Talk:Flavius Aetius

message: While I agree that it is necessary to present a diverse group of opinions on Aetius' life and legacy, the current version is all but unreadable.  While I commend the desire to credit, internally and externally, sources that present valid criticism of Aetius, it seems that the article has instead become more of a report or a contrast of different interpretations.  I was wondering if anyone else thought that something might need to be done to make this a more, umm, readable and informative article. -Whay912 00:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Readability

message: I've always seen Aetius, not Aëtius, and browsing books on Amazon and looking at the Encyclopedia Britannica, I see the same - a lack of dieresis. Can anyone justify the use of the dieresis before I change it? Chris Weimer 04:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion on Talk:Aetius.  I don't feel strongly about it...  --Macrakis 06:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aetius v. Aëtius

message: There is obviously massive disagreement here as to Aetius place in history.  Was he the fool who lost Africa, or the hero of Chalons who did what he could amid a crumbling Empire whose citizens would not defend themselves?  We need the names and references of the historians that allege he lost Africa and ignored the Navy.  We obviously cannot do original research per wikipedia policy, and thus the historians who allege these flaws must be named and the references specifically cited.  I reworded the legacy to reflect the disagreements in a more coherant way, noted where citations are needed, and await input.  If the historical references are not forthcoming, the section will be reworked to reflect the more conventional view of Aetius, with Bury's feelings on Chalons noted.  (It must be noted that while Bury was a respected historian, he was nowhere close to the military historian Sir Edward Creasy was, and certainly not considered Gibbon's equal either, and his views are a distinct minority view)old windy bear 00:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: rjecina For starters, the greatest recognized military historian of all time, Sir Edward Creasy, says that Chalons was one of the 15 decisive battles of world history.  You cannot counter with Bury, who has nowhere near the recognition of even Gibbon. and even Bury does not reach the conclusions about Aetius you do!  You must state historians views, and cite sources, or the comments on Africa, the Navy, and reactionary stances by Aetius will be struck.  Original research or conclusions is out, you have to cite historians, and the sources, page, et al., of the work they made such a claim in.  old windy bear 17:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Battle of Chalons importance is typical western european myth. It is even greater of Charles Great. Because you have read Bury maybe, maybe you can read it one more time to look what has he writen about Carthago fall and Battle of Chalons. Now maybe you will now understand something new ? All in all speaking serious you can say that Bury is in part guilty because of my low thinking about Aetius ?? rjecina 23:23 CET, 30.06.2006
rjecina It is not important what I think, though I agree with you in part - but Bury does not "blame" Aetius as much as he does condemn the general decay of the Empire.  He is virtually alone in the West in his feelings on Chalons, and no reputable eastern historian I am aware of even supports his theories.  You may well be right in your theories - I am not deinerating the intelligence of your work, simply saying we cannot cite it, or mine, because it is original research.  I hope you understand.  old windy bear 22:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Making the article more coherant

message: Gibbons makes a reference to "His Religion" but it is unclear whether he is refering to Aetius or Valentinian (although I suspect it is Valentinian).  Aetius seems to be named after an earlier Arian, although his name has been mangled by contemporaries into forms of Attis (a pagan name). Any thoughts on his religion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpartlow (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: I noticed the pronunciation is wrong, but I don't have the knowledge of Wikipedia's system to change it.
It should be "Flavius" (A as in "at", V is pronounced as a "w", I as "ee" like "bee", and u as in "oo" like "goose") "Aetius" ("Ae as long I like the word "I", I and U the same as in "Flavius", and the T is pronounced, not melded into -"shush").
The "Ae" being pronounced as "A" as in "Base" doesn't occur in the Latin Language and actually comes from Arabic or Turkish, I think. Although the V as a "w" could probably be skipped out on, the rest needs to be changed.
MMFA (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The current pronunciation is supposed to be the usual way English-speaking people (in practice, academics -- who else talks of Flavius Aetius?) pronounce the name. What you are talking about is a historically correct reconstruction of the actual contemporary Latin pronunciation. I suppose both are worth mentioning, but they shouldn't be confused. Along the same lines, the usual modern pronunciation of Caesar sounds like "s + (g)eezer", not like "k + (my) eyes are". --Macrakis (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct pronunciation can be found in the poems of Sidonius Apollinaris, (e.g. Carmen 5.305) where it's arranged in Dactyl Hexameter. The correct pronunciation divides the name into four syllables: A-e-ti-us, because the word comes from Greek, not Latin. Although "Ae" in Latin is a dipthong, since it comes from Greek, it is not. It is correctly pronounced "Ah-eh-tee-oos", with the A- as in "Maw", the -e- as in "bet", -ti- as in "Tea" and -us as in "Caboose". MMFA (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: User:MMFA; I removed the Roman general category because I am attempting to make it a container cat, because unlike most ancient civilizations, the type and rank of the generals is usually available. Magister militum is a subcategory of this, since every Magister militum is a Roman general. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Iazyges Fair enough, although this might prove problematic considering many of the republican/principate titles weren't exclusively military. But with that objective in mind I see no reason why it can't be edited out. MMFA (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

text: User:Dimadick The term Magister Militum and its geographic jurisdictions are defined by the Notitia Dignitatum for the most part, with most of the western commands coming from other sources (such as the base of the statue of Aetius which still exists in Trajan's Forum).MMFA (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Notitia Dignitatum was apparently last updated in the 420s. Several of the Magistri militum of the 5th century are not covered at all. Dimadick (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing roman general category

message: A.H.M. Jones is listet with two works, but the references only use "Jones", and not indicating which book Jones is the author of. Is it possible to make this clearer? --Finn Bjørklid (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem in the references 

message: Why are there some Chinise military heroes (Yue Fei and Yuan Chonghuan) in this section? Maybe Belissarius, but the Song Generals seem a stretch to me. Dryfee (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair question. I wasn't the one who added them. I'll redo the see also section. MMFA (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: I deleted the popular culture section. It was being filled with references to every form of media (film, book, video game, etc) that mentions Flavius Aetius, regardless of how significant the mention or the work actually was. The essay WP:POPCULTURE explains my line of thought pretty well. If you want further explanation, please mention my name in a response. Wikinights (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture section 

message: Frankish king wss emperor of Rome? 70.27.141.69 (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frankish wars?