Talk:Claudius Gothicus

message: I've removed the section regarding St Valentine, since according to the articles on St Valentine and Valentine's Day, almost nothing is actually known about the man; the story about him "secretly marrying Claudius' soldiers" is a much later invention. FiggyBee 01:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be a section on it because that is a major legend surrounding this emperor. The circumstances around and (lack of) historical evidence supporting this legend should be included in this section as well. -Schnurrbart (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a section on St. Valentine and Claudius II, including scholarly criticism of this popular legend.-Schnurrbart (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Valentine 

message: The fact that Claudius was beloved by the Roman people is disputable. The divine status was given him by the Senate.
:Unsigned IP - his victory over the Goths was much acclaimed in Italy and Greece, at the very least. Fear was becoming a very real concern in the Empire by that time. For a quick reference, see David Stone Potter's "The Roman Empire At Bay" (2004). 50.111.3.9 (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Beloved" 

message: I prefer Claudius Gothicus as marginally more common and much less anachronistic; Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero were all Claudii. The three books which seem to have been written on this Claudius divide evenly between Claudius II. Claudius Gothicus, and Claudius II Gothicus. Please discuss here before reverting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: What do we deal with older secondary sources that rely on it? 71.191.233.216 (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As per my comments on the Talk:Philip the Arab page, while the Historia Augusta (HA) is a hoax, there is still enormous debate amongst historians about how much of the material is based upon legitimate sources, and without doubt there are nuggets of truth buried within it - even someone like Ronald Syme, who takes the minimalist position, acknowedges that much, and his minimalist position is by no means accepted by all historians. And there are certain things which we take as fact that are only mentioned in the HA, such as the Antonine Wall being built by Antoninus Pius. So we cannot completely dismiss the HA as a source. That being said, it should be treated with extreme caution, and its "facts" should be used only when verified as acceptable and legitimate by an authoritative secondary source. Now, when you say older secondary sources, just how old are you thinking? Gibbon, certainly, but anyone else? Oatley2112 (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[Historia Augusta]] is a late-4th-century hoax 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Claudius Gothicus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080521191250/http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/1049415 to http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/1049415
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The map is wrong as Dacia Traiana was a part of Roman Empire under Claudius Gothicus. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelian for the "Aurelian abandonment of Dacia". Btw, Aurelian is mentioned without the link to his page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.38.137.207 (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dacia Traiana