Talk:Western Roman Empire

message: Temporary (hopefully) redirect until someone sees fit to expand this. -- Itai 15:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started it, hopefully others can fill in the rest since I don't know when I'll have time to. Kuralyov 07:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Temporary redirect

message: 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)
thread_title: Eastern provinces

message: 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)
thread_title: Sectional additions

message: I deleted vandalism, I will delete next time too. Zello 20:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: 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)
thread_title: Monophysitism

message: 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)
thread_title: Edits as of September 2005

message: 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)
thread_title: Cultural Differences

message: 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)
replies: text: This a part of the "dirty war" of AD/BC versus BCE/BC users. The official policy is that such changes have to be debated and agreed upon but some zealots (of both sides) don't bother even to ask and in their self-rightousness simply change the articles. Seems to me that the war still drags on, with "sneaky" changes and behaviour being now the norm. Flamarande 13:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Look, I have plenty of books wich use the AD/BC system. I am under impression the impression that BC is used in all dates prior to the official birth of Jesus of Nazareth. AD as far as I know is bit more complicated, being used in all dates during the first 900 year (it is very unclear, but it is around there somewhere). I was following that style but now you are seeing some problem with it. So I have to ask you: Why are you deleting the ADs? Should we use them in this article or not? Flamarande 13:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well as I said Wikipedia's Manual of style says to use AD or CE, only in a date range which spans eras. Paul August ☎ 05:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Considering the common misunderstandings some people get when one speaks of ancient empires and in particular the Roman empire, due to its spaning both the end of BC/BCE and the begining of AD/CE, this temporal denominator is therfore well within its usage paramaters. As to changing AD to CE I have no real preference at the moment.Dryzen 16:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am asking: we should we use a temporal denominator or not? Notice please that most of the WRE happened after the "zero event" but not all of it (precedends paragraph at the start of the article), in particular the dealings between Octavian and Antony, Tiberius and Germanicus. Flamarande 12:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should.Dryzen 18:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup tag + ADs

message: 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)
thread_title: In Latin and Greek?

message: 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)
thread_title: Reorganization part 2!

message: 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)
replies: text: Better to remove the quotes as there were more than Germanic tribes invading, like the Slavs, Mongols, etc. Flamarande 19:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume the usage of quotes was because the term is extremely general and, like the Charlemagne article, controversy breaks out due usage of it for a number of factors. For the sake of factual accuracy, it's better to be specific anyway. I've since gone through the article and swapped the term out for appropriate specifications wherever possible. If you see something incorrect, please feel free to change it. :bloodofox: 12:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Barbarians"

message: I was puzzled by the following paragraph.
:The ideal of the Roman Empire as a mighty Christian Empire with a single ruler continued to seduce many powerful rulers. Charlemagne, King of the Franks and Lombards, was even crowned as Roman Emperor by Pope Leo III in 800. Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire like Frederick I Barbarossa, Frederick II and Charles V, and mighty Sultans like Suleiman the Magnificent of the Ottoman Empire, among others, tried to a certain extent to resurrect it, but none of their attempts were successful.
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)
thread_title: "Resurrecting" the Empire

message: 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)
thread_title:  help 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: 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)
thread_title: Romano-Byzantine rule survived in Algeria during Vandal occupations?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Since the motto is SPQR, couldn't it be said that is also the flag? JuliusNero (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Vexiloid 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Romance speaken by a majority in the Basque Country 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Gaul Roman Empire only breifly metioned 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Exaggeration of Papal Power 

message: 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)
replies: text: Seems fair. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal 

message: 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)
replies: text: The east/west division of the Empire was far more westward than the lands north of Greece. Also, while Greek was the dominant language in the east, Latin was not absent either (especially in the early years).  —Sowlos  15:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dacia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  motto? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Add links to the Gothic & Vandal wars article in the "Byzantine reconquest" section  

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. I have removed it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevance 

message: 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)
replies: text: Don't think so. Changed it to normal size. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

text: What is meant is that the usurper Jovinus had the support of the gallic nobility, and the Bugrandians and Alans. To counteract this, Honorius turned to the Visigoths for help. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. (I thought so.) Copy edited. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

text: I struggle to understand this. What is the system which is being replaced? (Do you mean 'gradually replaced the old Roman institutions', or something like that?) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, while the Barbarian Kingdoms made strives to preserve roman continuity their new institutions came to replace the older ones that had been created and maintained by the romans. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll have a go. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the current version looks good. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

text: As in a Western Roman Empire (disambiguation) page? Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops sorry. I clearly need my own copy editor! I meant that there are a lot of duplicated Wikilinks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I can have a go at removing duplicates, should I do it as soon as possible or maybe wait until the copy-editing is finished as some links might change? Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Start whenever you want. It won't disturb the copy editing. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

text: I am not sure if I wrote the paragraph (I don't recognise it and I am pretty sure everything was cited before) but it is possible that I am just forgetting stuff. Perhaps it would be best to remove the uncited paragraph? If you have more relevant information to add to the section that would of course be appreciated. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a go. Usually I try to keep the roles of copy editor and content contributor separate. But this is right in my area of knowledge and sources so I will give in to temptation. Feel free to be harsh if you don't like it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

text: OK. That makes sense. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

text: I don't, personally, find the article image heavy at all. Although that is just one editor's opinion. Your solution looks very good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Mainly based on what was done with notes in the infobox over at Byzantine Empire. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Fair enough. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Many thanks for taking the time to look through and copy edit the article! Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Thank you very much for the time spent improving our little (or rather, large...) article! -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Mostly I enjoyed it. I should probably have done more, but my brain was starting to melt! I will be back, as a normal editor, to make some contributions to the economics section. You have a fine piece of work here. You just need to find a GAN assessor who is a glutton for punishment . Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: Don't think so. Changed it to normal size. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Query 1

message: 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.
:What is meant is that the usurper Jovinus had the support of the gallic nobility, and the Bugrandians and Alans. To counteract this, Honorius turned to the Visigoths for help. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. (I thought so.) Copy edited. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Query 2

message: "The barbarian kingdoms gradually replaced the old Roman system..."
:I struggle to understand this. What is the system which is being replaced? (Do you mean 'gradually replaced the old Roman institutions', or something like that?) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, while the Barbarian Kingdoms made strives to preserve roman continuity their new institutions came to replace the older ones that had been created and maintained by the romans. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll have a go. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the current version looks good. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Query 3

message: The article could do with a disambiguation. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As in a Western Roman Empire (disambiguation) page? Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops sorry. I clearly need my own copy editor! I meant that there are a lot of duplicated Wikilinks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I can have a go at removing duplicates, should I do it as soon as possible or maybe wait until the copy-editing is finished as some links might change? Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Start whenever you want. It won't disturb the copy editing. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion 1 

message: 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)
replies: text: I am not sure if I wrote the paragraph (I don't recognise it and I am pretty sure everything was cited before) but it is possible that I am just forgetting stuff. Perhaps it would be best to remove the uncited paragraph? If you have more relevant information to add to the section that would of course be appreciated. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a go. Usually I try to keep the roles of copy editor and content contributor separate. But this is right in my area of knowledge and sources so I will give in to temptation. Feel free to be harsh if you don't like it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Economic decline

message: "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)
replies: text: OK. That makes sense. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Query 4

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't, personally, find the article image heavy at all. Although that is just one editor's opinion. Your solution looks very good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: 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)
replies: text: Mainly based on what was done with notes in the infobox over at Byzantine Empire. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Fair enough. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion 2

message: 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)
replies: text: Many thanks for taking the time to look through and copy edit the article! Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Thank you very much for the time spent improving our little (or rather, large...) article! -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Mostly I enjoyed it. I should probably have done more, but my brain was starting to melt! I will be back, as a normal editor, to make some contributions to the economics section. You have a fine piece of work here. You just need to find a GAN assessor who is a glutton for punishment . Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Fin''

message: 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)
replies: text: Absolutely a good idea, I've put it up for a review. And thank you! Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACR? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Roman Mauretania 

message: The first sentence, which contains the definition, reads
:"The Western Roman Empire comprises the western provinces of the Roman Empire at any time during which they were administered by a separate independent Imperial court; in particular, this term is used in historiography to describe the period from 395..."
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)
replies: text: 395 is true - the term "Western Roman Empire" typically does refer to the western provinces from the death of Theodosius I to whenever you consider the West to fall/collapse. This is followed in much of the rest of the article as well, such as the 'background' section going up to the time of Honorius, whose reign is the first described under 'history'. 'Western Roman Empire' is a thing made up by historians given that the Romans themselves did not see the empire as divided. There was a separate Western court several times before 395, intermittently from 286 onwards, but historiography mainly places its beginning in 395. The few cases where 286 is adhered to instead (capitals in the infobox, the list of emperors at the end) are not that many, certainly not as big an issue as 'constantly contradicted within the article' makes it seem to be. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get the DEFINITION (YEARS) right before anything else 

message: 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)
replies: text: I tried to find any issues with the map, but honestly I couldn't find them. It shows more cities, looks cleaner, and is in English. I don't really agree that the empire necessarily needs to be shown at its peak, though. In fact, showing the barbarian territories inside of Rome's borders would better represent the issues the empire was facing at the time, but honestly it doesn't matter. 296cherry (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of the Empire 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Retrospective Term?