User talk:Lucius Sempronius Turpio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Holy Roman Study

Hello All and everyone involved in the Romano-Germanic study, I am inquiring about the Romano-Germanic pages, and if you planned to work on them anymore, or if you have just lost interest. My ultimate goal is to show, after much research, and study of course, that the Holy Roman Empire was infact a true heir to the Western Roman Empire, and that Rome itself lasted untill 1806 (At the very least on paper). I now know(after much distress) that Wikipedia is not the place to display theory, although many articles on wiki do assume the same theory. i.e HRE(which in it states the the HRE was infact a concious attempt to ressurect the empire) article, and King of the Romans. It even states in the Wiki article for Pope Leo III, "Leo placed the imperial crown on Charlemagne's head, resurrecting the office of Emperor of the Roman Empire."

  • When people use the Voltaire quote, you must understand that Voltaire could not see past his time, and most people in the west did consider the HRE the true heir. Medieval slander, and misinterptritations have clouded the truths behind the HRE.
  • Many of the Cities in the HRE were founded by ancient Rome, and most of its territories (excluding northern germany among a few others) were part of the ancient empire. The HRE wars with the Byzantines at the start are excellent proofs of the byzantine point of view, as far as there fear of having to share the prestige(and all the fringe benifits of being Roman) of Rome again. Also the situation with Empress Irene and her son, and the real reasons why she pulled out last minute, even though her son wanted to marry Charlemange's daughter.
  • There are literatlly 1000's of reasons, proofs, and facts about this, that I have gathered, and will one day put into a book, or report form. Again I know Wiki isnt the place to display new idea's, but the stubborness of some people to even look at the fact that the HRE could possibly be a heir is a shame. Either way there is no denying that in second to Christianity, Rome is the main componant in shaping the western world, especially western europe culturally, Legally, languge wise, and in many other ways.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 00:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Hi, Lucius. Best of luck in your endeavors to forge new ground in Romano-German studies. You are correct, Wikipedia is not the place to do this, nor is it the place to win converts to your point of view. Feel free to email me privately about it, however. (You can do so through this link. It will reveal your email address to me, but will also allow me to email you directly. Then you will have my address. I do not post my email address anywhere on the web, and I advise you not to do it either, unless you like spam.)

I do think that you have made up your mind about the H.R.E. before weighing the evidence. Now you are looking for evidence that fits your chosen narrative, while minimizing everything that goes against it, and occasionally being ill-mannered toward people who point out flaws in your theory. I am happy to discuss Romano-German history with you by email, but only as long as you remain courteous about it. OK?

May I suggest also that you direct your attention to Wikipedia articles that you are interested in, but feel less strongly about. You will probably get the most satisfaction from working in harmony with other editors, especially when they improve on your contributions. If you're like me, you'll also be inspired to learn more about something, just so you can write about it in Wikipedia.

A good way to get your feet wet is to click the "Random article" link in the column on the left. I did this to ten articles, and several of them have led me to others that I have been interested in ever since. (Here's a list of mine.) Believe me, I never expected to get caught up in the history of an irrigation project in Montana! But that's what Wikipedia can do to you. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 14:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Germanic Mysticism

Ave Lucius. What do you think of this project? The founders may share some of your concerns about the misrepresentation of German culture, although they come at the problem from a quite different perspective. (The project could use help. I was the last person to edit the page, and that was last February.) -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flamarande

May I ask where the Roman Empire was on the "hypotical" map from 396 to 800? Where was it in 477? If you assume the name of somebody else who has died 400 years ago and get everyone to accept your name as true does that make you the same person? I don't think so. Flamarande 02:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persia

Well the long time gap had happened when Alexander the Great took over the Persian Empire, after many many years when the empire was reassembled it was the Persian Empire again.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 07:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I feel it was Germany plus fragments of the ressurected Western Empire mutated in a medieval form, although on wikipedia my opinion isnt whats important, whats important is the Roman name was offically taken off maps in 1806, and that is notable enough to consider having the offical end date of the empire not in 476, or in the 1400's at the fall of the eastern or Byzantine Empire, but 1806 when the last emperor Francis II stepped down to Napoleon. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio 07:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1806

Flamarande, about what you said:

"May I ask where the Roman Empire was on the "hypotical" map from 396 to 800? Where was it in 477? If you assume the name of somebody else who has died 400 years ago and get everyone to accept your name as true does that make you the same person? I don't think so. Flamarande 02:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)"

Its not relavent that the Western Roman Empire was or was not on maps in 477. In 1806 the Roman Empire was on maps, making it the offical date Rome was taken off maps, and ceased to be a political entity. This is all regardless if you dont consider the Holy Roman Empire to be the true heir of the Western Empire!

Do people think the Barbarians just killed all the Romans after 476? The answer is no of course, most of the Germans that took power were already Romanized. The first two German rulers after the fall, Odoacer, and Theodoric the Great even answered to the Byzantine emperor. Roman tradition, and culture didnt just go extinct, as we know because our own society, and cultures in the western world are heavily influenced by Rome.

The people still considered themselves Romans after the fall of Rome, and told there children, and grand-children they were Romans too, this went on for generations, but also while mixing with the Germans too (if you want, check out Romano-Germanic). The Roman populace was never wiped out, and it is debateable that Roman civilian loses were minimal. 300 plus years later there was still a Roman essence among the people.

When things had settled down after all the Choas, and Charlemange was able to unify most of Western Europe again, it was right to revive the empire in the west, he was crowned King of the Romans, and took the title Imperator Augustus. The Byzantine Empress Irene must have reconized Charlemange's Empire as the true Western heir, or she would never have agreed to marry her son to his daughter.

There are many recorded Byzantine and Holy Roman Royal marriages, which further prove that the Byzantines reconized the Roman state in the west. One good example is when in 972, when the Byzantine emperor John I Tzimisces publicly recognized Otto's imperial title and agreed to a marriage between Otto's son and heir Otto II and his niece Theophano.

Saying that the Holy Roman Empire didnt have any real claim to be the the Western Roman Empire is ludacris. But thats not even the debate here! the debate is the offical end of the empire, and that date is 1806 when the last Roman Emperor, Francis II, was abdicated by Napoleon, and Rome, as an Empire was taken off of maps after being on them for millennia.

The history of Rome spans thousands of years of the existence of a city that grew from a small Italian village in the 9th century BC into the center of a vast civilization that dominated the Mediterranean region for centuries, to a Romano-German empire marking the beginning of the Middle Ages!--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 07:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Lucius, you are of course welcome to hold this opinion, but I hope you are not once again pushing it in your edits of Wikipedia articles. (N.B. You will not be able to find ludacris or reconized in an English dictionary. Please work on your spelling.) -- Rob C. alias Alarob 12:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
He isn't; we are just having a civilized debate over the issue. He isn't pushing his POV in any way. Flamarande 14:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


Lucius, you are stuborn and I rather like that.

A major argument of yours is the maps: You think that the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (HRE) is the same entity as the Western Roman Empire, well besides the obvious point that they have diffrent name (and languages, peoples, coins, capitals, etc) and that there were around 400 years between Romulus Augustus (or Julius Nepos) and the coronation of Charlamagne. You argue that the same thing happened with the Persian Empire and the later Sassanid Empire. My friend, it is one of the oldest tricks in the book of politics. To impose your rule (and the right of your family) you proclaim yourself as the heir of ancient traditions. William I of England was crowned king of England upon the chair of Edward the Confessor, a saxon king. The same William had defeated the Saxons at the battle of Hastings and his Norman aristocracy later largely displaced the Saxon aristocracy.

Italy wasn't invaded only by the Ostrogoths, they were conquered in succesive waves of barbarian/Germanic invaders. We have the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and Lombards (and these are only the major ones). The notion that the conquered Romans passed their culture to their children is of course right. Certainly they did that, but after an invasion and conquest an assimlation and mixing happens. If not in the second generation then in third, fourth, ... (400 years are a lot of generations (and invasions), the notion that the Roman continued throughout all this time as a culture and people is IMHO wrong. Only the Jews were able to keep being a seperate religion and culture during hundered of years because there never was a full assimilation).

The Germanic/barbarians conquerers simply mixed with the conquered Romans and a new people was the result: neither Germanic nor Roman (using the Normans/Saxons as an example: they slowly mixed and became English, neither Saxon nor Norman). The sense of Roman unity (with a single empire, a single emperor, etc) disapeared. How many revolts of the Romans we know of? Look how latter the Italian city-states rose, each with their own seperate sense of identidy. If they still continued to be Roman they would loudly proclaimed this and cooperated as a whole. They never did, and in fact always fought amongst themselves. Their loyalty was to their city-state and not to an vanished empire.

Charlamagne was basicly king of the Franks (a Germanic ppl) who had conquered former Gaul, and he conquered the Lombards (another Germanic ppl) in northern Italy. He had a mighty realm, so it was decided to crown him as Roman Emperor. We are speaking of a Frank here, not a Roman who rose in revolt or a descendant of an ancient Roman family. The overwhelming majority of his nobility were Franks, the core of his army was Frank, the language of the Frank was Old Frankish. Where is the ancient Roman core? There isn't any Roman core, only a political attempt to unify his conquests. He used the Roman titles, and Latin was used as lingua franca but his Frankish Empire was mostly Germanic, not Roman. In fact the realm was divided under his grand-sons. The HRE is a successor state of the Frankish Empire.

Of course the Byzantines recognized the power of the HRE (especially when they needed something). But honestly: that only proves that politicians always recognize power and use beautiful words. Marriages were made between powerful dynasties and by the large were simply the culmination of a major agreement (never truly stopped a war if one of the sides was very ambitious). Byzantine princesses would be married to whoever was considered a potential ally or a potential enemy of the BE. Nothing more, nothing less. If somebody married a Byzantine princess he was powerful, not a recognized Roman.

Claims (of being the inheritor of the WRE) were denied or confirmed depending upon the political situation. They could be confirmed by one ruler, only to be denied by his heir. It's simple politics. Use whatever is needed to gain advantage.

The official end of the WRE was in 476. This date appears in books (written by historians), and is accepted by the academia everywhere. 1806 is the official end of Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, a seperate political entity; in fact a collection of states under a common emperor whose real power was many times very limited. It was certainly of Roman inspiration, but built upon diffrent fundations, nothing more. It is basicly a seperate nation who inspired itself (or better yet whose rulers sought inspiration) upon an ancient empire and tried to re-capture its ancient glory. Of course you may think diffrently. I personaly think that the end of the old unified Roman empire was in 395 AD, but who cares what I think? ;). Flamarande 14:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supporting Historians

Flamarande, I respect your opinions, and can see why you would consider 395 AD as the offical end date. We both have our diffrent views on this subject, and I believe both beliefs have high levels of credibility. Now some people might frown on my belief of the Holy Roman Empire as being the heir to the Western Empire, but here are some notable scholars that do agree with me.

Lucien even went as far to say: "The Roman Empire did not fall, did not decline, it just transformed but so did the Germanic populations which invaded it."

I believe this transformation, was just the Medieval Roman Empire, of course the Holy Roman Empire didnt mirror the empire of Augustus, it was a mutation of that empire. Just like the Byzantine Empire was the medieval Roman Empire in the east. I have always believed that because of slander, and fear, from other countries in the west, the Holy Roman Empire was given a bad name in history. People must know that Spanish, French, and English rulers would denounce the Holy Roman Empire as not being Roman, because these sperate states, that were once in the Roman Empire, didnt want to be absorbed into the revived Western Empire, and they knew if they aknowledged the Holy Roman Empire's Translatio Imperii that would give the Emperor the right to reclaim Roman lands. So yes my friend, it was all political.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 04:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Porn Stars

Lucius, I have taken it upon myself to line up with some admins and other editors to try and attack these porn articles. It is evident to me that the subjects are the editors of the articles and are using them for nothing more than pushing their products and advertisment. I have nothing per se against the porn industry, but I do not feel that it is safe for WP to allow these kinds of articles when children can just click on links and be pulled into these peoples web sites which offer escort services as well as nudity at demand. I feel that we have to start with wikipedias rules of notablitiy and what should or should not be allowed on a ponographic subject. I will spend some time this weekend going through the articles and cutting fluff and nominating the articles I think we can easily get rid of. The tag that you placed on the Will Clark page will not survive. You need to put it up for AfD. It will then give us the right to plead our case. I am on your side here so lets do this thing! Junebug52 13:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography

So now you're writing porn star bios? I can't pretend to be impressed. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to dissapoint you Rob, but I thought that I would try to create an article on an off the wall subject just for the heck of it. In retrospect it was a poor idea. Anyways I hope you'll be happy to learn I am going to stick with the subjects that I have expertese.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 02:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Devilz Candy

The AFD ended in a delete because the reason given for keeping didn't seem to convince anyone, and most of the points - while valid - were refuted by other arguments. If you do have reliable references that show she does meet WP:PORNBIO and/or WP:BIO, feel free to open a deletion review. --Coredesat 06:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romano-Germanic culture

Hi. The article seems promising, but it needs to be sourced. You need to add a few references justifying the grouping of Roman culture with Germanic culture. For example, I must confess that I had never encountered the term "Romano-Germanic culture" before. Regards. FilipeS (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Jouster mural2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jouster mural2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Pictures-of-knights-2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Pictures-of-knights-2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 15:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)