# Talk:Julius Nepos

This is very importent  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.162.204 (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 

Would this fella actually be a descendant of the old Julii who were the first Emperors?--Codenamecuckoo 09:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- No. His true past( grand parents and after that ) is unknown, but all legal family heirs of old Julii has been dead in AD 69. Oldest Roman family which has survived lost of crown is Flavian Dynasty. 
Blood heirs of Nepos has survived until around AD 530.  ? rjecina

I can't find the source for this, but I thought I read somewhere that Nepos was the nephew and successor of Marcellinus (general), commander of the field army in Illyricum.  —Abou 20:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes he has been cousin of Marcellinus (general) ( and governor of Illyricum . For more info about this general I can tell you that he has been in 1 situation sending army from Ilyricum even to Sicily. —rjecina 17:59 (CET), 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This article says that Julius confronted Glycerius in Ravenna, while the page for Glycerius says that this happened in Ostia (or perhaps Rome).  Ravenna makes more sense, as it is much closer to Dalmatia than Ostia is, but I don't know what actually happened.  Does anyone know? Molinari 17:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is Orestes descibed as a "Germanic tribesman"? Both his parents were Romans. And even if he were part German, he must have been less so than the half-Frankish Theodosius III, so it wouldn't have been an obstacle to his claiming the purple. —Abou 22:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

How ded he die.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathiasceasar (talk • contribs) 06:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 

This article need some tightning up. I don't think direct latin quotations from the sources is appropriate for Wikipedia. If no one objects I'll throw them out and put in a standard reference section. Fornadan (t) 13:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
At he very least could the "Rule" and "reign" sections be redacted.90.200.32.233 15:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Me Linkin Park nepos wrote this hole paign me, i wasen't a member, so thats the reason you don't se me.
Julius Nepos rules.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linkin Park nepos (talk • contribs) 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 

Vandalsim/nonsense.

He could actually be a family member of the Julii because Julien familie didn't die out, the Claudius Familiy did.
It's Recordet to be a Julien that became Prator in 267.

Let me change answer of october 2006. Old Julii are existing in that period but they are not heirs of Julius Ceasar or Augustus because all heirs have been killed by Nero.—rjecina 05:38 (CET), 11 October 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.91.99.205 (talk) 

I just read that it was Ovida who killed Nepos.--Dojarca (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Murdered Roman emperors is itself a category within Category:Roman emperors. — Robert Greer (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

One user keep adding an "Overview" section to this article with about the same length as the rest of the text. Wikipedia articles don't have "Overview" sections, they have a lead of a few paragraphs (without any section header) summarizing the article and then the main body going into more detail, there's no intermediate "Overview" level. This is the common layout across Wikipedia which we all most follow - single users don't get to make up their own. The "Overview" needs to be merged into the rest of the article, otherwise the result is a non-standard article with lots of duplicated, and possibly contradictory, material - all very confusing to the reader   Fornadan (t) 20:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

one user keeps deleting the overview section, which has been part of the article for years. it is better written, more coherent, & easier to follow than the rest of the article, which was until recently somewhat incoherent (& still needs work).  until now, that user's "rationale" was factual accuracy. want a list of other articles with an "overview" or equivalent section?  Lx 121 (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

by the way, i note your use of "we"  in your edit comment -- since you haven't been active on this article anytime recently except for one previous edit, in september 2007, i'll assume that the "other user" contacted you, requesting your support, no? Lx 121 (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

since there has already be another "exchange" of edits, in the interest of peace, i'm offering to drop the section header; you're wrong, but i really don't care if it has a header or not.

for the merits of the lead section as a lead section, i refer you to Wikipedia:Lead_section#Provide_an_accessible_overview
Lx 121 (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::::Actually I mentioned repeatedly WP:V and WP:RS but you just don't seem to have an idea what this even means, so please follow the relevant links. Regard why the overview is absurd, Fornadan's already said it all. Also I didn't contact Fornadan: I've been around here 6 years and I know hundreds of editors, but I don't think I've ever met Fornadan. But now that you mentioned it, contacting somebody, or more precisely I'll contact the relevant wikiproject, that is Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome.Aldux (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that you are now at least trying to get it; and having a good and solid overview where it should stay, is OK. But per WP:LEAD the lead is going to be trimmed to a maximum of three paragraphs, as it says that  articles long "15,000–30,000 characters" (medium length) should have "Two or three paragraphs". Also, and I think this should be pretty obvious, the lead must summarize and not contradict the main article, and this is why leads don't have to be sourced: all statements made in the lead must be backed up by references in the main text. Anyways, I appreciate that you haven't attempted to put the phantomatic Domain of Moor and that Syagrius minted coins in his names. That said I will work on the lead after I've finished completing the expansion and referencing of the rest of the other sections.Aldux (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

that's nice; i will keep working on the lead also. (btw: you're wrong about syagrius, or at the very least, the question of whether he ever minted coins in nepos' name is "open to debate"  http://www.roman-emperors.org/nepos.htm says "yes"; will look for numismatic evidence, but it's not at the top of my "to do" list.  what is your "take", then, on roman "remnants" in northwestern africa during this period?)Lx 121 (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't read that one, but yes it's a legitimate source so I'll be sure to put it in the main, even if Mathisen desn't exactly say "yes", he just say that there is a possibility that Syagrius may have minted, and this is all can be said because no coin at all can with reasonable assurance be attributed to Syagrius (this is the opinion of Roman imperial coinage, volume 10), whose importance and role has been itself put seriously in doubt, as the only real source on him is Gregory of Tours. Passing to the question you made to me about Africa, there is only one attested individual who seems to have created some sort of Romano-Berber polity around Altavia: the berber chief Masuna who in an inscription call himself "king": but his entity is from the 6th century, not the 5th century.Aldux (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)

a) the material in the led section IS sourced; i refer you in particular to [[1]] . your rationale for removing the material on this basis is invalid
b) the material in the lead section recapitulates the information in the main body of the article, in a more condensed (& coherent) form. if the info is "bad" in the lead, then it's "bad" in the following sections as well
c) if we're contacting people to expand this conflict, why not just go to the wikipedia conflict resolution/arbitration process directly? it would save time
Lx 121 (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm responding to Aldux's notice at the Classical G&R project. WP:V states quite clearly that "anything challenged or likely to be challenged [must] be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." The material has been challenged, and therefore it's subject to deletion at will unless meticulous citations are provided for each of the statements at issue. I agree that the intro is far too long and leisurely; three paragraphs should indeed do it for an article of this size.  Aldux isn't contacting "people," but posted a notice at one of the two projects that oversee this article. That's a perfectly legitimate way to solicit opinions. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
as stated above : the material in the lead recapitulates the material in the rest of the article. & i threw in a couple of extra references, for good measure, with more to come.
if you really want to apply the "inline citations needed"-thing as a technical rationale to remove the material, even when the refs are provided, does that only apply here, or on all the classical g&r project articles? Lx 121 (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that the intro wasn't separated from the body text. If the intro is a properly constrained summary of the body text, citations are needed only for points that may challenge conventional expectations. But there was discursive material not appropriate for the intro that required meticulous citation because it was being challenged. This is not a long article, and the first step toward sorting this out is structural. I was concerned when you cited a web site, but saw that it was Ralph Mathisen; however, it would still be better to cite his books or articles, so page numbers could be provided, and for greater stability of verification, since web sites can disappear. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for giving your input Cynwolfe; I fully agree with you that websites should as a rule be avoided in articles like this, but as you yourself observed the website article was made by a respected scholar so I'm willing to make an exception. Regards inline citations, when an article is subjected to an upgrade it's normal to use them, as under the current rules no article will ever have a chance of becoming an FA or even a GA without thorough inline sourcing. If you doubt, look at all Featured Articles that have been written in the last years: they all use inline citations.Aldux (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify (when I look at this I wasn't clear to myself), it's my understanding that an intro that accurately summarizes the content of the article doesn't need to repeat the citations there, but points in the intro that may raise an eyebrow should be footnoted. When an article starts to become contentious, more precise and meticulous citations are the best defense. Another thing that might be kept in mind here is that a good lede is hard to write when the article is in a state of flux; I might suggest as a temporary workaround stripping the introductory section back to the current first paragraph only, and moving the rest (or most of the rest) to the appropriate sections. There is still too much info in the intro that isn't repeated in the body text; the reader expects that whatever's in the intro will be expanded in the body, and it isn't. The details of how Julius Nepos acceded, for instance, certainly don't belong in the intro. (And yes, the only problem with referencing Mathisen's site is that it's a website, and he's published a perfectly good body of scholarship. When the article is developed to a condition that can be considered stable, it might be better to give Mathisen's site as an external link.) Good luck to all, Cynwolfe (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"2nd reign", issued by odoacer -- http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=52935'\
general list of nepos coins (non-comprehensive) http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?search=similar%3A239104&view_mode=1#5
Lx 121 (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to persuade me: they've been discussed pretty much by scholards, as they are the only foundation for attesting Odoacer's recognition of Nepos, as no historians mention it (it's a badly sourced period); still, it's quite ambiguous as in exactly the same years Odoacer was also minting coins in Zeno's name.Aldux (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ambiguous yes, in terms of the exact, nuanced & detailed significance; but odoacer is minting nepos coins, along with zeno ones, both with imperial inscriptions.

it's not like the mints were just making "more of the same"; the coinage had already been changed from nepos to augustulus (must have been a good way to make a living in the 5th century, designing roman coins; no end of demand for new issues! :P).

odoacer had no reason to issue nepos coinage, unless it was by a deliberate choice, & i can't think of any OTHER reason he'd mint them; they're not particularly collectible or more valuable, or perceived as having more value (in their own era).  it seems unlikely that dalmatia placed an "order" for them, or that nepos had extraordinary influence in the western mints...

so odoacer chose to produce them (possibly in rather small quantities, the nepos ones, at least; not sure what the ratio is of nepos-to-zeno, among surviving examples).  the only reasonable basis for that decision, by him, is political.  he's acknowledging nepos, at least on a "de minimus" level (along with demonstrating his "loyalty" to zeno).  it doesn't imply nepos had any influence or control in italy; just that odoacer was a pragmatic, cynical politician, & was playing the cards to his best advantage.

Lx 121 (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

question:  if "nepos" is supposedly an agnomen j.n. gained from marriage to the emperor's niece(-in-law?), then are all these other "nepo-" names being derived from that? including the ones for persons that predeceased him?
also, if j.n. was the son of marcellinus' sister, that makes him twice nepos to notable persons.
i'm assuming all this has been dealt with by historians, but what is the thinking on it?
(& perhaps it should be covered in the article?)
Lx 121 (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The intro section here is far too long. As per WP:LEAD, the "lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article," and for an article of this length, the lead should not be more than two or three paragraphs. Here the intro contains detail that isn't even present in the body. In particular, detail about Orestes, Romulus, Odoacer, and the empire should be summarized and the detail moved into the body. I'll work on this when I have time, if someone else does not address it sooner. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This section barely mentions Nepos. It seems to be in the wrong article. Can we write about Nepos's post-imperial life? 155.213.224.59 (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Propose to add citations to make the article more verifiable and to add any information from the source relating to the page.

Kerr97 (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Kerr97 18:23 10 October 2019Kerr97 (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kerr97, thanks for expanding the article. It's nice to be able to get rid of the banners saying more references were needed. We now have a lead that summarises the article, whereas before it was too short, and references so that readers can see where the information comes from. The bit about there being limited information on Nepos is a useful point to make as readers will notice the gaps around the early life and wonder whether that means the article is incomplete or we just don't know. In fact, I'd consider reiterating this point in the lead, as well as where it is in the 'family' section, since it's an important point. Further edits might add more information about the historiography around Nepos. Also, if there are further books or articles you think would be useful to a reader but you haven't had time to add it would be worth creating a 'further reading' section. The article is much improved and I've changed it's rating from a C-class to B-class. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Julius Nepos/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 18:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


### Criteria
No DAB links  Y
No dead links  Y
No missing citations Y


### Discussion
"Williams & Friell 1998" is not in the Bibliography section.
Oops, added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Sources look good other than as mentioned above, older sources such as Bury and Gibbon are used well for support, rather than narrative. Even where sources do not come from strictly academic presses, they come from respected Historians that I can find no fault with. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


### Prose Suggestions
Please note that almost all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion. Any changes I deem necessary for the article to pass GA standards I will bold.


#### Lede
being the last widely recognised claimant to the position. would specify this more, by "widely recognized" does this mean by the citizens, the Eastern Roman Empire, or countries in general? If citizens, I would suggest being the last claimant to the position to be widely recognized by the people., if ERE, suggest being the last Western Roman emperor recognized by the Eastern Empire, if countries suggest as the last claimant recognized by most nations and tribes.
My impression is that everyone recognized him - Odoacer, the Roman Senate, the eastern empire etc. (thus by extension also the people, but in terms of documented recognition everyone influential). They just didn't let him come back to Italy. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Understandable then.
Whether Nepos becoming emperor had been the plan in the east is unclear suggest Whether the original intention of the invasion was to install Nepos as western emperor is unclear
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 foederati (barbarian allies/vassals) you may wish to shorten this to just barbarian allies and explain them a bit further in the body.
I agree that "foederati (barbarian allies/vassals)" is awkward but I also think that "reduce the Burgundians into barbarian allies" sounds strange, would it be possible to use "foederati" here without an explanation or is there perhaps another option? (or maybe I'm just wrong) Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I think you could do that; it is far from a major element of the lede, and anyone impatient enough to read half a page has a link to click. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Zeno being momentarily overthrown in Constantinople by the usurper Basiliscus suggest Zeno's brief overthrowal in Constantinople by the usurper Basiliscus; momentary doesn't really work here IMO because he reigned for about two years.
Yeah, changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Nepos never gave up his claim to the western empire suggest Nepos never renounced his claim to the western empire
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
but otherwise mostly ignored him must suck to be left on read as a former emperor.
Yeah, being the most powerful man in the world on paper and no one listening to anything you're actually saying does not sound like much fun. I'm leaning towards that the real reason Nepos never got any help to take back Italy was that Zeno quite liked the idea of being the only emperor. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Salona (perhaps Diocletian's Palace) suggest perhaps in Diocletian's Palace -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


#### Background
##### Geopolitical background
the last western emperor of Theodosius' dynasty suggest the last western emperor of the Theodosian dynasty and add link to Theodosian dynasty
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
...second time in less than fifty years, this time by the Vandals. feel like you should elaborate on this more, perhaps ...second time in less than fifty years, this time by the Vandals under Gaiseric (or whatever of the 500 names he has you choose to use), who captured Valentinian's widow, Licinia Eudoxia, and two of his daughters, Eudocia and Placidia.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


##### Ancestry and Family
possibly being a niece of Leo I suggest removing being.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


##### Appointment
By appointing Nepos, Leo not only gave the western empire what he considered to be a suitable ruler, but also rid himself of a possible rival in the east and at the same time asserted his authority in the west. this seems at odds with the lede's Whether the original intention of the invasion was to install Nepos as western emperor is unclear, but in any event, he was quickly recognised as the legitimate western emperor by Zeno. Is it that Leo thought Nepos would make a good emperor if the situation where Nepos could seize power directly came about, but this was not the real intention? Or is this an issue with the differing desires of Leo and Zeno, where Leo explicitly wanted Nepos to take the throne and Zeno sort of went with it? Or even just that Leo privately thought that Nepos would make a good ruler?
I've edited this part: my understanding is that there is no records of Nepos being appointed as emperor (or emperor-designate) by Leo I or Zeno before he left for Italy. Leo I seems in certain aspects as more interested in becoming emperor of the entire empire himself. It's plausible he was designated emperor, especially given that he was recognised as such effectively immediately by Zeno, but it is also possible that it was a surprise power-grab that was recognised in the east simply because it would be pointless not to at this point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Passed. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


#### Reign
##### Emperor in Italy
where he was promptly proclaimed Caesar was he acclaimed by the troops, or declared such by Zeno? I'm assuming the senate didn't do it. For any of these cases, mention who proclaimed him Caesar.
I don't think who was behind the appointment is recorded. Given that he appears to have been made Caesar before he deposed Glycerius, the senate is unlikely to be behind it, yes. I've added to the note that Jordanes wrote that Zeno appointed him Caesar, but Jordanes is too late to act as confirmation of that and the details of Jordanes' account of Nepos' accession do not match other, earlier accounts. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
but time proved to be too short suggest but he was unable to arrive in time.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


##### Exile in Dalmatia
Nepos never gave up his claim to the western empire suggest gave up be changed to renounced here as well.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
if Nepos did not do so first suggest if Nepos would not.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


#### Legacy
which may, in addition to being the last western emperor to rule Italy, have contributed to him being viewed as the last emperor over Nepos. The Influence of Wordplay upon Historiography...
Indeed.
Ralph W. Mathisen suggest Roman historian Ralph W. Mathisen
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


#### Notes
which means that Zeno might have been accepted as emperor there very swiftly suggest which would mean that Zeno's rule was swiftly accepted.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Alternatively, he might have been proclaimed Caesar at Ravenna. In any case, he was made Caesar before he was made Augustus I'm assuming there's a source difference here; might be good to explain which sources say which.
I've cleared this up in the note: the claim that he was invested at Ravenna comes from later sources than the claim that he was invested at Portus, so most likely Portus is correct. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
That is all my suggestions, once the issue surrounding imperial intentions with Nepos becoming emperor is more clear I will pass the article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tintero21 While the current profile pic, File:Julius Nepos RIC X 3242 (obverse).jpg, is more detailed than the one from the previous edit, it seems to me that File:Solidus of Julius Nepos.png from this long-standing version is more descriptive and higher quality as a coin. It also feels redundant to put another tremissis similar to the one in the article body, File:Gold Tremissis of Julius Nepos.jpg. What is your opinion on reverting the profile pic to the solidus? Soidling (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)