Talk:Gallic Empire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Europe may be able to help! |
The dates of this period in time are not concrete and the written evidence is often unreliable. Recent scholarship indicates that earlier accepted date for the reigns of the Gallic emperors (which are used on this page) are too early by several months to about a year. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I will update the dates to reflect the latest scholarship, which will essentially push back most of the dates on this, and the related pages, by about 1 year. Maximus Rex, 09:24, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wouldn't Imperium Gallorum be more correct? But was this formula ever actually used? No sense in creating a modern Latin formula. What's on the coins? Wetman 01:31, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know Latin. I saw "Imperium Galliarum" here. The coins make no mention of a "Gallic empire" and do not distinguish the Gallic emperors from the "true" Roman emperors. Maximus Rex 02:59, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I know some Latin, and Imperium Gallorum seems correct. It means "Empire of the Galli," as opposed to Imperium Galliarum, which would mean "Empire of the Galliae." The difference is gender (the first is masculine, the second feminine), and I'm pretty sure the Romans would have used the masculine form for the Gauls. Hallmark 01:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
David S. Potter in The Roman empire at bay uses the term Imperium Galiarum so that would appear to be correct. However he also says that it's capital was at Cologne, not Trier. Does anyone know how Trier got into this story?
Postumus moved the Capital (along with his Mint) to Cologne from Trier in about 268.
- Just a note that Imperium Galliarum would mean "Empire of the Gauls" using Gaul in the geographic sense--that is, "Empire of the Gallic provinces". Much like "Emperor of All the Russias" or like you sometimes see pre-1866/1871 authors refer to "the Italies" or "the Germanies". But yes, I too would like to see an incidence of its use in ancient sources--or at the very least, an acknowledgement that such a term never appears in the sources, even if it's being used by modern historians. Binabik80 05:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Anybody who has ever studied Caesar in Latin should know that Gaul is divided into three parts, so I think that makes sense.Tsunomaru 06:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ambicatus
This orphan stub page Ambicatus claims "Ambicatus was a Gallic king, as reported by Livy, who lived around 400 BC. Most likely he was the leader of the most powerful tribe in a military alliance." If this is true seems like this page should link to his page. Jeepday 04:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
