Talk:Valentinian III
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain. |
 |
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. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
[edit] Date of abandonment of Britain
"...the final abandonment of Britain in 446." Can anyone explain this late date? It does not tally with the account in Roman Britain. --Wetman 23:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Quoting Roman Britain: "A significant date in sub-Roman Britain is the famous Groans of the Britons, an unanswered appeal to Aëtius, leading general of the western Empire, for assistance against Saxon invasion in 446". This must be what the article refers to. Rome had of course abandoned Britain much earlier. --Jon kare 12:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Caesar is capitalized
Here we go again, Panarjedde. The title of "Caesar" is capitalized; please review The Later Roman Empire by Averil Cameron (as well as hundreds of other academic sources for this period). I'm restoring the proper usage. Dppowell 16:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- In response to your comment on my talk-page (let's keep discussions about specific articles to their respective Talk pages): "Caesar" is a title, yes, but it's a special case because it's also someone's name, and the title existed in honor of that name. Just from the books in the room with me right now, I could cite dozens (if not hundreds) of authoritative examples of upper-case usage. I think the only place I might have ever seen "Caesar" decapitalized is on menu listings for "caesar salad," and I'd argue that's incorrect, too! Dppowell 16:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe, but it is still a title, and according to MoS it is to be in low capitals. I write "the titles caesar, zar and kaiser all come from the name Caesar": would you correct me?--Panarjedde 16:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- The MoS is not a sacred text; it's a guideline. Clearly, the MoS authors weren't thinking about titles of the Roman Tetrarchy when they wrote it. If I provide sufficient documentation to get an exception entered into the MoS, will you leave the capitals alone? Dppowell 16:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, I will ask for a mediation, since this is your interpretation. According to me, you should have the MoS changed, before putting capitals to every title you like.--Panarjedde 16:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- "According to me" seems to be your primary justification for your edits. This is not just my "interpretation." I didn't make it up while lying in bed last night. This usage is supported by the entire academic community. I implore you, pick up some books (start with those listed in the references for this article) and read. Read about Julian. Read about the Tetrarchy. Read about the Caesars. Then look at the bibliographies for those books and read some of those. Research is not something you do from the seat of your pants while citing Wikipedia style manuals; it takes effort. I'm trying to edit articles according to standards established by the experts on the topics in question; you are the one asserting an individual point of view. Dppowell 17:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, I will ask for a mediation, since this is your interpretation. According to me, you should have the MoS changed, before putting capitals to every title you like.--Panarjedde 16:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- And, you're right, Augustus should be capitalized, too. I missed that. Dppowell 16:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- The MoS is not a sacred text; it's a guideline. Clearly, the MoS authors weren't thinking about titles of the Roman Tetrarchy when they wrote it. If I provide sufficient documentation to get an exception entered into the MoS, will you leave the capitals alone? Dppowell 16:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe, but it is still a title, and according to MoS it is to be in low capitals. I write "the titles caesar, zar and kaiser all come from the name Caesar": would you correct me?--Panarjedde 16:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Portrait caption wrong?
The caption in the portrait seems wrong to me. If Galla Placidia was the mother of the two, shouldn't she be the oldest woman, at the middle? FilipeS 00:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- A quotation from Goldscheider, L, Roman Portraits, applying to the portrait of a Roman family, which was being described in this article as depicting Galla Placidia and family: "Portrait-group on Glass. About 250 A.D. Brescia Museum. (Formerly called the Portraits of Galla Placidia and her two children, and dated about 420 A.D.)." Therefore, it is not intended to represent the trio, and seriously predates them. So, I'm removing them from the relevant articles. Michael Sanders 12:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- A shame, it's a beautiful portrait. But thank you for the information. I'd been discussing this in my talk page with another editor. The picture is currently in the three articles Galla Placidia, Valentinian III, and Justa Grata Honoria. (Come to think of it, they did look like a very "classical" Roman family. Too classical, I guess, for the troubled times when Placidia, Valentinian, and Honoria lived.) FilipeS 12:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
