Talk:Roman Empire/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Recent edits

These edits by User:Jimjilin include two additions and one deletion. Addressing each of them in turn:

Based on archaeological finds, infanticide appears to have been particularly widespread in the Roman Empire.

The given source appears to be a work of Christian apologetics rather than historical scholarship. The trail does go back to a scholarly source, summary available here, which presents good evidence for infanticide at one spot in the Roman empire, and mentions one more such spot. No doubt the practice was far more widespread (a common source of slaves was babies found on middens), but the scholarly source does not support the comment made.

, launching the era of Christian hegemony was removed. True, it isn't well-expressed, but we should in some better way express the scholarly consensus that Constantine took over an empire in which Christians were a small minority and that his actions did directly lead to the establishment of a Christian empire.

Sociologist Rodney Stark has noted that Constantine didn’t cause the triumph of Christianity, he rode off it. was added. I'm not quite sure what the last phrase means, the author doesn't appear to be a scholar in the relevant field, and his remark about Constantine seems to be the exact opposite of scholars in the field. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Thanks for your input.

I changed my edit regarding infanticide. According to the article I linked to: "The findings add to the growing body of evidence that infanticide was common in the Roman Empire." The article doesn't refer only to the Hambleden findings.Jimjilin (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Discovery article - not normally a reliable source and certainly not a good one - refers to just one other spot. "Infanticide has been recorded in the Roman Empire and may have been widespread" would be acceptable? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That last part's phrased like speculation and might also be misleading - was it geographically widespread in that archaeological remains have been found in different parts of the empire, or common or normal, an assertion which would have to be based on assessment of the totality of remains and maybe of such demography as can be reasonably determined? NebY (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I was attempting compromise... from my recollection of Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275–425, by Kyle Harper, finding babies exposed on dungheaps didn't attract much attention and was an accepted if legally-dubious origin for slaves. It may be a bit thin, perhaps we should just remove the sentence. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I do appreciate the attempt! But I do also worry that we could make general infanticide appear characteristic of the whole empire and distinctive too - that is, suggest that infanticide was more prevalent in the empire than outside it. What with our knowledge of Jewish rejection of infanticide persisting within the empire and the extreme (one hopes) example of the Carthaginians outside it, we need to avoid both pitfalls. NebY (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

For the moment I have left Jimjilin's edit per my suggestion above. Do we have a consensus to remove it? I'd be happy with it or without it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Stark is a scholar in the relevant field. Following the suggestion of an editor, I have moved the quote to another location. Why do you think there's a "scholarly consensus" that Stark is wrong? Jimjilin (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

To mention only the leading scholar, Ramsay MacMullen's credentials are impeccable; to quote only one of his works (Christianizing the Roman empire. A.D.100-400. Yale University Press. Chapter V, Constantine as a friend of the Church. page 51) "the chief reason for that enormous impact [Constantine] had on the rate of the church's growth, was the set of his measures making his favor explicit and official... even these benefactions... constitute only the topmost layer of his part in the history of conversion." Just to add, I quote from Averil Cameron in the Cambridge Ancient History, XII, The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193-337. Chapter 4. The reign of Constantine. page 109: "Constantine's promotion of Christianity, and his personal adoption of the Christian faith, were indeed to have even greater repercussions in future centuries." At the most generous estimate, it seems that Rodney Stark's quotation is intended as a challenge to a well-established consensus in an area outside his field. As he does not appear to be a scholar in the relevant period of history, however great his erudition on the subject of later conversions, he is unlikely to upset that consensus much. We might possibly quote him as a minority viewpoint in a specialized article such as Constantine I and Christianity, but he does not belong here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Richard Keatinge's proposals. I also agree that Stark's input here is unnecessary as it goes against consensus, but that it should certainly be mentioned as a minotiry viewpoint in the relevant sub article Constantine I and Christianity. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Me to, the given sources for those edits seem weak in the context of such a well researched subject as the Roman empire and the wealth of distinguished scholarly sources being available. Adding new findings or outlying opinions of individual scholars with a somewhat still unclear standing/acceptance to an overview article like this one is not a good idea. At this stage such sources, assuming they are reliable and reputable enough, should be used in more specialized articles rather than in overview ones.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's a quote from an academic biography by Paul Stephenson: "This book demonstrates that Constantine's conversion was not the reason for the rapid growth of Christianity in the fourth century AD." I think the search for an academic consensus is elusive. I'm not sure the quotes you brought up contradict Stark and Stephenson. Anyway I certainly don't want to silence Ramsay MacMullen's opinion. I suggest a short paragraph that mentions the contrasting views.Jimjilin (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The article does not say Constantine "cause[d] the triumph of Christianity", nor does Religion in ancient Rome, into which you inserted the same text (and where you are now arguing about Constantine and the Nicaean Creed). Do Stephenson and Stark claim Constantine had no impact and facilitated nothing at all? Surely not. NebY (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Would Jimjilin be referring to Constantine: Unconquered emperor, Christian victor? I don't have a copy so I can't make any sensible analysis of his reasoning, but he does appear to be a scholar with relevant expertise and credibility. With Kmhkmh and PericlesofAthens I would tend to reserve what I still see as a definitely minority view for Constantine I and Christianity. In fact I don't see that we really need to give either view here; the fact of Constantine's conversion and the fact of the immense subsequent growth of Christianity should be quite sufficient for an overview article and are I think undisputed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. There are many reasons why the history of Christianity came out as it did. This article and Religion in ancient Rome don't debate those reasons and they don't say it was Constantine wot won it. They just present a narrative and that narrative has to include Constantine. NebY (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Per the above discussion I have added During the rest of the fourth century Christianity became the dominant religion of the Empire. (The quotation from Rodney Stark has already gone.) I hope this is agreeable to all. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Replace Main map ASAP!

I protest to the map of Roman Empire in 117. It contains severe factual errors. Specifically, the map needs to reflect correct boundaries in the Caucasus at the time (in 117).

According to current map, Roman Armenia included the whole South Caucasus, while Colchis, Kingdom of Iberia and Caucasian Albania are located in North Caucasus. The boundaries of Bosporan Kingdom also needs to be corrected.

For two years nobody did notice this. This is the reason why many still think that Wikipedia is completely unreliable. I propose to those people with Graphical skills to edit the current map according to these maps:

• 
• 

Or, you know.. replace it yourself.. 71.11.159.18 (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Lede and History section

History section reads like the lede, and both are about as in-depth. The lede mentions Septimius Severus but the History section doesnt. Overall though, it feels like reading the same content twice.--Tataryn (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with user Tataryn: it feels like reading the same content twice. A short lede is better--MilwaukeeJourn. (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

We should let other editors gradually give their imput. This isn't a pressing issue right now.--Tataryn (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI MilwaukeeJourn was Brunodam, an lta with an insane passion for false informations and copyvios. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Birth-inherited occupations

I vaguely recall that in the late Roman Empire occupations became birth-inherited. Does anybody know more about this? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Commodus

The article has a POV statement with insufficient attribution and a potentially misleading quotation as a source: "In the view of the Greek historian Dio Cassius, a contemporary observer, the accession of the emperor Commodus in 180 AD marked the descent "from a kingdom of gold to one of rust and iron"—a famous comment which has led some historians, notably Edward Gibbon, to take Commodus' reign as the beginning of the decline of the Roman Empire".

Basic problems here.:

• The quotation is part of a longer text given in the external link where historian Cassius Dio gives his assessment of Marcus Aurelius, not of Commodus. The text is the following: Marcus was so godfearing that even on the dies nefasti he sacrificed at home. In addition to possessing all the other virtues, he ruled better than any others who had ever been in any position of power. To be sure, he could not display many feats of physical prowess; yet he had developed his body from a very weak one to one capable of the greatest endurance. Most of his life he devoted to beneficence, and that was the reason, perhaps, for his erecting a temple to Beneficence on the Capitol, though he called her by a most peculiar name, that had never been heard before. He himself, then, refrained from all offences and did nothing amiss whether voluntarily or involuntarily; but the offences of the others, particularly those of his wife, he tolerated, and neither inquired into them nor punished them. So long as a person did anything good, he would praise him and use him for the service in which he excelled, but to his other conduct he paid no attention; for he declared that it is impossible for one to create such men as one desires to have, and so it is fitting to employ those who are already in existence for whatever service each of them may be able to render to the State. And that his whole conduct was due to no pretence but to real excellence is clear; for although he lived fifty-eight years, ten months, and twenty-two days, of which time he had spent a considerable part as assistant to the first Antoninus, and had been emperor himself nineteen years and eleven days, yet from first to last he remained the same and did not change in the least. So truly was he a good man and devoid of all pretence. His education was of great assistance to him, for he had been trained both in rhetoric and in philosophical disputation. In the former he had Cornelius Fronto and Claudius Herodes for teachers, and, in the latter, Junius Rusticus and Apollonius of Nicomedeia, both of whom professed Zeno's doctrines. As a result, great numbers pretended to pursue philosophy, hoping that they might be enriched by the emperor. Most of all, however, he owed his advancement to his own natural gifts; for even before he associated with those teachers he had a strong impulse towards virtue. Indeed, while still a boy he so pleased all his relatives, who were numerous, influential and wealthy, that he was loved by them all; and when Hadrian, chiefly for this reason, had adopted him, he did not become haughty, but, though young and a Caesar, served Antoninus most loyally throughout all the latter's reign and without giving offence showed honour to the others who were foremost in the State. He used always to salute the most worthy men in the House of Tiberius, where he lived, before visiting his father, not only without putting on the attire befitting his rank, but actually dressed as a private citizen, and receiving them in the very apartment where he slept. He used to visit many who were sick, and never missed going to his teachers. He would wear a dark cloak whenever he went out unaccompanied by his father, and he never employed a torch-bearer for himself alone. Upon being appointed leader of the knights he entered the Forum with the rest, although he was a Caesar. This shows how excellent was his natural disposition, though it was greatly aided by his education. He was always steeping himself in Greek and Latin rhetorical and philosophical learning, even after he had reached man's estate and had hopes of becoming emperor. Even before he was appointed Caesar he had a dream in which he seemed to have shoulders and arms of ivory, and to use them in all respect like his other members. As a result of his close application and study he was extremely frail in body, though in the beginning he had been so vigorous that he used to fight in armour, and on the chase would strike down wild boars while on horseback; and not only in his early youth but even later he wrote most of his letters to his intimate friends with his own hand. However, he did not meet with the good fortune that he deserved, for he was not strong in body and was involved in a multitude of troubles throughout practically his entire reign. But for my part, I admire him all the more for this very reason, that amid unusual and extraordinary difficulties he both survived himself and preserved the empire. Just one thing prevented him from being completely happy, namely, that after rearing and educating his son in the best possible way he was vastly disappointed in him. This matter must be our next topic; for our history now descends from a kingdom of gold to one of iron and rust, as affairs did for the Romans of that day."
  • In other words, Dio assesses Marcus Aurelius to be the perfect emperor and a virtuous man and sees Commodus as an inferior successor. So Marcus Aurelius' reign was supposedly a Golden age and Commodus' reign part of an Iron Age. Dio's phrase does not assess Commodus, nor really explains why he was an inferior emperor.
• While Cassius Dio is considered a valuable primary source on Roman history up to the early 3rd century, his reliability has been questioned by several modern historians. See for example the chapter "Cassius+Dio"+reliability&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Cassius%20Dio%22%20reliability&f=false "Dio as a historian" in a 1987 collection of his work. In Dio's history, "a smooth, continuously flowing narrative emerged without citation of sources or argument over the true version of events." ... "Any attempt to estimate Dio's quality and reliability as a historian by identifying his sources is fruitless." "History [as a literary genre in the time of Dio] was also supposed to be interesting and entertaining as well as truthful and improving. In practice, the latter function often came a poor second to the former, except in the case of the rare writers like Polybius who had an exalted view of the usefulness and seriousness of history. This meant that history is enlivened by anecdotes (if possible, with a moral), by accounts of dreams and prodigies (of which Dio is fond, not unnaturally in view of his literary debut), and by avoidance of tedious detail (such things as exact dates, times, and places, to the frustration of moderns). Personalities and notable deeds bulk large, the common man and the price of bread very small. ... "For the most part his ordering of the facts is lucid, even though the precise chronological relationships of different chains of events is not always clear," ...
• Modern historians have also noted that Dio is specifically biased against Commodus. See the following passage "Cassius+Dio"+reliability&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Cassius%20Dio%22%20reliability&f=false on the essential unreliability of Dio on the nature of the Imperial cult. "The confusion in the account of how emperor worship was first implemented was hardly a matter of ignorance. An explanation for the attempt [by Dio] to mislead the reader may be found in Cassius Dio's scepticism towards a cult, where Roman citizens worshipped the living emperor as a god. This reluctance is particularly apparent in the fictive speech of Maecenas in book 52, where Augustus is warned against a cult consecrated in his honour. Worship of the emperor, according to Cassius Dio's Maecenas, could happen only with the emperor's own consent, for which he would risk being ridiculed (52.35-36.1). Cassius Dio's bias towards a cult in which Roman citizens worshipped the living emperor may very well be a product of his own age, in which emperors such as Commodus and Elagabal, of whom he had personal experience, crossed the boundary between mortal and divine within Rome. Elsewhere Cassius Dio stresses that Commodus demanded to be worshipped as Hercules. He also took the name 'god' and had a large statue made of gold, an honour normally reserved for the gods, set up in the capital (Cass. Dio 73.15-16). Commodus claims to divine honours, together with his degrading treatment of the senators, underlined the hierarchical distance between emperor and senate; something that since the reign of Augustus had been clear to both parties, but also a political reality which the senators did not appreciate." The text continues with some passages where Elagabalus apparently followed Commodus' example and Dio's telling bias against the boy emperor.
• Moving on from the problems of uncritically using Cassius Dio as a source to using the uncited opinion of Edward Gibbon. First, if Gibbon indeed traced the decline of the Roman Eto the reign of Commodus, this should be cited and an explanation of why he thought so should be added. Much as I appreciate Gibbon's religious views and his much-needed criticism of Christianity, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1789) is a dated and rather biased source. See the following text "decline"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwja2474qsbNAhXIbxQKHbFgAUAQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=Gibbon%20commodus%20%22decline%22&f=false on how many times Gibbon contradicts himself when tracing the decline and on his ideological biases.
• As for the historians who supposedly do trace the decline of the Empire to Commodus, they are not named in the text. Our relatively lengthy article on the Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire does not make a single mention of Commodus and the causes of the fall are traced to various events of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th century. Not the 2nd century, when Commodus lived and died. Dimadick (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to Dimadick for this excellent discussion, which makes clear that our present text is basically sound, though we should improve it by adding a specific reference to Gibbon. And I'd prefer "one marker" to "a beginning". Gibbon is outdated, but he remains the intellectual foundation of later Roman historiography and the source of most of its best quotations. He doesn't like Commodus, but takes his reign as a marker of decline rather than the sole cause. I suggest that we can and often should quote Gibbon's delightful words, where they are still supportable. Also, thanks, the article Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire does indeed need to mention this point.

"During a happy period of more than fourscore years, the public administration was conducted by the virtue and abilities of Trajan, Hadrian, and the two Antonines. It is the design of this and the two succeeding chapters, to describe the prosperous condition of their empire; and afterwards, from the death of Marcus Antoninus, to deduce the most important circumstances of its decline and fall; a revolution which will ever be remembered, and is still felt by the nations of the earth." Chapter 1, volume 1, https://books.google.gr/books?id=PrwWAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR15&d

In summary, I'd suggest that we write: "In the view of the Greek historian Dio Cassius, a contemporary observer, the accession of the emperor Commodus in 180 AD marked the descent "from a kingdom of gold to one of rust and iron"—a famous comment which has led some historians, notably Edward Gibbon, to take Commodus' reign as one marker of the fall of the Western Roman Empire". Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

At first glance I have a problem with those sentences, since this seems to imply that (many) current historians (still) see commodus as decisive factor in the decline of the roman empire, which afaik is simply not true. Gibbon is an eminent figure in the history of scholarship but now somewhat outdated. His opinion belongs in a section of the history of the reception and scholarship of the roman empire, but is doesn't belong in the historical summary, which is supposed to summarize current scholarly views. (not historical ones).--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, what about leaving out the Gibbon bit here, just leaving ""In the view of the Greek historian Dio Cassius, a contemporary observer, the accession of the emperor Commodus in 180 AD marked the descent "from a kingdom of gold to one of rust and iron""

"Late Roman Empire" page needed

"Late Roman Empire" has NO DEFINITION on Wikipedia, let alone a page of its own. As a search term it wrongly redirects to Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire. That is a specific article about HISTORIOGRAPHY, and about the FALL, which is arguably only the last phase of the LRE. Anyone willing to fix this? And to affix the automatic redirect to either Fall of the Western Roman Empire, or much rather to History of the Roman Empire? This at least until a LRE page is created. Thanks, ArmindenArminden (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

I do not speak english well, however i hope you can understand me.

I think we should remove from the infobox events, dates and emperors related to the Byzantine empire. I really believe that "the Roman Empire was the post-Republican period of the Ancient Roman civilisation" as the incipit of this article says. Therefore the medieval events should not be put in the infobox. Also, the very concept of Byzantine Empire has been introduced in order to make possible a distinction between that entity and the actual Roman Empire. For example, Fall of the Roman Empire correctly redirects to the events of the 5th century and not to the Fall of Constantinople. It seems that this infobox doesnt accept the distinction between the Roman and the Byzantine period of the empire. Is this the case? It is weird, because the article mostly covers ancient times dedicating to the first 500 years of the Empire far more space than the other 1000 years. So, why does the Infobox put the end of the Roman Empire to the Fall of Costantinople? It is not correct, neither historically neither in relation to the article. We may doubt if the empire ended around 480, 476 or 395, but come on.. that thing that fell in 1453 had nothing to do with the actual Roman Empire. After the migration period the Romans were not around anymore. Other wikis have chosen 395 or 476 as the end of the Roman Empire.

It is far more correct and avoids various contradictions, including the following: This article says that the empire did split in 395 into an eastern and a western part However, If you go to the page Western Roman Empire you read that it started in 285, not 395. And if you go to the page of the Eastern Roman Empire you read that the Byzantine Empire started in 330, not 285 or 395. Moreover the beginning of the infobox of this article says that the Western empire started in 27 BC. I mean, it is really confusing.Barjimoa (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You're expressing some conflicting views here Barjimoa. Even if you 'believe' that the empire centred around Constantinople is not the Roman Empire it doesn't make it so. Factually speaking, it was. It was a direct continuation of what remained of the empire into late antiquity and into the middle ages. What fell in 1453 was indeed the final remains of a nearly 1500+ year old state. Just because what remained in Constantine XI's time is obviously quite a bit different than what existed in Augustus' time doesn't mean it is any less 'Roman'. Even during the course of the classical period of the empire, what is defined as Roman changed radically. Is an Englishman living under Edward V less or more 'English' than a man born and living in England in 2016?

The historiography debates involved in defining the 'Byzantine Empire' is a tough issue though, as our modern understanding of the medieval Roman Empire is constantly evolving. I think for now it is best that we continue to have a separate page specific to the 'Byzantine' Roman Empire and also maintain this page that focuses on the classical era of it. That being said, it is important we don't arbitrarily and incorrectly exclude some information about the later empire in the Roman Empire page based on our own wholly modern biases and understanding of nationhood or nationality. It would be simply counterfactual to say the Empire ended in 476, 480 or even in 600s when Heraclius made Greek the sole official language.

TL;DR: Best to keep separate pages for classical Roman Empire and the medieval Roman Empire, but we shouldn't just segregate all information to only be included on one or the other as the former is ultimately just the continuation of the latter. Bleepbloopblop (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. It is simply anachronistic to paint the later "Byzantine" Empire as a separate entity from the Eastern Roman Empire that existed in the 4th century (with the division of the WRE and ERE following the reign of Constantine...and Julian the Apostate, who also ruled a unified empire, i.e. both halves). The "Byzantines" called themselves Romans (Romaioi) and continued to do so up until the walls of Constantinople were breached by the Ottomans in 1453. The people born and living in their realm were holders of Roman citizenship. They were Romans period, by law and by birth. Any attempts to depict them as being something else is a bizarre modern interpretation, quite possibly an ideologically driven one at that. Even "Latins" of Western Europe acknowledged their state as the Eastern Roman one (although they also called it the "empire of the Greeks" in an almost derogatory fashion to say it was limited to them...despite that having no bearing on the continuing multi-ethnic nature of the empire, especially when it controlled large areas of the Balkans and the Italian peninsula). Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"Languages" problem

I have not read through this page for a long time but it appears someone butchered the "Languages" section to push a point of view. I don't want to get into an edit war but the older version was arrived at after a lot of discussion and with a lot of references. Not that the writing on that older version was perfect but at least it was neutral. Specific points:

• It is certainly true that Latin was the legal language at an imperial level for the entire classical period and this was also the language of the military for that whole period.
• But ...
  • Italy, including Rome, was already significantly Hellenized at the time of Rome's expansion. Naples, for example, was a Greek-speaking city throughout the classical period.
  • Remember that even Julius Caesar primarily spoke Greek, the language of the aristocracy, except when he was giving big speeches to the masses (or to his soldiers). Indeed most scholars agree that his last words were Greek because he was speaking to his friends and colleagues.
  • Though it is true that Rome initially pushed to establish Latin as the standard language of the Empire, they quickly abandoned this. Let me repeat that: they abandoned the policy of trying to establish Latin as the Empire's exclusive language early in the classical period.
  • Greek was always far more widely spoken than Latin. Latin only took hold in the western provinces and those were the least populated (that is important to remember; other than Rome itself, the people largely lived in the Eastern Mediterranean).
  • Greek was the primary language of literature and science, and it was the lingua franca throughout the Mediterranean. That's why it was the language of the Roman Church (not just the Eastern dioceses but the entire Roman church) and the language of the New Testament.
  • Indeed there was discussion among the aristocracy long before the "Fall of Rome" about switching the official language to Greek.
  • It was only during the late 4th and 5th centuries that the Italian aristocracy and the church in Rome began to push for the use of Latin (for nationalistic reasons), which led to the Vulgate Bible and the gradual re-emergence of Latin as a major literary language (not that there had not been Latin literature in the interim but it was limited).
  • Equally important is the fact that the majority of Roman citizens (after the extension of citizenship to the whole Empire) spoke little if any Latin or Greek. Aramaic and Egyptian (among others) were major languages which continued to have a major literary tradition, though not to the same extent as Greek. They were not just minor local languages but major regional languages (and indeed were granted official local status by the Empire).

I would say that either somebody needs to put in some effort to make the current version more neutral again or the old version of the Languages section should be restored.

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to your preferred version of the article? Then at least we'd all have a common reference point. Otherwise, you'll need to provide sources which support your arguments, per talk page policy. Haploidavey (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Have to hunt. It's been a long time. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is an older version though there were better versions than this:

[1]

--MC

I think you're being just a bit hyperbolic by saying someone "butchered" that section and is pushing an agenda, especially when the prominence of Greek is acknowledged for both the eastern half of the empire and among the Roman upper classes, especially in their tutelage. It looks someone was just trimming the details and leaving it to the main language article linked in that section. This article is already huge. I can see why someone thought all the details of that section was unnecessary. In either case if you'd like to restore older valid points that were made (and moreover, properly cited), look at this version from 19 October 2011. It seems to align somewhat with the points you're making. To that I'd add that Roman youth were often sent to Greek academies in the East, which would have necessitated a fluency in Greek in order to comprehend the lectures. Latin literature became important from the 1st century BC onwards, especially after Pliny the Elder and his Natural History (Pliny), but even the Roman emperors like Marcus Aurelius (the Meditations) were still penning their major works in Koine Greek. Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for the hyperbole.

--MC

Thanks for identifying this issue. Frankly, I think that both article fail to adequately address the significance of Greek.

"Romans who received an elite education studied Greek as a literary language, and most men of the governing classes could speak Greek."

In fact, Children of the Roman ruling class were typically education by Greeks and grew up speaking, reading and writing Greek. The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius was written in Greek.

The other article doesn't even mention Greek until the second paragraph. It doesn't mention its use in education at all.InformationvsInjustice (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Today part of

"Roman territory, from the beginning of the 1st punic war (264 B.C.) to the death of Diocletian"
From the "Historical Atlas" by William R. Shepherd, New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1923

This addition to the infobox is not only a magnet for the POV-pushers ("look how big we were!") who keep making dubious additions (Saudi arabia - Russia - Iran - vs....!), it is also completely useless and highly misleading. The territorial extent is depicted in useful form by the map, and that is more than sufficient. A laundry list of countries paints a misleading picture, as sometimes only a tiny part of the country in question was part of the empire(e.g. Russia), and often for an insignificant length of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.13.203.86 (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, wholeheartedly. "Laundry list" sums it up nicely. Haploidavey (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. None of those articles are FA-class. They are in rather poor shape and are not useful as models. I think it should be removed from all.--95.13.203.86 (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I regret to say that removal of the laundry list from other articles would probably have to be argued on a case-by-case basis at the articles' talk-pages. I doubt if FA status (or its lack) in the linked articles is relevant but otherwise I (for one) find your argument convincing. Let's see what others think. Haploidavey (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

For the record: To the best of my knowledge, this issue was first brought up at Talk:Ottoman Empire#"Today part of". TompaDompa (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

A more meaningful and less misleading way to represent such information would not be a laundry list but a map, that overlays the range of the Roman empire (at its largest extent) with current countries.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You mean a map like this one, which you can see on the right? Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Clearly a much better solution, thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The only problem is that the map is horribly outdated in terms of political geography, and isn't consistent in providing modern-day terms for countries and nations. Perhaps something more recent than 1923 can be found, but this is what I was able to immediately find on Wikimedia Commons. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Do we have a power user who can generate a really good modern map? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

...a power user? I'm not sure what you mean by that. But yes, there are some (or at least I knew of some in the past) on Wiki who can generate maps. We'd need a scholarly source for it, of course, if not several for good measure. In the meantime I'm looking around on Wikimedia Commons to see if someone has actually already made such a map (or provided one from a book scan), ready for use. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I've dropped a note at User talk:Tataryn - who authored the map (it's cited too) of Empire at greatest extent (see the Trajan article) Haploidavey (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

All in a day's work, huh? Good stuff. I hope he's willing to take on this task. The article could use such a map in the bottom of the infobox to discourage others later on from just simply adding back all those flags and laundry list of countries. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Once that starts, it's hard to stop. Reverty reverty all day long. Haploidavey (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: Sort of, but your map is not really having an overlay with the modern states, instead you merely have a map of the ethnics and regions at Roman times. The idea is to take a map of current Europe and then overlay on it the empire during trajan's reign. Then you can see which current countries contain a part of the Roman empire and more importantly you can visually see how much of the country belonged to the Roman empire. Hence you don't have the misleading aspect of the laundry list.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

...which is why it's a good thing Haploidavey contacted Tataryn with a request to make a new map. Patience is a virtue and something applicable to this situation...who knows? We might have a shiny new map in a fortnight! Or if not, no need to despair. I'm sure someone with the skills to make such a map will soon be up for the task. Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Show me a modern borders template map you all agree upon and I'll get started.--Tataryn (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't find anything suitable on Wikimedia Commons thus far... Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

"Today part of" is one of the parameters in the infobox. There's no problem with having it in principle, and some FA articles do use the parameter. But it may prove that in some articles, it's better to do without it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I have raised the general issue of using this parameter on empires at the Template page. Please comment there. Kanguole 18:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2017

Change: "The city of Rome was the largest city in the world c. 100 BC – c. AD 400,with Constantinople"

To: "The city of Rome was the largest city in the world c. 100 BC – c. AD 400, with Constantinople"

I.e. there should be a space after the comma ----> "400,with" 198.84.238.134 (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Greatest extent

According to these sources:

• David L. Kennedy, Derrick Riley (2012), Rome's Desert Frontiers, page 13, Routledge
• R.J. van der Spek, Lukas De Blois (2008), An Introduction to the Ancient World, page 272, Routledge

The Roman Empire's greatest extent wasn't under Trajan in 117, but later came under Septimius Severus (reigned 193-211). Under Trajan, the empire was 5 million square km (1.93 million square miles). Under Severus, the empire was 2 million square miles (5.18 square km). Maestro2016 (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Which sources did you use for that figures? Assuming they are from different sources, they are too close to draw any conclusions as those are rounded approximate figures, aside from the fact that drawing such conclusion from areas from different sources can potentially be a case of WP:SNTH (in particular if the comclusion is potentially controversial).--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

These sources may be reliable, but they are a minority viewpoint and many, many more reliable sources say that 117 A.D. was the greatest extent of the Empire, under Trajan. I found these sources from this article alone supporting this:

• Bennett, Julian (1997). Trajan: Optimus Princeps : a Life and Times. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-16524-2.. Fig. 1. Regions east of the Euphrates river were held only in the years 116–117.
• Southern, Pat (2001). The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine. Routledge. pp. 14–16. ISBN 978-0-415-23943-1.

I am not sure what these two sources cited in the "Area" section of the infobox actually say because I could not access the actual articles, but I would be surprised if they say the Empire was larger during the reign of Septimus Severus:

• Taagepera, Rein (1979). "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D". Social Science History. 3 (3/4). Duke University Press: 125. doi:10.2307/1170959. JSTOR 1170959.
• Turchin, Peter; Adams, Jonathan M.; Hall, Thomas D (2006). "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires" (PDF). Journal of world-systems research. 12 (2): 222. ISSN 1076-156X. Retrieved 6 February 2016.

Most of the sources I have read about the Roman Empire were sources intended for lay people, and every single one of those sources that I read that mentioned the greatest extent of the empire said or inferred that it was during Trajan's reign.

It seems, with all this considered, that the view that the Roman Empire reached its greatest extent under Septimus Severus is a minority view among historians. This is not to say that it cannot be correct, but I don't think it would be proper to add this view to the infobox as the date of the largest extant of the empire. You can add this to this article, along with the Septimius Severus and Borders of the Roman Empire articles, but not to the infobox of this article, and not without also noting the 117 date, which appears to have greater acceptance among historians. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I am able to access the sources in the infobox. Both of them state that the greatest extent was in the year 117, and that the area was 5.0 Mm² in that year. TompaDompa (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the map under Trajan and Severus it seems that Trajan (shortly) "clearly" controlled more territory east and north of Syria. Trajan reached the Persian gulf iirc and Severus did not. Armenia was a Roman province under Trajan and under Severus an independent vassal. --Kmhkmh (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but, but, the empire under Severus had parts of Scotland! Take that, doubter! Lol. Seriously, though, the scholarly consensus says Trajan's empire was larger, so that's what should be mentioned in the infobox. That being said, I see no problem with mentioning in the body of the article the different academic viewpoint that Severus' empire perhaps encompassed a larger territory. Also, @1990'sguy: thanks for sharing the article Borders of the Roman Empire. Never saw that one before! --Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no issue with mentioning a dissenting scholarly opinions, however they shouldn't be totally fringe or apparent mistakes and WP:DUE is to be considered.

For instance the second cited book above almost strikes me as a simple mistake. It claims after conquering Mesopotamia (so even without Severus campaign North of Hadrian's wall in Scotland) the Roman empire reached its greatest extent. At least on the surface that seems to make little sense, as it ignores that same region was held already under Trajan (who in addition had Armenia as a province). But even if we'd accept that with conquering Mesopotamia is had become greater than under Trajan, then why wasn't the greatest extend reached a few years later when Severus shortly occupied Southern Scotland (as you've pointed out)?

The other sources doesn't have that quite that problem. However what i'm missing hear is based on what argument/measure/notion the extend under Severus is supposed to be greater than under Trajan. In particular since the greatest extend under Trajan such a common notion throughout scholarly and popular history literature and that probably for the last 200 years or so, I would at least expect some justification or reasoning for picking Severus rather than Trajan.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I remember this debate popping up several years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if Severus' empire was larger. The common argument is that his large additions of territory in Africa and Arabia took the total higher than Trajan's. In-depth studies concerning the Limes Africanus and Limes Arabicus are relatively new, much more recent than the general consensus that Trajan's empire was larger. However, the conclusion back then on Talk was that scholarly consensus goes with Trajan, despite the temporary nature of his eastern conquests.--Tataryn (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of which date was the largest extent of the empire, I don't think conquests being temporary should factor in answering this question. I don't think anyone in 116/117 A.D. knew 1) that the war against Persia would go as badly as it did, and 2) that Hadrian would abandon all of Mesopotamia, Armenia, and parts of Dacia in a few years. The empire did ecome larger than at any other time. As parallel examples, the map for the Sassanid Empire, File:Sassanian Empire 621 A.D.jpg shows the temporary conquests under Khosrau II (which ultimately led to the empire's downfall), and the map of the Third Reich, File:German Reich 1942.svg shows the very temporary conquests in Europe during WWII. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Organized fights between animals

Interesting subject of the roman arenas with lions and tigers, any information to elaborate on?

I found this piece on quora: https://www.quora.com/What-animal-dominated-the-blood-sport-of-the-Roman-arenas-of-ancient-Rome-all-the-way-through-modern-Rome

Surely some of these sources within it can be used and added to the article as a whole. And some added info about those animals used: https://www.quora.com/What-scientific-claim-can-you-prove-wrong-with-tangible-proof

Does anyone have any evidence directly from a roman source via roman poet, roman artifact, ect where it show cases these animals in combat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vetato (talk • contribs) 22:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Lions and tiger as part of the roman empire info added

Collapsing discussion started by an editor who admitted to being a sockpuppet of a blocked user.

Venatio: Lions have killed tigers in the amphitheater of Turin Florence Verona Vienna and Pompeii With several Roman Historians stating lions usually defeated tigers, The romans are the most iconic figures who have incorporated lions, tigers and other beasts in their Venatio these areas listed above are all in the range of pre-roman and modern rome historical records and should be a part of the page. Perhaps there it wasnt put in the right chronology, but these should be added in some where of the page. Perhaps the admin Ponyo could add some expansion of the subject. Rotaci (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC) References Your references are mostly blogs and tumblr which aren't reliable sources. It is also undue weight to suddenly have a strange passage about lions killing tigers in the middle of the history of the Roman Empire. It couldn't possibly be less relevant to the history of the Roman Empire and it is badly sourced. At no point does the passage even attempt to justify its own inclusion by telling why this fact would be relevant. Justeditingtoday (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Please show me where I cited a single blog? These are newspaper archives with direct first hand accounts and historians with masters and Ph.D's commentating. So you are saying Florence turin, verona, vienna were never a part of the roman empire? That lions and tigers were never apart of the roman empire? Rotaci (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC) I literally listed examples. Tumblr is a bloghost so this link is a blog. The simpletoremember.com link is a blog as is romanoimpero.com. Lions and tigers were never part of the Roman Empire as they were never considered Roman. Were they granted citizenship? Did they vote? Justeditingtoday (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC) The roman emprierio link has a direct photo of the artifact that is badly damaged House of the Faun You cannot get more credible than some one who is at the site, at the house of faun, in pompeii. It is stated by several archaeologist the mosaic displays a lion defeating a tiger: The other article mentioning Rudolf kludskys article timed out: it was originally on an article, but since bandwith timed out, we cant see what archives it was from. as for the conetnt, why then are their art and mosaics of animals on this page? Maybe you should remove them too, because items, equipment are not romans they are tools, maybe it should all be moved to the roman tool section. Rotaci (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC) References But the text that you are adding is an incomprehensible mess. Quora and tumblr are not RS's. The most easily fixable thing here is the capitalization and punctuation issues, but that's just a minor issue compared to the other issues. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC) I'm a bit suspicious of this. Rotaci (talk · contribs), who registered less than two hours ago, has started a WP:RFC with only their tenth edit - and it's on the matter of lions killing tigers. Where have I come across that recently? Ah, yes: Talk:Asiatic lion. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC) If it is Bernate then they are using multiple accounts to evade a block. Justeditingtoday (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC) I think the hunches are correct. Same pic (different caption), same layouts, dizzyingly fast responses, non-newbie expertise with wiki-syntax. Haploidavey (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC) I have informed Ponyo. Dr. K. 00:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC) I created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bernate FWIW. I think this is a WP:DUCK situation though. Justeditingtoday (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC) I think it is a duck with a megaphone:  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Ponyo will indef the account shortly. Dr. K. 00:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC) And what makes you think you can hide the truth from the world? It just shows the desperation and butt hurt of you clowns, I have been accused of sock puppeting on an account where I had only 1 at the time, and was blocked, I even seen seveal people fall to this majority say of bias to get people blocked when all they have is false rants, so lol at your attempt to being all noble or acting the the rules are even on the same level as its justification or valid other than bandwagoning. You are the duck, keep quacking clown. Rotaci (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Best place

The best place where to find detailed information about fights between captive lions and tigers in this Empire is this. Other articles, like this one, should not have to be that detailed about it, and likewise, for fights between captive bears and bulls, or other animals. Leo1pard (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

References

References

Leo1pard (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2017

The roman empire had many bases includinf Consantinaople, the wester area. Before moving to the Byzantine. When Islam took over the war, they won a war against the romans eastern base. Due to heavy armour disadvantage. 80.192.167.114 (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2017

Addition to "Hystorical Era": 36.37.140.115 (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Germanic

please change ((Germanic)) to ((Germanic peoples|Germanic))

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2018

37.191.105.252 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Romans are athletic.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2018

I question the sentence “The city of Rome was the largest city in the world c. 100 BC – c. AD 400” in the overview. The quote of it is lost, and there is no source to proof that the Roma is larger than Changan and Luoyang, the two capital of the Han dynasty of China which are contemporary with Roma.Change it to “The city of Rome was the largest city in the west world c. 100 BC – c. AD 400”is better. YmfcBytvnirdhy (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The situation is more complex. See List of largest cities throughout history. Rmhermen (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The article on the largest cities quoted above and both articles of Changan and Luoyang show that Rome was the largest city in the world during the time of the Roman Empire. Changan and Luoyang grew later, during the Tang Dynasty. I restored the original version.T8612 12:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Western and Eastern Roman Empire

Roman law introduced a separation of courts in the West and the East under Diocletian. 286 has been for years on wiki the year when the Western Roman Empire began. This seems also to be the academic consensus since Theodosius was sole emperor for only a few years before dying in 395. Why did this change? I propose to put 286 as the beginning for the Western and Eastern Roman Empire (in their respective articles too)

• Roman Empire/Principate (27 BC-285 AD; capital: Rome)

• (Western) Roman Empire/Dominate ( till 476, capitals: Milan till 402, Ravenna till 476)

• (Eastern) Roman Empire/Dominate (till 1453; capitals Nicodemia and Costantinople from 330)

Wouldn't that be more correct?

At the very least, put both 286 and 395 in the three infoboxes (286/395 as ending/starting date).

Barjimoa (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Lead section is way too big, getting out of control

I've seen very few lead sections as large as this one and just today there was an editor ADDING material instead of trimming it, per WP:SIZE. It is still four paragraphs, per the strictures of WP:LEAD, but the first paragraph alone is a monster that could serve as four or five distinct different topics, covering way too much ground with way too much detail for a lead section. Only the absolute major themes and events should be discussed for an empire that lasted so long. We don't need to mention every single war or every major deed of every emperor, just the moments and individuals that were the most consequential. If readers want to see more details, they can read them in the history section of the article or they can be easily directed to the sub article History of the Roman Empire. Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: I have reverted the addition of the material to the lead, directing the user who added it to consult this discussion. I also looked at the material that was added and noticed that it seems to be an attempt to make a deeply anachronistic and politically motivated statement about the current Israeli–Palestinian conflict. You may, in particular, want to take notice of this extremely off-topic, less-than-entirely-neutral, and frankly rather editorializing insertion about the Bar Kokhba revolt: "This was the last large-scale Jewish revolt against the Romans and was destroyed with massive repercussions in Judea. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed. Hadrian renamed the province of Judea "Provincia Syria Palaestina," after one of Judea's most hated enemies." While I believe all this information is technically true, it certainly does not belong in the lead for an article about the entire Roman Empire and the specific comment about the name Syria Palaestina seems like an unmistakable jab directed at modern Palestinians. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: that sounds about right to me! Excellent work in trimming some of the excess. The lead is perhaps still a bit too large, but it is more manageable and reasonable as of now. In its current state, though, there's no way it would pass an FA candidacy, not without intense opposition first and demands that it be resized. More than that, notice how the first three paragraphs deal with the "History" section of the article (with one sentence for "Geography and demography"), whereas only the fourth paragraph of the lead barely mentions the multitude of other topics in the article. They include languages, society, government and military, economy, architecture and engineering, literature and the arts, education, daily life, religion, and the empire's legacy. The lead section is completely lopsided in coverage and, despite its size, fails in its duty to accurately reflect the main body of prose per WP:SUMMARY and WP:LEAD. Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: looks like the single-purpose account editor (who signed up in September of this year and has edited only one other article) is back again to revert your edits and make a mess of the lead section once more. I have a mind to restore the lead section to how it looked exactly on the day this article passed its GA candidacy. Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I have just rewritten the lead section, bringing it back within acceptable parameters while also restoring some of the language of the lead as it existed during both the GA candidacy and review of 2012. I think it looks much better now, but you and everyone else are welcome to make suggestions here BEFORE further significant changes or additions. In fact, I think it would be good to build a proper consensus about the issue of the lead section, particularly about its wording, inclusion of various topics, and overall length. Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It's good to downsize this gigantic lede, but it is perhaps a bit too thin now. Paragraphs 2 and 3 could be expanded a bit, and probably rewritten, especially the third. Christianity and the division of the Empire are dealt within the same sentence. §2 could be about the main timeline until Diocletian (dealing with the foundation, the last conquests, Pax Romana, and the Crisis of 3rd century), §3 on the Tetrarchy, Eastern/Western Empire, conversion to Christianity, and the invasions. T8612 (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! Feel free to amend anything that's been written, but just make sure we're not repeating information. One of the major problems with the previous, bloated lead section was its redundancy, including repeated links ("Roman Republic" was linked and spelled out in full three different times, for instance). Also keep in mind that most of the article does not actually deal with political history at all, but rather other topics such as culture and society, which make up a much larger portion. Ideally, the lead section should reflect that. I would argue that political details and things about military campaigns shouldn't be expanded at all, not at the expense of other information such as daily life or science and technology. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, this article mostly deals with Roman society, it could have even been entitled as such. I would have preferred to find the main timeline here (rather than in History of the Roman Empire), and have separate articles on society elsewhere. In fact, much of the text on social, religious, economic, etc. subjects is repeated in Ancient Rome and Roman Republic (because society doesn't automatically follow political changes). Perhaps a discussion on the scope of these articles is needed in the Wikiproject? T8612 (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

To change the scope of the article to that extent would entail a huge restructuring and rewriting of it, to balance sections so that the history one is the largest and others are diminished in favor of moving most of their material into relevant sub-articles. Many of those sub-articles already exist, but again, it would be a herculean task to parse every section and determine what gets moved where, if anything should be moved at all. For an article that already has GA status, that would almost certainly demand a talk page consensus, in addition to contacting the original nominator of the GA candidacy to inform him or her that his or her work is about to be largely expunged or significantly moved around between a dozen related articles. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens, Katolophyromai, and T8612: The single-purpose account is actually a serial sockpuppeteer (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Krajoyn) and blocked as such. Favonian (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Favonian: I am not surprised one bit. Thank you for letting us know. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Favonian: seconded! Thanks for doing your due diligence and informing us about this. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens, Katolophyromai, T8612, and Favonian: Sorry I'm a bit late to this effort, but please take a look at this proposed rewrite. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@InformationvsInjustice: Hello! Thanks for your efforts, but to be honest I like the lead section the way it looks now. There's not much of a need to reduce it anymore as it has since been brought back within reasonable parameters. Your version also removes a few critical pieces of information that we should keep in the lead, since it summarizes large amounts of material found in the main prose body of text. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@InformationvsInjustice: I agree with Pericles, I think you arrived there after the lede had already been reduced (it was truly big before). T8612 (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@T8612: Holy Ovoli!! I see what you mean. Good job fixing it. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Error in sentence

In the "History" section there is a sentence "In 1204 the Sack of Constantinople found place by participants in the Fourth Crusade." "found place by" does not make sense, but I don't know what it was supposed to say. Perhaps someone might have an idea of how to fix it. 86.191.58.150 (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Reworded a bit. The Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople. Dimadick (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Eastern wars

Why there are so little mentions to the Eastern Wars of the Empire? There are only one mention to Sassanids and one mention to the Parthians!Aryzad (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Typo in fourth sentence of last paragraph under languages section

Should be "The" not "Tbe"

50.236.211.58 (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Jack M 6/28/19 Done, thanks. T8612 (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Unclear sentence in the section on banking

In the section on banking: "A typical bank had fairly limited capital, and often only one principal, though a bank might have as many as six to fifteen principals." What exactly is this supposed to mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.143.92.129 (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Surely we can keep two paragraphs on Byzantine Empire?

The last two paragraphs summarizing the ultimate fate of the Eastern half Roman Empire were removed. While these details are described in the Byzantine Empire, I don't see any need to remove them here. There's also an article on the Western Roman Empire; should we remove details about its fate as well? I'm not aware of any current scholarly consensus that denies the political, social, and cultural continuity between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire; this is especially important given that the latter name is a relatively modern historiographical invention and its people referred to it as the "Roman Empire," and so did those who ultimately conquered it. See Byzantine_Empire#Nomenclature for more. Surely we can keep a measly *two* paragraphs to give readers the ultimate fate of the Roman Empire (which is what the section was intended to do)? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, those shouldn't have been removed. The Eastern Roman Empire was very much still the Roman Empire, just the eastern half that lasted into the Middle Ages whereas the western half did not. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Migration period and climate change

An editor recently added the unsourced claim that the invasions of the migration period were driven by climate change. This is strange given that the article on the migration period only mentions an extreme weather event during the 530s, roughly sixty years after the fall of the Western Empire. Given that the sentence is explicitly about the effect of the migration period on the fall of Western half of the Empire, any possible effects of climate change in the 530s as a driver for the invasions are irrelevant. Furthermore, both the article on this extreme weather event and the Late Antique Little Ice Age which followed only mention a possible (apparently highly disputed, according to the articles) effect on the Plague of Justinian. Given this, I'm deleting the added claim about climate change driving the invasions of the migration period. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Side box missing information

In the box "Roman Empire" on the right side of the article, in the section "Government" under "Emperors" not all emperors are listed. Is there a specific reason for this? What must be done for other emperors to be listed? Here are some of the missing emperors:

1. Claudius (41-54 AD)
2. Nero (54-68 AD)
3. Galba (68-69 AD)
4. Otho (69 AD)
5. Vitellius (69 AD)
6. Vespasian (69-79 AD)
7. Domitian (81-96 AD)
8. Nerva (96-98 AD)
9. Hadrian (117-138 AD)

Just to name a few. How can this information or metadata be integrated? Lwangaman (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2019

The link to vassal in the infobox under the map should be changed to vassal state, because the vassal article is about people and not lands (I believe this is the intended target). I.e. with its [[vassal]]s in pink should be changed to with its [[vassal state|vassal]]s in pink. PikaSamus (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Egsan Bacon (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Extension

The Roman Empire is not 5.000.000 kmq, this is a data found in Taangera, who has no sources about it. But it covers around 3.500.000 miles square, inclusive mare nostrum, see The Essential World History by William J. Duiker and Jackson Spielvogel, pag. 104. A glaring mistake in Taaganera is to say that the Han dynasty was over six million square kilometers. But he himself admits that the estimates for the first Han dynasty fluctuate between 4.4 million and six million, the latter erroneous estimate, it is only necessary to calculate the current provinces. Furthermore, the second Han dynasty is the same size as the first, and there he does not place an oscillation range. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.27.116.82 (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If we add up the surface areas of France (550,000 km²), Turkey (780), Spain (500), Italy (300), Syria (180), Greece (130), Egypt (995), Portugal (90), Yugoslavia (225), England+Wales (150), Iraq (435), Tunisia (155), Bulgaria (110), Hungary (90), Austria (~75), Georgia (70), Armenia (30), Albania (27), Switzerland (40), Belgium (30), Israel (20), you get about 5 million km². You can also add northern Morocco and Algeria, Dacia, and Western Netherlands and Germany. Bear in mind that the 5 million km² figure stands for the Empire at its maximum expansion, under Trajan, who conquered Mesopotamia for a short time. T8612 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

5.000.000 kmq is too small, the real extension is about 6.100.000 kmq or 6.500.000 kmq. Infact, you can do this 3.500.000 miles square, i.e. 9.000.000 kmq, but without mare nostrum, 2.500.000 kmq, you can put 6.500.000 kmq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.27.112.31 (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Infact all is 5.300.000 kmq without Africa, if you add tripolitania 353.000 kmq, cyrenaica, 285.000 kmq, it is 5.938.000 kmq, moroco 195.000 kmq, i.e. 6.133.000 kmq, and algeria 270.000 kmq, 481.980 kmq with Settimius Severus, 6.403.000 kmq. Crimea, Pontus, 87.000 kmq. 6.517.000 kmq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.19.33.232 (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

If you try to draw the boundaries with a calculator map area program, you will have an empire about 6.500.000 sq km large. So we have Africa 1.867.906‬ kmq West 1.149.897 kmq East 951.394 kmq Italy Greece 433.297 kmq East Asia 1.132.367 kmq Turkey 783.356 kmq Ponto 90.000 kmq All sources clearly speak of about or over 6,500,000 sq km.

Britain's Imperial Administrators, 1858-1966, by A. Kirk-Greene, pag. 23.

War, by DK, pag.43.

A Companion to the Roman Empire, by David S. Potter, pag. 285 (in this 3.500.000 miles square but inclusive mare nostrum)

World History to 1500: To 1500, by William J. Duiker, Jackson J. Spielvogel, (in this 3.500.000 miles square but inclusive mare nostrum)

Australian History Series: The ancient world, by Fiona Back, pag. 14.

Ancient Rome: Facts at Your Fingertips, by DK, pag. 147.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.49.47 (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

Please adding Wiki-links to Emperor Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva after Augustus and before Trajan ( the list of emperors on the right of the page) Lalaland741852963 (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. I don't know what list you're looking at, but the couple of these I checked are already linked multiple times. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

In the window section, the official languages of the state are not listed as AD or BC. Just 610. Perhaps this should be changed for clarification. 87.57.185.92 (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 23:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2020

Original "The Eastern Roman Empire, usually described by modern historians as the Byzantine Empire"

This is an unreferenced claim and this is wrong because only Holy Roman Empire historians consistently describe Eastern Roman Empire as Byzantine Empire. Many modern historian start to realize that HRE describe the Eastern Roman Empire as Byzantine Empire for their own propaganda purposes.

I suggest it to be changed to "The Eastern Roman Empire, usually described by German historians as the Byzantine Empire" Selfoe (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See Byzantine Empire. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 11:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Intro sentence(s) to page

I think that the 2nd and 3rd sentences of the page should be reworded or redone to give the intro of the page a better flow as right now it’s seems/reads a little strangely to me. Especially the 3rd sentences structure of from the/to the doesn’t seem like the best and most clear way to express the information. Max3218 (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

95.147.204.220 (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

i want to edit because all of the roman empire website is not up to date

considering your edit history that seems unlikely at this stage. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

SPQR

Senatus Populusque Romanus = The Senate and the People of Rome.

I edited this because the translation itself was on a different page93.95.87.186 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

196.25.72.182 (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You don't seem to have made a request. Please write out your proposed change, in full. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible GAR needed

I noticed this article recently got a "Too long" template, and the Good article criteria says that if it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid, it should be an immediate reason to decline its good article status. If this also counts as a ground for reassessing it, that means either the template should be removed or it should be reassessed as a good article. I'm not going to tag it with a request for reassessment because I'm not familiar with the good article process. --- Mullafacation {talk page|user page} 10:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Distinguishing why the eastern provinces are classed 'Byzantine Empire'

Hi, I want to add some clarity on the opening paragraph. My comments are in two separate points below.

The first paragraph has a sentence that says "After the military crisis, the empire was ruled by multiple emperors who shared rule over the Western Roman Empire and over the Eastern Roman Empire (also known as the Byzantine Empire)". Given it is historians that have given this name only after the collapse in 1453, could we make it more accurate by saying "(known as the Byzantine Empire due to modern historiographic standards)". It needs this distinguishing statement to help explain why a different term is being used for the Eastern provinces. This has the benefit of making people aware of bias in history, especially if we link it to a page about historiography. I don't care how this is written but as we all know the term 'Byzantine Empire' is a modern invention to help us understand complexity and not actually a different empire. Elias (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The final sentence of the first paragraph says: "The fall of the Western Roman Empire to Germanic kings, along with the hellenization of the Eastern Roman Empire into the Byzantine Empire, conventionally marks the end of Ancient Rome and the beginning of the Middle Ages." This should acknowledge that outside of a new capital and Greek-language adoption, that Christianity made the official religion is also one of the the three big things that differentiated the Roman Empire into the Classical Age versus the Medieval Age, or at least why modern historians use it as the basis for calling it a different empire. Rewritten it could be: "The fall of the Western Roman Empire to Germanic kings, along with the hellenization of the Eastern Roman Empire and the adoption of Christianity as state religion to become the Byzantine Empire, conventionally marks the end of Ancient era and the beginning of the Middle Ages." Elias (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I proposed changing the wording to the following:

The adoption of Christianity as the state church of the Roman Empire in AD 380 and the fall of the Western Roman Empire to Germanic kings conventionally marks the end of Classical antiquity and the beginning of the Middle Ages. Those events, along with the gradual hellenization of the Eastern Roman Empire is why historians distinguish the medieval Roman Empire that remained in the Eastern provinces as the Byzantine Empire. Elias (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Eastern and Western was only a administrative divisions of the Roman empire, the terms Byzantines, Eastern etc are modern exonyms. The official name in the "Eastern", "Byzantine" empire was Imperium Romanum and latter change to the koine greek Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων.--Gfim95 (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2021

Change "Eastern Roman Empire" to "Roman Empire in the Medieval Era" in the Succeeded by section. Harry Hinderson (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Nope. As far as I see, the (late antiquity/early M.A.) Roman Empire was indeed broken up between east and west (a division very prominent in all good historical books). So listing "Western R.E." and "Eastern R.E." seems the most logical options; also considering how this shaped the future of the whole European continent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

List of Emperors

The list is selective perhaps by historical significance? Whatever...the selection criteria should be mentioned or the incompleteness highlighted. Timmytimtimmy (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Obviously we can't have a complete list of emperors in the infobox and I do think including more than just the first and last emperors (especially since who the last emperor is can be a matter of controversy) is good, I agree that the selection criteria should be made clear. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2021

Replace the default map of the Roman Empire with this one, because the new one has better design, shows both Senatorial and Imperial provinces, etc. (Should this edit be rejected please subject it to community consensus). EDIT PLEASE READ: I'm reactivating this request because the community needs to take a decision about this, because the actual image that I want to replace is not good, a lot of users have complains about it and it isn't 100% accurate. May I ask for an Administrator hearing? 190.141.88.53 (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We can't just use a non free image, especially if we have a reasonable image already. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide the link you put on my talk page to the image on Wikimedia commons? Looks like Vox grabbed it from commons. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_province#/media/File:RomanEmpire_117.svg but I recommend the one at VOX because it's more HD and you can do some zoom with it. 190.141.88.53 (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It's an SVG; it can be resized at will. Tol | Talk | Contribs 22:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done No prejudice against reverting if someone thinks this one is worse, but I think this is an improvement. Vahurzpu (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2021

I suggest we update the current image to this one: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/assets/4822044/RomanEmpire_117.svg.png Because the current one cannot be zoomed in, it's like sliced, etc. Upload VOX (Commons originated) image to Commons once again, and do the edit. 190.218.30.203 (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: the Vox image appears to simply be a raster rendering of the vector version currently used. Commons can render the .svg as a raster for you, if viewing .svg files in the issue: click on the links below the file preview on Commons, for example, 320 × 235 pixels, 640 × 470 pixels, or 800 × 588 pixels. TGHL ↗ 03:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

That's OK, however, we should at least use the 1,280 × 940 pixels. version of the image, but even then, the VOX image seems to still have better ZOOM. 190.218.30.203 (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The 290-pixel rendering currently displayed cannot accurately display the text of the map, if that is what you are implying – and I agree. This image (Map of the Roman Empire at its height.svg) might work better for an infobox image (less colours and no text) while the currently-used map could be used to convey information, perhaps later down in the article. As for the Vox image, I must be missing something: the original posting of the image links to the Commons page and they look identical to me.
I'd love to get a second opinion on the matter – should we stay with the current image? Thanks, TGHL ↗ 17:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The difference between the VOX image and the Commons one is that the VOX image is more HD and zoomable (I support your idea of replacing the current map, however, is your green map historically accurate?). 190.218.30.203 (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I still don't quite see what the point was of replacing the image at all, but the one we have in the infobox right now is the same image as the one in the VOX article - theirs is a png, ours is a svg (and can thus be rendered at any resolution, i.e. superior). I don't think the green one is very good - I prefer maps with a bit more information (personal opinion though, I don't know if there are guidelines for that) and it also, for instance, incorrectly shows the Bosporan Kingdom as an incorporated part of the empire, whereas it was actually a client state, at this point in time ruled by Sauromates I. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input – the green map is certainly different than the current one in some areas. I'm not familiar enough to judge which one is "most correct" however the main concern was legibility.
190.218.30.203, I'm still not understanding what you mean by "HD and zoomable". Vector graphics, such as the current one in the article, can be infinitely scaled without the loss of quality by design (data in these images is done by co-ordinates of a line/curve rather than a grid of pixels). From what I gather, you were concerned about the text displaying at a low resolution. Is this correct? TGHL ↗ 19:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the VOX one is more scalable by a simple click, but you're right, the problem is I'm not an expert in Computer Science... Nonetheless the current image has its flaws compared to the VOX one. 190.218.30.203 (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The current image in the article is a vector version of the file, so it is more scalable and can be shown at any resolution. The VOX image, on the other hand, is a raster rendering of the same file, meaning it's definitely not more scalable than the file currently being used. It's also possible to download other resolutions (or the original SVG, which is infinitely scalable as mentioned above) at the file page. Can you elaborate on what these flaws with the current image are if not scalability? Bsoyka🗣️ 04:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2021

Change the current resolution of the image, to this one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/RomanEmpire_117.svg/2560px-RomanEmpire_117.svg.png 190.218.30.203 (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: That is the image currently displayed. While it is rendered in the normal article view at a smaller width to save server space and browser memory, clicking on the image will reveal its full size and download links. TGHL ↗ 03:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Featured article & topic

Hello, there's a problem: The Han Dynasty and its topic are featured/good ones, while The Roman Empire is only a good article with no topic featuring... How can we change this situation? I have read some articles about the Roman Empire here on Wikipedia, and they're honestly pretty bad (For example, The Constitutions of Ancient Rome and the Dominate were horrible). 190.218.30.203 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

the roman empire

this website is not reliable please proof read on other sites before using this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.108.145 (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there a specific section you don't think is reliable? All facts stated in the article should be backed by reliable sources – is anything in the article missing a good source?

Now, just like any resource, Wikipedia isn't 100% reliable and doesn't claim to be – it's a good place to start for research but probably not a good place to end. You're right about the need to fact-check any information you find online, but we can work to improve this article if it's not reliable. Bsoyka🗣️ 04:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Transportation along rivers - Rhine river (limes germanicus)

In the paragraph "Transportation", an intern link to Rhine river is missing. In this paragraph information is missing about transport via waterways. Archeological findings in The Netherlands and Germany along Rhine river, part of the Northern border (limes) / Limes Germanicus) have shown that heavy barks have been used to transport all kind of goods, from building material to whine, and for transportation of legionaries, among others over Rhine river to Britain. Very well conserved Roman ships with a lenght up to 32 meters have been found along Oude Rijn river, at Xanten (Germany) Woerden and Zwammerdam (The Netherlands). My english and knowledge isn't good enough for contributions to this high-end (compliments!) articel. I hope someone can pick this up. 2001:16B8:1191:2000:853F:D707:3E88:D581 (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2021

To whom it may concern, I request that the box featuring the Government form of the Roman Empire be edited, because currently, it is written that the Roman Empire was an elective absolute monarchy, but that is wrong… Let me explain… I studied the Government system of the Roman Empire for 2 years, and as far as I know, there still was a Senate (legislative body) under the Empire, although it had very little power. I therefore suggest that the information currently written in the infobox about the Roman Empire being an absolute monarchy be corrected and that it is now written that the Roman Empire was a SEMI-absolute monarchy. Yours sincerely, a Wikipedia user. 2001:171B:C9AB:14A0:ADB5:F900:1294:C74E (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The infobox already says that. Nominally, it was an elective government but defacto it was an absolute government. Melmann 22:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"Absolute monarchy" is quite anachronistic and also wrong. There was a set of constitutional laws that theoretically checked the emperor's power, at least for the Principate. The "semi elected" part is also questionable; some emperors were elected, by the Senate or the Praetorian Guard, others took power by force, most inherited the throne. There was no succession law. I think it's best to remove this part from the infobox. T8612 (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed

Citation for how the rediscovery of Greek and Roman science and technology formed the basis of Islamic science 122.11.214.134 (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Reference to Plato’s Critias in Geography and demography

The entry under the section “Geography and deforestation” speaks about Plato’s description of the deforestation. This is hardly relevant, though, as Plato was not directly in contact with the Romans during his lifetime. If he is writing about the deforestation committed by another civilization, then his description is irrelevant and should not be quoted, as the quote is misleading. 62.18.192.73 (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jwuerfel. Peer reviewers: Darrendi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Waltersaraceni.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Link to slave societies

Could there be a link to slave societies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.131.228 (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Emperors in infobox

I'm not at all informed about Roman emperors, but the infobox lists only a few dozen, whereas if I refer to the article List of Roman emperors, there are many many more. Is that list just the important ones? Nikolaih^☎️📖 18:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nikolaih: Yes, it would be impossible to fit all emperors in the infobox so it only lists (somewhat subjectively) a selection of important ones. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Nikolaih^☎️📖 18:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

should we use bce or bc; ad or ce

This subject was discussed a decade ago, at which point AD/BC was kept. However, the world has moved on since then. Is it time to reconsider switching to CE/BCE? Daniel Wagenaar (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense to me to use CE/BCE.

One notable change I can think of is how in 2016 Saudi Arabia moved to the solar Gregorian calendar which shows how non-Christian societies refer to this system now (which before was a defense for keeping the Christian dating system). The calculations for Jesus's birth are also inaccurate, and the number zero did not even exist when this system started, so as a reference to Christ's birth's it's also just wrong. It serves no real purpose defending BC/AD other than promoting Christianity. Looking online, there does not seem to be a strong consensus to change but the tide is definitely turning. Elias (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Is CE/BCE not still promoting Christianity since it follows the same (Christianity-derived) starting date? In any case what MOS:BCE has to say on this matter is An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, and briefly stating why the style should be changed. It's not just a matter of the tide turning, but the justification also has to be specific to this article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I liken it more like how the international standards have evolved. Like the second -- the historical definition was based on the earths rotation but now it's matched to 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation states of the caesium-133 atom. The Christian Church inspired the measurement, but the definition should be independent of the Church for the integrity of the measurement.

But thanks for sharing the policies @Ichthyovenator, I knew there would be something like that. On that basis, we should be use dating based on Rome's founding, the years of consuls, or years marked of the emperors -- which is the system the 6th century monk Dionysius Exiguus sought to replace with BC and AD. The Medieval Romans, the Byzantines, used a dating scheme that started 1 September 5509 B.C. And while Bede and Charlemagne are known to have popularised Exiguus's system -- people that were not part of the Roman Empire -- it wasn't until 1582 when Pope Gregory XIII replaced the Julian calendar with his namesake that we use today and that this system become standard. So on that basis, the AD/BC designation is a modern approach that has no place on the Roman Empire page and more importantly has no defense to remain as the method of dating of the Roman Empire.

Elias (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we should use Ab urbe condita or the Byzantine calendar? Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Using ab urbe condita would certainly be the most appropriate due to the articles context. However, it still requires a modern era equivalency of the two approved by Wikipedia -- AD/BC simply gets the vote due to inertia of when this page stated; CE/BCE is religiously neutral and gives international relevance to this piece of European and Middle East history covering a topic that had as state religion both pagan and Christian sects.

As you rightly point out, due to the arbitration committee's ruling, there is no substantial reason to merit change but that is secondary to the article context. My perspective is inertia is not a reason when Wikipedia'sMOS:BCE is indifferent to the approaches (unless there is conflict in the Talk page) Elias (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

CE/BCE is not "religiously neutral", I don't know where people get that idea. It's the exact opposite, in fact. It posits that the Christian Era itself should be designated as the "common era" or "current era". If we are going to use the Christian Era (which we should as it's the only calendar used in ~99% of the civilized world), then there's no sense in using a euphemism for it, just use it as-is. I doubt anyone here has a problem with Wikipedia articles using other religiously-derived calendar terms such as "Thursday" or "January".— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 23:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I use both interchangeably, but the CE style has the advantage of not presuming that Jesus is our dominus. Dimadick (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, and I get that the phrase "the Lord (Jesus Christ)" might be considered (subjectively) a more intimidating and offensive phrase to some adherents of modern non-Christian religions than "Thor's Day" or "Woden's Day" are, likely because Christianity is still prevalent and paganism isn't. But ultimately, I would argue that they have the same inherent/objective religious meaning; saying it's "Thor's Day" presumes that (1) Thor exists, and (2) that he "owns" the fourth day of the week, just as much as saying AD/BC "presumes" that Jesus is "the Lord". So I find it a violation of NPOV to make a subjective determination that AD/BC are too religious while Thursday/Wednesday/January/etc. are not.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 02:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the advantage of CE/BCE is that atheists/non Christians or Christians can choose to have the "C" as Common or Christian in their head. I think the actual date of Christ's birth is irrelevant as the dating system has become fixed and nobody would want to change the way years are numbered even if some document was found proving the exact date. Although the whole system of months and leap years is a bit of a botch built on earlier even worse botches it can't really be changed. Either way it is not a big issue. 2A02:C7E:487F:BB00:F948:BEC8:3917:D1CB (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Hadrian's omission

I have never posted anything, so I don't know how to make edits. That said, I see that there is a large gap in the list of emporeors beginning with Hadrian in 117. Hadrian has a Wiki page, so would someone mind linking that to the list? 151.213.181.100 (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not just Hadrian. I've no idea why only a sample of emperors is given in the infobox, or on what basis some are included while others are missing. Or, come to that, why Byzantine emperors have been included at all. I'd have thought a link to the List of Roman emperors would be far more useful, tout court. It includes every Roman emperor, each of whom has an article. Haploidavey (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Having pored over the infobox for some time, I think I see what's been attempted; it looks like various editors have tried to use it as a digest of the whole aricle and it really doesn't work. The subject matter is far too complex for that (see "Hadrian's omission") Haploidavey (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Use of Papyrus

In the "Literacy, books, and education" section, there is a header warning that says that the article does not include more information about the use of papyrus, but I have looked around the internet and haven't been able to really find any sources that state more details about papyrus in the Empire. I think we should delete this warning then. Thoughts? ZetaFive (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Should health section be a subsection?

Hello, The health section in the top is a bit strange. I think it should be a subsection of either daily life or society. What do you think? Theklan (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Health and disease constitute another dimension of the empire's history in their own right, and are a major influence on others in this article (as is true of, say, literacy and economics). They shape the demographics of the empire, from child mortality to death in childbirth to chronic adult diseases. They also form a significant component of the narrative of the empire, even to historians writing "great men" history (Caesar's malaria, Augustus repeatedly losing prospective heirs to disease) who nevertheless may have missed cases by reporting public perception and furor unexamined (cf Southon's argument that Germanicus and others likely succumbed to disease rather than poison), while on the larger scale the Antonine plague killed around 10% of the empire and may have been a turning point in its history. Health/disease isn't "merely" a matter of daily life. But pinging Smallchief who originated this section and will be able to talk about it much better. NebY (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• • @Theklan:: I assume I put the health section there because it relates to demography. Maybe the solution to your and User:Neby's opinions is to keep Health as a full section, but move it downward in the article to a better placement than at present? If you agree, move the section -- or I'll do it if you prefer.Smallchief (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    I understand @NebY's points, very interesting. It would be interesting to have it downward, indeed. I think you should proceed better than me, @Smallchief. Thanks! Theklan (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

First Roman Emperor conflict

In the first introductory paragraph, it reads "From the accession of Caesar Augustus as the first Roman emperor... ", and then in the following paragraph it says, "Octavian's power became unassailable and the Roman Senate granted him overarching power and the new title of Augustus, making him the first Roman emperor."

I'm in no way a history buff, so I don't know which is the true statement and can't correct it, but I found this confusing. Greyvenn (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

After his victories in the civil wars, Octavian became the first Roman emperor, Caesar Augustus. NebY (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Missing Emperors

Why are those emperors missing in the right summary frame? (and the same in History of the Roman Empire)

• 14-37: Tiberius
• 37-41: Caligula
• 41-54: Claudius
• 54-68: Nero
• 68-69: Galba
• 69-69: Otho
• 69-69: Vitellius
• 69-79: Vespasian
• 79-81: Titus
• 81-96: Domitian
• 96-98: Nerva — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:C0B9:7C00:5854:B214:DBC6:DEE4 (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It's an abridged list of the most notable emperors balanced across the entire Empires existance. The full list is at List of Roman emperors Biz (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Nero and Caligula weren't notable? Crainsaw (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

They are not "the most notable". Normally these contain the first ruler, the last ruler, and maybe one or two especially important others (cf. Kingdom of France, Kingdom of England, Ming dynasty), so the list in the infobox is already far longer than it should be; I would remove Aurelian and probably everyone after Nepos. The infobox has been overwhelmed by people who are keen to emphasise the continuity between the Roman and Byzantine empires, but the actual article doesn't (and shouldn't) discuss matters from after the fifth century AD. Furius (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

How was the Byzantine Empire a continuation of the pre-divided empire? Rome basically disintegrated into two separate empires, sure they inherited Rome's institutions and legacy, but if one of them is labelled as a continuation or Rome shouldn't the western empire be labelled a continuation too? And I found a very interesting book, which said that the Byzantine Empire was not a continuation of Rome, they only labelled themselves as such because of the reputation it carried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crainsaw (talk • contribs) 12:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

In the introduction to the book you found, The Byzantine Empire, especially on pp xiii and xix-xxi, Browning argues that Byzantines' self-description as Roman was for sound reasons, not as you put it "because of the reputation it carried", and that though "historical periods are real" there is no clear-cut point at which Byzantine history begins and that "Byzantine society grew out of late Roman society". Of course the latter is something of a commonplace; your proposition that there was equal continuity in west and east is more surprising and runs counter to the body of this article, which its infobox should reflect. NebY (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

After Augustus, I'd accept Trajan as having expanded the empire, keep Diocletian for restructuring rule and launching the division, keep Constantine for the establishment of the eastern capital and Christianity, and keep Romulus Augustulus simply as last western emperor. Perhaps in ignorance, I don't see the others as such clear-cut transformers or markers. NebY (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Length

At over 22k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. Additionally its excessive length means that it may no longer meet the GA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I tried to see if there were any quick ways to do this and I don't. A lot of the main articles themselves need clean up and merge Republican Rome with early Imperial Rome. Maybe a goal could be to make each section, including the lead, not more than 700-750 words each.

Words by section

• Lead: 743
• History: 1,196 (subtotal)
  • Transition from Republic to Empire: 480
  • Pax Romana: 144 words
  • Fall in the West and survival in the East: 572
• Geography and Demography: 488
• Languages: 1,141 (subtotal)
  • First section: 364
  • Local languages and linguistic legacy: 777
• Society: 3,045 (subtotal)
  • First section: 285
  • Legal status 1,789 (subtotal)
    • First section: 126
    • Women in Roman law: 528
    • Slaves and the law: 859
    • Freedmen: 276
  • Census rank 971 (subtotal)
    • First section: 741
    • Unequal justice: 230
• Government and military 2,425 (subtotal)
  • First section: 192
  • Central government: 618
  • Military: 667
  • Provincial government: 271
  • Roman law: 283
  • Taxation: 394
• Economy: 2,271 (subtotal)
  • First section: 336
  • Currency and banking: 646
  • Mining and metallurgy: 263
  • Transportation and communication: 281
  • Trade and commodities: 200
  • Labour and occupations: 322
  • GDP and income distribution: 223
• Architecture and engineering: 468
• Health and disease: 256
• Daily life: 3,400 (subtotal)
  • City and country: 1,375
  • Food and dining: 657
  • Recreation and spectacles: 1,368 (subtotal)
    • First section: 1,007
    • Personal training and play: 361
  • Clothing: 576
• Arts: 1,665 (subtotal)
  • First section: 221
  • Portraiture: 209
  • Sculpture and sarcophagi: 170
  • Painting: 137
  • Mosaic: 220
  • Decorative arts: 99
  • Performing arts: 609
• Literacy, books and arts: 2,020 (subtotal)
  • Primary education: 407
  • Secondary education: 440
  • Educated women: 147
  • Shape of literacy: 156
  • Literature: 1,017
• Religion: 1,539
• Legacy: 509

Biz (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Health and disease should fall under Daily life and Architecture and engineering under Economy. Not just for organisation but in assessing word count. Anyone have any other observations?

I'd be interested on working on this article rewriting it to reduce the word count and maybe even doing a source check as well. But before this happens, I think some discussion on parameters is needed. Biz (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that "Health and disease" should go under "Daily life". "Architecture and engineering" is trickier. The architecture of the domus is certainly part of daily life, as are the aqueducts and venues for games. Roads are as much a part of daily life and the military as the economy as such. It's possible that regarding "Architecture and engineering" as primarily about something called "the economy" is an anachronism, imposing modern preoccupations with finance and profit onto ancient culture. Not that Romans weren't obsessed with wealth, but the primary cause of their engineering achievements was perhaps less the furtherance of economic development than the Roman craving for permanence, monumentality, and dominance. So I might (note the modal) see "Architecture and engineering" as a topic level on a par with commerce/economy and daily life. (It's an impossible article to get right. Good luck! I agree with Paul August on the general principle.) Cynwolfe (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Good points. Thanks for calling me out with my modern bias!

I also agree with Paul August's sentiment as well but there are some easy optimisations. Do we really need to say "Roman Empire" 129 times? When I analysed the word count, I noticed assertions and many referenced statements that could be tidied up. Here's an example, the first paragraph of "language" where you can say the same thing with half the words and more in line with the references (I looked at Rochette).

Current

The language of the Romans was Latin, which Virgil emphasized as a source of Roman unity and tradition. Until the time of Alexander Severus (r. 222–235), the birth certificates and wills of Roman citizens had to be written in Latin. Latin was the language of the law courts in the West and of the military throughout the Empire, but was not imposed officially on peoples brought under Roman rule. This policy contrasts with that of Alexander the Great, who aimed to impose Greek throughout his empire as the official language. As a consequence of Alexander's conquests, Koine Greek had become the shared language around the eastern Mediterranean and into Asia Minor. The "linguistic frontier" dividing the Latin West and the Greek East passed through the Balkan peninsula.

My rewrite

Virgil emphasized Latin as a source of Roman unity and tradition and various emperors until Justinian tried to enforce this. From the second century BCE to 284 CE, Latin spread across the empire but between 284-439, it was only in the western provinces that it was used at all levels. in the east, Greek was still used outside of administrative business, and would latter became the language of administration following Heraclius. Biz (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it’s just me, but that rewritten paragraph isn’t very easily readable. SaturatedFatts (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes there are some horrible grammatical mistakes as I quickly drafted it to make a point. If you can ignore that, what else makes it unreadable? Biz (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there's no need to wait on shortening that does not remove content (or only removes dubious/irrelevant content like the claim about Alexander). It's important that statements of basic facts like "The language of the Romans was Latin" are restained, though. Furius (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree on the principle of what you said. But on the topic of language, I would like to explore that. I'll make this a separate discussion. Biz (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The draft opening sentence suggests that Virgil set a policy which various emperors tried to enforce; that's wrong. What's the basis for saying that Latin spread until 284 CE - was it still spreading in eg 270 CE and what happened in 284 CE to stop its spread? "[I]n the western provinces ... it was used at all levels" gives the impression that local languages were completely superseded, which the following subsection directly contradicts, and I don't know what evidence we might have that it was used at the 'lowest' levels. The current "Latin was the language of the law courts in the West and of the military throughout the Empire, but was not imposed officially on peoples brought under Roman rule" is well written on several levels; it makes clear and restrained claims per sources, consistent with the following subsection, and is eminently readable. The proposed in the east, Greek was still used outside of administrative business replaces that with an unclear statement; what counts as "administrative business", and why should courts and the correspondence of emperors be excluded from it? The brief geographic note is helpful and should be essentially kept, as the Geography section above doesn't even hint where we'd find the east/west divide for language or other purposes. Yes, most of the sentence about Alexander's policy could go if the following sentence flowed on better, and that might include "Alexander's conquests and the policies of his successors".

Such problems will recur throughout any attempt to trim the article; parts of it have accreted disjointedly and parts - many parts - are already meticulous summaries. NebY (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback.

The second section of Local languages and linguistic legacy is the bigger component of this section (777 of 1,141) and probably deserves its own page or better summarised to link to Languages_of_the_Roman_Empire#Regional_languages. So yes on the topic of this thread that's where discussion may be more productive.

With regards to language itself though, this is an interesting topic I want to understand better so I might read all the sources and reflect on this. You're right in that you can't look at this one paragraph in isolation. If once reading them all, and I think I can do a better job, I will post it as a new section here that we can discuss. Biz (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

On this topic, note the new book by Eleanor Dickey, Latin Loanwords in Ancient Greek: A Lexicon and Analysis (2023)[2]. The "analysis" is very rich and is going to be extremely important for any understanding of the relationship between Latin and Greek under the empire from now on. Furius (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. The introduction is instructive. Page 4 gives some clear parameters of what it is not doing and it also establishes facts that have clear consensus and which this article could benefit from. I'm curious to see what she concludes with which is the evidence of a "Roman Greek" that developed. If found to be strong, this aligns with the more recent Rochette (2018)analysis I read yesterday. Biz (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not particularly familiar with this article, and I have no opinion as to whether it is or is not in fact too long. But please note that the appropriate length of an article should not be determined by word counts. Important, broad, and complicated topics—like this one—will require more words than topics of lesser importance, breadth, and complications. Paul August ☎ 17:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The editor that started this discussion tags many articles as too long - 87 in the last 5 days alone. It's unusual for them to start a talk page discussion about it. They did so here after I reverted their tagging, pointing out that the instructions said "Note that simply exceeding the recommended limits is insufficient reason to place this template; it must pertain to an ongoing discussion on the talk page", upon which they deleted that from the instructions.[3] They're not making any suggestions for improvement and I wouldn't assume from their tagging that there's any general sentiment, let alone agreement, that the article would be improved by substantial trimming. NebY (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple site-wide guidelines that agree that articles that are too long are problematic for readers - see for example WP:AS and WP:SUMMARY. Both of these are also part of the GA criteria. This section also opened with a suggestion for improvement: it would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content. I'm happy to assist with that, as I have done at other pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: By definition articles which are too long are too long. But what is your definition of too long? Paul August ☎ 23:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

AS indicates that 10,000 words is close to the attention span of the average reader - this article is more than double that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Numbers alone are not an appropriate measure of "too long", nor is a hypothetical readers so-called attention span. Paul August ☎ 00:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Readers are the point of this whole project, not a hypothetical. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Aren’t guidelines on Wikipedia only just guidelines anyway? If we believe some of them to be wrong in certain circumstances, we are meant to ignore them. An article of this magnitude will almost never be read from start to finish in one go. Most articles on Wikipedia are of topics that are much less broad than this, and I can see why the guidelines exist for the vast majority of articles. SaturatedFatts (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

IAR is meant to be invoked when a rule prevents improvement; here the rules guide improvement, to make the article more accessible. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Rules? Wikipedia:Article size (WP:AS) and Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SUMMARY): This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

WP:AS: At 10,000 words it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries

WP:SUMMARY: Opinions vary as to what counts as an ideal length; judging the appropriate size depends on the topic and whether it easily lends itself to being split up.

You tagged this article in between tagging Swan maiden and Ottoman Algeria, all timestamped at 14:21, at the end of a 23-minute session in which you tagged 33 articles including World War I, Korean War and Vietnam War. When reverted, you added the same boiler-plate as on the other few occasions that you open a talk-page section when tagging an article as too long: At over XXk words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. Additionally its excessive length means that it may no longer meet the GA criteria. It's as if you hadn't read this article at all (or the others that you tagged), or considered the topic and whether it easily lends itself to being split up, or examined the extent to which sections have been moved to other articles and replaced with summaries, and still haven't. NebY (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I never claimed anything could be done "easily"; I said it would be beneficial, and I stand by that assessment. It would also be beneficial if, instead of going after me or looking for loopholes, we focused on how to improve the article, both so that it meets the GA criteria (as it currently doesn't) and is reader-friendly (as it currently isn't). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY is already pretty strongly in effect for much of this article. Most content already has been migrated to subarticles; the "history" section, for example, has already been basically removed. I believe that it is possible to remove some chaff from this article (as seen with the aside about Alexander above). I'm convinced that it is neither possible nor desirable to reduce the length by half.

SaturatedFatts makes a good point in noting that having an article on the Roman empire that can be read all in one go is probably not a desideratum. Rather, we are expecting that readers will use the ToC to locate the section/topic that they are interested in. Furius (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: How did you come up with 22k words? Based on this edit I'm wondering if you included the "Notes" and "References" sections when you computed article length? The length of such text should not be a consideration in determining readability. Paul August ☎ 18:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I did not; that edit was general cleanup. Prosesize automatically excludes content such as References that does not count towards readable prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Based on my manual count (refer above to the results), and which only took body text (no references, no image captions), the article is 21,166 words. Biz (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Dang, you actually got the size in bytes down to basically the same as Byzantine Empire. Now I feel like that article needs cutting too since it’s sort of a sub article to this one. SaturatedFatts (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)