly (in theory), the Roman republic never really ended and continued through the leadership of Augustus. In reality, he had all the real power and most of the republican institutions were only there for the show. If you want to improve the paragraph, fine. Just explain clearly that Augustus subverted the republic (or someone very technical will begin to argue that Tiberius (Claudius, Vespasìan, whatever) was the first emperor. User:Flamarande

[edit] Largest Classical Empire?

The calculation for the area of the Roman Empire seems terribly precise (and pedantically unecessary!) But was it really the largest of the Classical Empires? What about that of Alexander the Great or, more to the point, the Empire of China? White Guard 02:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It was larger than Alex's Empire and I believe it was larger than China, at the time.Cameron Nedland 13:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Does this include the Mediterranean? --Dryzen 14:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure, sorry.Cameron Nedland 02:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right about the empire of Alexander, though it may be interesting to do a comparison. China, I think, is slightly more problematic. By the time of the Han Dynasty (206BC-220AD) imperial power had extended west to Xinjang, and into the northern parts of Vietnam and Korea. This is a significant area of land and must be equal to-if not greater than-than the maximum extent of the Roman Empire under Trajan? White Guard 02:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You myt be ryt, I'm not shur. Sorry.Cameron Nedland 13:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
here's an interesting webpage. The comparison really hinges on the value of the Mediterranean...--Dryzen 18:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Rome certinly looks larjer, its much mor impressiv du to th fact that it controls th Mediteranean.Cameron Nedland 02:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It really should only be land area that is taken into consideration, and I imagine the calculation in this article has been determined on that basis alone. White Guard 04:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The size spoken in this article is the land surface.--Dryzen 13:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Han Empire was larger. See largest empire of the ancient world. White Guard 02:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization subpage

The reorganization subpage needs an ample amount of work! So instead of editing the main article, make edits to the reorganization subpage to speed up the process. Also, I suggest breaking the subpage article into different articles - a perfect example of this would be the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. SGFF 17:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stability of the Roman Empire

What made the Roman Empire successful enough to establish 250 years of relative peace and stability starting around when Caeser and Augustus where in control?


The Roman Empire was never truely stable. In fact that 250 year period of peace you are refering to, the Pax Romana was the the begining of the end for the Roman Empire. What happened during that period of time was this: the Romans ceased any further major campaigns which ended the flow of plunder money which for every constantly expanding empire is critical, they began to integrate germanic tribes and other northern Europeans into their armies. This inparticular is a key factor for why the empire fell. At the begining of the Roman Republic the armies we loyal to the country and to the government, when the Roman Empire came around the people were begining to become more loyal to the general rather than the goverment.(that is why you see generals walking into Rome, taking over with miltary dominance and then being assassinated later on.) When the Roman Republic was active, which is arguably Rome's climax, the army was mainly Italian soldiors that fought for their country, when the germnas were integrated during the Roman Empire they felt no attachment to the empire and were more dedicated the the man that payed them and led them to victories, the General. This is what truely marks the begining of the end for the Roman Empire. Cmatos1991 17:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a good answer, but perhaps a little bit old fashioned, decline and fall style, if you do not mind me saying so. The Empire did in fact achieve quite a high degree of stability during the second century, the apogee of which was the reign of Antoninus Pius. There are a whole range of reasons for the subsequent 'decline', economic, social and political; you have highlighted one factor only, and not necessarily the most significant. But I think the real point is that the Empire was in constant transition; and what the Victorians once viewed as corruption and decay from a spurious 'ideal' was really just a process of transformation. After all the Byzantine version of the Empire was to become, for a time, one of the greatest of the Medieval states. White Guard 22:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah this is true but something I forgot to do yesterday was that I firmly believe that Christianity had a key role in the fall o the empire. If you think about it when Christianity was introduced into Roman culture with it's beliefs of Peace Love and Harmony it could have negativly affected the war-like attitude of the Roman War Machine. Yes I agree that this was the process of transformation. I did not finish what I had fully intended to say yesterday because I had to leave that is why the passage ended so suddenly. Cmatos1991 17:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I have to disagree with virtually everything. The Empire *brought* stability, compared with the Republic, which was, with short interruptions, a frenzy of external and internal wars, many of which led it to the brink of destruction. The Empire organized what the Republic had conquered, and in this organization lay one of the reasons for its success. Authority and power were clearly distributed (or better: concentrated), administration of the provinces was put into a working and defined system (while earlier, provincial "administration" meant little more than organized plunder), a certain amount of legal security was introduced, and so on. In the beginning, Rome dominated the Mediterranean because of its armies. Later on, that domination was complemented by mutual interest: Rome provided peace, stability, prosperity and opportunity and a certain degree of freedom to most of its inhabitants. That contributed to its internal stability; armed force and the lack of enemies made it stable towards the outside. For two hundred years, many people did not experience war, but almost constant prosperity despite a highly militaristic society - how that can be discounted as "not stable", is beyond me. The end of the stable phase came when a transforming Empire was hit by heavy outside pressure: the Germans and the Persians of the 3rd century had also progressed and transformed. To look for the reasons of the crisis of the Empire only within the Empire, seems very one-sided to me.
That the soldiers of the Republic fought only for their fatherland: I also disagree. Ever since the Marian reforms, they had been professional soldiers; and Caesar's or Pompey's legions certainly fought for the glory of their generals and their personal profit, and the civil wars have enough examples where the soldiers and veterans risk the stability and well-being of the whole state in order to be paid. On the other hand, the legions of the Empire also fought for their homeland - their immediate homeland, be it Germania or Pannonia or Syria or elsewhere along the border provinces.
Christianity preaches peace and forgiving, yes. The impact on the Empire shouldn't be overrated, though. "Christian" nations have waged at least as many wars as others, and the Christianity of a ruler never really deterred him from attacking. The Roman emperors went to war *in the sign of the cross* - as Christians, in the name of Christ, and secure that Christ was on their side, and the church usually blessed their doing. That is not to say that Christian morality didn't have *any* effect, but it surely was quite a minor one. Varana 17:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure that it had any effect at all, for Roman wars were just as bloody after the introduction of Christianity as they were before. The Italian campaigns of Justinian in the sixth century, fought between two sets of Christian powers, were pursued with as great a savagery as any of the Pagan wars.
Anyway, on the wider issue, you seem to be simply amplifying a point that I had already made about Imperial stability. However, the Pax Romana, it has to be said, was of brief duration, coming to an end, as I suggested, with the death of Antoninus Pius. During the time of Marcus Aurelius the Romans acquired a foretaste of the coming horrors of the third century, particularly in the Marcomani Wars. There is also something else you may be overlooking. You are right when you highlight the political instability of the late Republican period. However, after the death of Nero, and the end of the process of 'legitimate' succession, the stability of the Empire was to depend more and more on the character of the Emperor and, perhaps more important, the attitude of the army. When there was harmony between the two, especially evident during the reign of the 'Good Emperors' of the early part of the second century, the succession issue was submerged. In the third century it became much more of a problem, so much so that even 'good emperors', like Aurelian, were not safe in the midst of their troops. The middle Empire was thus just as politically unstable as the Republic, though obviously in a different fashion. This whole problem was only solved when the 'Republican Empire', if one may use such a term, began to translate into Byzantine Absolutism from the time of Diocletian onwards.
On the question of the army, there was still, as I understand it, a connection between military service and duty to the fatherland, even after the Marian reforms-more so perhaps because plebeian soldiers were promised land at the conclusion of their term in arms. The later federates had much less of a connection in this regard, and thus much more prone to condone regime change because of the financial rewards these tended to bring-hence another cause of instability. White Guard 00:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, finally I'll have to agree and while this discussion could go on I believe that the points you have made have throughly defined the problem. Glad to have had this discussion with you. Cmatos1991 01:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borders of the Roman Empire

I have just finished this article, but i'm afraid my english is not very good, would someone like to take a look? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 19:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I just polished a little of the wrought spots, a nice read and would like to see a more fleshed out article in the future should you and other authers be inclined.--Dryzen 12:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The SPQR flag

Shouldn't this be on this page?

Paul W 23/10/06

There was none.--Panarjedde 16:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Hi all...just changed the dates at the top of the article to reflect the standard interpretation; it seems to me that listing the "ancient" Roman Empire as ending is 1453 is problematic at best and, at worst, completely disregards the enormous differences between Byzantium (especially after the mid-7th century) and the old empire. Dppowell 04:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Me again. Roydosan reverted my date change without discussing here; I've restored my edit and invited him to engage me here. I hope others will also join the discussion. If we're going to have "birth" and "death" style dates at the head of the article for such an important topic, it seems to me that they should reflect common usage among historians. My use of the term "successor state" to describe Byzantium was not a personal invention; it's one of the ways that historians address the very significant adjustments the East had to make to remain viable after the fall of the West. No one studying the period today would describe the entity that the Ottomans conquered in 1453 as the Roman Empire, and the fact that there was continuity between the two (at least until the mid-to-late 7th century) is admirably addressed by the last paragraph in the existing intro. The Byzantine Empire has its own, featured article (a fact which betrays its modern perception as a successor to ancient Rome), and it doesn't need to be extensively addressed here. As always, I invite other viewpoints. Dppowell 14:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No you are completely wrong on this. Contemporary historical scholarship recognises that the 'Byzantine Empire' was the continuation of the Roman Empire - that is the Roman Empire itself. I suggest you read the following which will confirm this for you:

  • Browning, R. The Byzantine Empire ISBN: 0813207541 revised edition published 1992
  • Haldon, J. Byzantium at War ISBN: 1841763608 published in 2002
  • Haldon, J. Byzantium: A History ISBN: 0752434721 published in 2005

Byzantine scholars also asserted their continuity as the Roman Empire. See:

  • Comnena, A The Alexiad ISBN: 0140449582
  • Procopius The Secret History ISBN: 0140441824

Also look at this list of Roman emperors. If you insist on the date 476 then the article should be renamed the Western Roman Empire Roydosan 15:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point; none of those books have "Roman Empire" anywhere in their titles. I'm not disputing (did it really appear that I was?) that the Byzantine Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire. Nor do I dispute that the Byzantines considered themselves "Roman." But using the "Roman Empire" label today to refer to the political entity based in Constantinople during the Middle Ages is highly misleading. When historians refer to the "Roman Empire," they're usually not talking about anything that happened after 476...and maybe, in some conversations, the reign of Justinian. I agree that dates can be contentious, but using 1453--when Rome itself was well into the Renaissance--as the date for the end of the "Roman Empire" is ludicrous. I'm going to remove the date range entirely (it didn't exist until last week, anyhow) until a consensus can be reached on this. Dppowell 16:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
If you really want to be completly accurate you must change the date to 395 AD, with the final separation into the Eastern and the Western Roman empires after the death of Theodosius. The reason for this is simple and completly logical: both of the empires were Roman, but both of them couldn't be the old empire at the same time (you divide something and you obtain two halfs; never two originals). Therefore neither one were the old empire. To proclaim that the WRE was the same entity as the old Roman empire is simply neglecting and ignoring the ERE (aka BE) AND vice-versa. Flamarande 17:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Flam's point is well taken. I don't insist on the date 476. I do insist on a date that would enjoy more support than 1453, which, short of tying the existence of the "Roman Empire" to the imperial heir who died penniless in Italy in 1503, is the most extreme possible interpretation of a date range for that label. There are lots of dates which historians have put forward in attempts to delineate when Classical Rome ended and Late Rome or Byzantium began. Among these, I've seen 180 (the end of Gibbon's "Five Good Emperors"), 212 (when Caracalla granted universal citizenship), 235 (the end of the Principate's final dynasty), 284 (accession of Diocletian and the advent of the Tetrarchy), 330 (capital moved to Constantinople), 395 (permanent division), 410 (Visigothic sack) and 476. Using dates to split up history has always been a somewhat arbitrary process, and each of these dates has its problems. 476 is simply the one that historians are most able to agree upon. If Wikipedia's main article on the Roman Empire is going to deviate from that by almost 1,000 years, it just opens our community up to ridicule.[1]
And to be extra clear, I'd happily support an end date of 395 for the article. It's an academically defensible date for the use of the label (as is 476). Dppowell 17:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd vote for deleting the dates. We have them in the infobox, we even discuss the issue in the introduction at length. The date range at the start adds no information; it is even misleading, as the next sentences explicitly mention several proposed dates for establishment and end without giving precedence to one. Varana 17:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm leaning more on Varana's point, but if a date is to be used, the split(395) would the the one I'dd back.--Dryzen 19:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dppowell I haven't proved your point at all. You might also like to read:

Gibbon, E. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: v. 4-6 ISBN: 1857151925

which concludes when? In 476? No. It concludes in 1453. More recent scholarship has stressed the continuation of Rome through the ERE as you will find if you bother to look at the books I cited above. And yes you did dispute that the Byzantine Empire was the continuation of the Roman Empire - you claimed it was a successor state. To be a successor state there would need to be some sort of break between the first state and the succeeding state. Search high and low cause you ain't going to find one. Also it is far from ludicrous to claim that the Roman Empire ended in 1453 because that is what happened. Claiming anything else is nothing but ignorance and a continuation, knowingly or otherwise, of the enlightenment intellectuals prejudice which sought to denigrate and diminish the place of the Byzantine Empire in history. Roydosan 10:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And you are correct that a lot of historians use the date of 476 as a cut off point for histories of teh Roman Empire. However they invariably state that it continued in the East until 1453. Roydosan 10:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This might be difficult for you to believe, but I've studied the period in some depth, myself. Your suggestion that there were no breaks in continuity between Rome and Byzantium is so utterly ridiculous that I feel a little bit silly even spelling it out here, but I feel compelled to do so by the concern that your interpretation might somehow find its way into the article. By the end of the 7th century, the "Roman Empire" in Constantinople would have been incomprehensible to, say, Marcus Aurelius. The language and culture had been almost completely delatinized. The old state religion was completely gone. The imperial administrative structure had been largely or completely overhauled at least three times. The security threats to the empire bore little resemblance to those faced in 180, and the military had changed accordingly. Yes, you can draw an unbroken line of "succession" in the occupants of the imperial throne (especially if you include all the usurpers who seized power through force), but using that thread of continuity as a basis for representing the Roman Empire as a 2,000 year old monolith reeks of tap room pedantry. The academic consensus on this issue (those "prejudiced enlightenment intellectuals" you so casually dismiss) is well-established; deviating from it would constitute "a novel historical interpretation" and therefore would violate Wikipedia:No original research. Dppowell 16:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Roydosan: If there were a date which undeniably marks the end of the Empire, it would have been in the article long ago. ;=) The view that the Roman Empire of Late Antiquity gradually changed into something different, conveniently called "Byzantine Empire", was and is the commonly held view, and to draw the distinction between Roman and Byzantine has proven useful for researching and understanding the history of those states. It is not a random distinction. As the shift was gradual, it is somewhat random to single out one fixed date to mark it, and that's why I'd like to avoid it. The shift of the centre from Rome and Italy to Constantinople and Anatolia; the loss of Latin as language of state, army, and law; the explicitly Christian character of the medieval Empire; the vanishing of ancient cities and municipal structures; the loss and sometimes conscious vilification of ancient (i.e. pagan) culture - this and more contribute to a vastly different society, where the (modern!) label "Roman" would lose almost every content if we applied it to everything until 1453.
To see and point out those differences between ancient and medieval Empire, does not denigrate Byzantium's role in history. It is the underlying view that "Roman" somehow "ennobles" a thing, which should be deprecated as a leftover of renaissance and enlightenment idealising of everything ancient. To call the medieval Empire "Byzantine" and stating that it emerged from the ancient Roman Empire does not make it any worse; it only acknowledges the fact that it was different.
After all, if we go there, we might also put 1806 in there, when the last Holy Roman Emperor [[Francis II] abdicated - as the Roman Empire had no clear rule of succession, the Franks' claim of resurrecting it was not that far off. ;=)
Not that I actually propose that, but I want to stress that "Roman" as used historically, whether in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, or even by the Sultanate of Rûm, is a different thing from our modern usage of "Roman" for the ancient Empire and "Byzantine" for the medieval Eastern Empire. Varana 17:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dppowell, your assertion that because Marcus Aurelius would no longer recognise it the empire can no longer be termed Roman is utterly ridiculous. Are countries supposed to remain in a time warp if they are to keep their names according to your definition? Yes of course it transformed to the extent that it would have been beyond recognition to someone from the first-third centuries AD - but that doesn't mean it wasn't Roman; that's just progress. As for your claims about OR - this just proves your ignorance about the matter. Try reading some books on the subject. Varana, I'm not disputing the use of Byzantine to distinguish between the early and late empires. The terminology is useful and I wasn't arguing against it. My point is that if dates are to be used then 1453 is clearly the only definitive date for the end of the empire. This isn't revisionism but just what almost every book on the subject states - that after the fall of the empire in the west the empire of the east continued for a thousand years. The fact that many people are ignorant of this is no reason to deny it. Encyclopedias should state the facts not confirm people in their mistaken views - especially when the date of 1453 is corroborated by most academic scholars. Roydosan 10:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done more than read books on the subject; I've written about it (and received top marks from people who study it to earn a living). I'm checking out of the discussion. As long as your non-standard interpretation stays out of the relevant articles, I'm content. Dppowell 14:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok well maybe you should actually read the rest of this article and then you will discover that your interpretation is at variance with it as well as with modern scholarship. If all you can do is claim that you have a better knowledge of the subject without offering any evidence in favour of your inaccurate assessment then it seems to me like you've lost the argument. Roydosan 15:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Roydosan, if believing that you've defeated me in an argument 1) makes you happy and 2) relieves you from the urge to paste "1453" into a date bracket at the beginning of the article, I believe we have a win-win situation. Dppowell 15:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No I don't think so since I see no good reason not to restore the dates to the beginning of the article. If you can come up with no better argument than you have read and written on the subject without coming up with some good reasons why you are right I fail to see how you have proved your point. Roydosan 16:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're starting to make this more about me instead of the article; if it makes you happy, please disregard my arguments and review those made by the three other people in this thread (all of whom agree that if bracketed dates are to appear at all, 1453 shouldn't be one of them). Please don't make edits contrary to the consensus. Dppowell 16:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What consensus? Two other people commented. Hardly enough for a consensus and you are the one who started this by removing the dates in the first place. If anything they should have been left in place before a consensus was reached. Instead you arbitrarily removed them from the article. Roydosan 16:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Three other people, actually. And if you check the article history, you'll see that the date bracket was only inserted a week or so ago. My removal of it was an attempt to defuse the controversy that its insertion spawned. Dppowell 16:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
In any event, in accordance with Wikipedia's conflict resolution guidelines, I'm going to stay away from the article (notwithstanding reversions of blatant vandalism, such as those earlier today) for a while. I feel comfortable that I'm not the only person in the discussion who feels the 1453 date is inappropriate for your proposed usage. For the time being, I leave the matter in their hands. Dppowell 16:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Roydosan: "If dates are to be used" - exactly. As I already said: we do not simply continue the false assertion that the Empire "fell" in 476. We state that this date is traditionally used, although the Empire continued in the East until 1453 - all this in the third paragraph of the article, even before the TOC. The question of beginning and "fall" of the Empire is complex, and we shouldn't lead the reader to the false assumption that there are no problems (by flatly giving dates as fact). Varana 18:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
From Flamarande's earlier post we have a good way to logicaly sort this out. The Roman civilisation, Spanning from the mythical date of 753 to the fall of the last statelet in 1461, can be divided into segments based on its political structure: The Kingdom, the Republic, the Empire, the Division and the Byzantines. Each has dates, with the Division hold two, one for the west in 476 and the east 602 (contested date, but Phokas broke the clear leaniage and Heraclius'following empire became increasingly hellenised). As such should date be implemented I would support intergrating the segment of the empire wich ended, folowing this logic, in 395.--Dryzen 16:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious assertion

Rome dominated Western Eurasia, comprising the majority of its population. This isn't correct. Rome was a city. It was the empire which comprised the majority of the population in Western Eurasia. Rintrah 18:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Another comment: some of this article is written like a high school essay. Why is this in the article: Who was the first emperor? is one of the never ending questions about the Roman Empire.? I am too tired to edit this myself. Perhaps someone else can attend to improving the quality of writing.

I was going to read the whole article, but the First Emperor section thoroughly discouraged me. Rintrah 19:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Rome was simply the original city-state and the power was concentrated there. We speak about the Romans and not the Roman Imperials; unlike today where we speak of a capital e.g. "Paris" and of the country "France", and the ppl, "French". We also speak of "the greatness and glory of Rome" and not of "the greatness and glory of the Roman Empire" (well sometimes we do, but the first is more commonly used). You might think that the point about the 1st emperor is too easy, bu there are plent of ppl who are unsure about it. Flamarande 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Rome" is very commonly used as shorthand for "the Roman Empire" in multiple sources ranging from academic works to TV, movies and fiction - I don't think we need to change that. The section on the first emperor is an important debate, but still (despite revision) not quite accurate - the title of "Imperator" really referred to generalship and has only assumed the "imperialist" connotation via centuries of subsequent history. Roman emperors themselves were in modern terms essentially military dictators and the "imperial" system a sort of aristocratic militarised slave-owning universal culture with some local and regional liberties and religious tolerance, that evolved slowly in stages from "alleged democratic republic" to "alleged universal empire". So the whole debate is slightly flawed and anachronistic and user Rintrah is right to raise it - however, it does seem worth discussing it as to the modern mind the obvious query is "when did the empire start?" MarkThomas 10:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autocratic

Apologies if this has already been discussed, did a quick check of the archives. I'm wondering if the word "autocratic" in the opener is quite right - most modern experts tend to speak of Rome as an aristocratic society - not that autocracy is wholly wrong, but it tends to imply that all power is in one person, but in many periods of the empire and at different times, that was not completely the case; senators had real power, as did governers, other members of the imperial family, particular generals and so on. It is certainly true under some emperors but I think classical scholars viewed that sort of absolutism as defective and more enlightened emperors ruled slightly more collaboratively. Opinions please? I think it should say either aristocratic or aristocratic and (sometimes) autocratic. MarkThomas 09:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Roman society was surely aristocratic, but the goverment was autocratic during the empire. That means that real power was in the hands of the Emperor. Some might have been more powerful than others, and Senators and Generals certainly also had some power, but in final analysis they served the emperor. The emperor himself was not controlled by any institution at all and could (and many did) order the execution or forced suicide of many Senators and generals. Still it wasn't a monarchy, because most of the time there wasn't any Imperial dinasty with clear lines of succession. Senators and generals could certainly make a coup or a rebellion but this means that the goverment is overthrown and that the system is put out of comission. Compare it to todays time: General MacArthur certainly had power until Truman sacked him. Flamarande 22:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
As explained in the article on Autocracy, "The autocrat needs some kind of power structure to rule. Only a boss of a street gang or a barbarian chieftain can truly rule with only his personal charisma and his fighting skills. Most historical autocrats depended on their nobles, the military, the priesthood or others, who could turn against the ruler and depose or murder him." "Autocracy" doesn't need that only one person holds power; it means that essentially, all power *derives* from one person (or one institution), or is dependent on that one person. In Rome, all power ultimately rests with the Emperor - maybe not de iure, but de facto. Of course, he does need other people to exercise his power, and as the Roman emperors used the old aristocracy for many of those duties, they had to respect certain traditions of that aristocracy. That doesn't mean, however, that senators, governors or (least of them) generals had power *of their own*. The case could be made in a certain respect for governors, as officially, "senatorial" provinces during the early Empire were not directly ruled by the emperor. Regarding the military, however, the emperor was technically the only commander-in-chief (as shown by the fact that only he could celebrate a triumph, even if it was his generals who won). That senatorial "autonomy" was, however, on paper only - threats to the reigning emperor came from rebellious generals; senatorial governours had no power to actually work against the emperor's wishes. With time, the distinction faded, and even from early on, senatorial governors deferred many decisions to the emperor, or ruled according to how imperial provinces were run.
Emperors could exercise their absolute power more openly, or more veiled, trying to gain the support of the aristocracy. It always was absolute power, though. Varana 16:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all this Varana, I do very much agree with your and others' views above about power deriving from the Emperor. I guess I feel suitably corrected. :-) Maybe I was thinking though that Senators had slightly more power sometimes than is implied in your comments above - true that dictatorial emperors treated them as comical or suppressed them, but some emperors seem to have treated them actively as a parliament. Also the tetrarchy and vicarius periods post-Diocletian I think distributed power more, although quite right, it derived from the emperor(s).

I see from your own page that you do maps sometimes, what do you think of the map issue below I raised, are you able to edit that map? I tried contacting the author but with no response. It is certainly wrong to show Dacia as under Roman rule in AD 14. MarkThomas 16:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the impression that the senate was a kind of "parliament" during the Empire is misleading. We should keep in mind that most literary sources from the early and high empire were written by members of the senatorial class, reflecting their views. Though I grant that I'm maybe stressing one particular direction here. :)
The tetrarchy, otoh, is a direct consequence of autocratic rule. Everythin relied on the emperor; and if the emperor was not present, the empire couldn't be ruled effectively. It wasn't enough to have governors, generals, prefects or other magistrates around - it had to be an emperor in every area of crisis. The tetrarchy's solution was not to wait until the respective area (province, army) chose an emperor if the "real" one wasn't available, but to choose them beforehand, securing their loyalty to the "central" government. Rome had become a real autocracy by then - everything depended on the emperor personally, and the four emperors of the tetrarchy were an attempt to solve the geographical and logistic problems resulting from that requirement of the emperor's personal presence.
Regarding the map: I'll see if I can come up with a similar, but more accurate map, though it will take some days. The problem with the map is imho not that it is wrong in itself, but that it is a bit rough, or imprecise: the Dacian conquests of Trajan are that green area protruding north, while the yellow area next to it is Pannonia/Moesia. Varana 18:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Varana. I've just been browsing the Roman_Empire/reorganization mentioned above - this I see has some stage maps in green, but not the multi-coloured integrated map we are discussing - does that mean in effect we need no longer bother what's on this page but should instead focus on the reorg page? Thanks for any guidance. MarkThomas 21:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map error?

Enlarge

The map (which is nice and generally very good) seems to show Dacia (modern-day Romania and part of Bulgaria) as being Roman in 14AD, which is wrong - Trajan conquered Dacia in 101-6 - contrast with the map below, also on Wikipedia, showing the supposed extent of the empire in 50AD. How do we go about getting the map re-drawn? I really like it, the colour scheme and simplicity is really good. Mark Thomas 10:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This map is wrong in several aspects as there are many territories that were part of the empire at the time such as northern Spain and do not appear in this map.--RafaelG 12:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right RafaelG, and I did not mean to imply the above map should be our only source; merely that it is correct not to show Dacia as part of the empire at that time. Here is the map I am talking about, just to be completely clear. I think this is a great map. Just that Dacia is wrongly colour-coded. MarkThomas 12:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Enlarge
Any objections to replacing the left map with this one on the right?
Enlarge
If anyone feels that there's something wrong (in various areas, sources differ on when they were conquered), please say so; I still can shuffle things around.
Else, I'll be switching the maps in a few days. Varana 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a beautiful new map, thanks for all your efforts with it Varana! Couple of things I noticed - is it just my browser/PC, or is the colour in your key box for 218BC not the same as the one on the map? One other thing - I've often seen empire maps that show parts of the region north of the Black Sea (including part of the Crimea) as Roman - did you leave these off or is it that they were occupied later when other parts of the empire were smaller? MarkThomas 20:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Good catches. :) Which regions north of the Black Sea actually belonged to Rome, is a bit unclear; unfortunately, I couldn't access specialized literature. Cherson probably had a Roman garrison under Nero, but the Bosporan Kingdom in general seems to have remained a vassal state throughout (until Byzantine times). I have altered the map to reflect this, i.e. coloured the southern Crimea green ("after 14"). Until I get more information, it'll have to do as an approximation.
The colour was wrong, yes. Corrected. (The update may need Reload in the browser to show.) Varana 09:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I like the muted colours on the new map but it seems strangely squished, north to south. Is this some Wikipedia image rendering flaw, or is it the map?? 12.64.72.51 15:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Very nice Varana. As to the Squished look, that's a Map projection difference, cartographers usualy use the Mercator projection, this one uses soemthing else, most likely Gall-Peters projection.--Dryzen 14:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. :) It's simple plate carrée projection. Varana 17:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Empire Began In 31 BC?

How is that even possible if the Roman Republic didn't dissolve until four years later, in 27 BC? --MosheA 01:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think it's wrong in the article - a lot of sources show the republic ending effectively at the same time as Augustus assumed supreme power in 31, or else when Ceasar had himself declared Dictator and Imperator in 49BC. MarkThomas 09:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Sigh". There isn't a single date for the transformation of the republic into the empire. There are several dates of great importance but it was a gradual process. Mark is unsure between two dates, and MosheA merely wants to replace one date with another. It is a basic flaw on the approach and question: we want to determine a single date for a process which took several years and then we get amazed that don't find an appropiate date. It began slowly with Marius and Sulla; at the end of Sulla it might appear that the republic had beeen saved but the idea of a single ruler had beeen launched. Then we a have a military junta of three mighty men (is that a true republic?), then one of them dies and the other two slug it out. One emerges victorious to be slain by republicans (a dying breed). In the mess that follows other three mighty men finish the rebellious republicans at Philipae off, and order the execution of hundereds of political opponents. Then one of them loses all his power and the other two slug it out (hello deja vu). The victor, giving a great show of humility and honour, offers to return all his powers to a Senate mostly composed by his loyal followers and frightened persons, and everbody knew what they were supposed to do. Not a single one believes the lie (do you know of a single senator who said: "Ok, we accept your generous offer, now give us our power back?") and they beg the continuation of rule of the victor for "the security and wellfare of the republic". A couple of years later they offer him a new title. Then he chooses a succesor for himself (where was the authorithy of the Senate here?), and it goes on and on. In theory and officially the republic continues throughout this entire time. There is never a official proclamation of the Roman Empire with an official date. You will find out this is the same problem in many things: When began the Renessance?, the Age of Discovery, etc? There isn't a single precise date for these events it was always gradual developments. I personally don't agree with the battle of Actium for the war between Octavian and Markus continued, I would prefer to replace it with "unclear; several dates advanced but in reality it was a gradual process." Flamarande 11:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Very entertaining and well-argued piece, thanks Flamarande. :-) I was really just querying the use of the 27BC date as one of the choices, but having checked more extensively and looked in one or two of my own books, I now accept that it is sometimes used. The entry appears to cover the ground pretty well, as does your piece above! MarkThomas 19:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro Paragraph -- Fall of Byzantine Empire

"...it maintained Roman legal and cultural traditions within a distinctly Greek Orthodox form for another thousand years until it finally succumbed to Latins in 1204, and then the Ottoman Empire on 29 May 1453." This sentence is probably a bit confusing to those unfamilar with Byzantine history -- how can an empire be eradicated twice? Perhaps there should be a brief mention of the greek reconquest, or else leave out the referance to the fourth crusade (as it wasn't the true endpoint). --141.157.74.8 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your obviously losing grips with fact. The initial church of Jesus Christ and God was started by what is distinctly today the Greek Orthodox CHurch. The Papacy and the Germanics following the Papal Heresy called Catholism were responsible for teh damage and destruction of the Eastern Empire through the blatant mis use of their powers and through the blasphemous and hell bound condemnation of their satanic actions that called men to aid in wars for their own political agendas.

Ephestion 14:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User User:Armodios is making a series of fairly extreme and unsupported edits to the lead in connection with the above, having already reverted twice I would be grateful if other editors could also review. Thanks. MarkThomas 19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The debt that Rome owed to Greece and the Trojan foundation legend are interesting and important, but belong at Ancient Rome, not in an article specifically about the Imperial period. The transition between the Roman Imperial and Byzantian periods deserves notice here, but not in such detail in the introduction. All the material added, I should point out, needs to be coherently written, argued and sourced, not unilaterally asserted like it has been. --Nicknack009 19:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no "imperial" period! Think about it. Are you are talking about the imperial period of an empire? Does this makes sense? And how do you call the rest period of thus empire? Non imperial? There is neither east nor west roman empire, nor "byzantine" empire, which is an awfull neologism. There is only a pagan and a christian period, of one and single empire, the Roman empire, which fell 1453. Armodios 09:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The article does not use the phrase "imperial period". "Western" and "Eastern" empires are terms so widely used that it would be anti-reader not to repeat and explain them in Wikipedia. "Byzantine" is also a very widely used term throughout the academic history of study of the classical period and again we have a duty to illuminate to the casual reader of Wikipedia the meaning, context and development of "Byzantium", "Byzantine" and "Byzantine Empire". If people who lived in those periods and places described themselves differently, we should also say how. Finally, your comment that there is "only a pagan and a christian period" is an absurd over-simplification and no significant academic working in this area would agree with your other over-simplification that the Roman Empire "fell" in "1453" - clearly the polity originally generally known as the Roman Empire evolved in different ways, divided into two main parts with separate histories, changed, fought many wars, developed culturally and religiously and so on. Your 1453 date is about the capture of Constantinople by Mehmed_II, which conquered the tiny rump state which was all that was left of what had once been the Eastern half of the Roman Empire. MarkThomas 09:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It was my comment that used the phrase "Imperial period". This article is about the Ancient Roman civilisation after it becomes conventionally known as the Roman Empire, sometime between the dictatorship of Julius Caesar and the principate of Augustus. Before that it is known as the Roman Republic, even though, for a lot of that period, it ruled foreign territories and had what we would call an "empire". This is a retrospective judgement but is an established convention because marks an important distinction, just as the transition from "Roman" (ruled from Rome) to "Byzantine" (ruled from Constantinople) Empire does. This article is not about the entirety of Roman civilisation, it's about the period during which it is conventionally known as the Roman Empire. Hence, I used the informal coining "Imperial period". Armodios, If the only change you can see in ancient Roman civilisation over the long centuries of its existence is a change from pagan to Christian, you obviously haven't read enough about the subject. --Nicknack009 12:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This article is not about roman civilisation. It is about roman empire. An empire is defined as a state ruled by an emperor. Roman republic is a different state, it is not Roman empire. The so called "byzantine" empire is actually a direct descendant of the roman empire, it was also ruled by an emperor, and the main difference between them was the christian religion. At least call it "constatinople" empire or "New Rome" empire (because new rome was the official name of constantinople). What has the term "byzantine" to do with constatinople empire? Its a term some people invented three hundred years after the fall of the roman empire. Its a wrong term and shouldnt be used. Listen to the citizens and to the emperors of the roman empire. How they always identified themselves during the 1500 years life of their empire? Did they ever used the "byzantine" nickname? Why do you call them with a name most of them they didnt even know? Is it maybe because the descendants of the german tribes, who, after destroying the western roman empire and gaining over the roman name (similar to what the nowdays slavs are dong with macedonia name) convinced you with their anhistorical arguments? Armodios 11:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Armodios, you've already made it very clear you have strong views on this, but the article uses terms that are widely used elsewhere and any casual reader of Wikipedia deserves a chance to read good quality information on this important subject using words and phrases that are familiar and also explored further and deeper on other pages. "Byzantine" is a very commonly used terminology not just here in Wikipedia but everywhere in both academic and popular literature, on TV, internet sites, etc. It's a very common phenomenon that the modern names for historical movements, nations, cultures, peoples and events are different in various ways to those that were originally used. This too can be explained in Wikipedia but it does not mean that we must use them generally in articles now, since it would be confusing. This is why I and other editors reverted (and will continue to revert if they don't make sense given the above) your recent changes. MarkThomas 11:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What kind of encyclopedia are your trying to create? an encyclopedia based on popular majoritarian views and rumors or an encyclopedia based on accuracy and on sources? Armodios 12:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Whether you like it or not, the convention in all scholarly historical literature is to call it the Byzantine Empire after the move to Constantinople. It should of course be made clear that the Byzantine Empire is a term conventionally used for the continuation of the Roman Empire after the move to Constantinople, and this article and the Byzantine Empire article already make this clear. It is a useful way of subdividing information and making articles like this more manageable. You're raging against a useful historical convention which is universally used and not an invention of Wikipedia. I see you're also still persisting in trying to push the notion that the Roman Empire was merely a continuation of the Greek colony at Naples. This is false. The Roman Empire was, as you must understand, the continuation of the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic was influenced by Greek Naples, but was not the same thing at all. The fact that the Romans had foundation legends that claimed they were descended from Trojans is irrelevant, as Trojans were not Greek. Please stop pushing this tendentious POV material. --Nicknack009 12:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Again you are using unhistorical majoritarian popular views and naming conventions! In Homer's Iliad, "Danaans" and "Argives" designate the forces opposed to the Trojans, not Greeks! You claim that Trojans were not greeks. Then how do you explain the fact that they spoke the same language and had the same religion? Armodios 13:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
They didn't. Homer is not history. --Nicknack009 13:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I know. Homer is not history, you (after 3000 years) are. *sigh* Armodios 13:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nicknack009, very accurately put. By the way, the Lead of Byzantine Empire also goes to some lengths to explain to the layman the various naming conventions and how the peoples of that empire thought of themselves as well. MarkThomas 12:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. A minor bit of Googling also tracks down the Heraclides reference. It's from Plutarch, Camillus 22.2-3, regarding the sack of Rome by Brennus and the Gauls: "However, it would seem that some vague tidings of the calamity and capture of the city made their way at once to Greece. For Heracleides Ponticus, who lived not long after that time, in his treatise "On the soul," says that out of the West a story prevailed, how an army of Hyperboreans had come from afar and captured a Greek city called Rome, situated somewhere on the shores of the Great Sea. Now I cannot wonder that so fabulous and fictitious a writer as Heracleides should deck out the true story of the capture of Rome with his "Hyperboreans" and his "Great Sea." But Aristotle the philosopher clearly had accurate tidings of the capture of the city by the Gauls, and yet he says that its saviour was Lucius, although the forename of Camillus was not Lucius, but Marcus. However, these details were matters of conjecture." I think that goves a bit of context and shows how reliable Heraclides should be taken to be. --Nicknack009 13:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Its not only Heraclides. We have plenty of evidences showing that the early days Romans were "almost" greeks. The participation of Romans to the olympic games dates 228, before they conquer mediteranian sea. And above all, it is their religion which shows greek influance on romans. Can you give us a reasonable explanation why all romans gods originated from greece?. Is it maybe because Olympus mountain is taller than Alps? *sigh* Armodios 13:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Armodius, your discussion belongs in the page Talk:Founding of Rome, as it is about the origin myths of Rome, of which there are many, the "Trojan origin" being just one (and as with many such myths, no actual evidence whatever to back it up). Thanks. MarkThomas 13:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"Please dont use the term "byzantine" empire. It is tottaly unistorical." says Armodios in his latest edit summary. What, you think you can overturn centuries of historical consensus just because you don't happen to like it? Give it up, you arrogant twit. Should we stop using the term "Middle Ages" as well? What about "Stone Age", "Bronze Age" or "Iron Age"? For that matter, what about "Greek", which the Greeks don't call themselves? --Nicknack009 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/m/Talk%7ERoman_Empire_3a4b.html"