Talk:List of Roman consuls/Archive 1

Archive 1

Possible error in list for BC 13-12 Tiberius Nero and Publius Quintilius

13 Ti. Claudius Nero I P. Quinctilius Varus

12 M. Valerius Messalla Appianus P. Sulpicius Quirinius

According to chapter 12 of Res Gestae Divi Augustus:

At the same time, by decree of the senate, part of the praetors and of the tribunes of the people, together with the consul Quintus Lucretius46 and the leading men of the state, were sent to Campania to meet me, an honour which up to the p365present time has been decreed to no one except myself. When I returned from Spain and Gaul, in the consulship of Tiberius Nero and Publius Quintilius, after successful operations in those provinces, the senate voted in honour of my return the consecration of an altar to Pax Augusta in the Campus Martius, and on this altar it ordered the magistrates and priests and Vestal virgins to make annual sacrifice.

Seems to disagree.

Ronbarak (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sextus pompeius

How can Sextus Pompeius be listed as consul for 35 B.C.? That is really weird. I'll have to check out what the real answer is the next time I'm near a copy of Pauly-Wissowa, but if someone else has the opportunity, could they check it out too? Thanks.Jmkleeberg 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an different Sextus pompeius. The Pompeius above is better called Sextus Pompeius Magnus Pius. The Consul of 35 B.C. was a relative of Octavian. Marcus Cyron 19:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Carolus Martellus

I found that Carolus Martellus was offered a title of Roman consul in 739 but he rejected.--Dojarca (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy of the list

There are errors in the 1st centuries BC and CE lists. Some consuls are given names which are modern speculations, or nicknames which were never used officially. What is the prevailing notion/policy about admittance of nicknames and speculative identifications to such formal lists? I'd suggest that where a name is modern speculation it be omitted or (where it is generally accepted) only included within square braces, perhaps with an additional question-mark inside the braces to represent the true nature of the evidence. Nicknames should only be added, if at all, inside quote marks or round braces. Since it is a scholarly convention to include a name/surname acquired after the consulate in round braces, nicknames should be represented differently, i.e. inside quote marks, or better not represented at all. What do others think? Appietas (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Which names are speculation? ---Μίκυθος (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

29BC suffectus M.Valerius Messalla Potitus

true, two inscriptions from his biennium command of Asia province have simply "Messala Potitus proconsul" in that order (IDidyma 147, IGR iv.1338); but the lack of any forename is a warning that something unusual is happening on those dedications.

Second, he must have been brother of either Messalla Corvinus (cos.31) or (less likely) of Messalla Barbatus (cos.suff.32), and both of them were Marcus, so Potitus must have been a Manius. Third Manius is confirmed as his forename in the inscription from Asia attesting his quaestura there (SEG 37.959): "Manius Valerius Messala Potitus quaestor". Finally the career elogium found in Rome gives him Potitus as forename (ILS 8964). Therefore the two Greek inscriptions in his proconsulate have swapped around his unusual forename and famous cognomen, so it would appear that he began life as Mn.Messalla Potitus (similar style to his brother M.Messalla Corvinus) and sometime between quaestura and consulate converted his agnomen Potitus into an even more distinctive forename, no doubt following the example of the youngsters Paullus Fabius, Africanus Fabius and Nero Claudius Drusus (who was initially Drusus Claudius Nero).

in addition to the fasti of the vicorum magistri attesting Potitus as his forename at the time of his consulate, and the ILS 8964 elogium after his consulate, there is the extant filiation of L.Messalla Volesus (cos.5CE) in the fasti Cap: Potiti f.M.n.

Appietas (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

---

2CE suffectus P.Cornelius Lentulus Scipio: fasti Cap. extant in full for this name, which is: P.Cornelius P.f.P.n.Scipio - the addition of Lentulus looks to be a modern error

No, Lentulus was even the Top-gentilname, see CIL 10, 2039a and 6, 1385

Thanks, non vidi. Are you sure these texts apply to the cos.suff.2CE (name the colleague) rather than 24CE? Appietas (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, look this site [1] and give in "Beleg" 10, 02039a or 06, 01385

---

61BC M.Pupius Piso Frugi Calpurnianus: the "Calpurnianus" appears to be a modern tautology, repeating the job already done by "Piso Frugi" (according to the 1st century BC style innovations in adoptive nomenclature) in identifying the stirps (rather than gens) of the man's birth. At least there should be consistency; if mod. scholarship insists on this unattested Calpurnianus, then so too the name of Metellus Scipio (cos.52) should end with Cornelianus, M.Varro Lucullus (cos.73)and A.Varro Murena (cos.des.for 23) both Licinianus, and so forth.

The Chronograph of 354 give the name Calpurnianus. He was a Calpurnii and was adopted by a M. Pupius. The gentilname Calpurnius get to Calpurnianus.

Yes it's an important source but not error free. You seem to be missing my point that no contemp. source attests Calpurnianus, and that there is no parallel for an adopted man using the cognomina/agnomina of his birth family (in this case Piso Frugi) AND also the gentile adjective. It's a pointless repetition. The 354 Chronograph also gives Mamerco and Iuliano for 77 and Cicerone et Antonino for 63. Calpurniano for 61 is probably the author's error. Probably the same source's most important contribution is Caesare et Turmo under 64 BC; i.e. L.Caesar and the Minucius Thermus attested by Cicero as a front runner for a 64 consulate. So it looks like Marcius Figulus was a suffectus. Here's an online text by the way; http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chronography_of_354_08_fasti.htm Appietas (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I can say no more to this guy. When you have actuelly literature, do you can this correcting.

---

41BC - the Pietas addition seems to be attested only on coinage, where it is a political totem, and not part of the name; the name form of this noun was Pius.

Well, Pietus was not official part of his name, Cassius Dio has given him the name. We Could Pietas in parentheses L. Antonius (Pietas).

Appietas (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

--Μίκυθος (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviating forename Manius

This list uses a standard modern abbreviation M'. (apostrophe after the M) to differentiate Manius from Marcus. Well and good theoretically, except that it is sometimes difficult to make out, and very easy to overlook. I'd suggest an alternative: M/. which is much clearer and was an ancient epigraphic standard for abbreviating Manius (most notably in the Capitoline fasti). Appietas (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an epigraphic list. This is a modern list. So we have to use the modern terms. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Forename problems

There are a few examples where common forenames are given in full, inconsistently with normal practice of abbreviation (everywhere and on this list in general). E.g. 199 Publius Villius, 111 Lucius Calpurnius, 22 Marcus Claudius, 13 & 7 Tiberius Claudius.

Also the forename of Lentulus Spinther (57) was P., the list has L. by a slip. And Spinther was a nickname rejected by this haughty prince (although used by his son), so better would be; P.Cornelius Lentulus ("Spinther" pontifex)

Appietas (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Scipiones Nasicae

The line of Scipiones Nasicae is quite well documented; none of the nicknames (like Corculum and Sarapio) were hereditary, while Sarapio was a mocking epithet applied to the cos.138 by an enemy. Better would be P.Cornelius Scipio Nasica ("Corculum", pont.max.), and P.Cornelius Scipio Nasica ("Sarapio", pont.max.). Also Sarapio aut. sim. was not inherited by the cos.111 and should not be applied to him, as in this list.

Appietas (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

More on speculative names

Q.Marcius suffectus 36 this name appears to survive only as "[M]arcius"; Syme Augustan Aristocracy p.456 etc. only prints Marcius (1986 and 1989). It is a very good idea to identify this fellow with Q.Marcius Philippus the Caesarian vir quaestorius commander of Cyprus, but there are other possibilities. Anyhow, where does the Q. come from, as in this list without query?

P.Cornelius Dolabella suffectus 35 I've not seen this guess before and think it is brilliant and can be supported by various diverse evidence and arguments (son of the homonymous pr.69). Still, only "P.Cornelius" is extant and so there are many competing possibilities, ranging from P.Lentulus Marcellinus (recently proposed on a Roman history email list), to P.Scipio (father of the cos.16 - so Syme AA p.456) and P.Sulla Caesar's commander at Pharsalus, son of the cos.des.for 65 and father of L.Sulla P.f. cos.5BC with Augustus XIII. It's disturbing to see Dolabella's name without any query or qualification.

for Marcius and Dolabella see link [2] and give in "Beleg" AE 1991, 00894.

Many thanks, a sensational find. Pity the 1989 revision of Syme AA missed it. It resolves the sole remaining anomaly about the development of Roman nomenclature in Asia prov epigraphy (OGIS 451, with typically Augustan period features, attributed to P.Dolabella pr.69). Btw- are there wiki articles on fasti of the provincial commanders ? Appietas (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

---

L.Cornelius Cinna suffectus 32. This is a much favoured resolution, also in Syme AA. But again, what evidence beyond "L.Cornelius" in the extant fasti? Another very strong candidate is L.Cornelius P.f.Balbus who triumphed pro cos. from Africa in early 19 BC. The immediately preceding vir triumphalis (also ex Africa, 18 months earlier in late 21 BC) was L.Sempronius Atratinus the suffectus 34. And under Augustus the African command seems to have been confined to viri consulares. Cinna (the q.44) can legitimately be preferred, but hardly without query or bracketing of some sort.

L.Volcacius Tullus cos.33 is correct; but his homonymous father (cos.66) is "Volcatius" in this list, presumably just a slip.

correct

Addendum on Potitus Valerius Messalla suffectus 29; his forename Potitus as consul is also attested in extant fasti: "Potit.Valeri." (Degrassi Ins.Ital.xiii.1, 512), the very same source which attests "[M]arcius" in 36, "P.Cornelius" in 35 (Degrassi, 508), and "L.Cornelius" in 32 (Degrassi, 510)

• • My apologies for misreporting above ("Policy of the list") the suffectus 2CE as P.Cornelius P.f.P.n.Scipio in the fasti Cap., where he is P.Cornelius Cn.f.Cn.n.Scipio

Appietas (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Late Byzatine consuls

There was a large number of late Byzantine consuls, we do not know dates for all of them. For example, here are some names of ex-consuls:

references to the logothetai. and to the sakellarios and his important rote during the reign of Constant II already mentioned, the first references to the leading officers of the developed establishment occur for the year 680. when certain high officials accompanied the emperor at the sessions of the sixth ecumenical council. These are named In order as follows: Nlcetas, most glorious ex-consul, patricius and master of the Imperial offices; Theodore, most glorious ex-consul and patricius. coma of the Imperial Opslklon and deputy general of Thrace; Sergius. most glorious ex-consul and patricius; Paul, also most glorious ex-consul and patricius; Julian, most glorious ex-consul, patricius and logothete of the military treasury: Constantlne, most glorious ex-consul and curator оf the Imperial estate of Hormtsdas: Anastaslus, most glorious ex-consul, patricius and second-in-command to the comes оf the imperial excubitorts; John, most glorious ex-consul, patricius and quaestor: Polyeuctes, most glorious ex-consul; Thomas, also most glorious ex-consul: Paul, most glorious ex-consul and director of the eastern provinces: Peter, most glorious ex-consul: Leontius, most glorious ex-consul and domestic of the Imperial table.[3]

Here are some consular coins: [4][5][6][7].

I do not know how to include them all.--Dojarca (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a major misunderstanding here: hypatos ("consul") was used, since the early 8th century, merely as a court title. It was a relatively lowly title (8th in the hierarchy) and had lost all connection with the former Roman consuls. The same goes for "apo hypatos": while this is means "ex-consul", by the 8th century this was nothing but a mere honorary office, as no one served a consular term any more. To claim that the commerciarii (treasury and customs officials), logothetes or even the petty Italian princes that were awarded this title have anything to do with the Republican/Imperial office except the common Greek name would be very misleading. Everything from Justinian II onwards should be deleted. If one wants to have list of hypatoi, there is the hypatos article. Cplakidas (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the title decresed in importance significantly, but you should to consider the following:

1. Hypatos was the highest senatorial rank in Byzantine. There were higher court ranks, but they were not senatorial.

2. Even much earlier (in 6th and 7th centuries) there was a large number of consuls suffecti (or honorary consuls) about which we know very little. After fasti were canceled we do not know who were ordinary consuls and who were suffecti. Those low important figures with consul ranks could be honorary consuls, not ordinary consuls.

3. Some consuls connot be called hypatoi at all: for example Otto III was proclaimed Roman consul, just the same with Theophylactus and others. You cannot call them hypatoi.--Dojarca (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I insist that there is a great difference between the two annually appointed consuls (and their suffect colleagues) and a generic court title tied to no time period or responsibility, and that this distinction must be made clear. An "Roman consul" and the Byzantine "hypatos" were two entirely different things, joined only by a common name. If we were to create a list of, say, magistri officiorum, we wouldn't include the magistroi of the 8th-12th centuries: although the latter is the "evolution" of the former, the first was a position, a state office with powers and authority, while the second was a purely honorary title. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that any Byzantine emperor post Justinian adopted or used the title "consul" or "hypatos" in any way to refer to himself. So they at least must be striken from the list. As for "hypatos" being the "highest senatorial rank", check out this list. It derives straight from the Kletorologion, or "call-list of offices" of Philotheos, written in the end of the 9th century: the title hypatos is eighth in the hierarchy, testifying to the fact that it had been stripped of anything resembling the prestige the distinction held in the Roman and early Byzantine periods. It has nothing to do with suffect consuls, it is merely the transformation of a high office to a relatively empty honorary title. And the title that conferred entry to the Byzantine Senate was not hypatos, but the far higher patrikios. As for Otto III, the fact is that he was proclaimed as consul; he can be included in the list, with one important qualification: it must be stated that he claimed a title that had been extinct for centuries as an attempt to legitimize his position as "Roman Emperor". There was no real legal continuity between him and Basilius, or even Justinian II. It is for the same reason that lists of Roman emperors continue sometimes until Constantine XI, but not until Francis II. As for the various Italian rulers, they claimed or were granted the title "consul"/hypatos, but, again, this has nothing to do with the Roman consuls, i.e. those of the Roman Republic or Empire. If we are to include anyone who has claimed the title of "consul" to the list, why not Napoleon Bonaparte as well? I am not re-removing the names for now, awaiting your response. But anything after Justinian II should go. A reference to Otto III can be made, since he did claim the title, but the Italian rulers should go to the hypatos article. Regards, Constantine ✍ 22:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you for your constructive position. I'll try to clarify my considerations.

1.First, there was institute of honorary consuls. For example, Belisarius' stepson was a honorary consul. Since we include suffecti here, I think honorary consuls also have the right to be included. Once again: most of Byzantine hypatoi (and the majority of local princes who held the title) had the title of "honorary consul".

2.You're right that patrikios was higher than hypatos in the later Byzantine, but that was not a senatorial rank [8] (senatorial ranks marked with asterisk).

3.The Byzantine emperors had long after Justinian the title of consul. For example, Tuberius Constantine in consular robes:

Heraclius not only in conular uniform, but also with inscription ERACLIO CONSUL II: [9] (first time he was declared consul by the Byzantine senate before he became emperor)

Maurice in consular robes:

And many many others. It was only Leo the Wise who abolished the consular dating. I included in the list only those for whom I have references as consuls of those for whom I seen coins depicting them in consular robes.

4.Otto III did not claim an office that was extinct for centuries. Before Otto there were numerous people in Rome who were proclaimed consul by the Roman senate, such as Theophylactus, Crestentius (just before Otto III by the way), Albericus and others. Sir Isaac Newton says that Charlemagne was also declared consul: [10].

5.There were indeed local positions of "consul" in various Italian city-states, but I do not include them here. I include only those who were proclaimed consuls by the Roman senate or granted the title by Byzantine emperor.--Dojarca (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

On point 1), I do not dispute that there were honorary consuls, and that these should be included. The point I am trying to make is that there is a difference between the consulate as it existed until Justinian II, which was still de jure the highest office in the Roman state, and the ordinary title that came afterwards. It is unfitting to equate the lowly Byzantine functionaries who were hypatoi in the 8th-11th centuries with the earlier consuls, who were the most distinguished and powerful people of their day. Indeed, since the office of consul was increasingly restricted to the Emperors and their family, it would be weird if suddenly in ca. 700 it came to include middle-ranking tax officials as well, unless in the meantime it had suffered a radical change in its nature so as to make it an entirely different institution (cf. Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture, pp. 395-397 on its proliferation and devaluation). And that is what I mean by trying to get rid of anyone after Justinian II. On 2), possibly, but that is not the point: the patrikioi were also an order of the Senate (see the following pages of Bury's text), and the hypatos did not hold any particular significance in the "senatorial" hierarchy (i.e. it was neither the "entry level", nor the highest senatorial office). On 3), of course there were consuls after Justinian I; you did not notice the II after Justinian, I presume ;). On 4) and 5), I fully agree that there is a major difference of consuls of the Roman state, which lived on in the Byzantine Empire, and the various consuls of the Italian city-states. The latter, however, would also include post-Byzantine Rome, which was a city-state where the functions of the consul had no relation (or, again, legal continuity) with the old "Roman consuls". The title was retained out of tradition, but it was very different in nature. The consuls of medieval Rome can be termed exactly that, "consul of Rome", but not "Roman consul" as the term is widely understood, i.e. the de jure supreme magistrate of the Roman state. Indeed, I have never before seen a list of Roman consuls including them; they either end with Basilius in the 6th century or with the emperors of the later 7th century. Finally, I think we both agree that the Byzantine emperors post Justinian II should be removed, unless a concrete source can be found which clearly states that they still claimed the consular title. Regards, Constantine ✍ 14:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Did you read what I wrote? Consuls were ordinary and honorary. In fact ordinary consuls remained the highest state officials after Justinian I and became restricted to emperors (with exception of Heraclius who became consul before becoming emperor). Ordinary consuls included in the fasti. Besides ordinary consuls there were also honorary consuls. There was very large number of them and we do not know all of them as they were not included in the fasti. They existed earlier and after the fasti were abolished by Leo the Wise. The title of honorary consul was not restricted to emperor and was occupied by relatively low officials both before abolishing of fasti and after.

Nevertheless you can find consular coins even from late Byzantine:[11][12], minted for consuls who were not emperors.

2. Look at the table. Do you see any senatorial rank higher than disypatos (twice-consul)? Yes there are, but not senatorial (senatorial ranks marked with asterisk, you can see that on the next page).

3. For example Philippicus referenced as consul [13] dispite he was after Justinian II, not to mention all those people proclaimed consuls in Rome or appointer by the emperor. Others have consular coins.

4. The jure Rome was part of Byzantine empire at least until 727 when the senate and pope rebelled aganst iconoclastic edicts. Until 750s any official document in Rome had consular or imperial dating after Byzantine emperors. In 739 the title of Roman consul was proposed to Karl Martell, but he refused. This was still a very important title and held by those who governed the cyty's affairs, such as Teophilactus who became consul in 915 or the Holy Roman emperors. You probably did not encounter the lists of consulsa after 8th century because most of uch lists are based on fasti, but the fasti were abolished by Leo the Wise.--Dojarca (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You can also consider the following quotes:

By the treaty, which had been concluded in 803 between Charlemagne and the court of Constantinople, it was expressly stipulated that the maritime towns of Istria and Dalmatia should thenceforth be considered as forming an integral portion of the Eastern Empire; and this stipulation was observed with strictness till 808, in which year the emperor Nicephorus, viewing with increasing anxiety the policy of Charlemagne toward the Ulyric Provinces, despatched a squadron of observation to the Adriatic under the command of the patrician Nicetas, who was instructed to offer the title of imperial consul to the elder Antenori, and ( should ho judge fit) to enlist the services of the Republic in the cause of his Master.

[14]

On his arrival in the Eastern capital, Beato di Antenori was at once created an imperial consul;3 and it is said that, during his stay at Constantinople, he procured a treaty, by which the political and commercial relations of the Republic with the Empire of the East were placed on a broader footing than before.

(the same source)

and the elder Antenori noted with severe mortification, that the new Imperial Consul was not only alienating himself more and more from the party to which he might be said to owe everything, but was rapidly ingratiating himself with the people by his new Greek predilections

(the same source)

Also [15]--Dojarca (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

1) I understand very well what you write. The honorary consuls before the 7th century, however, were given the honorary dignity of "consul" as it was understood then. The title as understood from the 8th century on made no distinction between "ordinary" and "honorary". There was only one "consul" rank, and it was a purely honorary dignity. All sources I know of make that clear. And no source I have come across make a reference of later Emperors such as Basil I holding that title as well. As for the images you linked, these are not coins, but molybdobulla, copper seals of office, which naturally include the full title of their holder. 2) You must not confuse a "senatorial dignity" with being a member of the very exclusive Senate: check out Bury's pp. 37-38 for the various meanings of "senatorial". Hypatos and its derivatives were part of the "senatorial" dignities, but not necessarily members of the Senate, which was restricted only to the highest functionaries, starting from those who held the title of patrikios. 3) Since Philippicus was declared consul, he can be on the list. But still, is there any reference that other, later Emperors used the title? Haldon (see above) clearly states that the title hypatos was widely given to functionaries and devalued in the 8th century, i.e. perhaps after Phlippicus or his immediate successors. That means that it was no longer regarded as the highest dignity in the state. 4) Can you please provide a source as to how the consular datings looked? What names & titles were used? Who was the last emperor to adopt the consular dignity? And yes, the title of "consul" was important, but for a city outside the Roman Empire as it was then, even if it is Rome, it simply lacks the legal continuity with the consuls of the past. The same criterion that applies to the other Italian cities with self-proclaimed consuls must perforce apply to Rome as well. One could perhaps include them in the sense that "after 751, the city of Rome and other Italian cities appointed consuls as their supreme magistrates" and link to a list of Italian city-state consuls. I don't know enough about them, however. If you have some good sources on this, please provide them.

However I feel we disagree essentially about one thing: was the consular dignity of the Republic and the Empire the same as the post-8th century title hypatos? My answer is a definite "no". Yours, as I can see, is a "yes". Or nor? Best regards, Constantine ✍ 15:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

1.Hypatos is not a separate title, but Greek for consul. There were ordinary consuls and honorary consuls. Emperors after Justinian I were ordinary consuls (including Phlippicus). Besides that there were honorary consuls, which were much less important. So under the late empire there were at least two types of consuls: the ordinary ones and honorary ones, there was no monolithic "dignity". Under the repulic there were ordinary consuls and suffecti, and suffecti were much less important and prestigeous. The difference was that the dating was only after ordinary consuls. When consular dating was abolished, the difference disappeared. It was Leo the Wise who abolished the ordinary consulship (at least as I understand) and the fasti. So he (or his predecessor) was the last emperor-consul. But the office of honorary consuls still remained and it's what you call "hypatoi". For example Leo the Isaurian gave the title to deuxes of Venice for several consecutive yers, as Venice was very important Byzantine stronghold in Italy.

2.In the Italian city-states there were not self-proclaimed consuls, but real consuls (they existed even under roman republic and early empire, not after 751 or other date!), but they were not Roman consuls.

3.Rome never considered itself outside the Roman empire. Yes, they rebelled against some emperors such as Leo the Isaurian in 727, but because they considered some of his religious edicts unlawful. Romans still thought that the Roman senate has the right to appoint and dispose the emperors. So Rome was part of Byzantime empire until 800 when they proclaimed Charlemagne the emperor, considering Irene's reign as usurpation.--Dojarca (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

1) Hypatos is the Greek title meaning consul, just as Sebastos is the equivalent of Augustus, etc. However, although there is a continuity in names, there is a major difference in content and meaning, and this is a phenomenon evident in many Byzantine titles. In both Republican and Imperial times, the dating was done according to the first or "ordinary" consul, yes, but the suffect consulship was AFAIK regarded as almost equal in prestige (with the exception of the multitude of consuls under "certain" emperors), at least in imperial times, when the consulship per se became either way only an honorary position . At least we agree that after Leo III, no emperor was named consul or hypatos or whatever. So that part goes away. As for the Venetian duces, they were named hypatoi, yes. But, again, by that time, as stated, hypatos did not mean the old lofty position of "Consul of the Roman Empire", it merely meant, "someone with the honorary title of hypatos". Whether you wish to interpret it as a continuation of the old "honorary consulship" is beside the point. The Doge was one of many hypatoi existing at the same time, who comprised a grade of the imperial court. Despite some exceptions, the main hallmarks of the "typical" Roman consular office were that only two consuls could sit simultaneously, and that, in theory, they comprised the heads of the Roman state, whether ordinary or suffect. The annual term was also still de jure in force, although not strictly adhered to. These factors no longer applied to the numerous hypatoi. In effect, we are talking about a different institution with the same name. There is perhaps no definite break, where the "old" consular office was replaced by the "new" one, but, as I said, to put tax officials in the same list with Scipio Africanus, Pompey, Sulla, Caesar, Octavian, Justinian and Belisarius is most misleading. It can be easily stated that the office was downgraded into a court title, and we can include the relevant names in the hypatos article. 2)We agree in this. 3)That would have been a major surprise to the Popes and the Byzantines, especially with Stephen II going to the Franks for protection, and the establishment of the Papal States in 781! Rome is generally accepted by historians to have de facto and de jure seceded from the Byzantine Empire at that point. So whatever titles the commune of Rome used or felt entitled to use afterwards, they had nothing to do with the Roman Empire any more. Constantine ✍ 17:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

1.Despite some exceptions, the main hallmarks of the "typical" Roman consular office were that only two consuls could sit simultaneously - only two ordinary consuls. There could be not limited number of honorary ones in addition. These factors no longer applied to the numerous hypatoi applied just as to any honorary consuls. The term was no longer than 1 year (and they became ex-consuls). I said, to put tax officials in the same list with Scipio Africanus, Pompey, Sulla, Caesar, Octavian, Justinian and Belisarius is most misleading. How about putting Belisarius' stepson with Belisarius himself? Is not it misleading? And who were the tax officials about which do you speak? Can you give an example?

3. Rome rebelled against Byzantines in 727. Yes they relied on franks for protection. Later the Rome-Byzantine relations were complicated. Stephen asked Lonbards to return the exarchate to the emperor. Lombards refused. The pope asked Franks for help... Anyway proclamation of the Carolingian empire was viewed as rather upspring than secession. In fact they did not view Irene who blinded her children as legitimate emperor. By the way, the title of consul is much more ancient than the Roman empire, so I see no reason why this should be discontinued at the sam date.--Dojarca (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

1) I think this extended also to suffect consuls: in order for a suffect to be appointed, the ordinary consul resigned. And in order for another third suffect to be appointed within a year, one of the earlier suffect consuls resigned. Therefore the "rule of two" was retained. As for the purely "honorary" consulships, to be frank, I only know that they were increasingly awarded under Justinian I. However, the hypatoi were not limited by time to their title, because of the very nature of their title. They were either promoted to a senior court title, or they remained hypatoi. I am not sure I understand what you replied concerning the "honorary" consulships. Where they too limited by time? The tax officials I am referring to are the commerciarii whose seals you provided earlier. As for Belisarius' stepson, he was indeed honorary consul. But as I said above, I am not much knowledgeable regarding the honorary consuls. They may have well been precursors to the hypatoi, but I distinctly feel that they were different than either ordinary or suffect consuls, and therefor I am not sure whether they should be included in the list as well. If you have access to the PLRE, could you please check out the list of consuls? My point is that we cannot make rules by ourselves. If no scholarly work includes Photius or the Italian hypatoi, as "Roman" consuls, then we shouldn't as well.

3) The title of consul is more ancient than the Roman state, and it long outlived it (e.g. Bonaparte) but the list is about "Roman consuls", i.e. about the consuls of the Roman state, whether Republic or Empire. And that means that no place outside Roman rule could legitimately appoint a "Roman" consul.

At any rate, until we find some more sources, I am removing at least the Emperors post Leo III, since we appear to be agreed that they were not proclaimed consuls. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

1) Well. Thank you for some clarification. But in fact there are numerous sources that call hypatoi consuls. I agree we should stick with the sources, but also keep consistency. I also do not agree with your changes as you seem to mix Leo III and Leo the Wise. It was Leo the Wise who abolished ordinary consulship, not Leo III.

3) Well what you call "roman rule"? I think any person who was declared consul by the Roman senate should be considered roman consul whether or not it was under Byzantines, or under sancta republica or during an upsprinr against the emperor etc.--Dojarca (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Dominus Noster

Yes this was used widely, but trhis does not mean the traditional form "Imperator Caesar" was not used.--Dojarca (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I merely replaced the title because, after the Constantinian dynasty, the term "D.N. NN. Perpetuus Augustus" etc largely replaced the old "Imperator Caesar" on coins and inscriptions, including legal documents, like Justinian's laws and edicts. Therefore I think it is more accurate, but it is largely a matter of taste. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 14:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That all emperors after Constant II became consuls on the 1st year

I found this only in unreliable sources and it is uncertain which year to count as the first etc. I think we should only place here those who inscripted in the fasti and those for whom we have special source.--Dojarca (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No one said anything about Constans II, but about Justin II. Furthermore, I would not call the great J.B. Bury "unreliable": "Succeeding Emperors [after Justinian I] assumed the consular dignity in the first year of their reigns." [16] Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Anicius Probus and honorius.

Here is a dyptich that shows they were consuls at the seme time:

http://warriorsofhistory.com/research/Byzantine/Ivory%20consular%20diptych%20of%20Sextus%20Anicius%20Probus%20showing%20Honorius%20at%20the%20left%20-%20early%205th%20c.jpg --79.111.163.130 (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is huge

To rectify this, what do people think of making pages such as "List of Roman consuls in ..." which basically takes sections of this page, moves the content there, and hyperlinks this page to each of those.

For instance "[List of Roman consuls in] the first century BC," "[~] in the third century AD," "[~] in the Byzantine Empire," etc. I would be willing to do this (I'm not saying 'someone else should take on all this work') but I obviously want a fair amount of feedback before doing anything so drastic.JW (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size makes an exception for articles that only contain lists. This article is rather small considering it is number 223 on the list of Special:LongPages, most of which are indeed lists. I don't recommend splitting it, even though I have a slow connection. — Joe Kress (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the long list - a lot of it is empty space anyway. It seems convenient.Dave (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Entirely convenient. It's a list, and it does what a list should. I see no advantage in splitting. Haploidavey (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Once upon a time, this article was in 3 parts -- Republican, Early Imperial & Late Imperial. Then, for reasons I don't know, these 3 parts were combined into one. Chopping up this list into three would make for smaller articles, but it would not satisfy everyone; there are even some who despise having lists in Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

490 BC

In 490 BC it says:Sp. Larcius Flavus (or Rufus) II. This implies it is his second consulship. However, I don't see a first consulship?

There is a T. Larcius Flavus , however he already had 2 consulships. So, this means that this is either the same guy in his third consulship. Or a new person, which I believe is the case, in his first consulship. Taketa (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Format

The article seemed a bit plain so I put a box and some pics in there to fill the empty space. Layout is such a subjective matter. If this layout doesn't work, feel free to provide another or put the old one back. By the way the refs really should be in proper format - cite book, cite web, and so on.Dave (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Chekalova ref commented out

"A.A. Chekalova. At the origins of the Byzantine statehood: the senate and senatorial aristocracy of Constantinople. Moscow, 2007"

First of all Chekalova usually writes in Russian. That would be all right I suppose for one ref but this is not a proper reference. There is no such book out there. There is one article in a Russian journal that might be it but the journal is inaccessible online. I commented this phony reference out, phony because it leads nowhere in any language. I believe the editor copied it from some other article somewhere. The scholars have this wierd cryptography game going (so many of them were cryptographers) of offering references in such abbreviated form that without a few master lists or years of experience you cannot know in any way what they are talking about. They do this for a reason: they don't want you to check their references. Unless you are situated in a classics department library and can spend hours on a single reference you don't have much chance of finding it and if you do find it chances are it says nothing like what they say it says. I call this a non-reference and we have plenty of those of Wikipedia and for the same reason: someone asked for references. So far in this article I've been able to find references and supply page numbers but this one stumps me! I doubt it is even there. Wikipedia uses cite book, cite journal, or some other "cite" template to achieve a standard look and make sure you have all the information in there. If you could use one of these on this reference I would appreciate it. As I cannot find it I cannot do it for you.Dave (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

ISBN 978-5-98227-158-7--Dojarca (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The Flavii

According to the article, the gens Flavia enjoyed no consular members after the second consulship T. Flavius Postumius Titianus in AD 301. However, according to the article, many consuls after Titianus possessed the praenomen Flavius. Should the assumption not be that for these individuals, Flavius was borne as a nomen gentilicium, not a praenomen? Catiline63 (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Salway (1994) What's in a name? A survey of Roman onomastic practice from c.700 BC to AD 700. Journal of Roman Studies 84: 124-145, the use of praenomina began to decline sharply after c.300 and instances of Flavius in 4th century and thereafter are as a nomen gentilicium. This is supported by the PLRE, which treats Flavius always as a nomen gentilicium. In light of these sources, I have removed "Fl." from the list of praenomina and have altered each effected name accordingly. Catiline63 (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This is admittedly a delayed response, added more for others to now than Catiline63. Based on Bagnall et al., Consuls of the later Roman Empire (pp.36-40), the use of Flavius from the fourth century on was more of a sign of status, a courtesy title, than a proper name. The modern equivalent those writers use would be "Mr.": it's an obsolescent usage now, but once people were introduced as "Mr. Smith" -- title & last name only. In the examples they collected, a person of at least some status would be referred to as simply Fl(avius) & the last or "diacritical" name. ("Diacritical" being the name a man was known by in a one-name status, normally the last of the many cognomena an aristocrat had.) If the full name was used, in the West "Fl." would not appear. "Thus Fl. Symmachus, but not Fl. Q. Aurelius Symmachus; Fl. Senator, but not Fl. Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator." (p. 38) In the East, however, it was often added in their full nomenclature -- but it still not part of their name, any more than "Mr." or "Sir" would be part of a contemporary individual's name. Bagnall et al. also point out this was a title much valued by barbarians in Roman service, so we find such examples as Fl. Nevitta (a barbarian general), & Fll. Theoderic & Odoacar (both kings). Hopefully this is enough to prevent anyone from undoing Cataline63's work & adding unnecessary "Fl." to names under the mistaken idea that it was part of their name, & not a courtesy title. -- llywrch (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Query re: Calpurnius Longus D. Velius Fidus

Good morning, can anybody justify the couple Calpurnius Longus D. Velius Fidus at 144 d.c? i have found no evidence of that (Alfoldy, 1977; Degrassi, 1952). Instead Camodeca, 1996, puts them at 148 d.c.

A new military diploma gives the year 144. AE 2004, 01924--Μίκυθος 20:55, 6. Sep. 2011 (CEST)

Consul designates who died or were disgraced before term in office began

Although I have modified the list of consuls by removing Aulus Terentius Varro Murena consul designate of 23 BC who died before taking office, I want people's opinions on this as there are others listed who also did not serve as Consul - eg. Lucius Postumius Albinus (consul 234 BC), Consul designate for 215 BC and Q. Hortensius, Consul designate for 108 BC. Should this list be limited to only those who were "sworn in", so to speak, or include all those who were elected by the people? I favor listing only those who served as Consul, so both of these examples should be removed. Any other thoughts? Oatley2112 (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's conventional to include consul designates in such lists, for the reason you cite: they were elected by the people (in the Republic, at least). It's a record of the politics of the time. But I could be wrong. You could post a note at the Classical Greece & Rome project seeking views. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment in article space moved here

"About note 8 in references : Ronald Syme himself enmends it in "The Augustan Aristocracy"(1986), page 97. Notes 21 and 22. Caius Silius A.Caecina Largus is ONE person."

Here's the diff: [17] Those in the know might wish to respond. Haploidavey (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to Syme's Augustan Aristocracy, but other recent secondary sources (see here for list via Google search seem to support this; in Roman Papers Vol. IV, (1988) pg. 171, Syme argues that A.Caecina Largus was adopted by Publius Silius, and took as his adopted name Caius Silius Aulus Caecina Largus. Changing it seems to be in order. Oatley2112 (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Google has a limited preview of Augustan Aristocracy. Not sure how limited. Incidentally, did you two apply for Questia access? Let me know if you want to and can't find the sign-up page. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly this is a long-delayed response, but it touches on one important issue about compiling a list of Roman Consuls: for the year AD 13, is "C. Silius C. Caecina Largus" one or two people? The experts have expended a lot of ink answering this question. I thought the link Mikythos provided a year ago (Diana Gorostidi Pi, "Sui consoli dell’anno 13 d.C.: Nuovi dati dai fasti consulares Tusculani", Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 189 (2014), pp. 265–275) was decisive, yet in the latest version of the consular list -- Alison E. Cooley, The Cambridge Manual of Latin Epigraphy (Cambridge: University Press, 2012), pp. 449-487 -- cites another paper (S. Panciera, "Saggi d'indagine sll'onomastica romana", in N. Duval (ed.) L'onomastique latine (Paris: CNRS, 1977), pp. 191-203) stating that it "disproves the theory that this name actually represents two men". And there is a large amount of papers published before these 2 discussing this issue. While I would be content to simply go with the latest word on the matter, WP:NPOV requires both sides of any dispute to be presented. If we follow that principle, where should the material be presented? -- llywrch (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Consul suffectus in 62 AD.

In an italian translation of Petronius arbiter's Satyricon I read about T. Petronius Niger and Q. Manlius Tarquitius Saturninus Consuli suffecti in 62 AD. The source is R. Syme, Tacitus, Oxford 1958, II, p. 378, n. 6 and p. 538, n. 6. The primary source is Ins. V n. 22, an inscription found in an Ercolano's villa (quoted in G. Pugliese Carratelli, Tabulae Herculanenses, "La parola del passato" 1946, p. 381). Here and in the german wiki I read, instead, about a P. Petronius Niger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.43.228.134 (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Praetor

Consuls were called "praetors" (before 367 BC). Böri (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly, but there are other issues that are too complicated for me to go into at the moment. See T. Corey Brennan, The Praetorship in the Roman Republic (Oxford University Press, 2000), 2 vols. [18] Cynwolfe (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Why "C." for "Gaius"?

Why is the name "Gaius" abbreviated "C." (for Caius?) in this list? Also, why is "Julius" spelled "Iullius"? Shouldn't the spelling in this list be consistent with (and subservient to) the titles of articles it links to? WCCasey (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This list seems to use actual Roman spelling conventions, including the conventional abbreviations for praenomina - "C." for Gaius was the Roman convention, dating back to before the invention of the letter G, when C stood for both sounds. See Gaius (praenomen). Although I would have thought that if you're going to use I where the modern convention is to use J, then to consistently follow Roman spelling we should also use U where the modern convention is to use V, so for example if we're going to use "Iulius" we should also use "Ualerius". --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The difference between i and j in later Latin orthography is vocalic/consonantal. The difference between u and V is lower- and uppercase, so it would never be Ualerius. The list, if I understand it correctly, is edited for internal consistency, based on official nomenclature, as a kind of consular fasti. Article titles per WP:ROMANS go by "most common," but using the common names for this list would result in anomalies such as "Pompey" and "Mark Antony." Cynwolfe (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Then should we have, for example, Flauius rather than Flavius and Seruilius rather than Servilius? In other words, this list does distinguish between vocalic and consonantal U/V, but doesn't distinguish between vocalic and consonantal I - is there a reason for this? --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't know. The list is old as the hills (that is, it existed before I started editing), and sometimes views on style change. At a glance, it seems this would mainly pertain to the gens Iulia and the gens Iunia. Two editors who might be able to illuminate existing practice would be User:P Aculeius, who has contributed extensive material on the gentes, and User:Oatley2112, who creates a lot of consul articles. You might ask them to weigh in, or just leave a note at the G&R project. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This list makes no attempt to explain any of these spelling issues, so I believe it should conform to the spellings used in the linked article titles. The WP "most common" guideline, in this case, refers to those article titles. Like Cynwolfe, I don't care for the anomalous titles, but that's an argument to have on the Pompey or Mark Antony talk page, not this one. WCCasey (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My view is that the consuls list should be internally consistent in its orthography, and give the tria nomina when known (with a fourth name when needed): since ancient sources may vary in how they identify a figure such as Metellus Scipio, we need to give something like the official nomenclature. However, I dislike hypercorrectness that doesn't serve the general reader. I don't have strong feelings either way about Junius vs. Iunius, but if you search Iulius Iullus vs. Julius Jullus you'll see why the former is preferred here, and it seems more confusing to readers if we spell a gens name in different ways at different points on the list. It would also obscure the political history of the gentes, and create distinctions where none exists. Since we follow modern capitalization for proper names, I find it less confusing for readers to distinguish in lowercase between vocalic u and consonantal v. The list does that, and I see no reason to change it. In other words, I don't see any problems with the current orthography of the list. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Despite my curiosity about the distinguishing and non-distinguishing of vocalic and consonantal values of letters, I agree. Wikipedia rules, or perhaps the way they are interpreted, are not very good at dealing with ambiguity and variation, with users keen to nail down "definitive" names and definitions were none exist. The "most common" criteria only applies to article names, so doesn't apply to the contents of this article, and I agree it should be internally consistent. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Oxford Latin Dictionary doesn't distinguish between the consonant v and the vowel u; it distinguishes only between lowercase u and uppercase V. Example: uanus, where we would render the first u as the consonant v and the second as the vowel u. IMHO, on Wikipedia it's helpful in presenting ordinary quotations of Latin to write vanitas rather than uanitas, since the general reader is more likely to discern "vanity" in the first, and those with a dash of Latin most likely learned it from texts that distinguished the vowel u and the consonant v in lowercase. However, if orthography is the point, as it might be with epigraphy or numismatics, to me it's preferable to stick strictly with the orthography of the secondary source (there is a longish discussion about related issues at User talk:OwenBlacker/Archive 8#Lowercase v for u not correct in Latin). Again, for this list, it seems better to me to distinguish u and v in the lowercase. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the real answer here is that the use of both abbreviated praenomina and the rendering of other names depends mainly on modern conventions, some of which are based on a strict interpretation of Classical languages, and others of which are based on a more ad-hoc or traditional approach. And in most cases, there's no absolute right answer, with one exception: C. was always used for Gaius, and Cn. for Gnaeus, in both classical and modern times. There has never been a time when G. or Gn. were widely used (I don't say they were never used, but they were never widely used). So there's simply no good argument for changing that.

As for rendering names with I vs. J or U vs. V, this is technically a matter of personal preference. In the early modern period, the consonantal forms J and V were almost universally applied, even in cases which look odd to us today. Today we seem to be reversing that trend and excluding them from names in an equally slavish way. There's no right or wrong here; your preference depends on whether you want the names to look as if they were copied off ancient monuments, or whether you want them to be recognizable in a language where we're accustomed to pronouncing initial J's differently, as well as making the letter look different. Some scholars feel that there's only one way to do it, and right now the school of thought that J and V should be expunged from the classical lexicon seems to be in the ascendent, but who knows if that represents a permanent change?

My preference is based on long-standing conventions for the rendering of Latin names in English, since we want consistency with earlier scholarship in English, as well as familiarity. Not every name is familiar and conformity doesn't have to be enforced. But when classical scholarship in English was at its height in the 19th Century, and Latin was taught in almost every school, most names that began with a consonantal I or U were both rendered and pronounced with J and V (which are, technically, the same letters). So in what may be the most familiar table of Roman History, found at the back of volume III of the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, you find Vopiscus Julius, and any number of Junii, Valerii, Verginii, Juventii, etc. Maintaining this convention makes sense to me, since the names are familiar in this form. It wasn't an inflexible policy; the surname Iulus or Iullus, which wasn't familiar, was rendered with an I and not a J. But again, this was an editorial decision and there really isn't any absolute right or wrong about it.

If I had my preference, I'd follow this convention in the table of consuls. At one point I thought of making one, but since there's one already made and I doubt there'd be consensus on changing the format, I haven't attempted it. In the articles I wrote or revised on individual gentes, I did follow this convention (and plan to continue in the future). But outside of those articles I've usually left the form chosen by the original authors, unless I made substantial revisions to the material at the same time. After all, my opinion isn't better than yours. If there's a consensus for following the historical English formatting in this table, I'll gladly go through and make the edits. But if not, I think it'd best be left alone. P Aculeius (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That all seems sensible, as well as highly informative. It seems as if the main sticking point is the Iulii, since Julius Caesar is the most familiar of Roman names, and yet Julius Jullus in the earlier period seems not to be in wide modern use. So whatever we would decide about the Iulii could be applied to the Iunii or any other initial I/J names. I'd be inclined to Junius were it not for the jarring Julius Jullus, I s'pose. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I seem to have been mistaken about the DGRBM making an exception for Iulus. It's actually rendered Julus there. But other sources are divided over I or J for Iulus. I've always used Julius Iulus. Inconsistent? Perhaps. But readable. I think it's too late in the day to ask everyone to start pronouncing Julius, Junius and Valerius "Yulius, Yunius" and "Walerius." But Iulus is still unfamiliar enough for that. So I propose using the modern conventions for most J and V names (i.e. render with J and V in English if consonants are called for), but making an exception for Iulus in place of Julus if nobody objects. I agree that consistency is desirable, but it's not necessary to avoid all idiosyncracies in good writing. P Aculeius (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Citations needed for suffect consuls?

It's a given that the evidence for Ordinary consuls is fairly straight forward, & that experts are practically unanimous concerning their names & years. (However, before this can be considered as a Featured List, the scholarship that led to compiling a reliable list needs to be documented, at least briefly, in this article.) However, when it comes to the matter of suffect consuls in the Imperial age, I feel that matter is often more controversial: experts & scholars must set forth detailed arguments to date this personage or that to a given year. since only rarely do reliable primary sources provide a date for a given suffect consul. And many suffect consuls have been moved to the List of undated Roman consuls, which then leads to the question when does one suffect consul belong to this list & when does one belong to that list.

In short, I think all of the Imperial suffect consuls need a citation. Does anyone object to my statement before I begin the tedious process of tagging them? -- llywrch (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts about this being a Featured List

Since I brought up this possibility, I've thought of other expectations this article would need to meet to be seriously considered as a Featured List. I'm putting them under a separate section for consideration:

• Statistics about the total number of consuls, both ordinary & suffect. (My quick-&-dirty calculation comes up with 2051 ordinary consuls -- not allowing for individuals who held the office more than once, which would reduce that number to perhaps 1500 -- & hundreds of known suffect consuls.) Other possible statistics on this office -- who held this office the most times, which families held it the most often, etc. -- should also be included.
• A summary of how the office changed, perhaps inserted at the important points. (A more detailed & complete discussion belongs at Roman consul.) By this, a paragraph at the beginning of the Republican section, others (maybe) about the Decemviri & Consular tribunes, another at the beginning of the Empire (when it became an honorary office), one more around AD 300 when it became little more than a license for the richest Roman aristocrats to throw extravagant games to advertise their power, & maybe one more at AD 600 when it had become a title the Byzantine Emperors adopted the first year of their reign.
• A clear criteria why certain consuls deserve articles, & why others do not. Being an important political office (at the beginning equal to kings or presidents, at the end an important clue that person was a prominent aristocrat of the Roman world), its occupant would be notable; however, the reality is that for a large number of consulars all we know about them is their names. There needs to be a consensus about how much must be known about them to qualify an article about them.
• A clear consensus about style issues, such as how to handle individuals who were consuls more than one time. For example, some appear to only have links to the first time he held office, some to all the times. (And I'm not happy that each time a person held office his name is linked.) Should Emperors who held the consulate have their names identified in some manner -- for example in bold?
• Are these names to appear in original spelling (e.g., "Iulius" for "Julius", "Flauius" for "Flavius"), or the more common spelling (e.g. "Julius" for "Iulius", "Flavius" for "Flauius"), or a reasonable mixture? (Some names, as pointed out above concerning Julus/Iulus, will be unfamiliar no matter how they are spelled.) Should "Flavius" be abbreviated as "Fl." when it became little more than an honorific title?
• And probably other issues I have not thought about here, such as adding images. Some of these decisions then need to be documented at Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Roman consuls to prevent inadvertent edit wars. Handling details like this would not only make it easier for this list to achieve FL status, but make for a stronger article. -- llywrch (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with "featured lists", so you might have to explain the criteria a little bit. But I do have some ideas about the individual questions.

• A summary at the beginning would be fine, but it should be as concise as reasonably possible. If it lacks an important or subtle nuance at first, it's easier to add in later than it would be trying to cut down an overly-long description might be. And less likely to be contentious. I think dating the changes needs to be a bit hazy: consuls immediately after the death of Caesar still held most of their Republican authority, at least in theory, although they had to contend with potential rivals as powerful as themselves. A traditional dividing line for Republic/Empire has been 27 BC, the year the Senate invested Octavian with the title "Augustus", but at the time that didn't make a huge difference, and I don't see a sharp dividing line in consular authority at this point. It seems like many consuls under Augustus still enjoyed a relatively high degree of authority, even if others clearly didn't. It seems to have taken a very long time for the consular authority to be completely eroded away by the emperors. And again, "the fourth century" or "the time of Constantine" seems preferable to setting a specific year for the last stage of consulship in the west.

• A list of statistics might be useful, but it would have to be very carefully worded in more than one place to account for the fact that there are a lot of consules suffecti whose names or dates we just don't know. Not to mention the fact that some may have been assigned incorrect dates based on the guesses or inferences of historians, both ancient and modern. We can't know for sure how many Claudii held the consulship, or how many Servilii, or how many Julii, etc. Since statistics like this could become quite involved, I suggest it might be better to split that off into a separate article, leaving only one or two brief paragraphs at the LoRC.

• Criteria for articles about individuals really don't belong in the LoRC, I think. That'd be a policy discussion, and even so it wouldn't be enforceable. Of course how much you can say about someone depends on what you want to say. As a rule, I don't create articles that just say, "Spurius Postumius Rollercoasterensis Celer was consul in 0 BC with Faustus Cornelius Flavus Hippopotamus." But if you can describe some actions they took, or even what occurred during their year of consulship and why it was important or noteworthy, then you might have at least a short article. That's pretty much how all articles work on Wikipedia. Just because nobody's dug up the material for an article yet doesn't mean it won't be done in the future. So while we can certainly agree on a general principle for this project, I don't think we should try to add policy statements into the article. Other lists don't explain why some individuals have articles and others don't; it's just understood that people who have articles can be linked.

• Agreed that someone should generally be linked only once, unless the occurrences are separated by a long span, or occur in different sections. That might reasonably include those who were consul in two different centuries. An ordinal indicating subsequent consulships should be sufficient, as long as there's a note about that at the top. I don't think emperors should be in bold. The DGRBM prefixes "Imp." for "Imperator" to emperors (all of whom also end in "Augustus", although in theory this could also be a surname). I suggest either using "Imperator" or the abbreviation.

• However, I would try to avoid abbreviating anything that really is a name if it can be avoided (I know that in some cases names could just be too long, but in this case I think it would be better just to omit some of the intervening names if the person has an article, and use the chief ones, including the first praenomen and nomen, if any, and the most important cognomina). I would not abbreviate Flavius, Claudius, Julius, Aurelius, Valerius, or any others that simply occur a lot, at least for the time being. If names start getting too long because of them, maybe it's something we could consider, but it'd mean making an additional list of abbreviations, and I don't think it's necessary.

• As for the style of names, I think we should try to avoid too much rigidity. The use of 'J', 'U', and 'V' in certain names and spelling conventions is too firmly established to deviate from comfortably. I dislike some of the stranger-looking medieval English conventions, such as dropping '-us' and changing '-ius' to '-y'; there's no reason for this list to refer to "Mark Antony" when every other Antonius is at least in Latin, and I think it'd be horrible if we talked about the consulship of "Tully", or went the other way and started replacing j's and u's with i's and v's. Let's use common sense with these; there'll be a few ambiguous cases, I'm sure, but nothing we can't handle with logic, reason, and civil discussion.

• Not a lot of editing goes on at this article, and most of what does is either routine maintenance (fixing errors, linking to new articles) or vandalism. Let's not try to make it too rigid or difficult to change in the absence of evidence of a problem with edits we disagree with in general. I don't want to lose sight of the fact that it's a Wikipedia article, not a monument to stand for all time. P Aculeius (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

First, I wrote this over 2 years ago, & a most of it does not reflect my current thinking. Second, since writing the above, I've worked with the material & have found some of my proposal are either unworkable or simply don't add any value to this article/list. Lastly, the reasons I wrote this not only included getting the sense whether it was a reasonable expectation that this could become a Featured List, but to get some feedback about what may be needed to make it one. (Much of that feedback I've since gotten on the WikiProject talk page.) I'm concerned that no matter how accurate this list becomes, or what extra information is added (say, indicating which consuls were Patricians, or a member of the reigning Imperial house), it won't be added because of unreasonable expectations in the review. Specifically, it will be declined because there aren't any -- or too few -- pretty pictures; IMHO, that seems to be an expectation many FL reviewers have. (I can think of a some images that could be added, but only a few, & I'm not sure that they'd be considered more than frivolous distractions.)

But to respond to P. Aculeius' comments.

• Right now, my working draft for an opening essay for this list would cover: a brief discussion of the primary sources experts have used to compile the list for both the Republican & Imperial periods; a brief definition of each of the terms used in this list (viz., consul ordinares (which I know I am misspelling), consul suffect, consul prior/posterior, consular tribune, & dictator/master of horse); & brief notes on issues such as Varronian chronology, Late Roman titulature (i.e. "Flavius" & "iunior"), & the Late Roman replacement of consul prior/posterior by Western/Eastern. (I may add a note about the general reliability for the list, for which I have three different experts stating that, with specific exceptions, it is reliable.) The point is to provide the basic information needed & put further details in the relevant article.
• I'm not sure I remember correctly what I meant at the time by "statistics". The only statistics I now feel would be relevant would be number of Republican consuls, number of Imperial ordinary consuls, & number of documented Imperial suffect consuls (with a count for individuals known to have been suffect consuls but their names have been lost). Other statistics, such as number of times an individual held the fasces, shortest length of tenure, if any brothers or relatives were colleagues as consul, etc., might be better noted under Roman consul. But again, I'm looking to include only the basic information needed, & I'm not interested in getting involved in the dispute whether to use Wikidata to provide digital information. (That dispute is beginning to take on the symptoms of a religious war with jerks on both sides of the issue.)
• When I wrote "A clear criteria why certain consuls deserve articles, & why others do not", I was thinking specifically of pre-empting the issue whether or not a person met Wikipedia criteria of notability. My opinion is that, as leaders of the Roman Republic, all Republican consuls are notable, but when it comes to Imperial Roman consuls, while all ordinary consuls are notable being a suffect consul in itself does not make an individual notable. If WPCGR could come to a consensus on this, it would prevent people from wasting time articles on lesser-known consuls from being submitted to AfD -- or being deleted. (This is not directly relevant to this article, but it is a concern I have & didn't know where else to bring it up.)
• On style of names, personally I'm satisfied with the current practice. My concern is to explicit state it (e.g. "j" for "i" at the beginning of words, "v" for "u" when the consonant is clearly indicated) to prevent edit wars. (Sometimes I am very pessimistic about the knowledge & wisdom of new Wikipedians. But then sometimes I am pessimistic about my own knowledge & common sense.)
• When it comes to abbreviations, about the only one used here is to abbreviate praenomena. The time may come when this will be discarded because this list is one of the few articles that use that convention, but it's not something we need to worry about now; by established Wikipedia practice, to replace abbreviated praenomena with their full form would require a discussion & consensus first.
• As for removing duplicate links, I've since changed my mind about it. Until more articles on consuls are written -- say, 90% of these persons have an article about them -- the lack of a link indicated that there is an article that needs to be written. Once we get to this level of coverage or better, then it would make sense to remove these duplicate links.

Anyway, until someone (such as I) adds more cites to reliable sources & the necessary ancillary information, getting this list to FL status will remain a dream. But ideas for improving it are always welcome. -- llywrch (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I would apologize for a long-winded reply to an old discussion. When I wrote it, I missed the year since it was by Llywrch, who's been discussing this article in depth recently, and asking for opinions on various topics. The page came up under "recent edits" and it wasn't until after I'd replied that I noticed that it wasn't the most recent discussion, but even then I mistakenly thought it was this year's discussion. So I realize most of these are non-issues now! I appreciate Llywrch taking the time to respond anyway. P Aculeius (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Eastern/Western

At present the change from 'First Consul/Second Consul" to "East/West" starts in 501. There does not appear to be any particular reason for this, other than the change of century. I suggest starting the change in 480 with Caecina Decius Maximus Basilius iunior, "the first consul designated by a barbarian king" according to Bagnall et al. Alekksandr (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Now done. Alekksandr (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Varronian chronology" is not "List of Roman consuls"

I will point out a problem, but I am not really into solving it. Don't be harsh with me. I search "Varronian chronology" and I am redirected here. "Varronian chronology" is not "List of Roman consuls". An article about "Varronian chronology" must be created. That's all. --JLARiveraLuque (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on that. Roman chronology before 300 BC has proven to be a complex subject.. -- llywrch (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Lacking definition for readers

This article lacks the definition of Consul Posterior and Prior. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Suffect consuls of 289 AD

The PLRE Vol I gives different months for the 289 suffect consuls than those listed in this article:

• Feb. 1 M.. Vmbrius Primus :: T. Fl. Coelianus
• March 1 Ceionius Proculus
• April 1 Helvius Clemens
• May 1 Fl. Decimus
• ?June 1 ...ninius Maximus

Fornadan (t) 22:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Some suggestions

From the perspective of a lay reader:

1. The opening paragraph is grammatically/factually awkward because "consuls" is plural, whereas the "office" is singular. Perhaps start a new sentence after "This is a list of Roman consuls"
2. Where multiple consuls have the same name, they should be marked to visually disambiguate them (probably with filiation).
3. Change "Suffect consuls whose name has not survived only appear (as Ignotus) when their colleague is known" to "Suffect consuls whose name has not survived (Ignotus) only appear when their colleague is known", or else drop the "(as Ignotus)" text entirely.
4. Change appearances of "Ignotus" in the listings to "unknown".
5. If post consulatum is kept in Latin rather than being translated — and probably even if it is — it needs a brief explanation of what it implies.
6. The use of inter alios could use an explanation, as neither Maximinus Daia nor his co-emperors provide it.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hydronium Hydroxide:, sorry for the delay in responding; I just saw your comments.

I'll take a look at the grammatical issues in the opening paragraph, but you are welcome to fix any grammatical errors you find. As for the rest:

• From my reading, I've found ignotus is the convention used in Classical Studies to indicate unidentified persons, which is why I've standardized on it here. (Prior to this, someone had used "N. N.", which I believe is the standard in genealogy, & thus not only isn't appropriate but also would need glossing.) However, there are a number of other issues which may force changing its use anyway.
• As for post consulatum, that too is the convention to indicate years where no consul was appointed or known to the scribe. While it is useful to know what the phrase means -- as it is to know AD stands for anno domini means "Year of the Lord" -- it is not necessary; all one needs to do is to match up the words to identify the year.
• As the entry that contains inter alios... I'm not comfortable with the indication of cities in this part of the 4th century, of which this is a part; I don't know if assigning consuls to cities is relevant here in the same way indicating consul prior & consul posterior are. I'll have to research that when reach this part of the list; it's one of many issues that needs to be resolved for that century.

But thanks for your comments. I do appreciate the feedback. -- llywrch (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

At Llywrch's suggestion, tried my hand at clarifying the lead paragraph. Is that better? I agree with keeping the Latin terminology, but thought it might help to include a list of Latin terms used in the table at the top, and combined it with an existing part of the key. Hope this helps as far as these are concerned.

As for filiations, they might look nice, but adding them would be very time consuming, and wouldn't necessarily disambiguate persons, since many of those individuals sharing the same name would also share the same filiation. For the period of the Republic and perhaps part of the first century of the Empire we could give them based on Broughton and other reliable sources, but I'm afraid in Imperial times we would quickly acquire highly suspect information in the table (i.e. Settipani information, descent from antiquity stuff). Plus in many, many cases the filiation is inferred or given differently in different sources, and so adding it would greatly increase the footnoting, if we wanted to indicate uncertainty. My recommendation would be to leave them off this table for now. They should be given in biographical articles for the individuals, where they exist, and in pages for each gens when those exist. P Aculeius (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the very tardy response. The paragraphs and the explanations make things much clearer now. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

coss.

in 82 and 83 P. Valerius Patruinus, L. Antonius Saturninus; in 71 and 80 Sex. Neranius Capito, L. Acilius Strabo --Μίκυθος (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that these two pairs appear twice in this list? Your comment drew my attention to that duplication which I fixed. If you meant to say something else about these four persons, could you please elaborate? -- llywrch (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

C. Vellaeus Tutor or C. Vellēius Tutor?

[Lewis & Short] mention C. Vellēius Tutor. Since there is only one Tutor in the list (consul suffectus in 28 AD), C. Vellaeus Tutor, could this be the same person? And what is the correct spelling? Leen 94.215.76.74 (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The consul of 28 appears in inscriptions as Vellaeus, which may perhaps have been amended to the more common Velleius in some sources. It's possible that they could be two forms of the same nomen, but they'd be pronounced differently: Vellaeus is pronounced /vel-LIE-us/, while Velleius is pronounced /vel-LAY-us/. English speakers might be used to pronouncing them the same way. Since the Romans would have pronounced them with different vowels, I think they were probably distinct nomina, rather than alternative spellings for the same nomen. As for macrons, they're only for pronunciation by English speakers, and not used in ordinary text. You may ignore them when it comes to the spelling of Latin names (there are a few marks that the Romans sometimes used for pronunciation, but they weren't used in most writing, and they weren't the same as the marks you see in English). P Aculeius (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

About deleting "blank years" in the final section of this table

I'm not sure I like it.

One fact that is very apparent even at a glance down this long list, which retaining the blank years helps to emphasize, is that the appointment of consuls each year was increasingly ignored. The first example of this comes in 375, the fateful year of the Battle of Adrianople where a large portion of the army of the Western Empire was destroyed. The time time a consul was not appointed came after the Gothic sack of Rome in 410; nevertheless, the Western court remained diligent in appointing consuls with few exceptions until 472, when it appears the PTB in the West lost interest in maintaining this institution. Perhaps due to the murder of the emperor Anthemius, the last Western Emperor who was more than a figurehead; for many years the Western court was under control of the general Ricimer, who was ostracized by the Eastern court. Or perhaps the Eastern court was not serious about its maintenance, because for the next several years, their appointments for consuls were either the Eastern Emperor or a close relative, & entirely neglecting this office until 488. Regardless, once Odoacer gained control of the Western court & proclaimed himself king of Italy, consuls were once again appointed in the West, & also again in the East, perhaps out of embarrassment. Appointments continued more or less regularly after this, even under Theodoric, except for a brief period near the beginning of his rule. (Could it signal unrest by the Roman upper classes?) But as the 6th century continued, it is clear that enthusiasm for this venerable, but ceremonial & increasingly expensive, office waned. With the Gothic Wars, the consulate was ended in the West; it lingered for a while longer in the East, until Justinian did away with it.

Excuse the long descriptive narrative, but it was necessary to show what questions the gaps do provoke. The blank years after Belisarius held the fasces emphasize that there is an absence here that needs explaining. And illustrating it may provoke one of our readers to investigate for her/himself the cause of these gaps. (I have seen one or two papers that explain Justinian's abolition of the consulate, which had existed in one form or another over a thousand years. But doing more than pointing to these papers & summarizing their findings is going beyond the purpose of Wikipedia.) Suppressing their existence is misrepresenting the evidence, I believe. -- llywrch (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that the table is better with this information than without it. Somewhat concerned about the extent of major revisions being made without discussion, since the page has been worked on steadily by experts for some time. P Aculeius (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

As an interested non-expert, I have to agree. Those blanks provoke unanswered and important questions, and should remain. Haploidavey (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

"The first example of this comes in 375, the fateful year of the Battle of Adrianople where a large portion of the army of the Western Empire was destroyed."

What are you talking about? The Battle of Adrianople took place in 378, not in 375. The Emperor Valens (who was killed in the battle) was consul that year. The troops which fell in the Battle were all Eastern Roman. Gratian (the Western Roman Emperor) send reinforcements from his own troops, but Valens decided to go to battle without waiting for their arrival. Or to quote from the article: "Richomeres, sent by Gratian, carried a letter asking Valens to wait for the arrival of reinforcements from Gratian before engaging in battle. Valens' officers also recommended that he wait for Gratian, but Valens decided to fight without waiting, ready to claim the ultimate prize."

I am not certain why they were no consuls in 375, but that was the year Valentinian I (the Western Roman emperor) died. He reportedly got angry during diplomatic negotiations with the Quadi, started yelling in anger, and "suffered a burst blood vessel in the skull". Which is what killed him.

"The time time a consul was not appointed came after the Gothic sack of Rome in 410"

I fail to follow what you mean here. The list mentions 3 consuls for the year 410: Constantine III, Varanes, and Tertullus (who does not have an article yet). And the consul for the year 411 was emperor Theodosius II (without a colleague).

"the Western court remained diligent in appointing consuls with few exceptions until 472, when it appears the PTB in the West lost interest in maintaining this institution. Perhaps due to the murder of the emperor Anthemius, the last Western Emperor who was more than a figurehead; for many years the Western court was under control of the general Ricimer, who was ostracized by the Eastern court. "

The Western Roman Empire in the 470s was chaotic.:

• Anthemius was killed in civil warfare in 472.
• Olybrius was a puppet ruler, but died of dropsy in 472 after a reign lasting months.
• Glycerius was deposed by an invading army in 474, and send to Dalmatia. He served for a few years as a Bishop of Salona, and may have been involved in a number of political assassinations, but never returned to the throne.
• Julius Nepos lost control of Italy in 475, but continued to reign in Dalmatia until 480. He was eventually assassinated.
• Romulus Augustulus was a puppet ruler, and was deposed in 476. He was apparently still alive in 507, but living in retirement.
• Ricimer was the magister militum for decades, but died of natural causes in 472.
• Gundobad was a nephew of Ricimer and his replacement as magister militum. He seems to have voluntarily abandoned his position in 473 or 474, in order to claim the throne of the Burgundians during a civil war. He apparently won the war and ruled until his death c. 516, but his further involvement in Roman politics was minor.
• Ecdicius briefly served as magister militum in 474 to 475. He was recalled from a campaign, stripped of his title and command of the army, and then vanished into obscurity. Nobody is certain why he fell from power or what happened to him. There are a couple of references to sons of Ecdicius c. 507, but historians are not even certain if this was the same Ecdicius or someone sharing the name.
• Orestes replaced Ecdicius as magister militum, won control of Italy against Julius Nepos, and placed his own son Romulus on the throne as a puppet ruler. In 476, he was defeated in combat and killed by his own military subordinate, Odoacer.

Not surprised that none of the above managed to appoint a consul.

"Or perhaps the Eastern court was not serious about its maintenance, because for the next several years, their appointments for consuls were either the Eastern Emperor or a close relative, & entirely neglecting this office until 488."

Perhaps preoccupied with other matters. In the Eastern Roman Empire, we have a civil war between rival emperors Zeno and Basiliscus, a civil war between Zeno and claimant to the throne Marcian, and a civil war between Zeno and the co-operating rebels Leontius and Illus. Zeno spend most of his reign fighting against other Romans. And the year his last civil war ended was 488.

"But as the 6th century continued, it is clear that enthusiasm for this venerable, but ceremonial & increasingly expensive, office waned. With the Gothic Wars, the consulate was ended in the West; it lingered for a while longer in the East, until Justinian did away with it."

There was no East and West following the Gothic War (535-554). The Byzantines gained control of the city of Rome itself, and kept it under control 751/752. This is the period of the so-called Byzantine Papacy, where all Popes had to be appointed by the emperors. In the 750s, an inability of emperor Constantine V to protect Rome from Kingdom of the Lombards and the fall of Ravenna to the invaders, forced the Popes to seek a new protector. And the new guy was Pepin the Short of the Franks, willing to do a lot if the Popes helped him usurp the throne.

As for the consulship, it was largely irrelevant in the 6th century. The title no longer corresponded to an actual office or specific duties. Dimadick (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure where you're going with this. The question was whether it was appropriate to revise the table to remove all of the blank years, and the apparent presumption that maintaining these entries in the table serves no useful purpose. Llywrch's point was that there is a perfectly good reason why this and most other chronologies include such years, which the editor who deleted them did not appear to realize. I add that since the principal system of dating used in the Roman world since the establishment of the Republic was based on the eponymous magistrates, usually corresponding with the consuls ordinarii, literary sources refer to these years by the names formerly given in the table; i.e. II post consulatum Belisarii. While the Dionysian era was developed during the sixth century, this excludes nearly all Roman inscriptions and literary sources; and the era didn't even become widely accepted for dating purposes until the ninth century. So removing the blank years not only presents an incomplete, perhaps misleading view of the period, but also makes the table less useful as a concordance for literary, historical, or epigraphic use. I, for one, find it quite useful being able to refer to this table in order to find the date of events or inscriptions using the names of the consuls mentioned, and think that the previous version should be restored. P Aculeius (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll concede you're right about the Battle of Adrianople, @Dimadick:; that's what happens when I rely alone on my memory without checking against a reliable source. But I feel you are splitting hairs when it comes to the Sack of Rome in 410. While I should have written that it was the consulship of 411 that was left unfilled due to that act of war, it doesn't invalidate the point I was attempting to make: gaps in the list of consuls can reflect historic events. I feel your response focuses too much on the trees while ignoring the forest.

Ronald Syme made an interesting observation on the list of consuls itself: "The register of the Roman consuls can serve sundry purposes. At the simplest and lowest, it will fix a date or establish a man's identity. In the absence of written history, however, it becomes history itself, as can be demonstrated for divergent epochs, Republican and Imperial; and, even where historians exist, they will often have to be supplemented by exploiting this evidence, or subverted." While he was concerned with the names in the list of consuls, here I am concerned with its gaps, those times when the authorities failed to appoint a consul. Even during the chaos of the Year of Four Emperors those in power made time to select consuls. Closer to the 6th century, when Constantine III declared himself emperor, both he & the other emperors found time to appoint consuls. And when the emperor Anastasius sent letters to King Clovis of the Franks informing him he had been appointed consul, that was considered a signal honor & worth the attention of Gregory of Tours (II.38). Despite the fact the office was entirely ceremonial, & of little use to a German living beyond the effective authority of the Roman Empire.

But all of this is not directly relevant to the point I raised: does omitting the blank years in the final table obscure the matter of the decline of the office of consul? And I'd like to hear the opinions of @Jbribeiro1: (who made this edit) about this. -- llywrch (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Not me. It was @Iveagh Gardens:. José Luiz ^talk 00:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Er, sorry. I do have a legitimate excuse for confusing the two of you: my eyesight has worsened in the last couple years. Saw an eye doctor about it earlier today, & will be getting new eyeglasses tomorrow. Hope this prevents me from making more mistakes like this off-wiki, which has been frustrating. -- llywrch (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It was indeed me who removed the blank years. These were ones that occurred during the period where the office was sporadically used by Byzantine Emperors from Justinian onward, rather than some of the examples cited above in the discussion. I removed them because the blank years weren't consistently noted throughout later centuries. However, if there's a consensus that they should be put in where appropriate, I have no objection to them going back in. The short paragraph before the last table was intended to give that context about the decline of the office of consul during the reign of Justinian. That's not to say I object to including them, just that I don't think the page as it is necessarily obscures its decline. And with reference to the examples mentioned in the discussion started above by @Llywrch:, they are all examples before Justinian did away with it, as you put it. If we check the edit I made, they removed only rows within Justinian's reign and after. There's a strong case for putting back the 536 and 537 columns, but less so for those after 541, when Justinian did away with the office. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll repeat again the point I was trying to make: that years where consuls weren't appointed are significant up to the date Justinian abolished the office in 541. (Not after, since it appears that the office was absorbed into the style of the Byzantine Emperor. And I still need to confirm that assertion, which currently rests on a vague citation of one of Vasiliev's books; Ostrogorky's History of the Byzantine State (1957) makes no mention of this.) And because I felt strongly about the removal of these blank years, I started this thread. Of course, the solution may be to add the years 535-541 back to the 6th century table & add a paragraph that the title was added to the style of the Byzantine Emperor, if it can be verified. In any case, the aim for usability, & if the average reader can suss out that during the reign of Justinian there were years no consul was appointed, then I really can't object to this change. -- llywrch (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Grand, I've put rows for 536 and 537 back into the table. I'd be interested in r, eading a source too on what exactly occurred legally in 541. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I spent the morning digging thru my collection of pdfs & found this article: Alan Cameron and Diane Schauer, "The Last Consul: Basilius and His Diptych", Journal of Roman Studies, 72 (1982), pp. 126-145. The late Prof. Cameron & Schauer spend the last 8 pages of this article discussing the end of the institution of the consulate, & set forth a number of arguments. One is that the institution did not come to an end because it was too expensive to maintain; consuls, along with quaestors & praetors, were expected to fund lavish games or ludi. Instead they argue that in the East the cause was Justinian's antipathy towards the publicity consuls received (as well as the economic recession that plagued the later part of Justinian's reign), while in the West it was due to the destruction of the Gothic Wars (senatorial estates were despoiled, & the Roman Senate almost entirely exterminated). Another is their mention of the existence of the practice of "honorary consuls": in return for donating 100 lbs. of gold for practical purposes, such as maintenance of an aqueduct, the emperor would bestow the consulship on the grantor -- which means we have another group of consuls needing to be included. Their last point was that Justinian's successor Justin II gained much popularity by restoring the tradition of the emperor taking the consulship on the first January after his accession, which was repeated by every following emperor down to Constans II.

Of course the question then becomes, why did someone think this tradition continue down to Leo VI? Ostrogorsky notes the the Byzantine Emperor Leo did abolish the Senate of Constantinople, which had become a vestigial group by the 9th century, so it is possible he discontinued the last traces of that ancient institution. But we've come to the point where we need the input of a skilled scholar in Byzantine studies to help with this. (My useful knowledge of Byzantine history is largely limited to its final centuries, especially the Empire of Trebizond -- so I'd need to do a lot of research to contribute anything more to this issue.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

More work needed

• There appear to be some typos, e.g. Maxmius for Maximus and Secudus for Secundus, notwithstanding any abbreviations that may appear in the source documents.
• There appear to be some very long names, and some of them appear to be the names of more than one individual joined together, especially in cases where further praenomina appear in the middle of the name. These need to be clarified.
• Expressions such as "ignotus" and "sine collega" need to be translated into English.----Ehrenkater (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Typos can be addressed as they're discovered. Anyone can do this. Don't assume that long names with praenomina in the middle are in fact multiple individuals mashed together. This was a common feature of aristocratic names under the early Empire. For more information in a relatively accessible source, see Olli Salomies, Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire (1992), or his addenda to the same (2014), which summarizes the main points of the original paper and is available on the internet. Latin terms normally used in lists of Roman magistrates such as this one are defined and explained in the key at the beginning of this article. P Aculeius (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

In my general revision of this list I have tried to correct the Republican entries against Broughton, & have checked & re-checked the Imperial ones against the usual references, but I admit I can be careless in my proofreading. (And I have encountered typos in the otherwise reliable sources that lead to typos here.) As for polyonomy, P Aculeius explains the issue -- although the consuls of AD 13 seem to be an unresolved crux, & the authorities seem to be divided over whether there is one consul (C. Silius C. Caecina Largus) or two (C. Silius & C. Caecina Largus). I've been wondering if this disagreement is important enough to warrant a discussion somewhere.

Lastly, this is a list of Roman people who spoke Latin, so IMHO I feel it is appropriate to use Latin when appropriate; if one is going to learn more about Roman history beyond the most shallow familiarity, one will be forced to learn some Latin. P Aculeius kindly added a glossary at the beginning for those with "little Latin and less Greek", so phrases like ignotus or sine collega shouldn't be that much of a barrier. -- llywrch (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Cossus

@SpartaN, P Aculeius, and Paul August: Am not the IP, but[19] most articles use Servius Cornelius Maluginensis apart from Cornelia (gens) which uses Servius Cornelius Cossus Maluginensis. I haven't turned that into a redirect in case the longer form is actually to be preferred. Thoughts? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The DGRBM gives his name this way, stating that the two branches of the family were originally united, which seems to be supported by their filiations: Servius Cornelius Cossus, consular tribune in 434 BC, and Aulus Cornelius Cossus, consul in 428, appear to be sons of Marcus Cornelius Maluginensis, the decemvir. The presumption, therefore, is that Cossus was really applicable to their father, Marcus, and grandfather, Lucius (consul in 459), if it also belonged to Servius, the consul of 485, even though it isn't found with them; i.e. one branch of the family kept Maluginensis (presumably the descendants of Marcus, the consul of 436, who by name and date should be the elder brother of Servius and Aulus) and the other, presumably the younger branch, retained only Cossus.

Unfortunately, I can't find any authority for any of them bearing both surnames. That's not to say there isn't any, but I don't know what it is. The DGRBM entries suggest that it's Servius, the consul of 485, who should have both surnames, but neither Livy nor Dionysius mention a surname, and the Fasti don't show any of the Cornelii with both. So I don't know whether this description was an error, an educated guess, or based on some source that's not identified, despite the usual practice of giving all important sources for each person. But having looked over it, and not found a source, I think it would be fine to footnote it, and that's what I'm going to go ahead and do. P Aculeius (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: division of list into 2 articles

Due to its length & unwieldiness, this list needs to be split into two. For one thing, there really is no good reason to have it as one; except for de.wikipedia, all of the other language Wikipedias divide their consular lists into "Republican" & "Imperial" lists. Another is that when the list begins to provide more information than a simple list of names, the fact that the Roman consulate was a very different office in the Republican & Imperial periods -- as well as the nature of our evidence changes -- begins to complicate matters. Sometimes needlessly. But another reason (which I believe is a good one) is that IMHO the list of Republican consuls could easily become a Featured List in its own right: the information is complete & documented; we have useful visual aids (i.e., the coloring); & a good "Background" section that covers the issues of the Republican period.

To achieve this division, the chief challenge is to rewrite the Background so that each of its sections has a separate part that applies respectively to the Republican & Imperial periods. (Right now that section deals with the Republican period, with little attention to how the magistracy functioned under the Empire. Which is a common problem with many reference works.) That way, when this list is divided into two, the introductory "Background" section can also be usefully split in two. I've started doing this with the key to the colors used. -- llywrch (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

This. The list takes too long to load. T8612 (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Consuls of 434 BC

This list currently includes Proc./L. Verginius Tricostus and Gaius Julius Iulus as the two consuls re-elect of 434 BC. As the modern consensus and even Livy who is the main source doubted this tradition should this list truly contain these two names as consuls in 434 BC? The other traditions ascribe either Marcus Manlius Capitolinus Vulso and Quintus Sulpicius Camerinus Praetextatus as consuls in 434 or as consular tribunes together with a Servius Cornelius Cossus. As both Livy and Diodorus Siculus includes Manlius and Sulpicius in their consular colleges of 434, should not these be the main names listed with the note (now reffering to the alternative narrative of Manlius and Sulpicius) be towards the re-election of the consuls of 435 BC? Broughton, who is the main source for the majority of this list, writes "Of the three possibilities listed...it seems least likely that the Consuls of 435 continued in office this year." Was thinking of changing this on my own, but felt like a discussion prior to doing so could be healthy and productive. CutieyKing (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

At first glance, I think it might make the most sense to go with the consular tribunes, who might easily have been mistaken for two consuls through a careless reading of old records. It's possible that someone invented Servius Cornelius Cossus in order to fill a gap, but not as easy to imagine why: I think that the patricians would rather have had consuls to report, while it seems unnecessary to invent an (elder?) brother for Aulus Cornelius Cossus. That being the case, I think we could provisionally go with this, revising the footnote accordingly. But I'd like to hear from llywrch, who's done more work to get this list into good order than anyone over the years. P Aculeius (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

(Thanks to CutieyKing for alerting me to this. I don't always review all of the pages I watch, so I often miss questions like this.)

I'll admit that I don't remember why I kept this pair over the other choices available. (My notes are at home, if I kept them, & I'm at work as I answer this.) It appears that the version of this list I started with reported Julius Iulus & Verginius in this year; if Broughton had the same pair as the primary choice I left things as I found them. Broughton did such a thorough job I found it hard to seriously disagree with him at any point, although I wanted to in order to make this list more than a copy of his work. (There is also the issue of which consul was consul prior & consul posterior: the sources differ in many places about this. While I had considered determining independently who was which, & had started compiling the information, the work had became so tedious for such a dubious result I decided it wasn't worth risking WP:NOR & in the end simply reported the order Broughton had them in.)

There is also the issue whether the Consul List reflects the actual names of the individuals who in fact were consuls in a given year or the order they held the fasces. (There are enough clues to seriously debate the question.) In the end, except for a few dissidents like Ogilvie -- who nonetheless needs to be acknowledged in order to show the issue exists -- scholars have accepted the consul list as is out of convenience: it may be wrong in parts -- or as a whole before 300 BC -- but no one has managed to provide a more accurate list.

In short, I don't have a good answer. Either choice -- keep or change it -- is defensible, IMHO. -- llywrch (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Consuls prior and posterior after 395 AD

Is there any basis for the current assumption in the list that, after the death of Theodosius in 395, the consuls prior were all by default appointed by the eastern court and the consuls posterior by the west? It doesn't seem right that the emperor Honorius should not take precedence over Theodosius II, his junior in the imperial college, in 412, and even less so over (say) Aristaenetus in 404. The 3 sources I have at my immediate disposal (Degrassi, Fasti Consolari; Bagnall et al. Consuls of the Later Empire; Cooley, Latin Epigraphy) all follow my line of thinking here and indicate Honorius as the senior consul in those years.

For non-emperors the issue is a bit harder to figure out. In page 351 (408 AD), Bagnal et al. say that the precedence of the consuls doesn't depend on which court is appointing them. The same page notes that the westerner Stilico was regarded as consul prior in 400, but the current Wikipedia list shows otherwise. In the entry for 432, Bagnall et al. seem to suggest that each court regarded its own consul as the senior one, and the other as junior. Wikipedia currently says that, in that year, the easterner Valerius (brother of the empress Eudocia) was prior and the western magister militum Aetius was posterior, but Degrassi and Cooley make it the other way around.

The issue is perhaps not wholly clear to me as of yet, but this seems sufficient evidence that the current arrangement is unsatisfactory. Does anybody have any issue with me implementing these changes accordingly? Avilich (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems that Ehrenkater changed "Eastern" and "Western" consuls into "prior" and "posterior" without explanation or discussion on March 19, 2019. Since the distinction itself seems dubious, and is really of no value for the period in question, I would go ahead and revert it (assuming that none of the positions have been reversed since then). P Aculeius (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It was changed to East/West once again on 23 Dec. 2020, but I reverted (20 Jan. 2021) because the list doesn't strictly follow those labels – sometimes, for example, both consuls were appointed by a single court. Nothing really seems to have changed in 395 from a constitutional perspective (the empire had been split before), and I see no reason not to simply follow the sources here. I'll tag @Llywrch: here, see what's his opinion on this. Avilich (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

First Avilich has mentioned almost every reference I have for the post-395 consuls. The only exception is that the Real Encyclopedia article "Consul", which is available at de.wikisource.org -- & is the only authority I know of that discusses the office of consul under the Empire; every other authority devotes his attention almost exclusively to the Republican period, giving the Imperial period at best a superficial glance.

Next, I haven't paid close attention to the part of this List after the mid-3rd Century, beyond verifying a few years back that the names are correct; there were a number of issues -- such as the title Flavius, & several sets of consuls appointed by rivals to the central government -- which need to be worked out. I haven't had the time to deal with them, having been bogged down with the suffect consuls of the 2nd century. But to the matter.

IIRC, in the Republic the purpose of distinguishing prior & posterior consuls was the prior would be elected first, then he would supervise the election of his colleague. Thus the prior was a more esteemed rank, which it retained even after the Emperor was the person who selected who would be consul. Of course, this distinction was lost around 395 when appointment was divided between the 2 courts -- if they divided this duty. I've assumed this was the case, but ISTR that there is evidence that sometimes both were picked by one court. (At the moment, I can't find any references for this.) When Odoacer deposed the last Western Roman Emperor, the Senate in Rome continued to insist on a pair being selected, not just one by the Emperor in Constantinople. This continued for a generation or so, until Justinian abolished the office. (One authority believes is was because the consul enabled any possible rival to the sitting emperor.) So if I were to revise this section of the list, I'd sort them into "Western" & "Eastern", but flag those who were appointed by one court. -- llywrch (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I'm still not sure I like the idea of making a strict distinction between western and eastern consuls, as the very need to flag exceptions demonstrates a fundamental flaw in this arrangement. I'm ok with removing the prior and posterior categories entirely for the consuls after 395, but I still think their order of precedence should be consistent with what the sources say. The Roman state was still regarded as a single entity, and the consuls' order of importance within it is something contemporaries paid attention to, as Bagnal et al. make clear. I think the east-west technicalities should outlined only in the specific cases when it's necessary, and in many times this will be more complicated than simply 'both consuls were appointed by the west' (one of them would not be recognized, etc.). Avilich (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Avilich: I think we are in agreement that prior and posterior is meaningless after 395; one could argue that they are meaningless from the mid-3rd century, but I'll leave that for another discussion. However, indicating which court a given consul (or pair of consuls) was appointed is significant for the Later Roman Empire. As I was studying this list, I happened on the section covering the 4th century & was reminded that each Augustus appears to appoint his own consul; however, someone had tried to fit this into the categories of "West" & "East". This was a common practice starting with the Gallic Empire from c. 260 on: any claimant to the Imperial office would strengthen his claim to legitimacy by appointing consuls. This would require somehow separating out all of these series of consuls. If we color-code them (as done to indicate consuls who were also Emperors), we could inadvertently end up with a confusion of colors -- yet another reason to split up this list into 3 parts. But I'm willing to wait until more research is done for this period so we can provide reliable sources for which court we link these consuls to. (Which in my case will be after the pandemic ends & my public library is open again. -- llywrch (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so I checked the sources again (something I should've just done at first) and am now even more confused. Starting in 421, apparently both courts started regarding most of their own appointees as consuls prior and those of the other as posterior, even though the distinction in precedence does indeed appear to have been formally (if pointlessly) maintained. Bagnall switches the order accordingly in the occidentis and orientis pages each, but Cooley and Degrassi seem to use the western court's order of precedence by default when possible.

Cooley lists the discrepant western and eastern consuls in separate lines rather than columns, leaving the latter free to be used when the distinction prior and posterior is available. This could serve as a compromise between the two positions, by incorporating them both on the list, though a few extra lines would have to be used. My personal preference is to just copy this said format (admittedly, part of me still prefers to maintain the prior and posterior labels for the sake of formalism), but simply listing the western consuls on one column and the eastern ones on another would make the list slightly more compact by saving a few lines. Avilich (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I restored the old west/east format (with the necessary corrections) and ended up ignoring the prior/posterior distinction altogether. Creating extra lines just to point out the differences in rank just seemed too much of a bother, and I doubt the average reader will be too interested in knowing the minute details in the many cases where the issue is muddled. Avilich (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Maximian's 10th consulship (308) and Merobaudes' 3rd consulship (388)

Maximian's 10th consulship and Merobaudes' 3rd consulship are both missing from this article.

For Maximian X Galerius VII (in Constantine's territories in 308), see B. Waldron 2020: Decies et Maximiano VII: A Proposed Revision to Consular Dating during the Rise of Constantine, ZPE 214, 320-325.

For Theodosius II Merobaudes III (in Magnus Maximus' territories at the beginning of 388), see B. S. Rodgers 1981: Merobaudes and Maximus in Gaul, Historia 30.1, 82-105 (specifically pp. 93-97).

Consuls of the Later Roman Empire (1987) and Cambridge Manual of Latin Epigraphy (2012) both omit the III consulship of Merobaudes. I don't have access to your more recent source on Maximian's supposed 10th. Avilich (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Merobaudes' consulship is based on explicit epigraphic and implicit literary (the panegyric of Pacatus) evidence. The grave inscription refers to the second consulship of Theodosius and the third of Merobaudes in January (388), a different inscription shows that by the end of the month Merobaudes had lost his consulship, and the panegyric decries Maximus' killing of Merobaudes, described as a man in consular robes (presumably thus in 388). Relatedly, Prosper's chronicle records that Merobaudes had helped to betray Gratian in favour of Maximus back in 383. Those less focused, bigger picture works that you cite adopt the argument of Manfred Waas, who, because of his surprise at the evidence that Merobaudes received a third consulship, presumed two errors on the part of the grave inscription's date and re-dated it to 383. But as Barbara Saylor Rodgers notes in the above-mentioned article: 'I believe that the De Rossi inscription belongs to the year 388, since the alternative involves the assumption of two separate errors by the copyist, both of them in the date, which is surely one of the most important elements, after the name, on a grave marker. The two mistakes would have arisen, I grant, from different causes: the scribe would not have learned that Theodosius was not to be consul for 383, and he would have given Merobaudes too many consulships. It is nevertheless difficult to accept both premises. To turn Waas' argument around, it is easier to understand how a scribe could make too many or too few strokes when numbering one of the many imperial consulships, but Merobaudes was not connected to the royal house and even his second consulship was an exceptional honor.' Waas's argument also suggests that, based on a reenvisioning of Pacatus, Merobaudes was either killed by Maximus during his second consulship in 383 - despite him being Maximus' ally (as Prosper states), or it requires a less convincing rethinking of Pacatus' passage, whereby Merobaudes was not consul when he was killed but Pacatus chose to highlight his consular status as a result of consulships received some time ago, something which has no precedent in panegyrics (one would also expect that a more logical way of referring to Merobaudes when he was not specifically holding a consulship at the time would have been to refer to his martial career and military achievements).

Re. Maximian, Byron Waldron's recent article is available through academia.edu. He shows why the traditional interpretation of Constantine's consular date in 308 is untenable and that the most reliable fasti, in the context of Constantine's consuls, actually assign the 10th consulship in 308 to Maximian (which also makes much more political sense).

A couple of paragraphs (for clarity, I will note that the Vindobonensia and Scaligeriana are part of the 'Consularia Italica' tradition):

'Let us recapitulate. The sources agree that Constantine’s administration employed a tenth consulship to date the year 308. The Descriptio Consulum indicates that this consul was Maximian. Item/idem and parallelism link the identity of decies back to the nouies recorded under 307, and nouies must refer to Maximian. The Chronograph of 354 also seems to imply that Maximian was consul in 308, again through parallel structure. On the other hand, the Consularia Italica tradition and the related works of Prosper, Victorius and Cassiodorus record Constantine’s consul X as Diocletian, who was indeed consul in the east. Every source records or implies that Galerius was consul VII, except for the Vindobonensia and Scaligeriana, which are clearly mistaken. Galerius, like Diocletian, was also consul in the east. We are thus left with the question of who was consul X: Diocletian or Maximian.

It is most likely that Constantine awarded Maximian a tenth consulship. Firstly, let us review the sources themselves. The relevant entries in the Descriptio and the Chronograph appear to descend from a common source of considerable accuracy. In contrast, the Consularia Italica tradition mistakenly assigns Diocletian a ninth consulship under the year 307, the Vindobonensia and Scaligeriana wrongly record an eighth consulship for Galerius in 308, and Prosper and the Vindobonensia confuse the count of Maximian’s consulships. These things cast doubt on their testimony for the year 308. Moreover, if Constantine had not recognized Diocletian’s consulship in the east, it was an easy mistake for the compilers of these lists to think otherwise. The authors of the Consularia Italica tradition recognized that Constantine’s consul IX of 307 and consul X of 308 were the same person, but they had miscounted Diocletian’s consulships. For this reason they saw no problem with Diocletian being consul IX in 307. They appear to have assumed that Diocletian was the consul because in the east in 308 the consuls were indeed Diocletian X and Galerius VII.

But let us also consider the political context of 308. In autumn 307 Constantine sided with Maximian, and in December Maximian promoted Constantine to Augustus. In late 307 Constantine’s administration also announced its own consular date for the year independent of the consuls in the east, with Maximian consul IX. To believe that Constantine then deferred to Galerius’ nominations, one must accept that he did so soon after forging his alliance with Maximian. But Maximian was challenging Galerius’ seniority. For Constantine then to accept the consular appointments of Galerius was to undermine Maximian’s seniority. It would be peculiar for Constantine to risk losing his alliance so soon after its inception. If he had done so, one wonders why Maximian trusted Constantine enough to reside with him following his attempted deposal of Maxentius in April 308. Most importantly, in recognizing Galerius’ seniority Constantine would have delegitimized his own promotion to Augustus. As for Galerius, he and Maximinus had ceased to recognize Constantine as their imperial colleague, who from late 307 to late 308 was excluded from coins, inscriptions and papyri in the east. Ultimately, the Consularia Italica tradition is confused, and the Descriptio Consulum and the Chronograph of 354 point to an alternative that better accords with the political context: In 308 Constantine’s administration dated the year with a tenth consulship for Maximian as well as the seventh for Galerius that was being celebrated in the east.'

Waldron goes on to discuss Constantine's decision to honour both Maximian and Galerius as consuls.

You needn't have pasted the whole thing here, the link would've sufficed. As for Merobaudes and his supposed 3rd consulship, your argument in favor of it is addressed by CLRE. The inscription (Theodosius II & Merobaudes III) probably indeed belongs to 383 and not 388. Avilich (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)