Talk:List of Roman consuls

message: I'm not adverse to providing the latest correct information about these personages, but I need to point out that as this list stands, the dates & forms of names are based on Broughton's Magistrates of the Roman Republic. As the one who normalized the list against Broughton's work, I felt that his research was authoritative & difficult for any amateur who writes Wikipedia articles (like me) to supplement or dissent. But of course, research moves on. Nevertheless, if a given date or name differs from what Broughton has, I believe it is best practice to note that difference & provide a source for that variant reading. (And of course the sticky details should be presented not in the footnotes, but in the relevant article.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming Early Republican consuls 

message: This has been already discussed here and in many other articles. If you actually look at the fastis in Roger S. Bagnall's Consuls of the later Roman Empire you'll notice that all consuls after the 3rd century have the name "Flavius". However, these names are only found in consular papyri and nowhere else. The book itself is inconsistent on the issue, just as the PLRE. It was no longer a name, so we shouldn't treat it as one. Adding the "Flavius" would be like adding the "Dominus Noster" to all emperors. I also noticed that the "Imperator Caesar" is omitted starting from Constantius I. However, that denomination was still used even by the times of Tiberius II and Maurice (see their regnal names). I assume it's for simplicity... but then, shouldn't we also delete the "Flavius" for simplicity? Tintero21 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I hadn't noticed that Bagnall was inconsistent about this title, although IIRC, some individuals did have "Flavius" as a first name in the 4th & 5th centuries; that's a detail which needs investigating, & those individuals identified. But you bring up another matter that hasn't been addressed: Roman imperial titulature changed over the years. For the first few centuries, it was "Imperator"; then it became Dominus Noster for the 4th & 5th centuries; I'm not sure at which point Dominus Noster was dropped -- if it was before or after the consulate was abolished -- but definitely by the 7th century the Greek autokrator was adopted. This needs to be researched & modifications made. -- llywrch (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK Quintus Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus (the consul of 355) was the last "true" Flavius, or at least the last one to be actually verifiable (note that he actually posesses a praenomen and a full name). His colleague Arbitio is never directly called "Flavius", but is instead given the name on the basis of a "Fll." abbreviation, which is, as always, is only found in a couple of sources. The next "Flavii" were the consuls of 359 (Eusebius & Hypatius), but they are only called such in the papyri. And that is the case for almost all future consuls. It's practically impossible to know if any of these consuls were actually Flavii (I really doubt it; up to that point the name was not that common). I think it would be better to erase the names from the 5th century onward. And about the imperial formula... I have no idea. I only mentioned it because I noticed that if we exclude "Dominus Noster" for being a title then the same should be applied to the Flavii. Tintero21 (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Flavius issue 

message: I've recently read an article by Benet Salway,  "Roman consuls, imperial politics, and Egyptian papyri: the consulates of 325 and 344 CE", where he points out that the primary sources conflict over the identity of the consuls for those 2 years: for 325, the colleague of one Julianus could be either Proculus or Paulinus (what we currently have here is one expert's opinion); then for 344, the primary sources provide 2 different colleagues for Leontius, Sallustius (in the manuscript traditions) & Bonosus (in contemporary inscriptions).Salway discusses the problem then offers one solution, which is at odds with Bagnall, et al., Consuls of the Later Roman Empire, which is the basis for this section of the list. (IIRC, that work does not discuss the problem, but I don't have my copy at hand at the moment.) David Woods, "Flavius Bonosus and the Consuls of AD344" largely concurs with Salway -- but all three are offering their POV, & Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. So what we need to do, IMHO, is point out the problem, then in a couple of footnotes provide possible solutions. -- llywrch (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  AD 4th century issues