![]() | Western Roman Empire has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
ChristopherNoell21 (
article contribs).
I have edited the small part about the Parthian threat. The article failed to note that the Roman Empire, on numerous occasions attempted to invade Parthia (later Persia under Sassanian dynasty). Just like the Parthians, the Romans failed in invading their neighbour. The Romans, attempted to invade on more occasions - Sassanian king Shapur warned the Romans about their impending defeat, yet Valerian ignored the advice and was subsequently captured by Shapur; as was another Roman Emperor (who's name i forget.).
The article, later describes Valerian's capture; hence my disclusion of this note in the Parthian Section.
Temporary (hopefully) redirect until someone sees fit to expand this. -- Itai 15:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Do we really need all of this history concerning the eastern provinces under the Roman Republic? The eastern empire did have a noticeably different culture than did the western half. However, that was not the ultimate cause for the split of the empire into 2 was a combination of the distances involved & the events of the 3rd & 4th centuries. Once divided, the different cultures did play a major role in keeping the 2 parts from effectively reuniting -- but so did Justinian's ultimate failure in reconquering the Western half.
I'd like to see this entire section removed -- or at least reduced to a brief background paragraph or two. -- llywrch 17:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Added and edited a few sections. I am going to revise openning sections a bit, and esspecially focus on the economic collapse of Italy, and eventually much of the West during the 2nd and 3rd Century. -- Masamax 10:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Added section titled "Economic Division" detailing the economic decline of the west during the late empire. -- Masamax 08:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I deleted vandalism, I will delete next time too. Zello 20:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
On first reading, the particular mention of Monophysitism in the East strikes me as NPOV. Is there a particular reason why they should be mentioned, and not for example Nestorianism, or German Arianism in the West?
I think you are right, and anyway it's better to leave out all heresy from the head. Zello 00:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I am doing some major restructuring and copyediting - when I started reading the article, without much background knowledge, I found it lacked some basic definitional information - like what the Western RE was, where it was, when it was, etc., and much of the opening para dealt with differences from the Byzantine and reasons the Byzantine thrived. I hope I'm improving the article... Kaisershatner 17:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I made this Template:Western Roman Empire infobox in a effort to improve this article. My reasons are the following:
It simply "simplifies" things,
Many usefull things are linked in this "box",
It helps to make a easier "over-look",
It seems to a "official policy" in articles about countries,
I really hope you like it and if you think some "data" is wrong, simply correct it. Flamarande 13:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC) PS: I haven´t yet found a good picture of the Western Roman Empire but if you find one simply add it or tell me and I´ll do it. I invented "Ocidentalis", perhaps somebody knows the correct term?
oh? I thought it was PARS OCCIDENTALIS.
I think this article needs to be reorganized a little. Although I think the data is good, I think it needs to be better organized for an easier read.
-- Masamax 11:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
What are you planning? Flamarande 12:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This part of the article hardly seems accurate to the description. It seems mostly to be obsessed with Augustus and his rise to power. I am going to edit it to be more accurate to the heading, if no one objects? -- Masamax 16:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Do it, but be carefull. Notice that I made that paragraph with such detail (list of the provinces) to explain that the political east - west division did NOT came out the blue. It had been done before between Ocatavian and Antony and there also was a cultural division. Flamarande 12:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought I should explain why I added the clean up tag... I did quick read-through of the text and found dozens of typos and poor sentences. The article badly needs a good going over. I corrected the errors I spotted, but the frequency of problems concerned me enough to think it needs someone to look into it in more depth -- hence the clean up tag. Anyone? - Motor ( talk) 21:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Along the subject of clean up, I've noticed many pages moving from the Anno Domini to the Current Era format. Since the last mofifications have been aimed at the ADs should these be transformed to CEs while where on the subject? Dryzen 16:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
This article has no need to use either AD or CE. Common practice is to use AD or CE, only in a date range which spans eras (see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras). Paul August ☎ 21:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What were the Eastern and Western Empire called in Latin and in Greek (with their translations in English)? Ahassan05 23:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)ahassan05
I found in some original documents "in partibus orientis" for eastern empire and "occidentis" for western.
The Bizantines called theiself "romani" in latin and "romanoi" in the greek period (after Justinian).
Also the musulmans called the bizantines "romans", and conquering a part of bizantine country thei founded the "Rum" (from "roman") caliphate.
-- Lorenzo Fratti 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
In the middle of finals right now, but I figured I'd propose a slight reorganization of this article under the following guide:
-Reasons Behind Division
--Political Effectiveness
--Economic Factors
--Western Roman Army
--Origins of East/West Schism
-History of the Western Empire
--Principate
--Crisis of the Third Century
--Tetrarchy
--Constantine Dynasty
--Final Division
--Fall of the Western Empire
--Byzantine Reconquest
-Legacy of the Roman Empire in Western Europe
--Catholic Church
--Romance Languanges
--Roman Law
-List of Roman Emperors
-- Masamax 17:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Masa, 1st we have to reorganize the article about the Roman empire and only then should we reform this article. It is easy to propose reforms and then never to carry them out. Flamarande 15:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It says somewhere in the intro that the WRE ended "officially" in 476, whereas the point is that exactly this did not happen. It may have ended de facto that year, 'officially', it was reunited after having been split between Augustus Romulus and Julius Nepos and the latter continued to be its Emperor until 480. At that date (officialy), either the Western Empire ended, or it was reunited with the Eastern Empire, I don't know what the sources say about this.
Wow, just wow. you took a detour Just to offend Christians in a historical disscussion. I happen to be one and that little remark you made I find offensive and totally off subject!! >:(
Ok, I wrote a small paragraph detailing the whole issue. I hope you are happy now. Flamarande 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The word barbarian is used many times and always in quotes (""). But the reason for the use of quotes is never explained to the reader. Would it be better to replace barbarians with Germanic tribes and make a single mention that the German tribes were sometimes called 'barbarians'? Ashmoo 03:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
By Mongols I think you mean Huns. Quintus Petronius Augustus 12:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintus Petronius Augustus ( talk • contribs)
I was puzzled by the following paragraph.
In what sense did these efforts fail to "resurrect" the Roman Empire? In other words, how would one define a "successful" resurrection of the Empire? -- Mcorazao 04:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I found something to change:
fi
1- the Christianity as religion. When the west empire was founded by Diocletian (not so keen on this religion :-) this religion was still prohibited, just untill the 313 (Edipt of Milan). But Costantinus never declared the cr. the official religion of Empire. But the chr. diffused in some countries of the W Empire even after his fall, mhen the diffusion was largeley ufinished.
At this time the religions was differents: the pagan religion one, the celtic, etc
2 the list of emperors on the table on the right is uncomplete, because the first Western Emperor was
Maximianus 286-305, the augustus colleague of Diocletian. And after Galerius, Valentinianus, Gratianus, Aureolus and so on, like on the bottom.
But I'm afraid to change these myself these data with no disasters
Thenks for your patience.-- Lorenzo Fratti 18:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I am tired about story how Diocletian has made division of Roman Empire. He has not done anything other but confirmed division between Carus and Numerian which has ruled before him..-- Rjecina 7:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC
Sorry, but I'm not agree :-) I think the two situations are completely different. Numerianus follows his father in war, meanwhile his brother stayng in Rome. There is no geographical division, just different delocation of the same power, I mean, of some person from same family, with one augustus and two caesars, a main pole (Rome) and remote one close to finibus imperii. Weh the father died, there was two colleagues, the access of power was an access to one half of power ;-) This is not a true division. Numerianus and Carinus thei was just two coleagues, and Numerianus himself (when got Caesar - > Augustus) moved to Rome thinking to partecipate at the same power in the same city of his brother, with no clear perspectives (Differents sources represents differents situations, but prob Mumerialus left the war and got back to Rome and was killed in this circumstance). Numerianus, I mean, when got Augustus got an half-augustus in the same place, and I dont'see any geographical division of Empire, neither western or eastern. So, I can't imagine the west empire was founded in this circumstace...
Diocles (the only emperor and absolute monocrates, wit no parents, relatives or limitation in his to be princeps) reformed the empire in many aspects, and one among these was the 1-OFFICIAL 2-PERMANENT (in his mind) 3-IDEAL 4-ADMINISTRATIVE 5-COMPLETE and wit no PRELATIONS or any sort of difference (except the geographical area, of course) in two distinct parts, both with the same dignity, with no predominance or more or less importance, no fathers, patrons, titula and so on :-)
The most original (and paradox) of this formula is in cutting off Rome: In this way, at the same time
1-the urbs Romae is too important to get "one beetwen" two capitals, but
2-Rome is not enough important to have a specific role in distribution ofthe power .
This is an important reform, because duplicates the burocracy (cfr Jones, The Later Roman... Blackwell, Oxford) and formed the ideal "tetrarchy", like a permanent structure of the empire. This formula felt immediately, but the two parts survive (with some intermittences)in the mind of Emperors even when thei are the uniques monarca(the same Costantinus reformed the Diocetian's idea , but everybody had in mind there are two parts) until the fall of western and eastarn one dominations, everyone in differents ways, times, culture etc etc etc.
The demnostation of my idea? In the Eastern Empire (the bizantine one) sometimes there was two augusti (one time there was also 5 -I tell five- augusti at the same time!) but nobody think this represented a division of the bizantine empire....
Regards--
Lorenzo Fratti
23:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
A very simple question, so simple in fact that it is weird to notice NOTHING about this: who is the FIRST christian emperor, seeding christianism throughout the world via the Catholic Church? Please, when you write articles, be objective. This information is a primer, but nothing about it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.50.68 ( talk) 04:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
One of my most respected sources, Bruce Gordan's Regnal Chrononlogies, makes a mention in his entry for the city of Constantine in north Africa. And Euratlas' maps of Europe in 500 AD and 600 AD both show a "Kingdom of the Romans and Moors in Algeria, not under Vandal control.
Would it be plausible to then say that part of the Western Empire survived the fall of Nepos and Syagrius? I unfortunately don't yet have more information, and wanted to bring it to your mutual attentions. It would make a very interesting note in this and a few other articles... Respectfully, Thomas Lessman ( talk) 07:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
This map is relevant to the article because it shows the remnants of the Western Empire, the Eastern Empire, and other nations the WRE interacted with in one way or another. Besides, the map was already scaled down. Srnec just hates the maps period. There's no reason to delete it, and it is FAR more relevant to this article than the map of Parthia, which NEVER interacted with the WRE. Thomas Lessman ( talk) 18:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
My map shows Persia, which did have some interaction with WRE and ERE. The Parthians fell in 224, the WRE/ERE first split didn't happen until the 290s. And as already stated, this map you are referring to is NOT a full hemishpere map; it's already been scaled down to show only the near-eastern area. It gives readers great info about that part of the world during the time of the fall of the west. Also gives valuable info about placement of successors, conquerers, etc. Eventually the map could be customized to highlight the WRE, at least when I get time and info available. For now, the main argument against it is that it shows too much info or too many nations? That enhances article, giving readers more information about the Romans and the world they lived in. The map should stay. Thomas Lessman ( talk) 20:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
And eventually the map could highlight WRE lands to make them stand out, same way the map on the Byzantine Empire article highlights ERE lands. Just "showing too many nations" is not an argument against the map, it's an argument FOR the map, because it gives readers valuable info about the peoples who interacted with the Romans one way or another. Gives readers better ideas of what other peoples to read about too. Other maps doesn't show nearly as much detail, and it's all relevant to the article. FAR more relevant than the image of Parthia, which fell before there ever was a WRE. Thomas Lessman ( talk) 20:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Who's not reading? Parthia fell before there was ever a WRE. Persia existed during WRE times, even interacted with WRE emperors. Parthia NEVER interacted with ANY WRE emperor. Yet you and Srnec delete my map because it shows "too much information"? And you leave the map that shows a nation which never interacted with the WRE. Again, who's not reading? The map adds useful information that gives readers a great idea of the world and neighbors of the WRE. Leave it. Thomas Lessman ( talk) 20:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Flamarande, for someone not interested in a revert war, you sure seem determined to get these maps off of pages where they provide useful information. Show me what other maps on the article show the WRE, the ERE, and the peoples and tribes they were in conflict or traded with? I'm not saying any of the other maps should be deleted, but the Near East map should stay.
You mentioned the WRE/ERE of Octavian and Antony, but they are never recognized as such (though I admit that you should bring that into discussion of the articles, as they would be some kind of predecessor, in any case something to think about). But the maps were designed to show a lot of information, relevant to the article, and you should leave it up while we discuss whether they should stay or not. Don't just arbitrarily delete them. Thomas Lessman ( talk) 11:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully Flamarande, you're comparing apples and oranges. I'm not advocating deleting ANY maps, but instead saying we need to leave the different maps up. What's so bad about providing additional information on an article? There's a section for "See Also" on most articles, which includes some articles on neighbors, allies, enemies, etc. - that's what helps readers learn more about history than just what's in that particular article. Having two or more maps that each show different information helps readers get a better understanding of the subject.
There's nothing wrong with having more than one map on an article, especially when each map shows different information. The map of Gaul in 481 shows details my maps simply can't show, like cities. The NE map has details the Gaul map can't show, like who their neighbors were and what their lands they ruled, possible allies and trading partners (you'd never know there was another Roman enclave like Syagrius' domains, only in north Africa, by looking at that map of Gaul.)
Again, I'm advocating keeping BOTH maps, because they both provide different but useful information for readers, and they improve the quality of Wikipedia in general. Thomas Lessman ( talk) 13:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, what's wrong with leaving two maps up, if they both show different information that is relevant and useful to the article? The maps I made show info that is accurate and relevant to the article. The "search" for the subject is very minimal - the maps were already scaled down for that reason. When you click on any of the maps, you can easily see the larger version of that map, and thus can easily see the subject, their neighbors, and their neighbor's neighbors. It shows you what kind of scale the subject was on in the world of their time. If readers aren't interested in that info, they don't have to click on the map and thus no harm done. But don't remove that extra information from the readers just because it doesn't focus directly on the subject, especially when it STILL contains information very relevant to the article and helpful to the readers. Thomas Lessman ( talk) 13:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You bring up a good point with the Topeka article, though in my opinion it would be best if articles about cities show 1. Map of city, 2. map of province or state, 3. map of nation, and 4. map of city's position in world or hemisphere. With history articles about nations, they should show 1: zoomed in for local (major cities, provinces, etc.), 2. zoomed out for region (nation & neighbors), and 3. location in world or world region (nation, region, wider region). Thus giving readers access to more information if they are interested in it, but not "forcing" it on them. Again, what's wrong with showing more than one map? Thomas Lessman ( talk) 13:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you seeing what I'm seeing?
"...for this is in my blood"? meh
That wasn't in the code. I checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.200.179 ( talk) 16:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC) And now it's happened to Halo 2. And no-one seems to be doing nything. WP COVER-UP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.200.179 ( talk) 19:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The page is completely blanked now. I've tried to revert it but I'm not able to.
Exiledone ( talk) 21:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the motto is SPQR, couldn't it be said that is also the flag? JuliusNero ( talk) 02:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Only 20% of Basques use the Basque language usually while the overwhelming majority (80%) speak in Spanish usually.-- 88.18.148.161 ( talk) 05:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
And I doubt that in Britanny the majority language is not French...
Know theres an article just on the Galulic Roman Empire Wikipedia But wondering if article could provide a link to this Wkipedia article. ?Thanks!evepmdtadewedo8110921stcentdeced. Aslashingsword ( talk) 03:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This line is anachronistic:
" as well as the recognition and support of the powerful Catholic Church"
What power exactly did the Church have beyond the loyalty of conquered peoples in the 5th & 6th century in the midst of barbarian ruled & ruined Italy? The temportal power the Catholic Church had was either:
1) After the fall of first Byzantine Italy, then Frankish rule, when the Pope protected himself 2) With the rise of the European Medieval Monarchs.
Neither of the 2 conditions above being true at the time of the Germanic invasion - the Germans did not benefit from the Pope's power, rather they gave him temporal support in exchange for spiritual support (conditional upon their conversion, which they eventually did, to Nicaean Catholic Christianity). 98.176.7.5 ( talk) 02:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the passage about the eastern provinces having been "always wealthier,". Precisely, there's no conclusive evidence that the orient was much richer during the high empire. Italy was by far the richest province and in the west, Tunisia, southern spain and southern Africa were also very prosperous (just as Egypt, except for Alexandria, had a poor population). The main point is that precisely, starting in the 3rd century, we see a shift in power from west to the east, with a stagnating Italy and other regions (notably Gaul) devastated by war. It's at that time that western cities started to recede and become more fortified, a phenomenon that started several centuries later in the orient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.181.126.68 ( talk) 16:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that Dacia is not included as part of the Western Roman Empire in the introductory infobox map, which claims to depict the Western Roman Empire's maximum extent. I'm not familiar with the exact demarkation between the Western and the Eastern empires in that area, but given that Dacia was an entirely new conquest not part of the traditional Hellenic realm and given the fact that use of Latin became widespread in Dacia, it would seem logical to assume that Dacia being culturally part of the Latin West also was part of the Western Roman Empire? I would appreciate a clarification as to whether it was, or why it wasn't if it was not. Abvgd ( talk) 02:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Calling SPQR the "motto" of the WRE is pushing it a bit. It is a designation of the idealised souvereignty of the res publica, but not a "motto". Any sources that would call it that? Trigaranus ( talk) 05:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we should add a links to the articles about the Gothic War (535–554)and Vandalic War under the section about the the Byzantine reconquest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.145.0 ( talk) 13:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The great tsunami of 365 has no relevance except possibly to the decline of the imperial rule in the western territories. Even if that is the intention, it is not stated, and it is placed randomly in the article. This has to be removed or fixed.
Hyperum ( talk) 13:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Hyperum
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Iazyges ( talk · contribs) 12:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
GA Criteria
|
---|
GA Criteria:
|
Would you mind if I switch the refs to {{sfn}}? -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This article mixes references written freehand (i.e., without a template) with one {{ cite book}}. Templates are your friends. Templates are a HUGE help in avoiding errors and inconsistencies, and checking for the same.
To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:
importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
to
Special:MyPage/common.js .importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');
. Save that page..citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */
.When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link; archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Iazyges: I saw you put up that the sections under the List of Western Roman Emperors needed expansion but I really intended them to only be short summaries to not detract from the main function of the section, as a list. Ichthyovenator ( talk) 08:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
"when he was murdered by Arbogast."
Should we state it as a certainty? The idea that Valentinian II was murdered rests on the testimony of Zosimus (6th century). The only contemporary source about the death is a work by Ambrose (d. 397), but is rather ambiguous on the cause of death. The article on Valentinian II notes the uncertainty. Dimadick ( talk) 01:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Iazyges, Ichthyovenator, Dimadick: I am quite surprised to see that the scope of this article has been expanded all the way back to 285! While there is merit to tracing the history of the imperial divisions begun with the Tetrarchy, the WRE as a term is pretty always considered as the polity that began with the death of Theodosius I in 395. The change was therefore very much WP:OR, even if well-intentioned (and a similar change was made in the infobox to the Byzantine Empire, with far less justification IMO). I've already fixed the infobox in this regard, but the list of emperors remains as it is for now, starting with Diocletian. Before I take the shears to it, and possibly launch an edit-war, I wanted to give you a heads up and possibly a chance to provide some sources supporting its retention in its present form. Constantine ✍ 16:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
"If the WRE started in 395, including the emperors before that is beside the point."
Why is that? The division of the two halves is pretty much solidified with the Valentinian dynasty, and Theodosius I only briefly unified them (392–395). Dimadick ( talk) 19:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: JohnWickTwo ( talk · contribs) 13:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
It should take a day or two to start this assessment. In the meantime, could you indicate what drew you to doing this article and of this article's relation to its sibling articles on Byzantium and the older Roman Empire.
JohnWickTwo (
talk)
13:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
0 Lead section
1 Background
1.1 Rebellions and political developments
1.2 Crisis of the Third Century
1.3 Tetrarchy
1.4 Further divisions
2 History
2.1 Reign of Honorius
.2 Escalating barbarian conflicts
2.3 Internal unrest and Majorian
2.4 Collapse
2.5 Fall of the Empire
3 Political aftermath
3.1 Germanic Italy
3.2 Barbarian Kingdoms
3.3 Imperial reconquest
4 Economic decline
5 Legacy
5.1 Nomenclature
5.2 Attempted restorations of a Western court
5.3 Later claims to the Imperial title in the West
6 List of Western Roman Emperors
6.1 Tetrarchy (286–313)
6.2 Constantinian dynasty (309–363)
6.3 Non-dynastic (363–364)
6.4 Valentinian dynasty (364–392)
6.5 Theodosian dynasty (392–455)
6.6 Non-dynastic (455–480)
Preliminary outline for assessment; do not alter the outline portion until notification.
JohnWickTwo (
talk)
12:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
My initial assessment for the past day or two has been based on the 2 of you as co-nominators who believe that this article is at a peer review level comparable to the GA article for Roman Empire and the FA article for Byzantine Empire. A closer look at your article compared to these 2 sibling articles seems to point out some very direct contrasts which appear to be unfavorable to a side-by-side comparison and I am hoping that I am just over-looking something which the 2 of you will clarify quickly for me. First is that the Infobox for this article for the Western Roman Empire appears to be poorly developed compared to the two sibling articles I just mentioned; "Notable" emperors appear to replace a full list of emperors as they appear in the Roman Empire article; the years of the empire do appear to be consistent and I am not even sure your Infobox clearly stated the dates for the Western Roman Empire; and just what is the relation of the ambiguous and overlapping dates between these 2 articles for the Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire, are you planning a redundant coverage of the overlapping historical periods or do you plan some larger re-organization. Moving to a second point here. The lede section appears to have a poor sense of time frame and its own historical placement; in fact the first date you list in your lede appears only in the second paragraph which is the exact opposite of what is done in the 2 sibling articles I have mentioned here for comparison which have clear dating explicitly stated from the first lede paragraph onwards throughout their own lede sections. On to the 3rd point which is the structural outline which you are using for your article which does not appear to have the same degree of organization which I see in both of the 2 other peer review articles I have singled out here for direct comparison, since you are asking to place this current article next to them at peer review status upon the completion of this assessment as comparable to them in quality. @ Iazyges and Ichthyovenator: Please respond to all three issues I have raised here since I appear to be missing something when faced the discrepancy between the quality in the 2 peer review articles I mentioned on the one hand, and this article you have nominated here for full assessment. I request to hear from both co-nominating editors on these three points in case I am missing something in this article as presented here for assessment. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 00:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Your five items from the last section I have now numbered for convenience with my responses below which answer your inquiries in reverse order, most recent first:
(a) "Using other articles as a comparative for criteria" is not really questionable. There are any number of Wikiprojects which apply shared criteria for the development of sibling articles, for example in Economics, in Law, in "Frankfurt School", etc. These study groups often further establish their shared criteria in a dedicated Subject Infobox which is posted under the regular Infobox for any particular sibling article. It may be useful to create such a generally applied Subject Infobox for these Roman history sibling articles. The articles are interrelated. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
(b) Differences in organization are significant when they affect the quality of an article being reviewed. Because these are 3 sibling articles which are interrelated then the quality of each does bear upon the others. At present, this article or its outline organization is not nearly close to the quality for the FA for Byzantine Empire, and its not very close to the quality of the outline for the GA for Roman Empire. If the structural outline can be made more like the one for Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire, then it might help. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
(c) The dating being applied is of primary importance to this article. The dating here also contradicts the DAB page which gives a start date for both WRE and Byzantine Empire as in the 200s. The 3 articles and the DAB page should be in agreement. Also, Byzantine Empire ought to be used throughout and not Eastern Roman Empire according to the title currently in use for it. Your current article does not seem to do this consistently. The first paragraph of the lede section needs to give the dates fully, consistently and without any unexplained ambiguity. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
(d) The difficulty of not having a Wikiprojects subject Infobox is an issue for these 3 sibling articles (and there are other sibling article but I am confining attention to these 3 articles here). This extends to the issue of naming Emperors selectively and all the other topics in the Infobox as well. They 3 Infoboxes should be structurally consistent and not be re-invented for each and every sibling article as a grassroots development issue. Consistency in outline would be useful here. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
(e) The quality of writing I do not find to be quite as good as that found in either the GA for WRE or the FA for Byzantine Empire. If you believe that it is at B-level or better, then I may need to make a number of challenges. For example, the second sentence of the first paragraph in the lede section appears long-winded and over-worked, and it should be shortened or broken up into 2 sentences after the dating issues are addressed: "The terms "Western Roman Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" are modern inventions that describe political entities that were de facto independent; however, at no point did the Romans themselves consider the Empire to have been split into two separate Empires, but rather continued to consider it a single state but governed by two separate Imperial courts of administrative expediency." There are many such instances of sentences throughout the article which do not appear to be at peer review level of writing. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
These are the responses to your five points. Ping my account when you add your edits or have further questions and clarifications. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
*Well written:
Thanks for your comments. I have also re-read the article again and it is my assessment that this article should be submitted for GOCE editing for improvements and enhancements to the prose and narrative which I find to be significantly lower at present than peer review standards for GA-articles. I have mentioned this per (e) above for excessive length and wordiness in many sentences like the example I have given, which you have chosen not to edit further. Since this article is being recommended for much needed GOCE editing, it is also recommended that an editor there be requested who has experience with preparing articles for the peer review level. Because the current wait time at GOCE is 3-4 weeks, this puts it outside the scope of this peer review assessment and this article is subject to a quick close at this time. It is further recommended that this article not be accepted for re-nomination until GOCE editing is completed and until another impartial editor first promotes it to a B-Class article, since it is currently rated at C-Class. By an impartial editor I mean someone other than the nominating editors here, and only someone who has not been part of the direct editing of this article itself in order to be impartial. If any attempt is made to re-nominate this article serially without first submitting it for GOCE editing, then I recommend that any editor quick close it accordingly as a failed review. This article is currently not promoted. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 15:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. As requested at GOCE I will be copy editing this article. I will be making bold edits where I feel necessary, and relying on you to tell me where I go wrong. So if you disagree with any of my edits, or just don't understand why I have made them, please feel free to flag this up here. Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the caption of the image above the ingobox is in small? Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I am struggling to make sense of this:
"With the support of the Gallic nobility and the barbarian
Burgundians and
Alans, Honorius turned to the Visigoths under King
Ataulf for support against Jovinus."
Perhaps one of you could have a look at it.
"The barbarian kingdoms gradually replaced the old Roman system..."
The article could do with a disambiguation. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The fourth paragraph of this section is uncited. I am also surprised (very) that you have written this section without referring to Ward-Perkins. If you like, once I have finished the copy edit I will add in something from him. (Entirely optional.) Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
"All surviving
Celtic languages,
Albanian, and
Slavic languages such as
Polish and
Czech and even the non-Indo-European
Hungarian." This isn't a sentence. Care to give me a clue as to what it is trying to communicate?
Gog the Mild (
talk)
13:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I have added a map of the Exarchate of Africa, because it seemed to need one. If you disagree just delete it. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't personally like those notes at the bottom of the infobox. Is there a reason why they are not at the bottom as "Notes"? (Eg as in this article - Razing of Friesoythe.) Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
And I am call that a peace. I am sure that there are more bits to pick up, but I am glazing over and I am sure that it is up to GA standard. I shall be back in a day or three to make some input into the Economics section. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Division of the Roman Empire redirects here. I replaced the redirect with a page explaining the basic chronology of the events from Diocletian to Theodosius but it's been reverted asking for a discussion.
Barjimoa ( talk) 21:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack ( talk · contribs) 17:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy to review this, finally! First comments below. Since the article is waiting for a long time, could you, maybe, briefly confirm that you are still on it?
A couple of proposals. (I don't know if I have to put this here since I proposed this in the section above in the talk page):
Barjimoa ( talk) 19:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Closing note: Had the chance to read the rest now, no problems apparent. Very well done article, and the new structure now feels much better. I would encourage to take this to FAC. Passing GA now. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 10:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ichthyovenator. Could I suggest that putting it up for an A class review at MilHist may be a useful way of both testing the water for FA and helping to get it two-thirds of the way there?
And congratulations to both yourself and Iazyges for finally getting this over the line. A huge amount of work.
Gog the Mild ( talk) 13:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The map in the infobox showing the Western Roman Empire's territory is inaccurate, the Romans did not loose their coastal territories in Mauretania as there was a Roman Road System in existent and Rusadir, modern day Melilla was in Roman hands before the Vandals invaded the region. Could we get a updated map eventually? Slapnut1207 ( talk) 18:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The first sentence, which contains the definition, reads
395? Why? This very article lead goes on to contradict the use of this very late date. The list of emperors of the entity includes everything from the Tetrarchy (286–313), to the first emperors of the Theodosian dynasty (392–455), who were all before 395. W/o a clear definition that's not constantly contradicted within the article, it all becomes arbitrary, confusing and useless. What makes the use of the term pre-395 weaker or less well-accepted than after? This belongs at the very start of the article, since everything else depends on it ("it" being the definition, the topic of the whole article.) Arminden ( talk) 16:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Western_Roman_Empire_-_400_AD.png I believe this map would make a better map than the current one. It has more time accurate coastlines, more cities, and shows the western empire closer to it's peak. The first map shown on the Byzantine Empire article is also at it's peak, same with the Roman Empire article, so why should the first map show the Western Empire after it lost land? It feels more appropriate for a section further down. Also, the suggested map is in english while the current one is in spanish, and an english map would be preferable I believe for an english wikipedia article. If the issue is sources, I could see if the original poster can provide some as we've talked before. I am sure she could provide, as she has made many historical maps in the past. MrsColdArrow ( talk) 05:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I once read a contemporary account of "Western Romans" (they used that term) visiting the court of Atilla. They mentioned that "Eastern Romans" were also present. This says to me that it makes perfect sense to speak of a "Western Roman Empire" as a contemporary concept. The way to tell me I'm wrong about this is to cite a source that backs up the claim that nobody talked about a WRE before the middle ages
I have an agenda here: I'd really like to apply WP:REFERS to the opening sentence. But that's difficult as long as the definition of WRE is contentious. Isaac Rabinovitch ( talk) 23:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Western Roman Empire has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
ChristopherNoell21 (
article contribs).
I have edited the small part about the Parthian threat. The article failed to note that the Roman Empire, on numerous occasions attempted to invade Parthia (later Persia under Sassanian dynasty). Just like the Parthians, the Romans failed in invading their neighbour. The Romans, attempted to invade on more occasions - Sassanian king Shapur warned the Romans about their impending defeat, yet Valerian ignored the advice and was subsequently captured by Shapur; as was another Roman Emperor (who's name i forget.).
The article, later describes Valerian's capture; hence my disclusion of this note in the Parthian Section.
Temporary (hopefully) redirect until someone sees fit to expand this. -- Itai 15:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Do we really need all of this history concerning the eastern provinces under the Roman Republic? The eastern empire did have a noticeably different culture than did the western half. However, that was not the ultimate cause for the split of the empire into 2 was a combination of the distances involved & the events of the 3rd & 4th centuries. Once divided, the different cultures did play a major role in keeping the 2 parts from effectively reuniting -- but so did Justinian's ultimate failure in reconquering the Western half.
I'd like to see this entire section removed -- or at least reduced to a brief background paragraph or two. -- llywrch 17:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Added and edited a few sections. I am going to revise openning sections a bit, and esspecially focus on the economic collapse of Italy, and eventually much of the West during the 2nd and 3rd Century. -- Masamax 10:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Added section titled "Economic Division" detailing the economic decline of the west during the late empire. -- Masamax 08:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I deleted vandalism, I will delete next time too. Zello 20:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
On first reading, the particular mention of Monophysitism in the East strikes me as NPOV. Is there a particular reason why they should be mentioned, and not for example Nestorianism, or German Arianism in the West?
I think you are right, and anyway it's better to leave out all heresy from the head. Zello 00:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I am doing some major restructuring and copyediting - when I started reading the article, without much background knowledge, I found it lacked some basic definitional information - like what the Western RE was, where it was, when it was, etc., and much of the opening para dealt with differences from the Byzantine and reasons the Byzantine thrived. I hope I'm improving the article... Kaisershatner 17:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I made this Template:Western Roman Empire infobox in a effort to improve this article. My reasons are the following:
It simply "simplifies" things,
Many usefull things are linked in this "box",
It helps to make a easier "over-look",
It seems to a "official policy" in articles about countries,
I really hope you like it and if you think some "data" is wrong, simply correct it. Flamarande 13:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC) PS: I haven´t yet found a good picture of the Western Roman Empire but if you find one simply add it or tell me and I´ll do it. I invented "Ocidentalis", perhaps somebody knows the correct term?
oh? I thought it was PARS OCCIDENTALIS.
I think this article needs to be reorganized a little. Although I think the data is good, I think it needs to be better organized for an easier read.
-- Masamax 11:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
What are you planning? Flamarande 12:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This part of the article hardly seems accurate to the description. It seems mostly to be obsessed with Augustus and his rise to power. I am going to edit it to be more accurate to the heading, if no one objects? -- Masamax 16:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Do it, but be carefull. Notice that I made that paragraph with such detail (list of the provinces) to explain that the political east - west division did NOT came out the blue. It had been done before between Ocatavian and Antony and there also was a cultural division. Flamarande 12:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought I should explain why I added the clean up tag... I did quick read-through of the text and found dozens of typos and poor sentences. The article badly needs a good going over. I corrected the errors I spotted, but the frequency of problems concerned me enough to think it needs someone to look into it in more depth -- hence the clean up tag. Anyone? - Motor ( talk) 21:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Along the subject of clean up, I've noticed many pages moving from the Anno Domini to the Current Era format. Since the last mofifications have been aimed at the ADs should these be transformed to CEs while where on the subject? Dryzen 16:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
This article has no need to use either AD or CE. Common practice is to use AD or CE, only in a date range which spans eras (see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras). Paul August ☎ 21:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What were the Eastern and Western Empire called in Latin and in Greek (with their translations in English)? Ahassan05 23:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)ahassan05
I found in some original documents "in partibus orientis" for eastern empire and "occidentis" for western.
The Bizantines called theiself "romani" in latin and "romanoi" in the greek period (after Justinian).
Also the musulmans called the bizantines "romans", and conquering a part of bizantine country thei founded the "Rum" (from "roman") caliphate.
-- Lorenzo Fratti 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
In the middle of finals right now, but I figured I'd propose a slight reorganization of this article under the following guide:
-Reasons Behind Division
--Political Effectiveness
--Economic Factors
--Western Roman Army
--Origins of East/West Schism
-History of the Western Empire
--Principate
--Crisis of the Third Century
--Tetrarchy
--Constantine Dynasty
--Final Division
--Fall of the Western Empire
--Byzantine Reconquest
-Legacy of the Roman Empire in Western Europe
--Catholic Church
--Romance Languanges
--Roman Law
-List of Roman Emperors
-- Masamax 17:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Masa, 1st we have to reorganize the article about the Roman empire and only then should we reform this article. It is easy to propose reforms and then never to carry them out. Flamarande 15:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It says somewhere in the intro that the WRE ended "officially" in 476, whereas the point is that exactly this did not happen. It may have ended de facto that year, 'officially', it was reunited after having been split between Augustus Romulus and Julius Nepos and the latter continued to be its Emperor until 480. At that date (officialy), either the Western Empire ended, or it was reunited with the Eastern Empire, I don't know what the sources say about this.
Wow, just wow. you took a detour Just to offend Christians in a historical disscussion. I happen to be one and that little remark you made I find offensive and totally off subject!! >:(
Ok, I wrote a small paragraph detailing the whole issue. I hope you are happy now. Flamarande 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The word barbarian is used many times and always in quotes (""). But the reason for the use of quotes is never explained to the reader. Would it be better to replace barbarians with Germanic tribes and make a single mention that the German tribes were sometimes called 'barbarians'? Ashmoo 03:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
By Mongols I think you mean Huns. Quintus Petronius Augustus 12:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintus Petronius Augustus ( talk • contribs)
I was puzzled by the following paragraph.
In what sense did these efforts fail to "resurrect" the Roman Empire? In other words, how would one define a "successful" resurrection of the Empire? -- Mcorazao 04:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I found something to change:
fi
1- the Christianity as religion. When the west empire was founded by Diocletian (not so keen on this religion :-) this religion was still prohibited, just untill the 313 (Edipt of Milan). But Costantinus never declared the cr. the official religion of Empire. But the chr. diffused in some countries of the W Empire even after his fall, mhen the diffusion was largeley ufinished.
At this time the religions was differents: the pagan religion one, the celtic, etc
2 the list of emperors on the table on the right is uncomplete, because the first Western Emperor was
Maximianus 286-305, the augustus colleague of Diocletian. And after Galerius, Valentinianus, Gratianus, Aureolus and so on, like on the bottom.
But I'm afraid to change these myself these data with no disasters
Thenks for your patience.-- Lorenzo Fratti 18:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I am tired about story how Diocletian has made division of Roman Empire. He has not done anything other but confirmed division between Carus and Numerian which has ruled before him..-- Rjecina 7:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC
Sorry, but I'm not agree :-) I think the two situations are completely different. Numerianus follows his father in war, meanwhile his brother stayng in Rome. There is no geographical division, just different delocation of the same power, I mean, of some person from same family, with one augustus and two caesars, a main pole (Rome) and remote one close to finibus imperii. Weh the father died, there was two colleagues, the access of power was an access to one half of power ;-) This is not a true division. Numerianus and Carinus thei was just two coleagues, and Numerianus himself (when got Caesar - > Augustus) moved to Rome thinking to partecipate at the same power in the same city of his brother, with no clear perspectives (Differents sources represents differents situations, but prob Mumerialus left the war and got back to Rome and was killed in this circumstance). Numerianus, I mean, when got Augustus got an half-augustus in the same place, and I dont'see any geographical division of Empire, neither western or eastern. So, I can't imagine the west empire was founded in this circumstace...
Diocles (the only emperor and absolute monocrates, wit no parents, relatives or limitation in his to be princeps) reformed the empire in many aspects, and one among these was the 1-OFFICIAL 2-PERMANENT (in his mind) 3-IDEAL 4-ADMINISTRATIVE 5-COMPLETE and wit no PRELATIONS or any sort of difference (except the geographical area, of course) in two distinct parts, both with the same dignity, with no predominance or more or less importance, no fathers, patrons, titula and so on :-)
The most original (and paradox) of this formula is in cutting off Rome: In this way, at the same time
1-the urbs Romae is too important to get "one beetwen" two capitals, but
2-Rome is not enough important to have a specific role in distribution ofthe power .
This is an important reform, because duplicates the burocracy (cfr Jones, The Later Roman... Blackwell, Oxford) and formed the ideal "tetrarchy", like a permanent structure of the empire. This formula felt immediately, but the two parts survive (with some intermittences)in the mind of Emperors even when thei are the uniques monarca(the same Costantinus reformed the Diocetian's idea , but everybody had in mind there are two parts) until the fall of western and eastarn one dominations, everyone in differents ways, times, culture etc etc etc.
The demnostation of my idea? In the Eastern Empire (the bizantine one) sometimes there was two augusti (one time there was also 5 -I tell five- augusti at the same time!) but nobody think this represented a division of the bizantine empire....
Regards--
Lorenzo Fratti
23:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
A very simple question, so simple in fact that it is weird to notice NOTHING about this: who is the FIRST christian emperor, seeding christianism throughout the world via the Catholic Church? Please, when you write articles, be objective. This information is a primer, but nothing about it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.50.68 ( talk) 04:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
One of my most respected sources, Bruce Gordan's Regnal Chrononlogies, makes a mention in his entry for the city of Constantine in north Africa. And Euratlas' maps of Europe in 500 AD and 600 AD both show a "Kingdom of the Romans and Moors in Algeria, not under Vandal control.
Would it be plausible to then say that part of the Western Empire survived the fall of Nepos and Syagrius? I unfortunately don't yet have more information, and wanted to bring it to your mutual attentions. It would make a very interesting note in this and a few other articles... Respectfully, Thomas Lessman ( talk) 07:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
This map is relevant to the article because it shows the remnants of the Western Empire, the Eastern Empire, and other nations the WRE interacted with in one way or another. Besides, the map was already scaled down. Srnec just hates the maps period. There's no reason to delete it, and it is FAR more relevant to this article than the map of Parthia, which NEVER interacted with the WRE. Thomas Lessman ( talk) 18:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
My map shows Persia, which did have some interaction with WRE and ERE. The Parthians fell in 224, the WRE/ERE first split didn't happen until the 290s. And as already stated, this map you are referring to is NOT a full hemishpere map; it's already been scaled down to show only the near-eastern area. It gives readers great info about that part of the world during the time of the fall of the west. Also gives valuable info about placement of successors, conquerers, etc. Eventually the map could be customized to highlight the WRE, at least when I get time and info available. For now, the main argument against it is that it shows too much info or too many nations? That enhances article, giving readers more information about the Romans and the world they lived in. The map should stay. Thomas Lessman ( talk) 20:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
And eventually the map could highlight WRE lands to make them stand out, same way the map on the Byzantine Empire article highlights ERE lands. Just "showing too many nations" is not an argument against the map, it's an argument FOR the map, because it gives readers valuable info about the peoples who interacted with the Romans one way or another. Gives readers better ideas of what other peoples to read about too. Other maps doesn't show nearly as much detail, and it's all relevant to the article. FAR more relevant than the image of Parthia, which fell before there ever was a WRE. Thomas Lessman ( talk) 20:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Who's not reading? Parthia fell before there was ever a WRE. Persia existed during WRE times, even interacted with WRE emperors. Parthia NEVER interacted with ANY WRE emperor. Yet you and Srnec delete my map because it shows "too much information"? And you leave the map that shows a nation which never interacted with the WRE. Again, who's not reading? The map adds useful information that gives readers a great idea of the world and neighbors of the WRE. Leave it. Thomas Lessman ( talk) 20:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Flamarande, for someone not interested in a revert war, you sure seem determined to get these maps off of pages where they provide useful information. Show me what other maps on the article show the WRE, the ERE, and the peoples and tribes they were in conflict or traded with? I'm not saying any of the other maps should be deleted, but the Near East map should stay.
You mentioned the WRE/ERE of Octavian and Antony, but they are never recognized as such (though I admit that you should bring that into discussion of the articles, as they would be some kind of predecessor, in any case something to think about). But the maps were designed to show a lot of information, relevant to the article, and you should leave it up while we discuss whether they should stay or not. Don't just arbitrarily delete them. Thomas Lessman ( talk) 11:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully Flamarande, you're comparing apples and oranges. I'm not advocating deleting ANY maps, but instead saying we need to leave the different maps up. What's so bad about providing additional information on an article? There's a section for "See Also" on most articles, which includes some articles on neighbors, allies, enemies, etc. - that's what helps readers learn more about history than just what's in that particular article. Having two or more maps that each show different information helps readers get a better understanding of the subject.
There's nothing wrong with having more than one map on an article, especially when each map shows different information. The map of Gaul in 481 shows details my maps simply can't show, like cities. The NE map has details the Gaul map can't show, like who their neighbors were and what their lands they ruled, possible allies and trading partners (you'd never know there was another Roman enclave like Syagrius' domains, only in north Africa, by looking at that map of Gaul.)
Again, I'm advocating keeping BOTH maps, because they both provide different but useful information for readers, and they improve the quality of Wikipedia in general. Thomas Lessman ( talk) 13:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, what's wrong with leaving two maps up, if they both show different information that is relevant and useful to the article? The maps I made show info that is accurate and relevant to the article. The "search" for the subject is very minimal - the maps were already scaled down for that reason. When you click on any of the maps, you can easily see the larger version of that map, and thus can easily see the subject, their neighbors, and their neighbor's neighbors. It shows you what kind of scale the subject was on in the world of their time. If readers aren't interested in that info, they don't have to click on the map and thus no harm done. But don't remove that extra information from the readers just because it doesn't focus directly on the subject, especially when it STILL contains information very relevant to the article and helpful to the readers. Thomas Lessman ( talk) 13:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You bring up a good point with the Topeka article, though in my opinion it would be best if articles about cities show 1. Map of city, 2. map of province or state, 3. map of nation, and 4. map of city's position in world or hemisphere. With history articles about nations, they should show 1: zoomed in for local (major cities, provinces, etc.), 2. zoomed out for region (nation & neighbors), and 3. location in world or world region (nation, region, wider region). Thus giving readers access to more information if they are interested in it, but not "forcing" it on them. Again, what's wrong with showing more than one map? Thomas Lessman ( talk) 13:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you seeing what I'm seeing?
"...for this is in my blood"? meh
That wasn't in the code. I checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.200.179 ( talk) 16:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC) And now it's happened to Halo 2. And no-one seems to be doing nything. WP COVER-UP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.200.179 ( talk) 19:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The page is completely blanked now. I've tried to revert it but I'm not able to.
Exiledone ( talk) 21:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the motto is SPQR, couldn't it be said that is also the flag? JuliusNero ( talk) 02:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Only 20% of Basques use the Basque language usually while the overwhelming majority (80%) speak in Spanish usually.-- 88.18.148.161 ( talk) 05:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
And I doubt that in Britanny the majority language is not French...
Know theres an article just on the Galulic Roman Empire Wikipedia But wondering if article could provide a link to this Wkipedia article. ?Thanks!evepmdtadewedo8110921stcentdeced. Aslashingsword ( talk) 03:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This line is anachronistic:
" as well as the recognition and support of the powerful Catholic Church"
What power exactly did the Church have beyond the loyalty of conquered peoples in the 5th & 6th century in the midst of barbarian ruled & ruined Italy? The temportal power the Catholic Church had was either:
1) After the fall of first Byzantine Italy, then Frankish rule, when the Pope protected himself 2) With the rise of the European Medieval Monarchs.
Neither of the 2 conditions above being true at the time of the Germanic invasion - the Germans did not benefit from the Pope's power, rather they gave him temporal support in exchange for spiritual support (conditional upon their conversion, which they eventually did, to Nicaean Catholic Christianity). 98.176.7.5 ( talk) 02:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the passage about the eastern provinces having been "always wealthier,". Precisely, there's no conclusive evidence that the orient was much richer during the high empire. Italy was by far the richest province and in the west, Tunisia, southern spain and southern Africa were also very prosperous (just as Egypt, except for Alexandria, had a poor population). The main point is that precisely, starting in the 3rd century, we see a shift in power from west to the east, with a stagnating Italy and other regions (notably Gaul) devastated by war. It's at that time that western cities started to recede and become more fortified, a phenomenon that started several centuries later in the orient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.181.126.68 ( talk) 16:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that Dacia is not included as part of the Western Roman Empire in the introductory infobox map, which claims to depict the Western Roman Empire's maximum extent. I'm not familiar with the exact demarkation between the Western and the Eastern empires in that area, but given that Dacia was an entirely new conquest not part of the traditional Hellenic realm and given the fact that use of Latin became widespread in Dacia, it would seem logical to assume that Dacia being culturally part of the Latin West also was part of the Western Roman Empire? I would appreciate a clarification as to whether it was, or why it wasn't if it was not. Abvgd ( talk) 02:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Calling SPQR the "motto" of the WRE is pushing it a bit. It is a designation of the idealised souvereignty of the res publica, but not a "motto". Any sources that would call it that? Trigaranus ( talk) 05:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we should add a links to the articles about the Gothic War (535–554)and Vandalic War under the section about the the Byzantine reconquest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.145.0 ( talk) 13:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The great tsunami of 365 has no relevance except possibly to the decline of the imperial rule in the western territories. Even if that is the intention, it is not stated, and it is placed randomly in the article. This has to be removed or fixed.
Hyperum ( talk) 13:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Hyperum
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Iazyges ( talk · contribs) 12:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
GA Criteria
|
---|
GA Criteria:
|
Would you mind if I switch the refs to {{sfn}}? -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This article mixes references written freehand (i.e., without a template) with one {{ cite book}}. Templates are your friends. Templates are a HUGE help in avoiding errors and inconsistencies, and checking for the same.
To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:
importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
to
Special:MyPage/common.js .importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');
. Save that page..citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */
.When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link; archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Iazyges: I saw you put up that the sections under the List of Western Roman Emperors needed expansion but I really intended them to only be short summaries to not detract from the main function of the section, as a list. Ichthyovenator ( talk) 08:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
"when he was murdered by Arbogast."
Should we state it as a certainty? The idea that Valentinian II was murdered rests on the testimony of Zosimus (6th century). The only contemporary source about the death is a work by Ambrose (d. 397), but is rather ambiguous on the cause of death. The article on Valentinian II notes the uncertainty. Dimadick ( talk) 01:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Iazyges, Ichthyovenator, Dimadick: I am quite surprised to see that the scope of this article has been expanded all the way back to 285! While there is merit to tracing the history of the imperial divisions begun with the Tetrarchy, the WRE as a term is pretty always considered as the polity that began with the death of Theodosius I in 395. The change was therefore very much WP:OR, even if well-intentioned (and a similar change was made in the infobox to the Byzantine Empire, with far less justification IMO). I've already fixed the infobox in this regard, but the list of emperors remains as it is for now, starting with Diocletian. Before I take the shears to it, and possibly launch an edit-war, I wanted to give you a heads up and possibly a chance to provide some sources supporting its retention in its present form. Constantine ✍ 16:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
"If the WRE started in 395, including the emperors before that is beside the point."
Why is that? The division of the two halves is pretty much solidified with the Valentinian dynasty, and Theodosius I only briefly unified them (392–395). Dimadick ( talk) 19:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: JohnWickTwo ( talk · contribs) 13:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
It should take a day or two to start this assessment. In the meantime, could you indicate what drew you to doing this article and of this article's relation to its sibling articles on Byzantium and the older Roman Empire.
JohnWickTwo (
talk)
13:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
0 Lead section
1 Background
1.1 Rebellions and political developments
1.2 Crisis of the Third Century
1.3 Tetrarchy
1.4 Further divisions
2 History
2.1 Reign of Honorius
.2 Escalating barbarian conflicts
2.3 Internal unrest and Majorian
2.4 Collapse
2.5 Fall of the Empire
3 Political aftermath
3.1 Germanic Italy
3.2 Barbarian Kingdoms
3.3 Imperial reconquest
4 Economic decline
5 Legacy
5.1 Nomenclature
5.2 Attempted restorations of a Western court
5.3 Later claims to the Imperial title in the West
6 List of Western Roman Emperors
6.1 Tetrarchy (286–313)
6.2 Constantinian dynasty (309–363)
6.3 Non-dynastic (363–364)
6.4 Valentinian dynasty (364–392)
6.5 Theodosian dynasty (392–455)
6.6 Non-dynastic (455–480)
Preliminary outline for assessment; do not alter the outline portion until notification.
JohnWickTwo (
talk)
12:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
My initial assessment for the past day or two has been based on the 2 of you as co-nominators who believe that this article is at a peer review level comparable to the GA article for Roman Empire and the FA article for Byzantine Empire. A closer look at your article compared to these 2 sibling articles seems to point out some very direct contrasts which appear to be unfavorable to a side-by-side comparison and I am hoping that I am just over-looking something which the 2 of you will clarify quickly for me. First is that the Infobox for this article for the Western Roman Empire appears to be poorly developed compared to the two sibling articles I just mentioned; "Notable" emperors appear to replace a full list of emperors as they appear in the Roman Empire article; the years of the empire do appear to be consistent and I am not even sure your Infobox clearly stated the dates for the Western Roman Empire; and just what is the relation of the ambiguous and overlapping dates between these 2 articles for the Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire, are you planning a redundant coverage of the overlapping historical periods or do you plan some larger re-organization. Moving to a second point here. The lede section appears to have a poor sense of time frame and its own historical placement; in fact the first date you list in your lede appears only in the second paragraph which is the exact opposite of what is done in the 2 sibling articles I have mentioned here for comparison which have clear dating explicitly stated from the first lede paragraph onwards throughout their own lede sections. On to the 3rd point which is the structural outline which you are using for your article which does not appear to have the same degree of organization which I see in both of the 2 other peer review articles I have singled out here for direct comparison, since you are asking to place this current article next to them at peer review status upon the completion of this assessment as comparable to them in quality. @ Iazyges and Ichthyovenator: Please respond to all three issues I have raised here since I appear to be missing something when faced the discrepancy between the quality in the 2 peer review articles I mentioned on the one hand, and this article you have nominated here for full assessment. I request to hear from both co-nominating editors on these three points in case I am missing something in this article as presented here for assessment. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 00:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Your five items from the last section I have now numbered for convenience with my responses below which answer your inquiries in reverse order, most recent first:
(a) "Using other articles as a comparative for criteria" is not really questionable. There are any number of Wikiprojects which apply shared criteria for the development of sibling articles, for example in Economics, in Law, in "Frankfurt School", etc. These study groups often further establish their shared criteria in a dedicated Subject Infobox which is posted under the regular Infobox for any particular sibling article. It may be useful to create such a generally applied Subject Infobox for these Roman history sibling articles. The articles are interrelated. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
(b) Differences in organization are significant when they affect the quality of an article being reviewed. Because these are 3 sibling articles which are interrelated then the quality of each does bear upon the others. At present, this article or its outline organization is not nearly close to the quality for the FA for Byzantine Empire, and its not very close to the quality of the outline for the GA for Roman Empire. If the structural outline can be made more like the one for Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire, then it might help. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
(c) The dating being applied is of primary importance to this article. The dating here also contradicts the DAB page which gives a start date for both WRE and Byzantine Empire as in the 200s. The 3 articles and the DAB page should be in agreement. Also, Byzantine Empire ought to be used throughout and not Eastern Roman Empire according to the title currently in use for it. Your current article does not seem to do this consistently. The first paragraph of the lede section needs to give the dates fully, consistently and without any unexplained ambiguity. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
(d) The difficulty of not having a Wikiprojects subject Infobox is an issue for these 3 sibling articles (and there are other sibling article but I am confining attention to these 3 articles here). This extends to the issue of naming Emperors selectively and all the other topics in the Infobox as well. They 3 Infoboxes should be structurally consistent and not be re-invented for each and every sibling article as a grassroots development issue. Consistency in outline would be useful here. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
(e) The quality of writing I do not find to be quite as good as that found in either the GA for WRE or the FA for Byzantine Empire. If you believe that it is at B-level or better, then I may need to make a number of challenges. For example, the second sentence of the first paragraph in the lede section appears long-winded and over-worked, and it should be shortened or broken up into 2 sentences after the dating issues are addressed: "The terms "Western Roman Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" are modern inventions that describe political entities that were de facto independent; however, at no point did the Romans themselves consider the Empire to have been split into two separate Empires, but rather continued to consider it a single state but governed by two separate Imperial courts of administrative expediency." There are many such instances of sentences throughout the article which do not appear to be at peer review level of writing. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
These are the responses to your five points. Ping my account when you add your edits or have further questions and clarifications. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
*Well written:
Thanks for your comments. I have also re-read the article again and it is my assessment that this article should be submitted for GOCE editing for improvements and enhancements to the prose and narrative which I find to be significantly lower at present than peer review standards for GA-articles. I have mentioned this per (e) above for excessive length and wordiness in many sentences like the example I have given, which you have chosen not to edit further. Since this article is being recommended for much needed GOCE editing, it is also recommended that an editor there be requested who has experience with preparing articles for the peer review level. Because the current wait time at GOCE is 3-4 weeks, this puts it outside the scope of this peer review assessment and this article is subject to a quick close at this time. It is further recommended that this article not be accepted for re-nomination until GOCE editing is completed and until another impartial editor first promotes it to a B-Class article, since it is currently rated at C-Class. By an impartial editor I mean someone other than the nominating editors here, and only someone who has not been part of the direct editing of this article itself in order to be impartial. If any attempt is made to re-nominate this article serially without first submitting it for GOCE editing, then I recommend that any editor quick close it accordingly as a failed review. This article is currently not promoted. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 15:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. As requested at GOCE I will be copy editing this article. I will be making bold edits where I feel necessary, and relying on you to tell me where I go wrong. So if you disagree with any of my edits, or just don't understand why I have made them, please feel free to flag this up here. Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the caption of the image above the ingobox is in small? Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I am struggling to make sense of this:
"With the support of the Gallic nobility and the barbarian
Burgundians and
Alans, Honorius turned to the Visigoths under King
Ataulf for support against Jovinus."
Perhaps one of you could have a look at it.
"The barbarian kingdoms gradually replaced the old Roman system..."
The article could do with a disambiguation. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The fourth paragraph of this section is uncited. I am also surprised (very) that you have written this section without referring to Ward-Perkins. If you like, once I have finished the copy edit I will add in something from him. (Entirely optional.) Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
"All surviving
Celtic languages,
Albanian, and
Slavic languages such as
Polish and
Czech and even the non-Indo-European
Hungarian." This isn't a sentence. Care to give me a clue as to what it is trying to communicate?
Gog the Mild (
talk)
13:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I have added a map of the Exarchate of Africa, because it seemed to need one. If you disagree just delete it. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't personally like those notes at the bottom of the infobox. Is there a reason why they are not at the bottom as "Notes"? (Eg as in this article - Razing of Friesoythe.) Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
And I am call that a peace. I am sure that there are more bits to pick up, but I am glazing over and I am sure that it is up to GA standard. I shall be back in a day or three to make some input into the Economics section. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Division of the Roman Empire redirects here. I replaced the redirect with a page explaining the basic chronology of the events from Diocletian to Theodosius but it's been reverted asking for a discussion.
Barjimoa ( talk) 21:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack ( talk · contribs) 17:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy to review this, finally! First comments below. Since the article is waiting for a long time, could you, maybe, briefly confirm that you are still on it?
A couple of proposals. (I don't know if I have to put this here since I proposed this in the section above in the talk page):
Barjimoa ( talk) 19:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Closing note: Had the chance to read the rest now, no problems apparent. Very well done article, and the new structure now feels much better. I would encourage to take this to FAC. Passing GA now. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 10:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ichthyovenator. Could I suggest that putting it up for an A class review at MilHist may be a useful way of both testing the water for FA and helping to get it two-thirds of the way there?
And congratulations to both yourself and Iazyges for finally getting this over the line. A huge amount of work.
Gog the Mild ( talk) 13:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The map in the infobox showing the Western Roman Empire's territory is inaccurate, the Romans did not loose their coastal territories in Mauretania as there was a Roman Road System in existent and Rusadir, modern day Melilla was in Roman hands before the Vandals invaded the region. Could we get a updated map eventually? Slapnut1207 ( talk) 18:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The first sentence, which contains the definition, reads
395? Why? This very article lead goes on to contradict the use of this very late date. The list of emperors of the entity includes everything from the Tetrarchy (286–313), to the first emperors of the Theodosian dynasty (392–455), who were all before 395. W/o a clear definition that's not constantly contradicted within the article, it all becomes arbitrary, confusing and useless. What makes the use of the term pre-395 weaker or less well-accepted than after? This belongs at the very start of the article, since everything else depends on it ("it" being the definition, the topic of the whole article.) Arminden ( talk) 16:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Western_Roman_Empire_-_400_AD.png I believe this map would make a better map than the current one. It has more time accurate coastlines, more cities, and shows the western empire closer to it's peak. The first map shown on the Byzantine Empire article is also at it's peak, same with the Roman Empire article, so why should the first map show the Western Empire after it lost land? It feels more appropriate for a section further down. Also, the suggested map is in english while the current one is in spanish, and an english map would be preferable I believe for an english wikipedia article. If the issue is sources, I could see if the original poster can provide some as we've talked before. I am sure she could provide, as she has made many historical maps in the past. MrsColdArrow ( talk) 05:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I once read a contemporary account of "Western Romans" (they used that term) visiting the court of Atilla. They mentioned that "Eastern Romans" were also present. This says to me that it makes perfect sense to speak of a "Western Roman Empire" as a contemporary concept. The way to tell me I'm wrong about this is to cite a source that backs up the claim that nobody talked about a WRE before the middle ages
I have an agenda here: I'd really like to apply WP:REFERS to the opening sentence. But that's difficult as long as the definition of WRE is contentious. Isaac Rabinovitch ( talk) 23:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)