![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I've found a citation in the International Journal of the Classical Tradition an article called "Raising on a Shield: Origin and Afterlife of a Coronation Ceremony" by Hans Teitler. The abstract states: "This article deals with 'raising on a shield' both as a historical phenomenon and as subject of artistic representation. Originally Germanic, the ritual is for the first time attested in Tacitus, in a passage about Brinno, the chief of the Cananefates who cooperated with "Claudius" Civilis during the Batavian revolt. Next comes Julian, nicknamed the Apostate, who, raised on a shield by his Gallic and Germanic soldiers, was the first Roman emperor to undergo this ritual, witness Ammianus Marcellinus and Libanius. After Julian, the 'raising on a shield' soon became part and parcel of the Byzantine coronation ceremony (literary sources and illustrations in mediaeval manuscripts testify to its existence), but the ritual is also attested for Ostrogoths and Franks--the depiction of the raising on a shield of Frankish kings by Gregory of Tours would seem to be the ultimate source of inspiration for French medallists and cartoonists. Tacitus' Brinno is more than once raised on a shield by Dutch painters in the sixteenth and seventeenth century." Seems relevant to the article to me. L Hamm 21:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The article seems a little unbalanced at the moment with a large percentage being given over to Julian vs. Christianity and much less to all the other events of his life. Could someone who knows about this stuff add some more detail about his rise to power, rule in Gaul, the defeat of Constantius, his reforms, opinions, etc. -- Spondoolicks 16:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
"Christian sources commonly refer to him as Julian the Apostate..." It says so in the article and it is as plain as that; Christian sources name him so. Arguments that "he is known that way" simply beg the question. Has anyone actually surveyed history texts in many world languages, for example? I have read the archived discussion and nothing I see there refutes the notion that the title is POV. It may be old POV, but it is still POV, regardless. Whogue 00:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I just looked in my university catalogue: "Julian the Apostate" like "Philip the Arab" are only found as book titles. The Library of Congress subject heading is:
Julian, Emperor of Rome, 331-363, Philip, the Arabian, Emperor of Rome, 244-249
The Wiki one hope aspires to be content neutral. And speaking as a person of European Jewish origin, I find the reference to Christian majoritism offensive. I am not PC, I am, have been, always will be a minority. And as the 3rd Reich proved, words have tremendous power. I ask the editors to follow a neutral policy. Rory
Just a quick comment. It is not true that he was called IULIANUS - though this ludicrous spelling pops up even in published works. He spelt his name IVLIANVS. Vocalised I as well V were later added. Unless you are prepared talk about Ivlivs Caesar and Avgvstvs you should write the name Julianus (or Julian).
Neither is he Julian II - this is just a numismatic moniker that means he was the second Julian whose coins are sorted under that name. Julian I is the obscure usurper Julian of Pannonia, not Didius Julianus, who briefly was a "proper" Roman emperor but is referred to under his full name. Julian is Julian I.
I am an admirer of Julian but don't object to his nickname. It is common, and he did defect from Christianity. Whether in a bad way or not is up to the beholder. Caligula is found under that name, even though it means "Little boot" and is by no means worthy of an emperor. Sponsianus 21:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this has a pretty easy answer, we need just ask ourselves "Would Julian like to be known as Julian the Apostate?" I think the answer would be no, and I don't think there will be any argument. Sponsianus says his proper name is Julian_I, and name which is not already taken. Julian_the_Apostate should redirect there. No, I do not know how to do this move myself. JoshNarins ( talk) 17:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what Sponsianus wrote above. Julian was an apostate of Christianity — far from being offended, he would have gladly embraced the epithet.
Many of these arguments about not offending poor old dead Julian seem reasonable, until one remembers the nicknames that many medieval kings had: Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, Juana the Mad... I don't see anyone complaining about these. Is it because the potential "offended" happen to be Christian? FilipeS ( talk) 22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This argument seems to have drifted away from the relevant policy, WP:NAME, which tells us that page titles should be whatever the subject is most commonly called in English. "Julian the Apostate" is the most common way of referring to this person in English, so that's the page title. If you want to change the page name, please demonstrate that another name is more common. Now, let me repeat something I've said before on this page: I really wish that people would stop focusing on this supposed "POV" issue, which I find to be very trivial, and concentrate on improving the content of the article. --Akhilleus ( talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
People should take another look at the NPOV policy. It doesn't mean "Wikipedia articles shouldn't offend me personally." And, as I've already said, the policy that tells us how pages should be titled is WP:NAME. I don't see that anything that JoshNarins says has to do with WP:NAME, which tells us to use the most common name in English. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
When are we going to finally get around to changing the name of this article. Even Wikiquote has been plainly listed as a Julian. When are we going to end this madness and remove "the Apostate" from the name? Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 07:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Also I would like to note that my Classics 10B: Intro to Roman Civilization textbook (As the Romans Did by Jo-Ann Shelton), only calls him "the Apostate" in parentheses Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 07:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
How exactly IS it that we know Julian the Apostate is the most commonly used name in modern academia? Several counter-examples to the original JoA examples were posted, needn't we do some sort of deeper survey before we conclude either way? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.108.110 ( talk) 06:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Complaints about the POV title of this page seem to pop up with alarming regularity. I've put a notice box at the top of the page to inform editors that the issue has already been discussed in the archives; perhaps the wording can be improved. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems this picture does not actually represent Emperor Julian. The original work is a statue exhibited in the Louvre museum, whose caption can be read here (in French). It says the statue is a 18th-century copy of a Roman original from 120-130 CE representing a priest of Sarapis. Proffered arguments are: the character wears a beard, a sacerdotal crown and a pallium; rendition of eyes and hair place the statue in the Hadrian era. Jastrow ( Λέγετε) 10:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've scanned the archives as well as this discussion, and haven't seen this (obvious?) point noted:
The article on Jesus isn't titled, "Jesus Christ"; "Jesus, Son of God"; or "Jesus, Lord and Savior"; even though He is commonly known by these (and other titles) among Christians. If the article on Jesus isn't titled by the way Christians refer to Him, why is the article on Julian titled by the way Christians refer to him?
For that matter, I notice that the article on Jimmy Wales isn't titled "Jimbo", even though he's known that way among Wikipedians. Strange. Unimaginative Username 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know how this article can be officially renamed? Can an admin be summoned to solve the situation. It clearly is POV to have "the Apostate" there Thegreyanomaly 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a great article, definitely worth the read. It's a shame that there are so many citations needed in so many areas. Otherwise this article could easily reach Good Article status.-- PericlesofAthens 16:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It's odd that the article states "Julian's religious status is a matter of considerable dispute." And then proceeds to state that "He did not practice normative civic Roman cult of the earlier empire, but a kind of esoteric approach to classical philosophy sometimes identified as theurgy and also neoplatonism." You see, THAT is part of the dispute - so it should not be stated as a fact! The most thorough modern biography of Julian is Rowland Smith's "Julian's Gods" - and much of that book is devoted to taking issue with those who have portrayed Julian's religiosity as being "at odds with the assumptions and practices of 'mainstream' Graeco-Roman polytheism." (p. xiv). Obviously that paragraph requires rewording to not only state THAT a disagreement exists, but WHAT the disagreement consists of. Durruti36 21:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The article states that Julian's aim for the War was to retake cities lost by Constantius. I think an important point is missed by failing to add that Julian's goal was actually a much higher one, namely to attack Ctesiphon and (according to some authors) replace Shapur with another king. I don't currently have acces to the sources about the Shapur-replacement but I think that Ctesiphon as the goal for his war should be added, rather than saying that he merely wanted to retake lands lost by his predecessor. That implies that he either
thoughts? -- ElHuegi ( talk) 21:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as I didn't get an answer, I've gone ahead and done it. -- ElHuegi ( talk) 20:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Whoever inappropriately added "this is garbled" at the end of the quote, please explain why. Apart from a few typos (which are now corrected), and the omission of two sentences in the middle of the phrase, the quote is not distorted. I omitted the aforementioned phrases because I *think* they don't add to author's analysis while they would make the quoted text excessively long. Perhaps I'm wrong. Judge by yourself from the full text below (the sentences I omitted are shown as bold) :
"They expected a man who was both removed from them by the awesome spectacle of imperial power, and would validate their interests and desires by sharing them from his Olympian height. The ascetic was supposed to be detached from the world, to derive his power in the temporal world from the fact of this separation. The emperor derived his legitimacy from his ability to exercise power at the heart of the temporal construct of power relationships. He was supposed to be interested in what interested his people, and he was supposed to be dignified. He was not supposed to leap up and show his appreciation for a panegyric that it was delivered, as Julian had done on January 3, when Libanius was speaking, and ignore the chariot races".
Dipa1965 ( talk) 18:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Under the guise of being bold, I went ahead and moved this page from Julian the Apostate to Flavius Claudius Iulianus. The reason being that it's his name and, logically, it's also the first bolded name you see in the article. :bloodofox: ( talk) 07:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Ye gods, folks, this issue has been discussed to death, and there's never been any consensus to move this page from the title "Julian the Apostate". Ivan the Terrible isn't a great comparison, because there's a whole set of guidelines about how to refer to European rulers. In the absence of such guidelines for Roman Emperors, we stick with the basic policy--the most common name in English. That's Julian the Apostate, and there's plenty of evidence cited for this already--including the form of the entry in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which is a perfectly respectable source to follow. --Akhilleus ( talk) 19:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
My page move request and Bloodofox' movement of the page occurring at roughly the same time was entirely coincidental. An admin may come for review and be confused. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 07:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that Bloodofox had made some useful cleanup, after moving the page. Now that the move is undone, this cleanup has been lost. He should perform it again (in a single session, please, we better not clutter the history with many small editings instead of a big one). Btw, while I also think that Flavius Claudius Iulianus would be much less POV, an arbitrary move isn't the solution to the problem. Dipa1965 ( talk) 13:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no move. Default: opinion evenly split. DrKiernan ( talk) 14:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Julian the Apostate →
Flavius Claudius Iulianus — See discussion above —
--Akhilleus (
talk) 04:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Thegreyanomaly placed a request to move the page on WP:RM, but didn't create a discussion section. I hope that he will fill in the reason for the request in the space above. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed this from the lead:
"Julian II" is not used very often to refer to our emperor; see, e.g. this Google Scholar search. Please note that this search gets results such as [1], where the text is "1. Job stress--Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Barling, Julian. II. Kelloway, E. Kevin..." Obviously, results like this aren't relevant for this article. "Julian II" doesn't occur in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, either.
As far as "Julian the philosopher", I'm not finding this anywhere. Are there any sources for this? --Akhilleus ( talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Akhilleus, I agree with you but it would be nice to specify the parts that need action. The automated link is too generic. I, for one, could suggest that more work is needed in the non-religious policy, however this couldn't be called a cleanup (maybe my english don't help). Had you been more specific, it would be easier for the rest of us to contribute (if possible). Dipa1965 ( talk) 22:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just added a section to the article about Julian's administrative actions as emperor. Right now it isn't cited, but I'll get back to that later. Most of the material is drawn from Robert Browning's book, The Emperor Julian Wickbam
I'm sorry I missed the above move vote. But check out Template:Roman_Emperors, where "the Apostate" is the only descriptor. Even "Constantine the Great" is reasonably listed as Constantine I. "Julian the Apostate" is bias, plain and simple. Even if some Classical Dictionaries still cling to the slant, I think Wikipedia should rise above it, through a policy of naming people (if not their actual names), a compromise between what they where most commonly known as in their era vs. a non-biased simplification, i.e. Julian II. I prefer that last title, by the way. Mdiamante ( talk) 20:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It's nice to see some recognition that the naming policy requires the page to remain at this name. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There were atleast a couple people whose voices were silenced by the abrupt cut off on the survey. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh boy....well there were two issues: a) many of us think that it is not a pejorative title, mearly an state of fact b) there is a wikipedia policy on famous roman persons, and Julian is included. But we disscused this allready and had a vote, so either bring something new to the table or at least make a point by trying to convince us in another way, cos` the current arugments just don`t stand. AdrianCo ( talk) 22:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Could we, like, agree not to revisit this issue for a few months, since this has been discussed again and again and there's never been consensus for a move? In the meantime, perhaps everyone can read WP:NAME, and the people who want to move the page to his real name can take a look at Caligula. Not to mention every other Roman emperor. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not relevant to Julian. Although the illustration is certainly labelled (in the original) as being of "Julyan", none of the classical sources that I'm aware of state that Julian's corpse was flayed or exhibited in such a way. However, the corpse of Valerian (emperor 253-260) was so treated. According to the sources, it was flayed and the skin dyed vermillion and displayed at a Persian temple. The illustration thus seems to depict Valerian, not Julian (regardless of its description, obviously not Boccacchio's own as it's in old English) and should be removed to the article on Valerian. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 01:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As there are no complaints, I've taken the illustration - of Valerian - out. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 23:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but as there is a Christian tradition - admittedly tenuous but there nonetheless - that Julian was killed by Mercurius. Keeping that illustration in the article is somewhat justified. There is no tradition - Christian or otherwise - in any source that Julian was skinned. The picture is just labelled incorrectly and refers to Valerian: I've given the reasons above. To keep it in merely perpetuates a labelling error. Perpetuating a preexisting tradition - as with the Mercurius illustration - is not the same thing. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 13:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
To reiterate: The manuscript is wrong. Valerian was flayed. Julian was not. Nor is there any variant tradition that he was. Pretty though it is, the illustration is merely a mislabelled Valerian. Nothing more. To retain it in an **encyclopaedia** article on Julian gives the impression that either A) Julian suffered this fate (he did not), or B) That there is a tradition that Julian suffered this fate (there is none). The error of one ignorant English translator of Boccaccio is not to be perpetuated - indeed, perpetuated without question - in an educational article. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 10:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
First. I fail to see how by any stretch of the imagination a medieval English translation of a 14th century Italian document can be considered a primary historical source for events that occured a millenium beforehand and a thousand miles away. What exactly is your definition of a primary historical source? Nor indeed should the errors of individual translators be repected or perpetuated. That is not the way an encyclopaedia article is written. Second. Alternatives: 1) Why do you believe that this illustration depicts Emperor Julian anyway and not some other Julian? 2) It may depict the remains of Basil of Ancyra, flayed by Julian in 362. If this is so the whole label (not all of which is visible) may read something like "Julyan killed Basil" or "Basil, martyred by Julyan". Either way there's nothing to support your conclusion that the illustration is of Emperor Julian apart from your own calculations. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ignore the second point. All the manuscript text says is "the skyn of Julyan". Regardless, there's still nothing to link the illustration with the death of Julian - who wasn't flayed! 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 22:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
To quote your own words: "The manuscript is a primary source and should be respected". Do you even know what a primary source is? NONE of the illustrations you allude to are historiographic primary sources for Julian's life. I quote wikipedias own definition: "In historiography, it is a document, recording or other source of information that was created at roughly the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described." Hence my rebuttal that by no stretch of the imagination can an illustration produced in the Middles Ages be considered a primary source for events that occured 1000 years before. I've addressed the reason for retaining the Mercurius illustration. When it was produced there is a pre-exiting Christian tradition - wrong though it was/is - that Julian was killed in battle not by Persians but by Mercurius. Thus there is validity in keeping this picture as it illustrates this tradition. The Mercurius tradition is addressed in the picture's legend. There is no tradition - Christian or otherwise - that Julian was flayed. The Boccaccio piece thus illustrates nothing more than the fact that a single person - Boccaccio or a translator or a transcriber - got their Roman emperors mixed up. It's the same reason why the famous Louvre statue - long thought to be Julian but now reidentified as a Hadrianic priest - no longer appears on this page. Though identified as Julian, it isn't him. Nor does the Boccacchio illustration add anything to what's in the text, where no reference is made to Julian being flayed (that would be because he wasn't). No does the legend warn that the picture is wrong. As it stands anyone coming to this article looking for information on Julian will read how he was killed in battle against the Persians, look at the illustration of "the skyn of Julyan", and naturally assume that this was the ultimate fate suffered by his corpse. Leading people to make such incorrect assumptions with misleading illustrations is not the job of any encyclopaedia article. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 11:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
And the concensus currently stands at 2:1! 8o) 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 11:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
First. You stated that the manuscript was a primary source. That's why I quoted your own words. Second. No I do not apply the same criteria to all the images. Armitage's painting does not veer from the historiographic sources; it's inclusion is thus valid. The Mercurius illustration does not veer from the Christian tradition; it's inclusion is thus valid. The Boccaccio illustration is at variance with everything we know about Julian's death and it should not be included, especially when there is no indication in the article that Boccaccio has made an error in mixing up his Roman emperors. Third. By you own arguement **anything** is liable to be included in **any** wikipedia article by just saying "well, so-and-so represented so-and-so thus, therefore we should include it". I ask you: What exactly would be wrong with me inserting a crayon drawing of Julian being killed while crossing the road? By your own argument I mistakenly understand Julian's death is just as valid as how Boccacio mistakenly understood him: "well, it's how one 21st century person believed it to be". By saying it's 14th century won't cut it either: this far after the event, a 1700 year remove is just as bad as a 1000 year one. Fourth: How do you know this is Julian the Apostate? The concensus still isn't with you. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 23:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
First. 8 May 2008, 2038h: "Even if it were wrong, the manuscript is a primary source and should be respected." Please explain how I've misinterpreted your statement. Being a translation, it's not even a primary source for Boccaccio. Second. Again you fail to understand the difference between modern interpretations which keep to a historical source (Armitage) or traditional sources (Mercurius). Boccaccio's keeps to neither. It is not interpretation - there is nothing in the sources to indicated he was flayed. Nor is following a pre-existing tradition. If there was an antique source or tradition that Julian was flayed there would be no arguement. There isn't. Boccaccio, or a follower simply mistook Julian for Valerian (Boccaccio also wrote on Valerian's death. This would explain the mix-up of emperors by an English illustrator). The illustration CANNOT be an interpretation - as there is nothing to interpret from. It is thus invention or error. Repeatedly falling back on the same argument that the image is 14th century doesn't cut it. Antiquity does not equate with validity. Nor are all sources to be given equal validity. That's not how history is done. Would a medieval image of Diocletian crossing the Rubicon be fit to have in an encyclopaedia? Of course not, it would be an obvious (though interesting) mistake by one source. Are the Roman plays of Shakespeare and Jonson valid historical documents for the events surrounding Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus, and Sejanus? No, because though based on classical sources they include elements that are complete fiction. However, if the image must stay by all means transfer it to the Valerian site (as long as you explain the mistaken legend). The consensus is still against you. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 12:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you'll never make a historian. Uncritically assigning equal weight to all evidence is a schoolboy error. Upon seeing a picture labelled as Diocletian crossing the Rubicon, Alexander the Great fighting at Thermopylae, or Antony winning the Battle of Actium, most sensible observers would see them as curious blunders of the historically inept. Nothing more. You'd consider them some viable variant of the truth, despite the overwhelming evidence of more reliable sources and the lack of supporting sources. They'd become important documents for nothing more than the fact that **one** person depicted them in that way. The conclusion that an unintentioned mistake had been made would not enter your mind. Thus the error of a lone illustrator is let to pass without criticism. Indeed, it becomes a "primary source" for how Julian was perceived in medieval England (see below). If you wish I'll be happy to edit the legend of the "Julian" illustration to reflect this. Or, seeing that the score is still 2-1 in favour of getting rid of it, so it may have to go regardless... As an aside, the illustration comes from a manuscript of John Lydgate's "The Fall of Princes" (15th century), which itself is an English translation of Boccaccio's "De Casibus Virorum Illustribus" from a century earlier. It's current legend as "The Fall of Princes" by Boccaccio is thus wrong anyway. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 16:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Julian was the emperor of a united empire. To the person who keeps reverting the page to read "Eastern Roman Emperor", please stop. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 16:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
My stand is clear and I agree with the above contributor. During the period 324-364 (i.e. from the final victory of Constantine I to the accession of Valens and Valentinian I - which, incidentally, marks the actual commencement of what might be called the "Eastern Roman Empire" (not 330)), while Caesares may have held "west"/"east" appointments, Augusti did not. Augusti were, as with the vast majority of the period 27 BC-286, in sole charge. The current reading implies that Julian, as Augustus, ruled over ONLY the eastern half of the empire. Who ruled over the west? errr, Julian! Indeed, Julian was proclaimed in the west. Of course, feel free to edit to make the introduction read "Western Roman Emperor 361-363, and Eastern Roman Emperor 361-363", but I think it's far more sensible to call him just "Roman Emperor" because that's what he was! 8o) 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Your condescension ("for anyone that does not know that it exists...") does you no credit, especially considering the fact that your talking to a Roman History PhD candidate. Cheers! Calling Julian "also Byzantine emperor" is as inaccurate as calling him an "Eastern Roman Emperor". Granted, Constantine I re-founded Byzantium as capital in the east, but the division of the governence of the empire (by Augusti) into east and west did not occur until a year after Julian's death. Julian could not have been the emperor of an empire that did not exist during his lifetime. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 12:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, my humble opinion is that we don't need another edit war (it's really going to be like that) just for a minor matter of semantics. Can we agree that "Byzantine" is an rather outdated and misleading term, particularly when we are talking about the unified Late Roman Empire? Is it SO important that the capital had been moved away of Rome? Is Diocletian a Byzantine emperor because he was based at Nicomedia? (not to mention other "Byzantine" qualities of his, like the autocratic behaviour, usage of precious clothing and paraphernalia etc) Does Byzantine betrays something important for the personality and the policies of Julian? There are already quite a few scholars who are unhappy with the term "Byzantine" even for later periods (e.g. J. Haldon in his Byzantine Wars uses it only in the title, while in the body he always prefers "Roman" or "Eastern Roman"). Let's concentrate on improving the body of the article. Dipa1965 ( talk) 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you have all moved on but I think Julian II is more appropriate then "the apostate." Numbering of monarchs/emperors is commonplace, as is referring to them by nickname(those that have a well known one) but "the apostate" is full of religous sentiment and has a pejorative connotation. I understand early Christian sources used this term, and its worth noting in the article, but I think Julian II would be more appropraite in this instance. Odin1 ( talk) 05:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It is entirely out of context (because it referes to Theodosius reign) and I would have removed it but the whole article is still a mess so such a minor editing wouldn't help much. Not to mention another annoyance: after the recent anonymous editing of the birth date, we have 331 in the lead and 330 in the body of the article! Dipa1965 ( talk) 19:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I've found a citation in the International Journal of the Classical Tradition an article called "Raising on a Shield: Origin and Afterlife of a Coronation Ceremony" by Hans Teitler. The abstract states: "This article deals with 'raising on a shield' both as a historical phenomenon and as subject of artistic representation. Originally Germanic, the ritual is for the first time attested in Tacitus, in a passage about Brinno, the chief of the Cananefates who cooperated with "Claudius" Civilis during the Batavian revolt. Next comes Julian, nicknamed the Apostate, who, raised on a shield by his Gallic and Germanic soldiers, was the first Roman emperor to undergo this ritual, witness Ammianus Marcellinus and Libanius. After Julian, the 'raising on a shield' soon became part and parcel of the Byzantine coronation ceremony (literary sources and illustrations in mediaeval manuscripts testify to its existence), but the ritual is also attested for Ostrogoths and Franks--the depiction of the raising on a shield of Frankish kings by Gregory of Tours would seem to be the ultimate source of inspiration for French medallists and cartoonists. Tacitus' Brinno is more than once raised on a shield by Dutch painters in the sixteenth and seventeenth century." Seems relevant to the article to me. L Hamm 21:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The article seems a little unbalanced at the moment with a large percentage being given over to Julian vs. Christianity and much less to all the other events of his life. Could someone who knows about this stuff add some more detail about his rise to power, rule in Gaul, the defeat of Constantius, his reforms, opinions, etc. -- Spondoolicks 16:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
"Christian sources commonly refer to him as Julian the Apostate..." It says so in the article and it is as plain as that; Christian sources name him so. Arguments that "he is known that way" simply beg the question. Has anyone actually surveyed history texts in many world languages, for example? I have read the archived discussion and nothing I see there refutes the notion that the title is POV. It may be old POV, but it is still POV, regardless. Whogue 00:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I just looked in my university catalogue: "Julian the Apostate" like "Philip the Arab" are only found as book titles. The Library of Congress subject heading is:
Julian, Emperor of Rome, 331-363, Philip, the Arabian, Emperor of Rome, 244-249
The Wiki one hope aspires to be content neutral. And speaking as a person of European Jewish origin, I find the reference to Christian majoritism offensive. I am not PC, I am, have been, always will be a minority. And as the 3rd Reich proved, words have tremendous power. I ask the editors to follow a neutral policy. Rory
Just a quick comment. It is not true that he was called IULIANUS - though this ludicrous spelling pops up even in published works. He spelt his name IVLIANVS. Vocalised I as well V were later added. Unless you are prepared talk about Ivlivs Caesar and Avgvstvs you should write the name Julianus (or Julian).
Neither is he Julian II - this is just a numismatic moniker that means he was the second Julian whose coins are sorted under that name. Julian I is the obscure usurper Julian of Pannonia, not Didius Julianus, who briefly was a "proper" Roman emperor but is referred to under his full name. Julian is Julian I.
I am an admirer of Julian but don't object to his nickname. It is common, and he did defect from Christianity. Whether in a bad way or not is up to the beholder. Caligula is found under that name, even though it means "Little boot" and is by no means worthy of an emperor. Sponsianus 21:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this has a pretty easy answer, we need just ask ourselves "Would Julian like to be known as Julian the Apostate?" I think the answer would be no, and I don't think there will be any argument. Sponsianus says his proper name is Julian_I, and name which is not already taken. Julian_the_Apostate should redirect there. No, I do not know how to do this move myself. JoshNarins ( talk) 17:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what Sponsianus wrote above. Julian was an apostate of Christianity — far from being offended, he would have gladly embraced the epithet.
Many of these arguments about not offending poor old dead Julian seem reasonable, until one remembers the nicknames that many medieval kings had: Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, Juana the Mad... I don't see anyone complaining about these. Is it because the potential "offended" happen to be Christian? FilipeS ( talk) 22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This argument seems to have drifted away from the relevant policy, WP:NAME, which tells us that page titles should be whatever the subject is most commonly called in English. "Julian the Apostate" is the most common way of referring to this person in English, so that's the page title. If you want to change the page name, please demonstrate that another name is more common. Now, let me repeat something I've said before on this page: I really wish that people would stop focusing on this supposed "POV" issue, which I find to be very trivial, and concentrate on improving the content of the article. --Akhilleus ( talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
People should take another look at the NPOV policy. It doesn't mean "Wikipedia articles shouldn't offend me personally." And, as I've already said, the policy that tells us how pages should be titled is WP:NAME. I don't see that anything that JoshNarins says has to do with WP:NAME, which tells us to use the most common name in English. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
When are we going to finally get around to changing the name of this article. Even Wikiquote has been plainly listed as a Julian. When are we going to end this madness and remove "the Apostate" from the name? Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 07:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Also I would like to note that my Classics 10B: Intro to Roman Civilization textbook (As the Romans Did by Jo-Ann Shelton), only calls him "the Apostate" in parentheses Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 07:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
How exactly IS it that we know Julian the Apostate is the most commonly used name in modern academia? Several counter-examples to the original JoA examples were posted, needn't we do some sort of deeper survey before we conclude either way? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.108.110 ( talk) 06:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Complaints about the POV title of this page seem to pop up with alarming regularity. I've put a notice box at the top of the page to inform editors that the issue has already been discussed in the archives; perhaps the wording can be improved. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems this picture does not actually represent Emperor Julian. The original work is a statue exhibited in the Louvre museum, whose caption can be read here (in French). It says the statue is a 18th-century copy of a Roman original from 120-130 CE representing a priest of Sarapis. Proffered arguments are: the character wears a beard, a sacerdotal crown and a pallium; rendition of eyes and hair place the statue in the Hadrian era. Jastrow ( Λέγετε) 10:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've scanned the archives as well as this discussion, and haven't seen this (obvious?) point noted:
The article on Jesus isn't titled, "Jesus Christ"; "Jesus, Son of God"; or "Jesus, Lord and Savior"; even though He is commonly known by these (and other titles) among Christians. If the article on Jesus isn't titled by the way Christians refer to Him, why is the article on Julian titled by the way Christians refer to him?
For that matter, I notice that the article on Jimmy Wales isn't titled "Jimbo", even though he's known that way among Wikipedians. Strange. Unimaginative Username 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know how this article can be officially renamed? Can an admin be summoned to solve the situation. It clearly is POV to have "the Apostate" there Thegreyanomaly 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a great article, definitely worth the read. It's a shame that there are so many citations needed in so many areas. Otherwise this article could easily reach Good Article status.-- PericlesofAthens 16:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It's odd that the article states "Julian's religious status is a matter of considerable dispute." And then proceeds to state that "He did not practice normative civic Roman cult of the earlier empire, but a kind of esoteric approach to classical philosophy sometimes identified as theurgy and also neoplatonism." You see, THAT is part of the dispute - so it should not be stated as a fact! The most thorough modern biography of Julian is Rowland Smith's "Julian's Gods" - and much of that book is devoted to taking issue with those who have portrayed Julian's religiosity as being "at odds with the assumptions and practices of 'mainstream' Graeco-Roman polytheism." (p. xiv). Obviously that paragraph requires rewording to not only state THAT a disagreement exists, but WHAT the disagreement consists of. Durruti36 21:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The article states that Julian's aim for the War was to retake cities lost by Constantius. I think an important point is missed by failing to add that Julian's goal was actually a much higher one, namely to attack Ctesiphon and (according to some authors) replace Shapur with another king. I don't currently have acces to the sources about the Shapur-replacement but I think that Ctesiphon as the goal for his war should be added, rather than saying that he merely wanted to retake lands lost by his predecessor. That implies that he either
thoughts? -- ElHuegi ( talk) 21:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as I didn't get an answer, I've gone ahead and done it. -- ElHuegi ( talk) 20:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Whoever inappropriately added "this is garbled" at the end of the quote, please explain why. Apart from a few typos (which are now corrected), and the omission of two sentences in the middle of the phrase, the quote is not distorted. I omitted the aforementioned phrases because I *think* they don't add to author's analysis while they would make the quoted text excessively long. Perhaps I'm wrong. Judge by yourself from the full text below (the sentences I omitted are shown as bold) :
"They expected a man who was both removed from them by the awesome spectacle of imperial power, and would validate their interests and desires by sharing them from his Olympian height. The ascetic was supposed to be detached from the world, to derive his power in the temporal world from the fact of this separation. The emperor derived his legitimacy from his ability to exercise power at the heart of the temporal construct of power relationships. He was supposed to be interested in what interested his people, and he was supposed to be dignified. He was not supposed to leap up and show his appreciation for a panegyric that it was delivered, as Julian had done on January 3, when Libanius was speaking, and ignore the chariot races".
Dipa1965 ( talk) 18:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Under the guise of being bold, I went ahead and moved this page from Julian the Apostate to Flavius Claudius Iulianus. The reason being that it's his name and, logically, it's also the first bolded name you see in the article. :bloodofox: ( talk) 07:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Ye gods, folks, this issue has been discussed to death, and there's never been any consensus to move this page from the title "Julian the Apostate". Ivan the Terrible isn't a great comparison, because there's a whole set of guidelines about how to refer to European rulers. In the absence of such guidelines for Roman Emperors, we stick with the basic policy--the most common name in English. That's Julian the Apostate, and there's plenty of evidence cited for this already--including the form of the entry in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which is a perfectly respectable source to follow. --Akhilleus ( talk) 19:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
My page move request and Bloodofox' movement of the page occurring at roughly the same time was entirely coincidental. An admin may come for review and be confused. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 07:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that Bloodofox had made some useful cleanup, after moving the page. Now that the move is undone, this cleanup has been lost. He should perform it again (in a single session, please, we better not clutter the history with many small editings instead of a big one). Btw, while I also think that Flavius Claudius Iulianus would be much less POV, an arbitrary move isn't the solution to the problem. Dipa1965 ( talk) 13:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no move. Default: opinion evenly split. DrKiernan ( talk) 14:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Julian the Apostate →
Flavius Claudius Iulianus — See discussion above —
--Akhilleus (
talk) 04:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Thegreyanomaly placed a request to move the page on WP:RM, but didn't create a discussion section. I hope that he will fill in the reason for the request in the space above. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed this from the lead:
"Julian II" is not used very often to refer to our emperor; see, e.g. this Google Scholar search. Please note that this search gets results such as [1], where the text is "1. Job stress--Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Barling, Julian. II. Kelloway, E. Kevin..." Obviously, results like this aren't relevant for this article. "Julian II" doesn't occur in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, either.
As far as "Julian the philosopher", I'm not finding this anywhere. Are there any sources for this? --Akhilleus ( talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Akhilleus, I agree with you but it would be nice to specify the parts that need action. The automated link is too generic. I, for one, could suggest that more work is needed in the non-religious policy, however this couldn't be called a cleanup (maybe my english don't help). Had you been more specific, it would be easier for the rest of us to contribute (if possible). Dipa1965 ( talk) 22:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just added a section to the article about Julian's administrative actions as emperor. Right now it isn't cited, but I'll get back to that later. Most of the material is drawn from Robert Browning's book, The Emperor Julian Wickbam
I'm sorry I missed the above move vote. But check out Template:Roman_Emperors, where "the Apostate" is the only descriptor. Even "Constantine the Great" is reasonably listed as Constantine I. "Julian the Apostate" is bias, plain and simple. Even if some Classical Dictionaries still cling to the slant, I think Wikipedia should rise above it, through a policy of naming people (if not their actual names), a compromise between what they where most commonly known as in their era vs. a non-biased simplification, i.e. Julian II. I prefer that last title, by the way. Mdiamante ( talk) 20:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It's nice to see some recognition that the naming policy requires the page to remain at this name. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There were atleast a couple people whose voices were silenced by the abrupt cut off on the survey. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh boy....well there were two issues: a) many of us think that it is not a pejorative title, mearly an state of fact b) there is a wikipedia policy on famous roman persons, and Julian is included. But we disscused this allready and had a vote, so either bring something new to the table or at least make a point by trying to convince us in another way, cos` the current arugments just don`t stand. AdrianCo ( talk) 22:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Could we, like, agree not to revisit this issue for a few months, since this has been discussed again and again and there's never been consensus for a move? In the meantime, perhaps everyone can read WP:NAME, and the people who want to move the page to his real name can take a look at Caligula. Not to mention every other Roman emperor. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not relevant to Julian. Although the illustration is certainly labelled (in the original) as being of "Julyan", none of the classical sources that I'm aware of state that Julian's corpse was flayed or exhibited in such a way. However, the corpse of Valerian (emperor 253-260) was so treated. According to the sources, it was flayed and the skin dyed vermillion and displayed at a Persian temple. The illustration thus seems to depict Valerian, not Julian (regardless of its description, obviously not Boccacchio's own as it's in old English) and should be removed to the article on Valerian. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 01:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As there are no complaints, I've taken the illustration - of Valerian - out. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 23:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but as there is a Christian tradition - admittedly tenuous but there nonetheless - that Julian was killed by Mercurius. Keeping that illustration in the article is somewhat justified. There is no tradition - Christian or otherwise - in any source that Julian was skinned. The picture is just labelled incorrectly and refers to Valerian: I've given the reasons above. To keep it in merely perpetuates a labelling error. Perpetuating a preexisting tradition - as with the Mercurius illustration - is not the same thing. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 13:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
To reiterate: The manuscript is wrong. Valerian was flayed. Julian was not. Nor is there any variant tradition that he was. Pretty though it is, the illustration is merely a mislabelled Valerian. Nothing more. To retain it in an **encyclopaedia** article on Julian gives the impression that either A) Julian suffered this fate (he did not), or B) That there is a tradition that Julian suffered this fate (there is none). The error of one ignorant English translator of Boccaccio is not to be perpetuated - indeed, perpetuated without question - in an educational article. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 10:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
First. I fail to see how by any stretch of the imagination a medieval English translation of a 14th century Italian document can be considered a primary historical source for events that occured a millenium beforehand and a thousand miles away. What exactly is your definition of a primary historical source? Nor indeed should the errors of individual translators be repected or perpetuated. That is not the way an encyclopaedia article is written. Second. Alternatives: 1) Why do you believe that this illustration depicts Emperor Julian anyway and not some other Julian? 2) It may depict the remains of Basil of Ancyra, flayed by Julian in 362. If this is so the whole label (not all of which is visible) may read something like "Julyan killed Basil" or "Basil, martyred by Julyan". Either way there's nothing to support your conclusion that the illustration is of Emperor Julian apart from your own calculations. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ignore the second point. All the manuscript text says is "the skyn of Julyan". Regardless, there's still nothing to link the illustration with the death of Julian - who wasn't flayed! 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 22:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
To quote your own words: "The manuscript is a primary source and should be respected". Do you even know what a primary source is? NONE of the illustrations you allude to are historiographic primary sources for Julian's life. I quote wikipedias own definition: "In historiography, it is a document, recording or other source of information that was created at roughly the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described." Hence my rebuttal that by no stretch of the imagination can an illustration produced in the Middles Ages be considered a primary source for events that occured 1000 years before. I've addressed the reason for retaining the Mercurius illustration. When it was produced there is a pre-exiting Christian tradition - wrong though it was/is - that Julian was killed in battle not by Persians but by Mercurius. Thus there is validity in keeping this picture as it illustrates this tradition. The Mercurius tradition is addressed in the picture's legend. There is no tradition - Christian or otherwise - that Julian was flayed. The Boccaccio piece thus illustrates nothing more than the fact that a single person - Boccaccio or a translator or a transcriber - got their Roman emperors mixed up. It's the same reason why the famous Louvre statue - long thought to be Julian but now reidentified as a Hadrianic priest - no longer appears on this page. Though identified as Julian, it isn't him. Nor does the Boccacchio illustration add anything to what's in the text, where no reference is made to Julian being flayed (that would be because he wasn't). No does the legend warn that the picture is wrong. As it stands anyone coming to this article looking for information on Julian will read how he was killed in battle against the Persians, look at the illustration of "the skyn of Julyan", and naturally assume that this was the ultimate fate suffered by his corpse. Leading people to make such incorrect assumptions with misleading illustrations is not the job of any encyclopaedia article. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 11:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
And the concensus currently stands at 2:1! 8o) 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 11:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
First. You stated that the manuscript was a primary source. That's why I quoted your own words. Second. No I do not apply the same criteria to all the images. Armitage's painting does not veer from the historiographic sources; it's inclusion is thus valid. The Mercurius illustration does not veer from the Christian tradition; it's inclusion is thus valid. The Boccaccio illustration is at variance with everything we know about Julian's death and it should not be included, especially when there is no indication in the article that Boccaccio has made an error in mixing up his Roman emperors. Third. By you own arguement **anything** is liable to be included in **any** wikipedia article by just saying "well, so-and-so represented so-and-so thus, therefore we should include it". I ask you: What exactly would be wrong with me inserting a crayon drawing of Julian being killed while crossing the road? By your own argument I mistakenly understand Julian's death is just as valid as how Boccacio mistakenly understood him: "well, it's how one 21st century person believed it to be". By saying it's 14th century won't cut it either: this far after the event, a 1700 year remove is just as bad as a 1000 year one. Fourth: How do you know this is Julian the Apostate? The concensus still isn't with you. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 23:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
First. 8 May 2008, 2038h: "Even if it were wrong, the manuscript is a primary source and should be respected." Please explain how I've misinterpreted your statement. Being a translation, it's not even a primary source for Boccaccio. Second. Again you fail to understand the difference between modern interpretations which keep to a historical source (Armitage) or traditional sources (Mercurius). Boccaccio's keeps to neither. It is not interpretation - there is nothing in the sources to indicated he was flayed. Nor is following a pre-existing tradition. If there was an antique source or tradition that Julian was flayed there would be no arguement. There isn't. Boccaccio, or a follower simply mistook Julian for Valerian (Boccaccio also wrote on Valerian's death. This would explain the mix-up of emperors by an English illustrator). The illustration CANNOT be an interpretation - as there is nothing to interpret from. It is thus invention or error. Repeatedly falling back on the same argument that the image is 14th century doesn't cut it. Antiquity does not equate with validity. Nor are all sources to be given equal validity. That's not how history is done. Would a medieval image of Diocletian crossing the Rubicon be fit to have in an encyclopaedia? Of course not, it would be an obvious (though interesting) mistake by one source. Are the Roman plays of Shakespeare and Jonson valid historical documents for the events surrounding Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus, and Sejanus? No, because though based on classical sources they include elements that are complete fiction. However, if the image must stay by all means transfer it to the Valerian site (as long as you explain the mistaken legend). The consensus is still against you. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 12:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you'll never make a historian. Uncritically assigning equal weight to all evidence is a schoolboy error. Upon seeing a picture labelled as Diocletian crossing the Rubicon, Alexander the Great fighting at Thermopylae, or Antony winning the Battle of Actium, most sensible observers would see them as curious blunders of the historically inept. Nothing more. You'd consider them some viable variant of the truth, despite the overwhelming evidence of more reliable sources and the lack of supporting sources. They'd become important documents for nothing more than the fact that **one** person depicted them in that way. The conclusion that an unintentioned mistake had been made would not enter your mind. Thus the error of a lone illustrator is let to pass without criticism. Indeed, it becomes a "primary source" for how Julian was perceived in medieval England (see below). If you wish I'll be happy to edit the legend of the "Julian" illustration to reflect this. Or, seeing that the score is still 2-1 in favour of getting rid of it, so it may have to go regardless... As an aside, the illustration comes from a manuscript of John Lydgate's "The Fall of Princes" (15th century), which itself is an English translation of Boccaccio's "De Casibus Virorum Illustribus" from a century earlier. It's current legend as "The Fall of Princes" by Boccaccio is thus wrong anyway. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 16:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Julian was the emperor of a united empire. To the person who keeps reverting the page to read "Eastern Roman Emperor", please stop. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 16:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
My stand is clear and I agree with the above contributor. During the period 324-364 (i.e. from the final victory of Constantine I to the accession of Valens and Valentinian I - which, incidentally, marks the actual commencement of what might be called the "Eastern Roman Empire" (not 330)), while Caesares may have held "west"/"east" appointments, Augusti did not. Augusti were, as with the vast majority of the period 27 BC-286, in sole charge. The current reading implies that Julian, as Augustus, ruled over ONLY the eastern half of the empire. Who ruled over the west? errr, Julian! Indeed, Julian was proclaimed in the west. Of course, feel free to edit to make the introduction read "Western Roman Emperor 361-363, and Eastern Roman Emperor 361-363", but I think it's far more sensible to call him just "Roman Emperor" because that's what he was! 8o) 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Your condescension ("for anyone that does not know that it exists...") does you no credit, especially considering the fact that your talking to a Roman History PhD candidate. Cheers! Calling Julian "also Byzantine emperor" is as inaccurate as calling him an "Eastern Roman Emperor". Granted, Constantine I re-founded Byzantium as capital in the east, but the division of the governence of the empire (by Augusti) into east and west did not occur until a year after Julian's death. Julian could not have been the emperor of an empire that did not exist during his lifetime. 82.44.82.167 ( talk) 12:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, my humble opinion is that we don't need another edit war (it's really going to be like that) just for a minor matter of semantics. Can we agree that "Byzantine" is an rather outdated and misleading term, particularly when we are talking about the unified Late Roman Empire? Is it SO important that the capital had been moved away of Rome? Is Diocletian a Byzantine emperor because he was based at Nicomedia? (not to mention other "Byzantine" qualities of his, like the autocratic behaviour, usage of precious clothing and paraphernalia etc) Does Byzantine betrays something important for the personality and the policies of Julian? There are already quite a few scholars who are unhappy with the term "Byzantine" even for later periods (e.g. J. Haldon in his Byzantine Wars uses it only in the title, while in the body he always prefers "Roman" or "Eastern Roman"). Let's concentrate on improving the body of the article. Dipa1965 ( talk) 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you have all moved on but I think Julian II is more appropriate then "the apostate." Numbering of monarchs/emperors is commonplace, as is referring to them by nickname(those that have a well known one) but "the apostate" is full of religous sentiment and has a pejorative connotation. I understand early Christian sources used this term, and its worth noting in the article, but I think Julian II would be more appropraite in this instance. Odin1 ( talk) 05:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It is entirely out of context (because it referes to Theodosius reign) and I would have removed it but the whole article is still a mess so such a minor editing wouldn't help much. Not to mention another annoyance: after the recent anonymous editing of the birth date, we have 331 in the lead and 330 in the body of the article! Dipa1965 ( talk) 19:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)