Talk:Roman Empire/Archive 1

message: Though I'm not involved, is there really nothing the public may see in the following "editorial" note that was recently deleted?
::It should be noted to the average reader that the amount of negative information concerning early emperors and indeed all emperors to a greater or lesser extent is often false or highly exaggerated. Claims of Emperor Gaius' incestuous relationships with his sisters or the attempts he made to make his favorite horse consul, and the utter contempt history hold against Emperor Nero are the result of the senate and aristocracy of Rome, which doubtlessly opposed minor changes in Roman tradition or culture. A great example can be found with Emperor Hadrian. Shortly after his death, he was declared Memoriae Damnatio by the senate. For his Hellenophile tendencies and his liberal policies towards the Empire (not to mention the great sums of money he spent building in Rome and renovating towns he visited on his trans-imperial tours) he was extremely unpopular, however was restored in public opinion by Antoninus Pius. Nero is the same for his pro-Greek sympathies (which were considered overly-fanciful and un-Roman at times). In contrast, Emperor Antoninus Pius is held in high regards by the chroniclers of the day because of the relative inactivity of his reign. It is wise to examine the actions of Emperors held to be "good" or "bad" and keep in mind the reasons in relations to the Senate why this may be so.
There is material here worth while salvaging rather than suppressing, IMHO. Wetman 02:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of histotical texts

message: I was the one who wrote it. Who deleted it, why, and what gave them said right to do so?
I am only trying to explain what noted historians of Rome like have to say on the subject. In almost every magazine article or editorial Nero is mentioned in, some outspoken person on the subject always defends him to a certain extent (Especially Dr. Wallace-Hadrill of the British School at Rome). I read Anthony R. Birley's biography on Hadrian, and the senate did damn his memory posthumously, and his image was recovered by Antoninus Pius. I delivered only information that was factual or if not factual cannot be disproven with other facts. So, other than having a bad opinion, why was it deleted? I shall indeed salvage the information and try again.
:Well, the page history shows that it was Texture. I assume that he was being bold (that is what happens in Wikipedia!) but why not ask him? For what it is worth, I would not have deleted it.  Perhaps you should put it back, but possibly in a difference place - say, a new section "Notes on sources" at the end? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:19, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition seems generally good, but being about individuals it's perhaps more relevant to Roman Emperor than to the whole Empire. I assume Texture was misled by the wording - determination of the veracity of ancient accounts of the emperors is an important part of classical studies, and is an active research area. Stan 17:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 

message: The map looks to be in a combination of German and Latin.
Might I propose that the sections in German be modified to match the Latin of the rest of the map? --Jeff Anonymous 18:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map? 

message: I thought this article could use a timeline. So here i whipped up something which might be used as a base for a more refined version. The Caesar/Augustus differentiation does probably not make a lot of sense. Ideas how to make the timeline more compact?
--Dschwen 10:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, but vertical would work better I think - the timespan is immense, and some of the names are long. Stan 13:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this? I split it into two collums. Now I need some suggestions on the contents. Should I create seperate categories for events like battles or constructions of famous buildings? How can I make it look more polished? --Dschwen 17:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To give it a little push, I put it in the article. --Dschwen 22:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline of the Roman Empire 

message: :Augustus's strategy of intermarriage between the Julii and Claudii resulted in a combination of family and political relationships known as the Julio-Claudian dynasty. This was removed as "untrue" by an anonymous User:68.153.36.3 with no previous record of competence in any history field. Would someone knowledgable add some specifics and return it, if it is not untrue? Or leave it out. --Wetman 18:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This IP's edits are consistently nonsense and graffiti (since September 2004). the text goes back after all. --Wetman 19:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessary caution

message: I have a question in relation to the government-sanctioned persecution of religion prior to the Edict of Milan and Emperor Constantine (and his successors).  
If this violence was precipitated by a majority against a minority of religious practitioners, could the outbursts of violence be considered pogroms?  If so, when did these pogroms occur?
:Perhaps it is more useful to distinguish what was particularly Russian about a pogrom and refer to some parallels with official Roman persecution of Christians. It ossifies flexible thinking to establish a category, label it, and then cram historical facts into the category. `--Wetman 20:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  in reference to christianity 

message: An anon user has gone through and replaced (almost?) all year links from the BC to BCE and AD to CE. In most cases they have inlcuded this in the link (60 BCE) which isn't an article. I was tempted to revert the edits, but wondered whether just moving the CE or BCE outside of the link would be better (I don't have time for that at the moment) and so I've left it for now.
Do we have a policy on which style to use? Thryduulf
:There is, a faint preference for BC over BCE in historical eras. Changing them just to change them is right out, so I reverted; anon can get a login and show up here if he/she wishes to argue the point. Stan 13:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC/AD or BCE/CE? 

message: I really don't agree with some aspects of the descriptions of the Flavian dynasty. In particular, the  lines "Another example of his monarchical tendencies was his insistence that his sons Titus and Domitian would succeed him; the imperial power was not seen as hereditary at this point." bother me, since this was standard practice (and indeed the Emperor Claudius was appointed by the Praetorian Guard for this very reason! --Masamax 10:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Flavian Dynasty

message: thumb|right|This is the plain thumbnail format without px (pixel) spex.
I think this is a nice map that we can use as the basis for identifying the locations of Roman Provinces. Most of the subsequent province pages are without maps and not standardized to a certain format. --Christopher 20:39, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
:I put it in thumbnail format. Looks good. Only nerds can find Moesia on the globe, eh GWB? --Wetman 23:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW typo Hispania Tarraconensis will fix one of those pseky redlinks. (I'd do it myself if I knew how...) --Wetman 23:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Province Map