Jump to content

Talk:Ancient Rome/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Edit request from , 9 November 2011

Some of the information on this page is incorrect. I have studied Ancient Rome for years and am highly knowledgeable of this topic and would like to help out by making sure you have a reliable source. thanks

Spookywonder (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

wrong

this is all wrong! idk what u no bout rome but ik a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.81.76 (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Grammar mistakes in the second sentence of the section "Fall of the Roman Empire"

Christian values, which were centered in a heaven on afterlife, were responsible for making Romans less warlike and to don’t risk their lives for the country – in total opposition to the old and traditional Roman values.

changed. Alexandre8 (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for my This section needs additional citations for verification.

Apologies for not entering the discussion forum at the time I made this change. This is an important article and gives a much needed base from which to explore Roman Civilization. I thank those contributors who have done such a great job in putting this together. I have been editing grammar etc., as I can see that some hard working contributors don't have English as their first language. I applaude your work and am more than happy to fix grammer. I have been concerned that some important statements are not supported by references. E.g. "Sulla also held two dictatorships and one more consulship which established the crisis and decline of Roman Republic." I do not claim to be an expert in this area, which is why I would like to able to follow a reference to support the statement. I stress, I am not critising contributors and chose the above example at random. Given the work put into this article, it deserves to be of the highest standard. Proxxt (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Caesar and the First Triumvirate - Spelling error correction request.

At this time the strife between populares and optimates increased, and they eacj wanted a strong new man to lead the Roman Republic - with some internal oppositions to this in the optimates party, namely Cicero and Cato the Younger. eacj should = each --Artofscripting (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected it. Proxxt (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Chronology section

The Template alone is not a full section and is unencyclopedic. Needs prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"res publica" should be linked to the "res publica" article

RH Swearengin (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Typo in family section

Just noticed a typo at the very end of the Family section of the wiki article. It states:

"The husband was usually older than the bride. While upper class girls married very young, there is evidence that lower class women often married in their late teens or early 1920s."

Obviously that's supposed to be just "20s".

Bdowne01 (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Burning of Rome

It is my understanding that most historians say that Nero in fact did not "start the fires". Or at least this is a point of contention. However the article states it as fact in the section Ancient_Rome#From_Tiberius_to_Nero. Could someone with more knowledge about this weight in (hopefully with references)? I would like to make the change but I don't feel comfortable changing with my limited knowledge of the subject.

Phancy Physicist (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Two reliable primary sources are given as the references. I think the section is fine as it stands. Maybe you can cite some claims of later historians if you can find some. I think these primary sources should trump any secondary sources. Flaviusvulso (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Antonine Plague casualties need to be fixed.

Currently the article states the following in the History section:

"Marcus Aurelius, known as the Philosopher, was the last of the Five Good Emperors. He was a stoic philosopher and wrote a book called Meditations. He defeated barbarian tribes in the Marcomannic Wars as well as the Parthian Empire.[105] His co-emperor, Lucius Verus died in 169 AD, probably victim of the Antonine Plague, a pandemic that swept nearly five thousand people through the Empire in 165–180 AD.[106]"

The cited reference [106] though, states 5 million were killed, which makes more sense than the absurdly low five thousand, though it still seems low in an empire of 50 to 100 million to have had such a devastating impact on the empire, including killing both emperors. Carsonkaan (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Please correct!

"His co-emperor, Lucius Verus died in 169 AD, probably victim of the Antonine Plague, a pandemic that swept nearly five thousand people through the Empire in 165–180 AD."

Its actually five million people who were "swept", see Antonine Plague. Somebody who can edit this page may please correct that. Greetings, Tolman Telephone (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the heads up. Cadiomals (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Separate fact and legend

Please, can we have a clear separation between what is known from archeological evidence or independent sources, and what is simply a rewriting of the traditional legends? For instance, the section about the Republic states that according to legend it started in 509 and then goes on to mention "facts" from 510, 509 and so on till it reaches historical times, with no clear transition. As a reader who is not a specialist, I would really like to know how to make my mind... The Wikipedia article about the history of Rome should stick to facts. The legends/traditional account of the history of Rome should be put on a separate page. 2A01:E35:2E5B:C970:224:E8FF:FEB9:BFD1 (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The entire tone is not written in an encyclopedic point of view. It reminds me of a textbook.

The Romans faced the most difficult foe of all!

Of course, the boy had his belongings carried by a slave!

Crap like that. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

We have this problem with all ancient histories including the Bible. One can either forget all the anecdotal, unsubstantiated "history" in which case, we are left with nearly nothing except a few hard-to-explain artifacts, or report them as Rome (and other cultures) did for hundreds of years and work them out as best as possible. It is important that Romans believed this was their history.
I changed the education subsection somewhat and rm the slave carrying the rich kids books, which seems beside the point in a paragraph which is now about nobles, who were differently educated.
Couldn't find the "foe" phrase. Changed already? Student7 (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Roman Kingdom article deserves more attention.

I have noticed that there has been a lot more attention given to the Roman Republic, Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire Articles. Why? The Roman Kingdom was the foundation for all three. And there has to at least be a new map placed in the infobox of the article that depicts the amount of territory the kiingdom had. Keeby101 (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

As the article says, "Little is certain about the history of the kingdom, as nearly no written records from that time survive, and the histories about it that were written during the Republic and Empire are largely based on legends." I've read some of these and they sound non-WP:RS. Written records, if any, were lost. Student7 (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Eastern limits mention in the opening section...

Hey, guys, I just changed the bit saying it stretched from the Atlantic to Judaea to Arabia Petraea (then the Byzantine Palaestina Salutaris) as this was further east than Judaea and was the eastern limit for a good 500 years. But should we put Mesopotamia (Roman province)? Since that technically was the eastern limit, albeit for a relatively shorter time? Thanks. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 21:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

EDIT Also, Judea (Roman province) was amalgamated into Syria Palaestina in the mid second cetury. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 21:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

dates

I can't find a guideline on BC vs.BCE. Seems like BCE would be more appropriate. Minorview (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a contentious issue, and the situation is briefly outlined at WP:ERA. Nev1 (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

mistake

14 million for Rome's upper estimate most likely is 1.4 million. Please verify and correct. Etienne Forest Tsukuba, Japan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:60:4A8D:1:7860:54CC:888C:D21D (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - it's been there for years. Population estimates are notoriously difficult and unreliable but 14 million is just preposterous - even 1.4 million is pretty wild unless we include transients during election times, major festivals, games etc. Anyway, none of the cited sources seem to support it.. Have stuck with an upper limit of around a million, and a lower of 450,000 - it's a reasonable range, and is cited at both ends. Haploidavey (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've had a scout through the citations. The utterly whacky 14 million may not be a typo; the Oates source has "There have been various estimates made since the Renaissance which vary from half a million to fourteen millions of inhabitants. At the present time the work of Beloch1 on population in antiquity is probably regarded in general as authoritative. His estimate for Rome is somewhere in the neighborhood of eight hundred thousand." In this case, "present" means the 1930's. Amazing top range there, but I don't think we need burden the reader of this general article with such a curious but monstrously unhelpful range of statistics. Haploidavey (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2014

Add a link to the Carthage article on some of the many times it's mentioned. 95.21.193.42 (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: There's already a link to Ancient Carthage the first time it's mentioned, at the top of the Punic Wars section. LittleMountain5 04:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request from 11 April 2014

The section "Rome wtf" needs to be deleted.

Rlhazelton (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor Sing 16:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ancient Rome/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 19:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


I'll bite the bullet (hope that's not falling on my gladius) on this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments

"States, such as Palmyra, temporarily divided the Empire in a 3rd-century crisis". Perhaps that could be clearer (how did small city-states divide a huge empire?).

" in his classical epic poem the Aeneid. In the Aeneid, ..." Maybe avoid the repetition.

"Concrete made possible the paved, durable Roman roads": so they were constructed with concrete? Needs a ref, and I think some explanation. Roman_roads#Construction_and_engineering says nothing about the use of cement or concrete?

In fact the whole Ancient_Rome#Technology section needs more referencing.

I have marked up a few sections, e.g. Punic Wars, Government, Society, Economy, Games and recreation, that need more references.

There is scope for an image in Punic Wars - you could have Hannibal and Scipio side-by-side, perhaps.

"Quaestors were made automatic members of the Senate". Perhaps they were automatically made members.

"Portrait sculpture during the period" - which?

Adjectives are somewhat astray in some places, e.g. "the famous Hadrian's Wall", the "famously decisive Battle of Zama" - who says it's famous?

Military: perhaps add an image of a Roman ship to balance the infantry soldier.

Cuisine section - needs citations, and some expansion. At the moment it consists of WP:OR-ish generalities. I suggest you briefly mention what was eaten at a Cena and say a little about Food and dining in the Roman Empire. There is scope for an image (from a mosaic or fresco) here. You might briefly describe one or two characteristic ingredients such as garum, and the empire-wide trade in olive oil.

Scholarly studies: seems to fade out a century ago? I suggest you put the Russian title into a reference instead of the main text. But mainly it needs to be merged with Historiography, doesn't it? If there's a difference, do explain it, as it isn't clear. And move the merged section to the end of the article.

Images: all from Commons except the Valentinian III family and Trajan's Market (which ought to be moved there).

The image of the Forum should say it is a (CGI) model or reconstruction.

Image captions: there are many people here, over a very long time period, so dates might be a help in all the captions.

The maps are noticeably in very different (ok, random) styles, which is quite distracting to the reader. It would be desirable (so, not a GA requirement) to harmonise these.

References are formatted very diversely, from naked links to full citations. This is not a GA issue but needs to be tidied up radically for FA.

There are some footnotes mixed in with the references, e.g. #3, #226. It would be best to separate these out as "Notes" and to leave the refs as "References". This is not a GA requirement.

I'm unfortunately going to have to fail this for lack of any response. Nom seems to have ceased editing (since 6 September) and does not respond. So that this will not be a complete waste of time, let me say that if anyone wishes to revive this GA attempt, all they need to do is to address the above items, file it at GAN and ping me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2014

173.231.92.55 (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent maps?

Given that the dates are only 25 years apart, there seem unexpectedly huge differences between the final map in the animated sequence at the top of this article (File:Roman Republic Empire map.gif), and the map at the top of Byzantine Empire (File:Justinian555AD.png). Can both these really be correct? 86.152.160.175 (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Justinian I gained Italy, but as an empty conquest (a depopulated country with a kernel of the Gothic nation left intact). The other additions, of southern Spain and Africa, I can't account for right now. They might be erroneous or very temporary, superficial acknowledgements of suzerainty offered by states to whichever power seemed for the moment to be ascendant. The maps don't seem to cite their sources, although I haven't looked closely. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes to both. See Exarchate_of_Africa#Establishment_of_the_Exarchate. The re-conquest was brief, hard to maintain (thus the "exarhates"). Would be "nice" to have maps match, but from a modern pov, it hardly seemed to matter to Rome/Byzantine Empire. Student7 (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sole superpower of antiquity?

In the opening paragraph it says Rome was the sole superpower of antiquity. It is an unsourced statement and is quite incorrect. The Achaemenid Empire and the Macedonian Empire were certainly "superpowers" in their day.--Tataryn77 (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's quite a subjective statement actually. How exactly does one define "superpower"? Do they have to meet specific criteria? Is it relative to other states of the time? In any case, you are right in that it is an unsourced statement, so it has been modified. Cadiomals (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the powers of the east, like Han Dynasty China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.34.27 (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Rationale for years of existence

The east lasted until 1453, and is even discussed within this article. Why aren't Rome's years of existence 753 BC to 1453 AD? The Byzantines were direct continuations of Rome. If the criteria are the years that the empire was ruled from Rome, then the capital's movement from Rome to Mediolanum (Milan) should be the end date. If the criteria is the end of any Roman political power in the West, then the end date should be when the Domain of Soissons was conquered by the Franks, or the loss of Rome by the Byzantines in the 700's, as the Ostrogoths (Ostrogothic Kingdom) allowed Roman institutions to continue including the Senate and (to some extent) Coliseum matches. Also, the Byzantines didn't just drop Roman customs overnight in 476, it took centuries for Greek to replace Latin officially, the cultures were still so compatible, that during Justinian I's reconquest of Italy, the Romans (in this case the people of Rome) welcomed the "Roman" legions of the ERE into the city. The atmosphere became so hostile, the Ostrogothic garrison simply abandoned the city to the Byzantines. The point is it seems to me that end of the Byzantines is just as important of the date, or rather the de-Romanization of Byzantine culture in the final centuries of the first millennium, than the deposition of Romulus Augustus, which didn't really have any real meaning besides symbolism. Considering the number of coups in the Empire's history by rogue generals and Odoacer's service in the WR army as a Foederati officer, it could be interpreted as simply another coup that was only put down a century later by the ERE. The ERE even recognized Odoacer's rule of Italy granted him permission to rule Italy in the stead of Rome, effectively making him the governor of the province of Italia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.34.27 (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You could easily argue for an earlier end date. Cary's History of Rome ends with the reign of Constantine. Some (Mommsen?) see the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) as the beginning of the medieval era. Some aspects of medieval life (rise of fortified towns) showed up strikingly during the collapse of the 3rd century, which gave rise to Diocletian and Constantine. In other words, the end of Ancient Rome can be seen to depend on when ancient forms became medieval ones, and for that the 476 AD date seems rather late. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to add to Dhtwiki's points, examples from the 5th (Odoacer) and 6th (Justinian, Ostrogothic Kingdom) centuries cannot justify an end date in the 15th century. Of course there's a degree of continuity in history, right through Rome#Middle Ages and Papal States#Relationship with the Holy Roman Empire into the modern era, and we could have no end-date at all for Ancient Rome because Rome is the eternal city, but that would hardly be helpful to our readers. NebY (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

See also

We're starting to collect just about everything under "See also." These are also in the Portal, which is several removes away, I will grant you. But do we really want to add all the information in the Portal under "see also?" I can see adding articles relating to the city itself, Modern Rome, Italy/Italia, but they need to be more place oriented, I would think. There needs to be some point at which we stop adding articles, or arrive at a cap or something. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The first ones are at least focused on Rome and indicate articles about Ancient Rome that the reader might not have guessed existed. But the last two, History of citizenship and Toynbee's law of challenge and response? Ancient Rome features in so many theories and overviews of history, politics, sociology, religion, art, architecture, etc, it's invidious to pick just two. Roman Empire is linked several times - in the info-box, in captions, in body text and as the main article for a section. Roman legion is linked twice in body text. Roman military is linked several times, including as a main article for the Military section. I'll prune those. NebY (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2015

The hyperlink for the Sack of Constantinople is broken. It is now: Fourth_Crusade#Sack_of_Constantinople

Sungrazer11 (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Done - I repointed that link to Siege of Constantinople (1204) instead, since the article on the Fourth Crusade is already linked in the same sentence. Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 17:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2015

Please add the ending parenthesis in the Caesar and First Triumvirate section: It says: In the mid-1st century BC [...] and optimates (the "best", who wanted to [...] Change to: In the mid-1st century BC[...] and optimates (the "best"), who wanted to [...] 130.113.19.154 (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Done thanks for catching that. Cannolis (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Romulus

Romulus killed his brother because they were fighting who would be king next. Romulus takes over king and names the city of Rome after — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.201.152.186 (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought the story goes that Romulus was building a wooden fence/picket and Remus, angry at his brothers dominance of the new roman settlement, Jumped over the wall as a message to his brother, to show that they were equals(open to interpretation) and then Romulus Killed him for breaching the fortification of Rome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibbed Head (talk • contribs) 09:11, 23 May 2016‎ (UTC)

Notable Ancient Romans list

User:Per82 started this list about a month ago. No rationale other than "added content" has been given. No other editor has added to it. Now, User:Student7 is placing "citation needed" templates all over it (I think a blue-link indicates enough notability, but we differ in our interpretations of WP:LIST). However, the list serves little purpose. If there are any names that need to be mentioned, that aren't already in the article, they should be included in the text, not a bare list without a well-defined rationale. I think that the list should be removed, since it has become contentious and cluttered. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There's already a list of ancient Romans for those who like lists of links. No need to duplicate it here. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree. It would be a challenge to select ancient Romans that should appear on this page, from all of the others. Student7 (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I was going to suggest a separate list, but that was before I saw here that one already exists. That extant list could use some work, too (alphabetization seems quite varied, linkage could be better, dates added and a sortable table made, etc.). Dhtwiki (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Per82 has posted on my talk page, saying:
"Hello Nick! The reason I included a list of notable Ancient Romans is because I wanted to give the reader a list of Romans who significantly changed Roman history. The Romans I have added are great Generals, lawmakers and emperors. The reader when studying these individuals will have a full grasp of the entire history of Rome. I am aware of the list of ancient Romans, but most are insignificant to the casual reader and of little value to the professional historian."
I'm copying it here so all the discussion is in one place. The point is, lists always turn into massive undifferentiated data dumps. Start another one just for the ones you think are significant, and other editors will show up and add more that they think are significant, until you end up with another massive undifferentiated data dump. If it was up to me I'd ban lists entirely. They bloat articles until they're split off into separate list articles, they're not very informative or useful, and they duplicate the function of categories, which at least have the useful ability to be organised in a structure.
Lots of "Romans who significantly changed Roman history" will naturally be linked in the text of the article, their significance meaning they are mentioned a general overview of the history of ancient Rome. As well as being of dubious usefuless and bound to bloat out of control the second you take your eye of it, the list is doubly redundant. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2015

please change the words "children of Rome" into a link to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Ancient_Rome so viewers have easy access to more information on this topic. Chiappe4 (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2015

In the penultimate intro paragraph, the article mentions the state of "Palmyra" which it says was a splinter state during the Crisis of the Third Century. This links to the article on the city of Palmyra when it should actually link to the more general Palmyrene Empire, which was the name of the actual splinter state. 128.84.124.208 (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done - I've changed the link. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Reconsider protected status?

Just because I don't see it having been revisited lately, do folks think the semi-protected status is really needed?

Looks like it has been in place for years based on vandalism that was happening way back then. Perhaps it's time to reopen and see if editors behave?

(Personally, I have no opinion on whether protection is needed. Just wanted to bring it up for anyone who might.) Crcarlin (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The Colosseum article was unprotected last August after being semi-protected for five years. However, it was re-protected after five-and-a-half months. That article had 53 edits in January. Of those, 42 were either vandalism or reverts, 6 edits to do with an inexperienced editor getting reverted after good faith changes, and 2 edits to the categorisation by an experienced editor. As it happens the only substantial and lasting changes to the text were made by an (the remaining three edits that month) adding some pop culture information.
Granted, this article gets about half of the traffic of the article on the Colosseum, but I suspect given the topic and the developed nature of the content we would encounter a similar situation. My feeling is that this article is sufficiently well developed that the barrier is high for people making their first edits, so we're likely to see mostly vandalism. Nev1 (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Justinian

The sourced reference to Justinian I seems to be inaccurate. "During the 6th century, Justinian I briefly reconquered Northern Africa and Italy. But within a few years of Justinian's death, Byzantine possessions in the West were reduced to southern Italy and Sicily."

Justinian died in 565. His land holdings in Hispania (the province of Spania) survived to 624, 59 years following his death. His land holdings in North Africa (the Exarchate of Africa) survived to 698, 133 years following his death. His land holdings in Italy (the Exarchate of Ravenna, with its capital in Northern Italy) survived to 751, 186 years following his death. Byzantine land holdings in southern Italy were later reorganized into the Catepanate of Italy and survived to 1071, 506 years following the death of Justinian. Byzantine influence in Italy continued with the Italian campaign of reconquest (1155-1158). The Byzantine army departed Italy for the last tine in 1158, 593 years following the death of Justinian.

The description of a quick collapse of the Byzantine control in the West points to this source being unfamiliar with Byzantine history. Unless several centuries count as "a few years". Dimadick (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. --Tataryn (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Should for the time periods of rome, the byzantine empire be considered?

Should we add the birth to end times of the byzantine empire along with the kingdom, republic and empire?Virophage (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The significance of the Western Roman Empire is already overstated, given than it was the poorer and more unstable part of the Roman world. Dimadick (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
This article is on ancient Rome and having it be more about the Byzantine Empire, which was non-Latin, Greek-speaking in its culture, and which is well linked-to from here, would be an extension that I think is unnecessary, if not unwise, not least of all because this is already a very long article. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that the distinction between Roman and Byzantine is artificial to begin with and would be incomprehensible to the Byzantines themselves (it was coined by Hieronymus Wolf in 1557, a century following the end of the Empire), the Byzantine Empire continued using Latin as an official language until the reforms of Heraclius in the 7th century (or to quote the relative article "The use of Latin as the language of administration persisted until formally abolished by Heraclius in the 7th century."), and that Vulgar Latin remained a significant minority language in the Byzantine Empire in subsequent centuries. Dimadick (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
All articles on related subjects don't need to be about the same thing or have the same perspective. This article's focus is not the Roman Empire, which has its own article, but Ancient Rome - the city of Rome and its influence in antiquity. The Byzantine empire was the continuation of the Roman empire ruled from another capital, but it did not, for the most part, include Rome itself. That's not an artificial distinction. Rome continued to exist after the fall of the western empire. If anything, this article includes a little too much about Byzantine activity in the west not involving Italy, and not enough about the barbarian rulers of Rome and the rise of the Popes in late antiquity. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Roman civilization begun in the Italian Peninsula but by the time of the Roman Empire it had spread far from its lowly origins. I do not think an emphasis on Italy is reasonable here, as already in the 3rd century its importance to the Empire has significantly diminished. The main events of the Crisis of the Third Century and the Tetrarchy took place all over the areas of the Empire and several of the emperors of the time never set foot in Rome.

You are quire mistaken if you think that the Byzantine Empire always failed to control the city of Rome. Belisarius captured Rome from the Ostrogoths in 536 and defended the city during the Siege of Rome (537–38). With various temporary losses, Rome stayed part of the Empire until the early 750s. We have an article on the Byzantine Papacy (537-752) detailing how the Byzantine authorities appointed Popes, or at least confirmed their elevations. And to quote just a small part of it: "With the exception of Pope Martin I, no pope during this period questioned the authority of the Byzantine monarch to confirm the election of the bishop of Rome before consecration could occur; however, theological conflicts were common between pope and emperor in the areas such as monotheletism and iconoclasm. Greek-speakers from Greece, Syria, and Byzantine Sicily replaced members of the powerful Roman nobles in the papal chair during this period. Rome under the Greek popes constituted a "melting pot" of Western and Eastern Christian traditions, reflected in art as well as liturgy."

The period ended because the Exarchate of Ravenna, the main Byzantine area in the Italian Peninsula, fell in 751, with Ravenna itself captured by the Kingdom of the Lombards. The Popes feared a Lombard invasion of Rome and sought other protectors, with Pope Stephen II managing to secure the protection and alliance of Pepin the Short. Pepin invaded Italy, defeated the Lombards, and granted authority over captured areas to the Popes. The Papal States were established in 754.

The distinction is always artificial because the Byzantines preserved Roman civilization, they did not loose it in the process.

"Rome continued to exist after the fall of the western empire." No dispute there, and the "finality" of the fall of the Western Roman Empire might be overstated. Romans did not cease to exist because a single emperor was deposed.

"not enough about the barbarian rulers of Rome". Possibly a good idea to cover them as well, though these so-called "barbarians" led relatively short-lived regimes. The first of them was Odoacer, who controlled the Italian Peninsula from 476 to his military defeat and murder in 493. He failed to establish a dynasty of his own. His enemy and successor was Theoderic the Great who continued to rule until his death in 526. He established the Ostrogothic Kingdom, but it only survived to 553/554. Most of his successors were involved in fighting the so-called Gothic War (535-554) against the Byzantine Empire. They lost the war and the kingdom was conquered by the Byzantines, but the unintended result of twenty years of war was the devastation and depopulation of the Italian Peninsula. The Lombards invaded Byzantine Italy in 568 and established the Kingdom of the Lombards (568-774). But the Lombards never did manage to conquer the entire Peninsula and failed to establish control over the city of Rome. The Kingdom of the Lombards was conquered by Charlemagne in the 774, and he did manage to establish Frankish rule over most of Northern and Central Italy,though not the Southern part of the Peninsula and Sicily. I am not certain whether you want to also cover the Carolingian Empire in this history of Rome. The entire period from the rise of Odoacer (476) to the conquest of Charlemagne (774) is only 298 years. About the same distance in time between the rise of Augustus (27 BC) and the rise of Aurelian (270).

I am not really certain what you mean by the rise of the Popes in Late Antiquity. Some of the Popes both before and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire were relatively major players in the politics of the Christian world, but almost all of them were still subordinate to emperors and kings. They could be deposed, exiled, and even murdered. The most notable "rebel" Pope in this entire period is Pope Martin I (649-655) who was elected and consecrated without imperial approval and tried to establish a mostly independent regime. He was arrested by the Byzantines in 653 and spend the rest of his life in exile in Chersonesus, a Byzantine colony in Crimea. (Admittedly his supposed collaboration with the Rashidun Caliphate against the Byzantine interests did not help his case.) Dimadick (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The division may be artificial, but it has to be made. Or we'd just have one long article on everything. It is usual to consider the Dominate of Diocletian the beginning of an absolute, Persian-style, non-Roman-style monarchy. The division into east and west might not have been felt at the time but it is now viewed as splitting off the Hellenistic eastern half, which never owed its civilization to Rome as much as western Europe did, and which went its own way culturally, linguistically, etc. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

In section 'Trajan'

"In Dacian War, Apollodorus made a great bridge over the Danube for Trajan." needs definite article. i.e. "In the Dacian war..."

93.155.221.136 (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 18:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Dating of the Brescia Medallion and its origins

Moving talk page discussion here:

Walnut77: and why on earth would Ansa, Queen of the Lombards have a medallion made in the 8th century using an Alexandrian Greek dialect of Egypt from the 3rd century? Do you not see how incongruent that is? Besides, Johnbod makes an even better point than I did, by relating how your own source, the Brescia Museum webpage on the medallion, specifically dates this artwork to around the 3rd century AD! Neither Galla Placidia nor Ansa were alive then; the medallion predates them significantly according to your own source (to say nothing of the sheer litany of scholarly sources that have deduced that this gold glass artefact is Roman Egyptian in origin). And if you speak Italian, surely you understand the phrase "pater familias". Why not mention that when citing your source? Are you deliberately misrepresenting your source by omitting these assertions from the Brescia Museum page? All you're doing is repeating the claim that your source specifically calls a "legendary" one (i.e. a popular belief outside the realm of scientific inquiry). Pericles of AthensTalk 18:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi PericlesofAthens, like I said, I am only quoting the Museum of Brescia on these "hypotheses". Do you understand the word hypothesis? I didn't mention the part about pater familias because I already mentioned it previously in my response to you, and because in this case I am emphasizing the fact that the words have been interpreted to be the name of the author of the work. This is mentioned in the sources YOU brought up. KEPAMI means potter in Alexandrian Greek, according to your sources let me remind you, how curious. Like you said in one of your responses, you are in no position to critique the art work only to point out sources. Your conclusions as to why it is written in Alexandrian Greek have no significance because you are not a researcher yourself. Like I told Johnbod, if you need clarification, contact the Museum! I am only translating what it says. The caption I wrote says it has been thought to be Ansa, which is exactly what the museum says. You have repeatedly, purposely misquoted the sources you provided saying this and that has been proven when the source is actually presenting theories and hypotheses. Walnut77 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Everything I have written has reflected the sources I have brought to the discussion, which identify the myth about Galla Placidia as being commonly accepted in the 18th century (excluding the 19th-century idea that it was a forgery), but has been overturned in modern academia due to early 20th-century research and further investigation in the following decades. For some inexplicable reason YOU decided to remove cited material in regards to the Fayum mummy portraits, which two sources (if not three, considering the source Howells 2015 cites in his British Museum publication) have now compared to this medallion. Pericles of AthensTalk 18:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you leave the caption with the theories clearly explained by the museum, and those critiques you have found, which do not amount to the entire academic world. The information you have provided is not a definitive proof. If it was the museum would have said this has been refuted and proved to be a fayum mummy portrait. As of today, this has not happened. You do not get to decide what is interpreted as what, only to correctly describe what the sources say. Walnut77 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Walnut77: "...only to correctly describe what the sources say" <- And yet you have failed to do exactly that, haven't you? You have failed to faithfully represent the view of the Brescia Museum that it is dated to the 3rd century AD ("del III secolo d.C."). You have failed to mention that the Brescia Museum page specifically calls the Galla Placidia and Ansa assertions as "legends" (i.e. myths, "che l’interpretazione leggendaria identifica in Galla Placidia ovvero nella regina Ansa"). You have failed to faithfully represent the view of the Brescia Museum page when it tells you, point blank, that the inscription on the medallion is in Greek and that recent scholarship has mused about it being either the name of the artist or the pater familias who is absent in the portrait ("Suggestive le ipotesi formulate attorno all’iscrizione in greco rintracciabile nella decorazione, BOYNNEPI KEPAMI, ritenuta inizialmente la firma dell’autore, ma secondo studi più recenti riconducibile al nome del pater familias del nucleo ritratto"). The claim about Galla Placidia and Ansa most certainly should not be taking up two entire sentences in the image caption, which gives this (old and debunked) theory WP:undue weight even according to your own source! Pericles of AthensTalk 19:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The legendary as in traditional the most well known. You clearly dont speak italian. If it was debunked it would say that exactly. And again ipotesi=hypotheses,refering to the interpretations of the words. Do you only understand something when it suits you? The museum makes no mention of fayum portraits. If you want to debunk theories, study and publish. Otherwisee, stop misrepresenting the works of others.Walnut77 (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
For starters it is Howells and Breck who I've cited for the comparison Fayum mummy portraits, not the Brescia Museum page. You should know that, seeing how I've already quoted Howells verbatim on your talk page. If you want to drop the attitude and the condescension, you can also quit insisting that I study and write publications on the matter. The numerous sources I've provided should suffice. I'm well aware of what a hypothesis is and the language in the caption as it stands now perfectly reflects the language of the Brescia Museum page. Pericles of AthensTalk 20:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I see youve added the information do i will not remove it.Walnut77 (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
"leggendaria" means EXACTLY the same in Italian as it would in English. Really, this abuse of the source is pathetic. Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Johnbod, the use of legendary changes in the context, you would know what it is trying to say if you spoke italian. Even though I seriously want to stop this nasty argument, since these two editors have clearly dedicated themselves to draw their own conclusions from academic theories, I want to point out this article on wikipedia: Mysteries of Isis. In the article you will find this, among many other interesting things: "Even once the mysteries were established, they were not performed everywhere Isis's cult was present. The only known sites for her mystery cult were in Italy, Greece, and Anatolia,[25] although she was worshipped in nearly every province of the Roman Empire.[29] In Egypt itself, only a few texts and images from the Roman period refer to the mysteries of Isis, and it is not certain that they were ever performed there.[30]". As you can see the veneration of Isis was present everywhere in the Roman Empire, and her mystery cult only found in Italy, Greece and Anatolia. these people do not look like the people in the fayum portraits, this could have easily been a family in Greece or Italy. If the Greek inscription is in coptic then Kepami means potter, otherwise no known meaning. This should further show you there is no definitive proof as to whether this family is egyptian at all. This is why wikipedia editors should simply point out sources and describe them correctly. Walnut77 (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Further relevant information: "Isis was one of many non-Greek deities whose cults became part of Greek and Roman religion during the Hellenistic period (323–30 BCE), when Greek people and culture spread to lands across the Mediterranean and most of those same lands were conquered by the Roman Republic. Under the influence of Greco-Roman tradition, some of these cults, including that of Isis, developed their own mystery rites.[20] The mysteries of Isis could have emerged as far back as the early third century BCE, after the Greek Ptolemaic dynasty had taken control of Egypt." Walnut77 (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The inscription was suggested to be in Coptic based on the fact that Kepami is similar to the word "potter" in that dialect, in fact, it is just Greek otherwise. Johnbod, I hope you make the corresponding changes to the Gold glass article. Surprisingly, you were even told that the Isis knot does not necessarily make these Egyptians in the talk page for Mysteries of Isis, I just noticed that. How credible can you be now. Walnut77 (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, what that said was "The knotted mantle was an Egyptian style of dress..." but not necessarily anything to do with Isis. But since I have no RS for that I have not changed the sourced text in GG. You have a remarkable talent for misreading. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 5 October2016 (UTC)
I don't know how this is in anyway contrary, also the person wrote this: "Women in places like Greece were often shown wearing it, but outside Egypt the dress only appears on women with some connection to the Isis cult." I didn't misread anything. Walnut77 (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Johnbod, you clearly hid this information. The fact that she's wearing this garment doesn't lead to the conclusion that she's egyptian, you knew this, and yet you defended PericlesofAthens so adamantly, how strange really. Also based on all this and the fact that the inscription is just in Greek (which is what the Brescia Museum says by the way), you cannot say the medallion is Alexandrian in origin. Make the changes to the Ancient Rome article and the Gold glass article. Thank you. Walnut77 (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not me saying it, it's ALL THE SOURCES. They say all, or nearly all, this type are Alexandrian. You seem to be basing your case (whatever that now is) on a short web museum caption in a language you don't seem to understand very well. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I just happened on this discussion, and though it's a bit tangential to the dispute, I feel like I should supply the RS for what I've said about the knot: "Not the Isis-Knot" by Robert S. Bianchi. Bianchi's conclusion seems to be accepted by other scholars working on the Isis cults, as well as in The Beautiful Burial in Roman Egypt by Christina Riggs, pp. 71–75, which adds more details in support of Bianchi's argument. As far as the medallion goes, it seems that the knot means either that the woman is Egyptian, supporting an Egyptian origin for the artifact, or, if the piece comes from elsewhere in the empire, that she is involved with the Isis cult.

As far as the central dispute goes, the gold glass article cites numerous sources that point to Alexandria as the medallion's probable place of origin, and they are more authoritative and (at least in the case of Howells) much more detailed than a museum caption. For example, these sources say that the text's Greek dialect points to Egypt, because it's the dialect of Greek that was spoken in Alexandria. Moreover, Elsner, on page 17, dates the medalllion stylistically to "any point in our period—its transfixing naturalism gestures towards the second century, while its technique is more typical of objects from the fourth." He says earlier on the same page that the sixth and seventh centuries are "well beyond our period", meaning the period discussed in his article, so he must regard the medallion as earlier than the sixth century.

Finally, in Ansa's time knowledge of Greek was dying out in Italy and in Egypt, and the Isis cult was long extinct. The claim that the medallion was made in eighth-century Italy does not seem tenable. A. Parrot (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

A. Parrot: Greetings and thanks for pitching in to the discussion. Since many Greeks and Romans living outside of Egypt were cult followers of the Mysteries of Isis, the knot is obviously not a distinguishing feature reserved solely for Egyptians. That being said, Walnut77 has taken this idea and flown off the rails, thinking that Greeks and native Latin-speaking Romans wearing it means that the medallion wasn't necessarily made in Egypt. Except that's not the point of the cited statement in the image caption; it's merely pointing out the obvious, that she's wearing a garment indicating her as a follower of this religious cult. All other evidence, the written language of the medallion, the hairstyles and other clothing styles, all indicate a (Roman-era) Egyptian origin, as laid out very plainly in the sources that I have cited. At this point, Walnut77 is just rehashing the same argument again and again based on his selective interpretation of what the Brescia Museum page says (and even then it mentions the medallion as dating to the 3rd century, which immediately undercuts the Galla Placidia and even more absurd Ansa hypotheses). This website by Jasper Burns (with material extracted from his 1996 article in the Journal of Ancient and Medieval Art and Artifacts) basically lays out the scholarly debate around this artefact. He muses that the jewelry worn by the woman in the Brescia Medallion is similar to that worn by empress Julia Domna in a contemporary 3rd-century painting found in Egypt (Berlin Tondo). However, he is clearly against the idea that the Brescia Medallion depicts an imperial family at all, given "the complete lack of the insignias of office (e.g. laurel wreaths, diadems, scepters, even bordered toga)." His argument seems fairly convincing to me. Pericles of AthensTalk 07:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
For that matter, take a look at the List of gold-glass portraits article. Not one of these, from what I can tell, depicts an imperial family. These are just regular well-to-do citizens of the Roman Empire. Is there any evidence that the gold-glass medium was used for imperial portraiture? Obviously minted coins and busts and full-sized statues were the mediums for depicting the most important individuals, emperors and their family members included. I just don't see how gold-glass medallions fit into this category. They strike me as being entirely similar to the round fresco portraits of 1st-century Pompeii (if not the Egyptian Fayum mummy portraits that have been cited). Pericles of AthensTalk 07:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2016

Suggested addition to Historiography, modern: S.P.Q.R. "A History of Ancient Rome" by Mary Beard. Jonamole (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Since the |answered= parameter has been set to "yes", this should have a proper answer. My reason for not including the book is that it's a very recent publication, by an author I don't know. Some of the works in the "In modern times" subsection are undoubted classics but others aren't so well established (IMO) (plus you have Mommsen's well known work in the introductory paragraph, with a couple of other books I'm not familiar with, and not in the list proper). IOW, this is already an uneven and not well justified list. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ancient Rome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

All links work and seem useful. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

On the incomplete citations

Should the template at the top of the page be removed now? AndrewOne (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No. Several citations are incomplete. One simply reads "Suetonius". Another reads "Frontinus". The sources for the population read, for instance, "McEvedy and Jones (1978)." without a full citation anywhere on the page (not the name of the work, or the page cited, or anything else). TompaDompa (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional sub-heading

It might be helpful to add a section on the role of women to the "culture" section to make it more complete. You can consult: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_Rome for sources.Trysalandra (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Spelling

There were some slight spelling errors and incorrect links in the beginning they have been fixed. Abond3 (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted these. As I said in my edit summary, "civilisation" and "professionalised", etc., are British variants, and as such are usually kept as long as they're consistent with the article style, which in this case seems to be to allow such variants, if not to positively conform to them (e.g. those who would naturally write "civilization", as I would, might consider conforming to the British spelling). Dhtwiki (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Persuasive Writings in Question

I believe that evidence found in persuasive writing is very different and less trustworthy than that found in encyclopedias, especially in this article. Persuasive writings of those at the time, like Livy, per say, because the encyclopedias are simply fact based. Plutarch and Livy might be more inclined to incorporate their specific views on political or social matters, while one can count on encyclopedias to provide broader factual background. For example, the findings and views in Plutarc's Life of Caesar and Livy's The Rise of Rome incorporates their dialect and history through their individual viewpoint. Incorporating more encyclopedic based information allows for the easy and productive grouping of unbiased, unprejudiced factual findings. Thanlon14 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Troy Hanlon

I don't necessarily disagree with your post here, but how is this relevant to the Wiki article we have here? The talk page is not a forum (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:No original research). It is a place where we discuss how to improve the article using Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You might want to move your discussion to a more appropriate venue, like an online history forum, or even a blog. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 18:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ancient Rome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ancient Rome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancient Rome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Citations clean-up

Hi everyone - or salve, I guess. Unless there's an objection, I would like to do some work completing the many incomplete references in this article, using the cite book template and others, also add some strong references from respected authors where they appear to be useful. I don't intend to alter the text for now, just fixing and adding refs with authorlinks. And maybe do a table with the estimates of Roman population included in what is currently ref1. After that is done, I think it would do some good to separate references from the explanatory footnotes. But more on that later. Robincantin (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You might want to look at the failed 2014 Good Article review, which mentioned some deficiencies in referencing that haven't been addressed, and use that as a guide, if you didn't already know about it. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I did read it. My plan is to do the refs first and if people are happy with my work, I'll move on to the issues outlined in the review. What the reviewer is asking for really isn't complicated, I'm surprised it did not get done. Robincantin (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2017

I think that the text "After Hadrian's death at 138" should be changed to "After Hadrian's death in 138AD" 62.255.172.126 (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Done — nihlus kryik  (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2017

The claim that mining and stone quarrying was the primary industry is challenged. An industry probably larger than mining and possibly the largest industrial activity was shaping and baking clay. Clay was used to make the amphora that held the transported food that so dominated the trading industry, clay was used to make the bricks that cities and towns and villas were partly build from, and clay was used to make domestic items in every home (lamps, cooking pots, etc). Quarrying clay, shaping it and baking it was possibly the biggest industrial activity. However another under estimated widely spread industrial activity was probably the use of wood. Wood was used for fuel directly or as charcoal in heating homes, heating water in bath houses, heating ovens and kilns, etc. Wood was turned into timber for use in buildings (furniture, concrete formwork, etc), use as tools or part of a tool (hand tools, presses, wind and water power, etc), use in transport (sled, cart, wagon, raft, boat and ship, etc), use in temporary constructions (bridges, etc) and other things (e.g. use of beech ash in german soap making). 220.101.80.30 (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Would also need sources for whatever changes you want made Cannolis (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2017

byzantine empire in first paragraph should be capitalised. Grammernazi619 (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Minor edit only, and appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 02:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ancient Rome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancient Rome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2018

In the lead, the initial words "In historiography" should be deleted. Reason: the lead twice contradicts the historiography subsection. Whereas the current lead states In historiography, ancient Rome is Roman civilization from the founding of the city of Rome in the 8th century BC to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD, the historography section makes no mention of the 8th century BC, and cites Gibbon to say the Roman Empire collapsed in AD 1453. Thus there is a discrepancy between lead and subsection of more than 1000 years. 81.131.172.185 (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

"Ancient Rome" is a historiographical term that leaves out the Byzantine (Eastern/Medieval Roman) Empire after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, hence the discrepancy. I think this is already explained in the lead sufficiently. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Salve Ichthyosaurus. The function of a Wikipedia lead is to summarise the article, not to contradict it (by 1000 years!). The simplest solution is to make the small deletion I proposed. The more complex alternative would be to amend the historiography subsection to make it compatible with the lead.81.131.172.185 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I edited the historiography section to state that the work of Gibbon pertained to the "roman civilization" rather than "period", which should make them non-contradictory. "Roman Empire" and "Roman civilization" are not synonymous with "Ancient Rome". Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Not done: The body section clearly designated the 1453 date as the fall of the Byzantine Roman Empire and thoroughly discusses the multiple possible dates based on various interpretations and scholarly opinions. No contradiction exists. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_Rome/Archive_3&oldid=1136518224"