Talk:Roman Empire/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Clothing

Hey, I've been working offline all week on the "Clothing" section, and I've just realized I've essentially amassed an entire article. After stating some intentions above, just thought I should keep page-watchers informed. If I don't throw my laptop out the window first, I'm either going to set aside what will become the article Clothing and personal adornment in the Roman Empire and concentrate on the deficiencies here, or go ahead and finish the clothing article, produce a summary section here, and then move on to addressing things like the insufficient section on literature and the incomplete section on "Society". Bleah. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Good news, but sadly I'm not in a position to offer you a pay rise. Just kudos. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I thought that since there was some solid content on late antiquity in the "Clothing" section, I could refurbish the section easily, and then I committed the sin of getting interested in the subject. Which got me bogged down in details. Will take a long walk and restore my head. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've made another and I hope more acceptable bold edit; "the toga was" to "the toga had become". I hope that gives acceptable brevity while still allowing the casual reader some appreciation that the nature of the item changed with time. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, no problem, point taken. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Demographics and GDP

After Cynwolfe has done an incredibly diligent effort to clean up the article, the last thing I want is to spoil her efforts. However, I firmly think that a demography/demographics section, however small, should be an integral part of the article because of the huge economic implications of population size: it is quite a difference if we treat the RE as an entity with 55-60 million ('traditional' view), 70 million (current 'low count') or 100 million people (current 'high count'). These are quite different beasts in terms of economic analysis.

Another thing is the GDP table. I created it about two years ago from the lively scholarly debate going on. It is to the best of my knowledge the only overview of this kind in the internet plus the whole of scholarly literature. I know some of the scholars cited have seen and liked it. But it has not much in the way of an accompanying explanation (which would be too lengthy), so I might be carried away by my own enthusiasm. So you think the table is worth to be included here? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've actually been hoping you'd be carried away by your enthusiasm to do something about the "Architecture and engineering" section, as well as developing a section on "Industry" as a whole that would include "Mining and metallurgy." Just hadn't gotten around to leaving you a note. I moved the demographic material (which was in a small independent section) to the Geography section because that seemed more in keeping with how the Romans thought about such things (as an aspect of the census of lands and peoples). There could certainly be a sentence or two amplifying issues of demography there. My efforts have been mainly directed at creating a more conventional structure for the article that at the same time reflects the peculiarities of the topic.

The GDP table was removed based on a comment above by an uninvolved editor about the length of the article, because the table already appears in the main Roman economy article. Under the section on "Taxation," I link to Roman economy#Gross domestic product, for instance. So in trying to respond to issues of length, which are only growing worse in trying to address omissions, I concentrated on reducing sections that we could treat as summary sections. The article had been expanded by pasting stuff from other articles here, which meant that we were only duplicating content readers could find elsewhere, without providing central aspects of the topic that are poorly represented on Wikipedia. For instance, we have no overview article Languages of the Roman Empire, so that section is disproportionately long (but I think crucial to understanding a number of issues about Roman "unity in diversity" and the legacy of the Empire, for instance). Some major articles, such as Latin literature and Slavery in ancient Rome, are sadly substandard, and couldn't be used as a way to tell readers "if you want to know about this topic in the Roman Empire, go here." Other overview articles (on cuisine, social class, and so on) fail to distinguish between the Republic and the Empire, often exclude the later Empire altogether, and were written in the days of lower standards for RS and so on. The "Religion" section here is cobbled together from Religion in ancient Rome and Imperial cult (ancient Rome), so I consider it a temporary solution to a more thoughtful, concentrated summary. Anyway, that's been my thinking. If the GDP table is included here, I would rather see a longer introductory paragraph that enables readers unfamiliar with the methodologies of the data (such as high school students) to grasp the general questions. If the table is not included, such a paragraph would achieve the same purpose, while directing readers to Roman economy for more details.

I'm currently working on the "Food and drink" section (my problem is how to keep it short), and on "Education." I plan to do something for the miserable section on Roman art, and to rewrite "Music and dance" as a section on performing arts in general, including theatre, because we lack articles that deal in a meaningful way with the performing arts in Rome. Then I will take a very long vacation.

I hope this explanation makes sense. Just to summarize, if there's already a place on WP to get the information, such as History of the Roman Empire or Roman economy, my goal was to create a summary section. If I couldn't find a suitable treatment of the topic on WP, I've been expanding the section. Some of these expanded sections can be shrunk if we have spinoff articles; I have an outline draft, for instance, of Clothing and personal adornment in the Roman Empire. I myself don't mind that the article is quite long, because the TOC allows readers to jump to sections of interest. But I'm trying to heed those concerns.Cynwolfe (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you'd actually moved the discussion of population to the bottom of the article. I would argue quite vigorously that it must be near the top of the article, and that it logically belongs in the survey of the Empire as a geographic entity composed of peoples, preceding the survey of languages and legal status. If you read the sections on Geography and Provincial administration, the collection of data through the census is fundamental to the concept of "Roman Empire", and included a register of lands together with the registration of people. So these two topics are inextricably linked in the Roman system, and I don't see any reason to bury the estimates of population at the bottom of the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Currency

There was discussion above about the infobox containing too many details. Since the infobox should function as a quick-glance snapshot, TMI defeats its purpose. It was suggested that the currency section be reduced. I've moved that info to the section "Currency," but I wonder: every time I see a price or monetary value placed on something (such as qualifications for the senatorial or equestrian order), it's given in sesterces (HS). So does the "currency" slot in the infobox do what it needs to do? This is something about which I know exceedingly little. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I've gotten no input on this, so I'm going to blunder on. Every single source I've been using gives currency as HS (sesterces) in the manner that one would use the euro, dollar, pound, etc. The census qualification for senators and equestrians is given in sesterces; prices are given in sesterces. The scholarship gives equivalent values based on sestertii: "the find consisted of around 8,000 gold aurei that had monetary value of around 800,000 sesterces." Our presentation implies that the aureus is the basic currency unit, simply (presumably) because it's the largest denomination, so I'm going to replace the currency section in the infobox with a link to sestertius (an article in need of attention, given the unit's importance), leaving the more detailed treatment of denominations for the currency section. If I do something economically illiterate, please fix it. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Talking about currency in our modern context is problematic when looking at the Roman Empire. Their concept of currency was not quite what it is today. Coins were struck in several precious metals and valued as high as 3 times their metal content (depending on the time period). There was no equivalant to 'the Dollar', 'Pound sterling', or 'Euro'. There were numerous units of coinage standardized in their composition and relative values to each other. The Sestertius was one of these denominations in Roman currency. Matters are complicated further by the parallel Roman provincial coins.
It seems sestertii became a common point of reference when discussing values, but the denarius, antoninianus, etcetera should be considered if we are talking about official Imperial currency.
—Sowlos (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've expanded the currency portion of the infobox with a drop-down directing readers to the currency section.
—Sowlos (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. My only point was that every single source provides values in terms of sesterces—not that other denominations of coins weren't used. Not a single value in the article is given in anything but sesterces (again, because that's what the sources consistently do: I haven't converted anything), which is why it seemed reasonable to note in the infobox how values would be given in the article. I pulled the denominations into a box in the "Currency" section, but I didn't create that content, so it lacks a source. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand. Listing one denomination in the info-box and then using another could be confusing to readers. My concern is the currency section of the box will be understood as 'official currency'. Uninformed readers will then interperate 'sestertii' as 'the Dollars/Euro of Imperial Rome'. If confusion was the only issue I would suggest converting values, but we should primarily use the most commonly understood unit in the article text.
A lot of liturature focuses on denarii and their successors, but many Roman coins were named for their denominations in asses. ...I'm tempted to suggest just linking to the currency section, avoiding the issue.
—Sowlos (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've sent up a few distress flares. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Currency of the Roman Empire, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#Currency of the Roman Empire, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Former countries#Currency of the Roman Empire.
—Sowlos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me if all the sources are saying sestercii, that's what we should be using, with notes as appropriate to say what the other coinage in play might be. That is, treat a local coin as a modern national coin, & the sesterce as the euro. Leave the issue of inaccurate equivalence to History of currency or something. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, using the denomination of the sources in the article is a given. However, a denomination being common amongst the sources currently in use doesn't make it the official currency of the Empire. Cynwolfe was right to ask for input.
—Sowlos (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the Romans called their coin a sestertius, plural sestertii. The forms sesterce and sesterces are English. That's not to say that sesterces is the dominant form in English, although since so much Classical scholarship was written in the 18th and 19th Centuries, that's likely to prevail in the older literature and those who follow that convention. I didn't encounter sesterces until I was already familiar with sestertii even in English sources, so I naturally prefer that. And while I accept sesterce as a probable English singular, I can't recall ever running across it. Even sources that use sesterces seem to prefer sestertius as the singular. Perhaps there's a simple way of providing both forms together for both singular and plural, but this may not be the article for it.

And to explain what's meant about the valuations of various coins, the bronze as (plural aes, or in English, asses) was the base unit of Roman currency, dating to the period when the first true Roman coins (aes grave) replaced bronze ingots (aes rude). It originally represented the value of a pound of bronze. Other coins were introduced as multiples of the as: the denarius (literally, 10 aes), the quinarius (5 aes, or half a denarius), and the sestertius (2 1/2 aes, or a quarter denarius). The as was used for centuries, but its value as a currency declined steadily, while the sestertius and denarius replaced it as the most common and most convenient units of commerce. Gold coins were struck from time to time, but the relationship of their value to that of other coins varied. Aureus was a generic term for a gold coin. In the later Empire, a gold coin called the solidus nummus (literally, "hard currency") was fixed at the value of 12 silver denarii. Libra, or "pounds" of silver weren't generally convenient for commerce, but together with Greek talents were used in accounting for very large sums.

Interestingly enough, these ancient proportions lay behind most European currency of the medieval and early modern period, and some survive today. Until 1971, the British Pound (still abbreviated £, for libra) was divided into 20 shillings (solidi, abbreviated with a "solidus" [or virgule]), of 12 pence (denarii, abbreviated d), which in turn could be divided into halves (quinarii) or quarters called "farthings" (sestertii). In France, the values were denier, sols, and livres; in Italy the coins were the denaro (plural denari), soldo (plural soldi), and lire (plural lira). In Spain, dinero and sueldo, and in Portugal, dinheiro and soldo. And don't forget all those Arabic dinars. And if you actually pegged the value of a pound to silver (for simplicity, let's say $60 today), a penny would be worth about 25¢, and a farthing 6 1/4¢. In Roman terms that would mean an as would be worth about 2 1/2¢, so you can see why it ceased to be a practical unit of currency by the time that large values came to be reckoned in pounds of silver. P Aculeius (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Well said.
Does that mean you support adding 'as' and/or 'denarius' in the info-box, currency section?
—Sowlos (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the best way to answer that question is to say that different currencies prevailed at different times in Roman history. From Augustus to the third century, the principal coins were the as, sestertius, and denarius. Large sums were reckoned in aurei equal to 100 sestertii or 25 denarii. The solidus came along in the fourth century. Diocletian introduced it with the value of 1,000 denarii (rather than the historical relationship of gold and silver at 12/1 or 16/1) due to debasement of the denarius. This continued so that the relationship between the two coins was never stable. So while it might be safe to say that the original coins of the Empire were the as, sestertius, denarius, and aureus (the quinarius being uncommon), from the fourth century onwards they were pretty much just the denarius and solidus. Not sure there's an easy way to put this in an infobox, though! P Aculeius (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

First, I have to say that I was both really tired and under a time constraint yesterday when I posted, so the whole thing feels unfinished and insufficiently thought-out to me. Let me take another stab at it.

Here's what I would suggest in terms of making the article usable for the general reader, many of whom are likely to be high school or young college students. An infobox or sidebar or navbar becomes unusable when it's cluttered, so that's why I've been trying to clear this one out. (Not to get sidetracked, but I'm really bugged by this template: notice its non-parallel construction, where some two-col cells have the date on the left and some on the right, and the col width is the same for date and text, leading to too-skinny text cols.) The box needs to do two things: online, it's a link to where the reader can find an explanation; printed, it just presents a key point. For this article, all the recent sources on the Roman economy, whether or not they're currently cited in the section (Harris, Duncan-Jones, Hopkins and so on), give prices and values in sesterces. I emphasize economy because that's the topic of the section: a section on numismatics would be different. The sources also, however, point out that during the late Republic and High Empire the Romans themselves gave prices and values in sestertii. The centrality of this monetary unit is indicated, for instance, in the census requirements for the senatorial and equestrian orders being measured in sestertii. So in fact this is not a modern imposition. The article sestertius does have a section on how it's the standard "unit of account"—used in accounting in a manner analogous to the dollar or euro, as a standard unit of accounting and exchange. I also have some notes for a short paragraph on relative wages and salaries which I'm planning to lodge in the section on "Labor and occupations," and these are also given in sesterces, except for the unfortunate lady in Pompeii who received two asses for her, ahem, efforts. So the point in the infobox is to note the unit of value or accounting that's actually used throughout the article and in the sources, not to list all currencies in use at all times, which can be done in the section on Currency.

An alternative would be to link the sestertius in the infobox directly to the section on Currency, where I pulled out a quasi-table or list for denominations. Unless something falls from the heavens into my lap, I don't plan to do more with that box, but at minimum it needs a citation. I would especially urge knowledgeable editors to have a go at that.

The use of HS in expressing values is a separate matter from the relative value of denominations, and what standard that was based on, and the consequent debasement and Diocletian's attempt at currency reform. The Edict on Maximum Prices, however, measured values in denarii (I think! haven't explored this), and if that reflects a change in accounting, I'll make an effort to explain that. Keep in mind that pre-Augustan background on currency is outside article scope.

The existing section on Currency had been based on a website and a dead link. My intention before I had to surrender for the day was to transition to the section on "Mining and metallurgy" via a quick look at mints (which were often located for access to metals sources) and regional coinage, especially the Greek Imperial coinage, but with a more solid source. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that Roman Imperial currency is in fact not about the currency of the Roman Empire, but specifically on provincial currencies, an approach that seems a little offbeat.[1] This is an example of why Roman Empire is such a long article, and a daunting task to edit: support articles are often lacking in surprising ways, and there's no place to direct the reader to get a fuller picture. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. It should be moved and Roman Imperial currency redirected to Roman currency#Roman Empire: 27 BCE – 476 CE.
—Sowlos (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Moved.
—Sowlos (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

To keep this from getting longer than it needs, I think we all understand the the Empire used many forms of coin and that a complete answer to "What was currency was used?" is to complex for the information box.
I'm really bugged by this template: notice its non-parallel construction, where some two-col cells have the date on the left and some on the right
Good point. We should suggest adding that functionality. In the mean time, what do you think of something like this?

Until 3rd century as dupondius sestertius (HS) Traditional unit of account. See below for a full explanation. denarius Until 4th century aureus From 4th century solidus

—Sowlos (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate your help with this very much. I've been looking at other country infoboxes (both former and current), and I don't see any others that go into such detail. Nearly all just give the unit of accounting or one standard. One exception is Ottoman Empire, which gives about five coin types, just separated by commas. I think for the sake of functionality, I'd still prefer what we have, or perhaps put the list you have here as the hidden content—a detailed explanation of currency does appear in a box in the relevant section (though it needs a citation), and I'm just not sure why we need so much detail in the main infobox. What would our reasons be, given that other boxes don't do that? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I try to help when people ask for input. I hope my suggestions and input come across as just that. I try to tease solutions out of problems, looking at them from many angles. but taking few strong opinions over remaining agnostic to what solutions are chosen.
My last suggestion was actually based on the articles of several past large empires, such as Achaemenid Persian Empire, Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire. They all list multiple currencies. The structed list was based your observation that the currency section lacks multi-column support.
My only opinion in this case is listing one denomination doesn't adequately describe 'Imperial Rome's currency'. (There are many ways to rectify that, of course.) The information box is intended to only provide a summary at a glance, but simplicity must not compromise facts. If a young student only glances at the box and leaves thinking 'sestertius was the currency of Imperial Rome', they have been misinformed.
—Sowlos (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Length concerns?

I've been struggling to add sections on "Food and dining" and "Literacy, books and education" while remaining mindful of length concerns. I've been whittling away at my notes on these aspects of the topic, but the sections are still quite substantial in my drafts. Food, of course, looms larger than it would in most comparable articles, in part because of the hold Trimalchio's dinner party has had on our subsequent imagination. Or at least I've always found that people are quite interested in this aspect of Roman culture. Not to mention the eating of flamingo tongues.

So last night I decided to look over other long articles for comparison. Most of these are list articles. Among those that aren't, Imperial Roman army, curiously enough, is ranked 457, longer than the main Roman Empire article (at 509). At the moment, "Roman Empire" is shorter, for instance, than Arab Spring, Port of Tianjin, European sovereign-debt crisis, Gaza War, Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, the biography of Taylor Swift, and the whopping Octoechos, a form of Orthodox chant—to name a few. In terms of scope (time, space, multiplicity), any of these would fit in the Roman Empire's vest pocket.

After I thought about it, it seemed unsurprising that an article on the Roman Empire might be among the top 500 articles by length, even if all articles were ideally proportioned in relation to each other.

If it's all right with my fellow editors, I'm going to stop nursing writer's block and just get 'er done. My feeling is that readers can just skip a section they find irrelevant. I don't think the new sections I have are unreadably dense or prolix, taken individually, so today I'm just going to work on posting them so we can see where we're at and move on. I hope that's OK. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you did a fine job. It is a section too important to be missing from a complete article on the Roman Empire, so a little too large is probably better than not at all.
If it helps, it may be useful to judge the length, comprehensiveness, and content of sections with external main articls by the leads of their respective main articles. WP:Summary style.
—Sowlos (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Labarum

Say, um, shouldn't the labarum be the symbol in the infobox? As the last symbol known to have been in use as essentially representative of the state? -- Director (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I would oppose that as a symbol in relatively limited use in the context of the span of the empire as a whole, and unrepresentative of Imperial Roman culture as a whole. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Per Cynwolfe I would leave it out - additionally I find this sort of icon rather unhelpful in the context of political entities which didn't generally use flags or national icons in any modern way. It's news to me that the Roman Empire ever used any "symbol ... essentially representative of the state". Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Richard has expressed the reasoning better. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This is my reasoning here. If the symbol used to represent the late empire is the labarum, then as the latest symbol used as such it takes precedence over the current one. Note that the labarum is the symbol representing the early Byzantine empire in the infobox. The impression given is "ok so when the Empire became the Byzantine Empire it's best represented with the labarum". -- Director (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you, but the labarum doesn't replace the aquila even under Christian rule; it's used as an additional symbol. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there was a single uniform and exclusive symbol used in the same way that a modern country uses a flag. As Richard says, that isn't the case. What we have in the infobox is a user icon to represent the Roman Empire, just as the labarum is just a user icon to differentiate and represent the Byzantine Empire. I don't feel sufficiently informed about whether that's appropriate for the Byzantine Empire. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I know, I'm just saying: we should use one or the other. It's misleading to use one symbol for Byzantium as the successor and another for the "Roman Empire" as such. Regardless where you set the arbitrary boundary between these two states, it isn't accompanied by a change in insignia.

Look, the successor entry in the infobox is supposed to use the symbol the successor state used when it succeeded, whereas the main symbol in the infobox is supposed to use the latest symbol of the state (most of the time). It appears as though there was some change in insignia when this Empire "became" the Byzantine Empire. There wasn't any. -- Director (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems you've resolved that issue.
—Sowlos (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

so you would say the vexilloid is accurate in depicting the Empire during Late Antiquity? Such as in the 5th or 6th centuries? The SPQR and all? I could be wrong but I think that's gone after time of Diocletian (SPQR, I mean). -- Director (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

But this isn't primarily an article about the Roman Empire in late antiquity. The icon should reflect the most general symbol that represents the Roman Empire as a whole. I also don't find it inappropriate to use the labarum for the Byzantine Empire because as an entity separate from the Classical Roman Empire it was never not a Christian empire. I'm not arguing it's the best icon, because I'm not well-informed enough. But there's nothing about the emblem that was chosen to represent the Roman Empire here that would leave the innocent reader with a deeply mistaken impression, and there is something quite misleading about using the identical one for the Greek-speaking, Christian empire we call "Byzantine," as if there's been no major cultural shift. The shift—in language, geography, religion, and many other ways—is far more dramatic than the shift between the Roman Republic and Roman Empire. The icon for the Byzantine Empire needs to be different from the one used for the main article. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we should either remove these icons, or base their use on reliable sources which describe their contemporary use as symbols of the state. In this article I think we'll have trouble finding any such sources and I'd therefore propose removing the icons - which in any case I don't find particularly useful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm very supportive of removing these baubles.  ^davidiad_.:τ 19:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well now, we must have some symbol.. Or at least an image of some sort that would be the closest thing to an emblem representing the Roman state. Of these, we should probably use the one that can be said to have been such throughout.

Wasn't the golden eagle a symbol of the Emperor practically throughout Roman imperial history (including Byzantium)? -- Director (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we're saying that we don't need a flag symbol at all. Not, at any rate, when we would have to use modern symbols of modern periodization. Fine for modern games, but not really what an encyclopedia needs. I suggest getting rid of the things. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The way these boxes are designed, it's harder to read without the images. Unless one or more of you are willing to create a template for ancient 'countries', which will handle values in forms not normally of consideration for modern states, we should keep it the way it is.
Just as there is no hard line between the Roman and Byzantine empires, the Roman Empire came directly from the Roman Republic with no actual succession of states. The Empire also maintained the visage the previous Republic for more than half of its history.
There is a reason why the labarum doesn't appear until late in the Roman Empire. The Greek imperial monogram (☧) only becomes common on standards in the context of the Greeks.
The Roman initialism is surely more representative of the Roman Empire. Whether the labarum (compared to other Roman symbols) is more representative or not of the Byzantine Empire is a different debate.
—Sowlos (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we'd be a lot better off without this sort of image in general; I don't think they have anything useful to offer. In this particular case, where they are also anachronistic, ambiguous, and often misleading, we should remove them. I've yet to see an image here that doesn't convey misleading impressions. Can anyone suggest some? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The initialism.. was it still in use after the Crisis? To my knowledge much republican pretense was dropped at that point. @Dr. Keatinge. I agree that the images can be, and are, misleading, but I also agree we must have something up there. Perhaps the solution would be a note that basically states "no, this isn't a Roman 'national flag', its just this and this"? -- Director (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The initialism is still used in a dedicatory inscription from the city of Rome of c. 400 ([2]), but I guess that doesn't really count. It seems to have disappeared from Roman coins after Constantine ([3]). Iblardi (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. These symbols all basically do not represent the late Empire. Ideally some symbol that was used throughout might be best, though I suppose the current version with a brief note might be ok as well. (Interesting coincidence: that latter page you linked talks about Split, my home town - and gets the contemporary name quite wrong, it was "Spalatum" back then.) -- Director (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

(Just for the record: Does it mention a contemporary name? Where? It's not under "Split".) Iblardi (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to the entry on pp. 394 and 395 of the Dictionary of the Roman Empire, your second link in the above post. It calls the town where Diocletian's palace was situated "Split". That name is Serbo-Croatian and probably originates from anywhere between 1,000 and 1,500 years after Diocletian was dead and gone. The city's Latin name is "Spalatum" (derived from the Greek "Asphalatos"). Whether the name "Spalatum" was in use during Diocletian's lifetime, I don't know, but it certainly wasn't "Split". The book makes no mention of a contemporary name. -- Director (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I now see that the book is supposed to list place names "by Roman name, with the modern place name given parenthetically where applicable" (p. xv). You're right, I hadn't noticed that. Iblardi (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Why would the reader think it's a national flag? It looks like what the label says it is, a vexillum, though the label could have a footnote that explains it's a stylized composite. I tend to agree with Sowlos on the latest point. These are just icons, unambiguously modern drawings—in the case of the Republic and Byzantine Empire, they're just icon buttons for the reader to click to follow the arrows. I wonder whether I could trouble Richard to explain in more detail what he finds misleading about the current icons, so we can address the concerns better? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 0

Described as a stylized composite I suppose it's acceptable. What bugs me is the implication that these baubles are authentic contemporary flags or similar national symbol. Separately, I don't always find their use in infoboxes useful, and in this case I'd personally get rid of them on the grounds that the actual succession of power over the area claimed by the Roman Empire was far more complicated than any infobox can reasonably contain. I may not be alone in that position, but I suspect there is no consensus for removal. So, what about calling the thing "Modern vexillum of the Roman Empire"? Any better ideas? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, a completely different approach perhaps: I was wondering what would be the pros and cons of using images of real coins that could be considered typical for each of the three eras (showing both obverse and reverse sides, i.e. portraits as well as associated symbolism) instead of the initialism, the artificial vexillum and the labarum. Iblardi (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I continue to agree with Richard's reasoning, and at the same time see the value of providing icons for visual focus. Although we have the old-style reader feedback tool on this page, many of the comments I find from antiquity-related articles with the new tool are requests for more images. Most of these comments seem to be from students, so it isn't a bad thing to think about how they can relate to the material. Iblardi's idea of using a numismatic image seems like something we could discuss here by looking at possibilities. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking through coins on Commons, I saw a couple of ways to go about this. One would be to find a continuing strand of imagery not confined to a particular regime, such as Dea Roma or Victory personified, that would show both continuity and change. The personification of the capital would work as a representation of the state: Roma for the Republic; Roma and Constantinopolis clasping hands for the Empire; and alas, I found no coin with Constantinopolis alone, so I have a Pantocrator of sorts in that spot. Victory was the last of all the traditional divine personifications to appear on Byzantine coinage (I have a didrachm for the Republic, so that is not ideal, though it's specifically Roman Victory), and was a pervasive icon. As a side note, it's interesting how she goes from nude to one bared breast to fully robed—that in itself seems emblematic of changing times. But I'm not so much arguing for the specific examples I have in the following two galleries as just starting discussion and looking at what kind of progression might make sense. (I also haven't cropped these to show only the one relevant side.) Cynwolfe (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Personification of the empire

• 
  Helmeted Roma (93-92 BC)
• 
  Roma and Constantinopolis clasp hands (351-354)
• 
  goddesses dethroned (921-931 AD)

Victoria

• 
  Victory (265-242 BC)
• 
  Victory (156–157 AD)
• 
  morphs into an 'angel,' tho clearly marked as Victoria Augusti (538-545 AD)

Fanstastic! You do great work, Cynwolfe.
Imagry like this, rather than flag-like imagry, is actually far more representative of what Romans and Constantinopolitans would likely have considered their 'national symbols' .
—Sowlos (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There is of course the story (found in Cosmas Indicopleustes) about the merchant who uses a coin to convince the king of Ceylon of the superior power of the Roman emperor.[4] Cynwolfe, I especially like your second set, the one with the 'morphing' Victoria. Iblardi (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions Iblardi and Cynwolfe! A great improvement on my own unfocused dissatisfaction. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Very nice indeed. I myself especially prefer the solidus of Constantius Gallus (upper row, mid). "Rome and Constantinople clasp hands" seems very appropriate. Antoninus's coin from the "golden age" is my second choice. -- Director (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Me too, Direktor: that was the coin that got me thinking, once Iblardi had the inspiration of using a coin. That was brilliant. A coin is probably the most pervasive symbol of the state, since it literally goes everywhere, and isn't just confined to a military setting. A challenge I see is that we need to choose a series as a whole, either the personification of the state or the Victory series (I've checked into the didrachma, and now feel OK about it: "Rome minted fine Hellenic-style didrachmae in part to announce her entrance into the concert of civilized powers"[5]). Or another series entirely. I also looked for Pax, but didn't seem to find a sufficient selection. From a purely graphics perspective, the Victory series "reads" better because of the single more legible image; because of the unified theme, it seems more coherent as a narrative sequence. The caption could explain that Victory appeared on Roman coinage for centuries, and was the last divinity to appear on imperial coinage under Christian rule (I have a footnote for that), if some way to express this concisely could be found. But if we should decide to choose the Victory series, I would want to place the Constantius Gallus solidus in the "Currency and banking" section, because of its rich iconography. It's such a fine and detailed piece. Another question: have you all looked at the equivalent boxes for Roman Republic and Byzantine Empire? Does it matter if our icons differ from the ones at the top of the articles to which we're directing readers? At some point when I was napping, they removed the vexillum from Roman Republic. There's a kind of pointless SPQR slab there now: pointless because graphically unappealing and visually uninformative. The vexillum is still used for the "back" icon at Byz Emp, where our coin (whatever it is) would look out of place. At Roman Republic, they represent the Roman Kingdom with the she-wolf and Etruria with the Chimera of Arezzo (actually, I just added the latter, because the previous icon was unreadable at that size). (And I appreciate all the encouragement.) Cynwolfe (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Another question: have you all looked at the equivalent boxes for Roman Republic and Byzantine Empire? Does it matter if our icons differ from the ones at the top of the articles to which we're directing readers?
— User:Cynwolfe

Continuity is important. I would suggest WP:boldly aligning them or bringing it up for discussion at the WikiProject level first.
I would also like to suggest the possibility of directly taking the imagry from the selected coins as SVGs, rather than images of the coins themselves. However, this is just a suggestion. As Iblardi rightly points out, coins were strongly tied with the state by Imperial times.
—Sowlos (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well the Byzantine Empire kind of did have a flag and sort of "insignia", during its last 200 years (14th century on or so). But its arguable whether the Byzantine Empire was still "really" the Byzantine Empire after 1204 so.. I don't know. It might be better to represent Byzantium with coins as well, but then again it did have a flag. Its a matter for discussion.

To be perfectly honest I also would not mind keeping things as they are, but with a disclaimer regarding the fact that the vexillum does not represent the Empire as such. -- Director (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're refering to Byzantine heraldry and - yes - that was a late developement.
—Sowlos (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I would have agreed with you before, DIREKTOR. However, the cat is out of the bag. I feel the above said symbolism is far better than using psudo-flags as equivalents to our modern national flags.
—Sowlos (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Haha, you're right there ("cat's out of the bag"), I was just thinking the exact same thing :). I don't mind the coins or the vexillum (properly explained). Its a matter of consensus, as you correctly point out. -- Director (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

And what might that consensus be? We seem to have fallen silent without resolving anything. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We have fallen silent for fear of interrupting the admirable workings of your encyclopedic mind. The Victory series seems a brilliant suggestion, and if you can produce a specific series of images - cropped Commons photographs, or SVGs if anyone is able to generate these - I suspect that we will very shortly have a working consensus and can set to work, introducing the editors of other relevant pages to the idea. I return to my humble posture of hushed awe and anticipation... Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I have chortled aloud in Starbucks, causing the studious young person next to me to cast a disapproving glance. I wonder whether someone other than me might be better equipped to process the images, as the desire for SVG is beyond my capacity. Sowlos, when you talk about taking the imagery from the coin, rather than the coin itself, what do you mean? I was picturing the full circular disc, as if it were a medallion, but only the Victory side of the coin. (And if we get this iconography working here, we can look at whether it works over at Roman Republic too.) Cynwolfe (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I usually find that by this point someone just needs to 'step up' and others will comment on the working drafts if need be.
—Sowlos (talk)

Well, there is an imagery on coins (a person doing x, two people doing y, a building exemplifying z, etcetera). That imagery can exist independently of the coinage which it may be pressed on to. Note: that would be the only reason to use an SVG over PNG.
—Sowlos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The advantage of SVG or other image abstracted from a coin would be clarity and scalability. In this particular case, where we (Cynwolfe) can select the very clearest images from a very large variety, I'd think that just cropping some good photographs so that they show the coin with minimal white space would be quite sufficient. Back to humble, but joyful, anticipation... Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, we don't an SVG. Scalability isn't an issue here. It would just be the natural choice if we abstracted the image, however there is no push for that. On to deciding which raster image is best!
—Sowlos (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Imo an .SVG image would really be a step in the right direction if we're to use the coin as a symbol of this state. -- Director (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose so. But we don't need SVG now. I hope for some draft images which we can use, and which some skilled and willing person may be willing to convert to SVG in due course. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

What's become of this? Some good suggestions were made then nothing happened. I'd edit (if needed) and add the image myself, but there were several proposed.
—Sowlos (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone deep down just likes the cool vexillum and aquila. :) They're what people generally imagine the Empire used as a flag. -- Director (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh heh, you're probably right. I was relishing the shock value, I admit, if we represented the empire with a female figure, even though that's what the Romans themselves did. I just stuck in the Roma-Constantinopolis solidus reverse for its iconography in the "History" section, with the intention of placing its uncropped form under "Currency" if we put a coin face in the infobox. Do we still want to look at the two different series of three images in cropped versions? Or are we happy to stay as is? If "as is," then I think there was a suggestion to explain the vexillum better. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, that's because the whole Roman Empire was a military formation in bronze and leather armer, like in the movies! Duh!
—Sowlos (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we still want to look at the two different series of three images in cropped versions?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean select from or use all?

Or are we happy to stay as is?

I don't think it should stay as is. It should be as close to what Romans of the time would identify themselves with. We shouldn't tailor contents of an encyclopaedia to what we think people expect to learn.
—Sowlos (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping that someone who's better at images than I am would make a selection, possibly from among Cynwolfe's suggestions above. I suppose I could do it, but almost anyone else is likely to do it better. If nobody else has got on with it by this weekend I might do my ham-fisted best. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems we were all waiting for someone else to do something. I'll start:
I second Cynwolf's proposal for an image of dea Roma for the Republic and Roma & Constantinopolis clasping hands for the Empire. Now, the floor is open to any opinions/suggestions on image particulars. The current default is to use properly cropped versions of the images already posted here.
—Sowlos (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done
I noticed we already had a cropped image of the solidus reverse with Roma and Constantinopolis clasping hands in the history section. If I have some time this week, I'll try make an SVG from it (free of the coin background, of course). I assume an SVG is still the preferred end product.
—Sowlos (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I cropped this, but it could probably benefit from some sharpening in Photoshop. I'm not entirely sure we decided on this one over the Victory series, but I removed it from the "History" section, which could now use some kind of representation for the later empire. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't either, but everyone was enthusiastic about the general idea and something needed to be done. (I do not like letting good ideas die.) It seems to be sensible representation of a unified empire, but I am impartial.

Regardless, I would suggest putting back the solidus after the coat in the infobox is SVGed. It serves as a good visual, historical example.
—Sowlos (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Military dictatorship

We can't use the word "dictator" to describe the Roman emperor, because the Roman dictator is something distinct. Sulla and Julius Caesar were dictatores, and before them dictator had no negative connotations (and was a six-month term with powers exercised outside the city—that is, not in the civilian realm—with a few illuminating exceptions): the emperors were not dictatores in the Roman sense. The lead that's been here for years uses autocracy, and that seems a sufficiently vague modern appellation to cover both the Principate and the Dominate. "Military dictatorship" seems anachronistic and may conjure up Hollywood notions of Rome. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Good call. Especially since the Lex Antonia formally abolished the dictator role. Describing Roman emperors as dictators in the modern sense would indeed be incredibly anachronistic (which is also why you wouldn't be able to find any scholarly reference for it). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but that's no reason not to use the word "military dictatorship". Note: a "military dictatorship" is any form of government where political power resides with the military, and I've heard and read professors use that term very often [6]. I think its paramount that the infobox make it clear that was the case with the Roman government system. I don't consider it confusing with the office of the ancient "dictator", and neither do many scholars. One can hardly over-emphasize the dependence of political power upon military support during the period of the Roman Empire. "Military autocracy"? (Re may edit: I was writing this post, hence no summary) -- Director (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

To me this just points to why infoboxes can be more trouble than they're worth. They're dandy for straightforward facts and terms, but arguable concepts ... not so much. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but we could debate the pros and cons of infoboxes indefinitely. My point is that this is an established scholarly term used to describe the government of the Roman Empire. In fact, it is precisely the transition of the Roman state (through the Roman Revolution) from an aristocratic republic to a military dictatorship that separates the Roman Empire from the Republic. Its what defines the period and separates it from the preceding era. -- Director (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Eh, not exactly. Provincial governors were military commanders in the Republic. There wasn't separation of the administrative and military functions. And I don't see the Roman Empire fitting into the Category:Military dictatorship, which are relatively short-lived regimes with limited geographical scope. The Roman Empire is an empire, not a junta. The Roman Empire is more like the Ottoman Empire or the British Empire, which I'm assuming we're not calling military dictatorships. All empires rely on a strong military. And all monarchs control their military, or they don't stay on the throne ... but we don't usually call Elizabeth I a military dictator. So I'm just not seeing this as a useful term, because it carries a lot of baggage that doesn't do anything to illuminate how the Roman Empire was governed. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, why can't we just call it an empire? Cynwolfe (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes "exactly". It does not matter that proconsuls were military commanders, in the Republic proper (before the Roman Revolution) - the Senate was in control. A junta is (usually) a stratocracy, the Roman Empire was not a junta - it was a military dictatorship. It wasn't ruled by the military, but the military was the source of all political power. The supreme and only source. It is a textbook military dictatorship, and I can provide about a dozen sources for that right off the bat.

Elisabeth I is a very poor analogy for about fifteen different reasons. Suffices to say her power was based in the support of the aristocracy, not the English army. Cromwell, however, was a military dictator. Its not about "controlling" the military, its about military support being the basis of political power. -- Director (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Once the military became the only way to hold the empire together, the empire promptly fell apart—which is why an empire is a more complex political entity than a military dictatorship. (You miss my point about the governance of provinces under the Republic, but I don't want to digress.) Military support is always the basis of power, if it comes to a question of who's in power. The military was not the theoretical or constitutional basis of the emperor's position; it was the practical source. I can't think of many monarchs who ruled effectively if their armed forces turned against them. Just as monarchs claimed divine authority, one source of legitimacy for the emperor derived from Roman religious tradition and the role of Pontifex Maximus. That's part of the importance of Imperial cult. The emperor also had to work with senators; if the military were the only source of political power, the senate could've been disbanded, and their legitimation of the emperor's position would hardly have been needed. That's a political mechanism that evidently mattered to the Romans beyond the sheer practicality of force. The military was certainly not the source of all political power from the perspective of provincial government and the network of cities. Again, if you look at Category:Military dictatorship, it's evident that the Roman Empire doesn't belong there. Again I ask: what's wrong with calling it an empire? Cynwolfe (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I really don't see what the category has to do with this discussion. If the fundamental reason for your opposition here is that you don't like how the Roman Empire might "look" in the category, then I really don't know how to respond to that. Please, forget about the cat.
• This has nothing to do with "what held the Empire together", that's a red herring. We're talking about the basis of the emperor's power.
• @"I can't think of many monarchs who ruled effectively if their armed forces turned against them." Another red herring. That is not the issue here.
• The Emperors derived their power from the support of their troops. They even counted their reign from the year their legions proclaimed them emperor, not from when they were voted the honorifics in the Senate.
• And no, the emperors did NOT have to "work with senators", they were entirely independent of that institution. They could "work with them", if they wanted to, but they could also ignore, terrorize, and/or ridicule them at will (and get bad press from Dio). One need only quote a few letters from Caracalla and the like to drive that point home.

Look I can't respond to all that piecemeal.. we could debate Roman history for days here. The bottom line is that this is very well sourced. If you have objections, please provide a directly contradicting source in support (bearing in mind that military dictatorship is a form of autocracy, and that those two terms do not conflict).

-- Director (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Input sought

To the issues being discussed

I think some issues are being crossed. Director, Its not about "controlling" the military, its about military support being the basis of political power. Nearly all states in history have required support from their militaries to exist. Find a government which lost support of its top generals and you find junta or revolution. the emperors did NOT have to "work with senators", they were entirely independent of that institution. They could "work with them", if they wanted to, but they could also ignore, terrorize, and/or ridicule them at will... I think Cynwolf's point was that the emperors could not simply abolish the senate or other Republican political institutions of power. Caesar gave them little mind and they killed him. The fact that the emperor needed to (at least not at the start) operate within the illusion of the old Republic attests the fact that there were many people outside the military who needed placating. Also, terrorizing a group that one can't dissolve is working with them. One need only quote a few letters from Caracalla and the like to drive that point home. Unfortunately, this is original research and not a line of debate we can entertain at Wikipedia. Cynwolf, We can't use the word "dictator" to describe the Roman emperor, because the Roman dictator is something distinct. This is the English Wikipedia and we must use the most appropriate English terms. In English, a dictator is a ruler (e.g. absolutist or autocratic) who assumes sole and absolute power (sometimes, but not always, with military control or bribes). The modern word has become distinct from the Roman office in the same way that autocrat has become distinct from autokrator. Once the military became the only way to hold the empire together, the empire promptly fell apart This may be true, but the Roman Empire has been call called a stratocracy before.

The Empire was autocratic, ruled by what an English speaker might call a dictator, and militaristic, but is not best described as a military dictatorship unless the discussion is refined to the time of the barracks emperors. While this is all important for informing the readers as to the Roman Empire's source of power, you're both confusing the pivotal issue, what should be listed in the infoxbox field. The 'government_type' field takes values such as '"Monarchy", "Republic", etc.' The proper value for the Roman Empire's government type is Empire.
—Sowlos (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Note. I've left a note asking for input at the wikiprojects listed at top. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Then we should definitely change Spain's government type to "kingdom"? :) "Kingdom" and "empire" are not government types, are not appropriate terms for that field (I do not consider your above summation to be very accurate).

I also surmise from the above that you apparently do not understand what a military dictatorship fundamentally is. It is not any system where political power is ultimately derived from military force, it is a system where the institution of the military (or rather the support thereof) is directly the basis of the political power of an autocrat. For example, if the Senate controls the military, and the ruling executive magistrates (the consuls) derive their political power from the support of the aristocracy - they are not military dictators and that is not a military dictatorship.

But, I must say again that I am not here to debate history, but rather to discuss sources. Military dictatorship is a specific type of autocracy (a government in which one person possesses unlimited power), one where the power of the autocrat is based on the support of the military institution(s). It would be beneficial for the article were we to further elaborate and specify which form of autocracy this was. One could probably present hundreds of sources in support, but here are a few, starting with Gibbon himself.

• "The answer to the crisis of Rome's corrupted imperial republic was military dictatorship." [7]
• "With the rise to power of Octavian, who defeated Mark Antony and Queen Cleopatra of Egypt at the naval Battle of Actium in Greece in 31 b.c.e., the Republic became a military dictatorship." [8]
• "Augustus, founder of the Roman Principate, the military dictatorship that replaced the failing rule of the Roman Senate." [9]
• "The Roman Empire consisted essentially in the union of a military dictatorship with a society of city states." [10]
• "This constitutional dictatorship [the Republic] degenerated into military dictatorship when the post-constitutional rulers of the Roman Empire used the Praetorian Guards as the main base of their power" [11]
• "..the Roman Republic disintegrated in a series of civil wars. The ultimate outcome was military dictatorship, and the seizure of sole and absolute power by the victor." [12]
• "The Roman Empire was originally constituted as the fusion of a military dictatorship and an association of cities." [13]
• "Augustus honored and, more importantly, used his father's name, Julius Caesar, to establish precedents for an absolute military dictatorship." [14]
• "...based on the ambiguous title princeps ('first citizen') adopted by Augustus to conceal his military dictatorship." [15]
• "Later on, a military dictatorship was established and the popular assembly lost its power." [16]
• " It [Roman Empire] was in essence a vast military dictatorship." [17]

etc. etc. I could go on and on.. -- Director (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Support either retaining imperial autocracy or Sowlos's suggestion that we identify the Roman Empire as an empire in the infobox in designating its political form (not source of power, and not mechanism of policing). Oppose misusing the Roman term dictator in the political and historical context in which it originated and had a specific meaning. I have no intention of spending my day listing every source I can find that calls the Roman Empire an empire. Or maybe we should change the article title. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Rhetorical games. The term military dictatorship is not a "source of power" or "mechanism of policing", it is indeed a political form - of a type where the source of power is the military. By definition on Wikipedia, a term is not "misused" if it is sourced. I can see no danger whatsoever in confusing the reader that the emperor of the Roman Empire was called a "dictator" if that is what you're implying.

Naturally, the Roman Empire is an "Empire". The term "Empire", however, does not in any way denote the government type of said "Empire". Something called an "Empire" need not even necessarily be ruled by an "Emperor" [18], or even a single monarch. Nowhere on Wikipedia are the terms "Kingdom" or "Empire" used in that capacity. Why not simply use "Roman Empire" in the field and be done with it? -- Director (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we give others a chance to weigh in? Of course the Roman Empire can be analyzed in light of military dictatorship (which we are not seeking to define). But it's insufficient as a way to describe the type of government exercised by Rome. Empires share characteristics in how they actually govern, in contrast to merely imposing and exercising force. I'm not sure there is a satisfactory term other than "empire" that accounts for the complex relations of the central government, the military, and provincial and local governments. But I do wish you'd stop shrieking the same thing over and over. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

In a minute, but first, could you tell me again how the emperor wasn't a Roman dictator? :) I'm not "shrieking", please maintain a WP:CIVIL tone.

An "empire", by definition, is a "major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority". That's all. Other than possessing a single authority, empires do not necessarily share anything at all in terms of governance. But most fundamentally, "empire" is a term for the state itself, a "major political unit", not a system of government. "Autocracy" is a much better term, but also a very general one that could be further elaborated-upon. -- Director (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read Roman dictator and Lex Antonia. In the context of ancient Roman political history, which produced the term, dictator has a quite specific meaning. You could also argue that there was no meaningful difference between the emperor and the rex of the Regal period. But the Romans made a point of not calling the emperor a rex, nor Julius Caesar, and their reasons for not calling the emperor a dictator or rex are historically informative in understanding Roman attitudes and approaches toward politics and governing. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

An "empire", by definition, is a "major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority". That's all. Other than possessing a single authority, empires do not necessarily share anything at all in terms of governance.

And, that's all Roman imperial government has in common with itself over the course of its history.
—Sowlos (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Throughout the history of the Roman Empire, from start to end, practically every single Roman emperor owed his position entirely and directly to the support of the Roman military. But I am not prepared to debate this with you, the sources have been listed above. I've invited you to produce contradicting evidence. Nerva is a good example and an interesting exception: having been the first (and I think the only) princeps to have been chosen by the Senate, he maintained his position solely thanks to his appointment of the military's own - Trajan, as his successor. The term "Roman emperor" is synonymous with "the guy who enjoys the military's support". -- Director (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone, maybe Veleius could help you but you have to ask him. He seems to be a very experienced scholar. -- Greetings, Saturnian (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Support Sowlos' proposal. The range of space and time covered by this article is vast, and the ways in which power was constructed and exercised changed over time, and at any given time was different in different regions. "Military dictatorship" might work for some areas of the empire, some of the time, but not all. Also, the terminological issue that Cynwolfe has brought up is salient—"dictator" is an actual Roman office, and it's not one held by any of the figures we call Roman emperors, so to call the empire a dictatorship is to be false to the terminology the Romans used for themselves. I can't support putting "military dictatorship" in the infobox at all, and I think "empire" is the least misleading term to use. Frankly, I would prefer to see no term at all used in the infobox for this category, because I think it's inherently misleading to try to summarize a centuries-long history that includes several moments of radical constitutional transformation with a single label, especially ones that have been crafted to describe modern systems of government. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly support Autocracy over Military dictatorship. All Roman emperors were, in essence, autocrats. Not all were military dictators. Was Antoninus Pius a military dictator? Was his government (to quote Direktor) a "system where the institution of the military (or rather the support thereof) is directly the basis of the political power of an autocrat."? I wouldn't say so.--Tataryn77 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, or at least it isn't supposed to be. That infobox parameter is not properly utilized with the term "Empire", which is an obvious and redundant statement that has nothing to do with the empire's political system.

The term "military dictatorship" is simply a sociological term for a type of government, and, used in the said infobox parameter, it does not make any implications with regard to the official historical titles used for the state or the empire. Hence, it is ridiculous to counter the proposal by talking about historical Roman titles - they have nothing to do with this subject. To illustrate, the entry would no more suggest that the emperor was called "Dictator", than using the term "autocracy" (used for years) suggests he was called "Autokratōr".

The only issue here is whether the sources agree that the Roman Empire was indeed a military dictatorship, or not. They do, practically unanimously - and most apply it without regard to the specific period. Heck, even Gibbon says so. In fact, the no.1 constant in the entire history of the Roman Empire - is its organization as a military dictatorship (arguably even well into the Byzantine period). Military dictatorship is the defining characteristic of this state, separating it from the Republic, as well as its feudal successors.
We cannot ignore sources by calling for a WP:VOTE and discussing how this article would "look" in Category:Military dictatorship or whatever. Or at least we shouldn't. I'm a long-time contributor on Wiki, though, and I know that in practice it does indeed very much function as a democracy. -- Director (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

No, 'Wikipedia is not a democracy', but polls are a perfectly valid way to determine where consensus lies. To quote the page you referenced:

Wikipedia works by building consensus. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration. While not forbidden, polls should be used with care. When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus, not an end in itself. While polling forms an integral part of several processes (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion), polls are generally not used for article development. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes," most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion.

— WP:POLL

If you can provide RSs clearly refuting the other said terminology in favour of 'military dictatorship' or a list of RSs showing it as the most common descriptor, than you can shut down most of this debate right now. Otherwise we must look to consensus for how best to describe the Empire's government.
—Sowlos (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I need to refute what?

• "Autocracy" is correct, but I thought we would do well to specify which form of "Autocracy" we have here. And there can really be no question this state was a military dictatorship.
• "Imperial autocracy" is basically a made-up term, its the same thing as "autocracy", but with a cool-sounding (and pointless) adjective in front.
• "Empire" is not a term denoting government type. An Empire, can be literally anything in terms of governance (see above, I don't want to be accused of "shrieking" again)

What exactly do you expect me to provide evidence for? There's no point in excessively quoting policy here, WP:VOTE is very clear. You can not use polling to override sources. And this state was a military dictatorship, so say the sources. -- Director (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The sources you've linked above are mostly textbooks (and one of them only uses the phrase "military dictatorship" on the back cover!). Most of them aren't focused on Roman history, but treat Rome as one part of world history. Current works that focus on Roman history have far less need to pigeonhole the empire and its government, and still less need to use a term that calls to mind post-war Latin America.

Your notion of the empire's government seems to be that it starts and ends with the emperor, and that the emperor depended entirely upon the military for his position and power. This is a simplistic view of the emperor's constitutional and actual position within the empire. Just to quote the 3rd edition of the Oxford Classical Dictionary on "Rome (history)": "To create a system of permanent rule they needed both to gain the acceptance of their power by the majority of the senatorial and equestrian élite, even if a majority of the die-hard republicans could not be won over, and to maintain the loyalty of the soldiery...The senate, from whose ranks generals and most provincial governors were drawn, remained the most important political element in the state, even though its corporate powers were restricted through the de facto transfer of the formulation of fiscal and military power to Augustus and his advisers." I haven't scrutinized the entry in detail, but as far as I can see the OCT avoids characterizing the principate as a military dictatorship. What does the Neue Pauly and the CAH say? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all. Of course not, see below. The emperor ruled through the bureaucracy, and most often courted the Sentae élite - but fundamentally he was emperor because he was the man the military supported. As for the sources, I simply listed them as they came, there's hundreds and thousands of them. Simply because a source doesn't use the term military dictatorship doesn't mean it is opposed to it, and the OCD is a tertiary source. -- Director (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Support retaining autocracy as a general description of Roman government in imperial times.

• Empire could be and sometimes is applied to Republican Rome, and to other governments not presided over by an emperor. The term fails to give any clear description of the type of government, although it implies a considerable extent (although this is also relative; the Central African Empire was never very big). At best it's vague and doesn't tell you anything about the government.
• Military Dictatorship is a good description of the Empire at certain points in history, but not throughout. While the Emperors could and did sometimes maintain their authority through force of arms, most of them, including the more successful, relied on and maintained civil institutions such as the Senate and the annual magistrates to provide a sense of legitimacy. Modern use of the term also creates the impression that everyday life was dominated by the military, instead of civil institutions, which was never the case at Rome.
• Dictatorship also suffers from both modern connotations of the word that are utterly inadequate to describe the relationship of the Roman emperors to their governments, as well as confusion with the technical meaning of the word dictator in Roman culture.
• Imperial Autocracy would be pointless, as imperial wouldn't add anything clear and meaningful to the word autocracy.

The Roman emperors were (mostly) autocrats, in the sense that they directed the mechanisms of government, and tried to steer the state in one direction or another, with varying degrees of success. But they couldn't always snap their fingers and cause things to happen; they weren't absolute monarchs, or monarchs at all in the modern sense. Indeed, to the very end of the empire, they uniformly avoided appearing as kings; no matter how much power they wielded, there were always limits to their authority and they knew it. They depended on civil institutions, and received their authority from the Senate (even though this could be merely pro forma). Maintaining these institutions was essential to the concept that they represented for the public good. Note that the word res publica continued to be used to describe the state throughout imperial times; to the Romans themselves, the Republic never ceased to exist; only its form changed. Since "autocracy" avoids the pitfalls of the other terms and seems like a good overall description, I think it should stay. P Aculeius (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, I think you fellas misunderstand what a "military dictatorship" is. The term is not in such widespread use in sources for no reason. It is not a system where you "maintain your authority through force of arms", to put it simply - it is a system where you are head of state because you are supported by the military. Who is more famous for his excellent relations with the Senate than Augustus? Yet he is the one repeatedly credited as the author of the military dictatorship (by Gibbon even!). Of course the emperors relied on civil institutions, but the point here is that they were each of them in power due to their being supported by the Roman military. -- Director (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, arguing with Direktor is pointless. He is engaged in a simple war of attrition to push his one-editor POV. However, the Roman Empire was as often a de facto hereditary monarchy, with legitimacy inherited by blood or adoption and military force only coming into it if there was no clear heir, as it was a straightforward military autocracy. On that basis, we'd have to define every monarchy in the world as a military dictatorship, and that's hardly helpful. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You're just confirming my above statement: you do not understand what a military dictatorship is. It also does not mean that the head of state has to be actively installed through military force. For the fiftieth time: it simply means that the emperor directly depended on the support of the troops for his power. This is true with virtually every singe Roman emperor, from Caligula to Constantine. Rome never had a real hereditary monarchy. Yes, often the loyalty of the troops would be granted to a specific Roman familia, that's the traditional Roman patron-client mentality, but once that support and respect was gone (for example because someone like Nero appears) - no more dynasty. So again: military dictatorship. -- Director (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You can repeat yourself for the eight hundredth time: the fact is, the community here do not agree with you. As I said, there is no point arguing with you. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Support continued use of autocracy, given the direction of consensus. I still would like to see it expanded upon - to more clearly explain what Roman government was - if possible.
—Sowlos (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the point I was trying to make was that the Roman government was a lot of different things, and how you might view it would change depending on the point in time. Certainly Augustus came to power by defeating his enemies through force of arms, but he also went to a lot of trouble to suggest that he depended on the Senate and the people for the source of his authority. Many emperors followed him in this regard. While the military was always used to suppress rebellion, it wasn't usually as important as maintaining the good will of the people, or the semblance of Republican institutions.

As someone already mentioned, the empire looked a lot different under "the good emperors" than under the military despots (there's a good reason some emperors are called that, and others aren't). But the majority of the government was always bureaucratic; it depended on a solid civil service that was deeply-rooted in the Roman psyche and which survived nearly every change of emperors. But I'd hate to list "bureaucracy" as a form of government...

I suppose the problem is that almost any term we try to apply has to be generally accurate across five hundred years of history, and only the broadest and vaguest terms allow that. Empire isn't a form of government at all; you can have an empire governed entirely by elected officials as well as monarchs, hereditary or otherwise. Unless you limit the word to absolute monarchies headed by an emperor, it isn't very useful. The British Empire could be considered either a constitutional monarchy or a parliamentary democracy; we wouldn't use Empire as its form of government, because that wouldn't tell you anything about its government. Even constitutional monarchy is inadequate to describe it accurately. Even though it was (and what's left still is) governed by a queen or king, it's been a parliamentary democracy pretty much since 1688, with the kings relying on the support of parliament, much as the Roman emperors depended on the Senate. Over time the balance of power has shifted decidedly to Parliament, but power shifted back and forth in the Roman Empire for centuries.

So none of the terms we can use are really adequate to describe the Roman Empire both meaningfully and accurately. I think autocracy is the best because it suggests that a single individual other than a hereditary monarch was at least nominally in charge. Although some emperors attempted to found stable dynasties, ultimately the succession always depended on the support of other institutions, including but usually not limited to "the military" (which itself was often divided, rather than a single unified source of power). And the emperors usually served as the ultimate authority, rather than subordinate to the Senate or military leaders (although at times, powerful generals or other politicians held the strings). So neither monarchy in the modern sense nor dictatorship seem adequate, as both would be seriously misleading. I'd just call autocracy the least imperfect of the available choices. P Aculeius (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with every word. The bureaucracy ran the state (primarily consisting of equestrians, not the senatorial aristocracy), while the Emperor could do whatever he liked. He could be a soldier, a peripatetic, an actor, a gladiator, a power-mad teenager, a naked tyrant, even a professional pretty-boy, or he could run every aspect of the state. But what all of them share, is the fact that they were in power because, during their reign, they enjoyed the support of the troops. That's what made each of them "Emperor".

Fellas, I realize you disagree, and I realize Wikipedia is really a democracy, but I am not talking out of my posterior here. This is not something I invented, everything I know I got from Fagan, Madden, Mitchell and Gibbon. At the very least, any Wikipedian should recognize my position as a legitimate scholarly view (though I've not seen any source brought in contradiction). -- Director (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Length again

I'm working to address the issue of length by trying to spin off some sections as independent articles. These sections are "Languages" (as Languages of the Roman Empire), "Food and dining" (by means of a major revision to Ancient Roman cuisine, which ought to be Food and dining in ancient Rome, IMHO), "Literacy, books, and education" (as Literacy and education in the Roman Empire), and "Literature" (as Literature of the Roman Empire, which would include both Greek and Latin authors of the period, and thus distinct from Latin literature). In addition, I've had an outline for some time for an article Clothing and adornment in the Roman Empire, which should allow us to reduce the Clothing section a bit. By all means, if anyone is interested in these topics, don't feel constrained by my intentions, which pave a certain road. I'm just sharing this so that those concerned with length know that measures are being taken to address the problem. It's just proceeding at a snail's pace: as Mark Twain or Montaigne or someone once said, "Sorry I wrote such a long letter, but I didn't have time to write a short one." Cynwolfe (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

History

During the first rush back in September to address gaps in this article, which had been promoted precipitously to GA status, I moved the very detailed history section to Talk:Roman Empire/History of the Roman Empire. For some reason, I was under the impression at that time that this material was well-represented at History of the Roman Empire, though I suggested that someone review the material to make sure nothing compressed in summary style in this article was omitted from the main article. I'm just now looking back over this, and find that Talk:Roman Empire/History of the Roman Empire is perhaps superior to the main History of the Roman Empire in some respects. It would be great if someone else could take this on, as I have other commitments, and I'm not really sure what to do about edit histories and all that. But I may have some time to edit in some of the content, if the technical issues can be addressed. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

History section

I have made some changes to the history section twice and been reverted whole sale, which is annoying. The section is full of problems. Since a listing of all he little problems (starting with the first sentence) would be tiresome, I will mention just the major issues:

• The entire first section (and much of the second) is bad. Much of it is factually dubious, and even if it were to be corrected, it should go under the section on government.
• If the section is going to be a high level summary, why mention Caracalla's citizenship extension?
• The Severan Dynasty is portrayed in a skewed way
• "The emaciated illusion of the old Republic was sacrificed for the sake of imposing order" is a dubious and opinionated statement, as is "became the first emperor to be addressed regularly as dominus, "master" or "lord".[16] The state of autocratic absolutism that resulted is the Dominate".
• "The unity of the Roman Empire was from this point a fiction, as graphically revealed by Diocletian's division of authority among four "co-emperors", the Tetrarchy" isn't even historically accurate.

Overall, the section can stay the same length and be a much better summary of the history of the empire. It requires deleting most of the first two paragraphs, and giving each century approximately equal weight.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't defend most of the section, because it's a summary of what was here before. Agree that "emaciated illusion" is empurpled, and I've meant to change it many times. But could you be more specific about your problems with the first paragraph? The first paragraph is extensively footnoted from major scholars who specialize in the history of the Empire or Roman constitution. It's in keeping, for instance, with the introduction and epilogue to the volume of CAH that deals with the end of the Republic (an excerpt here), and with the preface to volume 10, where the series takes up our period (some of it here, and see especially this paragraph on p. xx for the approach taken in revising this article). I consider the first paragraph a necessary background to explain that Rome was actually an "empire" in the modern sense of governing non-contiguous territories during the Republic, and that the nature of the transformation was constitutional, and not caused by an expansionism that was novel to our period—rather, Republican imperialist expansion enabled the rise of men with disproportionate power that threatened the republican balance of powers (beginning perhaps with the Scipios, but certainly coming to a head in the 80s with Sulla, and then finally in the civil wars of the 40s and 30s, as represented by the two "triumvirates"). And a major cause of the collapse of the republican government was the failure to adapt to the demands of governing these territories, allowing those who understood the new nature of power to seize it. So imperialist activity created a constitutional crisis that Augustus was able to capitalize on and which centered on imperium—which later takes on the sense of our "empire". But basically, I feel it's necessary to explain what characterizes our periodization of Roman history.

I suppose I'm only distinguishing between history, which is a narrative that attempts to account for causes, and annals, which is a recitation of what happened next chronologically in a verbal timeline. The detailed "history" section we had formerly, which belongs at History of the Roman Empire, and which resides at Talk:Roman Empire/History of the Roman Empire, was actually mostly annals. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The first problem with the first paragraph is the phrase "Rome had begun annexing provinces in the 3rd century BC". Rome's expansion began in the early 4th century BC, and nothing they did could be called "annexation" until the 1st century BC". The next sentence "Republican provinces were administered by former consuls and praetors, who had been elected to one-year terms and held imperium, "right of command". Is completely irrelevant to a high level summary of the history of the Roman Empire. The next paragraph, "The amassing of disproportionate wealth and military power by a few men through their provincial commands was a major factor in the transition from republic to imperial autocracy" may be true but is a very specific detail about the late republic, when the rest of the section is a high level summary of he empire. The next sentence, "Later, the position of power held by the emperor was expressed as imperium." should go under the section on government. The next sentence, "The Latin word is the origin of English "empire," a meaning it began to acquire only later in Rome's history." is adds nothing but space to a high level summary of the history of the Roman Empire. The next paragraph can be summed up in a single sentence, and is completely uncited in any case.

I actually wrote the material and several of the citations found in these first two paragraphs several years ago on this article. They have been heavily edited since then into an extremely weak state that makes even less sense now that the history section is so much shorter than it used to be. You want to shrink the size of this article? These first two paragraphs would be an excellent place to start.

Your statement, "I consider the first paragraph a necessary background to explain that Rome was actually an "empire" in the modern sense of governing non-contiguous territories during the Republic" Rome was only an "empire" in any sense beginning around the first century BC with the campaigns of Lucullus and Pompey. Earlier than that, its growth was driven by a much more complex set of circumstances that involved peoples at Rome's periphery (century Italy in the 4th century or northern Spain in the 2nd century) seeking an alliance with Rome due to local conflicts, Rome accepting, and subsequently pushing the peripheries out further. Dumbing this down to "annexing" is ridiculous, and claiming it began in the 3rd century BC is simply inaccurate. These issues about the nature of Rome's expansion belong on another article. It doesn't, as you want, explain that Rome was an "empire" but try to explain why it was an empire, with incorrect claims. What the article currently does is present one theory of this expansion (an extremely weak one that is a crude edit of my origination of this material here several years ago). All this article should do on this topic is note Rome's expansion, not take sides and present these theories.

As for "and that the nature of the transformation was constitutional", no it wasn't "constitutional", it was social. The "constitutional" changes went along for the ride, they weren't the cause.

Your statement "Republican imperialist expansion enabled the rise of men with disproportionate power that threatened the republican balance of powers (beginning perhaps with the Scipios, but certainly coming to a head in the 80s with Sulla, and then finally in the civil wars of the 40s and 30s, as represented by the two "triumvirates")" is a particular historiographical framework that is teleological, and seeks to frame the history of the republic as a series of events whose main purpose is the role they played in the fall of the republic. It is out of this that you get bad history, such as seeing the Scipios as would-be challengers to the republic (the most famous Scipio fell from grace after the Second Punic War because he resisted the expansionist urge that was becoming increasingly common in his old age) or Sulla as a would-be challenger (even though his reforms as dictator were aimed at strengthening the republican constitution). The point is that you want to tell history with a particular dubious narrative, which in any case shouldn't be found on a high level summary of the history of the empire.

As for your statement "And a major cause of the collapse of the republican government was the failure to adapt to the demands of governing these territories." I disagree with your statement on too many points to list here, and could easily find sources that contradict it, but in any case this theory doesn't belong on a high level summary of the history of the Roman Empire.

This is my problem with these two paragraphs, they waste quite a bit of space telling (questionable) theories of the fall of the republic (which I originally wrote in a more accurate way at a time when this section was much longer) which simply don't belong here. We should use this space to tell the history of the empire, not these theories of the fall of the republic. This section would be much better if we could, for example, expand a bit on the events of the Pax Romana instead. Someone who comes here wants to learn about the history of the empire, and these two paragraphs don't do that, certainly no in a way that more information on the Pax Romana would.

You say that this section should be historiographical rather than annalistic, but then you say it should be a high level summary. It can't be both, since historiography is complex, detailed, and nuanced. Really what you have here is one historiographical theory of the fall of the republic, and an annalistic description of the empire. Read up a bit on Whig History to get an idea of the kind of teleological historigraphical framework you find here. You have these theories about the "collapse" of the republic followed by a severe short changing of the the history of he empire.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

One other question: why should each century be given "equal weight"? First, evidence is not equally available for all centuries. Second, in providing an overview, some events are more important than others. Foundational events and turning points should be highlighted in a summary section. Giving equal weight to all events is again a characteristic of an annalistic approach, not history. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

True, but each era of history of the empire should have equal weight. What is here is a devotion of about 30% of the section to a dubious (and heavily biased) historigraphical theory about the end of the republic, and he rest is a weak annalistic narrative of the empire. This section reads more like it belongs on an article about the republic than the empire, since it goes into detail on its theory of the end of the republic and quickly glosses over the history of the empire. I also disagree that this section should be as short as you want it to be, even if I don't think it should be too much longer.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The entire first section (and much of the second) is bad. Much of it is factually dubious...The Severan Dynasty is portrayed in a skewed way

Okay. We understand your opinion, but what is problematic? As previously mentioned, much of what you tried to remove is well sourced. While there is definitely room for improvement, removing everything wholesale (including the well sourced facts) can actually degrade the section, not improve it. Improvement at this stage does not require a sledgehammer, but a chisel.

If the section is going to be a high level summary, why mention Caracalla's citizenship extension?

Good point. That may be more relevant to Roman Empire#Legal status, where it also happens to be mentioned.

"The unity of the Roman Empire was from this point a fiction, as graphically revealed by Diocletian's division of authority among four "co-emperors", the Tetrarchy" isn't even historically accurate.

I do not have the book used as the source, but this appears to be referencing the administration of the Empire being adapted to (revealing) the already existing state of affairs. However, this sentence can be taken to also imply the Empire was thenceforth forever fractured.

I'll second Cynwolfe's position that much of Roman Empire#History's wording may be described as 'empurpled'.
—Sowlos 16:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I find much of what Q. says to be self-contradictory, and some is simply incorrect: only the first paragraph deals with the Republican background, and its points are all reliably sourced. I explained above why I think a definition of "empire" in relation to imperium is helpful. The views of historical change presented in The Cambridge Ancient History are hardly dubious, and I suggest that Q. read that material in vol. 9 about the nature of the transition from the republic to the empire, since I'm only voicing what's said there. Historians vary in their emphasis among the multiple factors, but I don't know of any who find the challenges of ruling the expanded territories, nor the rise of Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar, to be inconsequential in the transition. Do we have sources of greater weight that disagree with CAH? If so, let's have them. Q.'s problems seem to be with the portions of the section that have good citations, so I'm not sure what to say about that. The rest is just a condensation of what was here, which detailed almost every single succession in annalistic fashion, mostly without notes (if there were notes, I kept them). Caracalla's extension of citizenship is a major event that has far-reaching consequences, not all of them good (oddly enough), on all freeborn people in the empire: surely we're not saying that only wars and regime changes are the stuff of political or any other kind of history. I agree with Sowlos that comments like "this is bad" and "this is wrong" aren't particularly helpful in building content. Diocletian decided that one man could not rule such a vast empire, which is among the content that Q. attempted to add, doesn't strike me as particularly encyclopedic: we don't know what was going on in Diocletian's head, and more to the point, Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, pp. 296–298 (the source cited) says nothing even remotely resembling that. But I completely agree that the section could be meatier and longer, if we can work out a narrative outline of what we should cover. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I am amazed that, after having done such an unbelievably good job with the rest of the article, that you defend the worst (and shortest) section on it. I really am confused about what your position is. You are defending it, then saying that you agree it needs to be changed. This is also the first time I have seen you suggest actually making it longer. Since it is obvious that anything I do will be reverted, what do you think should change?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Q. my friend, I have spent my day buying silver bows and plastic snowflakes and surrounded by cheer and banality, and am now sipping on a gingerbread latte while I wait to pick up my daughter from a Nutcracker date, so it is unsurprising if I have sugarplums in my head instead of brains today. I'm defending the first paragraph because it's based on sources and explains things that IMHO need explaining if you come here not knowing anything about Roman history. The theme of individuals acquiring disproportionate power that eroded republicanism was driven home to me by the sources when I wrote the technical article prorogatio, a highly specialized topic in contrast to an overview article like Roman Empire which is visited by a more general readership who number nearly 300,000 a month. I'm wary of lapsing into reign-by-reign annals so narcotic they ward off high school students working on assignments who might actually be interested in some of the stuff in the article. I'm advocating for a narrative arc that tells the story (or a story) of the Empire with a beginning, middle, and end. The section should readably establish a sense of periodization, with major events, so that readers can place what follows in a time frame, which will not take shape in the novice reader's mind it it's too crammed with dates and names which are meaningless to them. Do we really need to mention every emperor? Pertinax reigned for three months; really, how much could he accomplish in that time? Stilicho, by contrast, is a distinctive figure who really should be here. I'm fine with saying more about the Pax Romana, I s'pose, but it seems to me that most of the article illustrates what worked during the Pax, and the "good" emperors are pervasive presences throughout the article. Big buildings! Chariot races! Imported flamingo tongue for dinner! Quadrupling the lead content of the Greeland icecap! What I think is majorly missing (did I say this above somewhere?) is a section right before "Political legacy" on the subject of "Unrest, uprisings, and decline" that charts the cracks that grow into fissures that cause the whole thing to fall apart. I don't like the idea of making the History section at top much longer (nor is it the shortest section!!!), but if we can talk about what events are seminal but omitted, let us by all means improve it. I myself don't like the "consuls continued to be elected etc" part, because I think it's misleading: it was there before, and I didn't want to just bulldoze everything. Basically what I'm arguing for in this section is a narrative that sticks with and can be summarized by a new reader after a first read. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Italy's peculiar position

This article does not mention an important point: the peculiar position of Italy within the Roman Empire, at least until 212 AD. The peninsula was not administered as a province. Roman citizenship was automatically granted to Italics, which made them somehow the 'masters of the Empire'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.239.212.158 (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a good point. I'll look for a source that handles that succinctly, and there are a couple of different places in the article where that point should be made. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox flags

Should not the infobox, when showing the flags of successor states, also show (sometimes blank) flag icons for other entities that succeeded the Empire? See Abbasid Caliphate or Mali Empire for examples. dci | TALK 02:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

With such a large empire as the Roman, so long before the emergence of most of the modern states in the same area, I would question whether we need the "flags" of any distant successor states. I suggest limiting ourselves to direct successors that demonstrably used a known flag as a State symbol at the time. I guess that pretty much limits us to the Islamic Caliphate, but I stand to be corrected. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking about the 'Today part of' section, that shows the flags of modern states located within the Roman Empire's former territories. The successor state of the Roman Empire is the Byzantine Empire, which is duely noted at the top of the box.
—Sowlos (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not referring to modern-day states; merely ones that replaced the Empire. The Caliphates might work, but what about the Kingdom of Italy under Odovacar? A blank flag, yes, albeit an important one given the prominence of that state's creation in 476. dci | TALK 22:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm also unclear about which section of the infobox you're talking about. The cell at the bottom with the country flags says "today part of … "—that is, only countries existing today should be listed. If you're talking about the top of the infobox, where the predecessor is the Roman Republic, and the continuation is Byzantine Empire, then I don't see how the complex issues of borders and periodization and who ruled what after the Western empire disintegrated can be easily (or meaningfully) reduced to an array of icons. The section Roman Empire#Political legacy, however, could use some thoughtful attention based on RS, or it's going to have to be deleted. I would enthusiastically cheer on the efforts of any editors to clean up the "Political legacy" section, and provide good sources. Wouldn't that need to be done before considering how to represent such information in the infobox, or whether it would even be helpful or practical to do so? Cynwolfe (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly; I would be happy to clean up the section. dci | TALK 03:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

On a related subject, the inclusion of the United Kingdom bothers me. I'm no expert but I'm fairly certain Scotland and Northern Ireland were never part of the Roman Empire and thus should not be included. That leaves England and Wales, which I feel should be listed instead. Could an expert address this, perhaps? Thanks. SP1R1TM4N (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The nation of the United Kingdom does fall within the Roman Empire's previous territories. Not all of the modern UK falls within Rome's former borders, but the UK is a unitary state.
—Sowlos 20:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Other articles

The sections here, especially on society and culture, are in extremely good condition, sometimes better than the pages devoted specifically to the topics. Are there any thoughts on using the material here to improve those articles? Cynwolfe, do you think this is worth some of us trying? I know you mentioned that you want to cut back on the size of the article (which I think would be a mistake), so this is something we should consider before you make any major efforts to reduce its size.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Moved this from above: I'm working to address the issue of length by trying to spin off some sections as independent articles. These sections are "Languages" (as Languages of the Roman Empire), "Food and dining" (by means of a major revision to Ancient Roman cuisine, which ought to be Food and dining in ancient Rome, IMHO), "Literacy, books, and education" (as Literacy and education in the Roman Empire), and "Literature" (as Literature of the Roman Empire, which would include both Greek and Latin authors of the period, and thus distinct from Latin literature). In addition, I've had an outline for some time for an article Clothing and adornment in the Roman Empire, which should allow us to reduce the Clothing section a bit. By all means, if anyone is interested in these topics, don't feel constrained by my intentions, which pave a certain road. I'm just sharing this so that those concerned with length know that measures are being taken to address the problem. It's just proceeding at a snail's pace: as Mark Twain or Montaigne or someone once said, "Sorry I wrote such a long letter, but I didn't have time to write a short one." Cynwolfe (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think we need the tag at the top, since editors are aware of the need to create summary sections. In addition, here's an excerpt from a response I left on the talk page of the user who tagged the article: I would point out two things that contribute to the overall size of the article without actually adding to its reading length: about a third of the visual length is footnotes, which readers usually don't sit and read, so they don't really affect readability; and there are an awful lot of nav bars at the bottom which editors insist on adding (I consider some of these pretty tangential, but comme ci comme ça, I reckon). And it isn't really surprising that an article on the Roman Empire would be among Wikipedia's longest, if you think about it. I don't find it helpful to be pressured to address this during a time when many editors celebrate various holidays. Since article traffic has increased during the length expansion compared to the same period a year ago, it seems as if readers appreciate the additional information. As a matter of fact, the article has a 3.3 rating for Completeness, which I find puzzling. In January, the new feedback with comments will be implemented, and we can get a better idea of what readers are dissatisfied with not finding. It scores similarly for "Trustworthiness," despite the vast number of footnotes from specialist scholars, and "Objectivity." I suspect readers want the jackbooted Romans of Hollywood, so I'm very curious to get some more specific feedback. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

SPLIT ARTICLE ?

A tag has been placed on this article suggesting it be split but no mention of the reasoning for this, or of who the request was made by is given.

I DISAGREE and SUGGEST the template be deleted.

There should be a central focus or overview for this subject and this article is that. It should then tie into the main articles on, for instance, the Eastern Roman empire, the Western Roman empire, etc.

Splitting this article, the central resource, would lead to unnecessary confusion and/or extra and work for readers.

LookingGlass (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It was added in this edit [[19]]. I have no idea what the edit summary ("as this places the article in a conspicuous place for people to know about") means. Perhaps Jax 0677 can explain.--SabreBD (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Conspicuous? I think the person who made the edit was thinking of an antonym for conspicuous, because splitting the article would do nothing but lead readers into a frantic search for a main article. We already have articles on the Roman Republic, Western Empire, Eastern Empire, etc. so the whole idea is silly enough to just dismiss. I know we're supposed to assume good faith and all that, but I think it's just a subtle act of vandalism, really. It's truly telling the person didn't come here to argue the case like one is supposed to after adding such a tag. Case closed. Delete it from the article.Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree LookingGlass (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Economy

I've been thinking for some time now that the section on the economy needs to be moved somewhere adjacent to the sections on architecture/engineering and city/country. Since it had some tagging issues, and was underdeveloped and not well proportioned, I was reluctant to do so. Would that seem like a reasonable move, though, if the section were cleaned up and made a little more coherent? I'd still like to have a citation for the currency sidebar. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

History of the Roman Empire

As pointed out above, this article is immense. I had created a short section near the beginning called "Historical overview," while retaining the long "Chronological history" toward the bottom. But since we have an article History of the Roman Empire, I've expanded the top section, renamed it "History," and deleted the very, very lengthy history section. Anyone who'd like to check the former section against History of the Roman Empire, or read through for major omissions for the new "History" section, may view the old section at Talk:Roman Empire/History of the Roman Empire. It will be many days before I get around to seeing what if anything is omitted from History of the Roman Empire that is contained in the section stripped from this article, so I welcome other eyes on it.

I feel strongly that Roman Empire needs to be readable, and accessible to students. It still lacks sections on Society and Family, Women and Slaves, and a brief look at topics of interest such as gladiators and chariot races: the Culture section remains incoherent, and the Religion section doesn't really reflect the articles Religion in ancient Rome and Imperial cult (ancient Rome) in a succinct and clear way that provides a sense of how people lived religious lives in the Empire. The workings of the administration, the census and taxation, and trade still aren't explained adequately, in part because some of the sections that touch on these topics are too technical and specialized; we can point readers to more detailed treatments. I hope to continue working to improve the article's coverage, and to help it reflect the scholarly approaches from the mid-20th century onward. By clearning some space in which these other areas can be developed, main goal is to create an article that's less dense to try to read through, but contains all the links it needs for those who want more detailed info. For instance, I've added sentences to restore links to Principate and Dominate, as well as a few other topics, that were deleted by recent additions.

Incidentally, I've found some excellent sources for writing the section "Historiography of the Roman Empire" that's been discussed here a couple of times. But I don't want to deal with that until the rest is in shape, so if someone else is interested, I can provide those. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Relief from a 3rd-century sarcophagus depicting a battle between Romans and Germanic warriors; the central figure is perhaps the emperor Hostilian (d. 251)

Great job Cynwolfe. I appreciate all the hard work you've done condensing the article into something readable for everyone, but come on, did you have to get rid of this little guy right here? What did this little guy ever do to you? Huh? I know it belonged to the chronology section that you deleted entirely, but how dare you think this is the sort of image you can just toss in the refuse can whenever you feel like it. I think you need to be punished for this vile act of contempt towards a priceless piece of Roman art. For shame you charlatan! I mean just look at it. So lifelike and awe-inspiring, truly a perfect example of Roman funerary sarcophagus artwork. It really makes you want to crack open some skulls, doesn't it?

All kidding aside, bravo and keep up the good work! I've noticed for quite some time that you've been watching this article like a hawk. I'm glad you've finally taken the initiative and acted boldly in improving the prose and layout. Cheers.Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, thanks. Funny you should pull out this image. (The Augustus of Porta Prima is still MIA too.) I'm sure that in the end it'll return under "Military", which needs a skull-cracking section. I think I've managed to banish Teutoburg Forest, for instance. Meaning, after merging "History" and "Military History," and then radically condensing it, battles are now underrepresented. But I think the military history should be presented for the purpose of showing two things: the Roman military in action (for good or ill), and what role they played in effecting political change. I actually own a copy of Yann Le Bohec's The Imperial Roman Army, so that will be handy. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Augustus of Prima Porta is at least the lead image in the article on Augustus (which I brought to featured article status, by the way), but it would be nice to see it back in this article if the chance should arrive. And yes, there's no need to have readers wade through the details of every battle's impact on immediate historical events. Simply describing the consequences of the outcomes of each war should make a sufficient summarization. I await your take on the praetorians in your discussion of political change, or rather, Yann Le Bohec's input. Cheers, you hard worker you! I miss the days of reworking big articles like this (I'm a Peace Corps volunteer tucked away in the Central Asian mountains of Kyrgyzstan at the moment). My biggest wiki project was certainly Han Dynasty and all its related articles.Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Barbarians

********This sentence bothers me "Beginning in the late 4th century, the Empire began to disintegrate as barbarians from the north overwhelmed the control of Christian Rome."**********

Firstly because barbarian is a pretty questionable term and tends to be shunned academically (due to the implication, in this case, that the invading civilisation is barbarous, or indeed inferior, just because it is not the same)

Secondly because i feel it would be more constructive to, instead of link to the generic term barbarian, link to more useful ones such as Visigoths and Vandals(Both of whom sacked Rome (in 410 and 455) and thus directly influenced the fall of the western empire)

I'll give it a few days for people to either do this themselves of suggest reasons why i shouldn't do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.98 (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It depends upon context. In the case of the Empire being overwhelmed by the 'barbarians', a general term is suitable; in the case of a specific intendant, more focused terms such as 'Visigoth' and 'Vandal' are suitable.

Of course 'barbarian' has negative connotations. Perhaps 'Teutonic', as another archaic term, would be better.
—Sowlos (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I've discovered another issue, technically the Vandals cannot be described as a 'barbarian tribe invading from the north' because they did not sack Rome until 455, but had invaded/settled Roman north Africa between 429-439, therefore any/all invading post these dates would be invasion from the SOUTH.

Plus, frankly, the whole sentence just reads as 'oh no, the superior Christians were persecuted by those naughty ruffians who ruined the lovely empire' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.97 (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think (though I only reworked the passage and didn't actually contribute the content) this is meant to be more general. It doesn't refer to specific peoples coming from outside the empire, but to the various "barbarian" incursions.( "Barbarian" wasn't always a synonym for "savage" among the Romans, BTW; there are contexts it which it doesn't seem particularly perjorative, but just means anybody who isn't a Greek or Roman, and if i recall correctly, there are Greek sources that call the Romans barbaroi). So the reference isn't to any specific event, but to the gradual erosion of Roman control over its territories, in general starting from the limes and working toward Rome itself. It seems apt to me to see a clash of cultures here, with Christians vs. non-Christians; and one might even read the overwhelming of Christian Rome in the Gibbonian sense of "geez, those Christians couldn't hold on to the Empire once they go it." Cynwolfe (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It is true the reference isn't to any specific event, but to the gradual erosion of Roman control over its territories and I think it should stay that way. No single event or invasion broke the Empire and in depth analysis of the causes belong in Decline of the Roman Empire.
—Sowlos (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I should also add that I agree it's good to avoid the word "barbarian" when possible, if better alternatives are available or unless the usage of the term can be explained. I think somewhere I used the phrase "what the Romans perceived as a barbarian threat," so it's clear that "we" aren't using a pejorative in reference to these peoples, but are just representing the Roman point of view or rationale that underlay Roman actions. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

but that's sort of my point, the current sentence structure suggests the decline was entirely due to invasion by northern, barbaric, peoples- when in fact the empire was well on its way to tearing itself apart at the seams (in fact already had with the east/west division), which is what allowed the invasions, not the other way around. Plus, they weren't all from the north, they weren't especially barbaric, and the empire would have eventually fallen without them. Yes this mostly belongs in 'decline of the Roman empire' but if for time someone is only reading this brief history, this is an excessively misleading sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.97 (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You are discussing two issues.

1. It is accepted that war with various Germanic tribes played a strong part in Rome's loss of the West. Minimizing that fact does the reader no service.
2. The term 'barbarian', when used in the context of the Roman Empire, is usually understood to be a retention of period terminology, regardless of its modern meaning. However, we all agree that it can still be defaming and should be avoided when possible. That is why I suggested using other terms for the Germanic peoples (usually that is what 'barbarian' in this context is in reference to).

—Sowlos (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually afaik barbarians was not just use for Germans but any "uncivilized" tribes beyond the roman border, so for instance for scots, picts and other celts in the british isles, the mauri in north africa, nomadic tribes around the black sea.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right. There are even examples of Roman authors labelling Celtic and Germanic tribes with terminology that we now understand as referring single ethnicities. However, I meant the context of the [fourth century] Roman Empire. Sorry for the ambiguity.
—Sowlos (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well i was talking about the same time period, all the examples are from the late 3rd/4th century. I wanted to point out that the during that time the Germanic tribes weren't the only tribes threatening the roman borders and provinces, though ultimately the most dangerous one.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That is about the time Germanic influence in Europe exploded, thus it is often in reference to them. However, the broad scope of this term is exactly why historians still use it.

The term barbarian does not originate from the third or fourth century. It is of very ancient Greek origin.
—Sowlos (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

"Christians vs. non-Christians" might be relevant for the 4th century, but not so much for the 5th century. Alaric I and Genseric were Arians. Dimadick (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree that Teutonic would be a more useful term, particularly if it linked to the Germanic peoples page, which has a USEFUL section on their role in the fall of the empire, whilst the 'barbarian' page is just a generic definition for the word barbarian and a bit of a dead end link? No? It just seems odd to have a link to what is essentially a dictionary definition of a word rather than further information on a relevant subject... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.73.75 (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The term "Teutonic" is outdated, even archaic as has been mentioned. I don't see how that would be a better alternative. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

yes, but unlike 'barbarian' which redirects to what is more or less a dictionary page, teutonic redirects to a useful article on Germanic peoples, which itself has more information on the subject. The term barbarian itself is not the only issue here, there is also the fact that the link it provides is a dead end from an informative point of view. Personally i'd re-write the whole paragraph, but if we're going for a simply substitution it is the most productive.188.221.73.75 (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case, Germanic would be a better word than Teutonic. But there's a problem - the so-called "barbarians" of this period were not all Germanic - they included the Huns. The ethnic and linguistic identity of the various migrating peoples who put pressure on the Roman borders is not the important point here. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

apparently they're not all from the north either - doesn't seem to stop it being part of the sentence under discussion. Besides which, the sentence in question is referring to the western empire no? I may be misinformed, but i don't think the Huns ever got that far...? If they did, that just backs up the point that 'barbarian' is highly uninformative. 188.221.73.75 (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I love that i created such a giant discussion over one sentence. However, it is still a stupid sentence. It reads like an 18th century antiquarian textbook. Plus it's not only lacking information, it's slightly missinforming. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.97 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Excessive length

This article has roughly doubled in size in the past six months, currently weighing in at 274,925 bytes. Wikipedia:Article size recommends 100K as a comfortable size. Though this is an immense topic, it's certainly possible to summarize lots of different aspects in only 100K; I think that would be less overwhelming for readers. More detail can always be obtained from subarticles, which is where some content needs to be moved. -- Beland (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are discussions of this above and in the archives. Thank you. One problem is that such articles often don't exist, and the existing sections aren't structured to stand alone as articles. In some cases where there are relevant articles, such as Cuisine of ancient Rome, an obstacle to merging is that the main article covers "ancient Rome" in general, not just the Roman Empire, and the content can't be added easily without creating an ahistorical impression that what's true under the Empire was also true of the Republic a few centuries earlier. The size of the article is also heavy because it's extensively footnoted. I am entirely at fault for this, but needed to take a break from the material to get some perspective. Could I ask you to read the article from beginning to end again, and report back here on the spots at which you experience feelings of tedium/TMI/bogged down/don't-want-to-know-this? Such responses would help us prioritize any splitting. Since sections respond to each other and are unified by certain themes, splitting would need to be done by actual rewriting, not just cutting and dumping chunks. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is indeed very long. However if there is currently no good way to trim it down by using subarticles, that size is imho still acceptable. There 100kb figure is just an orientation and not something that needs to be fulfilled for its own sake. Nevertheless in such cases the lead (as a summary of the most important things) should grow accordingly. Note that one of the primary functions of an encyclopedia is to give a quick overview of the most important things regarding a particular subject. In very lengthy articles that function is taken over by lead of sorts, which functions like a small article on the subject in its own right. From that perspective the current lead could be expanded somewhat, which in a a way also compensates for the article's excessive length. So if there's no satisfying way to trim the content, improving/expanding the lead might be a solution as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with Kmhkmh and Cynwolfe. This is a long article because the Roman Empire is a big topic. This article is actually an extremely brief description of the Empire. We could arbitrarily shorten the article until it reaches 100kB, but at the expense of vital information. The Roman Imperial topic is already covered by an entire army of more detailed sub-articles. It simply is difficult to make the summary article (this article) of one of the most influential and long lasting empires in history any shorter than it already is.

The 100kB number you refer to from WP:SIZERULE is an important 'rule of thumb', but as WP:NOTLAW also states 'Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.'
—Sowlos 10:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The sponsor of the {{too long}} tag needs to respond to the statements following theirs — at the very least following Cynwolfe's advice of pointing out problematic areas in the article. Otherwise the tag should be removed. A single user tagging and running after happening upon an article that looks too long at a glance is not justification enough.
—Sowlos 19:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Though I understand the concerns and hope to address some of the longer sections, I don't think the tag itself contributes positively to the reading experience of the 300,000 visitors the article is getting each month—a number, BTW, that increased by nearly 60,000 from February 2012 to February 2013. It's been my experience that when articles undergo a major expansion like this, traffic increases rapidly, so that's why I'm leery of treating length as a problem. I know from reader comments on other articles that "more images" is a frequent request, so the size of an article will also be increased by that desirable content (and by the number of footnotes). My gut feeling is that readers prefer a coherent narrative in which the sections relate to each other, and don't want to be sent skittering around Wikipedia to collect disiecta membra. But I placed the Comments feedback tool on the article so we can see what readers themselves have to say (caution: if you haven't monitored reader comments, most of them are frivolous). I've been puzzled by the numerical ratings from the old feedback tool that gave the article only about a 3.5–3.8 for "Completeness". It's hard to reconcile that stat with readers feeling overwhelmed by the length. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Just popping in from Egypt. I'd like to point out something about prose size. WP:Article size actually refers to "readable prose size", that is, the amount of actual article text as opposed to wiki syntax and whatnot. There's a tool to assess readable prose size available at User:Dr pda/prosesize.js. Using my copy, I see that the readable prose is 129 kilobytes, more than 20,000 words. WP:SIZE does indicate that more than 10,000 words or 100 kilobytes is undesirable, but this article isn't as far over those limits as it seems when simply looking at the number of bytes in the page history.

I do believe it should be possible to trim the article a bit without leaving out the essentials. User:PericlesofAthens' featured articles on the Chinese dynasties (Han, Tang, Song, Ming) are long, but not horribly so, even though they cover society and culture quite well and spend more space on the historical aspects than this article does. Maybe editors thinking about the proportions in this article can look at how the Chinese dynasties were done. I think it helps, when editing a large article, to have a model article of comparable scope and subject matter to look at, even if the two articles won't be structured the same way. (I looked at castle a lot when writing Egyptian temple, although they're very different subjects.) A. Parrot (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be in line with discussions here about the length: that the History section needs improvement, and there are culture sections that are too long because either articles don't exist, or are both insufficient and cover "ancient Rome" as a whole, not the Empire as such. The imbalance, then, has to do in part with having History of the Roman Empire for readers who want more detailed annalistic history, but not having similarly developed resources for the other topics. If you look at the table of contents for A Companion to the Roman Empire from Blackwell, what they call "Narrative" (conventional history structured more or less as annals) occupies only about 50 of the 600 pages. Even in these chapters, however, there's an emphasis on the significance of events to governance, society, and economy, not a bare recitation of who killed whom in what battle. Potter's introduction offers a perspective on current approaches to Roman historiography, and whatever the defects of our article in the History section (which might be remedied by recourse to that "Narrative" section), I think its overall structure is in keeping with recent scholarship. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad A. Parrot has cleared up the common confusion over the different types of count here. I don't think the article is very excessively over-long, although as mobile access to WP increases, desired norms may shift downwards here. If I have a criticism over coverage, it is that the Late Empire is under-represented in most sections. I think some of the cusine section could in fact be moved off - there's no reason not to just add an "under the Empire" section there with nearly all of it, though a more careful merge would be ideal. But I expect it is popular for school projects etc, which to judge by the feedback is our main readership.... Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Though I understand the concerns and hope to address some of the longer sections, I don't think the tag itself contributes positively to the reading experience...
My gut feeling is that readers prefer a coherent narrative.
I do believe it should be possible to trim the article a bit without leaving out the essentials.
Yes. The artcle is long and shortening it is a valid priority, but there is difference between that and tagging it as a problem or in violation of some rule. The consensus here appears to be that the article should be pushed in the direction of smaller, but that it is not a problem.
—Sowlos 10:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought it would be easy to spin off the food section until I tried doing it, and saw that it would require at least two weeks of utter devotion. I would enjoy doing that at some point, and here's my draft so far: User:Cynwolfe/Food and dining, for an article to be titled Food and dining in the Roman Empire (which currently redirects to the section here). And I also have a draft at User:Cynwolfe/clothing of the Roman Empire. Both these are deconstructed versions of the sections here, with some additional info, and temporary galleries of possible images (since these are user pages, be advised that they may contain flippant remarks). Languages of the Roman Empire is another to be hoped for. The disastrous state of Social class in ancient Rome, Education in Ancient Rome and Latin literature is a major problem for this article. About how length is determined, one legitimate concern about length is that a page heavy with images, templates and geegaws will load slowly for some users. I'm not sure how much readers use navbars and such, so if given a choice I would always go for images, which they crave, and trim boxes of stuff at the bottom. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Creating articles for those topics should help us shrink their coverage here. I will see how much I can contribute to those, this week.
—Sowlos 08:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to the library today to grab the Blackwell Companion to use as a guide for the History section. I'll try to post a half-assed version of "food and dining" ASAP, if that will make people happy. I just had my pupils dilated for an eye exam, so my inability to see should make that interesting. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)