Latest comment: 4 years ago55 comments9 people in discussion
I wonder if we can form a consensus to standardize the short descriptions for Roman emperors. At the moment they differ between articles, for example here are the Julio-Claudian ones:
Marcus Aurelius: Roman emperor (161–180) and philosopher – While the inclusion of "Philosopher" might be an exception here the formatting before that is still different
I personally like simply "Roman emperor, year–year" as I think it's straightforward and to the point. (A lot of Roman emperors, including all of the Flavian dynasty and Nerva–Antonine dynasty already use this anyways) The use of numbering each emperor seems problematic, except for Augustus where something like "First Roman emperor, 27 AD – 14 BC" would make sense.
Considerations
Should "AD" be used for every emperor or only to a point? Imo they should always be used since readers may not know that all Roman emperors (except Augustus) were AD.
Should "r." be used for the years to avoid confusion that the numbers refer to the lifespan of the individual? (eg. "Roman Emperor, r. 14–37" vs "Roman Emperor, 14–37")
First impressions: there's value in knowing "first, second, third", but only to a point. I would consider limiting this to one of the following sets: (a) the first three; number becomes progressively less useful with each additional emperor; or (b) the Julio-Claudian dynasty, which is somewhat cohesive as the early set, all connected with one another, and disconnected with those who follow, and this limits us to five. There are various other possible cut-offs; Domitian ends the Flavian Dynasty, as well as completing the "twelve Caesars" referred to by Suetonius; and Commodus ends the Antonines, but then you have to decide how to number Lucius Verus and Geta. Is there any real benefit to knowing that someone is either the sixteenth, seventeenth, or eighteenth Roman emperor, depending on how you count them?
As for the formatting, I would go with "Roman emperor from AD 54 to 68". You're correct about readers not necessarily knowing whether we're discussing BC or AD in Roman topics, so I would include it. True, readers can figure out which era it has to be by seeing whether it's counting up or down, and there's generally no need to "dumb down" a well-written article, but this is a "short description", so it benefits from clarity. I don't think the same ambiguity results from omitting "r", since by definition the period that one was emperor was the span of the person's reign. It would only be ambiguous if we included both lifespan and reign in the short description, and there's no need to do that.
Also writing it out in English instead of using shorthand, abbreviations, parentheses, dashes, etc. make it clearer. "Roman emperor from AD 54 to 68" is absolutely clear, IMO. "Roman emperor and musician (54–68)" is less so. I would probably omit additional notability (philosopher, poet, gladiator) for this reason, except perhaps in the case of notable generals who became emperor—in which case "general" preceding "emperor" would reduce the chance of confusion: "Roman general and emperor from AD 69 to 79" doesn't seem very ambiguous. P Aculeius (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Since Augustus is the only BC emperor, shouldn't we drop the AD for all the years after about the first century? The reader can tell what the numbers mean if they're increasing not decreasing. Some one-year-or-less emperors might benefit from the clarification, but I don't think it necessary. The article for Hadrian does not bother with labelling the era at all. If it must be there, I'd prefer it after the numbers, not before. I propose:
Justinian I: Roman emperor in the East, r. 527–565
... etc. ...
Note: There is overlap in the dates because the reign begins when the person is either acclaimed/appointed augustus, or appointed caesar for emperors beginning with Constantius and Galerius, (but not before) regardless of how young they were or how many other emperors there happened to be or whether their predecessor was still alive. Note also that Diocletian's dates give his date of retirement, not death. At some point they have to be called "Byzantine emperor, r. ..." but I suggest that should be with Heraclius and not before. GPinkerton (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@P Aculeius: NB that though Domitian is Suetonius's twelfth Caesar, he was in fact the eleventh emperor. I suggest Nerva can be labelled with an ordinal as well. GPinkerton (talk)
We can't count on readers to know that all emperors were AD, and shouldn't require them to perform a mental calculation just because that would save us the trouble of writing it. That was the point I was trying to make above, and which Aza24 raised before me. Would be better to follow the normal convention and place it first in any event. As for "Caesar", it has no significance as to when someone was emperor. We're only concerned with the period that someone was Augustus, since that was the defining title of an emperor. Also there's absolutely no significance to the number twelve here. I was only pointing out that finishing out the list of Suetonius was another possible, but probably less useful cutoff for numbering them, one of several. It would make zero sense to include Nerva, but not Trajan, simply because he was the twelfth. It would be better to stop during or at the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, or even the Flavian dynasty; but if you insist on counting Nerva then you really would have to go to the end of the Antonines, which as I pointed out above is both problematic in terms of numbering, and not terribly useful to the reader. P Aculeius (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Four emperors (not two): Two augusti and two caesares. Which is which?@P Aculeius: I'm sorry but this claim of yours that As for "Caesar", it has no significance as to when someone was emperor. We're only concerned with the period that someone was Augustus, since that was the defining title of an emperor. I'm afraid this simply isn't true. If it were, you'd have to be arguing that the Tetrarchy was a system of two co-reigning emperors, which even the name demonstrates is not true at all, let alone their art, epigraphy, titulature, actual history, etc. GPinkerton (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Just quickly jumping in to say that the format proposed by GPinkerton looks good to me. Some considerations: I question the need for having AD for anyone beyond Augustus at all. "We can't count on readers to know that all emperors were AD" seems like a strange argument to me and I wonder if there are any similar examples where AD is used (or not used).
I'd also argue that Zeno should be the last emperor with a short description calling them "Roman emperor in the East" since Wikipedia practice seems to be to refer to emperors after Zeno as Byzantine except in some places (Justinian I and Justin II are called "Eastern Roman" rather than "Byzantine" in their articles it seems and the List of Roman emperors goes all the way to Constantine XI, as it should). I agree that Heraclius is arguably a better cut-off points but it is nice if everything fits together. In any case, someone like Justinian I was arguably not just "Roman emperor in the East" since there was no longer a Roman emperor in the West and Justinian I controlled North Africa, Italy and parts of Spain. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
If that's Wikipedia practice it ought to be changed and brought into line with common practice. "in the East" is still useful after Zeno because the emperors were after all "in the East", even if some of them ruled over the (remaining) West as well. GPinkerton (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ichthyovenator: I've gone and changed the irregularities up to Phocas. Most were called "Eastern Roman emperor", except Leo I who was called "Byzantine", Leo II who was just "emperor", and Phocas who was merely "Augustus". Some had dates; they all have them now, without "r.". They're all "Roman emperor in the East" now, from Valens to Phocas. GPinkerton (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@GPinkerton: Yeah that's good. They are however still Byzantine in the infobox and throughout their articles (one could argue that this makes the article inconsistent with itself, even though the terms are effectively synonymous). I agree with you that if one has to separate "Roman"/"Eastern Roman" and "Byzantine", the best cut-off point is probably the succession from Phocas to Heraclius for a multitude of reasons but this should probably be its own discussion, preferably in some place that both the Classical Greece and Rome people and the Byzantine people can read and participate. Sadly, there is no "WikiProject Byzantium" (closest thing is the Byzantine world task force. My attempt at referring to Anastasius I as "Roman" rather than "Byzantine" was reverted back in 2018 as POV, so evidently there is some controversy in regards to terminology here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
A short description should transmit the essential idea in the first glance w/o any ambiguity, and nothing more. With this in mind, I would drop the numbering (first, second etc.) entirely; the articles themselves usually already give the order anyways. The meaning of comma, parenthesis or 'r.' for reigned also might not be immediately clear to readers in a bat of an eye, so I would avoid them. I prefer the clear, unambiguous and not very long Roman emperor from [start] to [end] (as in Nero), or, if the subject only reigned for one year, Roman emperor in [year] (as in Gordian I). Exceptions like the case of Marcus Aurelius probably should remain as they are.
Does anyone have a suggestion regarding junior emperors, Caesares? Editors interested on the matter here disagree whether these fully constitute 'emperors'. Perhaps Roman emperor from [...] to [...] could be expanded to deputy/junior Roman emperor (Caesar) from [...] to [...], or alternatively the label "Roman emperor" could be dropped entirely. Avis11 (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
"Emperor" is translated from imperator, so I have difficulty understanding how that distinction could be made, since caesares were unquestionably imperatores and functioned as full-time heads of state from the Tetrarchy at latest. I think to keep it simple we should just give the dates when that emperor had imperial power and were afforded imperial honours (i.e. after they were acclaimed/appointed caesar or augustus, whichever came first). Many post-Diocletianic caesares became augusti after, sometimes very shortly after, they became caesares. To distinguish them would be awkward: Diadumenian would be:
"Roman emperor, caesar in 217, augustus in 218"
Crispus would be:
"Roman emperor, caesar 317–324"
Constantius II would be
"Roman emperor, caesar from 324, augustus 337–361"
Valentinian III would be:
"Roman emperor, caesar in 424, augustus 425–455"
Overall we should just list the year in which they assumed the purple and the year in which they relinquished it, by death or by other means. GPinkerton (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but on the question of "Caesar" making someone an emperor, it's simply wrong, and it has no place in anyone's short description. And it's not necessary to keep pinging me every time you reply to anything I say. I check discussions I'm involved with, in addition to pages on my watchlist. P Aculeius (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it's simpler and safer to use in the short desc just the person's period as Augustus. Most non-Tetrarchic Caesares are closer to simply being imperial heirs. Regarding your claim that Caesares were "imperatores", none of those styled nobilissimus Caesar actually seem to have borne the style Imperator. When a general was acclaimed as imperator on the field it presumably meant raising him to Augustan rank directly. I'm not sure that, say, Clodius Albinus, who was Severus' Caesar, should be classified as an emperor on par with Severus himself. Avis11 (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
That's why I've said "appointed caesar for emperors beginning with Constantius and Galerius, (but not before)". As for your claim none of those styled nobilissimus Caesar actually seem to have borne the style Imperator that's just not the point. Imperator had mostly been dropped over the course of the tetrarchy and was replaced by Dominus Noster which was afforded to both caesares and augusti. You can see that in this example are two emperors, both titled Dominus Noster and titled as caesar and augustus. Imperator was dropped altogether after Gratian, and both cesares and augusti used this D.N. title from their elevation to imperial rank on. GPinkerton (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, apparently, when Constantine proclaimed himself emperor on 25th July 306, he assumed the rank of caesar and the rank of augustus the same day. The reason acclamation usually involved promotion to augustus was that the emperors so proclaimed were already emperors, with the rank of caesar (as with Julian). Constantine, the unrecognized usurper in 306, is an exception to a rule. GPinkerton (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
For an example, Constantius II was titled (while augustus from September 337) as D[OMINUS]N[OSTER] CONSTANTIVS P[IUS]F[ELIX] AVG[USTUS] while Constantius Gallus, his co-emperor, was entitled D[OMINUS]N[OSTER] CONSTANTIVS NOB[ILISSIMUS] CAES[AR]. How can one co-emperor be an emperor and the other not? GPinkerton (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Just going to say that I agree that caesares were effectively emperors but that they should only be regarded as such on Wikipedia if reliable scholary sources outside of Wikipedia also refer to figures such as Constantius Gallus, Crispus and Licinius II as "emperors" rather than "junior emperors" or something to that effect. I have not checked if they do/don't but I feel like that would help settle this argument once and for all if you provide any examples of that.
Imperator being dropped altogether after Gratian is not true; it was no longer as important as other titles (and ceased appearing on coins for instance) but it was still a part of the "full" imperial titulature. Justin II's "full" title in 570 was Imperator Caesar Flavius Iustinus fidelis in Christo mansuetus maximus benefactor Alamannicus Gothicus Francicus Germanicus Anticus Vandalicus Africanus pius felix inclitus victor ac triumphator semper Augustus (cited in his article). Imperator was used sporadically in certain contexts by the Byzantines thereafter. Latin-language documents issued by Byzantine emperors as late as the 1400s call the emperors "imperator et moderator romeorum". Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Here isn't quite the place to elaborate much on the status of Caesares on the imperial college, though I think we do have a preference here for applying the Roman emperor label only for Augusti. One could, once again, resort to the compromise of "Junior/Deputy Roman emperor from [year] to [year]" for emperors who weren't Augustus. I do somewhat doubt the authenticity of Justin's full nomenclature (even if it's sourced), as Imperator Caesar had probably been dropped officially (though it didn't disappear completely) by the time of Constantine. Avis11 (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The citations attached to the titles in that article are misleading, at best. Sodini attributes the inscription to Tiberius II, not to Justin, whom he says was certainly not the honorand. Moreover, the surviving part of the inscription, which is very fragmentary and in Greek, begins: Βασ[ι]λεὺς followed by several lines of destroyed words followed by an Αῦ- for augustus. There isn't the slightest trace of the word imperator, or even any indication of a Greek equivalent, let alone the name of the emperor concerned. GPinkerton (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
My revised thoughts on initial formatting:
Numbering
I would concur that it still seems unnecessary, any break would be arbitrary and the fact that no reason for when the numbering would stop stands out over another is telling it self. I still think strongly that Augustus would be the exception here and keep "First", since that is notable in itself.
AD
I think AD is essential since the average reader will be more likely to be reading on a specific emperor than many of them at once, hence it would not be apparent to them to see the pattern of AD – some people may even think some of these emperors are BC as Ancient Rome as a whole may cause confusion. Many of the Emperor articles use AD already. I could agree to place the AD after the years though. This being said, to a point I believe the AD should perhaps stop, many of the articles already do this, but I would be unsure as to when
Formatting of years
With P Aculeius's comment, I would agree that "from year to year" is the clearest and least likely to cause confusion. Upon further recollection I think the first time I saw the "r." in an article it was unclear as to its meaning. Likewise, simply listing "year–year" could easily be confused as the individual's lifespan
Eastern and Western emperors
Here I have little to say other than "Western/Eastern Roman emperor from year to year" would fit best imo. I am admittedly not well versed in the technicalities here (especially when it comes to these "junior emperors").
@GPinkerton, Ichthyovenator, Avis11, and P Aculeius: Sorry to ping you all, but this conversation seems to have fallen into limbo and I'm hoping we can come back together to try and continue working towards a consensus – especially now that the short description for Tiberius has randomly been changed to "Second Roman emperor (42 BC - AD 37) (r. AD 14–AD 37)" which is definitely not acceptable. I wish I could offer my clarity on this "caesar vs augustus" title argument but I am not very familiar in either's meaning. If people wouldn't mind commenting on some initial formatting below:
B, until the years get into triple digits. Two-digit years are not immediately identifiable as years without the era. Crisis of the third century is way too late. GPinkerton (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
B - Is acceptable with the caveat that Template:reign formats things like A so is, I suppose, assumed to be familiar (though it does provide a mouse-over-revealed abbreviation). GPinkerton (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Surely it would be more consistent to have "in yearx" and "from yearx to yeary and from yearz to yeara" if that's the form we're using for the others. GPinkerton (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
We can leave those to the Byzantine world task force, as no pre-395 Roman Emperor had a split reign. Zeno, of course, falls into our sphere, but we can let it slide - he's the only one. Single-year reigns can be given from month to month of that year, mentioning the year. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The consensus seems pretty clear. "Roman emperor from year to year" for everyone and numbering + BC/AD for Augustus through Nero. I will attempt to go through them now, feel free to correct any mistakes I make! Aza24 (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Shoot I'll have to come back to doing this later, unless someone wants to get it started. If need be we can add BC and AD for further emperors than Nero (up until 100 AD) if people feel strongly about that. Aza24 (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Related question
Since it appears there is a consensus about dates with Roman emperors, what about your average Roman senator? (Ok, Senators weren't average, but I couldn't resist typing that.) Should short descriptions of senators include the date? Even if they never held the fasces? Or not bother at all? (I mention this after seeing this edit, which got me thinking.) -- llywrch (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to a see a date in every short description possible. Some sort of known date or floruit should be included. Maybe the date of the highest office they held? Like "aedile in 50 BC" or whatever. GPinkerton (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
District of Albona links to the DAB page compartment. I suspect this may be a mistranslation from Italian (the same passage referred to the emperors "Marco Aurelio" and "Antonio Pio", and the citation is in Italian). If there is a good technical term for subdivisions of regiones, I don't know it. Any ideas? Narky Blert (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Request move of imperial dynasties
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Further to discussions on the emperors, I notice there are two overlapping articles in want of attention. List of Roman and Byzantine Empresses and List of Augustae. The latter is very incomplete, and the former is very unclear about which was an augusta and both are misleading as a result. Neither is of the best standard of formatting, completeness, or intelligibility. These I would suggest merging. GPinkerton (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not fully aware of what Augusta means in contexts where it is not applied to the wife of a reigning Augustus but from what I gather the honorific was not only applied to empresses which would make it a distinct topic? Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
It was only applied to empresses but empress means a number of things, hence the confusion. Some's titles were certainly separate to an augustus husband. Constantine's mother and daughter Constantina were both augustae in their own right, but the situation of his other daughter Helena, who married Julian, is unclear to me. Galla Placidia, I think, was also augusta in her own right. Additionally, if one is augusta by marriage, that title does not fall away if the husband augustus dies. GPinkerton (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Roman empress means only the wife of a regning Roman emperor. The title Augusta could be given to any woman. Not all empresses were Augustae either, none of Caligula's wives were called Augusta for example.★Trekker (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Were they empresses if not made augustae? And for instance, did Julia Domna cease to be an empress for the final six years of her life? GPinkerton (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
"Roman empress" is a made up thing by post-ancient historians, there was no specific position/title for an "Emperors" wife that was consistent. Its an anachronistic description (but widely used) just like "Roman emperor". Livia is considered "Roman empress" from the moment her husband Augustus becomes considered "Emperor" by historians, not when she was declared an Augusta.★Trekker (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, which is why I think it would be better to have a single comprehensive list and note in each case whether each woman was an augusta and from when. Arguments have been made elsewhere that the list of emperors should only include augusti, and it seems odd to require separate lists for 1.) those "empresses" that were augustae and 2.) one for those who were not and for those who were.
I'm still dubious about the idea that women ceased to be empresses if their husbands died and that one had to be married to a reigning emperor to be an empress. We often hear of the "empress Helena", even though she was long-divorced from (or was never married to) the (deceased) augustus Constantius during the time he was augustus, and her qualification is that she was made augusta by her son years later. I doubt Constantina too has not frequently been referred to as an empress, though her claim to the title is also not through a husband but through her father. GPinkerton (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Well I still strongly disagree on any kind of merger. They're two totally different things in the end, both notable (even if one was made up afterwards, like "Emperor").★Trekker (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Question is whether we should have two lists on "List of women with the title Augusta" and "List of Roman emperors' wives", or only one with the vaguer "empress" (eg. list of Roman empresses), that would include both. I strongly favour the latter. Although wives and Augustae are not exactly the same, the lists overlap so much that I don't see the point of keeping them separated. There is enough room in one list to detail the dates of their marriage and when they received the title so all special cases would be covered this way. T8612(talk)02:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
has a little story in Livy (isn't it), or Pliny, and his own Commons category. It would be nice to have an article. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I went looking for something in Google about C. Furius Cressinus (I didn't want to spend the time hunting thru my set of Pliny the Elder's Historia Natura & my Penguin Livy for whatever was written about him), & all I could find were images of the paintings. I guess it's proof that the artistic subject is more notable than the man himself, be he real or a legend. -- llywrch (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Behold: Gaius Furius Chresimus. Half-page exemplum in Pliny's N.H., curiously misspelt in the early modern period and by present-day art historians. New article of mine cries out for illustration and sources other than the Pliny quote itself; please assist. GPinkerton (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Nice find! Interesting article, too. The spelling difference is maybe not so strange, because "Cresinus" and several other variants occur in Pliny manuscripts. Andrew Dalby09:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There is a stamp of yours stamped onto Cyclops (play) avowing your midlevel interest. Therefore somebody might be interested to know that I have given the article a kickstart, and now relinquish it with the keys. Untitled50reg (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
Is there any logic to the current naming pattern for members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty? The article of Tiberius's son is called Drusus Julius Caesar, whereas that of Germanicus's 2nd son is only Drusus Caesar, but Germanicus himself is named 'Germanicus Julius Caesar' in his own article's lead. Germanicus's eldest is called 'Nero Julius Caesar Germanicus' but his brother Caligula only 'Gaius Caesar Germanicus' (regnal name). It is said that Tiberius was called 'Tiberius Julius Caesar' after his adoption, but only 'Tiberius Caesar (Augustus)' as emperor. There's also, of course, Augustus' grandsons, Gaius Caesar and Lucius Caesar, none named Julius.
Are these current article titles the WP:COMMONNAMEs for the people in question, or does this inconsistency need to be corrected? Given that Augustus's tria nomina was Imperator Caesar Augustus, all his adoptive descendants should by rights be named '[praenomen] Caesar', 'Caesar' being the nomen itself rather than 'Julius'. That, I presume, is why the articles Gaius Caesar, Lucius Caesar and Drusus Caesar were named that way (w/o Julius).
With regards to finding "reliable sources" to solve this, smaller trivia like this usually just passes through the historian's head without him noticing. Both forms – '[praenomen] Caesar' and '[praenomen] Julius Caesar' – appear in literature, seldom with any explanation for why either is favored. 'Gaius/Lucius/Nero/Drusus Caesar' appear frequently enough to suggest it's in fact the subject's actual name and not just a shortened form. The unsure REgives Caligula's name as "Gaius (Julius) Caesar Germanicus", with parentheses, while admitting there is no evidence that he was actually named 'Julius'. The more useful sources I found, in the box below, seem to support the idea that the shorter form, '[praenomen] Caesar', is the correct one.
Henry Furneaux, editor of Tacitus a century ago – After his adoption he becomes 'Tiberius Caesar, Augusti f., Divi nepos', but usually drops the gentile name Julius... Germanicus is known only by his adoptive name, as 'Germanicus Caesar;' once apparently as 'Germanicus Iulius Caesar'. Author invariably calls Tiberius' son 'Drusus Caesar'.
Ronald Syme, Historia, vol. 7 (1958), p. 185 – 'Iulius' is discarded, not merely in current use but in official record. 'Caesar' is a gentilicium in the form 'Imp. Caesar', and so it continues in the names of Augustus' adopted sons, first, from 17 B.C., C. Caesar and L. Caesar, then, from A.D. 4, Ti. Caesar.
Mason Hammond, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, vol. 25 (1957), pp. 21, 22 – Augustus had shed all of his "proper names" except his adoptive cognomen of Caesar. This he promoted to be his gentile nomen, as if to show that Julius Caesar had founded a new gens... he placed diui filius between Caesar and Augustus, just as under the republic, filiation came between nomen and cognomen, for instance in Marcus Tullius M. f. Cicero. The author goes on to indicate that Tiberius and Caligula also discarded 'Julius' and used 'Caesar' as second name.
Barry Baldwin, Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica, NS, Vol. 7 (1981), p. 165 – he is plain Tiberius Caesar... As for Germanicus, the epigraphic evidence discloses that he was almost invariably styled Germanicus Caesar, without the Julius... [Julius] absent from his [Tiberius's] mortuary inscription.
Finally, the Fasti Capitolini, which always shows the subject's full name w/o exceptions, gives simply '[praenomen] Caesar' for all Julio-Claudian dynasts (Gaius Caesar in AD 1, Tiberius in AD 5 and Germanicus in AD 12), while giving '[praenomen] Julius Caesar' to all other Julii Caesares.
This leaves 3 options. (1)Gaius Caesar, Lucius Caesar and Drusus Caesar are all the correct names of the people in question, whereas Drusus Julius Caesar and Nero Julius Caesar need to conform to their standard and have 'Julius' removed; (2) all Julio-Claudian dynasts up to Caligula should be named Julius; or (3) the names should stay exactly as they are, per WP:COMMONNAME. To me option 1 seems logical: Augustus was not named Julius, and one can presume his adoptive descendants weren't either, which is largely confirmed by the sources provided above. Avis11 (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Comment It seems to me that at least Germanicus liked using the "Juli" name to some extent, all his daughter were named Julia Agrippina, Julia Drusilla, Julia Livilla. Tiberius' granddaughter was also named Julia Livia. It doesn't seem to me like they discarded the old name completly. But I do agree that you have a point that the naming of these people all seems a little confused, even among professional historians.★Trekker (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@*Treker:A Companion to Julius Caesar, p. 219 (cited above), doesn't seem to think there's a problem with regards to your example: The clan name "Julius," implied by "Caesar," had belonged to members of other branches of the clan and dropped out of use in the family, except for Augustus' female descendants; it was also passed on to enfranchised provincials and freed slaves.Avis11 (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Comment Why do they need to conform to a standard? The Romans had no such scruples and in any case we only need to use the most frequently used name among the reliable authorities. The naming conventions are surely derived from the shortened names used by Latin and Greek writers and their lazy copyists and for the need for disambiguation. As well as that, the vagaries of Augustus's and the emperors' names can't be taken as a signal that all the family members all changed all their names accordingly. Many of these sources are very old, and I wonder whether a more recent work has appeared on these matters. I myself don't see any logic to removing the name Julius where it's normally used. GPinkerton (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Why do they need to conform to a standard? The simple and straightforward convention that a son (adoptive or not) should have the same 'gentile name' as the father (they were far from having "had no such scruples") suggests they should indeed be uniform. Again, what's the logic in naming Tiberius's son Drusus Julius Caesar and Germanicus' son only Drusus Caesar, if they belonged to the same family? As for the sources, most of them are not old at all and they suggest something very different from simple copyist laziness. There is only a single inscription in existence which calls Germanicus 'Julius'; this cannot be ascribed to mere incompetence. Augustus's name was nothing like the complicated mess of later emperors: it amounted to the simple tria nomina Imp. Caesar Augustus. If he was not named "Julius", then neither Tiberius, his son, Germanicus nor Caligula were so, as the sources provided already indicate, and in all probability neither Nero nor Drusus Caesar as well. Avis11 (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
This usage is based on Tacitus' habit of referring to members of famous families (e.g. Julii, Calpurnii) by the cognomen of that branch instead of writing out the person's full name. For example "Lucius Calpurnius Piso" is often referred to as "Lucius Piso" or even "L. Piso", much as in a work on a modern, say, "John Fitzgerald Kennedy" will be referred to as "Kennedy" -- when there is no worry of confusion with another Kennedy, such as his brothers Robert or Edward, in which case he'll often be referred to by his first name. In all formal cases, these Julio-Claudians were referred to by their full names, thus: Drusus Julius Caesar, although contemporaries might refer to him as Drusus Caesar much as people refer to William Henry Gates III as "Bill Gates". This usage has been adopted by some Classical historians; Ronald Syme is perhaps the best known who does this. (One of many many idiosyncratic elements of Syme's style.)Romans are notorious for having several strings of grandfathers-fathers-sons -- & even longer -- with the same name. (For example, there are at least 9 Manii Acilii Glarbiones.) This has forced us to adopt variations to help distinguish between them. For example, this is how we arrived at "Vespasian" & "Titus" despite both being named "Titus Flavius Vespasian". -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The 'easier-to-pronounce' argument, though the first that will come to mind of most, is completely inappropriate here. The sources which discuss the problem (in the collapsed list above, which you presumably missed) all convey the idea that, in the Julio-Claudian case, the gentile name 'Julius' was indeed discarded (by men, not women and freedmen). Augustus' tria nomina was Imperator (praenomen) Caesar (nomen) Augustus (cognomen), so by rights his adoptive descendants should be named '[praenomen] Caesar'. The editor who created the article Gaius Caesar was, thus, absolutely correct in choosing that title. If you go to any source in list of Roman consuls (Cooley, Degrassi, others), you'll see that Drusus Julius Caesar is invariably displayed as Drusus Caesar; this cannot be simply arbitrary omission by the author since consular lists always display the subject's name in full, and other Julii Caesares, with the conspicuous exception (the central point of this discussion) of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, are indeed always shown with the name 'Julius'. The Fasti Capitolini – an official source, unlike Tacitus – does the exact same thing. Again, the whole reasoning is already provided by the sources above. Avis11 (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Nowhere did I say "easier to pronounce". My words were that it was a shorter version of the name, thus easier to write for the reasons I set forth. Do you often change what other people have written? -- llywrch (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Of all you could argue about here, is this really what you drew attention to? I didn't need to change anything, nor even assume bad faith. You yourself said it's a shorter version of the name, and thus easier to express, write, pronounce or whatever; I distorted absolutely nothing here. That you also meant that some random nomen or combination of nomina are used for disambiguation is also quite clear; it's also quite irrelevant because it's incorrect, not only for the Julio-Claudian dynasty but also for your own example of the Flavians. Secondary sources do not give the impression that Gaius Caesar is referred to as such simply for identification or easy transcription/pronunciation; he is called that because it was indeed his full name. Julius Caesar is also called Gaius Caesar in some primary sources, certainly not b/c it somehow helps identify him in a midst of other Gaii Julii Caesares. Avis11 (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I believe encouraging a diplomatic tone on Wikipedia is important. I assume your goal is to convince me. After all, while I have been struggling with this material for several years, I still discover that I have much to learn. So I am always willing to learn from someone who can be considerate in making his point -- as well as admit my mistakes. And you have shown elsewhere that you do know something about the subject. Nevertheless, if you wish to prove to all of us your unmatched command of the subject matter & reduce to me abject silence, please continue. -- llywrch (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh don't be so melodramatic. You're the one who abandoned the "diplomatic tone" for a belligerent and accusatory one. Presumably I made a poor choice of words somewhere which led you to believe I was distorting what you said and arguing in bad faith, and if so then I suppose I must apologize. I'm not here to "prove my unmatched command of the subject matter and reduce you to abject silence": I also don't know everything and I'm not even 100% sure what's to be done with Germanicus's sons here, in particular. But there is nonetheless an inconsistency in how this set of individuals is named, and what I did was to offer a solution to the problem after finding, with some difficulty, sources which would help me on this regard. I needn't continue since what I have to say on the subject is already outlined above. Avis11 (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I was going to keep out of this since there seemed no prospect of your giving ground, but I have to say that Llywrch is one of the most patient editors I know. I know because he puts up with most of my silly, opinionated ideas! He's way more experienced than I am, and I've been editing for around eleven years (though not at nearly the same level). And though I've said it before, it obviously bears repeating: if I find Llywrch disagreeing with me, I reconsider my position very carefully—even if I decide that I'm right, it bears careful thought. On this particular issue, there are a lot of opinions about what the early emperors and their families thought they were doing with their names—and whether it had any "officialness" in the sense that names do today. Different sources, different writers, different scholars treat them differently—and that's fine. Just as Tacitus writes differently from Livy, and Dionysius writes differently from both of them, and Cassius Dio has a completely different understanding, so there's room for more than one opinion on almost any Classical topic.
Nomenclature is one of the least arguable topics, but in terms of what someone's proper name was when it's found differently in different authorities (ancient and modern), and where it's not clear if a particular usage varying from custom was legally sanctioned, or whether it even occurred to anyone that it needed to be—it's not at all certain or settled. You seem to be under the impression that there's a right answer and a wrong answer in each case, and that we're somehow equipped to decide which is which, and that having decided one way in one article, every other article has to conform to that opinion. But that's not the case in modern scholarship any more than it was in ancient times—and it's both counterproductive and anti-collaborative to insist that everyone else observe whatever opinion you've decided is right. There are many worthwhile tasks to perform on Wikipedia, and within CGR. But enforcing uniformity in nomenclature from one article to another, when there's clearly room for different opinions, isn't one of them. P Aculeius (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Paternal grandfather of Tiberius
Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
Drusus Claudius Nero (grandfather of Tiberius) is the article which covers the father of Tiberius Claudius Nero the father of emperor Tiberius, but I can't find any explanation for his name. Why is he named Drusus as a praenomen? The Claudia gens article lists the name as possibly being the same person as another Tiberius Claudius Nero who's name makes more sense. Is it possible that the name used here comes from confusion over Suetonius mentioning that Tiberius grandfather was named "Drusus", with his maternal grandfather being named Drusus Claudianus?
I found this source: König, Jason; Oikonomopoulou, Katerina; Woolf, Greg (2013). Ancient Libraries. Cambridge University Press. p. 200. ISBN9781107244580., which does explicitly call him Drusus Claudius Nero but this might again be a mistaken name based on confusion.★Trekker (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Tiberius Caesar is called Ti. Claudius Ti.f. Ti.n. Nero in inscriptions, so his grandfather is certainly named Tiberius also. Broughton's MRR gives the pr. c.67 BC's name as Tiberius, but does not, apparently, mention the relationship to the emperor. Avis11 (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@Avis11: Great to know. Thank you. That does still raise the question of why the name "Drusus Claudius Nero" appears to have been used in several publications, does the issue arrise from people citing Wikipedia, or was the original creator of the article citing a mistaken source?★Trekker (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Oops, I had replied, but forgot to hit "publish changes". Sorry. Both Broughton and the Realencyclopädie (and other sources) call him Tiberius and not Drusus. I have no idea why he was called Drusus here. T8612(talk)13:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@T8612: My guess is that there are two explanations (both likely derived from translations of Suetonius calling Tiberius grandfather "Drusus"), either people calling him Drusus in publications are basing it of Wikipedia, or the original creator of the article was citing a mistaken source. Either way we should clean up all uses of this mistaken name from Wikipedia and delete the misleading redirects.★Trekker (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The relevant passage in book you linked to makes a reference to Philippson, who does not mention any Drusus whatsoever. Presumably that the book's author simply made up the name, almost certainly picking it from Wikipedia, which, as you showed, gave his name as Drusus since as back as 2006. A search on Google Scholar or Google Books for "Drusus Claudius Nero" invariably returns Tiberius' brother, Nero Claudius Drusus. The family tree in here, likewise, gives the grandfather's name as Tiberius. Avis11 (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Ok, so it has been established by inscription that Livia's mother was actually named Alfidia not Aufidia, I have corrected all mentions of this on English Wikipedia, but I've noticed that a ton of the Julio-Claudian pages seem to list a Claudia as Tiberius' paternal grandmother, the sources on Tiberius Claudius Nero (gf) and Tiberius Claudius Nero (f) mentions that Tiberius grandmother was a "descendant of the Claudian family/gens" but does that mean that she was a Claudia herself?★Trekker (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding any sources that mention the grandfather's wife (both of the links above point to the grandfather). Tiberius' mother Livia was descended from the Claudii Pulchri; her father was born Appius Claudius Pulcher, and then adopted by Marcus Livius Drusus. Perhaps the author of this passage in the article confused his father and grandfather. Have you found any sources that mention Tiberius' paternal grandmother? Suetonius doesn't. I don't see her mentioned under "Tiberius" or "Nero" (Nos. 7, 8), or under the various Claudiae or Claudii Pulchri in the DGRBM. Maybe it's in Drumann or PW.
As for "Alfidia", I can see where there are two inscriptions, one in Latin, and one in Greek, that call her this. But the two nomina sound alike and could be easily confused. Suetonius says that she was the daughter of Marcus Aufidius Lurco ("Life of Caligula", 23), who's known from various sources. If he's correct, then the inscriptions calling her "Alfidia" are erroneous—the engravers confused two similar-sounding names. So are we discounting Suetonius' identification of Livia's grandfather simply because the inscriptions spell her name "Alfidia"? I see in the "Life of Tiberius" where she's called a native of Fundi, and in the "Life of Caligula", Suetonius says that Caligula asserted that her father was a mere Decurion of Fundi, but these two mentions of Fundi may not be independent. I find two inscriptions of Alfidii from Fundi, and none of Aufidii, but then again, Aufidius Lurco doesn't seem to be mentioned in any inscriptions at all, so this is of rather limited evidentiary value. Is there anything else that justifies discarding Suetonius' identification of Livia's maternal grandfather? P Aculeius (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@P Aculeius: I think you might be right about the Claudia thing. That seems reasonable.
As for Alfidia, most sources I can find seem to agree that Alfidia is correct (and that her mother's family were not even senatorial), 1, 2, 3. Based on the second source the page Aufidius Lurco is problematic, the page describes him as a man who worked with Clodius, held high office and raised peacocks, things the source says is unlikely Livia's actual grandfather did, the article also doesn't mention the Caligula story at all, which seems to be the source for the name "Lurco" being Livia's grandfathers cognomen. On the other hand, it would seem very coincidental that both the gentes Alfidia and Aufidia would have the cognomen "Lurco", but stranger things have happened. One possibility is that Suetonius assumed that Lurco was Livia's grandfathers cognomen simply because he had heard the cognomen used for the often confused gens Aufidia. In my opinion an entirely new article should be written for Alfidius which focuses on the Caligula story as well as the longtime confusion covered in sources.★Trekker (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
There is also some talk of a "Aufidius Luscus" in some places whom seems to have been a mayor of Fundi, 1, 2. Not sure what to make of all these men.★Trekker (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
The first of the two links only gives me a snippet view, and doesn't even identify the author or the name of the artlcle, so I've got no idea what it says about the subject. The second one is from Livia, Empress of Rome, by Matthew Dennison, who seems to be assuming that Livia's grandfather was a wealthy Marcus Alfidius from Fundi—but I can't see any citations in the passages that mention him, and he seems to be imagining what might have happened—for example, he tries to explain what Marcus Livius Drusus Livianus was doing in Fundi, but then admits that he might never have gone there at all. His father-in-law might have given him a substantial dowry, but he was probably already quite wealthy. He didn't object to his daughter's marriage on the ground that her husband was too old. Not sure how we know this. Is there any source that talks about him, or is this all coming out of thin air? Is Dennison merely assuming that Caligula spoke the truth when he denigrated his grandmother as the granddaughter of a decurion of Fundi, or is there some source apart from Suetonius reporting what Caligula said of her?
There seems to be little doubt as to the reality of Marcus Aufidius Lurco (although there is evidence that "Aufidius" and "Alfidius" could be confused): following up the citations in his biography in DGRBM, I find him simply "Lurco" in Cicero's Epistulae ad Atticum, i. 16. In Pro Flacco iv. 34 s. 86–89, he is "Marcus Lurco"; Asconius calls him "Marcus Alfidius" in his commentary on Pro Milone, p. 55 (trans. Adams). Varro, in De Re Rustica, iii. 6 calls him "M. Aufidius Lurco", while Pliny calls him "M. Aufidius Lurco" at Historia Naturalis, x. 20 s. 28 s. 45, both agreeing with what Suetonius says about Caligula's assertion: that Aufidius Lurco had held high office at Rome (specifically, that he had been tribune of the plebs in 61 BC, although Suetonius doesn't supply this detail). Broughton gives "(M. Aufidius?) Lurco" under 61.
However, PW treats these as four separate persons, under "Aufidius", Nos. 24–27, and seems to agree with you, explaining that what Caligula was doing was alluding to the Aufidius Luscus of Fundi mentioned by Horace, as a means of insulting his grandmother, while the actual name was "Alfidius", and that he wasn't the same person as either Aufidius Lurco or the one mentioned by Horace. Here's what Google Translate gives me:
In fact, the mother of Livia, later Iulia Augusta, was called Alfidia (overlooked by the Alfidii), as the inscriptions CIL II 1067, IX 3661 and the Greek from Samos teach; the maternus avus of Livia is Alfidius, not Aufidius. In no case can he therefore be identified with the peacock breeder M. Aufidius Lurco No. 26, who as Aufidius hsl. is certain. But even with Suetonius the mistake is not to be found in the manuscript. The assumption is very close and has also been from Kiessling to Horat. Sat. I 5, 34 pronounced that Emperor Gaius was induced to lower the ancestors of Livias by the Aufidius Luscus of Fundi at Horace. Then Gaius probably referred to the avus as Aufidius Luscus in his letter to the Senate with a conscious allusion to Horace's well-known poem. Given this assumption, it is perfectly understandable that Suetonius made a mistake despite his reference to publica monumenta. He knew that Livia was of noble descent and found in M. Aufidius Lurco a city Roman senatorial A. with a very similar sounding cognomen. Suetonius' observation was correct, but his refutation was inadequate because, misled by Gaius, he overlooked that avus was not an Aufidius at all, but an Alfidius.
But here the identification of Alfidia instead of Aufidia still rests entirely on the spelling in the two inscriptions—beyond them and the above sources, nothing seems to be known of Marcus Aufidius Lurco or Aufidius Luscus or Marcus Alfidius, and the explanation for how the two names became confused in PW seems to be conjectural. So I would say that it's still an open case: did Suetonius guess wrongly at Livia's grandfather, based on the name Caligula mockingly assigned him, or did he know who he was? I think that all of the articles concerned need to note the uncertainty. P Aculeius (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
While it is not sure for a 100%, I can't seem to find any refutation to the assertion that she was an Alfidia instead of an Aufidia. It seems to have been proposed as far back as 1898 even. Is there any off chance that maybe the Aufidii and Alfidii might be one and the same gente? I have seen some gens spelled differently sometimes.★Trekker (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
That seems like a pretty good investigation, with one possible question remaining: the one possibility that the author is unwilling to accept is that the inscriptions confused two similar-sounding names—presumably because "Alfidia" is the less common and prominent of the two. But if I recall, the Marruvine inscription is dated to the mid-first century, by which time Alfidii might have been familiar enough to justify it. But I will say that while I think the two names could easily be transposed, I don't really think they're two orthographic variants of the same gens. And my opinion about the reliability of the inscriptions doesn't seem to be shared by the authorities. So footnote the doubts, but go ahead and amend the articles, IMO. The careful investigation of this article is difficult to argue against. P Aculeius (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I think Occam's razor is in effect. It seems very implausible that all three inscribers of surviving inscriptions in honour of this lady, one in Spain, one in northern Italy, and one on Samos would all make the same mistake in the name of their honorand. It does not seem very extraordinary that Suetonius, in attempting to correct Caligula about his own great-grandmother, should have made a mistake. Furius (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Later Roman Empire
Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
Hello. We currently don't have an article for the Later Roman Empire. (That link is a redirect to Fall of the Western Roman Empire.) But is that how it should be? Were Gibbon and A. H. M. Jones writing about the exact same topic? The #Terminology section of Late antiquity discusses the Later Roman Empire, with some comparisons to "Late Antiquity", "Early Middle Ages" "Early Byzantine", and "Migration period", which have overlaps, but they have different focuses, whether geographical, chronological, social, or otherwise. Isn't that also the case with "Later Roman Empire", even if the chronology has a lot of overlap with "Fall of the Western Roman Empire"; otherwise why do historians even use that phrase in the first place?
I get that this is a volunteer project, and so sometimes there are gaps in the encyclopedia, even important ones occasionally (come on over, and help me out at Draft:War guilt question!). Is this just an important article nobody's gotten around to writing, yet? Or is the redirect right and should stay that way, because "Later Roman Empire" and "Fall of the Western Roman Empire" are really just synonyms? From a 40,000 foot view, I would say that what "Late Antiquity" and "Later Roman Empire" have in common is that they are both periodizations, so in a sense, a historiographical artefact, whereas the Fall of the Western Roman Empire corresponds to a series of events leading to a change in power relationships (or is my view also an artefact? I don't think so, but...).
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this period, so I wouldn't be the best choice to start this article, and in any case, I've got my hands full elsewhere. Can I appeal to anyone to take this on? Even a stub would be helpful. Note that in the Late Antiquity article, the phrase "Later Roman Empire" is piped to "History of the Roman Empire" so that doesn't even agree with the redirect target; and in the A. H. M. Jones article the lead sentence contains the string "Later Roman Empire" but finesses the problem by linking only the last two words. It would be great to have an article, however brief, if only to be able to assert a single definition that could be linked to properly from other articles using the term, so readers could get a consistent view of the meaning, from whatever article. In particular, I'd like to link to it from Roman diocese and I'd rather have a stub article with a definition, than just a redirect. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
To answer question 2, Gibbon and Jones were not writing about the exact same topic. In his title Jones limited his work to the date range 284-602. Gibbon, if I may speak for him, saw the decline starting at 180 and the fall concluding at 1453, though his coverage of the whole later period is very sketchy. Andrew Dalby08:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion
How I would hate to start all this again! But in writing the above I just checked "Commodus" to make sure that my failing memory agreed with the rest of the world, and in the infobox I saw
"AD" written just so, repeated six times in a small box, each time without even a space between the numerals and the era
"reign", which is the very fact that many would want to verify, said in the headline to begin at "177AD" when the real headline date is 180.
As to my point 2, all right, I know it's complicated and we may have to expect people to read three lines rather than one. As to my point 1, why on earth "AD" badly formatted six times? Logically, if it's necessary at all, once is enough: six just rubs it in deeply that we have chosen AD rather than CE. Is that really the consensus above? Andrew Dalby09:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussion was in favour of the "reign" beginning at the date of augustus-ship since the empire was not exactly a monarchy in the mediaeval and post-mediaeval sense. (The tetrarchic-era caesares also get their "reigns" dated from their appointment as caesar, at least in the short descriptions, as is logical for a period of "reign-by-four".) This was the method adopted for the short descriptions and the method used by the infoboxes "regnal name" fields' sources – Cooley 2012 and Kienast. Obviously there's no reason to wedge an AD after every date, that's useless. GPinkerton (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
As sometimes happens, the edit was a first fray into a very different field from his usual line of country. Looking at the other articles he's edited, one can perhaps see why Commodus was chosen rather than, say, Hadrian. Mildly alarming. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Commodus is in particular a difficult topic for what you just mentioned. He became an imperator ("emperor") and received his tribunician power apparently in November 176, not 177 (when he received the honorific Augustus), so by rights 176 should presumably be his 1st year. Of course, the entire problem could be avoided by just presuming he became emperor after his father died in 180. Avis11 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Somewhat related, why was the lead image changed without explanation? The original one is a far more famous and recognizable depiction... not to mention, it just looks better. Aza24 (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I read this this article today by a man named Mark Passehl which seems to run in contrast to mainstream opinion on the Servilii Caepiones. Nothing was really eyebrow raising tho until it came to a part where the article claims that "Livia seems to have born a bastard son by her lover Salvius while Caesar was away"; that made me take pause.★Trekker (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
In particular the names with the numbers in Latin words rather than numerals seem strange to me. Is it accurate to use these, in the sense that reliable sources use prima, secunda etc? I feel like Roman numerals are more appropriate, used more commonly and better tied to epigraphic evidence, and that the use of the Latin words is somehow a sort of neologism. Now clearly what I feel doesn't matter(!), but there a fishy smack of original research to me about numbering and naming the legions in this way when I don't think the titles were in all cases used like this. looking through the history's
At the very least there seems like an opportunity to tidy up and make consistent. Most of these articles look to have originally been in numerals, and subsequently bold edited to words by a couple of busy editors in short order about a decade ago. As lead changes there are never any sources cited for these changes, just someone with a working knowledge of Latin changing numeral into words.
There're also issues around italicisation and upper lowercase for the unit nicknames.
Consistency is a desirable goal, but bear in mind that there are two conflicting purposes here, and neither involves neologism. The Romans used numerals as a convenient shorthand—and they were very fond of doing this, since writing was a more laborious process than it is today, and space was frequently at a premium. But they would certainly have said "prima", "secunda", "vigesima", etc. And in good English writing, we write out numerals in running text, unless they are so large as to become unwieldy—and in speaking we pronounce Roman numerals as if they were English cardinal or ordinal numbers, even though in context the Latin would be more appropriate in this instance. Of course, I don't mean to suggest that it's incorrect to refer to the "first legion" (however you choose to capitalize it) or the "twentieth legion" in running text—provided that it's clear which one you mean, since there were many legions sharing numbers at various points in time—but the question here is how to give the name in the lead sentence. And while using Roman numerals is certainly authentic, I also worry that we lose something if we don't write out the number, since non-Latinists won't readily know what word the numeral stands for, except in English. I'd like to know if any of our more experienced members can suggest a viable way to do both without adding awkward parentheticals to the bold part of the lead. P Aculeius (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
For clarity, I’m not suggesting removing anything in English, certainly we should write it out in English, it’s the I vs Prima issue that I’m querying. I can’t think of a single good secondary source on the legions that uses, for example, Legio Prima Parthica. It’s always in my experience Legio I Parthica, with numerals.
For the non-Latinists the Roman numerals are going to be better than the Latin numbers in some cases. Legio XVIII is probably more clear than Legio duodevigesima. Taking that, I can’t find any examples of Use of Legio Duodevigesima that aren’t clearly derived from the wiki page, and that goes back to someone showing off their knowledge of Latin a decade ago and changing all the numerals to words.FlaccusVarus (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) After further consideration, I agree with using numerals for the bold lead. I also think that as proper nouns, they should be capitalized (note that nicknames are considered "proper" nouns). I disagree with G. Pinkerton's suggestion of anglicizing the names—a translation following the name in Latin is strongly preferable. P Aculeius (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it's rare to refer to more modern military formations with with their ordinals written out in full. "Seventeenth/Twenty-first Lancers" looks very wrong. Some even have cardinal numbers and are still always written numerically: 40 Commando. I suggest that the English language name should use "legion" instead of "legio" break with the MOS and use the style "Ist", "IInd", "IIIrd", "XIXth", etc., perhaps with a further daring superscript. That way the Latin can be written out in full the first time, unbolded, with the Roman numerals then free to be used throughout as a short form, to be read as either English or Latin as the reader prefers. GPinkerton (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@P Aculeius: I have not suggested Anglicizing the names. On the contrary, I propose Romanizing the numerals. That way the Roman and standard academic abbreviations can be employed throughout and the English translation supplied in the first instance, allowing a variety of It would read like this:
The Legio I Parthica (Latin: legio prima parthica, lit. '1st Parthian Legion') was a legion of the Imperial Roman army founded in AD 197 by the emperor Septimius Severus (r. 193–211) for his forthcoming war against the Parthian Empire. The Ist Parthica was ... The Ist, IInd and IIIrd Parthica legions were ... While the IInd and IIIrd Legions were despatched to ... the Ist Parthica Legion garrisoned at ... etc
We should avoid a style that requires the overuse of "legio", "legiones", in the article body, since we already have perfectly good words for this in English, just as we can read of "centurions" rather than labouring the prose with "centuriones". So there ought to be a shorthand version that fits idiomatically in English and which is instantly recognizable as a legion's proper name without being overlong. The forms "First Parthica", "Third Parthica" are to be avoided. GPinkerton (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree that in the body of the article we would use the English "legion" and "centurion" rather than treating these as Latin words. But the bold lead gives the proper name of the legion, which is, for example, "Legio I Parthica" or "Legio Prima Parthica". However, having considered the matter for several days, I think that "Legio I Parthica" is preferable to "Legio Prima Parthica". That wasn't my first impression, but whereas both are technically acceptable, and we normally write out numerals in running text, this is a proper name, and it's traditionally written with the numeral. I'm not sure how or whether it's important to spell it out for readers who won't know how to pronounce 'I', but I will state uncategorically my opposition to macaronic forms like "Ist", "IInd", or "IIIrd". These aren't normal orthographies in English; I don't remember seeing them in older sources, and I certainly haven't seen them in newer ones. We may say "the First Legion" for pragmatic reasons, but we don't say "the Legio First Parthica". P Aculeius (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
that sound like a slippery slope to calling Centurions captains and majors! I may try editing a few as per P Aculeius and if anyone objects send them here to discuss further.FlaccusVarus (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I haven't suggested anything like that! I am just saying the English names for words should be avoided except where giving the translation of the Latin name in the first sentence. GPinkerton (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I think this is correct - it is definitely the version in most common use. Doing a google books search for "Legio I Parthica" brings up lots of recent scholarly works Pat Southern, The Roman Army: A Social and Institutional History, Paul Erdkamp A Companion to the Roman Army; doing a search for "Legio Prima Parthica" brings up mostly books written before 1800 and generally they are glossing the abbreviated form. The lead should probably give the name spelled out in full, as Legio I Parthica currently does, so that readers have that information in front of them. Furius (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment. I support the form "Legio I Minervia" as standard title, because it really helps with disambiguation and seems to be the most common name. But in the text body, I prefer saying "1st Legion", instead of "Legio" or "Ist Legion", since we already have English words. It's better to avoid overburdening the text with Latin words. T8612(talk)20:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree with T8612, except that we should write out "First" rather than use the numeral "1st" in running text. "1st" would be acceptable in a table, but we probably won't need to use it that way. None of the legions have numbers too large to write out the number in the article body. Note that I'm not suggesting that "Legio I Parthica" would be unacceptable in body text; just that "First Legion" is a good, and perhaps the preferable short version, allowing for variety. It doesn't do to become too prescriptive, as long as normal rules of orthography are adhered to. P Aculeius (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Strongly oppose writing out ordinal numbers in English. This is not usual in either a Roman context or a wider military context. Military formations known by their numbers are never written out in words. Just as centuries of time are usually numbered in Arabic (or Roman) numerals, so are military units, including legions. Sometimes the difference between Roman and Arabic numerals is itself significant (as between the Fifth Regiment, the 5th Regiment, and the V Corps. Obviously there's a stylistic reason to prefer Roman numerals in this case, and a strong legibility reason for the brevity and clarity offered by numerals, advantages recognized by the legionaries themselves in their inscriptions, insignia, and so on. We all already use Roman numerals for kings and queens, and I don't see any reason to insist on "Pope John the Twenty-First" or "James the Seventh and Second" in running text; on the contrary, like monarchs', legions' numbers should be clearly distinct from all other ordinal numbers mentioned in any surrounding text, which I agree should in general be written in words. Thus we could have situations which would otherwise risk confusion: "... first the 1st [or Ist] Germanica arrived, followed by, within seconds, the 2nd [or IInd] Sabina ..." In short: "1st Legion" is preferable to "First Legion. GPinkerton (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
So what is the consensus? "Legio" over "legion"? (I hope the first.) It appears that Roman numerals is preferred to writing out or using Arabic ones. Do we need to include "legio" every time, only in the first mention of the unit, or can one be allowed to refer to "III Gallica" instead of "Legio III Gallica" from the start? Which leads to this question: once a given legion is named, what is the preferred short version? To provide an example, after the first time "Legio III Gallica" is mentioned, may/should/must we refer to it as "III Gallica" each time afterwards? (Note that those three helper verbs have different connotations.)
Note: I'm only asking these annoyingly picky questions in order to avoid pointless edit wars; if there is no clear consensus on any of these points, I for one will not insist on consistency between articles. But these are points of style worth thinking about & coming to a decision at some point down the road. If only to avoid pointless edit wars. -- llywrch (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I think most of us can get behind using "The Legio III Gallica was blah blah..." in the lead sentence, together with or followed by such translations as seem advisable ("Third Gallic Legion"). In the body I think you should be free to use the form that makes sense to you, with whatever variations you think will avoid unnecessary repetition, as long as it's clear what unit you're referring to. If you want to say "the III Gallica was stationed at Lugnutum to hold it against the Tirejacti" or "the third, fourth, and fifth legions wintered in Flabonia Superior, before taking up positions near Ctetilcorn the following spring," either should be fine—and I don't mean to limit references to these types of examples—others I haven't thought of might be fine too. But as all other body text, I think the real questions are whether it'll be clear what's being referred to, and whether it follows the normal rules of grammar and practice in historical writing. And that would best be judged on a case-by-case basis. P Aculeius (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
COMMONNAME should rule. "Appian Way" is very famous under than name, I think we should watch out with using too much untranslated Latin on Wikipedia, we are all familiar with many of these terms, but many readers may not be.★Trekker (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
True, but the few English names (Watling Street is another) that are common names can remain as they are, but there's no reason to use Italian; that should be for modern roads, like the Via dei Fori Imperiali. Via Triumphalis is much better than Via Trionfale and "triumphal way" is in English a general concept, not a road name. GPinkerton (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree; English names that are common names should be used per COMMONNAME. Unless there are COMMONNAME issues with the other roads, using consistent latin naming for them (i. e. Via Triumphalis instead of Via Trionfale) should be fine. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
So do I. Latin, never Italian or English, except where the English/Italian/whatever will be more familiar to English speakers. "Appian Way" is more familiar than "Via Appia", although in the lead I would expect to see both, probably with the Latin first. In almost all other instances it's likely to be the Latin that's more familiar, but each case should be judged on its own merits. P Aculeius (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I sorta agree: I would prioritize English (at least for those in Britain), then Latin, & never Italian. And also have redirects for all names to the article. (Sometimes one forgets that a road has 2 different names, & only discovers that at the last minute.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Disagree - although the article doesn't make this very clear at the start the Via Trionfale appears to be a busy modern road, only 11 or 20 KM long; you can't go calling those by their Latin names. COMMONNAME should rule, wherever it takes us. For example it would be ridiculous to call Spaccanapoli by the Latin name. What about italics? We don't normally use them for modern streets, or the buildings on them, so why for ancient ones? Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Is that really why a Wikipedia article exists on the subject? Do we have articles on all the 11km-stretches of autostrade, or is it only the ones which are notable as vitally important ancient Roman roads? (unsigned by Pinkerton)
We have featured articles on 3 mile stretches of roads in the Middle West, so I don't see why not. The article has as much to say about the modern as the ancient road, which doesn't actually seem to have been "vitally important". Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
which doesn't actually seem to have been "vitally important" Oh my well do write and say they needn't have bothered to all those generals and emperors that held triumphs there, and to those that built all those triumphal arches over it, and to Septimius Severus who built the Septizodium there, and to Nero and Constantine who had 125-foot statues of themselves built to be seen from a a 900-foot stretch of it. I guess there must have been some more convenient way between the Caelian and Palatine hills, and they should have built the Vatican somewhere else ...
Of course, we have no article for the modern via di San Gregorio, the most significant part of the via triumphalis ... GPinkerton (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I always thought Via Appia was more common. It's always Via Appia in academic sources. Most wikis in other languages use Via Appia too. T8612(talk)21:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Move good/featured article topicons next to article name
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
