Talk:Domitian

message: Commonly known as "Satan the Devil"? Uhh...please tell me that that is graffiti, and in relation to the pro-senatorial bias, see http://www.roman-emperors.org/domitian.htm
What exactly does "despite some arguments in the scientific community" mean?  Did somebody do a test and discover the persecutions did not occur?
Who exactly questions the persecutions and why?  Do they have historical credentials, or are they assumed to be experts because of scientific credentials?  Need to contextualize. Jdavidb 21:41, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: "Sexual Significance
Domitian remains significant in the history of sexuality for being the first Roman Emperor to use a spray on condom during one of his many attempts to 'ave a jab at one of dem dere Roman Bitches. {Source: S. Watson}"
wtf? don't make me laugh wikipedia
There is a section described as "Boats and Hoes" I dont think thats meant to be there, but I cant see what it was previously in the history...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.61.40 (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: This entire section is unsourced with a very strong POV that is pretty much irrelevent to an artical about Domitian.  It should be removed or substantually rewritten with some citations about the claims made.RBobicus 21:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first quotation is inaccurate, and in the second Suetonius was discussing the death of the astrologer, not that of Domitian.  I agree with RBobicus that the section as written does not belong in this article.  I have moved it below.  If anyone cares to preserve it, they could perhaps place in the article on Christian persecution.  That said, within the Christian community there is a long established idea that there was a persecution under Domitian, derived from extrapolation from the New Testament book of Revelation.  This is part of the historical discourse concerning Domitian, and might be profitably discussed as such in the article, if there were interest.--Nefasdicere 16:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is the venerable Catholic Encyclopedia considered a trustworthy source?  Much of the information in its entry on Domitian is at sharp variance with Wikipedia's article.  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05114b.htm  The Sanity Inspector (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domitian and early Christianity 

message: What happened? The article has been deleted. It's vandalism! Should we block 24.2.221.241?--Stratford15 23:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Happened? Vandalism? 

message: Although I am no professional historian (and that may invalidate my opinion right there!) it seems this article might also be improved by the addition of a few bits, such as Domitian's personality, his building and rebuilding of the 'limes' anti-siegework (ramparts, ditches, etc.) on and near the Danube, as well as some of the more colourful episodes known about him
(his odd sense of humor, his propensity to begin each proclamation with the then-scandalous [if not necessarily so to those who recalled Gaius Caligula!] preamble "Our Lord and God commands..."), et al.  Domiitian comes across in both the ancient sources and the modern re-evaluations as a man of parts which do not fit together (wisely another contributor to this talk page has noted how the one dependable historian who covers Domitian had some bad blood against him due to a family connection).  So the very real possibility of some kind of madness may be interpreted.  Given, I'm not the first to suggest that.  But then, Wikipedia (like New York City, and more fortunately) is a work in progress.  K. G. Griffiths 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps a few additions 

message: Chapter 8 of Procopius' Anecdota says that there was just one image of Domitian known, a bronze bust.  Was there only one known in his time, or is this just Procopius at his usual semi-historical self?  Nyttend 16:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have several surviving statues and busts of Domitian. One of the most striking and beautiful currently resides in the Toledo Museum of Art (link here). In fact, a photograph of this bust would much enhance the current article on Domitian. If anyone has a free picture available, do not hesitate and upload it! --Steerpike 12:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single bust? 

message: I've started work on a complete—and much needed—overhaul of this page. I invite everyone with an interest in the subject matter to help and improve the article over the course of the next few weeks. As my primary source of reference, I will be using Jones' authoritative The Emperor Domitian, supplemented with other papers (Syme, Murison) and, where possible, ancient authors, although I'd like to keep these references to a strict minimum, as I feel I've relied too heavily on those sources in the past. Please post your comments and suggestions here. Regards. --Steerpike 07:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Progress may be slow, btw :) --Steerpike 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a while since I last edited the page (and what I did wrote will probably receive further revisions in the future), but I'm going to have to put this on hold until I find some free time. Meanwhile I will remove the 'editing' template at the top of the page. I know the article looks weird right now with its disproportionally detailed sections, but I hope I can change this sometime in the future. --Steerpike 11:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't paper. You're doing great. Bill (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Start

message: Once again, I'm putting further edits on hold for a while, although I suspect the article will be finished sometime within the next two weeks. Domitian's early life and death I consider to be largely complete by now. Concerning his emperorship, the administration is finished, while his military campaigns and religious policy are both nearing completion. Significant expansions in the near future include:
* Conquest of Britain
* Religious persecution
* Relationship with the Senate
* Historiography
The article is approaching 80kb in size, although readable prose only constitutes 53kb so far, so it probably won't become too unwieldy. Regards. --Steerpike (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now more or less finished. I've immediately taken the liberty of nominating it for Featured Article status. Please leave your comments on the relevant page (see link at the top). --Steerpike (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nearing completion

message: In all of the details except for the bit about a servant telling him it was the sixth instead of the fifth hour, where the text here is merely exaggerated. Lycurgus (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Will be fixed shortly! --Steerpike (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suetonius contradicts death story here 

message: Well done Steerpike - very impressive work. I completed the copyedit (better late than never) and had little to add to the later sections. As always, please review for changes to meaning as a result of disambiguation. Dhatfield (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I just added some minor corrections. --Steerpike (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article: Congratulations 

message: Amandajm (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations!

message: In the infobox AD occurs before the date, after the date or not at all. Perhaps some consistency could be applied? I'd do it myself but am unsure which stance the editors of this article have adopted. Sarsaparilla39 (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've converted AD to CE to help eliminate this issue. - Team4Technologies (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: If you use CE you must also replace "BC" with "BCE". You can't mix the BC/AD notation with the BCE/CE notation (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style). Since the article started out with the BC/AD notation, I'd much rather see the current use of CE revert back to AD. --Steerpike (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing AD and CE altogether solves the problem, and I've edited the article as such.
Rsloch (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  AD? 

message: Was this article featured to draw parallels to Obama?
:No. (?!) Brutannica (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Obama

message: *41,000 hits while on the main page. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFA hit count 

message: Is it true that Tacitus is the main primary sources for Domitian? I don't think so. There are 2 extensive primary sources: 1) Suetonius, which has been quoted in this article. 2) Cassius Dio, Roman History, Book LXVII. Josephus made a brief mention of Domitian in his account of the War of the Jews, but we do not have any extensive sources regarding Domitian from Tacitus. Actually, reading Tacitus' Annals we can see that Tacitus encouraged us to read more about Domitian in his other work, Histories. Unfortunately, the section concerning Domitian is no longer extant.
There were of course other accounts of Domitian from Christian primary sources, the Patristic Fathers: Tertullian and Melito. The most famous secondary sources of course was Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History.
Having just recently these primary sources, I have a hard time picturing the Domitian which this article portrays. Except for Josephus, who was taken in by the Flavians, hence his name Flavius Josephus, all the other sources, both Romans and Christians, were very adamant that Domitian was both a immoral person and an inept emperor.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.148.231 (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Sources 

message: There has been some confusion in recent days over an image request on this article in "Toledo, Ohio".  I tracked down the original request to a request on WikiProject Ohio. The Toledo Museum of Art apparently has a bust of Domitian in excellent condition, and an editor has requested a photograph of that bust if possible.  When this request was made, most of the current photographs on the article were already here, so I think the request is still valid. —Tim Pierce (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image request - Toledo Museum of Art 

message: In the section "Emperor (81)," there is a Wikiink to "benevolent despot," which redirects to Enlightened absolutism. Based upon the content of that page, it appears that term refers only to monarchs influenced by the Enlightenment. Would it be better to either use a different term (perhaps "benevolent dictator") that doesn't carry the association with the Enlightenment? Brad E. Williams (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Benevolent despot" 

message: From the letter at the end of the lex Irnitana we know that Domitian, following in the footsteps of Julius Caesar and Augustus, named a month (October) after himself."The lex Irnitina, a new copy of Flavian Municipal Law", Julian Gonzales Kleuske (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting tidbit 

message: I'm doing a project for a Latin class, and looking for help finding this source for reference 133:
Jones (1992), pp. 182–188
Does anyone know what it refers to?
M0N57R0517Y (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Jones, Brian W. (1992). The Emperor Domitian. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-10195-6. under the References section which all the named citations are pointing to, for anyone who has a Latin class project after I write this. Hope you found that in time for your project M0N57R0517Y.--occono (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jones (1992), pp. 182–188 

message: This editor, , doesn't understand, and doesn't want to understand, that "Rome, Italia" is incorrect and ridiculous. This person can't be bothered to give an explanation for wanting to combine the English name "Rome" with Italian name "Italia", which is just as wrong as saying, "Roma, Italy". Carlstak (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like drive-by editing from Randy?104.169.37.72 (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editor needs to learn that English names for Roman cities should not be combined with Latin or Italian names 

message: " ...  he saw himself as the new Augustus, an enlightened despot destined to guide the Roman Empire into a new era of brilliance." - this codswallop in the lede should be ousted and rewritten. There is no surviving record of what Domitian thought of himself - he was, like virtually all Roman emperors, a military dictator whose main concern was staying in power and God help you if you got in the way (unless you won!) While he was a good administrator, such idealistic claims on his self-image are nothing more than some writer's POV - let's tone this one down?  Additionally, using Josephus' figures (one million Jews dying in the First Jewish War)[note 52] is extremely reckless - there are better estimates from Reliable Sources, much less inflated - it was bad enough without resorting to wild claims that Josephus, despite his often valuable work, could not possibly have validated.104.169.37.72 (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. Carlstak (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  still needs some work despite FA 

message: 1. The lede refers to "damaged Rome" - this needs clarification and also something in the body of the article (rebuilding crumbling tenements, and those damaged by fires); 2. "the people" loved him? We should surely doubt this as some historian with a pro-Domitian outlook's over-indulgence - for instance, the Egyptians could hardly have loved any emperor - they were one of the most ruthlessly exploited peoples of the Empire - outside of Rome, where bread and games were daily events, we don't have any documentation about how he was viewed by "the people"  3. Still too heavily leaning on Jones, whose admiration of Domitian gleams off the pages from the vast majority of his work, and uses too much of his personal speculation: ex., Domitia being uninvolved - the Praetorians made short work of several of those involved in Domitian's assassination - her posthumous statements of love and loyalty to her husband could just as easily have been done for self-preservation - thanks in advance for addressing these issues. HammerFilmFan 50.111.25.22 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  still some issues ... (as there no doubt will always be) 

message: Citation 136 seems a bit dubious. It is, as far as I can tell, just some guy's blog. 72.28.206.120 (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Purple Motes really a reliable source? 

message: The caption for the image accompanying the section 'Year of the Four Emperors' seems incorrect.  The description of the colours relevant to this article instead seem to refer to the German language version of the image, here: {https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_Empire_69_de.svg}.   The version currently shown in the article, seems to have had its colours changed long ago and is now widely used in many wikipedias.  I suggest changing the caption in this article.  
Edit: I'm surprised to find that the caption has been incorrect since the map was first added to the article in Dec 2007! It is possible of course that the images have been edited/renamed. 109.68.60.211 (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image caption accompanying Year of the Four Emperors is incorrect 

message: The two maps are unsourced and their factual accuracy has been disputed on Commons:
* :File:Roman Empire 69.svg
* :File:Roman province of Dacia (106 - 271 AD).svg
a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:URFA/2020]]

message: The editor's choice of words leaves far too much out from the full text: " Many scholars, but not all, have accepted the claim that Domitian insisted on being addressed as Dominus et Deus (‘Master and God’).49 A brief review of the evidence is in order.
According to Statius (Silvae 1.6.83–4), he rejected the title Dominus, just as Augustus had done (Aug. 53.1). Slaves used it of their masters, and Domitian is called Dominus by them on inscriptions.50 But there is no epigraphical evidence whatsoever of its being used of him in any other sense. On the other hand, Suetonius (Dom. 13.2) reports that Domitian dictated a letter that began ‘Our Master and God orders’ and that, from this, the habit developed of addressing him in this way: Dio (67.4.7) supports the story. Later writers repeat and embellish it: Aurelius Victor (De Caes. 11.2), the Epit. de Caes. 11.6, Eutropius 7.23 and Orosius 7.10 all claim that he ‘ordered’ its use. As well, they couple it with a change in his character,51 unlike Suetonius who refers to the deterioration elsewhere and on two separate occasions (Dom. 3.2, 10.1).
In view of Domitian’s concern for theological niceties, the story is all but incredible. The best that an emperor could expect after death was to be declared a divus, never a deus: a living one had to make do with even less. If an emperor such as Domitian could overcome that barrier, why should he hesitate to proclaim it publicly (and epigraphically)? Senatorial abhorrence would not have concerned him. " -- Jones also ignores Caligula's vastly reported views of his own diety. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious policy