Talk:Battle of the Milvian Bridge

message: I think it would be better translsted as "Under this sign, you shall win," rather than "Under this sign, you will conquer."
:Furthermore, it should be "In this sign, you shall win", since "Under this sign" is "Sub hoc signo".--Panairjdde 07:46, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, but you win a battle, and you can't conquer a battle.--Panairjdde 12:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Who ever mentioned a battle? Bill 12:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Take a look at the title! ^_^ The 'in hoc signo vinces' was referred to the battle of the next day, which Constantine was going to loose since his army was weaker. --Panairjdde 10:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What it definitely isn't is an imperative, which is what the article has it as now.  Changing now.  --85.20.0.210 (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: In hoc signo vinces

message: "perhaps one out of every citizen of Rome was christian" -- what should be the correct statistic here? 209.21.108.34 15:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 1 in 10 according to the article history, I have added this word back in. Sfnhltb 16:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Christians

message: The only thing which I might dispute, from Dr. Paul Maier's recent translation of Eusebius, is that I was under the impression that Maxentius, in anticipation of Constantine's arrival, had already destroyed the Milvian Bridge.  But, upon the counsel of a witch, Maxentius constructed a pontoon bridge so that he could meet Constantine in combat.  Maxentius' ensuing retreat proved his undoing as he drowned trying to cross back over the pontoon bridge.
As I recall, it was not that the bridge was torn down, but that it was too small to transport an army of any size - and so a pontoon bridge was constructed next to it.  
Reid 05:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The bridge

message: I see that this article used to be at Battle of the Milvian Bridge, as English idiom requires. I believe this should be non-controversial, and plan to move it back shortly. If anyone thinks otherwise, please write my talk page, and we can take this to WP:RM. Septentrionalis 18:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: Shouldn't it be "Nazarius" not "Nazarititus" in the bottom of the references.  See the Wikipedia site for Nazarius.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.173.122 (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazarius

message: I'm surprised there is no reference to the meteor theory for Constantines vision which was well publicised.
I'll add it if no one else does but I don't have expert knowledge of Constantine. JRPG (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A cursory Google search doesn't turn up much more than that BBC article. Ormö's original paper, linked to in the article on the crater, dates the formation of the crater to 412 ±40 A.D., a period that doesn't include 312 A.D. The Guardian, with a better grasp of chronology but a poorer grasp of contingency, has attributed the "fall of the Roman Empire" to the same impact. A paper in Antiquity connects the impact to a local community's conversion to Christianity in the late-third-century. It looks to me like a one-off by the BBC. I don't think it deserves to be included in the article. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Meteors

message: Heya,
Mynors is not the translator. As it says in the title, "with the Latin text of R.A.B. Mynors". Nixon / Rodgers translate and comment the work, and at the end, they append the Latin text of Mynor's Oxford edition of the Panegyrici (iirc, without any or most of the apparatus, just the bare text). I'm not really opposed to appending that information to the title in the references, but Geuiwogbil is right that Mynor's name doesn't belong into the Notes citations. Varana (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nixon / Rodgers and Mynors 

message: "The vision has been interpreted in a solar context (e.g. as a solar halo phenomenon), which would have been reshaped to fit with the Christian beliefs of the later Constantine."
Maybe this really did happen. I'm going to be honest with you; I have never actually seen a solar halo that had a ☧ and "Εν Τούτῳ Νίκα" written under it. Redsox7897 (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never seen a miracle, though I have no objections to this interpretation appearing in the text. A secular interpretation is just as valid as a religious one, from the point of view of an encyclopedic entry. Having ONLY a religious interpretation in the text is not neutral, as it would only offer a specifically Christian point of view.Urselius (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

text: No, it does not - not at all.  This is atheists looking for alternative explanations. While it should be noted in the article, beyond that, the interpretation is utterly subjective.50.111.60.244 (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar halo? NPOV