Talk:Trajan

message: :IN TRANSCRIBING INSCRIPTIONS SMALL CAPS LOOK BETTER AND ARE PRECISELY THE SAME SIZE AS REGULAR MINUSCULE.
:Small caps in transcribing inscriptions look better and are precisely the same size as regular minuscule. 
------
>He was born on September 18, 66 A.D, in the city of Italica. When he became >emperor 45 years later, he thus became the first Roman Emperor not born in >Italy....
alejandra was here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.222.130 (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this appropriate: "While many consider Trajan to be an example of how Rome accepted the ideals from all over the empire, many consider the rise of a Spaniard to the top of Roman politics to be the beginning of the fall of true 'Roman' society. Wouldn't it be more informative instead to mention how utterly Romanized Hispania Baetica was? --Wetman 04:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  So much for "weak eyes" 

message: In the historical context of this article, is it really appropriate to link "Persia" to Iran? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:31, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
:The Roman enemy beyond the Tigris at this point were the Parthians.--Wetman 04:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran/Persia 

message: As I know, Trajan never conquered Dacia completely, I think he conquered something like 15 - 20 %, winning the wars because he took the capital and split the country. But Dacia was not conquered completely and was not part of the Roman Empire.
The romans destroyed the dacian kingdom, althoug, didn't conquer all the ancient territory of the dacians, they took the main and best regions and for two centuries Dacia was roman province, with many roman colonies, very important for the Empire because her gold mines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.124.133.70 (talk • contribs) 13 Jan 2006
While it is true that Trajan didn't completely conquer Dacia and that its gold mines were valuable, after the death of Constantine the Great the Romans pulled out of Dacia and never returned. The constant invasions of Gothic tribes was to much for the Roman army too handle. --Sgusm (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: There is some wrong historical information

message: Recently added: "Dio Cassius reports that Trajan drank heavily and was a pederast, but in his relations with boys he harmed no one." Probably accurate, a citation would be nice, but why quote Dio Cassius on this relatively minor matter and not on (what I remember from maybe 30 years ago to be) his wide-ranging praise of Trajan? Or do I mis-remember? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pederasty 

message: Anyone know anything about Trajan being the Caesar during the incident of the Ten Martyrs? Valley2city 20:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this event took place supposedly during the Jewish revolt of 70AD. But there are discrepanceies as the article about the Ten Martyrs names Shimon ben Gamliel as one of them and he was executed in 70AD as well as a Rabbi Akiva who died circa 135AD. In 70AD Vespasian was emperor. The question remains wether it was Vespasian or his son Titus who are meant by this story. And in 135 Hadrian was emperor and Trajan was already dead for 18 years. As the story most likely took place during the First Jewish-Roman War, Hadrian seems unlikely and Trajan impossible. -- fdewaele, 28 November 2006, 20:10
------
Reading the wikipedia article on the Hebrew Calendar, I came across this reference to Trajan:
Alexandrian Jewish calendar
The Ethiopic Christian computus (used to calculate Easter) describes in detail a Jewish calendar which must have been used by Alexandrian Jews near the end of the third century. These Jews formed a relatively new community in the aftermath of the annihilation (by murder or enslavement) of all Alexandrian Jews by Emperor Trajan at the end of the 115–117 Kitos War. Their calendar used the same epacts in nineteen year cycles that were to become canonical in the Easter computus used by almost all medieval Christians, both those in the Latin West and the Hellenist East. Only those churches beyond the eastern border of the Byzantine Empire differed, changing one epact every nineteen years, causing four Easters every 532 years to differ.  [Emphasis Added]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar
But when I read the entry on Trajan, I find no mention of this.  Is the accuracy of that statement disputed?
All thoughts appreciated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.40.215 (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ten Jewish Martyrs 

message: So are, like, 90% of the edits to this article in the last few months either vandalism or reversion of vandalism? Or is it even more than that? - Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much vandalized 

message: Isn't the inclusion in :Category:Andalusian people anachronistic? This would be like including Immanuel Kant as Russian because Königsberg is now Russian Kaliningrad, or calling King David a Palestinian. - Jmabel | Talk 23:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: In fact, Hadrian was not, according to the sources, the one to bring Traian news of his adoption.  He wanted to very much and tried to, but was stopped by various people who were out to get him.  There was something about sabotage to his chariot I believe.  This is according to Suetonius, whom I suspect is usually wrong, but it's the information that exists, so the wikipedia article should reflect that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.191.94 (talk • contribs).
:I suspect you're thinking of the life of Hadrian in the Historia Augusta, which reports that Servianus attempted to delay Hadrian from delivering the news and that Hadrian's chariot was sabotaged, but that Hadrian still got to Trajan first on foot (2.5–6).  Ronald Syme (Tacitus, pp. 600–601) thinks that the story comes from Hadrian's autobiography and was intended to justify the later execution of Servianus. EALacey 17:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hadrian's bringing of the adoption news 

message: Good gods, he's got such a tiny head!  It's disturbingly freaky!  Was that how his head was in history?  Someone should start a section in his article about his tiny head!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndarielHalo (talk • contribs) 01:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when does the apparently small size of a historical figure's head have any significance? Trajan was one of the more respected Roman Emperors, so why the random talk about the size of his skull? AndyB66 (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If he actually had a tiny head, it's worth mentioning. If it's just shitty art, it ain't. — LlywelynII 04:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiny freaking head 

message: According to Mary Boatwright (in A. Barrett, ed., Lives of the Caesars, Blackwell, Oxford, 2008, p. 161), Trajan died in Gazipaşa (Selinus, Selinti, in Turkey, ancient Cilicia), not in the well-known Sicilian Selinus. Please check. --Lionni (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selinus in Cilicia or Sicilia, please check 

message: Is there some truth to the legend that Trajan's ashes were removed or stolen from Trajan's Column by some Spanish ambassador and taken to the Casa de Pilatos palace in Seville near his natal Italica?
--Error (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ashes

message: Just wondering how this name is pronounced. If he was from Spain, which speaks spanish, wouldn't the "J" in the middle of the name make the "H" sound? So it would sound like the last name Trahan? Just a thought.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.189.236 (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're joking, right? The Spanish language did not exist in the 2nd century AD, along with French, German, English, Italian, etc. The Romans spoke Latin, if this was not painfully obvious to you before. "Trajan" is simply an Anglicization of his name; in Latin it is TRAIANVS (pronounced: Tray-ee-ah-noose), with no J, since this letter did not exist in the Latin Alphabet of the Roman period. Hope that clears this up.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're joking, right? If you're going to be that pedantic about classical Latin pronunciation, you should at least be aware of its vowel values and the possible consonantal value for I. It would've been /traːˈi̯aː.nus/  or /traːˈjaː.nus/ . In any case, OP asked how the name is pronounced. It's /ˈtɹeɪ.d͡ʒən/  or /ˈtɹeɪ.d͡ʒæn/  in English and in Spanish it would be something like /traˈhano/  with the j read as an h. — LlywelynII 04:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trajan 

message: With Trajan becoming the first non-Italic Emperor,due you think that this marks a turning in the Roman mindset of what it means to be Roman?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nichhowsy (talk • contribs) 22:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trajan's origins 

message: Trajan's origins
With Trajan becoming the first non-Italic Emperor,due you think that this marks a turning in the Roman mindset of what it means to be Roman?Nichhowsy (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: While the TP is not a forum, the short answer is "no" - he came from a solid Roman colonial family.  It didn't matter that he was not born in Italy. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. Read the two sources listed in the article.  His background is thoroughly Italian.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.12.90 (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect is your opinion. "His background is thoroughly Italian". LOL. Cite a single phrase in the article saying that absurdity. His family was known to have mixed with the native population, and of course it did happen after so much time. Just read the article again, his family was even known to have lost citizenship because of such marriages, the article is just here, read it. I think the major point in this narrative to try to distance him from Spanish roots is that Northern American and European historiography is almost entirely anti-Spanish in its historical bias, the "Black Legend" against the Spaniards and their fantastic history is present even in articles like this one; which is funny, considering that Anglo-Saxons have nothing to do with the Roman Empire and have to try to distort its history to avoid acknowledging simple facts like this, "Trajan was too great for me to accept that he was a Spaniard with native blood", LOL. He had Iberian blood, he was born in Hispania and more, he was one of the first known Spaniards: He had Spanish blood and Latin culture. Also, i don't need to mention how maternal DNA is so dominating in such circumstances following the generations, search for Ottoman dinastic history (which also had a patriarchal culture and was known to mix with native woman and neighboring peoples) and you will have a glympse on it.177.38.210.52 (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trajan's origins (edit) 

message: Trajan did not die in Selinus/Selinunte, Sicily. He died in Selinus, current Gazipasa, some 40km south-east of Alanya, Turkey. That settlement was later renamed Trajanopolis.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andershl (talk • contribs) 21:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Selinus in the article. 

message: There are 5 nations and languages with strong and direct roots from the Roman Empire: Italians, Spanish, French, Portuguese and Romanians. The conquest of Dacia by Trajan, marks the birth of the Romanians as a people. The article makes no mention about the Romanization of Dacia which lead to the formation of the Romanian people on that territory. Is this omission intentional and if yes, why? 
Thewallachian (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that's completely wrong.  The Romanian people have their roots in the Vlachs and the nation formed in the Middle Ages. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanization of Dacia = Formation of the Romanian people - no word about it? 

message: I would just like to think the person responsible for indicating the possibility that the visage of Trajan might well have been continued by an imposter!  Certainly, the common belief that Hadrian was a native of "Adraini"?, or some other nearby place is wrong?  Was the "Adraitic" Sea, named for either?  And going deep into the well, could one well consider that "Adrian" was the correct form for both or one?69.92.23.64 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trajan (Traian) as Hadrain! 

message: When I get some time I can cite many references that punch wholes in Trajan's reputation.  While an excellent administrator, he wasted valuable resources in Mesopotamia that could have been used to much better effect elsewhere, for example.  He did not handle the Jewish trouble well at all, nor did he set up for a successor that could, either - whatever Hadrian's other qualities might have been.  HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see those references that assess Trajan negatively. Yes we all know his eastern conquests were a failure. Yet, he was the first emperor to bring Persia to it's knees, plus he conquered Dacia. The Jews rebelled regularly during that period of Roman history and the issues at hand could hardly be blamed on Trajan. The concept of "resources could have been spent elsewhere" is also hollow. Expansion into Mesopotamia was the last truly profitable region into which the empire could expand. Trajan simply bit off more than he could chew. If anything the idleness of the empire between 117 and the early 160s hurt more in the long run. In retrospect we know it would have served the empire better if Trajan sought to achieve limited, realistic objectives in his eastern war, such as sacking Ctesiphon then settling on the Tigris how Severus and Diocletian did.--Tataryn77 (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are clearly not a professional historian from those remarks.  Also, OR is not permitted here. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You clearly did not refute anything I said. However, I do think It would be great to see a more varied view here on the repercussions of Trajan's policies.--Tataryn77 (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And since that time the  article has been updated accordingly, your arguments were weak and misleading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.12.90 (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy section is unbalanced ... 

message: It is claimed in the article that "ancient sources on Trajan's personality and accomplishments are unanimously positive".
I know at least one which is not - Julian the Apostate's The Caesars:   Daizus (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient sources on Trajan 

message: Traianus was a member of gens Ulpia. He was born in Spain into a Roman family of Italian stock. His mother is unknown; however, his paternal ancestors moved from Italy and settled in Italica (near modern Seville, Spain) in the Roman Province of Hispania Baetica.
That's false. Marcus Ulpius Traianus' gens was TRAII and not ULPIA. Marcus Ulpius Traianus was adopted for a roman family but he was of turdetanii ancestors (iberian tribe of Southwest of Spain) His parents weren't from Italy then. And Trajan adopted his surname 
About Marcus Ulpius Traianus' gens you can read:
http://uam.academia.edu/AliciaMCanto/Books/1136197/Las_raices_beticas_de_Trajano_los_Traii_de_la_Italica_turdetana_y_otras_novedades_sobre_su_familia_texto_  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.237.90 (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the ENGLISH Wikipedia. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever the case, he had some Spanish blood and no single sources denies it, or could deny it. Even the article is clear about the fact that his family once even lost the citizenship because of marriage with local women, and after that long time of settlement you know that you have a very interesting and unusual pattern by some Northern Europeans here, almost like they want passionately to steal this part of Spain's history because Trajan was the greatest Emperor. To reinforce this point even more (i fell like trying to convince people that the sky is blue); the pattern of dominance by maternal DNA when generations follow with the same kind of (obvious) marriage, the many evidences, his birth, his provincial family's history all of that reinforce this fact even more... you won't believe in evidences like that only if you really don't want to believe in them... due to personal POV and passion. At least some Hispanic blood he was sure to have, and his culture was Latin, he was probably the greatest early Spaniard, and his extended family continued there. For some reason, some people that are anti-Spanish for most of the times want to deny it desperately (i'm not Spanish, neither Spanish-speaking, i just like the truth more than these blatant biases).  Many Spanish families started like his own family, he was an early Spaniard born in Hispania and whose successor also was born there, also there was a time in Rome that Hispanic families were dominating political power, provicial power started to grow from that province. 177.38.210.52 (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification about GENS 

message: Out of respect for the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty, it would be preferred that "BCE" and "CE" be used instead of "BC" and "AD" since these people had no affiliation, or liking to Christianity. If you object, please provide a valid reason as to why. Lupus Bellator (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no call to switch from one convention to the other, per WP:ERA.Cúchullain t/c 20:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I may sound like a broken record but I agree again with Cúchullain as in talk Nerva. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Ditto. Lupus needs to stop his era crusading. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Opposed, if this comes back up. — LlywelynII 04:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Era style 

message: Was Trajan homosexual or bisexual? And if so, why is this not mentioned? 86.166.132.195 (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be interested in Homosexuality in ancient Rome, in order to see why those modern labels might not be useful in understanding Roman male sexuality. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

text: More helpfully, as mentioned above, Cassius Dio states he was a "good" pederast, a politely Latinate term for a gay pedophile. As Cynwolfe was trying to point out, Roman ideas about sexuality didn't map out onto 21st century English ones so the possibility is open that he was bisexual or just being slandered for political purposes. As for why it wasn't mentioned in the article yet, presumably an editor got their knickers in a twist about its inclusion. — LlywelynII 04:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexual 

message: His name is given (twice) as Imperator Caesar Nerva Traianus Divi Nerva fili Augustus. This should be Imperator Caesar Nerva Traianus Divi Nervae filius Augustus (2 words changed).
Collideascope (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Filius describes Trajan himself and so agrees (nominative) with his name; he's the son of (genitive) the Divine Nerva. Will fix. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  His official name 

message: The article states that, according to Dando-Collins, the Legio II Traiana Fortis was deployed in Laodicea (Syria) shortly after being recruited along with XXX Ulpia Victrix. Nevertheless, other scholars (Ronald Syme, Ritterling, Strobel, Urloiu...) think that it was actually garrisoned in the lower Danube, most probably in Moesia Superior, before being sent to the East. 
Moreover, some of them (again Syme) think that both legions may have fought in Trajan's Dacian Wars.
Ritterling, E., 1925. RE XII. Col. 1485.
Syme, R., 1971. Danubian Papers, Bucharest. Page 106.
Strobel, K., 1984. Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriegen Trajans. Studien zur Geschichte des mittleren und unteren Donauraumes in der Hohen Kaiserzeit, Antiquitas I 33. Bonn. Page 98.
Strobel, K., 2010. Kaiser Traian. Eine Epoche der Weltgeschichte, Verlag Friedrich Pustet. Regensburg. Page 254-255, 265, 299, 364.
Urloiu, R-L., AGAIN ON LEGIO II TRAIANA FORTIS,. History and Civilization. EUBSR 2013 International Conference, Volume 2.
Aquiles77 (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the role of the Legio II Traiana Fortis in Trajan's Second Dacian War 

message: In response to a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I have just completed a copy-edit of Trajan. I have a few minor concerns:
1) The last two sentences of the second paragraph in the section Trajan#Early life and rise to power are:
*During his tenure in Pannonia, he fought against the Suebic tribes in Germania. Under Nerva's rule, Trajan was one of the most gifted generals.
These sentences immediately follow several sentences about his origins and family. The change to a "tenure in Pannonia", with no date and no transitional words, seems rather abrupt. Also, the next sentence mentions his being a "gifted general". Then the sentences that follow go back to Trajan as a young man, and his early military career. I think these sentences are out of chronological order and would be better placed later in the section. Does anyone have any suggestions about where to place them? 
2) The last sentence of the first paragraph in the section Trajan#The Correctores: Greek/Roman relations is the following:
*This had to do mostly with curbing the overenthusiastic spending on public works that was used as a means of channeling ancient rivalries between neighboring cities, and therefore with the fact that junior members of the local oligarchies would feel disinclined to present themselves to fill posts as local magistrates, such positions involving ever increasing personal expenses.
Besides the fact that the sentence is a bit long, I think the part "that was used as a means of channeling ancient rivalries between neighboring cities" needs to be made clearer, if it is to remain in the sentence. For the average reader, it will not be clear how "overenthusiastic spending on public works" could have been used "as a means of channeling ancient rivalries", nor what the connection to the junior members of the local oligarchies feeling "disinclined to...fill posts" is. It's all too densely academic.
3) In the middle of the fourth paragraph in that section is the following sentence:
*One of the compensatory measures proposed by Pliny expressed a thoroughly Roman conservative position: that it was necessary to lower the minimum age to hold a seat in the local city council in order to increase the number of younger members of the local oligarchies who would contribute to civic spending, something that was seen as better than enrolling upstarts from the plebs into the councils.
The structure of the sentence is clear enough, and the sentence is fairly clear up to "civic spending," but the last part is not clear enough. What are "upstarts from the plebs"? I suppose "plebs" is short for "plebians", but even that ought to be explained or linked. Also, it's not really clear why increasing the number of younger members of the local oligarchies would be better than "enrolling upstarts from the plebs". Why mention this if the reason is not given? This is comprehensible only to someone already familiar with Roman history. 
4) I wonder whether the sections Trajan#The Correctores: Greek/Roman relations, Trajan#Conquest of Dacia, and especially Trajan#War against Parthia are not too long.
Well, that's all. – Corinne (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few questions following GOCE copy-edit 

message: I saw death dates such as August 7, August 8, August 9, August 10 and even August 11. What is the death date today is the most accurate?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2698:2823:2FE4:2DFA:A7F1:1117:D5A0 (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trajan's death date. 

message: I just finished to read the beautiful biography of Trajan by Karl Strobel "Optimus Princeps" (in German). In the Preface the author writes that the book of Julian Bennett "Trajan. Optimus Princeps" cannot be used as a Reliable source. He writes that "in infinite places massive misinterpretations of primary sources and modern research can be discovered, which make the book generally unreliable: people who have no previous knowledge about the subject, will be misinformed in many places". Apparently the book of Bennett has been criticized by many scholars: among them "W. Eck, Scripta Classica Israelitica 17, 1998, 231-234".  Despite the critics, the second edition of the book maintains all the mistakes of the first one. According to Strobel, the main problem is that Bennett (an archeologist!) does not known neither Latin nor ancient Greek, and has problem to read Italian, German and French. According to Strobel, the diffusion of the book has caused many erroneous information to be considered as true. Alex2006 (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out!  I will try to confirm this. If so, the article would need far more work than I initially thought. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , you are welcome! I would like to point out that I don't want to make any polemic against Bennett, but relata refero ;-). I don't know Bennett's book, but I just read the book by Strobel, who is a well known scholar, and wrote his biography about Trajan during two leaves of absence at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton. Alex2006 (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , that's important. I read Bennett's book, and his main interest - as should be expected from an archaeologist - are Trajan's buildings (The Column, the Arch in Beneventum, the Roman Forum, and so on) about which he offers the most detailed information. In his general account of Trajan's reign, as far as I can gather, he says nothing that struck me as outlandish, bizarre or controversial, only as a very conventional historical narrative. Veyne, on the other hand, offers a far more controversial interpretation of issues like the alimenta, Trajan's "ideology" and so on - as should be expected from a French postmodern historian and a friend of Foucault's.... Does Strobel point, in his book,to any particular points in Bennett's account? In the affirmative case, which ones?Cerme (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  All what Strobel says about Bennett, I reported above. I should maybe also add that Bennett's book is not used as reference by Strobel, but this is obvious, after what he wrote. I think that one should read the Review of Werner Eck which Strobel cites above (Werner Eck, Review of Julian Bennett, Trajan, Optimus Princeps. A Life and Times: XVII, 231. ), in order to understand more about Bennett's "zahllose Fehler". Alex2006 (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm concerned at the moment with the Roman Empire map presented in the article, which is attributed to Bennett. The Bennett map is much more sketchy - and, therefore, in my view, more accurate as far as historical authorities are concerned. I'm upset with the fact that the article's map includes Susa into the Roman Empire - something for which there is the scantiest evidence and which appears to me as extrmely improbable. Fact is, Trajan's Mesopotamian "conquests" amounted as far as we know to a very temporary Roman occupation of Southern Mesopotamian, and it's daring to affirm (unless there is some conclusive archaeological evidence) that an already overextended Roman army could  stretch outside of Mesopotamia into Susa. Fact is that the maximum extent ever of the Roman Empire, in terms of permanent conquests, was attained under Septimius Severus, not under Trajan- something that should mentioned in the article, plus the fact that a map of the Roman Empire under Trajan should tell between permanent conquests (Dacia) and temporary ones (Armenia & Mesopotamia). Cerme (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I stated years ago that a map of the empire under Severus would be more appropriate, but was rejected. Apparently it's because so many sources say Trajan's empire was the largest yadah yadah so we can't do OR and say it wasn't. About Susa, doing a quick search on Google Books brings up numerous secondary sources stating the Romans captured Susa, but I'm not sure where they're getting that from, either Dio or the Historia Augusta? Apparently troops pursued Osroes there and took a bunch of his stuff. Unless there's modern secondary sources saying that the Romans didn't take Susa, the sheer weight of two centuries of secondary sources saying the Romans indeed took it outweighs our speculation. I have no horse in this race, though, and would be happy to edit the current map based upon the outcome of a lengthy discussion amongst the experts we have around here.--Tataryn (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Alessandro57 Can you quote anything specific that Strobel says about errors in Bennett? You said "All what Strobel says about Bennett, I reported above", but from what I can see, there's nothing specific mentioned – which would seem rather unacademic for an author to blast Bennett for errors but never elaborate.--Tataryn (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @talkYes, many secondary sources say that Trajan took Susa, but they never state where they got that from. Besides, there is the problem that Susa at the Early Second Century was probably a backwater far away from Mesopotamia, and stating that Trajan took it appears to me as a bit of epic exaggeration by means of a fictive throwback to the age of Alexander the Great, as in the bogus epic poem in Petronius' Satyricon stating that Pompey the Great crossed the Indus River. As far as the actual extent of the Roman Empire at the end of Trajan's reign goes, the map in the German Wikipedia appears to me as the most accurate single piece available (In the French Wikipedia, there is a whole Power Point presentation on the Parthian Wars)Cerme (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The map on the German article has significant errors. The map does not show Charax as being part of Trajan's conquests. It shows Sarmizegetusa as being in the Wallachian plain – and the Romans did not hold the Wallachian plain for any real period of time. It also does not show Porolissum as being part of the province of Dacia. The province of Mauretania Tingitania did not extend that far south along the Atlantic coast. The Nabataean region is also completely wrong. It does not show Leuce Come or any of the more distant settlements as being part of the Empire. The map doesn't show Ammonium in Egypt as part of the empire either. All these errors make the map wholly inaccurate, much more so than the current map which is pretty much accurate on all fronts except the possibility that Susa was not part of Trajan's conquests. When I say "the map does not show...", I don't mean that those cities are not labelled, I mean that the territory depicted does not encompass the area where those places would be labelled if they were. Also, that French power point actually shows Susa as being captured by the Romans, so I'm not sure what you were getting at by referring to it.--Tataryn (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, my bad.Sorry. The German map had the advantage of showing Charax outside the Roman Empire, as the sources tells that the Characene king submitted to Trajan as client king. But then it has Sarmizegetusa in the wrong place (the Wallachian plain as part of the Empire is to be admitted , IMHO, as long as it was abandoned by Hadrian and not by Trajan). As to the French map, it has the advantage of being more of a map of military operations - but then it has Susa, again.... In the end, we have to settle with the existing map, in that it is not more inaccurate than the other alternatives. The only issue is that the map shown in the article is unproperly sourced, as it is not a copy, in any meaningful sense, of the map sketched by Bannett. That should be admitted and the map properly sourced.Cerme (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Absolutely, I think. Ancient History maps reflect the state of the arts in terms of actual historical knowledge ammassed and should not reflect preconceived notions about Ancient societies. There is a tendency, I think, to make the Roman Empire even more "grand" than it actually was. Cerme (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Cerme, sorry for the delay in my answer, but I was in vacation in the capital of the Empire ;-) . Concerning maps, I always use the historic atlas by de Agostini, and there Susa lies far away from the Empire's border: at its latitude, the border of the provincia Mesopotamia was the Tigris. I also agree with you that Trajan's conquests in modern Iraq, Caucasus and southeast Turkey where temporary: anyway, a lot of sources affirm the the greatest extension of the Empire occurred under him. @Tataryn please read all my edits, not only the last one. We need access to the source where Bennett's mistakes are described in details. I will ask an experienced user and friend of mine, who possibly has online access. Valete ;-) Alex2006 (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Alex2006 Alessandro, I feel that , in reviewing the article so as to achieve GA status, we must keep track of the changes in outlook brought by modern historiography. In the sources I searched for, Susa is included in Trajan's conquest only in XIXth. Century books. Also, the notion that Susa was the "summer capital" of the Parthian Empire is a creative anachronism coming from the notion that Trajan was the equal of Alexander the Great and therefore Parthia was the continuation of Darius' Persian Empire. As Trajan was a senatorial emperor, and Septimius Severus a military one, Ancient sources expanded Trajan's achievments and deflated Severus', whose province of (Northern) Mesopotamia was a permanent conquest that remained in the Empire for at least a half century (Trajan's conquests, otherwise, actually lasted a few months). What I found in the way of conffirming Trajan's conquests was that Parthian Susa was an Hellenistic (Seleucid) foundation  which traded with Charax, and , therefore that Trajan might have envisaged a raid on Susa in order to control an important trade route - but with that we are in the realm of the (barely) possible.  All this must , I feel, be kept track of somehow in the final text.Cerme (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Cerme, thanks for your explanation! I checked Strobel again, and there is no mention of Susa's conquest. Alex2006 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bennett 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Trajan. 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/20140210160453/http://tjbuggey.ancients.info/Alimenta.html to http://tjbuggey.ancients.info/Alimenta.html
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) 11:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: تارجان هو ملك الرمان القديمة  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.200.113.178 (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual reassessment 

message: I just removed a completely fantastical, unsourced interpretation of Cassius Dio's account of Trajan's games, and rewrote the section. His is, as far I know, the only primary account. Well, at least primary-ish. I bring the relevant diff  here because the misinformation survived, unsourced and unchallenged, since April, 2006, and through at least two, and possibly three GA reviews. Nobody noticed. That should be food for thought. Haploidavey (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced and fantastical 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: In the article’s lead, the link building projects just leads to the main article Trajan. Is this a mistake? 46.15.226.232 (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch - it should be working now! Furius (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faulty link? 

message: Whoever might have raised it, is "barbarian tribes" now an appropriate term to use? PatGallacher (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we don't seem to have a clear idea whom he fought specifically, I think it makes sense to keep it. Furius (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't really the issue. PatGallacher (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So...looking at the biography of Bennet it says that Trajan took the title "Germanicus" in 97 for a victory over the Suebi and others, that's the success referred to in that passage, for this victory contributed to his adoption by Nerva at that time. I too have no problem with the term "barbarians", because that's a recurring term in ancient and modern historiography to group the different non-Roman peoples and tribes. However, here we can write "Germanic tribes", because these are the specific peoples mentioned in the context.Barjimoa (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

text: No. "Barbarian" is highly inappropriate language to use in a non-citable context. This term has a strong historical link as a pejorative term and utilised as a rational to subjugate out-groups. EmMyNaTOR (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Barbarian

message: Please edit page to replace BC/AD with BCE/CE. It is objectionable to use a religious tenor when it is widely accepted to use the secular variation in academia. In other words, BC/AD are antiquated terms. EmMyNaTOR (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2023 

message: should be mentioned, dated, and sourced when possible. — LlywelynII 04:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Quinquennalia]] and [[Decennalia]]

message: I, User:Furius, User:Alessandro57 and many many others (the more you go back in time on this talk page the more users who reached the same conclusion you will find) already agreed, and looked carefully at the sources multiple times to make this decision, that the Italic lineage of Trajan (and of his hometown of, nomen omen, Italica) is 100% certain. All Trajan' biographies state this on the first pages of the biography of Trajan (we already listed them in previous discussions). 
It is also been agreed that it's relevant for this to be mentioned in the intro like we do for the Greek lineage of Cleopatra (see above for the previous discussions). 
Note that the ONLY ONE user who has relentlessly pushed against this fact over the years and tried to change it without basis is the permanent blocked user User:JamesOredan (who violated basically every rule of wikipedia) with a part of his hundreds of socks (Venezia Friulano, Aestatichs01, Bolnet, EvertonEast, several others, and many many IPs that have been rangeblocked for this article). He claims various weak reasons for it but the reality is that he and his socks just go around removing stuff about Italy or other countries (Portugal, Uk) without caring for sources and consensus (other users who dealt with this way of proceeding are User:LukeWiller and User:P Aculeius, and many others). 
All this is because he is a strange suprematist obsessed with genetics and feels a rivarly with Italy, Portugal and Uk, so he goes around insulting Italian, Portuguese, Arab and British users, pushing Spain up to the extremes and putting Italy, Uk, Portugal down. I want to inform everyone that every time there is this weird proceeding involved, it's very likely him. Don't be afraid to revert and report him and have him blocked, even though he is a gaslighter and engages in accusation in a mirror.
Barjimoa (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest socks of James/Venezia