Talk:Roman Empire/Archive 3

message: The city of Rome was founded by the Latin people on a river in the center of Italy. It was a good location, which gave them a chance to control all of Italy. It put them near to the midpoint of the Mediterranean Sea. Two other groups lived in what is now Italy: the Greeks in the south, and the Etruscans in the north. The Latins borrowed some ideas from both peoples. In 509 B.C., Latins overthrew the Etruscan king who had ruled over his people and over Latium. The Latins said Latium was now a republic. The people had the power to vote and choose leaders. -- For full discussion see:  
:I'm somewhat confused about what this is exactly?
:--Masamax 06:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was copy pasted from here: , where it sort of fits in the discussion. I don't know whether this was meant as vandalism or as a serious edit, maybe the editor User:69.211.74.60 (according to Talk:Latin his name is Mohammad al-Assad) could comment on it . For now, I'll delete the comment from the second paragraph onwards, and link to the discussion page it came from.--Hippalus 07:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We could also call the Roman Empire 'the Latin Empire'

message: I moved the following over from the article, as I don't understand its rationale in the historical narrative, especially in an overview section.
:In Alexandria, dreams of a "Christian Empire" with genuine continuity were shattered when a rampaging mob of Christians were encouraged to sack and destroy the Serapeum in 392. ... In Athens the end came for some in 529, when the Emperor Justinian closed the Neoplatonic Academy and its remaining members fled east for protection under the rule of Sassanid king Khosrau I; for other Greeks it had come long before, in 396, when Christian monks led Alaric I to vandalize the site of the Eleusinian Mysteries.
Str1977 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved over

message: Why is this the "Christian Empire"? Constantine to Theodosius? Julian the Apostate doesn't count? Christendom, the Christian Empire, is generally dated from 390 to the present.
The section title is problematic but for other reasons.
Julian only reigned for a few years and thus can be glossed over as an intermission.
What is more problematic is that the section ends with 395, whereas the "Christian Empire" lasted way beyond that date. (That's like writing a section on the Migrations and calling it Middle Ages). Also, officially the Empire became Christian only in 390.
Maybe, something like "Constantine and successors" would fit better.
Also, there is an inaccuracy about the Thessalonica riots. The people rebelled because Theodosius had a famous cart driver arrested (who was accused of homosexuality), but they didn't rebel against any new laws.
The same passage was inaccurate in another way, overstating the importance of Ambrose's act. It confirmed the place of the Emperor inside and not above the Church. It didn't lead to a Church dominance over the Emperor and it hadn't anything to do with the Church "outlasting" the Western part of the Empire. That had reasons in military, economics, politics and the routs of the migrating people. Str1977 23:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are interested in giving an opinion or help with the article, you'd be better off putting your energy into the Roman Empire/reorganization article. We could use the help! --Masamax 05:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section called: Christian Empire (324–395)

message: The glasses icon now take a visitor to the 3D pictures, which have been reprocessed to have far fewer artifacts. Free glasses
are available on line. Google "free glasses". There were over 30 million glasses shipped in 2005, so it has great potential,
especially with young people. A group of editors has been working on the new dual link approach for 3D.3dnatureguy 23:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The 3D pictures have been replaced by 2D thumbnails

message: The following recently deleted text contains useful information, which should be returned to the article, if it could be presented as a report of a referenced source:
:It is interesting to note that while the constitutional rule of the republic was replaced with despotic rule as early as Julius Caesar (or possibly even Sulla), the people of Rome, at the time, didn't notice any difference. The period of the Social War and the dictatorship of Sulla, then the period leading into and during the Civil Wars of the 1st century BC, and finally reign of Augustus and his immediate successors, seemed to be a single epoch to the average Roman. Perhaps the people of Rome willingly let go of the republic due to the charisma of Augustus. Also interesting is that of all the civil wars of the later empire, not a single one was fought for a return to the constitutional rule of the republic.
::Apart from the last sentence, the paragraph seems to be idle speculation.--shtove 19:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the last setence is hardly more than speculation, or perhaps an outright lie, given that Cato's final war against Caesar in Africa was motivated almost entirely by a return to constitutional rule. --Masamax 03:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: Does anyone know how much traffic this or other similar Roman threads get? How many people actively edit these types of threads?Politicaljunkie6 13:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I have made an adjustment to the end of the section on the byzantine empire. The Byzantines did call themselves Roman up to their demise, but "Romaioi" had also confusingly been taken up by Greeks as a self-identifier, meaning a Greek-speaker or a Roman citizen of greek ancestry. "Romaioi" has been out of favour in Greece for more than 200 years , and contrary to the previous edit,  paradoxically denotes greeks rather than Romans in modern greece.
:'Romioi' was used by the majority of Greeks until well into the 20th century and it's still used in some regions. Miskin 16:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Romaioi" and Greeks

message: I just did a major overhall to this page over on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire/reorganization. It basically is the same as what we already have, only it is much more organized and flows much nicer. Would anyone object towards me replacing the current page with this new page? Most of what is on the new page I just copied and pasted, so there weren't any major changes.Politicaljunkie6 01:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff. If this is to be a replacement, then please make sure the edit history remains available. In the overhaul, do the two maps at the top include the latest edits on the Rhine & Danube borders? Because of pasting, there remain a lot of problems with flow, idiom, and speculation/non-NPOV. Reorganisation was much needed, but the intro is too long for WP and should be whipped into a shorter form. If Politicaljunkie6 is a Homer Simpson, then fair dues in strangling Bartulus for the sake of putting manners on the little bugger. But the article still requires work in every paragraph.--shtove 02:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As concensus was reached on Talk:Roman Empire/reorganization that Politicaljunkie6's overhaul wasn't the much needed reorganization after all, his additions have been moved to Talk:Roman Empire/reorganization/Politicaljunkie's additions for further discussion. As such, the reorganization of the Roman Empire is now again incomplete. So feel free to help complete it on Roman Empire/reorganization, or discuss the project on Talk:Roman Empire/reorganization.--Hippalus 13:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That will work. No offense to anyone, but what they were working on in the original reorganization was a mess. It was a collection of Roman links, and not a whole lot else. Roman history is what we already had in the main article: a timeline, centered on the emperors.Politicaljunkie6 01:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: Does anyone have the map of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent? ThanksZmmz 05:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have this map on Commons which is a bit more detailed than the maps in our article; unfortunately, the caption is in German, but I could create a version with an Englich caption with little effort. Are you looking for a more detailed map? -- Ferkelparade π 16:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: why do you want the West in red, and east in purple? --Astrokey44 13:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is purely because of esthetical reasons. :Purple had a great symbolic value to the ancient world (e.g. he rose to the purple = he became king). I also read here and there that only the emperor could be clad interely in purple. Today, we largely use the two colours to color the maps which show these empires (e.g. Rome Total War and its expansion Barbarian Invansion, but this also happens in other games and books) and somehow the Eastern Roman Empire got the purple and the Western Empire got the red. Flamarande 14:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We need maps about the Roman empire, can you help?

message: It is also a Dutch featured article. General Eisenhower 22:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured 

message: Okay, as anyone can see by the history of the reorganization article, it has been largely abandoned. It is simply way to booring to continue it singlehandledly, and thereby I propose a merge asap. Hopefully it will improve the article (I believe it will). Flamarande 14:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "reorganization article" was abandoned and will logically be deleted 

message: It's  a good picture but it's in a bad place in the article.   I'm going to just remove it for now and can someone elese put it somewhere elese in the article:
 --Scott3 01:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved it to "Augustan culture", as the actual section on Augustus alsready had a picture of him. I also changed the "Octavian, widely known as Augustus" tag to simply "Augustus", as that's more correct. Varana 13:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the picture of Augustus.  

message: Please do not use the word "Goth." Use either Ostrogoth or Visigoth, as they are two distinct Germanic tribes. Thanks,MedievalScholar 19:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet before spliting into two distinct groups (East (ost) and west (Vis)) they where but one people. I do not know were this specific mention of Goth lies but should it be meant to describe the wandering masses from northern europe towards the black sea then it seems appropriate, afterwards, when the political division was clear, the word should of course be replaced by the appropriate term.--Dryzen 13:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Goth

message: The reorganization subpage needs an ample amount of work! So instead of editing the main article, make edits to the reorganization subpage to speed up the process. Also, I suggest breaking the subpage article into different articles - a perfect example of this would be the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. SGFF 17:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization subpage 

message: I have just finished this article, but i'm afraid my english is not very good, would someone like to take a look? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 19:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just polished a little of the wrought spots, a nice read and would like to see a more fleshed out article in the future should you and other authers be inclined.--Dryzen 12:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Borders of the Roman Empire]] 

message: Shouldn't this be on this page?
Paul W 23/10/06
:There was none.--Panarjedde 16:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The SPQR flag