Jump to content

Talk:Roman Empire/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Languages

I've performed a source review of the first two paragraphs in the section "languages". For the most part, it's a narrative that draws from Burno Rochette (2012) and James Noel Adams (2003). I considered three additional sources:

I want to propose the first two paragraphs below to replace the current first two using all the same sources and the ones above; the third paragraph is to show how this can run-into the other content, which needs to be trimmed but that will be a separate effort. There are other sources I'd like to find but I wanted to propose this first before investing more time on this.

Latin and Greek were the institutional languages of the Empire. (Rochette 2012, 2018) Knowledge of Greek was useful to pass as educated nobility and knowledge of Latin was useful for a career in the military, government, or law. (refer to Dickeys references on p4) Jorma Kaimio calls it bilateral unilingualism. Bruno Rochette suggests it is more like a diglossia; however, this still does not explain the complexity due to the mutual linguistic and cultural influence.(Rochette 2013,2018, Adams 2003) Greek had been the common language in the eastern provinces for centuries, and Magna Gracia significantly influenced Latin-speaking Rome.(Rochette 2018) Latin words were incorporated into Greek from the 4-6th centuries BCE to create a "Roman Greek", and Greek syntax, literature, poetry and philosophy developed Latin language and culture. (Dickey, Batstone, Rochette, Adams).

There was never a legal requirement for Latin in the Empire, but it did constitute "Romaness". (Adams 2003) James Noel Adams describes Latin as the language of power.(Adams 2003) Different emperors would attempt to enforce Latin, although there is no evidence that a language policy existed during the early principate and Republic. (Rochette 2018) It was not until the Diocletian reforms in the 3rd century CE that Greek usage decreased in the western provinces.(Rochette 2018) By the end of the 6th century, Latin was no longer a spoken language.

The Empire was deliberately multilingual.(Rochette 2018) As A. Wallace-Hadrill says, "The main desire of the Roman government was to make itself understood".

As this is a significant rewrite, I welcome feedback. I'm open to different copy and to consider other sources, but I believe the facts are well established by the sources above so I hope any discussion on them is constructive. Biz (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

This is good, but (writing quickly): the third and fourth sentences are not going to mean anything to a general reader and the point about the geographic division between the languages needs to be made sooner and more clearly. "4th-6th centuries BCE" is an error of some kind (if it is meant to be "CE", then note that Dickey argues that Latin words were being incorporated into Greek on a large scale much earlier than that). I'd say "influenced Latin language and culture". The first sentence of the second paragraph seems a little too abbreviated. "to enforce Latin": in particular contexts or for particular people? Without clarification this will appear to contradict the comment about legal requirements. The comment that Latin was no longer a spoken language needs some clarification, because of course vulgar Latin/neo-Romance was still spoken in many places. Furius (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
On reflection: The current first two paragraphs on language use a range of specific sources and dates, most of which disappear here. I'm not sure that this is a positive development. I agree that the Virgil quote is deletable, and the note on wills and birth certificates may be too specific, but the rest of para 1 of the current text seems to do a better job of laying out the basics:
Latin was the language of the law courts in the West and of the military throughout the Empire, but was not imposed officially on peoples brought under Roman rule. Koine Greek remained the shared language of the East, where official documents were regularly translated into Greek. The "linguistic frontier" passed through the Balkan peninsula. The everyday interpenetration of the two languages is indicated by bilingual inscriptions.
In the second paragraph, we lose the reference to Latinitas, Justinian, and a link to literary language, which ought somehow to be reincorporated. Furius (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I see you posted twice, I'll respond in line as they can be different conversations.
the third and fourth sentences are not going to mean anything to a general reader and the point about the geographic division between the languages needs to be made sooner and more clearly.
> Good point. I still think it's important as it's a big misunderstanding that exists. What we could do is add it as a note which has the double benefit of reducing word count but keeping that detail for people who want to understand more.
OK: "Jorma Kaimio calls it bilateral unilingualism. Bruno Rochette suggests it is more like a diglossia; however, this still does not explain the complexity due to the mutual linguistic and cultural influence." - I think "bilateral unilingualism" is an idiosyncratic term that doesn't really aid anyone's understanding. I'm not sure whether it helps to perpetuate it even in a note (more reasonable in the article specifically on languages of the Roman Empire, perhaps?). "Diglossia" is better, because we can link to the WP article diglossia. Rather than "this still does not explain ..." I'd go for something like "the mutual linguistic and cultural influence of Latin and Greek were very complex" (i.e. focussing on the phenomenon rather than the interpreters). Furius (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Bilingual is a term that is used, so maybe we use that with diglossia. Phenomenon versus interpreters is a great point as well. Rochette also make a distinction that starting with Diocletian things were different and was so until Justinian who restored it bilateral unilingualism so maybe we can call this out. Refer to the below rewrite.
>“The Empire was bilingual, in a state closer to a diglossia, and especially during the Dominate period[note expanding on this]. Latin and Greek’s mutual linguistic and cultural influence were very complex”.Biz (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
"Bilingual" suggests that everyone spoke both, which is (I think?) something that we're trying to avoid saying? Furius (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
That's true. It was only the educated that were bilingual. Adams says after 212, the majority of Citizens likely did not speak Latin either.
I now think we just make the point about the complexity and leave it at that. So we have the following text which follows that Latin and Greek were the languages of the empire. "Latin and Greek’s mutual linguistic and cultural influence were very complex" or "Latin and Greek’s mutual linguistic and cultural influence is a complex topic" {with a note exploring it: we can mention Rocehette's disglosia here and how different emperors had different policies, with reference to Rocehette's time buckets of 2nd century BCE to 284 and 284 to 439}. Biz (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
"4th-6th centuries BCE" is an error of some kind (if it is meant to be "CE", then note that Dickey argues that Latin words were being incorporated into Greek on a large scale much earlier than that).
No, that is not a mistake. Dickey suggests as early as the 6th century BC/BCE and its indisputable from the 4th century. Which challenges the current understanding that it will only after the 3rd century AD/CE. We could change this to just "4th century" rather than a range which is stronger in evidence and less confusing.
I think you'd express that as "6th-4th centuries BCE", but it might be easier to say "since the early Republic" or "well before the Imperial period". Furius (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I like that. Let’s write “early republic” in the next revision. I’m holding off on that until you say you’re comfortable with the rest (or anyone else). Biz (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
“Latin words were incorporated into Greek since the early Republic to create a "Roman Greek" Biz (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I'd say "influenced Latin language and culture".
> That could be how we write it and we move the rest as a note. Again, I believe this detail is important but agree it's also too much for everyone.
The first sentence of the second paragraph seems a little too abbreviated. "to enforce Latin": in particular contexts or for particular people? Without clarification this will appear to contradict the comment about legal requirements. The comment that Latin was no longer a spoken language needs some clarification, because of course vulgar Latin/neo-Romance was still spoken in many places
> Yes, fair point on "to enforce Latin". We could say "require the use of Latin in various sections of the administration", does that work? With regards to the Romance languages, I completely agree. The last paragraph of the current article covers this and I was planning to incorporate this once we deal with this section which is more focused on the Empire's working languages not its impact. Biz (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok on most of this. But, as for By the end of the 6th century, Latin was no longer a spoken language: I don't think this is true. Our articles on Vulgar_Latin#Imperial_and_Post_Imperial_Latin and History of Latin have the fragmentation of Latin occurring in the seventh century and the Romance languages becoming apparent in the 9th century. Obviously, the date is disputed and there was no one day when spoken Latin became Romance, but we shouldn't give the impression that Latin "died out", rather than morphing into something else.... Or, is this sentence meant to apply specifically to Latin in the East? Furius (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok let’s use 7th century. One of the sources in those articles (Carlton) says it was clear from the Islamic conquest of North Africa as regionalisation occurred due to the break up of lands affecting communication. So perhaps: “By the 7th century, classical Latin was no longer a spoken language, driven by the Empire’s loss of territory in the western provinces. This marks the fragmentation of Latin into the incipient Romance languages.”
Biz (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I'd prefer something like "Spoken Latin fragmented into the incipient Romance languages in the 7th century, as a result of the collapse of the western half of the empire." (or something - it's not the loss of territory per se that caused it, but the fact that the various Latin speaking territories no longer spoke to each other as much) Furius (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
That works. Though ultimately, loss of centralised state control over territory -- which is what encouraged Latin -- is why Latin speakers went their separate ways. The Vatican promoted Latin, but that did not seem to help prevent the evolution of Latin speakers. (We're ultimately saying the same thing so not fussed on this.) Biz (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
When I reviewed Rochette I decided to exclude those facts about the birth certificate as it distorts the point. What Rochette says (2018) p.116-118 is as follows (emphasis mine):
After the Constitutio Antoniniana (AD 212), according to a rule expressed by the Gnomon of the Idios Logos (BGU, V, 1210, ll. 35-37),47 a Roman will was valid only if it was performed in Latin, with the exception of the testamentum militis and the fideicommissum.48 In Egypt, the use of written Latin was limited to some specific fields: the Roman army, official correspondence, and certain Roman legal documents. Therefore, much of the Empire, especially the eastern provinces, wrote their wills in Greek. This created problems because it was difficult to preserve the requirements of Roman law. The difficulty was resolved by Severus Alexander. who authorized wills to be composed in Greek as well as Latin. The constitution of this emperor has not survived, but we can reconstruct it, thanks to a passage of the Novellae Theodosianae (AD 439).49 This evolution shows how powerful the Greek language was, even after the Constitutio Antoniniana, which consolidated the prestige of Greek."
By including that fact, birth certificates of citizens in Latin is a smoking gun of how dominant Latin was, when in reality, it was a temporary issue and actually the importance of Greek comes out and why Severus had to react accordingly. Basically, it's saying the opposite point.
Rochette also talks about the posturing done by people we use as primary sources and that we cannot rely on them. That is one of the many reasons why I thought Virgil should be excluded. It's a point that Dickey also talks about, how relying only on the literary records of elites that it distorts the real language being used and why the evidence she is introducing is so significant.
OK Furius (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Latin as the language of the military is also not correct. Below is a quote from Adams (2002)
P.200 "The place of Latin in the Roman army is a complicated matter, which cannot be entered into at length here. It will not do simply to assert, as is often done, that Latin was the 'official' language of the army. There are many official documents from the army in Egypt, for example, which are in Greek. It would, however, be true to say that Latin had the potential to symbolize the Romanitas of the institution and its members in appropriate circumstances."
OK Furius (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
"but was not imposed officially on peoples brought under Roman rule"
> We can return to this language but it's why I lead with it in the second paragraph with "There was never a legal requirement for Latin in the Empire, but it did constitute "Romaness" as this combined the main points of the duality Latin had.
OK Furius (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The "linguistic frontier" passed through the Balkan peninsula. The everyday interpenetration of the two languages is indicated by bilingual inscriptions.
> I don't think the linguistic frontier needs to be included here as it's emerging evidence that does not really matter for this section. The everyday interpenetration of the two languages is a good sentence introduced recently but I thought it became over-kill with my rewrite and it was not introducing any new evidence (ie, it correctly interpreted the existing sources of Adams and Rochette)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "emerging evidence". Ok on interpenetration. Furius (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
It’s recent (1911) archaeological evidence with more recent scholars (1980s) revising the interpretation. Ultimately, does not add much value including it. It's sentence bloat. Biz (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I think having a link to Jireček Line is fairly important. I'm aware that there have been revisions to the line, but does Rochette (whom we currently cite on the point) really claim that it is not a phenomenon at all? Furius (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I did not come across it in any of the sources I read, including Rochette. Ultimately, I just don't see how it adds value to the paragraph. Why do you think it's important? Biz (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
In the second paragraph, we lose the reference to Latinitas, Justinian, and a link to literary language, which ought somehow to be reincorporated.
> I thought using Adam's "Romaness" as opposed to Latinitas would be more useful but we can include it it just doesn't really add to the points being made and conflicts with Rochette who says there wasn't a language policy then. I used a reference to the end of the 6th century instead of Justinian as it was more general but we can do that instead. We can add literary languagein the next rewrite. Biz (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Romaness is surely broader than Latinitas? The former is about general culture (?), while the latter is specifically about language use. The latter is also a very widely used term, so it should appear. Furius (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes it's broader but it is related to the main point that needs to be made.
Rochette (2012) p554 per the reference in the current article's sentence discusses how Tiberius tried to elevate "pure Latininty as a force to unite the Empire by expunging Hellenisms" and that the political defence of Latin fell after Tiberius or even during his reign. But Rochette (2018) which I'm introducing here, titled "Was there a Roman linguistic imperialism during the Republic and the early principate" partly concludes with the following:
"There is nothing in the evidence that can justify the existence of a linguistic imperialism in Rome during the Republic and the early Principate. Romanization was a spontaneous phenomenon: the impulse came from the conquered countries themselves, as we have seen in the case of Cumae. The pars Orientis, where Greek was the dominant language was an exception. Greek remained the main language used in this part of the Imperium Romanum. The Greek language was so powerful that it was inevitable that mechanisms would emerge to defend the use of Latin. This was especially the case under the Julio-Claudians. Tiberius' attitude was very clear. His linguistic scruples can be interpreted as a response to the linguistic and cultural imperialism of Greek. Indeed, if one were to seek out imperialism, this would be found on the Greek side."
Rochette (2012) does continue to explore how Latin and Greek was used until Justinian. He questions, based on Adams 2003 questioning, that there was a language policy with Diocletian but suggests it was limited; during the reign of Theodosius II everything was Latin but we see the signs of Latin being abandoned first in 397 (judges could give sentences in both languages) but it was an Egyptian prefect in 439 that really made the change. When discussing Justinian, that he brought back bilingual monolingualism that had existed during the Republic and principate but by doing so, defacto made Greek the official language as Latin was no longer being spoken.
The first half of his conclusion is as such:
While Latin can be considered as the unifying link across the whole Roman Empire, the Romans never established an official language policy ensuring that the subjects of the empire had to learn Latin, which would have been doomed to fail. The complete story of language use during Roman history can be summed up as a compromise between Latin and Greek, while leaving space for other languages, even if there is rarely sufficient evidence to specify details. Although the Romans wanted their subjects to take an interest in Latin, they had to recognise that, in the eastern half of the empire, Greek had enough strength to impose itself. However, the conception that Latin was one of the criteria of romanitas was embedded in the Roman mindset. Latin had a symbolic value as the language of conquest and the language of prestige, especially in certain contexts, such as the army.
As such, I believe Latin and romanitas that Rochelle describes (or Romaness as Adams calls it) is the real point to make. The significance being that it was symbolism to project power. And as to one theory why this started, Rochelle (2018) writes this:
p. 118 Some paragraphs further on (II, 2, 5), Valerius Maximus mentions the humiliation of a Roman ambassador sent to Tarentum in 282, namely, L. Postumius Megellus. According to Dionysus of Halicarnassus and Appian, this man had attempted to negotiate with the Tarentines by speaking Greek. His Greek was so bad that his words provoked mockery from the city's inhabitants...the affront was so great that it was deemed by Rome to justify a declaration of war against Tarentum. According to Valerius Maximus, the best way to explain the role played by Latin, the language of Roman dignity, is to consider the "latin-only" rule has been a responses to the humiliation of Postumius Megellus: the Romans had learned from their own failure Biz (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
These comments related to Romanisation are one of the points this section should touch on (but obviously Romanisation is discussed elsewhere in the article also). However, the canonisation of standards of "proper" Latin (i.e. Latinity/Latinitas (and the Atticism of the Second Sophistic Greeks?)) is also important in a section on "language", isn't it?
BTW: Rochette's claim about Tiberius seems dubious (he wrote letters in Greek [1]) and Valerius Maximus 2.2.5 says nothing about Latin, so... Furius (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I believe in the context of this article, a section on language mentioning the purity of Latin with regards to identity is the only relevant thing to do. With regards to removing Greek influence in the language, I do think that is interesting as well but again, it goes back to the larger point that I've already explained which is the politics of using Latin as a symbol of power. Are there sources you want to introduce that explore this?
Rochette (2012, 2018) spends quite a bit of effort discussing Tiberius and yes he spoke Greek, I'm just giving the summary I suggest reading the source itself to get a more complete view. It's clear the whole issue of Greek and Latin needs to be looked at the particular circumstances of individual emperors (which Rochette does) rather than a consistent policy of the Empire (which Adams and Rochette both question).
Valerius Maximus. The "latin only" rule is confirmed by the jurist Triphonius (III century AD) D. 42, 1, 48: decreta a praetoribus Latine interponi debent. See Cascione & Masi Doria (2012: 1207). Rochette talks about this rule and exceptions and explores it along with clothing (the toga) as being symbols of Roman power. The story itself is referenced by Rochette in Kaimio (1979: 96), Gruen (1992: 229-230) and Wallace-Hadrill (2008: 59) but I've not reviewed them. Biz (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. I still think that the focus on "Latin vs Greek" is not everything. Latinitas is not just about relations with Greek, but about using a specific form of Latin (modelled on that of Cicero) and not other forms of Latin (e.g. avoiding quom and com). This is a development of the Roman imperial period; in the Republic, there seems to be more variety (and obviously Cicero didn't exist as a model). Sources: e.g. Bloomer, Latinity and Literary Society at Rome (2015); G. La Bua, Cicero and Roman Education (2019) p. 329ff.; perhaps Denis Feeney's Beyond Greek (2016) on Latin's advent as a literary language (although this is mostly about Republic). Furius (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the sources. I looked into them, my notes below
Bloomer (2015). I read the introduction as well as two reviews on JSTOR, the latter of which were negative (especially Christina Krauss). He makes the point that Latinitas was about a sense of status, which again, goes back to the point about Romaness.
Some things he says in the introduction:

  • “This book examines the social fiction behind the claims for cultured language at its Western, Roman beginnings.”
  • A sense of latiness developed as the same time as literature was developed”
  • 
“Against this richly layered landscape - and not in the stark cameo world of Latin vs Greek — a linguistic politics developed at Rome which had its own role to play in the evolution of Roman literature, in the developing of ideologies of what it was to be a Roman, and in the social and civil strife between Romans of different classes and statuses.”
G. La Bua, Cicero and Roman Education (2019) p. 329ff
  • The subheading is “Education and Latinitas”/
  • “linguistic values associated with aristocratic culture and power”
  • “Latinitas, a notion integrated into a consolidated system of aristocratic values, assisted Roman pupils in transforming themselves into virtuous speakers, destined to hold a respectable position in Roman elite society.
Denis Feeney's Beyond Greek (2016) I read the introduction, two things that stood out
  • “According to Cornell…an independent or autonomous Latin culture never had a chance to emerge”
  • “The nuances and always mobile relationship between “Romans” and “Greeks” will be a major focus of our investigation…and we will see…that the act of translation exposes a range of complex bi-directional asymmetries between Latin and Greek, Romans and Greeks.”
In conclusion, based on this review, I believe the same points are made. That Latin and Greek co-evolved (Latin language was upgraded due to Greeks richness and Latin literature started from Greek literature and then a process of bidirectional evolution) and that the Latin language was used as social status within the empire (and especially after Diocletian). And to your point about Latinitas, it's about social hierarchy among citizens, with Greek such a intruding topic due to the cultural imperialism felt by Latin speakers (and ultimately what drove it).
....So I hope this addresses your points. Once all concerns are cleared, I will draft a new re-write incorporating the above discussions. Biz (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for this. What I'm missing from the revised version, which I think these sources support, is some reference to the existence of a prestige version of Latin, associated (yes) with "Romanness" but also with "culturedness" (Bloomer and La Bua, as you report). The current section gives us that with the reference to "high standards of correct Latin (Latinitas), a linguistic movement identified in modern terms as Classical Latin"; the new version - for all its virtues - loses the Latinitas-vulgaritas point in its total focus on the Greek-Latin relationship. Furius (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I feel you're focussed on Latinitas as an end, whereas I see it as a means to being used for something else. Which is power and class, and that is what all the sources say. That's the point to make, I believe. Otherwise we are cherry picking statements from the sources to give the impression of a linguistic policy which isn't the case.
Case in point, the "culturedness" point is that Latin literature started (240 BCE) by a Greek slave and was due to copying Greek literature (including adapting the hexameter) until it could be called it own, which is also when Latinas started (Bloomer). Which is similar to how Latin as a symbol of power began, which was in 282 BCE due to the incident of Tarentum before the conquest of Magna Graecia. (Adams, Rocheete 2018).
The current article refers to Rochette (2012) that the Julio-Claudians encouraged Latinitas but Rochette (2018) makes his entire paper how the Julio-Claudians did not have a linguistic policy. And I understand the fatigue about talking about Greek, but again, this is what the context of it all was. Greek was cultural imperialism on Rome (Rochette 2018 p122) and so it was natural that a phenomenon like Latinitas developed to defend itself (Rochette 2018 p122), as a natural competition was created from this flexible approach to language by the Empire (Rochette 2018 p107).
I'm fine with saying that the Romance languages derive their origin from the Roman Empire's early preference in government for Latin in lands it used to control, but why else do we need to emphase Latinitas vulgaritas in the context of language in the Empire? Biz (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Below is my attempt at a revision following the discussion. @Furius I hope this addresses your concerns. Version with sources and links to follow once I can get confirmation this is directionally correct.
Latin and Greek were the main languages of the Empire. {Note 1} At the start of the Empire, knowledge of Greek was useful to pass as educated nobility and knowledge of Latin was useful for a career in the military, government, or law. Different emperors up until Justinian would attempt to require the use of Latin in various sections of the administration but there is no evidence that a linguistic imperialism existed during the early Empire.. Many citizens did not speak Latin following the Constitutio Antoniniana in 212 CE. It was not until the Diocletian reforms in the 3rd century CE that Greek usage decreased in the western provinces. Spoken Latin would later fragment into the incipient Romance languages in the 7th century CE following the collapse of the Empire’s west.
Latin and Greek’s mutual linguistic and cultural influence is a complex topic. Latin words were incorporated into Greek well before the imperial era, and during the Republic, to create a "Roman Greek”. Greek syntax, literature, poetry and philosophy influenced Latin language and culture.
There was never a legal requirement for Latin in the Empire, but it represented a certain status. High standards of Latin, Latinitas, started with the advent of Latin literature. Over time it was used to project power and a higher social class. Due to the flexible approach to language by the Empire, a natural competition of language emerged and a means to defend Latin (particularly due to the Hellenistic influence on Rome).
The Empire was deliberately multilingual. As Andrew Wallace-Hadrill says, "The main desire of the Roman government was to make itself understood". The dominance of Latin and Greek among the literate elite obscures the continuity of other spoken languages within the Empire.
Note 1. Its been called 'bilingualism' but that's only true of the educated and so Bruno Rochette suggests it’s more appropriate as a diglossia but concedes this still does not adequately explain it, as Greek was "high" against Latins "Super-high". Latin experienced a period of spreading from the second century BCE, and especially in the western provinces, but not as much in the eastern provinces. In the east, Greek was always the dominant language, entrenched from the long Hellenistic Age that predated the Empire Biz (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate the work that you're doing here. I'm happy on the point about standards of Latin and mostly on the question of Latin's role in government and status. So, my comments are now mostly me nitpicking about exactly how the points are expressed:
  • The geographic divide (with or without the Jireček Line, on which see for example: [2] ) is still underplayed. The reader shouldn't have to consult a note in order to discover that Latin dominated in the west and Greek in the east.
  • The sentence about the Constitutio Antoniniana reads as a non sequitur at the moment. The reader will think "why did the constitutio cause citizens to stop knowing Latin?" "Did citizens know Latin before that?"
  • Greek usage decreased after Diocletian: without some earlier comment on Greek usage in the west this again may give the wrong impression (i.e. that Greek was just as widely used in the West as Latin before Diocletian). In general, I think a positive sentence would be better (i.e. "after Diocletian's reforms..."), but
  • --> "Spoken Latin later fragmented"
  • "to create a "Roman Greek" gives the impression that this was the intended goal. My understanding is that it was more of an organic process. "creating what **** calls a "Roman Greek."
  • I think the sentence about "Various emperors up to Justinian..." belongs in the same paragraph as "There was never a legal requirement..."
  • I can't quite parse "a natural competition of language emerged and a means to defend Latin (particularly due to the Hellenistic influence on Rome)"
  • "The Empire was deliberately multilingual. As Andrew Wallace-Hadrill says, "The main desire of the Roman government was to make itself understood"." ought to come earlier? Perhaps the first sentence could be "Latin and Greek were the main languages of the Empire, but the Empire was deliberately multilingual" and the Wallace-Hadrill quote could go with the sentence about the lack of legal requirement?
Furius (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  1. That's fair. I'm struggling on how we can best express this without it being too wordy which is why I put it in the note. Jireček Line is fine, it just seems more interesting for an article about Balkan countries than this topic but it's either that or a link Greek East and Latin West. Should we drop the note then and include this text in the body or can you suggest better?
  2. Would "The Constitutio Antoniniana in 212 CE would have changed the dynamic of Latin speakers into a minority" be better?
  3. This comes from Rochette (2018). I'm going to quote him here because maybe I'm interpreting this wrong, but Greek was widely spoken. In fact, the new source we are introducing (ie, Dickey (2023)), on page 610, talks about Galen, "probably the most important Greek medical writer after Hippocrates, lived in Rome in the second century ad; his works had enormous influence on later medical writers...There is no evidence that Galen actually knew Latin; his presence in Rome does not prove that he spoke the language, since at that date the city was sufficiently bilingual that he would not have needed Latin to live or work there." But back to Rochette:
    "Since the second century BC, from the age of the Scipios, the cultured members of the Roman elite had been bilingual. Being a cultured Roman in Cicero's time meant a close familiarity with the Greek language and culture. Greek was the language of culture and philosophy. The importance of Greek in Rome remained high during the three first centuries AD. However, a progressive decline in the language's status subsequently became evident. The Greek culture of Pliny the Younger was not the same as that of Cicero, and the culture of Symmachus was not the same as that of Pliny. Pliny used Greek less frequently in his letters than did Cicero, and Symmachus less frequently than did Pliny. However, this decline in the use of Greek was not linear. Greek influence in Rome reached a new height during the second century AD. Marcus Aurelius wrote his book in Greek, according to the stoic tradition. During the fourth century, there was a sharp decline in the knowledge of Greek in the West. Greek was still studied at school, but people were less familiar with the language. The causes of this progressive decline in the use of the Greek language are difficult to identify. According to Marrou, the growth of national Roman literature led to the decline in the use of Greek. Vergil superseded Homer not only at school, but also in the culture of the educated elite. The division of the Empire by Diocletian and the creation of new administrative centers (Treveri and Milan in the West, Nicomedia and Antioch in the East) was a decisive factor in the decline of the use of Greek in Rome. The presence of a Latin court at Nicomedia favoured the circulation of Latin texts in the Greek East. Subsequently, the foundation of Constantinople by Constantine created a new Rome in the East. The political division between East and West following the death of Julian generated less necessity to send westerners to serve in the eastern provinces."
  4. Agreed
  5. Your feedback is right on. I've now got full access to Dickey (2023) and seeing this in a new light. I want to read some more on this so will hold from commenting further, but I think we need to drop "Roman Greek". But as an aside, what's clear from Dickey's book that I've read so far is that the big idea is Latin's influence on Greek did not start in the third century CE but since the time of Magna Gracia and by the 4th century BCE it was was indisputable. (A big reason being the Roman's used Greek to present themselves to the outside world.)
  6. Agreed
  7. This also is from Rocheete. Going to quote him again to explain how I wrote this so you can be inspired for a better rewrite:
    Page 107 (abstract): "Even though Latin-Greek bilingualism was widespread among the Romans of the Republic and the early Principate, in the public context, Latin maintained a high-level role because it represented the language of Rome's power. In spite of this flexible approach to language, a natural competition developed between the language of the dominant and the language of the dominated."...P.112 (conclusion) "The Greek language was so powerful that it was inevitable that mechanisms would emerge to defend the use of Latin. This was especially the case under the Julio-Claudians. Tiberius' attitude was clear. His linguistic scruples can be interpreted as aresponse to the linguistic and cultural imperialism of Greek. Indeed, if one were to seek out imperialism, this would be found on the Greek side".
  8. Agreed.
Biz (talk) Biz (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
On 3, something like Rochette's phrase "sharp decline in the knowledge of Greek in the West" seems like the way to go. It makes the point about a change without suggesting that one could get by with Greek alone in, say, Roman Britain.
On 5, I guess dropping the term is best. We were meant to be making the article shorter, now that I think of it... I'm really glad that you've got access to Dickey 2023; it's clearly a milestone and deserves broad circulation (insofar as any book on ancient languages does) and I think incorporating it into WP articles will help with that.
Ah, my lunchbreak is over. I'll try to come back to 1, 2, 7 in the evening. Furius (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I've not kept up with this discussion or read all the above, but it seems that you're taking on two major tasks: to assess current scholarship and to condense that into a brief summary. At the start of this section, we say that the main article is Languages of the Roman Empire, and ideally we'd want this section to be in accord with that. Would it be easier first to review and develop the body of that article, without the constraints on length that are suffered here, and then its lead, with discussion on that article's talk page? Among other things, you might attract contributions from people who watch that article but not this one. This summary might then be a more succinct version of that lead, one that doesn't have to serve both as a summary and as an introduction to the article body. NebY (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. That's a good idea. What started as an investigation in word count has become now about concisely communicating the latest scholarship.
Two points to make though as to why it belongs here.
(1) This revised text better aligns with Languages of the Roman Empire. The current text in this article implies a linguistic policy which is not what the sources say and especially not the latest scholarship (such as Rochette, who seems to specifically clarify a claim he made in his 2012 paper that this article highlights). As Languages of the Roman Empire leads with "Latin and Greek were the dominant languages of the Roman Empire" (emphasis not mine), this new revision aligns better with that article.
(2) This is not just about specific languages. This proposed text would not fit under any sub-heading of the current Languages of the Roman Empire. This is because it's discussing the complex bidirectional influence and 'cohabitation' of the two main languages of the Empire. Yes, that would also be useful for the lead of Languages of the Roman Empire but that's a separate matter. Biz (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

364 not 395

Currently, in the info box (and beyond) it shows

27 BC–AD 395 (unified)

AD 395–476/480 (Western)

AD 395–1453 (Eastern)

How strongly supported is 395? I've struggled to see how. I see this all around Wikipedia but without a source. I understand this is used as when Theodosius died as the last "unifed emperor" but that's not entirely true. That was Theodosius II (in 425) and, nominally, Marcianus (456–457), and Leo I (457, 461, 465–467, 472–473), during vacancies in the West.

The historian Anthony Kaldellis believes 364 is a more natural cut off point as this is when different administrations were formed with Valentinian I and Valens that continued on with Theodosius's sons. This is a source that supports this view (page 3): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I6aQjcxem4viTf_t0j8OJxPQHy_2QjVr/view

Do people support this view for an edit? Biz (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The idea of 395 as the epochal date is pretty widespread. It's used by D. S. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180-395 (2004), Paul Stephenson, New Rome: The Roman Empire in the East, AD 395 - 700 (2022), to name two significant recent books.
Vacancies in the west under Theodosius II, Marcianus, and Leo aren't really the same thing as Theodosius I, who was actually governing both halves. Anthony Kaldellis is a very good historian, but he is often revisionist and I don't think we should update the article to conform to revisionist ideas unless there is evidence that they've been accepted more widely. I'm not clear whether the pdf you link is a WP:RS. It doesn't cite any sources on those pages. Furius (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Great! We should have these sources added as this fact is an opinion.
It's from here: https://sites.google.com/a/umich.edu/imladjov/chronologies.
I'm not familiar with those historians so will look into this further. Biz (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Eastern Roman emperors

User:Furius blanked the list of emperors from the infobox after 500 AD citing that it furthers the "misleading" idea of the "Byzantine continuation". The "continuation" is not misleading, it is consensus. The Eastern Romans are Roman and have been given the name "Byzantine" as an academic shorthand, with some scholars suggesting unnecessarily so and leads to the actually misleading idea of more of a sharp disconnect than there actually was. Can't blank a section of the article just on personal opinion of who gets to be who.

At the very best, there could be an annotation after AD 500 signifying Eastern Roman emperors, but no ideology-based blanking. TangoFett (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The Byzantine continuation is, of course, real. I don't deny that. What is misleading is having an infobox which presents it as if that continuation is covered by this article, which it isn't (e.g. in the section "Roman_Empire#Arts" there is [rightly] nothing about art after the 4th century AD).
The infobox currently lists 14 emperors, which is way more than it should. Only 7 of them relate to the period before 400, which is what the text of the article actually covers. Several of these later Roman emperors (e.g. Basil, Manuel) are not even mentioned in the text of the article. Similarly, the "Historical era" section includes a number of events after 480 AD, like the Fourth Crusade, which are not even mentioned in the text. They should not be appearing in the infobox as significant emperors and events for the topic of this article.
Note that Byzantine empire doesn't list Augustus as one of the "notable emperors" there. Furius (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
At first glance it did seem like an odd edit .....but agree with Furius rationale here. The article doesn't cover after the fall of the western Empire.... except for one passage letting us know about how historians divided these time periods. Moxy- 02:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Agreed - they aren't covered in this article, and the infobox is a good deal too long as it is. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
There are two separate issues here:
  • the length of the emperors in the box
  • the year this article counts as the last for the "Roman Empire".
For the length, I support cutting it down.
For the date, it is well established that the Edward Gibbon view is no longer appropriate. I don't want to suggest what is appropriate, but if we are not discussing Peter Brown, Mary Beard, and Anthony Kaldellis's view points then we are not discussing this in the right way.
Which means I support the existing version until this discussion is had. Otherwise, we are side stepping the actual issue. Biz (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Whatever we do, or whatever we call them, we aren't going to ram Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire together; both are already far too long by WP:LENGTH. In fact, rather oddly, they are nearly identical at 245k bytes - way over what they are supposed to be. You been harping on this in various places, without demonstrating that the (fairly) traditional terms have been overturned. Johnbod (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I thought I just did. Let's start with the easy one. Late antiquity (that's my reference to Peter Brown for the uninitiated) is the dominant view on Roman history and defines it ending as the 8th century. So why is this article using the Gibbon view of the fall of the western empire and the 5th century, when Gibbon has now been disregarded by modern reputable scholars and is considered a relic of the enlightenment?
(And for the record as apparently I need to state this, I believe the Byzantine Empire article will always need to exist, not trying to ram anything together.) Biz (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Furius and Johnbod. We had this discussion exhaustively, oh, something like ten years ago when the scope of the article by topic was being outlined.
Not being uninitiated, I don't think you are taking Peter Brown in the dual context of what his work is actually about and the scope of this article. The answer to "why" this article doesn't extend to the 8th century (why not go all the way through Charlemagne then?) is that almost everything the article has to say would have to be doubled in length to describe the cultural changes that we've come to call "Byzantine"—the way of life this article describes in terms of social class and questions of citizenship and how one enters and rises in the political career track, the amphitheaters and ludi, the aqueducts and baths, visual culture, elite domus and villa life, whether you read from a roll or a codex, Roman religion (which can't be emphasized enough—Symmachus would be happy to tell you precisely when the Roman Empire ended), and the wearing of the toga and its significance was no longer the culture.
This is an article about what used to be called a "civilization" and what its identifiers are, not just a governmental structure or name-only title. Somewhere there used to be an article quoting a scholar (maybe Peter Brown) observing that there was no particular twenty-four-hour period within which people went to bed in antiquity and woke up the next morning in the Middle Ages. The purpose of the article Late antiquity is to account for that transition, which would not have been perceptible if a human were long-lived enough to experience those four centuries in time, but which we see at both ends. See also classical tradition, which extends the influence of the Roman Empire infinitely. The purpose of this article is to define "Roman Empire" as a useful cultural signifier.
So exactly what is the plan here? When you expand the scope of the article by centuries through editing an infobox that defines it, will you be going through and adding all that content to cover those added centuries? You'll find that the sources won't be the same, for the very reason that it's a different academic specialization of study. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your considered response. I do not intend for my pallium to bother those who choose to wear toga's in this forum.
However, it has to be asked -- if this is intended to be an article about Roman Civilization (and more specifically, classical Roman) and the article is already too big -- then why are we not placing more weight on Mary Beard's position that it ends in 212?
I did a search for "Beard" in the archives and she's not mentioned. When I find some time I might go and read the archives but I think my question still stands. I'm trying to understand the decision in the context of WP:HISTRS. Biz (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is Roman Empire; it's preceded by Roman Kingdom and Roman Republic. We do also have Ancient Rome, which encompasses all three; perhaps you'd like to suggest at Talk:Ancient Rome that it should follow the scope of Beard's SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome (a blockbuster which also includes kingdom, republic and empire) and end in 212. Or do you want to split this article into Roman Empire up to 212 and Roman Empire after 212? NebY (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think I could stomach splitting the Empire again. No not at all. A discussion already exists on Talk:Ancient Rome and I do think that's an appropriate place for this, despite the discomfort this gives to the Late Antiquitians. As for this article, I don't know what's best. (I just wanted to see if there was a better carpet the historiography can be swept under.) Biz (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm happy to see there is no current discussion at Talk:Ancient Rome, so there's no point in my correcting the serious misrepresentation of Beard there. I strongly suggest holding back on re-opening discussion and proposing that we use different periods for our Rome articles until that is supported by a clearly predominant view in modern scholarship; until then, you wouldn't be presenting a realistic proposal and WP:NOTFORUM would apply. NebY (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Sure. Since you asked, the clearly predominant view in modern scholarship is well established. Mary Beard, Anthony Kaldellis, Bruno Rochette, to name three reputable scholars that I've read this last week all say in obvious language or explicitly that the Roman Empire did not end in 476. Gibbon, the lead philosophy behind this article,and the edits that started this thread (not by me) are implying it did.
I take it your reading "this last week" did not include Gibbon, who it seems to me you consistently misrepresent, and seem somewhat obsessed with. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire starts in 98 and finishes around 1481; 476 comes exactly halfway through, in chapter 36 of 71. Johnbod (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
You got me. I skipped Gibbon and tea this week and I knew I shouldn't have.
Yes, I said implied. The Eastern Empire, or rather Constantine, brought in Christianity which he says is what brought down the Romans and which he despised; the Western Empire still has remnants of the Republic that Gibbon admired so much. So when that was gone, he was just left with the bad stuff and why in chapter 48 he skips over 600 years in 50 pages. There's a lot more to say but I don't want to be accused of WP:NOTFORUM again.
....Except just one thing: Gibbon's thesis, based on limited sources (and in the case of Constantine, an entire reliance on Zozimus), can be said to be simply a reflection of his times critiquing his contemporary despots and not actually a useful analysis of the Roman Empire's decline. Before we call the pars Orientis a different culture, or a different civilization to the "Roman Empire", isn't Saturnalia and/or Dies Natalis Solis Invicti just Christmas but with reindeer?
This article has a choice to make one day as the scholarship increasingly demands it: scope down, perhaps as the classical Roman Empire or maybe even until Diocletian (and great news we can use Gibbon for that), or open up to cover the full Imperium Romanum. I'd support either option. However, the issue that started this thread is just a symptom of this delayed decision. Ending the narrative at the 5th century for the "Roman Empire" is no longer the scholarly consensus. Biz (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
This is not a proposal to integrate the Byzantine Empire article with this article or to change this article. This is my response that editors of this article are not complying with the intent of WP:HISTRS by removing Roman emperors after the 5th century. Biz (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Do Kaldellis and Rochette say the Roman Empire ended in 212? Beard doesn't. NebY (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
They don't, and what I meant earlier is that Beard says Classical Rome ended in 212. The Classical Roman Empire, which it appears this article is trying to align with based on the discussion that's evolved, overlaps with this modern scholarship and that is being in compared in impact to Gibbon (but it's still too early to tell). Biz (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Does Mary Beard say that the Roman Empire ended in 212 AD? I thought she says that she chooses to end her book there, because her paradigm in that particular book centres on conquered/conquerors. At any rate, she's being provocative and I think it would be wrong to treat her work as the communis opinio. In her Religions of Rome book she goes down to the 5th century. Furius (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
No. Yes. Maybe. Her point is when the citizenship was opened up to the entire population, it became a different era. In the context of her focus being the City of Rome (ie, the artist formally known as Republican), this is not provocative and -- actually -- deeply conservative. She deliberately ends her history in 212 and concludes she has covered the first millennium of "ancient Rome" and distinguishes "Rome's second millennium" but for someone else to tell that story. But to answer your question another way, her next book (Emperor of Rome) writes about the emperors ending with Severus who, as you know started the fireworks. My question was not about saying this is when the Empire should end, but rather, is there a better story we can accept that accounts for the latest scholarship but without breaking the bank, so to speak Biz (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
So, it is an important moment, as the article emphasises at various points. But not the end of "the Roman empire". I don't see how this justifies having Basil II and friends in the infobox. Furius (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree: reducing the list was needed. (Or remove it completely.) Just don't cut it off at the 5th century. Balance it out otherwise this is making a position that is not supported by reliable sources (in the WP:HISTRS approach at least). Biz (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Why dont we just link the FA article List of Roman emperors....as seen here Moxy- 02:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, let's. That article has its own issues and debates, but linking to it is still better than continually struggling to produce a compact list, given all the conflicting criteria of dates, significance, fame/notoriety, duration, location and whatever else. NebY (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
That sounds like an excellent idea; why don't all infoboxen do this? Furius (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it's an excellent idea, and achievable. As to why it's not already the done thing, I suppose some folks just like filling infoboxen. To maximum possible blueness. So much for key facts... Haploidavey (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes - many composer bios do this, to a list of works. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Good solution, thank you.
Suggestion: Instead of (list), make it "Full list of emperors"?
@TangoFett you good with this as a compromise? Biz (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I think that's a very clever idea! Makes everyone happy and helps the infobox do its job better at conveying all necessary key information without getting too big. I agree with @Furius, this should be more normalized in history articles. TangoFett (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a bridge too far, but could we also apply this to the "historical era" section, replacing the rather long list of events with a link to Timeline of Roman history? Furius (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
There's very useful guidance at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. This article does discuss the legacy of the Roman Empire and the transformation of part of it into the Byzantine Empire, but that is not its focus and the dates of those Eastern emperors are not key facts for this article. NebY (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Citation Needed Has Been Found

Hello! We found a citation that is required for the "Performing Arts" section of the page. The last sentence of the third paragraph says "Instruments are widely depicted in Roman art". Information pertaining to this can be found in Donald Emrys Strong, Jocelyn M. C. Toynbee, and Roger Ling's book Roman Art. I have attached the link to the book on Google Scholar, the page where the validity of this statement can be confirmed is page 65.

[1]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mFTYtEWy_H4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=instruments+in+roman+art&ots=XT4y1ZjQnk&sig=pGS7dcYEr93KDjzCb3UoFpx7_9c#v=onepage&q=instruments&f=false

Wikipedia needs an article about Salutatio

Please, make "salutatio", in the article, a clickable word, linking to an article about Roman salutatio.

Do historians use primary historical sources for roman empire history or secondary historical sources?

Do historians have roman empire scrolls as their primary historical source?

Grammar correction.

In the section "Transition from Republic to Empire", the word "predominate" should be "dominate".

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2023

Change "5,000,000 km2 (1,900,000 sq mi)" to "4,000,000 km2 (1,500,000 sq mi)" as to keep consitancy with the Ancient Rome page. 70.40.81.151 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: the 5 million figure is for AD 117, and agrees with the other article RudolfRed (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Military Dictatorship instead of Semi-Elected Absolute Monarchy

The infobox describes the government of the Roman Empire as being a Semi-Elected Absolute Monarchy, but I don't know if that is an accurate description. There was still a large amount of power in Republican institutions, though these were gradually eroded over time. The 'monarchy' was not absolute. There were also significant periods when the empire was not ruled by a single 'monarch', but multiple officials.

It may be more accurate to describe it as a 'Military Dictatorship', as most power was held by the military. Or maybe something else. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Nicene Christianity as official religion

People usually think that Christianity became the official religion in the 380 AD but is wrong, that edict was just for the city of Constantinople, not for all the Empire, and against other christian heresies, not against pagans. The year when Nicene Christianity became official was 491 AD when Anastasius I became emperor and he had to swear to protect Imperial Orthodoxy, and after him the following emperors. 83.58.27.132 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I would say it was really when Justinian came to the throne that we saw enforcement of Christianity. From the time of Constantine, it was a gradual process so you are correct 380 is not some watershed moment. But 380 is significant because it set in motion an official state preference for Christianity over paganism, and while theological disputes distracted the Empire (and that Anastasius did his best to resolve), the truth is the basic religious culture had become homegenised by that point.
Anthony Kaldellis in his new history published this year believes 212 is a turning point. In the sense of where the idea of a pan-Roman religion of Empire started developing. He points out how Decius in 249 required all citizens to make a public sacrifice which in itself was not novel but post 212 was unprecedented. The certificate of compliance he required basically mobilised the imperial bureacracy to enforce religious conformity. Biz (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I would say that it came towards the end of the time Constantine had enforced laws after he had believed that Jesus Christ was the overall reason that he was victorious, he the mandated religious tolerance throughout the empire. Only believing that tolerance for the faith which came to known as Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alecwarbl3 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Dates in the infobox

As seen in other articles like the Byzantine Empire as an example, including important historical dates in the evolution of the empire is notable enough. Welcome to discuss it further PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

We include many important dates in the infobox already, including some of these. We have dates even above the graphics, an animated dated map, dates of different capitals and religions, and much more; yet another schedule defeats MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. As WP:OTHERCONTENT highlights, on Wikipedia we can't expect to be consistent with all other articles, and the Roman Empire as a subject is sui generis, one which we do not represent well to the reader if we indicate that the most important matters are repeated schedules of dates - contrast the current infobox with the table of contents. NebY (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
All but one of these dates already appear elsewhere in the infobox. I think it's fine to cut them. Furius (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Yesterday, prior to seeing this discussion, I removed the dates from Byzantine Empire with the same reasoning of duplicated information. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Capital

User: Rheskouporis, that date there in the infobox is very much a mistake, unfortunately. Constantinople becoming a new capital, a "new Rome" in the East, is not equivalent to the old Rome being stripped of its capital status. It's important to understand what the word "capital" ("caput imperii"=capital of the empire; "caput mundi" or "caput orbis"=capital of the world) meant to the Romans. Rome, as the city that originated the Romans, as the place where the Senate was based, as the most populated urban centre, as a community that was fed and supplied by the rest of the empire by law, etc. etc. was "capital" by definition. Even if the Emperor was elsewhere Rome was not stripped of its capital status and of all the privileges associated with it. This is why Constantinople, to be a new capital, had to be a "New Rome", had to have its own Senate, had to have its own 7 hills, had to have grain supplies specifically designed to feed the city like Rome etc. Rome lost its status as Imperial capital because the Empire there fell, leaving only the Eastern Roman Empire and hence only Constantinople as capital.

So I think the better dates for the capital should be: Rome "(27 BC-476 AD)", even though 476 is conventional as one could say Odoacer pretended to be a Patrician for the Emperor in Constantinople, but that is not a point I am raising; whereas for Constantinople we can mantain "(330-1453)", even though that's another convention as for example it's 357 the year in which the Senate of Constantinople was put on par with that in Rome, but this is not a point I am raising either.

A proof that Rome continued to be considered "capital of the empire" after 330 is that, when it is sacked in 410, ancient authors explicetely say that "the capital of the empire" was sacked. Let me quote Saint Jerome, Letter 128 (text here: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001128.htm), on the sack of 410: 

The world sinks into ruin: yes! But shameful to say our sins still live and flourish. The renowned city, the capital of the Roman Empire, (in Latin: Romani imperii caput) swallowed up in one tremendous fire.

Barjimoa (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The various capitals of the Western Roman Empire were Rome, Mediolanum, Ravenna, Salona, and Spalatum. Dimadick (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
But these were not made official capitals of the Roman empire; rather they were, altough it's still significant, seats of the Western Roman Emperor. The presence of the Emperor by itself was not what made a city the capital. And even if we consider these cities capitals as well, their role did not strip Rome of its official capital status either. Barjimoa (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Citation needed on Diocletian's Great Persecution

I saw this on the citation hunter in Wikipedia. While the Diocletian Persecution has its own article, it has no citation yet in this article.

Shouls we cite "Gaddis, 24" and "Eusebius: The History of the Church (1989)" there?

I'm a new user, so I can't edit the article and still asking for advice RFNirmala (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

21st century scholarship is preferred. Biz (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Reference 18

Can someone provide the quote of Wolff, Robert Lee (1948). "Romania: The Latin Empire of Constantinople? The whole text seems like OR. Beshogur (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

If you sign up for the Wikipedia Library you can read it yourself[3]! I assume that by "the text" you mean what's currently note a, beginning "Other ways of referring to the "Roman Empire" among the Romans..." Wolff's article, which begins "The name Romania was regularly given to the Latin Empire of Constantinople by its contemporaries. To save the tedious multiplication of examples, it is probably sufficient to point out that ..." seems to relate only to the last sentence of note a. You might want to start with his Conclusions on p32, beginning "This investigation has now reached the point where it is safe to conclude that by the year 1204 the word Romania had acquired in the west two distinct meanings and two distinct traditions. With the end of the Roman Empire in the west it had lost its meaning of Orbis Romanus and in most cases had come to mean simply the Romagna. In its first new meaning of Byzantine Empire it did not come into general vogue in western Europe before the year 1080 - although there are isolated instances of its appearance sooner ..." NebY (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
So whole text is a WP:OR? Beshogur (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Also can someone tell me what's the self referring name of the Roman Empire? SPQR? Beshogur (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
"Imperium Romanum" (Roman Empire) was the self reffering name of Roman Empire. SPQR was the name of senate, the government of Roman Empire.. 149.140.105.36 (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I mean is Imperium Romanum or Imperium Romanorum used by the Roman Emperors? Curious because the infobox should correctly use this. Beshogur (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Tacitus would still refer to the Res Publica and it's what the state was called for as long as people spoke Latin (ie, until the time of Justinian in government and in the military during Hercaclius). Imperium Romanum was more specific to the emperor, which I suppose reflected the government and superseded SPQR.
The Romans (and later the Byzantines) liked to pretend they were a republic for several centuries after this ceased to be the case in any real sense. Imperial decrees were given rubber-stamp ratification by the Senate. In the same way, from the 1720s to 1858, the various highly competitive powers in India, including the British, all formally recognized the Mughal Emperor as supreme ruler, when he had no power whatsoever. Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes. We can say that looking back that de jure power and de facto power were different.
Yes, it's the root of the word republic. But it actually translates better as 'public affair'. Which is also seen to mean as the state or the commonwealth. The Greek equivalent politia is similarly loaded with meaning, and still in use today with modern Greeks.
There was no pretending: that's what it was. (At least to the people per Beshogur's question, maybe not to the historians.) Biz (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
We've removed non-English names from the Byzantine Empire info box because the article name is priority and it just leads to never ending edit battles otherwise. The info box is no place to explain complexity. I suggest the same is done for this page. FWIW, Ancient Rome articles uses Roma and we should create consistency. Biz (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree. But I was referring to official names on the infobox eg Mongol Empire -> Great Mongol Nation & Ottoman Empire -> Sublime Ottoman State. Since there was no clear definition was Roman Empire was called, we should leave only Roman Empire without translation. The text is pure WP:OR. Name section can be expanded with reliable sources tho. Beshogur (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. "Roman Empire" is a modern construct for periodisation of a state that spanned 2000 years. Biz (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
It's even more problematic because the concepts of Roman Republic and Roman Empire existed in antiquity, but their meanings have been altered in modern conventions. "Romanum Imperium" referred to Roman rule, and could refer to the job of ruling and commanding (as vested into consuls and later emperors), or to the territorial extent of Roman rule (which is more similar to a modern/colonial concept of Empire, as opposed to "a state ruled by an emperor"). Hence the Romans talked of a Roman empire way before Augustus. The "Res Publica" was the "public thing", something akin to "state" or "government" or "politics", and it continued to exist even after Augustus. In modern conventions we call "Roman Republic" what Cicero and Tacitus called the Libera Res Publica, that is to say the "Res Publica" as it functioned before the Caesars and the Augusti. And they have called "Roman empire" the age of the Augusti. Barjimoa (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Community Consensus: Change semi-elective absolute monarchy (de facto) to Despotism (de facto)

Title says it all. According to Montesquieu, "monarchy" does not do justice to the despotic and autocratic Cæsars. In Spanish it's called "Autocracia", check out the Spanish wikipedia. 190.141.81.136 (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not our job to point fingers and moralise. However, I see no justification for keeping "semi-elective", and "monarchy" neglects the periods within the scope of this article when the empire had two emperors - and of course there was the tetrarchy. I'd favour simply changing Semi-elective absolute monarchy (de facto) to Autocracy, a term which does encompass single and multiple autocrats and isn't (unlike "autocratic") loaded. NebY (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Given the recent edit, adding my comment to show consensus: yes, autocracy is the most appropriate term. Biz (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Empire/Archive_12&oldid=1240944057"