Talk:Sack of Rome (410)

message: I'm not sure this should be categorized as a battle, since no actual fighting took place... Abou 02:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncertain of categorization

message: Page needs alot of work. I will do some tonight. Cheers, MedievalScholar 19:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Accurate

message: I just added a citation for one of the unverified claims made in the article. Don't have time now to add any more but hopefully others will...
Quadrifoglio (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations are a mess 

message: Do sources state whether Alaric demanded black pepper or long pepper? It seems that both were imported into Europe. Badagnani (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which kind of pepper? 

message: The section "Third siege and sack" has some major issues.
First of all, the line "This was the first time the city had been sacked in 800 years, and its citizens were devastated." appears to contradict Sack of Rome (387 BC).  If for some reason the 387 one is somehow not considered a proper "sack", this needs to be elaborated.  Otherwise, this line needs to be removed as it is false.
Reply: Bearing in mind that the Gauls sacked the city in 387 BC, this seems broadly accurate - the gap was 723 years.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.85.98 (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Third siege and sack" section needs major work 

message: Article-quote: "Because the barbarians had converted to the Christian sect Arianism, it was not a particularly violent looting with relatively little rape, murder and damage to buildings". End quote. This needs clarification. The phrase seems to suggest that the reason to why the looting was not severe, was because the "barbarians" was Christian. That is hardly very NPOV. --85.226.41.82 (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not violent because of religion? POV 

message: August 24th Gregorian reckoning, which was not used at the time? Julian reckoning? How is the date known? Was it originally given as anno Domini or as anno Urbis conditae? --209.201.114.50 (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy of date 

message: Just for curiosity, the (western) roman empire ended 1600 years ago, made just few days ago.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.102.38.146 (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No it didn't, the visigoths never conquered the western roman empire. we will have to wait until 2076 for the 1600th anniversary of the extinction of the western roman empire.--99.141.195.122 (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1600 years gone by 

message: In Backman, Clifford R. (2009), The worlds of medieval Europe (2 ed.), Oxford University Press, p. 47 (footnote),  the quotation of Jerome appears to be wrong. This quote is currently in the lead text and I have changed it based on a direct quotation from Jerome's letter as repeated in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VI/The Letters of St. Jerome/Letter 127 paragraph 12. If anyone would care to verify Backman's form of the quotation I would be happy to see this changed to a different quote from Jerome. Fæ (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backman citation appears incorrect 

message: Deleted the link. --131.111.233.196 (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong link to "second battle of Adrianople" in the 1700s 

message: Its seems terribly unencyclopedic to use the pejorative term "barbarians" to refer to those that sacked Rome. Murderbike (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "barbarians" has widespread currency in reliable, academic literature (for instance, Peter Heather's <I>The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians</i>). It is not intended to be a pejorative and it is not used as such in this article. Running From Zombies (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pejoratives 

message: The source, "Defending Rome: The Masters of the Soldiers", is written by Julian Reynolds, who is not a historian, but a zoologist.
Julian Reynolds is Emeritus Fellow of Trinity College Dublin, Ireland and former Head of its Department of Zoology. He is a freshwater ecologist with particular interests in crustaceans and in small, extreme or ephemeral habitats (fens, bog pools, turloughs). He has extensive experience consulting on environmental pollution and crayfish management in Ireland. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Google sometimes gives odd results, to the publisher's own website says "Julian Reynolds is a former defence intelligence analyst, university tutor and high school teacher". My guess is the Google books page was put together automatically and information on the wrong Julian Reynolds was scraped. I don't know enough about the author to comment, but the publisher ([[[Xlibris]]) is a self-publishing company. There is enough written on this topic that the article shouldn't be reliant on self-published sources per WP:SELFPUBLISH. Nev1 (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll attempt to remove and replace that particular source. Running From Zombies (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source 

message: Could someone please change the color of either the Eastern Roman Empire or the Alans in the "Impero d'Occidente 410.PNG" picture to a different color? Having them both in gray is confusing. Running From Zombies (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color of the Eastern Roman Empire/Alans in the 410 map 

message: Surely this map isn't right: the Alans didn't control the entire Eastern Empire. Richard75 (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map in the Aftermath section 

message: The map in the "Aftermath" section is wrong, it describes the entire Byzantine Enpire as belonging to the Alans. Richard75 (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: I just expanded the article placing the Huns in the infobox as combatants. The Huns did participate in the clashes preceding the second siege (409). A section dedicated to the second siege (in which this fact is mentioned) is part of this article. The infobox however is actually for the 410 sack, and we don't know whether they participated in that battle. So I wonder whether they should be included in the ib or not. Giray Altay (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huns in infobox?