Disputatio:Imperium Romanum

message: Permutavi totam paginam, et probabiliter sunt menda permulta, quos qui videat corrigat. Puto hoc meliore esse enumeratione annorum. Moszczynski 12:24, 24 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

message: Removi indicem provinciarum: vide Index provinciarum Romanarum ubi nomina reperis cum annis institutionis. Eam paginam ex novo feci, paginis Anglica et Theodisca utens. Removi etiam mappa provinciarum, quia minime accurata est (ut credo). Placet? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:22, 1 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Index provinciarum

message: Non credo Romanos ipsos "imperium Romanum" significare credidisse solam rem publicam suam sub Caesaribus, i.e. distinctam a re publica quam habebant ante Augusto. Imperium Romanum designabat terras quibus Romani imperabant, vel potius potestas imperandi qua fruebantur. Quod haec pagina de natura rei publicae Romanae sub Caesaribus dissert, mutandam censeo in quandam "Roma sub Caesaribus" vel sim. Pagina "Imperium Romanum" vocata poteret ita de historia dominationis Romanae dissere. Jackmitchell 23:56, 23 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Imperium' iam Romanorum antiquorum temporibus significabat idem quod hodie (vide ), nam Caesar Augustus etiam 'Imperator' dicebatur, etsi exercitui non semper ipse imperabat (sensu proprio), sed tantum Romae gubernationem regebat. [Scripsit 151.20.184.234, usor sine nomine]
replies: text: :De titulis Augusti (et de auctoritate in his rebus Campanini!) dissentio. De titulis principum saec. I p.C.n. vide potius Suetonium et Tacitum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:00, 10 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Iam de nomine dubito. Proponam enim "res publica Romana temporibus Caesarianis", sed vereor ne quis immensitatem condemnet longitudinis... Aristippus Ser (disputatio) 08:44, 19 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

text: Nomen antiquum erat “principatus”, ergo Principatus Romanus – iam habemus paginam: suntne hae duae uniendae? Cfr. : “Of the empire (post-Aug.), reign, empire, dominion, sovereignty: ‘Nero toto principatu suo hostis generis humani,’ Plin. 7, 8, 6, § 46: ‘Fenestella, qui obiit novissimo Tiberii Caesaris principatu,’ id. 33, 11, 52, § 146: ‘Nerva res olim dissociabiles miscuit, principatum et libertatem,’ Tac. Agr. 3; Plin. Pan. 36, 3; 45, 3; Suet. Calig. 22; id. Tib. 24.—” --Grufo (disputatio) 14:46, 19 Iulii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :Romani usque ad tempus Iustiniani imperatoris civitatem suam rem publicam Romanam appellabant. Tamen iam scriptores antiqui inter rem publicam liberam et rem publicam sub imperatoribus discernebant. Paginam Libera res publica Romana iam habemus. Quid de nomine „res publica Romana sub imperatoribus“? Verbum principatus pro Imperio Romano mihi minus aptum esse videt, quoniam his diebus in historiographia pro breviore rei publicae spatio temporis in usu est.--Utilo (disputatio) 16:14, 19 Iulii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Vocabulum Latinum imperatoris est Anglice “army general”. Usus pro Anglice “Emperor” est serus/modernus. Certe omnes principes etiam imperatores erant, sed antiqui talem institutionem “principatum” appellabant. --Grufo (disputatio) 02:09, 20 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

text: :Cum Utilo consentio. Verbum "principatus" est descriptio rei publicae legum et institutorum, non ipsius civitatis nomen; "libertas" enim contraria est, neque scilicet quisquam est, qui "libertatem Romanam" vocet civitatem quae ante Augustum stabat! Aristippus Ser (disputatio) 03:38, 20 Iulii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :::"Imperium Romanum" id territorium, quod a senatu populoque Romano (imperatoribus principibusque inclusis) regebatur, designat. "Principatus" (Romanus) non est territorium sed forma regiminis, tempore Augusti constituta. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:08, 20 Iulii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :::"Romanum imperium" hoc sensu primus fortasse Livius dixit (Ab Urbe condita 5.33.7): NB: eo contextu de imperio senatus populique saeculo fere V a.C.n. loquebatur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:22, 20 Iulii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Cum Jackmitchell, Utilone, Aristippo, Andreaque consociari velim. Principatus 'faciem administrationis', imperium ipsam 'administrationem' (sive 'rem publicam') significare mihi videtur. Hodierni autem rerum gestarum scriptores pro principatu ac deinde tetrarchia et dominatu nostrum verbum imperium in barbaris linguis conversum et 'dicionem Romanam ab aevo Augusti ad annum 476' (nisi ad annum 1453) et quidem 'regiones in quibus dominabatur' omnino significantem adhibere solent. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:01, 20 Iulii 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Civitas vel imperium?

message: I don't think much of the new infobox. Why do we have this huge flag: what's the evidence that this was the flag of the Imperium Romanum? Why do we list five emperors (one of whom is misspelt, though I know I can correct that!) Why do we say it was dissolved in 284? Where's the Greek name gone?
But I admit the old infobox was nothing to write home about. Noting the current long, pointless disputes about the infobox at :en:Talk:Roman Empire, would we do better to accept the decision of the barbarian invaders (see :de:Römische Kaiserzeit) and delete the infobox? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:22, 25 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed this useful page about Roman military standards at Lacus Curtius. The Wikipedian artist, Usor:Ssolbergj, may have been thinking about a military standard: the image is labelled a "vexilloid", but I don't know what that is. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:29, 25 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to have an infobox that could link this page with the later Eastern/Western Empires and then so on and so forth, and back to the Republic and the Hellenistic kingdoms. Sorry for this was a one-man decission. I'm hapy to keep the old template, although I liked the way of linking to predecessors and successors.--Xaverius 12:10, 25 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :No need to apologise, I understand your reason now. The linking is certainly a good idea. The old box was not very good ... we can no doubt adjust this new one to suit our preferences (when we know what they are!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:47, 25 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::¶The flag may be gone, certainly, and a link to the list of emperors can be added in the "rulers" section. ¶Similarly, other relevant events can be added to the last section. ¶On the "End date", this template would not let me have 476/1453 as I'd have liked, but perhaps we can push it to 395 and the final divission of the Empire? ¶As for precedessor states, we could have the Dacian kingdom, the Nabatean kingdom, Numidia, Mauretania, perhaps a link to Pre-Roman Britain, and similar Imperial conquests...--Xaverius 13:30, 25 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Yes, we could make a rather long list of predecessor states ... The end date is really difficult, because of the way we deal with subsequent history. For the east it's arbitrary, and 395 would certainly be OK. But I don't see any reason to write an article about the Western Empire 395-476. If I'm right there, we really want the end date in the West to be 476. I guess the box won't let you do that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:16, 25 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the vexillum: This article explains "vexilloid". The image may well be unencyclopedic and far-fetched. I am not sure. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 19:34, 25 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox