Talk:Western Roman Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).
WP Former Countries - Things to do:

Contents

[edit] Temporary redirect

Temporary (hopefully) redirect until someone sees fit to expand this. -- Itai 15:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've started it, hopefully others can fill in the rest since I don't know when I'll have time to. Kuralyov 07:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern provinces

Do we really need all of this history concerning the eastern provinces under the Roman Republic? The eastern empire did have a noticeably different culture than did the western half. However, that was not the ultimate cause for the split of the empire into 2 was a combination of the distances involved & the events of the 3rd & 4th centuries. Once divided, the different cultures did play a major role in keeping the 2 parts from effectively reuniting -- but so did Justinian's ultimate failure in reconquering the Western half.

I'd like to see this entire section removed -- or at least reduced to a brief background paragraph or two. -- llywrch 17:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sectional additions

Added and edited a few sections. I am going to revise openning sections a bit, and esspecially focus on the economic collapse of Italy, and eventually much of the West during the 2nd and 3rd Century. --Masamax 10:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Added section titled "Economic Division" detailing the economic decline of the west during the late empire. --Masamax 08:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I deleted vandalism, I will delete next time too. Zello 20:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monophysitism

On first reading, the particular mention of Monophysitism in the East strikes me as NPOV. Is there a particular reason why they should be mentioned, and not for example Nestorianism, or German Arianism in the West?

I think you are right, and anyway it's better to leave out all heresy from the head. Zello 00:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits as of September 2005

I am doing some major restructuring and copyediting - when I started reading the article, without much background knowledge, I found it lacked some basic definitional information - like what the Western RE was, where it was, when it was, etc., and much of the opening para dealt with differences from the Byzantine and reasons the Byzantine thrived. I hope I'm improving the article... Kaisershatner 17:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Western Roman Empire infobox

Hi, I made this Template:Western Roman Empire infobox in a effort to improve this article. My reasons are the following:

It simply "simplifies" things,

Many usefull things are linked in this "box",

It helps to make a easier "over-look",

It seems to a "official policy" in articles about countries,

I really hope you like it and if you think some "data" is wrong, simply correct it. Flamarande 13:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC) PS: I haven´t yet found a good picture of the Western Roman Empire but if you find one simply add it or tell me and I´ll do it. I invented "Ocidentalis", perhaps somebody knows the correct term?

Pars Occidentis, coined by Diocletian

[edit] Reorganization

I think this article needs to be reorganized a little. Although I think the data is good, I think it needs to be better organized for an easier read.

--Masamax 11:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you planning? Flamarande 12:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it has all these sections that could be inter-related. There is no reason to have so many main sections when it would be better served by only a few with a few subsections each. I don't plan to rewrite much actual information, just change the way the article itself is organized.
--Masamax 22:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural Differences

This part of the article hardly seems accurate to the description. It seems mostly to be obsessed with Augustus and his rise to power. I am going to edit it to be more accurate to the heading, if no one objects? --Masamax 16:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Do it, but be carefull. Notice that I made that paragraph with such detail (list of the provinces) to explain that the political east - west division did NOT came out the blue. It had been done before between Ocatavian and Antony and there also was a cultural division. Flamarande 12:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag + ADs

I thought I should explain why I added the clean up tag... I did quick read-through of the text and found dozens of typos and poor sentences. The article badly needs a good going over. I corrected the errors I spotted, but the frequency of problems concerned me enough to think it needs someone to look into it in more depth -- hence the clean up tag. Anyone? - Motor (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Along the subject of clean up, I've noticed many pages moving from the Anno Domini to the Current Era format. Since the last mofifications have been aimed at the ADs should these be transformed to CEs while where on the subject?Dryzen 16:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This a part of the "dirty war" of AD/BC versus BCE/BC users. The official policy is that such changes have to be debated and agreed upon but some zealots (of both sides) don't bother even to ask and in their self-rightousness simply change the articles. Seems to me that the war still drags on, with "sneaky" changes and behaviour being now the norm. Flamarande 13:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This article has no need to use either AD or CE. Common practice is to use AD or CE, only in a date range which spans eras (see:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras). Paul August ☎ 21:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, I have plenty of books wich use the AD/BC system. I am under impression the impression that BC is used in all dates prior to the official birth of Jesus of Nazareth. AD as far as I know is bit more complicated, being used in all dates during the first 900 year (it is very unclear, but it is around there somewhere). I was following that style but now you are seeing some problem with it. So I have to ask you: Why are you deleting the ADs? Should we use them in this article or not? Flamarande 13:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well as I said Wikipedia's Manual of style says to use AD or CE, only in a date range which spans eras. Paul August ☎ 05:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Considering the common misunderstandings some people get when one speaks of ancient empires and in particular the Roman empire, due to its spaning both the end of BC/BCE and the begining of AD/CE, this temporal denominator is therfore well within its usage paramaters. As to changing AD to CE I have no real preference at the moment.Dryzen 16:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I am asking: we should we use a temporal denominator or not? Notice please that most of the WRE happened after the "zero event" but not all of it (precedends paragraph at the start of the article), in particular the dealings between Octavian and Antony, Tiberius and Germanicus. Flamarande 12:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
We should.Dryzen 18:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Latin and Greek?

What were the Eastern and Western Empire called in Latin and in Greek (with their translations in English)? Ahassan05 23:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)ahassan05

[edit] Reorganization part 2!

In the middle of finals right now, but I figured I'd propose a slight reorganization of this article under the following guide:
-Reasons Behind Division
--Political Effectiveness
--Economic Factors
--Origins of East/West Schism
-History of the Western Empire
--Principate
--Crisis of the Third Century
--Tetrarchy
--Constantine Dynasty
--Final Division
--Fall of the Western Empire
--Byzantine Reconquest
-Legacy of the Roman Empire in Western Europe
--Catholic Church
--Romance Languanges
--Roman Law
-List of Roman Emperors

--Masamax 17:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Masa, 1st we have to reorganize the article about the Roman empire and only then should we reform this article. It is easy to propose reforms and then never to carry them out. Flamarande 15:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End date

  • "History is written by victors and by losers, interpreted and sometimes rewritten by intelectuals and fools, manipulated and used by politicians, and simply ignored by rebels and the masses, who always make the same mistakes."

It says somewhere in the intro that the WRE ended "officially" in 476, whereas the point is that exactly this did not happen. It may have ended de facto that year, 'officially', it was reunited after having been split between Augustus Romulus and Julius Nepos and the latter continued to be its Emperor until 480. At that date (officialy), either the Western Empire ended, or it was reunited with the Eastern Empire, I don't know what the sources say about this.

Julius Nepos is not commonly recognized as the "last" emperor. On the whole it is a matter of legal tecnicalties of dubious importance. Flamarande 21:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that one could find many historians specialised in Roman history who would subscribe to the statement that Augustus Romulus was officially the last Roman Emperor, and to my knowledge all the actors involved at the time recognised Julius Nepos as Emperor post 476. The statement is incorrect for the same reason that the statement "Kosova is officially independant" is incorrect, because 'officially' is all about legal technicalities.
Furthermore, even if one takes into account actual power when trying to determine the last West-roman emperor, I don't see how Romulus Augustus has any claim to that title whatsoever. Certainly he held less power still than Julius Nepos, at least Julius Nepos was recognised by the East and had actual control over some territory (Dalmatia). It seems then that one way or another, the Western Roman Empire ended with Julius Nepos - either in 480 or in 475.
But then you would be overlooking the rule of Romulus Augustulus :). Officially: The Western Roman Empire ended at the 4 of September AD 476, the last emperor being Romulus Augustulus. All books (written by profesional scholars) that I own largely ignore the claim of sovereignty by Julius Nepos after that date. Unofficially, under a purely technical point of view (whatever that means) you can defend that Julius Nepos was the last emperor. Don´t forget that history is a human science, as such it is imperfect, unlike mathematics. Flamarande 10:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Please sign your statements with four "~"
All well that the common perception is that Romulus Augustus was the last, but it should be based on objective criteria nevertheless. On what grounds do these scholars classify Romulus Augustus as the last? Why is a 'technical' point of view 'unofficial'? History may be a 'human science', but that means it is still a science and should still work scientifically. And do we know of any one actual decision made by Romulus Augustus himself? :) Sephia karta 15:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The grounds are simple. Romulus Augustulus abdicated all his power to Odoacer, and the Imperial insignias were sent to the Byzantine emperor. Italy, the heartland of the Western Roman Empire along with the old capital Rome and the new capital Ravenna had been conquered. The claim by Julius Nepos was ignored by almost everybody, EXCEPT the Eastern Roman Empire (and as such entered into history) and his later "rule" was only de jure - by law. De facto - in pratice, or better "in reality", who ruled was Odoacer, who was later suceeded by Theodoric the Great
Look, it is only a question of point of view mixed with a bit of politics. Who was the first Roman emperor? Technicaly, none as the title itself hadn´t been invented yet. Yet we (comon ppl and scholars) have agreed upon Augustus. Who is Jesus? Technically, he is mainly a mythological figure with all his miracles being doubtful. Yet he has entered into history as a historical figure.
But look, that is *exactly* my point. That *de jure* Julius Nepos was emperor. And this was not only recognised by the east, but by Odoacer himself. The text refers to someone being officially the last emperor, thus the last de jure emperor. This we agree was Julius Nepos. The fact that he had no power is moot, as it is 'official' = de jure emperorship we are looking for.
My second point was that even if one looks for the last de facto emperor, Romulus Augustus still does not qualify. Just as in reality Odoacer ruled over Julius Nepos, so in reality Flavius Orestus ruled over Romulus Augustus. Romulus Augustus was not an inch more of an emperor than Julius Nepos was, neither de jure nor de facto.
So if you do not agree with this, if de jure rule is not your criterium for being the last official emperor, then what is? Sephia karta 18:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand and sympathize with your point, and agree partially with it, but the defining criteria is "common understanding" or better yet "common point of view" (see below), nothing else. It is not my particular point of view which I am defending, I am defending common scholarship. Almost everybody (common ppl and scholars) have agreed that Romulus Augustulus is the last emperor of the Western Roman Empire. As they have agreed upon it, so it simply is. His "rule de jure" has been declared "null and void and neglible" by common understanding and has entered down in history as such. I am not going to write that Julius Nepos was the last emperor as almost noone today (and even it ancient times) acknowledges him as such. I know that that is not fair, but this is how whe write history. This also works in almost everything. It is also "When did the Byzantine Empire fall"? As the capital was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1453? Someone can argue that the Empire of Trebizond was also a part of Byzantine Empire, and that the Byzantine Empire only fell when it was also conquered. It is a bit like political correctnes: Too many countries are in reality dictatorships, but officially they are single party republics. I am not going to write an article about modern China telling that it is a dictatorship, alltough it is true under a certain point of view. "...you will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." - Obi-Wan Kenobi from Star Wars, the Return of the Jedi (where truer words ever spoken? :) Flamarande 19:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I wrote a small paragraph detailing the whole issue. I hope you are happy now. Flamarande 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with that paragraph, I find it to be precise and fair. I guess that what I am looking for is either an objective criterium other than popular perception today that distinguishes between the emperorship of Romulus Augustus and that of Julius Nepos or that the 'official' be dropped and the sentence be rephrased into something like "the last emperor is commonly considered to have been Romulus Augustus".
I think our approaches differ in that you seem to accept present day perception, where I don't consider it to be a relevant objective criterium in itself. Maybe an anology can be drawn to the listing of Malenkov and Ivashko as General Secretaries of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. General perception today is that Khrushev succeeded Stalin and that Gorbashev was the last and few will remember Malenkov and Ivashko but that is not sufficient reason to not list them on the page for General secretaries.Sephia karta 10:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Barbarians"

The word barbarian is used many times and always in quotes (""). But the reason for the use of quotes is never explained to the reader. Would it be better to replace barbarians with Germanic tribes and make a single mention that the German tribes were sometimes called 'barbarians'? Ashmoo 03:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Better to remove the quotes as there were more than Germanic tribes invading, like the Slavs, Mongols, etc. Flamarande 19:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I assume the usage of quotes was because the term is extremely general and, like the Charlemagne article, controversy breaks out due usage of it for a number of factors. For the sake of factual accuracy, it's better to be specific anyway. I've since gone through the article and swapped the term out for appropriate specifications wherever possible. If you see something incorrect, please feel free to change it. :bloodofox: 12:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Resurrecting" the Empire

I was puzzled by the following paragraph.

The ideal of the Roman Empire as a mighty Christian Empire with a single ruler continued to seduce many powerful rulers. Charlemagne, King of the Franks and Lombards, was even crowned as Roman Emperor by Pope Leo III in 800. Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire like Frederick I Barbarossa, Frederick II and Charles V, and mighty Sultans like Suleiman the Magnificent of the Ottoman Empire, among others, tried to a certain extent to resurrect it, but none of their attempts were successful.

In what sense did these efforts fail to "resurrect" the Roman Empire? In other words, how would one define a "successful" resurrection of the Empire? --Mcorazao 04:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/e/s/Talk%7EWestern_Roman_Empire_0b09.html"