Talk:Roman Empire/Archive 4

message: i think that the greek influence on the romans should be stated, i.e., most of their army tactics and what the romans used in every day life was invented by a greek or anotherWillgfass2 21:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Etruscan aren't a Latin culture, their origin is shrouded in mystery. The Romans copied miltary tactics and formations from many cultures, but also invented many of them (perhaps event the more important ones). Ancient Greek Democracy did not have a great influence upon the Roman republic. As far as I know, the diffrent Roman tribes/classes (you belonged to one by birth) were consulted on some major decisions but it always began with the richest and if the richest classes agreed the poorest ones were not consulted anymore. You can even argue that the Roman republic was a aristocratic Oligarcy. About Law I must confess that I'm ignorant if the Romans invented many of our modern legal notions or copied them (I guess a little of both). But to defend that Roman culture was the same as Greek culture is a bit exagerated; the Romans copied many things (from the Greeks among others), but they also invented many things which influence us even today. Flamarande 18:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The Ancient Roman republic wasn't an Athens-inspired democracy, simple as that. The origin of the Roman city-state, and culture was Etruscan. The original Roman army in which the diffrent sorts of infantry were based upon the class/wealth seems indeed to be somewhat copied from Greek models. However these were quickly cast aside and the Roman army developed its own Roman identity (legions, manipules, centuries, etc). This new army who managed to conquer Italy, and later the known world wasn't based upon any Greek model. The legions smashed the phalanaxes again and again, exactly because they were trained, equiped, and organized under a original and far superior Roman model. Flamarande 18:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I never said that the Byzantines where only Roman (at least that I remember, but if you are able to find such a statement please let me know). I have read (and defend) that Greek and Latin were official languages at the beginning of the Byzantine Empire (as far as something like 'official language' existed at that time). I personaly think that the Byzantine Empire had a strong Roman and Ancient Greek legacy and with the passing of time and the loss of territory re-grouped more and more around ancient Greek culture and language. It also gradually lost many of its early Latin elements, like the language itself (and the territories, gained by Justinian). It isn't the only successor to the "old" Roman Empire but without a doubt the most important one. However it also had many other elements/cultures inside of it so it isn't solely a 'Greek nation' (which seems to me your POV - simply being honest). Flamarande 21:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek influence 

message: Rome dominated Western Eurasia, comprising the majority of its population. This isn't correct. Rome was a city. It was the empire which comprised the majority of the population in Western Eurasia. Rintrah 18:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rome was simply the original city-state and the power was concentrated there. We speak about the Romans and not the Roman Imperials; unlike today where we speak of a capital e.g. "Paris" and of the country "France", and the ppl, "French". We also speak of "the greatness and glory of Rome" and not of "the greatness and glory of the Roman Empire" (well sometimes we do, but the first is more commonly used). You might think that the point about the 1st emperor is too easy, bu there are plent of ppl who are unsure about it. Flamarande 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious assertion

message: How is that even possible if the Roman Republic didn't dissolve until four years later, in 27 BC? --MosheA 01:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sigh". There isn't a single date for the transformation of the republic into the empire. There are several dates of great importance but it was a gradual process. Mark is unsure between two dates, and MosheA merely wants to replace one date with another. It is a basic flaw on the approach and question: we want to determine a single date for a process which took several years and then we get amazed that don't find an appropiate date. It began slowly with Marius and Sulla; at the end of Sulla it might appear that the republic had beeen saved but the idea of a single ruler had beeen launched. Then we a have a military junta of three mighty men (is that a true republic?), then one of them dies and the other two slug it out. One emerges victorious to be slain by republicans (a dying breed). In the mess that follows other three mighty men finish the rebellious republicans at Philipae off, and order the execution of hundereds of political opponents. Then one of them loses all his power and the other two slug it out (hello deja vu). The victor, giving a great show of humility and honour, offers to return all his powers to a Senate mostly composed by his loyal followers and frightened persons, and everbody knew what they were supposed to do. Not a single one believes the lie (do you know of a single senator who said: "Ok, we accept your generous offer, now give us our power back?") and they beg the continuation of rule of the victor for "the security and wellfare of the republic". A couple of years later they offer him a new title. Then he chooses a succesor for himself (where was the authorithy of the Senate here?), and it goes on and on. In theory and officially the republic continues throughout this entire time. There is never a official proclamation of the Roman Empire with an official date. You will find out this is the same problem in many things: When began the Renessance?, the Age of Discovery, etc? There isn't a single precise date for these events it was always gradual developments. I personally don't agree with the battle of Actium for the war between Octavian and Markus continued, I would prefer to replace it with "unclear; several dates advanced but in reality it was a gradual process." Flamarande 11:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Empire Began In 31 BC? 

message: "...it maintained Roman legal and cultural traditions within a distinctly Greek Orthodox form for another thousand years until it finally succumbed to Latins in 1204, and then the Ottoman Empire on 29 May 1453."
This sentence is probably a bit confusing to those unfamilar with Byzantine history -- how can an empire be eradicated twice?  Perhaps there should be a brief mention of the greek reconquest, or else leave out the referance to the fourth crusade (as it wasn't the true endpoint). --141.157.74.8 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The debt that Rome owed to Greece and the Trojan foundation legend are interesting and important, but belong at Ancient Rome, not in an article specifically about the Imperial period. The transition between the Roman Imperial and Byzantian periods deserves notice here, but not in such detail in the introduction. All the material added, I should point out, needs to be coherently written, argued and sourced, not unilaterally asserted like it has been. --Nicknack009 19:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no "imperial" period! Think about it. Are you are talking about the imperial period of an empire? Does this makes sense? And how do you call the rest period of thus empire? Non imperial? There is neither east nor west roman empire, nor "byzantine" empire, which is an awfull neologism. There is only a pagan and a christian period, of one and single empire, the Roman empire, which fell 1453. Armodios 09:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The article does not use the phrase "imperial period". "Western" and "Eastern" empires are terms so widely used that it would be anti-reader not to repeat and explain them in Wikipedia. "Byzantine" is also a very widely used term throughout the academic history of study of the classical period and again we have a duty to illuminate to the casual reader of Wikipedia the meaning, context and development of "Byzantium", "Byzantine" and "Byzantine Empire". If people who lived in those periods and places described themselves differently, we should also say how. Finally, your comment that there is "only a pagan and a christian period" is an absurd over-simplification and no significant academic working in this area would agree with your other over-simplification that the Roman Empire "fell" in "1453" - clearly the polity originally generally known as the Roman Empire evolved in different ways, divided into two main parts with separate histories, changed, fought many wars, developed culturally and religiously and so on. Your 1453 date is about the capture of Constantinople by Mehmed_II, which conquered the tiny rump state which was all that was left of what had once been the Eastern half of the Roman Empire. MarkThomas 09:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my comment that used the phrase "Imperial period". This article is about the Ancient Roman civilisation after it becomes conventionally known as the Roman Empire, sometime between the dictatorship of Julius Caesar and the principate of Augustus. Before that it is known as the Roman Republic, even though, for a lot of that period, it ruled foreign territories and had what we would call an "empire". This is a retrospective judgement but is an established convention because marks an important distinction, just as the transition from "Roman" (ruled from Rome) to "Byzantine" (ruled from Constantinople) Empire does. This article is not about the entirety of Roman civilisation, it's about the period during which it is conventionally known as the Roman Empire. Hence, I used the informal coining "Imperial period". Armodios, If the only change you can see in ancient Roman civilisation over the long centuries of its existence is a change from pagan to Christian, you obviously haven't read enough about the subject. --Nicknack009 12:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is not about roman civilisation. It is about roman empire. An empire is defined as a state ruled by an emperor. Roman republic is a different state, it is not Roman empire. The so called "byzantine" empire is actually a direct descendant of the roman empire, it was also ruled by an emperor, and the main difference between them was the christian religion. At least call it "constatinople" empire or "New Rome" empire (because new rome was the official name of constantinople). What has the term "byzantine" to do with constatinople empire? Its a term some people invented three hundred years after the fall of the roman empire. Its a wrong term and shouldnt be used. Listen to the citizens and to the emperors of the roman empire. How they always identified themselves during the 1500 years life of their empire? Did they ever used the "byzantine" nickname? Why do you call them with a name most of them they didnt even know? Is it maybe because the descendants of the german tribes, who, after destroying the western roman empire and gaining over the roman name (similar to what the nowdays slavs are dong with macedonia name) convinced you with their anhistorical arguments? Armodios 11:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What kind of encyclopedia are your trying to create? an encyclopedia based on popular majoritarian views and rumors or an encyclopedia based on accuracy and on sources? Armodios 12:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Whether you like it or not, the convention in all scholarly historical literature is to call it the Byzantine Empire after the move to Constantinople. It should of course be made clear that the Byzantine Empire is a term conventionally used for the continuation of the Roman Empire after the move to Constantinople, and this article and the Byzantine Empire article already make this clear. It is a useful way of subdividing information and making articles like this more manageable. You're raging against a useful historical convention which is universally used and not an invention of Wikipedia. I see you're also still persisting in trying to push the notion that the Roman Empire was merely a continuation of the Greek colony at Naples. This is false. The Roman Empire was, as you must understand, the continuation of the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic was influenced by Greek Naples, but was not the same thing at all. The fact that the Romans had foundation legends that claimed they were descended from Trojans is irrelevant, as Trojans were not Greek. Please stop pushing this tendentious POV material. --Nicknack009 12:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again you are using unhistorical majoritarian popular views and naming conventions! In Homer's Iliad, "Danaans" and "Argives" designate the forces opposed to the Trojans, not Greeks! You claim that Trojans were not greeks. Then how do you explain the fact that they spoke the same language and had the same religion? Armodios 13:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They didn't. Homer is not history. --Nicknack009 13:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I know. Homer is not history, you (after 3000 years) are. *sigh* Armodios 13:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. A minor bit of Googling also tracks down the Heraclides reference. It's from Plutarch, Camillus 22.2-3, regarding the sack of Rome by Brennus and the Gauls: "However, it would seem that some vague tidings of the calamity and capture of the city made their way at once to Greece. For Heracleides Ponticus, who lived not long after that time, in his treatise "On the soul," says that out of the West a story prevailed, how an army of Hyperboreans had come from afar and captured a Greek city called Rome, situated somewhere on the shores of the Great Sea. Now I cannot wonder that so fabulous and fictitious a writer as Heracleides should deck out the true story of the capture of Rome with his "Hyperboreans" and his "Great Sea." But Aristotle the philosopher clearly had accurate tidings of the capture of the city by the Gauls, and yet he says that its saviour was Lucius, although the forename of Camillus was not Lucius, but Marcus. However, these details were matters of conjecture." I think that goves a bit of context and shows how reliable Heraclides should be taken to be. --Nicknack009 13:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its not only Heraclides. We have plenty of evidences showing that the early days Romans were "almost" greeks. The participation of Romans to the olympic games dates 228, before they conquer mediteranian sea. And above all, it is their religion which shows greek influance on romans. Can you give us a reasonable explanation why all romans gods originated from greece?. Is it maybe because Olympus mountain is taller than Alps? *sigh* Armodios 13:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Please dont use the term "byzantine" empire. It is tottaly unistorical." says Armodios in his latest edit summary. What, you think you can overturn centuries of historical consensus just because you don't happen to like it? Give it up, you arrogant twit. Should we stop using the term "Middle Ages" as well? What about "Stone Age", "Bronze Age" or "Iron Age"? For that matter, what about "Greek", which the Greeks don't call themselves? --Nicknack009 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Behave yourself! At the middle ages, when the german tribes gain over the roman name (similar to what the slav tribes are doing nowdays with macedonia), it was because german tribes had no civilisation at all, so the roman glory was the glue that united them, and gave to their people the faith to create their state. But now we are not in the middle ages. Nowdays the germans tribes (including german, france, north italy and the anglosaxons) have create a great civilisation, even better than the roman one, so the dont need the "roman" glue. It is time for the germans to return the roman name back to their owners, and the real owners of the roman name are the italiotes and the romioi. Armodios 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro Paragraph -- Fall of Byzantine Empire 

message: There is a section about the successor states and there are couple of mistakes about the Turkish claim for the throne of the Roman Empire. The Turkish invasion of Italy stopped in 1481 (with the death of Mehmet II) not in 1480. Also it was more like a retreat than a defeat for Ottomans. Ottoman historians argue that Mehmet decided to use Otranto as the base of his invasion but when he died (some argues that he was poisoned) his plans were not carried on mostly because of the conflict between his sons, Cem Bey and Bayezid (later Bayezid II). Otranto was lost to western powers during this power struggle. With respect, Deliogul 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you have any counter claims? I will wait for one more day and then I will make the changes that I mentioned above. With respect, Deliogul 22:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mehmet the Conqueror 

message: The project Roman Empire/reorganization lost its momentum half a year ago. Rewriting the whole Roman Empire article is probably to big a task for the small ancient history community on Wikipedia. I think we might as well remove the talk-box at the top of this page, and declare the project defunct. I guess improving the present article step-by-step is a more realistic endeavor. Any thoughts?--Hippalus
:Removed the text box. As nobody gave a reaction on above comment, hopefully nobody will mind - or even notice.--Hippalus 06:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: I've reorganised the levels of the headings of the historical sections relating to the period between Constantine and Theodosius, and added a couple of sentences on the Western Empire between 395 and 474. These are there just to provide some continuity until something better can be added - I hope to do so in a few days but (of course) if anyone else feels like doing so meanwhile, please step in. PWilkinson 20:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Late Roman Empire sections 

message: this article line 9 at 5.40PM 4 Feb 2007:  "From the time of Augustus to the Fall of the Western Empire, Rome dominated Western Eurasia, comprising the majority of its population."
Not really. Firstly domination is almost better known as occupation. Rome was South of the Baltic, and didn't often include much West of the Rhine in Europe. For majority of Population to be a majority it has to actually be there, and here it is simply not there. 
It is stretching things a bit to say Rome dominated Europe-you might as well say that the USA dominated the Western Hemisphere, good concept, but wishfull thinking. Sure, Rome wanted to dominate Europe, but who was Herman the German?? He's the guy who says to Rome that it is only wishful thinking, and yes, there is a place for saying that Rome wanted to do this, but history won't hold the rest of this, and Europe is kind of clearly the bulk of the West end of Eurasia as it seems to have been known since the 19th Century in everyplace that I have seen it until just yesterday.  Why West Eurasia ? The term is not helping here. Are you trying to form a link to support the current expansions of NATO beyond the Atlantic or of the EU beyond Europe ? There may be better ways to do that, and the placement of this term is confusing.
Rome dominated the Mediteranean and controlled all of the islands and coastal areas and clearly dominated Southwestern Europe. Find a way to say that, because it is the truth. John5Russell3Finley 23:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Eurasia ?? 

message: Hi everyone.  Just wanted to say this is very nice page in my opinion.  I specialize in African history and wanted to make a similar table for the Mali Empire article.  I'm having trouble getting the table to look right.  Does anyone have the template for this info box, cuz its not showing up in the edits.  Thnx in advance and keep up the good work.
Scott Free 23:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Nicomedia (Izmit in modern Turkey, located east of Istanbul, on the Marmara Sea) was the eastern capital of the Roman Empire between 286-324 (until Licinius was defeated by Constantine the Great in 324) during the Tetrarchy system of Diocletian. Constantine also resided in Nicomedia between 324 and 330, until he established Constantinople as the new capital.
Diocletian chose Nicomedia for himself as the capital city of the senior Augustus.
Therefore, Nicomedia should also be added on the capital cities graph at the top of the page. KeremTuncay 14:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicomedia was the eastern capital city of Diocletian during the Tetrarchy System 

message: At least one of the two maps should show that the Roman Empire held territory up to the Oder  River, before the barbarians drove them out, and especially that what is now a large part of the Netherlands (west of the Rhine River) was part of the Roman Empire, even if only for a few decades.  Chiss Boy 15:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps

message: This article seems to be written from pro-Asian POV.  Chiefly the reference to the Roman Empire being a co-superpower with Han China.  The Roman Empire encompassed multiple cultures and civilizations, from Egypt to Gaul, from the Carthaginians to Mesopotamians.  Han China ruled over a comparable area and population, but ruled over a single ethnicity (cultural ethnicity) and yet was not as unified as the Roman Empire (more a collection of autonomous states rather than Rome's unified government).  Also, the reference to the Roman Empire's rule in western Eurasia.  The Roman Empire held territory from southern to northern (though not far-northern) Europe, parts of southwestern and Central Asia, and A LOT OF NORTHERN AND EASTERN AFRICA.  Chiss Boy 14:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: According to the article Bay of Kiel, it says that the Romans kept a military presense in Denmark!? This is not cited at all. If it is true, then someone should put a map of the empire with Denmark in its borders.
Kiel and Pliny
There is a tantalizing piece of possible evidence of the use of the name in antiquity. Pliny (Book IV.97) is describing the Kattegat and the large number of islands in it, the most famous being Scandinavia. Then,
”quidam haec … tradunt sinum Cylipenum vocari, et in ostio insulam Latrim, mox alterum sinum Lagnum conterminum Cimbris.” 
”Some report that there is a bay called Cylipenus and an island, Latris, at its mouth, followed by another bay, Lagnus, coterminous with the Cimbri.” 
Locations of the bay with its island have been hypothesized as far east as Riga, but Pliny clearly says that it was coterminous with the Cimbri, and the latter were certainly located in Jutland. The Cyli- in Cylipenus is most likely to be Kiel, although whether the bay, the fjord, or both are meant is uncertain. Latris may be a translation into Latin of Langeland, based on the use of the adjective, latus, “wide”, for long. The Romans would have seen it as a wide island. Lagnus must be the Bay of Mecklenburg, or of Lübeck, or both.
Admiral Pliny tells us that the Romans kept a military presence in Denmark, which is contrary to what we are accustomed to thinking about their relationship to the ancient Germanics. He states that the Roman military had intelligence of 23 islands, including Bornholm. Beyond that he isn’t sure. The presence need not have been imposed by the Romans. It may have been simply naval stations permitted by treaty with the Cimbri. Perhaps the first shipyards of Kiel were Roman, but this is only speculation. Mrld 18:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Romans in Denmark

message: I changed the statement in the intro
:The Roman Empire was the superpower of the known Western world.
to
:The Roman Empire was the superpower of Europe and Africa.
Anticipating somebody might want a clearer explanation than my edit comment ...
A few problems with the original statement.
# The phrasing "the superpower" implies uniqueness (which I think was the original author's intent to imply greatness). One has to be careful because Parthia and China can qualify as contemporary "superpowers" and although some scholars say the Roman Empire was the greatest superpower at its zenith (even that is not a universal opinion) it was certainly not overwhelmingly so.
# Regarding "known", Rome obviously knew about Parthia and there is evidence of trade with China. So the "known world" at that time was actually quite large.
# Regarding "Western world" this is a dangerous expression to use. Certainly at that time one could say that the Roman Empire was the "western" empire since the others were east of it. But the term "Western world" today refers to Western Europe so it is confusing to try to use this expression in a different way. The original author may have intended to convey that the modern "Western world" is the inheritor of the Roman legacy but, setting aside the fact that that's not what it says, this is not fair either since many other cultures also inherited from Rome as well.
I don't mean to overanalyze but I think it is particularly important that statements in the intro not be misleading. If anybody doesn't like my phrasing please feel free to choose something different.
--Mcorazao 14:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro edit regarding "known Western World" 

message: Alphablast, I reverted the following edit.
:It succeeded the 500 year-old Roman Republic (510 BC - 1st century BC), which had been weakened by the conflict between Gaius Marius and Sulla and the civil war of Julius Caesar against Pompey and Marcus Brutus which ended the republic.
Three reasons:
# The two "which" clauses in a row sound strange.
# I believe this is extraneous. Obviously this sentence is talking about the circumstances of the end of the republic. That doesn't need to be pointed out.
# The precise end of the republic is debatable and there's no reason to try to pin it to this event here.
If you or anybody disagree you can feel free to put it back.
--Mcorazao 04:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted "which ended the republic" clause 

message: Anybody think it's a good idea to lock down this article a bit? This article has been rated very highly and has become fairly mature. Yet I am seeing lots of random edits occurring often by anonymous editors which are compromising the quality of the article.
--Mcorazao 03:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed protection 

message: There are too many run-on sentences. This example is typical:
Zeno probably expected that the Italians under the leadership of the senate would start a revolt and reorganize the Western Roman Empire,[citation needed] however there are no records of any significant resistance or insurgency against Odoacer.
Please fix these. RedRabbit1983 04:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Run-on sentences

message: User:Pmanderson has finally admitted that there is an Old meaning of the term Republic at the Talk:List of republics page.  But instead of including this old term, he states that the Old Meaning of Republic is "monarchy" and so he has added this  to List_of_republics#Other_meanings_of_Republic
==Other meanings of Republic==
:For the archaizing meanings of the word republic, as the commonwealth, or as a translation of politeia or res publica, see those articles.
These were in some respects broader than the present meaning of republic, and would include not only the republics of antiquity, as above, but, for example, the following  monarchies:
* Sparta
* the Roman EmpirePliny the Younger to Trajan: "the provincials joined with us in imploring the gods
that they would be graciously pleased to preserve you and the
republic in that state of prosperity which your many and great
virtues.." Letters X, 51.  "Diocletian indispensible to the republic." Historia Augusta Carus §10.  Eumenius of Autun received 600,000 sesterces "from the republic", temp. Constantius I, W. S. Maguinness  "Eumenius of Autun" Greece & Rome, Vol. 21, No. 63. (Oct., 1952), pp. 97-103. "The Emperor and his republic" Inscription from Ephesus, from the time of Constantius II. Edited and translated by Louis J. Swift and James H. Oliver. " Constantius II on Flavius Philippus" The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 83, No. 3. (Jul., 1962), pp. 247-264. Articles have JSTOR links. 
* Elizabethan England
* the Ancien Régime in France Jean Bodin, Six Livres de la Republíque
Since the  Oxford English Dictionary last cites this meaning from 1684, it is difficult to tell to which present states it would have been applied.
Can someone explain to me why the Roman Republic has the Newer definition and the Roman Empire has the Older meaning of republic?  Can someone who is smarter than me and has a college degree explain this to me?  I am having difficulty with this. Is the Roman Empire really a republic?
Is NOT Rome a Classical republic.  And if Modern republics diminish religion why was the constitution of Rome divided between Res divina (religious law) and Res publica (secular law)?  Is there not a glaring discrepancy here?WHEELER 00:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Republics

message: Don't you think the introductory passage is too long? It should end after the first paragraph.--Dominik92 16:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The following image:
thumb|400 px
</br>
Is wrong because Iraq was invaded numerous times and Ctesiphon itself was sacked by the Roman army four times, so how could they have only invaded it once?
</br>
Once by Trajan</br>
Once by Avidius Cassius</br>
Once by Septimius Severus in which he deported and enslaved many</br>
Once by Galerius, although an earlier attempt was a failure, another in 296 AD worked</br>
Julian invaded Mesopotamia and wa skilled outside of Ctesiphon</br>
Heraclius won a great victory at Nineveh and then marched to Ctesiphon to recieve Perisan armistice terms
Thats a total of 6 invasions, not one. Therefore I will make this edit. 
Regards, Tourskin 03:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that map was meant, fairly traditionally, to show the empire at its greatest extent. The Syrian-Mesopotamian border was always unstable, but the Romans managed to break through to the Persian Gulf only once, under Trajan, and this was meant to be a real occupation, not a mere campaign. Iblardi 06:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: How bout "temporary conquests", because the plural suggests more than once whilst the article will allow the reader to know just how many. The above info cannot be denied but the Persians gave the Romans one hell of a time. Tourskin 07:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just updated this map with a few other territories, and am putting it in the infobox. If you have any other suggestions, please comment. Regards, Cplakidas 14:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong info 

message: It seems that there was never any consensus behind adding the Holy Roman Empire section, especially describing it as a genuine continuation of the actual Roman Empire. Why is this section still there (or at least why has it not been rewritten)?
I propose removing this as it is inconsistent with modern historiography (with all due respect to the Roman Catholic Church). The discussion in the final section regarding states that claimed to be successors is sufficient.
--Mcorazao 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eliminate Holy Roman Empire?