![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Buca seems to be an ambiguous link in terms of Roman society and the Gens, or is there some connection to a geographic region of Turkey? Richardsidler ( talk) 13:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Where are the links to the other four then? -- Wetman 09:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Buca seems to be an ambiguous link in terms of Roman society and the Gente, or is there a link to geographic regions in Turkey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardsidler ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to rearrange the family into (1) notable Aemilii of Republic (2) notable Aemilii of Empire; the Republic will be further divided by familly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucketsofg ( talk • contribs)
I deleted the following sentence
(However, the similarity of the name "Aemilius" and the Greek word aimilios is most likely just a coincidence.)
ok, how you tell someone HOW some can write the word "Aemilius" if not "Αιμίλιος"??? Why some people have so much complex??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.177.169 ( talk) 09:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This really needs to be two articles, Aemilius, a disambiguation of the proper name, and Aemilia gens, an article on the family itself. If no one has any strong objections, I'd like to perform the split in a couple days. Ford MF 14:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
According to S. P. Oakley in his commentary on Livy "The filiation of Aemilius is not known, but it is possible that he was the son of the Lucius discussed at vi.32.3 [the consul of 366 and 363] and the brother of the Lucius discussed at 39.17 [the consul of 341]" This claim seems to contravene the filiation given in this article Fornadan (t) 20:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
What are the sources for the contention that Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, cos.115, was also suffect consul in 107 BC? I have checked several standard reference works: there is no mention of this in Broughton's Magistrates of the Roman Republic, nor Münzer's Roman Parties and Aristocratic Families, nor Brennan's Praetorship in the Roman Republic. Equally, it does not feature on the Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic website (neither under Scaurus' page nor under 107 BC). Indeed, there is no mention of it on Scaurus' own Wikipedia page either.
Perhaps there is confusion here with Marcus Aurelius Scaurus? He was indeed a suffect consul, though in 108 rather than 107, and has a very similar name: is this maybe the source of the confusion? -- Drivingrevilo ( talk) 12:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I got on this page a bit by accident and I spotted what seems to be an inconsistency, but since I know nothing of the subject, I wasn't going to edit it myself...
How come the list contains "Tiberius Aemilius L. f. Mam. n. Mamercus, consul in 470 and 467 BC." when the underlying link identifies this person as "Tiberius Aemilius Mamercinus"? Okay, his page does also say "or Mamercus" in the first line, but then continues on to only ever use Mamercinus.
Furthermore, when one follows the "filiation" link right above the list and arrives at /info/en/?search=Roman_naming_conventions#Filiation, an explanation is given that uses this very same person as an example:
"Tiberius Aemilius Mamercinus, the son of Lucius and grandson of Mamercus" would be written Ti. Aemilius L. f. Mam. n. Mamercinus.
Looking at the rest of Wikipedia, the listing on this page seems to be the odd one out and should perhaps be corrected? -- Falc ( talk) 23:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Buca seems to be an ambiguous link in terms of Roman society and the Gens, or is there some connection to a geographic region of Turkey? Richardsidler ( talk) 13:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Where are the links to the other four then? -- Wetman 09:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Buca seems to be an ambiguous link in terms of Roman society and the Gente, or is there a link to geographic regions in Turkey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardsidler ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to rearrange the family into (1) notable Aemilii of Republic (2) notable Aemilii of Empire; the Republic will be further divided by familly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucketsofg ( talk • contribs)
I deleted the following sentence
(However, the similarity of the name "Aemilius" and the Greek word aimilios is most likely just a coincidence.)
ok, how you tell someone HOW some can write the word "Aemilius" if not "Αιμίλιος"??? Why some people have so much complex??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.177.169 ( talk) 09:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This really needs to be two articles, Aemilius, a disambiguation of the proper name, and Aemilia gens, an article on the family itself. If no one has any strong objections, I'd like to perform the split in a couple days. Ford MF 14:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
According to S. P. Oakley in his commentary on Livy "The filiation of Aemilius is not known, but it is possible that he was the son of the Lucius discussed at vi.32.3 [the consul of 366 and 363] and the brother of the Lucius discussed at 39.17 [the consul of 341]" This claim seems to contravene the filiation given in this article Fornadan (t) 20:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
What are the sources for the contention that Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, cos.115, was also suffect consul in 107 BC? I have checked several standard reference works: there is no mention of this in Broughton's Magistrates of the Roman Republic, nor Münzer's Roman Parties and Aristocratic Families, nor Brennan's Praetorship in the Roman Republic. Equally, it does not feature on the Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic website (neither under Scaurus' page nor under 107 BC). Indeed, there is no mention of it on Scaurus' own Wikipedia page either.
Perhaps there is confusion here with Marcus Aurelius Scaurus? He was indeed a suffect consul, though in 108 rather than 107, and has a very similar name: is this maybe the source of the confusion? -- Drivingrevilo ( talk) 12:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I got on this page a bit by accident and I spotted what seems to be an inconsistency, but since I know nothing of the subject, I wasn't going to edit it myself...
How come the list contains "Tiberius Aemilius L. f. Mam. n. Mamercus, consul in 470 and 467 BC." when the underlying link identifies this person as "Tiberius Aemilius Mamercinus"? Okay, his page does also say "or Mamercus" in the first line, but then continues on to only ever use Mamercinus.
Furthermore, when one follows the "filiation" link right above the list and arrives at /info/en/?search=Roman_naming_conventions#Filiation, an explanation is given that uses this very same person as an example:
"Tiberius Aemilius Mamercinus, the son of Lucius and grandson of Mamercus" would be written Ti. Aemilius L. f. Mam. n. Mamercinus.
Looking at the rest of Wikipedia, the listing on this page seems to be the odd one out and should perhaps be corrected? -- Falc ( talk) 23:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)