Talk:Romulus Augustus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Romulus Augustus has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

Honestly, it seems that people just don't believe historians. His official name was not Augustulus. Please don't move this entry to yet another new Augustulus entry without doing some research. --MichaelTinkler

Well, since Romulus Augustulus redirects here, I don't have a huge objection to the current location. But since this is an encyclopedia, isn't it better to have the familiar name to English speakers than the historically accurate name? After all, I don't see you moving Caligula to Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus . . . --UnDeadGoat


Contents

[edit] Later Emperors?

If Romulus Augustus was the last emeror of the roman empire, how could there be later emperors like the article talks about. "Unlike many of the later western Roman Emperors, Romulus' life after abdication seems to have been a good one." Reub2000 22:47, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By "later Western Roman Emperors," it refers to all the emperors in the last portion of the Empire's history. Romulus was indeed the last of them. John
No, there were other emperors after Romulus Augustus. I have found such references to further emperors during the deputation of St. Augustine to England by Pope Gregory somewhere in the eight century. They were also based in Ravenna. However, they would have been only nominal rulers. WikiSceptic 08:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Ravenna was the capital of Byzantine authority in the Italian peninsula from 540 to 751 with few small breaks. The Exarch of Ravenna answered directly to the Eastern Roman Emperor in Constantinople. References to further emperors consider the Eastern line rather a nominal Western one. The conquests of Justinian were not uniformly lost after his death as some historians claim. User: Dimadick

I am really tired about persons which think to know history and then write that last West Roman emperor has been Romulus Augustus. He has been last crowned emperor and last emperor which has under his direct control ( he has been child ) city of Rome, nothing else! Last de facto and de jure West Roman emperor has been Julius Nepos!! He has been last de facto emperor because after loosing war in Italy he has still ruled roman province of Dalmatia. He has been last de jure emperor because Odoacer has accepted to be his viceroy of Italy. Like good viceroy ( and wise politician ) he has after death of Julius Nepos started war against his killers.User: rjecina

[edit] Romulus' later life

Has it been definitely confirmed that Romulus was alive in 511? I know the evidence is two letters from 507 and 511 confirming a pension, but they are addressed to a "Romulus" whose imperial pedigree is at best uncertain. Romulus (like Augustus) was a fairly common name toward the end of the Empire. Additionally, one historian of the time (can't remember who) claimed that Odoacer threw Romulus in jail. And the monastery the last Emperor supposedly endowed, according to Gibbon, was the old villa where Romulus lived -- suggesting that he was dead when it was taken over. Gibbon dates that to about 496 AD or so.

Sorry to be nitpicky. :) I think a death date of after 476 would be more accurate than after 511.--68.221.193.57 01:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romulus' final fate

I changed Romulus' date of death and added a section on his later life. Very little is known about the last emperor's later life, if in fact he had one. The new section discusses this uncertainty.--Idols of Mud 13:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The letters about Romulus' pension are preserved in the Variae of Cassiodorus -- probably the best primary source for this period -- & I believe that Cassiodorus' translator Thomas Hodgkin makes the identification. (AFAICR the identification of this Romulus with the deposed Emperor has never been seriously questioned, but the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire article would settle the matter.) -- llywrch 20:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting. I ended up looking up the Variae, and found Hodgkin's note:
It is surely possible that this is the dethroned Emperor. The name Romulus, which, as we know, he derived from his maternal grandfather,was not a very common one in Rome (it must be admitted there is another Romulus, ii. 14). And is there not something rather peculiar in the entire absence of all titles of honour, the superscription being simply "Romulo Theodoricus Rex," as if neither King nor scribe quite knew how to address an ex-Emperor?[1]
Hodgkin says "surely possible," but the evidence from the letter is, at best, uncertain. There is no mention of the size of pension or the reason it was granted, and what's strangest to me is that Cassiodorus does not refer to this Romulus by his full name. The "absence of all titles of honor" makes Hodgkin think that Cassiodorus was dealing with a deposed emperor, but Occam's Razor would suggest that this Romulus never possessed those titles, and that he is not the same person as the last emperor. Add Jordanes' firm statement that Augustus was exiled (without a pension), and the distance between this Romulus and the last western emperor grows. Of course, he could be -- there is some circumstantial evidence -- but it doesn't establish a strong link. At least to me.--Idols of Mud 22:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, in response the above, I sifted thru a number of my books that cover the last quarter of the 5th century in Italy, & managed to find out the following:
  • Romulus Augustus is called "Augustulus" by several near-contemporary authors: Jordanes (Gothica 242), Candidus (frag. 1), & the Anonymous Valesani Pars posterior (8.37) -- so it would be accurate to refer to him as "Augustulus"
  • Romulus Augustus' power base was actually at Ravenna (Anon. Val. 8.37-38), which is where he, his father Orestes, & Orestes' brother Paulus were captured. -- so he wasn't the figurehead of a small corner of Italy.
  • Jordanes, for better or worse, was the one who referred to Romulus Augustus as the last Emperor of the Western Empire (Goth 243) -- which he may have taken from Cassidorus, on whom his work depends in many parts. His statement appears to be widely accepted -- although my copy of the Oxford Classical Dictionary states that he is "commonly known as the last Emperor of the West". (Whether or not anyone considered Nepos was Emperor would lead into the realm of original research, & I don't want to go there -- although I have my suspicions.) -- which means this claim is an old one, & not the creation of some ill-informed 20th century pop writer.
  • As for the Romulus of the Variae being the same person as the deposed Emperor, from what I was able to find, most of the authors appear to carefully side-step the question: for example, C.D. Gordon in The Age of Attila writes that "it is speculated" that the two are the same person. About the only author I could find who accepts this identification is Michael A. Babcock (The Night Attila Died, p.308) -- but I don't trust anything blindly from that book. -- this appears to be a problem that the authorities would prefer to ignore -- compared to the ample evidence on other issues in this article that have been discussed.
I'd be quite willing to let this issue go, except that I feel that the absense of a title shouldn't be as much of a barrier as it appears to be. The reason is simple: in Cassiodorus' time, there weren't too many precedents for addressing an ex-Emperor, because with one exception (Diocletian), the only way to stop being an Emperor was to die or be killed. Based on the other existing letters of the period, one would address the Emperor as "to my master, Emperor X"; I'm not certain that "to my onetime master, the former Emperor Romulus" solves the problem as much as it creates certain ettiquette problems.
But I wrote that last paragraph more to express what I think than to convince you otherwise. The point of Wikipedia is to report the opinions of experts, not to offer an opinion; so until someone (which includes me) has a chance to consult PLRE, I'm leaving the matter where it is. -- llywrch 06:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that you were arguing for the identity of the author; I should have made that clearer in my post. You bring up a lot of good points; I'm sure addressing any former emperor would be awkward. And I think it's worth keep the issue open. I just wish there were more internal evidence in the letter to make a suggestion, one way or the other.--Idols of Mud 14:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't think you were implying that. This happens to be a subject where it's very tempting to resort to original research in one form or another, & so far you've helped to keep this article from falling into that trap. And that is why I've been harping on using the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire to help us here. Another authority for this & other ancient topics would be Pauly's Reallexikon.) -- llywrch 15:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Not a bad addition on the Collins' book, though the conclusion was POV and had to be removed. Can we provide more from the text, as well as in-line citations?--Idols of Mud 03:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

I've added footnotes to the article, and moved some things around as a result. Can someone find a citation on Orestes' "Germanic" origins? It would make sense, considering he was in the army and refused the Imperial throne (which Germans could not accept) but I've never read anything that says that conclusively.--Idols of Mud 16:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Julius Nepos section

I don't want to get into a revert war here, so I'll just ask: Can someone explain the reason for the new section on Nepos? I understand that he was legally the last Roman emperor, but I think this is all address in the Western Empire after Romulus Augustus, which states the controversy concisely. But I'm willing to hear althernative viewpoints.  :)--Idols of Mud 16:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to rewrite the section. I think the legal question of Nepos as the last western emperor is interesting, but most of the stuff here repeats earlier sections, and the histories of the Roman Empire -- then and now -- have acknowledged that Augustus was the last western emperor. He was the last to hold authority in Italy, and once he fled Ravenna, Nepos had absolutely no support in the elite classes (even Zeno abandoned him quickly). For all intents and purposes, Nepos was the penultimate emperor. Of course, I'll listen to anyone with an opposing argument.--Idols of Mud 00:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA

I have passed the article through to GA. It is well written, has no obvious POV problems, covers the subject fully, and cites reliable sources. Great work! Eluchil404 21:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!--Idols of Mud 13:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I double checked the image licencing and found that Image:Romul Avgustul.gif didn't have adequate source information of a proper fairuse rationale. It looks like a 19th centurey engraving that should be PD but without a source we just can't know. I have commented it out of th article pending poper sourcing. Eluchil404 01:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Sorry but this article i POV when it is declaring that Romulus Augustus is last West Roman emperor. He has not been ruling after 476 but Julius Nepos has been ruling (de facto and de jure) until 480. Reality is that Romulus Augustus is last western roman emperor which is ruling from Italy and nothing else. Even in VI century whan historian has been writing that Romulus Augustus has not been last emperor but his name is so good that he will become that in history books. Rjecina 21:48, 30 march 2006 (CET)

Nepos fled Italy in 475 in the face of Orestes' revolt, and was saved in Dalmatia only by the good graces of the eastern emperor Zeno. Zeno did not lift a finger to restore Nepos after Odoacer overthrew Augustulus. The most ancient historians viewed Augustulus as the last emperor, and to call him such is not POV.--Idols of Mud 14:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
There is 2 problems with Romulus Augustus.
  • Is he emperor ?

Somebody will ask why this question ? Answer is emperor/usurper Joannes. He has ruled 423-425 but on English wikipedia he is usurper because eastern emperor has not accepted his rule. Romulus Augustus has not been accepted like emperor from eastern emperor so in this logic (english wikipedia logic) he is usurper. Sorry but it is not possible to write of Joannes that he is usurper and that Augustus is true emperor.

  • Last Emperor ?

Odoacer has accepted ruling of Zeno in which Nepos is western emperor and he is his viceroy. After killing of Nepos like "loyal servant" has attacked Dalmatia to kill person which has killed his emperor. In the end this all is not important but only 1 fact: Has crowned emperor (which has never abdicated) Nepos ruled with minimal 1 roman province after abdication of Augustus ?

Answer is Yes.

Rjecina 22:00, 2 april 2006 (CET)

Every book I have about the Roman Empire presents Romulus Augustus as the last emperor. Some of them say that he is the last emperor of the WRE, while others even go further and say that he is the last emperor of the old Roman Empire. Any account of history is POV. History is always a humane sience and is always imperfect (unlike mathematics, and supposedly chemistry and physics). History is always debated and only slowly agreed upon, as a consensus emerges. That consensus is that Romulus is the last emperor, if we like it or not. I understand the point that Nepos also has a good claim as the last emperor, but his claim has been declared null and void by historians and his rule of the crumbling empire is considered to have ended as he fled towards Dalmatia. Terms like: "Ursurper", "lawful ruler", "Rebel", "Loyalist" are mostly dependant from one POV. Wikipedia has to follow commonly accepted scolarship. We can present the issue in a precise, fair, and clear fashion, but that is it. If someone does not agree with this then he can debate the issue with Roman scholars of the entire world. Who knows? If he manages to convince the overwhelming majority of them, that Julius Nepos whole reign should be considered as the end of the WRE, then history will be re-written. Flamarande 19:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Romulus Augustus is last emperor of nothing. If we look Roman law in V century we will find that nobody can become emperor of East or West if he is not confirmed from living emperor. Maybe I make mistake but he has not been confirmed. Yes Flamarande historian say that he is last roman emperor but Napoleon has say 1 very wise thing about historians. I will now delete POV because if nothing else Odoacer has been deleted like heir of West Roman Empire. Small but important victory. Rjecina 23:55, 7 april 2006 (CET)
Augustulus took power at a time when the Eastern Empire was in the middle of a civil war, and if we pursue the legal argument, no emperor could confirm him. The argument also assumes the rule of law precluded the rule of man in the Roman Empire -- which, unfortunately, was not the case when the purple was involved. I haven't seen any compelling arguments to rewrite the article.--Idols of Mud 17:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
My last argument. In 475 Western Roman Empire is having under "control" 3 provinces. This are Italy, Gaul and Dalmatia. Of this 3 provinces only Italy has accepted rule of Augustus. Dalmatia and Gaul has been loyal to Nepos. Now my question is how anybody can say that he is deposed. ? Simple it is civil war situation like in Eastern Roman EmpireRjecina 20:23, 8 april 2006 (CET)
You are avoiding the true issue: Historians have determined that Romulus is the last emperor FULLSTOP. Go debate with profesional historians if you are so keen to re-write Roman history. Present your arguments to them and try to get to change their opinion. If you succeed then this article will be re-written (but not before). Wikipedia is not an instrument to correct - improve the oficial account of History. Flamarande 20:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successor

Question of successor is simple. We can write tittle extinct or we can write all successors which control roman provinces with roman army. They are:

If Romulus Augustus has been king of Italy then you can write Odoacer like successor, but he has been "emperor" of all western roman provinces not only of Italy ! Rjecina 15:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No! No! Romulus Augustus was a usurper. Julius Nepos remained Emperor until he died! Don't take my word for it, just ask his imperial colleague, Zeno! For the question of Zeno's "successor", leave it blank or else write "Zeno"!

[edit] Who was the last Western Roman Emperor? Romulus Augustulus or Julius Nepos? Obvious answer: the latter.

The accumulation of evidence is pretty clear, isn't it?

(1) The Eastern Emperor Zeno never recognized either the elevation of Romulus Ausgustus nor the deposition of Julius Nepos.

(2) Odoacer, while acting as Zeno's de jure deputy in the West, continued to mint coins in JN's name until the latter died in 480. Ergo, JN was de jure emperor in the West until his death, his deposition was illegitimate, the investigure of RA was a usurpation, and Orestes was in contempt of imperial authority.

(3) After the death of JN, Odoacer conveyed an opinion to his de jure overlord Zeno, to the effect that one emperor (meaning Zeno and his successors in East) was sufficient, and that no emperor in the West was necessary, and that he, Odoacer, would henceforth owe his full allegiance to the one emperor in the East. Zeno agreed. Of course, this means that there were no more Western emperors following the reign of JN, which ended in 480.

Ergo, by the legal standards of the time, JN was Western emperor from his elevation until his death. The fact that his jurisdiction fell into the hands of a usurper doesn't mean that the usurper replaced the legitimate ruler, any more than the Italian invasion of Ethiopia means that Mussolini or the King of Italy ever replaced Haile Selassie as that country's legitimate ruler. The last Western emperor in the West was JN.

Am I missing something? Tom129.93.17.135 19:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The argument assumes that the imperial succession was a clearly defined legal process. But Roman history shows that power rarely changed hands peacefully. If we want to accept Nepos as the last emperor because he lawfully held the title when he died, then we would have to regard Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, Nerva, Septimius Severus, Aurelian, Diocletian and Constantine (and others) as unlawful usurpers who never held the throne. Legally, that might be correct; historically, it's inaccurate. Nepos was regarded by ancient historians as an exile when he fled to Dalmatia and he had absolutely no support in Italy after fleeing. While they had little good to say about Augustulus, the chroniclers of the time accepted him as the emperor. Moreover, Zeno's acceptance of the imperial insignia, and the Senate's message proclaiming Zeno the only emperor of the Roman Empire, suggests how little people cared for Nepos' cause after Augustulus' fall.--Idols of Mud 16:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
When we speak about legal arguments I must say that for me is very hard to understand English-USA history looking on Augustulus. Can somebody please explain me why Joannes is usurper and Romul Augustulus legal ruler ? For me there is no difference between this 2 because both has become emperors with coup. .--Rjecina 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Possession is nine-tenths of the law. Nepos was an unpopular ruler in Italy, and what little support he had disappeared after he fled. Augustulus is the last emperor because Odoacer was careful to ensure that no other emperors were appointed in his domain. He never accepted Nepos as anything more than a nominal emperor, and refused to accept any appointments from the eastern emperor after his death. Nepos and Augustulus may have gotten to the throne through illegitimate means, but what matters is who was on the throne when a German took power and decided he would no longer submit to emperors.--Idols of Mud 14:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
OK I am accepting your arguments but I really like to hear your position about Joannes !? --Rjecina 16:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Line Naming

I rewrote the first line to demonstrate that F. Romulus Augustus was also called Romulus Augustulus and that he was not referred to as "Little Augustus" outside of academia. If it still seems unclear, perhaps explaining that Augustulus is a Latin diminutive name form? I did my best here to make it less confusing. 75.67.40.227 (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect

While Zeno told the Senate that Nepos was their lawful sovereign, he did not press the point, and accepted the imperial insignia brought to him by the senate - not correct. Zeno accepted the insignia only after Nepos' death.--Dojarca (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is not when the insignia were accepted. The point is that the Eastern Emperor accepted them, meaning he saw no need for a Western Emperor. But I've never seen anything to suggest the insignia were accepted after Nepos' death. Do you have a source?--Idols of Mud (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I performed a basic copyedit, but I have also found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

  • My biggest problem here, and the one which must be sorted out if the article is to remain a GA is the "Romulus in popular culture" section. This is nothing more than an unsourced list of things this charater has appeared in. I'm not convinced of its benefit to the article at all, but if it is to stay it has to be presented in a much more encyclopaedic manner, i.e. in coherent text with reliable references.
  • The prose needs some work to remove colloquial English. I have given some examples below although these are not the only phrases with problems.
  • "The empire they ruled was a shadow of its former self."
  • "Constantinople viewed Orestes' coup d'etat coolly."
  • "The last emperor: Romulus Augustus or Julius Nepos?" (I know its a title, but it is also another example).

Other than these two issues, the article seems OK, although it could always do with expanding or extra sourcing where possible. I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Made changes per request.--Idols of Mud (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou, it passes GA, although please make sure that if the popular culture section comes back it is presented in the correct fashion.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Flavius" Romulus and "Flavius" Orestes

Although a common nomen at the tiem, there's no evidence that Romulus and Orestes bore the name "Flavius". See PLRE II "Orestes 2" (pp. 811-2) and "Romulus 4" (pp. 949-5) for full references.82.44.82.167 (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Age at accession

We say nothing about how a boy of 14 (or even maybe as young as 12) got to become Emperor of Rome. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says his dad made him emperor and ruled through him. Child emperors were not unheard of in Roman history -- Alexander Severus was 12 when he took the purple.--Idols of Mud (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)