![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
These edits by User:Jimjilin include two additions and one deletion. Addressing each of them in turn:
Based on archaeological finds, infanticide appears to have been particularly widespread in the Roman Empire. [1]
The given source appears to be a work of Christian apologetics rather than historical scholarship. The trail does go back to a scholarly source, summary available here, which presents good evidence for infanticide at one spot in the Roman empire, and mentions one more such spot. No doubt the practice was far more widespread (a common source of slaves was babies found on middens), but the scholarly source does not support the comment made.
, launching the era of Christian hegemony was removed. True, it isn't well-expressed, but we should in some better way express the scholarly consensus that Constantine took over an empire in which Christians were a small minority and that his actions did directly lead to the establishment of a Christian empire.
Sociologist Rodney Stark has noted that Constantine didn’t cause the triumph of Christianity, he rode off it. [2] was added. I'm not quite sure what the last phrase means, the author doesn't appear to be a scholar in the relevant field, and his remark about Constantine seems to be the exact opposite of scholars in the field. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
References
Thanks for your input.
I changed my edit regarding infanticide. According to the article I linked to: "The findings add to the growing body of evidence that infanticide was common in the Roman Empire." The article doesn't refer only to the Hambleden findings. Jimjilin ( talk) 14:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think Stark is a scholar in the relevant field. Following the suggestion of an editor, I have moved the quote to another location. Why do you think there's a "scholarly consensus" that Stark is wrong?
Jimjilin (
talk) 14:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's a quote from an academic biography by Paul Stephenson: "This book demonstrates that Constantine's conversion was not the reason for the rapid growth of Christianity in the fourth century AD." I think the search for an academic consensus is elusive. I'm not sure the quotes you brought up contradict Stark and Stephenson. Anyway I certainly don't want to silence Ramsay MacMullen's opinion. I suggest a short paragraph that mentions the contrasting views. Jimjilin ( talk) 16:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I protest to the map of Roman Empire in 117. It contains severe factual errors. Specifically, the map needs to reflect correct boundaries in the Caucasus at the time (in 117).
According to current map, Roman Armenia included the whole South Caucasus, while Colchis, Kingdom of Iberia and Caucasian Albania are located in North Caucasus. The boundaries of Bosporan Kingdom also needs to be corrected.
For two years nobody did notice this. This is the reason why many still think that Wikipedia is completely unreliable. I propose to those people with Graphical skills to edit the current map according to these maps:
Or, you know.. replace it yourself.. 71.11.159.18 ( talk) 15:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
History section reads like the lede, and both are about as in-depth. The lede mentions Septimius Severus but the History section doesnt. Overall though, it feels like reading the same content twice.-- Tataryn ( talk) 20:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I vaguely recall that in the late Roman Empire occupations became birth-inherited. Does anybody know more about this? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The article has a POV statement with insufficient attribution and a potentially misleading quotation as a source: "In the view of the Greek historian Dio Cassius, a contemporary observer, the accession of the emperor Commodus in 180 AD marked the descent "from a kingdom of gold to one of rust and iron" [1]—a famous comment which has led some historians, notably Edward Gibbon, to take Commodus' reign as the beginning of the decline of the Roman Empire".
Basic problems here.:
"During a happy period of more than fourscore years, the public administration was conducted by the virtue and abilities of Trajan, Hadrian, and the two Antonines. It is the design of this and the two succeeding chapters, to describe the prosperous condition of their empire; and afterwards, from the death of Marcus Antoninus, to deduce the most important circumstances of its decline and fall; a revolution which will ever be remembered, and is still felt by the nations of the earth." Chapter 1, volume 1, https://books.google.gr/books?id=PrwWAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR15&d
In summary, I'd suggest that we write: "In the view of the Greek historian Dio Cassius, a contemporary observer, the accession of the emperor Commodus in 180 AD marked the descent "from a kingdom of gold to one of rust and iron" [2]—a famous comment which has led some historians, notably Edward Gibbon, to take Commodus' reign as one marker of the fall of the Western Roman Empire". Richard Keatinge ( talk) 18:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
"Late Roman Empire" has NO DEFINITION on Wikipedia, let alone a page of its own. As a search term it wrongly redirects to Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire. That is a specific article about HISTORIOGRAPHY, and about the FALL, which is arguably only the last phase of the LRE. Anyone willing to fix this? And to affix the automatic redirect to either Fall of the Western Roman Empire, or much rather to History of the Roman Empire? This at least until a LRE page is created. Thanks, Arminden Arminden ( talk) 12:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I do not speak english well, however i hope you can understand me.
I think we should remove from the infobox events, dates and emperors related to the Byzantine empire. I really believe that "the Roman Empire was the post-Republican period of the Ancient Roman civilisation" as the incipit of this article says. Therefore the medieval events should not be put in the infobox. Also, the very concept of Byzantine Empire has been introduced in order to make possible a distinction between that entity and the actual Roman Empire. For example, Fall of the Roman Empire correctly redirects to the events of the 5th century and not to the Fall of Constantinople. It seems that this infobox doesnt accept the distinction between the Roman and the Byzantine period of the empire. Is this the case? It is weird, because the article mostly covers ancient times dedicating to the first 500 years of the Empire far more space than the other 1000 years. So, why does the Infobox put the end of the Roman Empire to the Fall of Costantinople? It is not correct, neither historically neither in relation to the article. We may doubt if the empire ended around 480, 476 or 395, but come on.. that thing that fell in 1453 had nothing to do with the actual Roman Empire. After the migration period the Romans were not around anymore. Other wikis have chosen 395 or 476 as the end of the Roman Empire.
It is far more correct and avoids various contradictions, including the following: This article says that the empire did split in 395 into an eastern and a western part However, If you go to the page Western Roman Empire you read that it started in 285, not 395. And if you go to the page of the Eastern Roman Empire you read that the Byzantine Empire started in 330, not 285 or 395. Moreover the beginning of the infobox of this article says that the Western empire started in 27 BC. I mean, it is really confusing. Barjimoa ( talk) 18:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I have not read through this page for a long time but it appears someone butchered the "Languages" section to push a point of view. I don't want to get into an edit war but the older version was arrived at after a lot of discussion and with a lot of references. Not that the writing on that older version was perfect but at least it was neutral. Specific points:
I would say that either somebody needs to put in some effort to make the current version more neutral again or the old version of the Languages section should be restored.
-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 ( talk) 18:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
This addition to the infobox is not only a magnet for the POV-pushers ("look how big we were!") who keep making dubious additions (Saudi arabia - Russia - Iran - vs....!), it is also completely useless and highly misleading. The territorial extent is depicted in useful form by the map, and that is more than sufficient. A laundry list of countries paints a misleading picture, as sometimes only a tiny part of the country in question was part of the empire(e.g. Russia), and often for an insignificant length of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.13.203.86 ( talk) 10:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
A more meaningful and less misleading way to represent such information would not be a laundry list but a map, that overlays the range of the Roman empire (at its largest extent) with current countries.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 12:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@ PericlesofAthens: Sort of, but your map is not really having an overlay with the modern states, instead you merely have a map of the ethnics and regions at Roman times. The idea is to take a map of current Europe and then overlay on it the empire during trajan's reign. Then you can see which current countries contain a part of the Roman empire and more importantly you can visually see how much of the country belonged to the Roman empire. Hence you don't have the misleading aspect of the laundry list.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 17:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
"Today part of" is one of the parameters in the infobox. There's no problem with having it in principle, and some FA articles do use the parameter. But it may prove that in some articles, it's better to do without it.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I have raised the general issue of using this parameter on empires at the Template page. Please comment there. Kanguole 18:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: "The city of Rome was the largest city in the world c. 100 BC – c. AD 400,with Constantinople"
To: "The city of Rome was the largest city in the world c. 100 BC – c. AD 400, with Constantinople"
I.e. there should be a space after the comma ----> "400,with" 198.84.238.134 ( talk) 00:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
According to these sources:
The Roman Empire's greatest extent wasn't under Trajan in 117, but later came under Septimius Severus (reigned 193-211). Under Trajan, the empire was 5 million square km (1.93 million square miles). Under Severus, the empire was 2 million square miles (5.18 square km). Maestro2016 ( talk) 17:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I found this piece on quora: https://www.quora.com/What-animal-dominated-the-blood-sport-of-the-Roman-arenas-of-ancient-Rome-all-the-way-through-modern-Rome
Surely some of these sources within it can be used and added to the article as a whole. And some added info about those animals used: https://www.quora.com/What-scientific-claim-can-you-prove-wrong-with-tangible-proof
Does anyone have any evidence directly from a roman source via roman poet, roman artifact, ect where it show cases these animals in combat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vetato ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Collapsing discussion started by an editor who admitted to being a sockpuppet of a blocked user.
|
---|
![]() The romans are the most iconic figures who have incorporated lions, tigers and other beasts in their Venatio these areas listed above are all in the range of pre-roman and modern rome historical records and should be a part of the page. Perhaps there it wasnt put in the right chronology, but these should be added in some where of the page. Perhaps the admin Ponyo could add some expansion of the subject. Rotaci ( talk) 23:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC) References
Please show me where I cited a single blog? These are newspaper archives with direct first hand accounts and historians with masters and Ph.D's commentating. So you are saying Florence turin, verona, vienna were never a part of the roman empire? That lions and tigers were never apart of the roman empire? Rotaci ( talk) 23:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The roman emprierio link has a direct photo of the artifact that is badly damaged House of the Faun [1] You cannot get more credible than some one who is at the site, at the house of faun, in pompeii. It is stated by several archaeologist the mosaic displays a lion defeating a tiger: [2] The other article mentioning Rudolf kludskys article timed out: [3] it was originally on an article, but since bandwith timed out, we cant see what archives it was from. as for the conetnt, why then are their art and mosaics of animals on this page? Maybe you should remove them too, because items, equipment are not romans they are tools, maybe it should all be moved to the roman tool section. Rotaci ( talk) 00:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC) References
And what makes you think you can hide the truth from the world? It just shows the desperation and butt hurt of you clowns, I have been accused of sock puppeting on an account where I had only 1 at the time, and was blocked, I even seen seveal people fall to this majority say of bias to get people blocked when all they have is false rants, so lol at your attempt to being all noble or acting the the rules are even on the same level as its justification or valid other than bandwagoning. You are the duck, keep quacking clown. Rotaci ( talk) 01:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC) |
The best place where to find detailed information about fights between captive lions and tigers in this Empire is this. Other articles, like this one, should not have to be that detailed about it, and likewise, for fights between captive bears and bulls, or other animals. Leo1pard ( talk) 08:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
References
Leo1pard ( talk) 08:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The roman empire had many bases includinf Consantinaople, the wester area. Before moving to the Byzantine. When Islam took over the war, they won a war against the romans eastern base. Due to heavy armour disadvantage. 80.192.167.114 ( talk) 18:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Addition to "Hystorical Era": 36.37.140.115 ( talk) 16:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change ((Germanic)) to ((Germanic peoples|Germanic))
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
37.191.105.252 ( talk) 15:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Romans are athletic.
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I question the sentence “The city of Rome was the largest city in the world c. 100 BC – c. AD 400” in the overview. The quote of it is lost, and there is no source to proof that the Roma is larger than Changan and Luoyang, the two capital of the Han dynasty of China which are contemporary with Roma.Change it to “The city of Rome was the largest city in the west world c. 100 BC – c. AD 400”is better. YmfcBytvnirdhy ( talk) 21:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Roman law introduced a separation of courts in the West and the East under Diocletian. 286 has been for years on wiki the year when the Western Roman Empire began. This seems also to be the academic consensus since Theodosius was sole emperor for only a few years before dying in 395. Why did this change? I propose to put 286 as the beginning for the Western and Eastern Roman Empire (in their respective articles too)
Wouldn't that be more correct?
At the very least, put both 286 and 395 in the three infoboxes (286/395 as ending/starting date).
Barjimoa ( talk) 13:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I've seen very few lead sections as large as this one and just today there was an editor ADDING material instead of trimming it, per WP:SIZE. It is still four paragraphs, per the strictures of WP:LEAD, but the first paragraph alone is a monster that could serve as four or five distinct different topics, covering way too much ground with way too much detail for a lead section. Only the absolute major themes and events should be discussed for an empire that lasted so long. We don't need to mention every single war or every major deed of every emperor, just the moments and individuals that were the most consequential. If readers want to see more details, they can read them in the history section of the article or they can be easily directed to the sub article History of the Roman Empire. Pericles of Athens Talk 00:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
This was the last large-scale Jewish revolt against the Romans and was destroyed with massive repercussions in Judea. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed. Hadrian renamed the province of Judea " Provincia Syria Palaestina," after one of Judea's most hated enemies." While I believe all this information is technically true, it certainly does not belong in the lead for an article about the entire Roman Empire and the specific comment about the name Syria Palaestina seems like an unmistakable jab directed at modern Palestinians. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 03:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@ PericlesofAthens, Katolophyromai, and T8612: The single-purpose account is actually a serial sockpuppeteer ( WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Krajoyn) and blocked as such. Favonian ( talk) 16:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
In the "History" section there is a sentence "In 1204 the Sack of Constantinople found place by participants in the Fourth Crusade." "found place by" does not make sense, but I don't know what it was supposed to say. Perhaps someone might have an idea of how to fix it. 86.191.58.150 ( talk) 11:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Reworded a bit. The Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople. Dimadick ( talk) 17:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Why there are so little mentions to the Eastern Wars of the Empire? There are only one mention to Sassanids and one mention to the Parthians! Aryzad ( talk) 16:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Should be "The" not "Tbe"
50.236.211.58 ( talk) 17:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Jack M 6/28/19 Done, thanks. T8612 (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
In the section on banking: "A typical bank had fairly limited capital, and often only one principal, though a bank might have as many as six to fifteen principals." What exactly is this supposed to mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.143.92.129 ( talk) 23:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The last two paragraphs summarizing the ultimate fate of the Eastern half Roman Empire were removed. While these details are described in the Byzantine Empire, I don't see any need to remove them here. There's also an article on the Western Roman Empire; should we remove details about its fate as well? I'm not aware of any current scholarly consensus that denies the political, social, and cultural continuity between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire; this is especially important given that the latter name is a relatively modern historiographical invention and its people referred to it as the "Roman Empire," and so did those who ultimately conquered it. See Byzantine_Empire#Nomenclature for more. Surely we can keep a measly *two* paragraphs to give readers the ultimate fate of the Roman Empire (which is what the section was intended to do)? Global Cerebral Ischemia ( talk) 13:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
An editor recently added the unsourced claim that the invasions of the migration period were driven by climate change. This is strange given that the article on the migration period only mentions an extreme weather event during the 530s, roughly sixty years after the fall of the Western Empire. Given that the sentence is explicitly about the effect of the migration period on the fall of Western half of the Empire, any possible effects of climate change in the 530s as a driver for the invasions are irrelevant. Furthermore, both the article on this extreme weather event and the Late Antique Little Ice Age which followed only mention a possible (apparently highly disputed, according to the articles) effect on the Plague of Justinian. Given this, I'm deleting the added claim about climate change driving the invasions of the migration period. Global Cerebral Ischemia ( talk) 12:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
In the box "Roman Empire" on the right side of the article, in the section "Government" under "Emperors" not all emperors are listed. Is there a specific reason for this? What must be done for other emperors to be listed? Here are some of the missing emperors:
Just to name a few. How can this information or metadata be integrated? Lwangaman ( talk) 12:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The link to
vassal in the infobox under the map should be changed to
vassal state, because the vassal article is about people and not lands (I believe this is the intended target). I.e. with its [[vassal]]s in pink
should be changed to with its [[vassal state|vassal]]s in pink
.
PikaSamus (
talk) 01:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The Roman Empire is not 5.000.000 kmq, this is a data found in Taangera, who has no sources about it. But it covers around 3.500.000 miles square, inclusive mare nostrum, see The Essential World History by William J. Duiker and Jackson Spielvogel, pag. 104. A glaring mistake in Taaganera is to say that the Han dynasty was over six million square kilometers. But he himself admits that the estimates for the first Han dynasty fluctuate between 4.4 million and six million, the latter erroneous estimate, it is only necessary to calculate the current provinces. Furthermore, the second Han dynasty is the same size as the first, and there he does not place an oscillation range. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.27.116.82 ( talk) 11:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
5.000.000 kmq is too small, the real extension is about 6.100.000 kmq or 6.500.000 kmq. Infact, you can do this
3.500.000 miles square, i.e. 9.000.000 kmq, but without mare nostrum, 2.500.000 kmq, you can put 6.500.000 kmq. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.27.112.31 (
talk) 08:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Infact all is 5.300.000 kmq without Africa, if you add tripolitania 353.000 kmq, cyrenaica, 285.000 kmq, it is 5.938.000 kmq, moroco 195.000 kmq, i.e. 6.133.000 kmq, and algeria 270.000 kmq, 481.980 kmq with Settimius Severus, 6.403.000 kmq. Crimea, Pontus, 87.000 kmq. 6.517.000 kmq — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.19.33.232 (
talk) 09:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
If you try to draw the boundaries with a calculator map area program, you will have an empire about 6.500.000 sq km large. So we have Africa 1.867.906 kmq West 1.149.897 kmq East 951.394 kmq Italy Greece 433.297 kmq East Asia 1.132.367 kmq Turkey 783.356 kmq Ponto 90.000 kmq All sources clearly speak of about or over 6,500,000 sq km.
Britain's Imperial Administrators, 1858-1966, by A. Kirk-Greene, pag. 23.
War, by DK, pag.43.
A Companion to the Roman Empire, by David S. Potter, pag. 285 (in this 3.500.000 miles square but inclusive mare nostrum)
World History to 1500: To 1500, by William J. Duiker, Jackson J. Spielvogel, (in this 3.500.000 miles square but inclusive mare nostrum)
Australian History Series: The ancient world, by Fiona Back, pag. 14.
Ancient Rome: Facts at Your Fingertips, by DK, pag. 147.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.49.47 ( talk) 10:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please adding Wiki-links to Emperor Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva after Augustus and before Trajan ( the list of emperors on the right of the page) Lalaland741852963 ( talk) 23:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the window section, the official languages of the state are not listed as AD or BC. Just 610. Perhaps this should be changed for clarification. 87.57.185.92 ( talk) 11:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Original "The Eastern Roman Empire, usually described by modern historians as the Byzantine Empire"
This is an unreferenced claim and this is wrong because only Holy Roman Empire historians consistently describe Eastern Roman Empire as Byzantine Empire. Many modern historian start to realize that HRE describe the Eastern Roman Empire as Byzantine Empire for their own propaganda purposes.
I suggest it to be changed to "The Eastern Roman Empire, usually described by German historians as the Byzantine Empire" Selfoe ( talk) 11:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I think that the 2nd and 3rd sentences of the page should be reworded or redone to give the intro of the page a better flow as right now it’s seems/reads a little strangely to me. Especially the 3rd sentences structure of from the/to the doesn’t seem like the best and most clear way to express the information. Max3218 ( talk) 20:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
95.147.204.220 ( talk) 15:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
i want to edit because all of the roman empire website is not up to date
Senatus Populusque Romanus = The Senate and the People of Rome. [1] [2]
I edited this because the translation itself was on a different page 93.95.87.186 ( talk) 21:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
196.25.72.182 ( talk) 05:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I noticed this article recently got a "Too long" template, and the Good article criteria says that if it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid, it should be an immediate reason to decline its good article status. If this also counts as a ground for reassessing it, that means either the template should be removed or it should be reassessed as a good article. I'm not going to tag it with a request for reassessment because I'm not familiar with the good article process. --- Mullafacation { talk page| user page} 10:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I want to add some clarity on the opening paragraph. My comments are in two separate points below.
The first paragraph has a sentence that says "After the military crisis, the empire was ruled by multiple emperors who shared rule over the Western Roman Empire and over the Eastern Roman Empire (also known as the Byzantine Empire)". Given it is historians that have given this name only after the collapse in 1453, could we make it more accurate by saying "(known as the Byzantine Empire due to modern historiographic standards)". It needs this distinguishing statement to help explain why a different term is being used for the Eastern provinces. This has the benefit of making people aware of bias in history, especially if we link it to a page about historiography. I don't care how this is written but as we all know the term 'Byzantine Empire' is a modern invention to help us understand complexity and not actually a different empire. Elias ( talk) 08:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The final sentence of the first paragraph says: "The fall of the Western Roman Empire to Germanic kings, along with the hellenization of the Eastern Roman Empire into the Byzantine Empire, conventionally marks the end of Ancient Rome and the beginning of the Middle Ages." This should acknowledge that outside of a new capital and Greek-language adoption, that Christianity made the official religion is also one of the the three big things that differentiated the Roman Empire into the Classical Age versus the Medieval Age, or at least why modern historians use it as the basis for calling it a different empire. Rewritten it could be: "The fall of the Western Roman Empire to Germanic kings, along with the hellenization of the Eastern Roman Empire and the adoption of Christianity as state religion to become the Byzantine Empire, conventionally marks the end of Ancient era and the beginning of the Middle Ages." Elias ( talk) 09:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Eastern and Western was only a administrative divisions of the Roman empire, the terms Byzantines, Eastern etc are modern exonyms. The official name in the "Eastern", "Byzantine" empire was Imperium Romanum and latter change to the koine greek Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων.-- Gfim95 ( talk) 23:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Eastern Roman Empire" to "Roman Empire in the Medieval Era" in the Succeeded by section. Harry Hinderson ( talk) 23:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The list is selective perhaps by historical significance? Whatever...the selection criteria should be mentioned or the incompleteness highlighted. Timmytimtimmy ( talk) 00:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace the default map of the Roman Empire with this one, because the new one has better design, shows both Senatorial and Imperial provinces, etc. (Should this edit be rejected please subject it to community consensus). EDIT PLEASE READ: I'm reactivating this request because the community needs to take a decision about this, because the actual image that I want to replace is not good, a lot of users have complains about it and it isn't 100% accurate. May I ask for an Administrator hearing? 190.141.88.53 ( talk) 00:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest we update the current image to this one: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/assets/4822044/RomanEmpire_117.svg.png Because the current one cannot be zoomed in, it's like sliced, etc. Upload VOX (Commons originated) image to Commons once again, and do the edit. 190.218.30.203 ( talk) 02:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The current image in the article is a vector version of the file, so it is more scalable and can be shown at any resolution. The VOX image, on the other hand, is a raster rendering of the same file, meaning it's definitely not more scalable than the file currently being used. It's also possible to download other resolutions (or the original SVG, which is infinitely scalable as mentioned above) at the file page. Can you elaborate on what these flaws with the current image are if not scalability? Bsoyka 🗣️ 04:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the current resolution of the image, to this one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/RomanEmpire_117.svg/2560px-RomanEmpire_117.svg.png 190.218.30.203 ( talk) 22:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, there's a problem: The Han Dynasty and its topic are featured/good ones, while The Roman Empire is only a good article with no topic featuring... How can we change this situation? I have read some articles about the Roman Empire here on Wikipedia, and they're honestly pretty bad (For example, The Constitutions of Ancient Rome and the Dominate were horrible). 190.218.30.203 ( talk) 19:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
this website is not reliable please proof read on other sites before using this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.108.145 ( talk) 03:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
In the paragraph "Transportation", an intern link to Rhine river is missing. In this paragraph information is missing about transport via waterways. Archeological findings in The Netherlands and Germany along Rhine river, part of the Northern border ( limes) / Limes Germanicus) have shown that heavy barks have been used to transport all kind of goods, from building material to whine, and for transportation of legionaries, among others over Rhine river to Britain. Very well conserved Roman ships with a lenght up to 32 meters have been found along Oude Rijn river, at Xanten (Germany) Woerden and Zwammerdam (The Netherlands). My english and knowledge isn't good enough for contributions to this high-end (compliments!) articel. I hope someone can pick this up. 2001:16B8:1191:2000:853F:D707:3E88:D581 ( talk) 07:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To whom it may concern, I request that the box featuring the Government form of the Roman Empire be edited, because currently, it is written that the Roman Empire was an elective absolute monarchy, but that is wrong… Let me explain… I studied the Government system of the Roman Empire for 2 years, and as far as I know, there still was a Senate (legislative body) under the Empire, although it had very little power. I therefore suggest that the information currently written in the infobox about the Roman Empire being an absolute monarchy be corrected and that it is now written that the Roman Empire was a SEMI-absolute monarchy. Yours sincerely, a Wikipedia user. 2001:171B:C9AB:14A0:ADB5:F900:1294:C74E ( talk) 21:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation for how the rediscovery of Greek and Roman science and technology formed the basis of Islamic science 122.11.214.134 ( talk) 11:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The entry under the section “Geography and deforestation” speaks about Plato’s description of the deforestation. This is hardly relevant, though, as Plato was not directly in contact with the Romans during his lifetime. If he is writing about the deforestation committed by another civilization, then his description is irrelevant and should not be quoted, as the quote is misleading. 62.18.192.73 ( talk) 18:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jwuerfel. Peer reviewers:
Darrendi.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Waltersaraceni.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Could there be a link to slave societies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.131.228 ( talk) 16:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not at all informed about Roman emperors, but the infobox lists only a few dozen, whereas if I refer to the article List of Roman emperors, there are many many more. Is that list just the important ones? Nikolaih ☎️ 📖 18:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
This subject was discussed a decade ago, at which point AD/BC was kept. However, the world has moved on since then. Is it time to reconsider switching to CE/BCE? Daniel Wagenaar ( talk) 04:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I have never posted anything, so I don't know how to make edits. That said, I see that there is a large gap in the list of emporeors beginning with Hadrian in 117. Hadrian has a Wiki page, so would someone mind linking that to the list? 151.213.181.100 ( talk) 13:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
In the "Literacy, books, and education" section, there is a header warning that says that the article does not include more information about the use of papyrus, but I have looked around the internet and haven't been able to really find any sources that state more details about papyrus in the Empire. I think we should delete this warning then. Thoughts? ZetaFive ( talk) 19:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, The health section in the top is a bit strange. I think it should be a subsection of either daily life or society. What do you think? Theklan ( talk) 11:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
In the first introductory paragraph, it reads "From the accession of Caesar Augustus as the first Roman emperor... ", and then in the following paragraph it says, "Octavian's power became unassailable and the Roman Senate granted him overarching power and the new title of Augustus, making him the first Roman emperor."
I'm in no way a history buff, so I don't know which is the true statement and can't correct it, but I found this confusing. Greyvenn ( talk) 05:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Why are those emperors missing in the right summary frame? (and the same in History of the Roman Empire)
References
At over 22k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. Additionally its excessive length means that it may no longer meet the GA criteria. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
"[I]n the western provinces ... it was used at all levels"gives the impression that local languages were completely superseded, which the following subsection directly contradicts, and I don't know what evidence we might have that it was used at the 'lowest' levels. The current
"Latin was the language of the law courts in the West and of the military throughout the Empire, but was not imposed officially on peoples brought under Roman rule"is well written on several levels; it makes clear and restrained claims per sources, consistent with the following subsection, and is eminently readable. The proposed
in the east, Greek was still used outside of administrative businessreplaces that with an unclear statement; what counts as "administrative business", and why should courts and the correspondence of emperors be excluded from it? The brief geographic note is helpful and should be essentially kept, as the Geography section above doesn't even hint where we'd find the east/west divide for language or other purposes. Yes, most of the sentence about Alexander's policy could go if the following sentence flowed on better, and that might include "Alexander's conquests and the policies of his successors".
This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
At 10,000 words it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries
Opinions vary as to what counts as an ideal length; judging the appropriate size depends on the topic and whether it easily lends itself to being split up.
At over XXk words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. Additionally its excessive length means that it may no longer meet the GA criteria.It's as if you hadn't read this article at all (or the others that you tagged), or considered the topic and whether it easily lends itself to being split up, or examined the extent to which sections have been moved to other articles and replaced with summaries, and still haven't. NebY ( talk) 11:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
These edits by User:Jimjilin include two additions and one deletion. Addressing each of them in turn:
Based on archaeological finds, infanticide appears to have been particularly widespread in the Roman Empire. [1]
The given source appears to be a work of Christian apologetics rather than historical scholarship. The trail does go back to a scholarly source, summary available here, which presents good evidence for infanticide at one spot in the Roman empire, and mentions one more such spot. No doubt the practice was far more widespread (a common source of slaves was babies found on middens), but the scholarly source does not support the comment made.
, launching the era of Christian hegemony was removed. True, it isn't well-expressed, but we should in some better way express the scholarly consensus that Constantine took over an empire in which Christians were a small minority and that his actions did directly lead to the establishment of a Christian empire.
Sociologist Rodney Stark has noted that Constantine didn’t cause the triumph of Christianity, he rode off it. [2] was added. I'm not quite sure what the last phrase means, the author doesn't appear to be a scholar in the relevant field, and his remark about Constantine seems to be the exact opposite of scholars in the field. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
References
Thanks for your input.
I changed my edit regarding infanticide. According to the article I linked to: "The findings add to the growing body of evidence that infanticide was common in the Roman Empire." The article doesn't refer only to the Hambleden findings. Jimjilin ( talk) 14:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think Stark is a scholar in the relevant field. Following the suggestion of an editor, I have moved the quote to another location. Why do you think there's a "scholarly consensus" that Stark is wrong?
Jimjilin (
talk) 14:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's a quote from an academic biography by Paul Stephenson: "This book demonstrates that Constantine's conversion was not the reason for the rapid growth of Christianity in the fourth century AD." I think the search for an academic consensus is elusive. I'm not sure the quotes you brought up contradict Stark and Stephenson. Anyway I certainly don't want to silence Ramsay MacMullen's opinion. I suggest a short paragraph that mentions the contrasting views. Jimjilin ( talk) 16:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I protest to the map of Roman Empire in 117. It contains severe factual errors. Specifically, the map needs to reflect correct boundaries in the Caucasus at the time (in 117).
According to current map, Roman Armenia included the whole South Caucasus, while Colchis, Kingdom of Iberia and Caucasian Albania are located in North Caucasus. The boundaries of Bosporan Kingdom also needs to be corrected.
For two years nobody did notice this. This is the reason why many still think that Wikipedia is completely unreliable. I propose to those people with Graphical skills to edit the current map according to these maps:
Or, you know.. replace it yourself.. 71.11.159.18 ( talk) 15:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
History section reads like the lede, and both are about as in-depth. The lede mentions Septimius Severus but the History section doesnt. Overall though, it feels like reading the same content twice.-- Tataryn ( talk) 20:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I vaguely recall that in the late Roman Empire occupations became birth-inherited. Does anybody know more about this? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The article has a POV statement with insufficient attribution and a potentially misleading quotation as a source: "In the view of the Greek historian Dio Cassius, a contemporary observer, the accession of the emperor Commodus in 180 AD marked the descent "from a kingdom of gold to one of rust and iron" [1]—a famous comment which has led some historians, notably Edward Gibbon, to take Commodus' reign as the beginning of the decline of the Roman Empire".
Basic problems here.:
"During a happy period of more than fourscore years, the public administration was conducted by the virtue and abilities of Trajan, Hadrian, and the two Antonines. It is the design of this and the two succeeding chapters, to describe the prosperous condition of their empire; and afterwards, from the death of Marcus Antoninus, to deduce the most important circumstances of its decline and fall; a revolution which will ever be remembered, and is still felt by the nations of the earth." Chapter 1, volume 1, https://books.google.gr/books?id=PrwWAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR15&d
In summary, I'd suggest that we write: "In the view of the Greek historian Dio Cassius, a contemporary observer, the accession of the emperor Commodus in 180 AD marked the descent "from a kingdom of gold to one of rust and iron" [2]—a famous comment which has led some historians, notably Edward Gibbon, to take Commodus' reign as one marker of the fall of the Western Roman Empire". Richard Keatinge ( talk) 18:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
"Late Roman Empire" has NO DEFINITION on Wikipedia, let alone a page of its own. As a search term it wrongly redirects to Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire. That is a specific article about HISTORIOGRAPHY, and about the FALL, which is arguably only the last phase of the LRE. Anyone willing to fix this? And to affix the automatic redirect to either Fall of the Western Roman Empire, or much rather to History of the Roman Empire? This at least until a LRE page is created. Thanks, Arminden Arminden ( talk) 12:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I do not speak english well, however i hope you can understand me.
I think we should remove from the infobox events, dates and emperors related to the Byzantine empire. I really believe that "the Roman Empire was the post-Republican period of the Ancient Roman civilisation" as the incipit of this article says. Therefore the medieval events should not be put in the infobox. Also, the very concept of Byzantine Empire has been introduced in order to make possible a distinction between that entity and the actual Roman Empire. For example, Fall of the Roman Empire correctly redirects to the events of the 5th century and not to the Fall of Constantinople. It seems that this infobox doesnt accept the distinction between the Roman and the Byzantine period of the empire. Is this the case? It is weird, because the article mostly covers ancient times dedicating to the first 500 years of the Empire far more space than the other 1000 years. So, why does the Infobox put the end of the Roman Empire to the Fall of Costantinople? It is not correct, neither historically neither in relation to the article. We may doubt if the empire ended around 480, 476 or 395, but come on.. that thing that fell in 1453 had nothing to do with the actual Roman Empire. After the migration period the Romans were not around anymore. Other wikis have chosen 395 or 476 as the end of the Roman Empire.
It is far more correct and avoids various contradictions, including the following: This article says that the empire did split in 395 into an eastern and a western part However, If you go to the page Western Roman Empire you read that it started in 285, not 395. And if you go to the page of the Eastern Roman Empire you read that the Byzantine Empire started in 330, not 285 or 395. Moreover the beginning of the infobox of this article says that the Western empire started in 27 BC. I mean, it is really confusing. Barjimoa ( talk) 18:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I have not read through this page for a long time but it appears someone butchered the "Languages" section to push a point of view. I don't want to get into an edit war but the older version was arrived at after a lot of discussion and with a lot of references. Not that the writing on that older version was perfect but at least it was neutral. Specific points:
I would say that either somebody needs to put in some effort to make the current version more neutral again or the old version of the Languages section should be restored.
-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 ( talk) 18:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
This addition to the infobox is not only a magnet for the POV-pushers ("look how big we were!") who keep making dubious additions (Saudi arabia - Russia - Iran - vs....!), it is also completely useless and highly misleading. The territorial extent is depicted in useful form by the map, and that is more than sufficient. A laundry list of countries paints a misleading picture, as sometimes only a tiny part of the country in question was part of the empire(e.g. Russia), and often for an insignificant length of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.13.203.86 ( talk) 10:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
A more meaningful and less misleading way to represent such information would not be a laundry list but a map, that overlays the range of the Roman empire (at its largest extent) with current countries.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 12:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@ PericlesofAthens: Sort of, but your map is not really having an overlay with the modern states, instead you merely have a map of the ethnics and regions at Roman times. The idea is to take a map of current Europe and then overlay on it the empire during trajan's reign. Then you can see which current countries contain a part of the Roman empire and more importantly you can visually see how much of the country belonged to the Roman empire. Hence you don't have the misleading aspect of the laundry list.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 17:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
"Today part of" is one of the parameters in the infobox. There's no problem with having it in principle, and some FA articles do use the parameter. But it may prove that in some articles, it's better to do without it.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I have raised the general issue of using this parameter on empires at the Template page. Please comment there. Kanguole 18:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: "The city of Rome was the largest city in the world c. 100 BC – c. AD 400,with Constantinople"
To: "The city of Rome was the largest city in the world c. 100 BC – c. AD 400, with Constantinople"
I.e. there should be a space after the comma ----> "400,with" 198.84.238.134 ( talk) 00:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
According to these sources:
The Roman Empire's greatest extent wasn't under Trajan in 117, but later came under Septimius Severus (reigned 193-211). Under Trajan, the empire was 5 million square km (1.93 million square miles). Under Severus, the empire was 2 million square miles (5.18 square km). Maestro2016 ( talk) 17:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I found this piece on quora: https://www.quora.com/What-animal-dominated-the-blood-sport-of-the-Roman-arenas-of-ancient-Rome-all-the-way-through-modern-Rome
Surely some of these sources within it can be used and added to the article as a whole. And some added info about those animals used: https://www.quora.com/What-scientific-claim-can-you-prove-wrong-with-tangible-proof
Does anyone have any evidence directly from a roman source via roman poet, roman artifact, ect where it show cases these animals in combat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vetato ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Collapsing discussion started by an editor who admitted to being a sockpuppet of a blocked user.
|
---|
![]() The romans are the most iconic figures who have incorporated lions, tigers and other beasts in their Venatio these areas listed above are all in the range of pre-roman and modern rome historical records and should be a part of the page. Perhaps there it wasnt put in the right chronology, but these should be added in some where of the page. Perhaps the admin Ponyo could add some expansion of the subject. Rotaci ( talk) 23:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC) References
Please show me where I cited a single blog? These are newspaper archives with direct first hand accounts and historians with masters and Ph.D's commentating. So you are saying Florence turin, verona, vienna were never a part of the roman empire? That lions and tigers were never apart of the roman empire? Rotaci ( talk) 23:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The roman emprierio link has a direct photo of the artifact that is badly damaged House of the Faun [1] You cannot get more credible than some one who is at the site, at the house of faun, in pompeii. It is stated by several archaeologist the mosaic displays a lion defeating a tiger: [2] The other article mentioning Rudolf kludskys article timed out: [3] it was originally on an article, but since bandwith timed out, we cant see what archives it was from. as for the conetnt, why then are their art and mosaics of animals on this page? Maybe you should remove them too, because items, equipment are not romans they are tools, maybe it should all be moved to the roman tool section. Rotaci ( talk) 00:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC) References
And what makes you think you can hide the truth from the world? It just shows the desperation and butt hurt of you clowns, I have been accused of sock puppeting on an account where I had only 1 at the time, and was blocked, I even seen seveal people fall to this majority say of bias to get people blocked when all they have is false rants, so lol at your attempt to being all noble or acting the the rules are even on the same level as its justification or valid other than bandwagoning. You are the duck, keep quacking clown. Rotaci ( talk) 01:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC) |
The best place where to find detailed information about fights between captive lions and tigers in this Empire is this. Other articles, like this one, should not have to be that detailed about it, and likewise, for fights between captive bears and bulls, or other animals. Leo1pard ( talk) 08:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
References
Leo1pard ( talk) 08:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The roman empire had many bases includinf Consantinaople, the wester area. Before moving to the Byzantine. When Islam took over the war, they won a war against the romans eastern base. Due to heavy armour disadvantage. 80.192.167.114 ( talk) 18:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Addition to "Hystorical Era": 36.37.140.115 ( talk) 16:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change ((Germanic)) to ((Germanic peoples|Germanic))
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
37.191.105.252 ( talk) 15:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Romans are athletic.
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I question the sentence “The city of Rome was the largest city in the world c. 100 BC – c. AD 400” in the overview. The quote of it is lost, and there is no source to proof that the Roma is larger than Changan and Luoyang, the two capital of the Han dynasty of China which are contemporary with Roma.Change it to “The city of Rome was the largest city in the west world c. 100 BC – c. AD 400”is better. YmfcBytvnirdhy ( talk) 21:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Roman law introduced a separation of courts in the West and the East under Diocletian. 286 has been for years on wiki the year when the Western Roman Empire began. This seems also to be the academic consensus since Theodosius was sole emperor for only a few years before dying in 395. Why did this change? I propose to put 286 as the beginning for the Western and Eastern Roman Empire (in their respective articles too)
Wouldn't that be more correct?
At the very least, put both 286 and 395 in the three infoboxes (286/395 as ending/starting date).
Barjimoa ( talk) 13:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I've seen very few lead sections as large as this one and just today there was an editor ADDING material instead of trimming it, per WP:SIZE. It is still four paragraphs, per the strictures of WP:LEAD, but the first paragraph alone is a monster that could serve as four or five distinct different topics, covering way too much ground with way too much detail for a lead section. Only the absolute major themes and events should be discussed for an empire that lasted so long. We don't need to mention every single war or every major deed of every emperor, just the moments and individuals that were the most consequential. If readers want to see more details, they can read them in the history section of the article or they can be easily directed to the sub article History of the Roman Empire. Pericles of Athens Talk 00:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
This was the last large-scale Jewish revolt against the Romans and was destroyed with massive repercussions in Judea. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed. Hadrian renamed the province of Judea " Provincia Syria Palaestina," after one of Judea's most hated enemies." While I believe all this information is technically true, it certainly does not belong in the lead for an article about the entire Roman Empire and the specific comment about the name Syria Palaestina seems like an unmistakable jab directed at modern Palestinians. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 03:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@ PericlesofAthens, Katolophyromai, and T8612: The single-purpose account is actually a serial sockpuppeteer ( WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Krajoyn) and blocked as such. Favonian ( talk) 16:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
In the "History" section there is a sentence "In 1204 the Sack of Constantinople found place by participants in the Fourth Crusade." "found place by" does not make sense, but I don't know what it was supposed to say. Perhaps someone might have an idea of how to fix it. 86.191.58.150 ( talk) 11:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Reworded a bit. The Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople. Dimadick ( talk) 17:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Why there are so little mentions to the Eastern Wars of the Empire? There are only one mention to Sassanids and one mention to the Parthians! Aryzad ( talk) 16:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Should be "The" not "Tbe"
50.236.211.58 ( talk) 17:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Jack M 6/28/19 Done, thanks. T8612 (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
In the section on banking: "A typical bank had fairly limited capital, and often only one principal, though a bank might have as many as six to fifteen principals." What exactly is this supposed to mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.143.92.129 ( talk) 23:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The last two paragraphs summarizing the ultimate fate of the Eastern half Roman Empire were removed. While these details are described in the Byzantine Empire, I don't see any need to remove them here. There's also an article on the Western Roman Empire; should we remove details about its fate as well? I'm not aware of any current scholarly consensus that denies the political, social, and cultural continuity between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire; this is especially important given that the latter name is a relatively modern historiographical invention and its people referred to it as the "Roman Empire," and so did those who ultimately conquered it. See Byzantine_Empire#Nomenclature for more. Surely we can keep a measly *two* paragraphs to give readers the ultimate fate of the Roman Empire (which is what the section was intended to do)? Global Cerebral Ischemia ( talk) 13:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
An editor recently added the unsourced claim that the invasions of the migration period were driven by climate change. This is strange given that the article on the migration period only mentions an extreme weather event during the 530s, roughly sixty years after the fall of the Western Empire. Given that the sentence is explicitly about the effect of the migration period on the fall of Western half of the Empire, any possible effects of climate change in the 530s as a driver for the invasions are irrelevant. Furthermore, both the article on this extreme weather event and the Late Antique Little Ice Age which followed only mention a possible (apparently highly disputed, according to the articles) effect on the Plague of Justinian. Given this, I'm deleting the added claim about climate change driving the invasions of the migration period. Global Cerebral Ischemia ( talk) 12:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
In the box "Roman Empire" on the right side of the article, in the section "Government" under "Emperors" not all emperors are listed. Is there a specific reason for this? What must be done for other emperors to be listed? Here are some of the missing emperors:
Just to name a few. How can this information or metadata be integrated? Lwangaman ( talk) 12:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The link to
vassal in the infobox under the map should be changed to
vassal state, because the vassal article is about people and not lands (I believe this is the intended target). I.e. with its [[vassal]]s in pink
should be changed to with its [[vassal state|vassal]]s in pink
.
PikaSamus (
talk) 01:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The Roman Empire is not 5.000.000 kmq, this is a data found in Taangera, who has no sources about it. But it covers around 3.500.000 miles square, inclusive mare nostrum, see The Essential World History by William J. Duiker and Jackson Spielvogel, pag. 104. A glaring mistake in Taaganera is to say that the Han dynasty was over six million square kilometers. But he himself admits that the estimates for the first Han dynasty fluctuate between 4.4 million and six million, the latter erroneous estimate, it is only necessary to calculate the current provinces. Furthermore, the second Han dynasty is the same size as the first, and there he does not place an oscillation range. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.27.116.82 ( talk) 11:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
5.000.000 kmq is too small, the real extension is about 6.100.000 kmq or 6.500.000 kmq. Infact, you can do this
3.500.000 miles square, i.e. 9.000.000 kmq, but without mare nostrum, 2.500.000 kmq, you can put 6.500.000 kmq. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.27.112.31 (
talk) 08:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Infact all is 5.300.000 kmq without Africa, if you add tripolitania 353.000 kmq, cyrenaica, 285.000 kmq, it is 5.938.000 kmq, moroco 195.000 kmq, i.e. 6.133.000 kmq, and algeria 270.000 kmq, 481.980 kmq with Settimius Severus, 6.403.000 kmq. Crimea, Pontus, 87.000 kmq. 6.517.000 kmq — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.19.33.232 (
talk) 09:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
If you try to draw the boundaries with a calculator map area program, you will have an empire about 6.500.000 sq km large. So we have Africa 1.867.906 kmq West 1.149.897 kmq East 951.394 kmq Italy Greece 433.297 kmq East Asia 1.132.367 kmq Turkey 783.356 kmq Ponto 90.000 kmq All sources clearly speak of about or over 6,500,000 sq km.
Britain's Imperial Administrators, 1858-1966, by A. Kirk-Greene, pag. 23.
War, by DK, pag.43.
A Companion to the Roman Empire, by David S. Potter, pag. 285 (in this 3.500.000 miles square but inclusive mare nostrum)
World History to 1500: To 1500, by William J. Duiker, Jackson J. Spielvogel, (in this 3.500.000 miles square but inclusive mare nostrum)
Australian History Series: The ancient world, by Fiona Back, pag. 14.
Ancient Rome: Facts at Your Fingertips, by DK, pag. 147.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.49.47 ( talk) 10:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please adding Wiki-links to Emperor Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva after Augustus and before Trajan ( the list of emperors on the right of the page) Lalaland741852963 ( talk) 23:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the window section, the official languages of the state are not listed as AD or BC. Just 610. Perhaps this should be changed for clarification. 87.57.185.92 ( talk) 11:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Original "The Eastern Roman Empire, usually described by modern historians as the Byzantine Empire"
This is an unreferenced claim and this is wrong because only Holy Roman Empire historians consistently describe Eastern Roman Empire as Byzantine Empire. Many modern historian start to realize that HRE describe the Eastern Roman Empire as Byzantine Empire for their own propaganda purposes.
I suggest it to be changed to "The Eastern Roman Empire, usually described by German historians as the Byzantine Empire" Selfoe ( talk) 11:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I think that the 2nd and 3rd sentences of the page should be reworded or redone to give the intro of the page a better flow as right now it’s seems/reads a little strangely to me. Especially the 3rd sentences structure of from the/to the doesn’t seem like the best and most clear way to express the information. Max3218 ( talk) 20:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
95.147.204.220 ( talk) 15:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
i want to edit because all of the roman empire website is not up to date
Senatus Populusque Romanus = The Senate and the People of Rome. [1] [2]
I edited this because the translation itself was on a different page 93.95.87.186 ( talk) 21:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
196.25.72.182 ( talk) 05:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I noticed this article recently got a "Too long" template, and the Good article criteria says that if it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid, it should be an immediate reason to decline its good article status. If this also counts as a ground for reassessing it, that means either the template should be removed or it should be reassessed as a good article. I'm not going to tag it with a request for reassessment because I'm not familiar with the good article process. --- Mullafacation { talk page| user page} 10:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I want to add some clarity on the opening paragraph. My comments are in two separate points below.
The first paragraph has a sentence that says "After the military crisis, the empire was ruled by multiple emperors who shared rule over the Western Roman Empire and over the Eastern Roman Empire (also known as the Byzantine Empire)". Given it is historians that have given this name only after the collapse in 1453, could we make it more accurate by saying "(known as the Byzantine Empire due to modern historiographic standards)". It needs this distinguishing statement to help explain why a different term is being used for the Eastern provinces. This has the benefit of making people aware of bias in history, especially if we link it to a page about historiography. I don't care how this is written but as we all know the term 'Byzantine Empire' is a modern invention to help us understand complexity and not actually a different empire. Elias ( talk) 08:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The final sentence of the first paragraph says: "The fall of the Western Roman Empire to Germanic kings, along with the hellenization of the Eastern Roman Empire into the Byzantine Empire, conventionally marks the end of Ancient Rome and the beginning of the Middle Ages." This should acknowledge that outside of a new capital and Greek-language adoption, that Christianity made the official religion is also one of the the three big things that differentiated the Roman Empire into the Classical Age versus the Medieval Age, or at least why modern historians use it as the basis for calling it a different empire. Rewritten it could be: "The fall of the Western Roman Empire to Germanic kings, along with the hellenization of the Eastern Roman Empire and the adoption of Christianity as state religion to become the Byzantine Empire, conventionally marks the end of Ancient era and the beginning of the Middle Ages." Elias ( talk) 09:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Eastern and Western was only a administrative divisions of the Roman empire, the terms Byzantines, Eastern etc are modern exonyms. The official name in the "Eastern", "Byzantine" empire was Imperium Romanum and latter change to the koine greek Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων.-- Gfim95 ( talk) 23:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Eastern Roman Empire" to "Roman Empire in the Medieval Era" in the Succeeded by section. Harry Hinderson ( talk) 23:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The list is selective perhaps by historical significance? Whatever...the selection criteria should be mentioned or the incompleteness highlighted. Timmytimtimmy ( talk) 00:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace the default map of the Roman Empire with this one, because the new one has better design, shows both Senatorial and Imperial provinces, etc. (Should this edit be rejected please subject it to community consensus). EDIT PLEASE READ: I'm reactivating this request because the community needs to take a decision about this, because the actual image that I want to replace is not good, a lot of users have complains about it and it isn't 100% accurate. May I ask for an Administrator hearing? 190.141.88.53 ( talk) 00:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest we update the current image to this one: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/assets/4822044/RomanEmpire_117.svg.png Because the current one cannot be zoomed in, it's like sliced, etc. Upload VOX (Commons originated) image to Commons once again, and do the edit. 190.218.30.203 ( talk) 02:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The current image in the article is a vector version of the file, so it is more scalable and can be shown at any resolution. The VOX image, on the other hand, is a raster rendering of the same file, meaning it's definitely not more scalable than the file currently being used. It's also possible to download other resolutions (or the original SVG, which is infinitely scalable as mentioned above) at the file page. Can you elaborate on what these flaws with the current image are if not scalability? Bsoyka 🗣️ 04:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the current resolution of the image, to this one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/RomanEmpire_117.svg/2560px-RomanEmpire_117.svg.png 190.218.30.203 ( talk) 22:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, there's a problem: The Han Dynasty and its topic are featured/good ones, while The Roman Empire is only a good article with no topic featuring... How can we change this situation? I have read some articles about the Roman Empire here on Wikipedia, and they're honestly pretty bad (For example, The Constitutions of Ancient Rome and the Dominate were horrible). 190.218.30.203 ( talk) 19:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
this website is not reliable please proof read on other sites before using this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.108.145 ( talk) 03:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
In the paragraph "Transportation", an intern link to Rhine river is missing. In this paragraph information is missing about transport via waterways. Archeological findings in The Netherlands and Germany along Rhine river, part of the Northern border ( limes) / Limes Germanicus) have shown that heavy barks have been used to transport all kind of goods, from building material to whine, and for transportation of legionaries, among others over Rhine river to Britain. Very well conserved Roman ships with a lenght up to 32 meters have been found along Oude Rijn river, at Xanten (Germany) Woerden and Zwammerdam (The Netherlands). My english and knowledge isn't good enough for contributions to this high-end (compliments!) articel. I hope someone can pick this up. 2001:16B8:1191:2000:853F:D707:3E88:D581 ( talk) 07:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Roman Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To whom it may concern, I request that the box featuring the Government form of the Roman Empire be edited, because currently, it is written that the Roman Empire was an elective absolute monarchy, but that is wrong… Let me explain… I studied the Government system of the Roman Empire for 2 years, and as far as I know, there still was a Senate (legislative body) under the Empire, although it had very little power. I therefore suggest that the information currently written in the infobox about the Roman Empire being an absolute monarchy be corrected and that it is now written that the Roman Empire was a SEMI-absolute monarchy. Yours sincerely, a Wikipedia user. 2001:171B:C9AB:14A0:ADB5:F900:1294:C74E ( talk) 21:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Citation for how the rediscovery of Greek and Roman science and technology formed the basis of Islamic science 122.11.214.134 ( talk) 11:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The entry under the section “Geography and deforestation” speaks about Plato’s description of the deforestation. This is hardly relevant, though, as Plato was not directly in contact with the Romans during his lifetime. If he is writing about the deforestation committed by another civilization, then his description is irrelevant and should not be quoted, as the quote is misleading. 62.18.192.73 ( talk) 18:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jwuerfel. Peer reviewers:
Darrendi.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Waltersaraceni.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Could there be a link to slave societies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.131.228 ( talk) 16:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not at all informed about Roman emperors, but the infobox lists only a few dozen, whereas if I refer to the article List of Roman emperors, there are many many more. Is that list just the important ones? Nikolaih ☎️ 📖 18:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
This subject was discussed a decade ago, at which point AD/BC was kept. However, the world has moved on since then. Is it time to reconsider switching to CE/BCE? Daniel Wagenaar ( talk) 04:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I have never posted anything, so I don't know how to make edits. That said, I see that there is a large gap in the list of emporeors beginning with Hadrian in 117. Hadrian has a Wiki page, so would someone mind linking that to the list? 151.213.181.100 ( talk) 13:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
In the "Literacy, books, and education" section, there is a header warning that says that the article does not include more information about the use of papyrus, but I have looked around the internet and haven't been able to really find any sources that state more details about papyrus in the Empire. I think we should delete this warning then. Thoughts? ZetaFive ( talk) 19:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, The health section in the top is a bit strange. I think it should be a subsection of either daily life or society. What do you think? Theklan ( talk) 11:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
In the first introductory paragraph, it reads "From the accession of Caesar Augustus as the first Roman emperor... ", and then in the following paragraph it says, "Octavian's power became unassailable and the Roman Senate granted him overarching power and the new title of Augustus, making him the first Roman emperor."
I'm in no way a history buff, so I don't know which is the true statement and can't correct it, but I found this confusing. Greyvenn ( talk) 05:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Why are those emperors missing in the right summary frame? (and the same in History of the Roman Empire)
References
At over 22k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. Additionally its excessive length means that it may no longer meet the GA criteria. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
"[I]n the western provinces ... it was used at all levels"gives the impression that local languages were completely superseded, which the following subsection directly contradicts, and I don't know what evidence we might have that it was used at the 'lowest' levels. The current
"Latin was the language of the law courts in the West and of the military throughout the Empire, but was not imposed officially on peoples brought under Roman rule"is well written on several levels; it makes clear and restrained claims per sources, consistent with the following subsection, and is eminently readable. The proposed
in the east, Greek was still used outside of administrative businessreplaces that with an unclear statement; what counts as "administrative business", and why should courts and the correspondence of emperors be excluded from it? The brief geographic note is helpful and should be essentially kept, as the Geography section above doesn't even hint where we'd find the east/west divide for language or other purposes. Yes, most of the sentence about Alexander's policy could go if the following sentence flowed on better, and that might include "Alexander's conquests and the policies of his successors".
This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
At 10,000 words it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries
Opinions vary as to what counts as an ideal length; judging the appropriate size depends on the topic and whether it easily lends itself to being split up.
At over XXk words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. Additionally its excessive length means that it may no longer meet the GA criteria.It's as if you hadn't read this article at all (or the others that you tagged), or considered the topic and whether it easily lends itself to being split up, or examined the extent to which sections have been moved to other articles and replaced with summaries, and still haven't. NebY ( talk) 11:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)