Talk:Rex Sacrorum

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pope

Maybe a comparison with the office of Papacy would be useful, since Rex Sacrorum = Pontifex Maximus = Pope. 67.68.65.192 (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Sacrorum ≠ Pontifex Maximus = Pope.

That whole section is completely unsourced. It appears the editor desires to connect the Pope with some ancient pagan equivalent. Call me suspcious, but it might be a Seventh Day Adventist or Fundamentalist way of using the article for their agenda. Unless it is sourced it should be deleted. So if anyone can find evidence they should do so in the next few days or I will delete the section.97.114.178.44 (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to delete the section on the papacy for the following reasons: 1. It has no bearing on the article. 2. It is unsourced. 3. It contains blatant errors, for example the Rex Sacrorum was not the same as the Pontifex Maximus. 4. The deficiencies have not been addressed. 5. No one has responded to the invitation to discuss the section. So I will delete it.97.114.178.44 (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some potential sources

Here are some potential sources for updating and annotating this article:

Mary Beard et al., Religions of Rome
Bruce Frier, Libri annales pontificum maximorum (in English, despite the title)
CAH
Tim Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome

I don't get the "pope king" section; it has no sources. Is this simply a comparison someone's made (a scholarly source that can be cited), can the rex sacrorum actually be found as an acknowledged precedent in sources from the time, or is this an ad hoc comparison not based on anything? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

First section says pontifex maximus was introduced to be higher than rex sacrorum, second section says rex sacrorum presided over pontifex maximus. First section says the office of rex sacrorum existed during kingdom epoch, second section says it was invented with the republic to replace king.--MathFacts (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As is often the case, the ancient sources don't always agree with each other on all points, and therefore modern scholars differ in their interpretation of the evidence. These contradictions exist in the ancient sources, hence the difficulties posed by the topic. This is why I keep deleting the quotation from Livy, which gives undue weight to Livy's statement above others, and which can't be presented as if it's a transparent statement of fact. Above I posted a tiny number of modern discussions of the problems of understanding the rex sacrorum. It's WP:OR to read selectively from ancient sources oneself, and to draw one's own conclusions from that. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Emperor adopted the post of Pontifex Maximus, and the Rex sacrorum persisted in the Empire, it makes sense to assume that the Emperor will have adopted the higher post and appointed the lower. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems obvious now that it's put like that. Psychotic Spartan 123 01:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]