Talk:Imperium

message: Pompeius were invested with imperium maius to remove nad destroy all the pirates of the "Mare Nostrum", not to fight in Spain against Sertorius. I changed it on the entry.
----
Has anyone seen claims that Caesar was attended by 72 lictors toward the end of his career? I remember such claims, but I cannot find any documented source. -- Publius
*No. Every source i know (Suetonius and Plutarch) refer only to the 24 lictors of a dictator. Neither seems likely that Caesar, who despite all liked to play by the rules, would use such an amount. Muriel Victoria 08:33, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand correctly, Master of the Horse did have six lictors, representing praetorian imperium theoretically below that of a consul. However, the consuls gave up their power when dictator was appointed. --Chino 04:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I was under the impression that there were two types of positions in the Roman magistrates.. those that had no imperium, or other stations, which owned imperium.  Individuals required imperium to command an army of any form.
Nudas veritas 09:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The curule magistrates were considered to have imperium, while other officials did not. - Khepidjemwa'atnefru 23:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperium 

message: This article used to go into the different kinds of imperium, and included a section on maius imperium (which is critical because the article on roman emperors links to this page via maius imperium). Was this changed for a reason?96.237.158.86 (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: kinds of imperium

message: I am disambiguating the Power page, and I believe the word 'power' near the beginning of the article means power as described in the Power (sociology) article. I believe it will be helpful to readers to not have to wade through the other possibilities on the Power page. Gerry Ashton 14:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Power 

message: As far as I am aware, Thomas Cromwell was never Archbishop of Canterbury, though he was Vicar-General. The first Anglican archbishop would have been Matthew Parker: although Cranmer was an avowed Protestant, he was still in communion with rome.
ps im cool holybands22
pss on scratch  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.13.28 (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Cromwell 

message: Does holding imperium shield the imperator from prosecution during his term of holding imperium?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.230.149 (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Imperium and immunity 

message: Strongly oppose merging imperium and imperator. Obviously the two are related, but the imperator was not the only person to hold imperium, and the imperator takes on a life of his own, apart from the concept of imperium in the early Republic. I often need to link to imperium, rarely to imperator. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  unofficially proposed merge? 

message: Aren't quaestors, censors, and tribunes also curule magistrates? And can we get that list to be higher up on the page and/or somewhere where it looks less like it was thrown in at random? Thank you.--24.246.112.51 (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Censors were of curule rank, especially since anybody who held that position had already held a curule magistracy. I seem to recall that they actually placed their curule chairs at the Altar of Mars when they took the census. Tribune, not; that's part of the tribunate's plebeian character. Quaestors weren't of curule rank, either. I could be wrong, though. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cynwolfe (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magistrates list 

message: The last section has nothing to do with the Roman concept of imperium being discussed in the article. It needs to be moved somewhere or just deleted. Any suggestions? I've also split it into two, to try to retain some of the historical relevance of the usage by the Byzantine empire and popes, though I'm not happy with some of the material in there. This article really needs to be re-written.- Eponymous-Archon (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: While the article starts with discussing the purely Roman concept of imperium, I don't know that it's necessarily out of place to discuss the extension/translation of the concept into Christian theology and other matters. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion - Move last section 

message: This article as written seems to be a WP:NAD violation (a common problem). That is, it is written to be about the word imperium only tangentially discussing the concept of a Roman imperium. The word by itself is not notable enough to merit an article, but the concept is. I would suggest a rewrite to focus on the concept. (Discussion of the term itself could be a short sub-section).
-- MC  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the article does more than "tangentially" discuss the concept of Roman imperium, and is more than just a dictionary definition. What the article does lack is references that support its statements. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NAD