Talk:Roman Empire/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Use–mention in the lead

I agree with @NebY that it's necessary to explicate that "Roman Empire" refers equally to a period of Roman history, and the territory controlled by Romans during that period. That said, might it be possible to write this in a way that avoids use–mention issues? i.e., implying that the article topic is the term "Roman Empire", as opposed to the period and territory. Remsense诉 14:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

How about changing it from "The Roman Empire is generally understood to mean the period and territory ..." to "The Roman Empire is, in common usage, the period and territory ..." or even "The Roman Empire is, broadly speaking, the period and territory ..."? NebY (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes! I think all are very much improved, with a slight preference to the last option. Remsense诉 14:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with having a nice concise lead sentence and THEN saying "It is generally understood to mean..." in the second sentence? It's the same exact information, just laid out in such a way that allows the first sentence to not be a confusing run on with "the post republican state of ancient rome" slapped on the end. It has been like this for about a month? So why are we defending this new lead sentence so hard. SaturatedFatts (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The Roman Empire was the post-Republican state of ancient Rome. It is generally understood to mean the period and territory ruled by the Romans following Octavian's assumption of sole rule under the Principate in 27 BC.

• This was changed 12 June because "The roman empire existed before the post-Republican state" which I agree with as change. Its covered in the history section.
• Breaking this back up into two sentences works for me,
• The use of "is" and "was". Although verbs, both are still in the passive voice so not appropriate. Active voice would be something like: "The Roman Empire succeeded the Roman Republic as the ruling regime of the state."
• Other pages of the Roman state seem to use "was" (and could do with rewrite if anyone is inclined)
  • The Roman Kingdom, also referred to as the Roman monarchy or the regal period of ancient Rome, was the earliest period of Roman history when the city and its territory were ruled by kings.
  • The Roman Republic (Latin: Res publica Romana [ˈreːs ˈpuːblɪka roːˈmaːna]) was the era of classical Roman civilization beginning with the overthrow of the Roman Kingdom (traditionally dated to 509 BC) and ending in 27 BC with the establishment of the Roman Empire following the War of Actium.
  • In modern historiography, the Western Roman Empire refers to the western provinces of the Roman Empire, collectively, during any period in which they were administered separately from the eastern provinces by a separate, independent imperial court.
  • The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, was the continuation of the Roman Empire centered in Constantinople during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

Biz (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

So just like the Republic/Kingdom, it refers to a period and territory, but for some reason has to be the only era of Roman history that doesn't begin with a nice concise sentence saying "The Roman Empire was...". Also, the lead was exactly what I changed it to for a long time, until recently. And exactly what misstatement was there? I think leaving this new lead sentence up while we debate this is also very silly, it has been the lead sentence for only a month or so and in my opinion sounds horrible... SaturatedFatts (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Longevity is not itself a reason why content should be one way or another, see WP:BEENHERE
2. There is a meaningful difference between the Kingdom and the Empire, at least traditionally.

Remsense诉 16:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't define the Roman Empire as a successor state of the Roman Republic. @Rjdeadly's slight rewrite has been here for weeks, and this article has a lot of watchers. WP:NODEADLINE is pertinent; we don't need to rush to revert it because one editor has just now noticed it and thinks it sounds horrible. NebY (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Some more non Roman historical empires that all have a lead sentence saying "x Empire was..." Russian Empire Empire of Japan German Empire First French Empire SaturatedFatts (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The point is that those are all discrete polities that were created and had more clear boundaries in general palance than the Roman Empire, of which much of the territory controlled by Romans was not formally organized as provinces. It doesn't make sense to define the Roman Empire simply as "the Roman state between X and Y", because it truly is more of a historiographical period than a political entity in itself. Remsense诉 16:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

All of the famous ancient Persian empires also use this type of first sentence, Achaemenid Empire Parthian Empire Sasanian Empire SaturatedFatts (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Not one of those first sentences describes its subject in terms of a predecessor, or calls its subject a "state" (a term whose applicability to ancient polities is disputed; Rome certainly doesn't meet Weber's criterion). I'd be fine with "was" instead of "is" in one of the openings I offered at the start of this thread - they weren't drafted to address that. NebY (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, then why can't we just replace "is generally understood to mean" with "was". I mean, that's what the Roman Empire was right? SaturatedFatts (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

That is quite specifically the premise of my initial question, and we already had struck on a better phrasing. Remsense诉 00:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I see the user saying to use active voice. What exactly is wrong with passive voice though? Most articles on ancient civilizations use "was" in their first sentence across Wikipedia. SaturatedFatts (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Passive voice is not the same thing as the past tense. Moreover, the issue is the use–mention distinction, which is a distinct issue, i.e. The Roman Empire was... vs. "Roman Empire" is a term that refers to... for a more obvious illustration of it. Does that makes sense? Remsense诉 01:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I barely edit Wikipedia, and I've never heard of the use-mention distinction. But after reading about it, it makes sense. It does sound like it is implying that the article is about the term. As a reader, I simply thought the first sentence of such a prominent article sounded much worse than I remember. I wasn't thinking of any specific reasoning as to why that is. That's why I just changed it back without much thought. But could I or someone go ahead and edit the first sentence then? At least as a temporary placeholder, while maybe one of these other editors comes up with even better phrasing. SaturatedFatts (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

We're working on it! There's no rush. . Remsense诉 01:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright. In my opinion, "The Roman Empire was the period and territory ruled by the Romans..." would already be a large improvement alone. SaturatedFatts (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, when a far more experienced and I assume well known editor makes an edit extremely similar to mine, it stays up for hours while both of mine got insta reverted. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, right? SaturatedFatts (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm opposed both to using the word both here, as well as the expression generally understood to mean. When something is "generally understood", that means it's majority opinion, and when that's the case, we just say "is" (or, "was") in WP:WikiVoice. The generally understood to mean sounds like there is major disagreement on the point, and this might be a plurality opinion. (We can get into quibbles about the end point wrt various sacks later, maybe even later in the lead, but not in the defining sentence.) The use of both period and territory is wrong on two counts, imho. First, nearly everybody in every empire article does territory first, period second: check out Austro-Hungarian Empire, British Empire, Byzantine Empire, Ethiopian Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Japanese Empire, Mughal Empire, Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire—of those, only Japan gets the period mentioned first. Secondly, none of them goes with the both-space-and-time formulation, which gives the impression that the title topic means two things, somehow separate. But I find that misleading, as in reality, the two are inextricably tied, and all of those articles pretty much all say, "The Fooian Empire stretched from Left to Right, and lasted from Early to Later", not in so many words, and not always in one sentence, but that's pretty much the pattern. How about something like:

The Roman Empire encompassed territories around the Mediterranean from 27 BC to the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD by most reckonings, and at its peak controlled much of Western Europe from Britain in the northwest through most of Western Europe, the Balkans, the North African coast and Nubia, and Western Asia.

This is kind of a hybrid, starting off with the extent and period briefly, then returning to backfill the extent in more detail. There's no need for the both territory and periodization formulation, it's not helpful, and may even be confusing to first-time readers; plus, nobody else does it that way. Also, this is a simpler formulation, in line with the "plain English" exhortation in MOS:LEADSENTENCE; mentions of stuff like the precipitate can wait till after the first sentence, imho, after we get a basic definition out of the way. Mathglot (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that draft is this is historical periodisation heavily under the microscope right now and that is not adequate, lest of all because of future editors not as restricted to the conservative practices of academic consensus re-writing it making this a never ending debate here and edit battle.

Tangentially, it would help a lot if a decision is made on the time, less the space, that this article covers. Having it end in 476 is no longer appropriate. Having it end in the 8th century is more bizarre and being dropped from consensus. Having the classical Roman Empire "end" earlier, or mentioning the eastern empire along with the western empire, is better. (And in case someone misinterprets me my intentions here, I want to be clear that I prefer to scope down this article with summary style and other articles.)

Rewriting your version with less words:

The Roman Empire encompassed territories around the Mediterranean from 27 BC to the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD and the Eastern Roman Empire in 1453 AD, and at its peak controlled much of Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia. Biz (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

We currently have

The Roman Empire was the state ruled by the Romans following Octavian's assumption of sole rule under the Principate in 27 BC, the post-Republican state of ancient Rome. It included territories in Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia and was ruled by emperors. The fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD conventionally marks the end of classical antiquity and the beginning of the Middle Ages.

It's not a great start; "state" is contentious (it certainly doesn't satisfy Weber's definition), the Roman people had no say in its rule under Augustus, let alone Constantine et al, and "the Roman empire was the whatever ruled by Romans" is at best tautologous. Still, it does demonstrate that we don't have to be quite as brief as your rather good versions, @Mathglot and @Biz, and could spend a few more words than those to avoid giving the impression they could give that the empire only began to encompass its territory in 27 BC. Here's a rough mash-up to demonstrate:

The Roman Empire included all the territories around the Mediterranean and at its peak controlled large parts of Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia, largely conquered during the Roman Republic in the last two centuries BC. It was ruled by emperors following Octavian's assumption of sole rule in 27 BC. The Western Roman Empire collapsed in 476 AD, which conventionally marks the end of classical antiquity, but the Eastern Empire lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD. NebY (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I like it. I have comments to make, but mostly I agree with yours, so let me just respond with a counter proposal which addresses (1) Octavian is the convention, but Beard says Sulla could be the the first emperor so better to not name him (2) removes the comment about classical antiquity because this is a medieval tripartite periodisation invention (on an article about periodisation) that is not needed 3) worth smith's the rest

The Roman Empire is the polity that ruled large parts of Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia between 27 BC and 1453 AD. It formed following several centuries of expansion of the Roman Republic and when its government transformed into the one-person rule of an emperor. It split into two co-equal courts administratively, with the Western Roman Empire ending in 476 AD and the Eastern Roman Empire until the fall of Constantinople. Biz (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind dropping the part about "antiquity"; other bits matter more.

We don't need "is the polity that", with its introduction of a term that may be unfamiliar or at least rather technical so soon. The Roman Empire ruled ... would do. But even unstated, the polity approach launches us into problems. The Roman Empire did not spontaneously form or come together of its own free will; it was conquered (well, excluding Pergamon). The Roman Republic didn't expand, and we do well to follow sources and use that term for a period of Rome's history. An empire isn't defined as as that which an emperor rules; many empires (Assyrian, Achaemenid, British, etc) weren't and imperialism doesn't require emperors either. Rather, emperor is a title sometimes given to or assumed by the rulers of empires - and not the Roman's main term for the rulers of their empire. I understand the argument that Sulla was the first emperor; happily, we can avoid saying that either he or Octavian was by instead saying that it was ruled by emperors from Octavian onwards; yes, there's an implication there but it remains correct even if Sulla was the first emperor (potentially wrecking "between 27 BC and 1453 AD"). Yes, "courts" would be wrong; "jurisdictions" might serve, though it's not I think in common use for the Empire. But do we need it? Division is inherent in saying that the western empire collapsed long before the eastern. Lastly (phew), you'll notice a thread running through these two versions and our comments on them; should we try to describe the empire more as a polity, a territory, or a period - and to what extent can we usefully swerve that, bearing in mind that whatever we draft won't last long?

Here's a surprisingly shorter version:

The Roman Empire included all the territories around the Mediterranean and at its peak controlled large parts of Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia, largely conquered during the Roman Republic. It was ruled by emperors following Octavian's assumption of sole rule in 27 BC. The Western Roman Empire collapsed in 476 AD but the Eastern Empire lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD. NebY (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

"largely conquered": At the start of our periodisation narrative here, in 27BC, it was 1.5 million square miles (2.6m square kilometres). Under Trajan in 117 AD, it reached 2.2 million square miles (5.7m square kilometres). Under Justinian, as best I can gather right now it was about 1.5 million square miles. Using miles first, that's quite a difference of 68% versus 46% between Augustus/Justinian and Trajan. I hope you can now understand my apprehension to say "largely conquered during the Roman Republic". Metric system aside, it also does something else which gives into this implicit bias that when it was the Republic everything was better. That's only true if you are measuring it only from the point of the aristocracy in the city of Roma, which I don't think is who we are writing to. Plague and Christianity aside, at the time of Justinian, more people had more rights in the same legal system with a similar sized territory and power as the Republic.

"Western Roman Empire" versus "Eastern Empire": I appreciate this is dancing around the debate of Romanitas, but it also just looks unbalanced. If we don't want to call the Eastern empire Roman, then let's not also call the Western empire Roman. But while we are here, from 382 the east never asked for military help; sent troops to protect Honorius and the young Valentian II; the eastern general Ardanur was appointed western consul for 427. Kaldellis even goes as far to say it became a client state of the east. To call it it an empire, a Roman one at, to the exclusion of the 'eastern' one is unbalanced to the point of it being humourous.

Jurisdiction: While this is not a word I've come across scholarship for this specific topic -- though that's more because I think today everyone is confused -- I think its a powerful suggestion. For one, "the discovery of Justinian's Corpus Iuris Civilis provided the basis for linking the original Latin term territorium (understood as a synonym for land) to jurisdiction."p.765 and if you go on and read that fantastic piece by Asha Kaushal, it makes a good case for why this is most appropriate for our use case. The power of the sovereign was granted by the people into the emperor, another thing the Iuris Civilis gave to our modern society via the Glossators, and jurisdiction is per Kaushal's conclusion "a multivalent concept...that sits at the intersections of political and legal theory, technical doctrine, sovereignty studies, and critical social theory...It refers to various permutations of legal authority, including the power to decide, the power to act, and the power to govern".

The underlying challenge: with that explained, I see it a type of sovereign jurisdiction over people and territory in a period of time. We cannot call it a Roman Empire without some reference to its political community. The change was that sovereign power was now represented in the emperorship. So it's fine to mention territory, but it needs to mention one-person rule with it otherwise it' description of the territory is better suited to a cultural geographic article.

Turning my many words above into a revision of your latest text that is good enough for now (with a even most surprising outcome of one word less, but also many more links):

The Roman Empire is when territory around the Mediterranean and that includes large parts of Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia, were ruled by a Roman emperor. It was ruled by emperors following Octavian's assumption of sole rule in 27 BC of the Roman Republic. The western jurisdiction collapsed in 476 AD but the east lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD. Biz (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Tl;dr (but I will come back to it); but "<Noun> is when..." is a deal-breaker for me; and, "The Roman Empire is...ruled by a Roman emperor" is quasi-tautological, or at least, doesn't explain anything. That prevents me from looking at anything else. Mathglot (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot Sure, use-mention the whole point of this discussion and quasi-tautological ok, let me try this differently to incorporate my view of the core, as simply as possible. The Roman Empire ruled large parts of Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia following the permanent transition to one person rule of the Roman Republic. Second and third sentences can bound the start and end of this rule mentioning 27BC, 476 and 1453AD. Biz (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the main problem here, is that the timeline in the sentence goes backwards in time, starting with empire, then transition, then Roman Republic. In particular, The phrase "one-person rule of the Roman Republic" implies the Republic had one-person rule, but that's not what we mean to say. (Btw, adding the hyphen, per standard usage of compound adjectives; not sure if our MOS agrees with me here.) I don't think the bolded topic *has* to come first, and if we want to mention Republic and transition in the lead sentence, we can do it in order, at the cost of pushing the topic further back, e.g.: "Following the end of the Roman Republic in 27 BC and transition to one-person rule, the Roman Empire ruled..." (or maybe governed, or controlled to avoid the reduplication of rule). Now the timeline is correct, but the title phrase is no longer at the front. If we want it first, we might have to recast the sentence or break it in two, with no mention of Republic until S2. What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate how you're thinking about it. The hyphen is good writing; however, MOS:LEADSENTENCE seems to prefer the subject as first sentence and MOS:BOLDLEAD the title as early as possible. For a prominent article like this, I think we need to try to align with that consensus. But before we get to that, we should agree on the subject.

As @NebY identified the challenge, we are mixing periods, territory, and types of power. If we had to pick just one sentence to describe this topic, my view is that it's the res publica in its transitioned state whereby sovereign power was no longer vested in the few (the aristocracy) but in the one (the monarchy). As important as the other facts are, they alone do not describe the topic in its essence as they just simply give it context.

If you can accept this as baseline, then to be honest, I'm open on how we word this. And I don't know how to do this without triggering use-mention. Biz (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

We remember the Roman Empire because of its size. The way it was ruled wouldn't win it prominence in our histories, nor even its duration, if not for its massive territory and thus consequences for so many people.

Maybe it's superfluous, but I'll add a more general point about what we're trying to do here. If our grammar or phrasing is bad, our work will not last; it will be changed, perhaps drastically and unrecognisably, and this work will be lost. The same applies if we make claims that are contentious or cast them in unconventional ways; our knowledge of alternatives can inform our choices but needn't be foregrounded.

@Mathglot, I hear your point about timelines but isn't it normal, or at least normal enough as to not perplex our readers, that Wikipedia leads and leads elsewhere slide easily from descriptor to origins to end? I think we can happily start by describing the Roman Empire with "The Roman Empire ruled" or "included" ("ruled" reads well as long as we don't keep repeating it - one version above had "rule(d)" three times, and as it's such a useful word we might do well to save it for when we don't have such a good alternative).

Cutting back a little to earlier versions: Biz, I didn't even notice I was writing Western Roman Empire but only Eastern Empire. Lower-case "western empire ... eastern empire" would work in that sentence. We do talk of an area being divided into different jurisdictions but not normally of a jurisdiction collapsing. NebY (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm good with lower case western and eastern, divided into jurisdictions but not collapsing.

If territory is the subject, then it needs to be said simply and uniquely identified. I've surveyed some other articles below to help show this point.

• United States
• Russia
• China
• Byzantine Empire
• Mongol Empire
• Empire of Japan

Making a reference to the Roman Republic, with or without territory, seems logical to me as that's unique. Defining it in relation to the Roman Republic, it needs to show what was different. If we go with your suggestion, and if indeed the Republic conquered most of the land, then what distinguishes the Empire that can be said simply? It's no longer territory, unless we want to say it didn't conquer as well and then regressed to what it was? You used emperor before which is to my whole point about power structure (which I'm fine with) but if that's quasi-tautological, then I'm not sure how else you do this other than with time but I liked how you drafted it before to avoid this. Biz (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Quick question first: @Biz, did you get that conversion of "1.5 million square miles (2.6m square kilometres)" from somewhere on Wikipedia? If so, we need to fix it; {{convert|1500000|mi2}} gives 1,500,000 square miles (3,900,000 km²).

The infobox for this article has 25 BC 2,750,000 km2 (1,060,000 sq mi); AD 117 5,000,000 km2 (1,900,000 sq mi); AD 390 3,400,000 km2 (1,300,000 sq mi) (the conversions are done automagically by the infobox template). Even with Trajan's short-lived expansion, that's more than half already conquered during the Republic, and that's only counting land area. One of the most outstanding features of the empire was its complete conquest of mare nostrum and its pacification for trade. NebY (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected, thank you. It looks like I converted miles, not square miles. Yes, agreed the Mediterranean was acknowledged as a Roman lake until the Arab's challenged that. Like the possession of Egypt which Augustus achieved until it was lost to the Arabs, this is inline with the late antiquity view of the economic changes to Eurasia that justify that periodisation and that I most recently read in Howard-Johnson's July 2024 book Byzantium: Economy, Society, Institutions 600-1100 That said, the issue then becomes about neutrality as by using the dominance of the Mediterranean , it time boxes the Roman Empire to align with late antiquity which is yes is one dominant view this generation but not consensus.Biz (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I only mention the sea to reinforce how straightforward "largely" is. This isn't about who dates what bit of "antiquity" when - let's stay away from that rabbit-hole! NebY (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what you'd like us to glean from those other articles. Please, as someone that has read them and learnt something from them, can you suggest how could we better describe the empire's physical extent? I based "all the territories around the Mediterranean and at its peak controlled large parts of Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia" on the current lead; I do certainly prefer it to any of the itemisations of modern-day countries I've seen before such as "Portugal, Spain, Andorra, France, part of the UK ...". NebY (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

We are in agreement on avoiding the rabbit holes and a preference to the previous versions!

The issue with using territory is that it is not unique. The Mongols can claim to the biggest; the Brit's hold claim the biggest of Europe (and Napoleon in Europe); the "Byzantines" had a constant capital in stark contrast to when the city of Rome gradually lost its power during the Empire; the Japanese use time between two power structures; and the three modern countries of the USA, Russia and China reference a current power structure (a country) that is unique in a geography (more descriptive than anything(). What I glean fro this all is (1) territory alone cannot define the Roman Empire (2) reference to time and/or power is required. (3) they are all simple sentences. Further, (4) we want to avoid time because this is the biggest challenge with this topic.

So therefore:

• The Roman Empire ruled large parts of Europe, (West)Asia and (North)Africa is fine. But not unique, needs something else to hold it together (time or power). And so arguably, could also be used for the second sentence, as it's not the subject alone
• The Roman Empire was when the res publica was ruled by one person. Unique and holds true without any other facts. But res publica probably should not be used as it's not well understood. (We also need to remember it is not one-for-one for "Roman Republic"). You object to the usage of the word state which is what I would have used, not sure what alternatives we have.

If we put those two together, we can mention territory in the first sentence. I just don't know how to word this without tripping over use-mention, tautology and so many words where the reader runs out of breath. I can try, but just need to come to agreement with this approach before we go down that rabbit hole of revisions. But here is one to noodle on:

The Roman Empire ruled large parts of the Europe, west-Asia and North-Africa following the Roman Republic's transition to one-person rule.Then in the second sentence explain the permanent change by Octavin in 27. Third sentence that it split into jurisdictions and when they eventually ended. An alternative first sentence which uses time, which I proposed before but a slight modification:

The Roman Empire ruled large parts of Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia between 27 BC/BCE and 1453 AD/CE. But this overt dating in the first sentence is potentially also not neutral and better to be tucked into the third sentence so not pushing this. Biz (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason why it has to be unique. Even if the Roman Empire territory was 1.5 zillion square milia pasuum on Earth Two, and several thousand years earlier E2-Atlantis ruled a massive empire that by some crazy-ass coincidence, was precisely the same amount of territory down to the inch, matters not a jot in distinguishing the two empires as being different. I think uniqueness is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Very big is important; unique is not. Or have I missed your point? Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me try this another way. To get someone to understand what you are talking about for this subject with the least amount of words, what would that be? That's what the first sentence needs to do. Bigness would work if it was the biggest ever, it's closer to the 25th biggest.

MOS:FIRST says plain English for the non-specialist what or who the subject is, and often when or where. The over-emphasis on where does not do get us there because it alone does not explain the subject. That's what I mean by not unique.

If I was to say "a government run by a Roman Emperor" that is a lot quicker to understand without doubt the subject than "a thing that rules Europe, Asia, Africa". Even if we add more specific geographic words, say Balkans, is that enough to not make them someone think this potentially is about plate tectonics? Or Eurovision? Or the Roman Republic in 28 BC? Biz (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay then, in that vein, we could depart a little from previous models, prefer the plain language a bit more (which I am always in favor of; I want middle-schoolers to understand it), so how about:

The Roman Empire was a powerful ancient civilization that ruled much of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East from the first century BC to the fifth century AD. It was characterized by its extensive territories, advanced infrastructure, and influential legal and cultural systems, with Rome as its capital.

How does that sound? I don't really see that the first sentence *must* distinguish it from the Republic; we are defining what it *is*, not what it is not, or what it succeeds. There is only one first sentence; the other stuff can come later. Mathglot (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Good explanations are why we are here. It reads well but compared to the current lead not an improvement due to the issues below it creates.

• It was more a sovereign state than a civilization. The definitions of state are contentious beyond the modern era and the title already mentions empire, which is actually what it was, so best left out
• The only way we can call it ancient is to also have the empire “end” in the ancient period, a periodation definition that is also changing. The consensus also is it no longer ended in 476. The emerging consensus I'm seeing is that the “v1" Roman Empire ended in the third century and between 212-284 it turned into something else, some say no longer an empire but a "world". The end date is a neutrality minefield and best not called out in the first sentence. Neby and I solved this issue with the approach we discussed above for the third sentence.
• The only way to call Rome the capital is similarly talking only about v1. Otherwise, it’s not just false but mischaracterizes what happened. The loss of Rome’s power (or rather, its transition into a different form) is what made the Empire.

What would be an improvement for the first sentence is if you can make this work:

The Roman Empire ruled much of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East <mention the structural change in power from 27 bc> Biz (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That does come over as rather adulatory, which I fear means it wouldn't last. Describing the empire as a civilisation is open to question; characterising it as "powerful ancient" rather duplicates the description of its geographical scope and the dates we go on to provide. NebY (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Mathglot that there's no need to introduce our subject as unique. Loyalists and enthusiasts do that sometimes in our articles but mostly we don't and there's certainly no policy or guideline that requires it.

Defining the empire in terms of the republic isn't just historically complicated; it's also kicking the can down the road ("A is what followed B" is unhelpful to anyone that doesn't know B well). NebY (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

So I'm clear, my main point is we need to discuss the power structure change, either as a transition from the Republic or with the convention that it was now ruled by emperors or another way. My other points are that geography alone is not the subject and the time period is fraught with neutrality issues that it can't be used unlike other articles (though the start is less contentious). Using power geography alone is not enough; using power with geography and the start date is ideal as it's more identifiable ("unique"), and is only ok if the words flow. And call me crazy, but let's survey what previous editors on this page have said

• The current lead: The Roman Empire was the state ruled by the Romans following Octavian's assumption of sole rule under the Principate in 27 BC, the autocratic post-Republican state of ancient Rome.
• August 2018 The Roman Empire (Latin: Imperium Rōmānum, Latin pronunciation: [ɪmˈpɛ.ri.ũː roːˈmaː.nũː]; Koine and Medieval Greek: Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, tr. Basileia tōn Rhōmaiōn) was the post-Roman Republic period of the ancient Roman civilization, with a government headed by emperors and large territorial holdings around the Mediterranean Sea in Europe, Africa and Asia
• Feb 2014 The Roman Empire (Latin: Imperium Romanum) was the post-Republican period of the ancient Roman civilization, characterised by an autocratic form of government and large territorial holdings around the Mediterranean in Europe, Africa, and Asia.
• May 2011 The Roman Empire (Latin: imperium romanum) was the post-Republican period of the ancient Roman civilization, characterised by an autocratic form of government and large territorial holdings in Europe and around the Mediterranean.
• June 2008 The Roman Empire is the phase of the ancient Roman civilisation characterised by an autocratic form of government and large territorial holdings in Europe and the Mediterranean.

Other resources that I'm showing as they clearly point some thought into it:

• Khan academy: The Roman Republic became the Roman Empire in 27 BCE when Julius Caesar’s adopted son, best known as Augustus, became the ruler of Rome. Augustus established an autocratic form of government, where he was the sole ruler and made all important decisions.
• Oxford reference: The period when the Roman state and its overseas provinces were under the rule of an emperor, from the time of Augustus (27 bc) until 476 ad. The Roman empire was divided in 375 ad by Emperor Theodosius into the Western and Eastern empires.

Putting an edited version of the above into an LLM it suggested the following:

The Roman Empire was the period of ancient Roman civilization that followed the fall of the Roman Republic. Beginning in 27 BCE when Octavian, later known as Augustus, became the sole ruler, the Empire was characterized by an autocratic government led by emperors. It encompassed vast territorial holdings around the Mediterranean Sea, including parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia.

• if we could decide or work out a better version for "ancient Roman civilization" (nb: if "Roman Civilisation is a thing than that works for me, but I am only familiar with Greco-Roman Civilisation) and if we tack on "jurisdictions", fall of the west and east to close, we now have an almost perfect lead (I think there is too much emphasis on Octavian/Augustus).

Biz (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

So you want to include territory, dates and governance. For the first, we have Mathglot's and my approaches, which differ only in my highlighting of the Mediterranean. For the second, we have the centuries of acquisition, 27 BC, 476 AD and 1453 AD. Governance is provided by saying that it was ruled by emperors from 27 BC (which is better than saying autocratic rule began then - cf Sulla, Julius Caesar) and by the division inherent in providing separate end dates for the western and eastern empires. NebY (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. We're close it's just getting the right words now to not distort the truth when balanced with simplicity.

Let me explain where we have disagreement. The versions you've provided are great for the factual representation but did not flow because you tried hard to include everything. Mathglot's have also been great and not great for the reverse reason. I've provided several versions to close the gap but no one has built off them. With so many versions now we may be talking past each other so maybe let's recap at the assumptions guiding the versions or critiques

Summary of our issues as uncovered in this discussion

• what started this whole discussion: Augustus is the first emperor by convention but not by function so need to be mindful how we represent this
• using the concept Roman emperor (in the first sentence) is quausi-tautological (Mathglot)
• permanent one-person rule from 27BC is most accurate explanation of the change in power (Biz)
• one-person rule of the Roman Republic" implies the Republic had one-person rule which is not correct (Mathglot)
• we should not use the word state or polity as former does not match Weber's definition and latter is too technical (NebY)
• describing the subject as a "civilisation" needs more thought and may not be appropriate given the topic is of an empire (Biz, NeBy)
• drop the reference to antiquity in the current lead (Biz, NebY)
• use of the word "ancient" to describe the subject clashes with the dates so should be avoided (Biz, NeBy)
• the first sentence matters to define the subject. MOS:FIRST
• Using geography alone is not enough to distinguish the subject, especially in the first sentence where this matters (Biz)
• time and power change are the other ways to distinguish the subject, but time has neutrality issues with the end date and less so with the start date.
• western 476 and eastern 1453 end dates to close the lead are appropriate (Biz, NebY)
• divided into different jurisdictions and separately to describe the split to "east" and "west" works but depends on other phrasing as it's also implied (Biz, NebY)
• use of the Mediterranean needs to be carefully phrased as it could link with changes to Eurasia the late antiquity philosophy draws from and not neutral (Biz)
• use of modern day countries is not ideal (Mathglot, NebY and I agree for the record)
• Rome should not be used to define the subject as it was not the sole capital (from 284 onwards) but also the change in sovereign power from the Roman aristocracy to the Roman emperor where the city of Rome mattered less and so mischaracterizes it by using Rome as the capital to define the subject (Biz)

...There may be more but that's already quite a list! I hope laying it out like this can get us closer to consensus.

If I may this is what I suggest:

• First sentence defines the subject in reference to the power structure change which is the most important (my opinion) and what this current article has historically done.
• a sentence about Augustus and 27BC is fine as that is the convention though we could make the language more general like I proposed and to avoid the tautological issue of the article title make this the second sentence
• Geography further explains the subject and deserves it's own sentence. It's a mouthful. As it also does not distinguish alone better to put this on second or third.
• Final sentence should reference the end dates and this completes the explanation
• anything additional is not needed to explain the topic

Can someone propose a version which takes into account the above? Biz (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm very glad to read The versions you've provided are great for the factual representation but did not flow because you tried hard to include everything. We've agreed to remove mention of "antiquity". I disagree fundamentally with your proposal that we start with the change in governance, as previously stated

• "A is what followed B" kicks the can down the road
• the empire's significance lies in its vast territory, not in its governance - if Rome had only ruled seven hills, who'd have cared how it was governed?
• to open with "the Roman Empire is what was ruled by emperors", however you dress it up, is banal, elicits the response "duh", and is unlikely to last.

We've now got two threads running again so I'll present a draft again as a response to Mathglot; do, please, say what it now includes that's excessive and where it doesn't flow well. NebY (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, it will come down to the proposal. Please propose a full lead, not just the first sentence, as this will make it easier. FWIW The June 2008 lead sentence I posted above, once you remove ancient, would not be a bad start. Biz (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@NebY (19:19), I agree that we should stay away from modern-day countries. Referring to my earlier suggestion above for a lead setnence, I purposely used terms known to the Romans (Britain, Europe, Africa, Nubia, Asia) and one term not known to them (Balkans) which I felt was justified in this case because it is a geographical term, not a political one, is well understood by modern readers, and is brief. The alternative would have been to mention Illyricum, Moesia, Thrace, Dacia, Dalmatia, and Macedonia, which is none of those. I'm not sure if we are going around in a big circle, but given path the discussion has taken, can you have another look at that suggestion, and comment in the light of where we are now? Mathglot (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I do quite like your much of Western Europe from Britain in the northwest through most of Western Europe, the Balkans, the North African coast and Nubia, and Western Asia, but I noticed it didn't really make it immediately obvious that it fully encompassed the Mediterranean - some readers will have enough geography and be good enough visualisers to work it out, some won't. I offered the briefer list at the end of included all the territories around the Mediterranean and at its peak controlled large parts of Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia only for fear of being too longwinded. NebY (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Good point, and the Romans agreed with you of course, calling it mare nostrum. I wouldn't worry too much about sheer length, as long as it flows naturally and is easily comprehensible. Go ahead and take another shot with both the Mediterranean and the longer list. Am ambivalent about Balkans and would prefer to leave it out, if we can figure out a way to do that and still get the idea across. Another way to imagine this: the top image does a great job of , and a picture is worth 10,000 words, so how do we say in a reasonable number of words what that image shows, in a way that would convey it to a blind person using a screen reader? Mathglot (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC) Oops, just realized you already mentioned their word for it a few days ago! Mathglot (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Heh. I'm not entirely happy about "the Balkans" either, but I don't know how else to sum up "south and west of the Danube plus Dacia for 170 years". For me, "Nubia" then jars with "Balkans", as they're terms from such different periods, and I do fear Nubia might puzzle some readers. Would simply Egypt do? There is a difference between Roman Egypt and modern Egypt, but it wouldn't be grossly misleading. If we then take out the repetition of "Western Europe" in the version of yours that I quoted above and switch the order slightly, we wind up with quite a grand tour:

The Roman Empire included all the territories around the Mediterranean and at its peak controlled much of Western Europe from Britain in the northwest through the Balkans, plus Western Asia, Egypt and North Africa, all largely conquered during the Roman Republic. It was ruled by emperors following Octavian's assumption of effective sole rule in 27 BC. The western empire collapsed in 476 AD but the eastern empire lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD.

Or is this better?

The Roman Empire included all the territories around the Mediterranean and at its peak controlled much of Western Europe from Britain in the northwest through the Rhineland and the Balkans to the Black Sea, plus Western Asia, Egypt and North Africa. It was largely conquered during the Roman Republic, but ruled by emperors following Octavian's assumption of autocratic power in 27 BC. The western empire collapsed in 476 AD but the eastern empire lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD. NebY (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

First sentence is problematic. Break it up. The rest good enough.

Revised with some tweaks (remove the country Egypt as it's north Africa which also covers Nubia, shorter first sentence, cut "western" in Europe as unnecessary, removed Roman republic and "largely conquered" as not needed, etc)

The Roman Empire ruled territory in Europe and around the Mediterranean. At its peak it controlled much of Europe from Britain in the northwest through the Rhineland and the Balkans to the Black Sea, as well as Western Asia and North Africa. It was ruled by emperors following Octavian's assumption of effective sole rule in 27 BC. The western empire collapsed in 476 AD but the eastern empire lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD.

Still not sure if the first sentence above is adequate but the rest works for me as an improvement on the current lead. Biz (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Another way to say the first sentence with better use of Roman Republic: "The Roman Empire ruled territory in Europe and around the Mediterranean following the expansion of the Roman Republic" Biz (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to talk of the Roman Republic expanding, as if Greece and Gaul became part of it. It seems you regard the first sentence as problematic because it's too long a list, but breaking up the first sentence has left it an unimpressive stub, followed by a repetition of Europe. You've argued before for reference to the Roman Republic, so it's not clear why you now say it's not needed, and it is factually correct that the empire was mainly conquered prior to Octavian's rule or even birth; those few words provide explanation, continuity and clarity. If you think it vital to prune the list, how about this:

The Roman Empire included all the territories around the Mediterranean and at its peak controlled Western Europe from Britain to the Black Sea, plus much of Western Asia and North Africa. It was largely conquered during the Roman Republic, but ruled by emperors following Octavian's assumption of effective sole rule in 27 BC. The western empire collapsed in 476 AD but the eastern empire lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD. NebY (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

To avoid repeating what I’ve said before let me just propose this modification:

The Roman Empire ruled most of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. It was largely conquered during the Roman Republic, and ruled by emperors following Octavian's assumption of effective sole rule in 27 BC. The western empire collapsed in 476 AD but the eastern empire lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 Biz (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Why "most of the Middle East" rather than "much of Western Asia"? The Romans never controlled Persia or most of Arabia, and their Mesopotamian territory rarely reached beyond the upper Euphrates. Middle East is a term rooted in early twentieth-century British strategic thinking; European scholars stuck "by and large to the old European terminology developed in the fifteenth century", Near East; Western Asia forgoes either Eurocentrism. As for "most of Europe", I don't know where we might find a figure for the area of Roman Europe but a cursory look at our maps in Europe, including the animation of the Roman Empire, show the empire occupying considerably less than half. Our North Africa doesn't include that animation but the map it does have extends considerably further than the empire's Mediterranean strip; "most" could only be justified by excluding the Sahara, and we neither want nor need to be making claims that would have to be footnoted and still be questionable.

As for how long a list to have, I can't tell why you've cut the Mediterranean now after including it in your previous draft; I hoped that indicated some agreement. I do find the naming of only three areas unhelpfully brief and think we could serve our readers better, but I'd like to hear from @Mathglot - and of course others, but they might not appreciate being pinged back to this long discussion. NebY (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I actually tried using Mathglot's most recent suggestion as it was good (just not factually). We're very close now.

In terms of your points:

• Western Asia works for the reasons you state.
• Europe: I've read (not validated) the Romans got up to 40% of the land area which aligns with what you are saying but sounds right
• removal of Mediterranean is simply because it did not add with the current draft. North Africa, Europe, and west Asia are its borders so it adds no new information and it's implied. That said, the eastern empire was known as a maritime empire dominating the east Mediterranean and after it had lost north africa (and was hegemon on the sea until the 11th century) so maybe it's needed for that reason.
• "much" is better than "most" ok

Replace the first sentence with The Roman Empire ruled much of Europe, North Africa and Western Asia and I think this addresses most of your concerns. The Roman Empire ruled much of Europe, North Africa, Western Asia and the Mediterranean works but also seems a little duplicative. Biz (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not so duplicative as you might think; you're used to looking at the maps. Much of Europe, North Africa and Western Asia could easily exclude some territories around the Mediterranean; it might omit Spain or Greece, or Mediterranean islands such as those which were indeed taken by the Vandals. How about

The Roman Empire ruled the Mediterranean and much of Europe, Western Asia and North Africa. It was largely conquered during the Roman Republic, and ruled by emperors following Octavian's assumption of effective sole rule in 27 BC. The western empire collapsed in 476 AD but the eastern empire lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

Or the first sentence could be

The Roman Empire ruled much of Europe, Western Asia and North Africa, and the entire Mediterranean. NebY (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Been thinking about it and it matters. Not so much for "entire Mediterranean" for neutrality and consistency reasons -- it means we are defining the Empire when it controls the entire Mediterranean; whereas we are using "much" for the continents.

Regardless, I'm in support of the full version you posted. It's concise, factually relevant, and can handle the levels of complexity with readers more knowledgeable about the history. Surprisingly for me, the first sentence now immediately gives you the understanding, with the subsequent sentences the relevant detail to clarify.

How many more people do we need to achieve consensus? And what links will we include in this text? Biz (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Good! Nearly there. One problem has crept in as a result of mixing different versions; "It ruled ... it was largely conquered" could be confusing. The Roman Empire included ... It was largely conquered is better that way. Other possibilities include The Roman Empire covered, extended over and more. The Roman Empire ruled ... It was largely acquired is possible but euphemistic and of course the Romans were themselves proud of military conquest. Dropping that first ruled saves us a small repetition too. Pretty much any such substitution would be an improvement. Oh, and I'll throw in one more long-winded possibility, just in case: The Roman Empire ruled ... The Romans conquered most of it during the Republic, and it was ruled by emperors ...

I'd avoid linking Mediterranean and Europe per MOS:OVERLINK and it would be odd to skip those then link Western Asia and North Africa; sooner or later someone would link Europe too and then Mediterranean, then the whole lot would be delinked per MOS:SEAOFBLUE, and around we'd go. Roman Republic and Octavian should be linked for the benefit of readers coming in cold with little or no knowledge of ancient Rome. Western Roman Empire's a fair target for western empire while asymmetrically Eastern Roman Empire redirects to Byzantine Empire, but that's not too bad an easter egg. Linking both eastern empire and Constantinople seems excessive.

48 hours takes us into Sunday and might give Mathglot or anyone else time. If no-one joins in by then I'd be happy to go live with an edit summary like "per discussion at Talk:Roman Empire#Use–mention in the lead." NebY (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I like "extended" if we do not use ruled.

I very much like The Romans conquered most of it during the Republic, and it was ruled by emperors... as we can link to this excellent article Roman people. It also puts the focus on the Roman citizens which is at the core of Roman civilisation (not the emperor), and where the word ruled fits best if we use it once.

Regarding links: I agree with what you've proposed and the reasons you've stated.

Now that you have my response, please post a clean final version so we have something people are reference. 48 hours should give us time to also reflect on this ourselves and I might reach out to a published historian that I've been talking to as part of my work for the Byzantine Empire FAR.

This decision has the potential to impact future decisions such as the content of this article (we now have a start date and two end dates) but also other articles, so it would be good to get other people's feedback, and of course @Mathglot given how instrumental to this process to get us to consensus they were.

Tagging @AirshipJungleman29 who among other talents modified the current lead and @Cynwolfe the lead author of this article. Anyone else who has stayed with us to this message we would love your perspective. Biz (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I've not edited this article in any meaningful way for over a decade, except for some tiny things to do with images. I did pitch in on a major restructuring back then so that it wasn't just about wars and imperial succession. I'm more of a Roman Republican. My desire would be that it remain encyclopedic and simply describe. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Grand! With "The Romans conquered ..." we've far less risk of confusion, and can stick with "The Roman Empire ruled" – it's a stronger opening than "extended over". Here's the full version with links.

The Roman Empire ruled the Mediterranean and much of Europe, Western Asia and North Africa. The Romans conquered most of it during the Republic, and it was ruled by emperors following Octavian's assumption of effective sole rule in 27 BC. The western empire collapsed in 476 AD but the eastern empire lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

That's pretty tight and coherent, so I hope it allows for a following sentence about the impact or legacy of the empire, if desired – the fourth para of the lead is about that. I think I'd like to put in a footnote after 27 BC to the effect that When the term "Roman Empire" is used to describe a historical period, 27 BC is often used as the start date. But that would be a footnote, not part of the body text, and I think not something we need to sweat over here; I'd be happy just to add it afterwards and see what fellow editors did with it. NebY (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Revised text with link: I support it.

Adding a note: not against the content, but hesitant to add notes so early. Regardless, I'm open to it. It is an important point that these terms are periodisation decisions by a shadow cluster of scholarly decisions that meet the scholar's politics and give readers the choice if they want it to shape their perceptions. There only ever as one Roman respublica and later Roman imperium. (Not as confident with my source discovery for Greek usage but politeia in Greek for respublica.)

Additional sentence: open to it. Especially if it means we can condense the lead after it. Biz (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I hesitate to go any further with this too! Plenty of other editors are quite capable of adding more; I just hope we've provided a good start. And I'd much rather not get into a discussion about those words now (but if you want to enjoy a curious fact, consider that there never were any treaties between Sparta and Athens, or any other place in classical Greece; they were between the Spartans and the Athenians).. NebY (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Huge unindent. Re The Roman Empire ruled the Mediterranean and much of Europe, Western Asia and North Africa. The Romans conquered most of it during the Republic, and it was ruled by emperors following Octavian's assumption of effective sole rule in 27 BC. The western empire collapsed in 476 AD but the eastern empire lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Some clarification as to what it is is needed: it feels like it's saying that the Romans conquered the Roman Empire during the Republic. Maybe I'm too conservative as to the current wording but I have no issues with the era-of-Roman-civilisation framing because the republic possessed an empire. I would perhaps reorder then as (1) the Roman empire was the period of Roman civilisation after 27 BC when the republic came under the rule of emperors; (2) the empire ruled the Mediterranean etc etc; (3) the western half ended c. AD 476 and the eastern half ended in 1453. Ifly6 (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair points and good suggestion. I could support that. My concern though is I've not really come across many sources describing it as Roman civilisation, even though that is the perfect way to describe it. Biz (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Writing for Wikipedia has odd effects; we can't begin by saying that the term has various uses - or rather, we could but it wouldn't last. We do have to write for an audience which is coming to the article cold, as well as for those who know a bit about history, and for other editors, and we do have to give an indication of why it matters - call it significance or notability or whatever. What we've come up with does achieve that; in describing where it covered, we've also described its magnitude (sadly, "vast, really vast" is taken) , and we move swiftly to indicating its duration and governance. It would be easy to write it in such a way that suggested Octavian was a new Alexander and conquered the whole thing himself, but we've avoided that and given a realistic summary that's expanded in the following paragraphs of the lead and further yet in the body (both times starting with the acquisition of empire during the republic). We can do all that without using the term "civilisation" and that's no bad thing; it's a provocative term if one happens to be thinking of the brutal conquests of Dacia or Gaul, of Lucullus and Pompey in Western Asia, of the Jewish wars, of merely the Roman habit of initiating gladiatorial killing as entertainment wherever they happened to civilise next. Let's not go there just yet.

I agree "it" is awkward. Far, far away up this thread, there's a construction which would now go something like The Roman Empire ruled the Mediterranean and much of Europe, Western Asia and North Africa, most of which the Romans conquered during the Republic. It was ruled by emperors following Octavian's assumption of effective sole rule in 27 BC. That shorter second sentence feels a little abrupt to me after the first, but maybe that's the least of several evils. Alternatively we expand "it"; The Romans conquered most of this territory during the Republic or other such. But the simplest way I've found is the smallest tweak: The Romans conquered most of this during the Republic, and it was ruled by emperors following Octavian's assumption of effective sole rule in 27 BC. NebY (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The phrasing The Roman Empire ruled the Mediterranean and much of Europe, Western Asia and North Africa, most of which the Romans conquered during the Republic is itself basically assuming the normal periodisation but hiding it. I think we should place it directly: it was the period of Roman history from 27 BC forward. Perhaps: The Roman Empire is the period of Roman history after 27 BC when Augustus assumed effective sole rule. It ruled the Mediterranean and much of Europe, western Asia and North Africa. Most of this territory was conquered during the Republic. Permanently split into eastern and western halves in AD 395, the western half fell c. 476 while the eastern half persisted until 1453.

This mirrors the Roman Republic lede which similarly talks about a period of Roman history. In both instances the conventional periodisation is smoothing over substantial amounts of detail and terminology. If we wanted to be maximally precise we should have various periods of Roman history with the "Roman Empire" moved to an article discussing Roman expansion into Italy. (This is the approach taken in the Oxford Classical Dictionary except they use 31 BC as the divider; the periodisation approach I'm proposing is also the approach taken in the Dictionary of World History.) But I think we can't do that; "Roman Empire" is too widely used a term. Ifly6 (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This is aligned with what I was saying over the last few weeks but NebY and Mathglot insisted the first sentence should discuss the impact and how its remembered, which is territory ruled. To not rehash that debate, I think this may come down to what the first sentence needs to be versus what we want it to be.

Permanently split gives better context and accounts for the many spits that happened since the 3rd century. Based on the current proposal, we could have Permanently split for administration in 395, the western empire collapsed in 476 AD but the eastern empire lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Biz (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

As editors who take an active interest in Roman history, it's tempting to set the Roman Empire against the Republic and try to match our articles on them somehow. But the Roman Empire, as a subject and as a component of the encyclopedia, is massively different from the Roman Republic. Each article has a whole variety of readers, but we can fairly assume the more famous Empire has a wider range and more coming to the article relatively cold. Opening with an historiographic differentiation of periods (the Roman Empire is the time when the Romans' empire was ruled by emperors) isn't useful to them; we can write with an underlying awareness of periodisation and prepare the ground for a history section, but Roman Empire is not an article about how the term's used to describe a different period, or even much about dating at all. It's about a whole big empire and all its peoples and works and more, or as the TOC has it, History; Geography and demography; Languages; Society; Government and military; Economy; Architecture and engineering; Daily life; Arts; Literacy, books, and education; Religion; Legacy.

Indeed, in providing three precise dates we arguably already provide two too many. 27 BC is just one of the many years in which Octavian's status changed; Actium and Alexandria were (per OCD indeed) the key moments in gaining power, 27 BC more an acknowledgment. Conversely, the western empire didn't collapse when its emperor finally quit so much as he quit because the reality of the long juddering collapse was inescapable. But Wikipedia loves dates, not centuries, and those are about as good as we can find. We don't need to fill in a date of division too, not in these first words. We give the basics in a nutshell and cultivate interest in reading on, per MOS:LEAD; that's not merely enough, that's good. NebY (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The rationale for emphasising periodisation rather than "territory big" has to do with the sources that describe it, not parallelism with other articles. Emphasising territorial extent is not what the HQRS do when summarising the topic. Ifly6 (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

We can rephrase as:

The Roman Empire ruled the Mediterranean and much of Europe, Western Asia and North Africa. The Romans conquered most of the territory during the Republic, and it was ruled by emperors following Octavian's assumption of effective sole rule in 27 BC. The western empire collapsed in 476 AD but the eastern empire lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453

We can add a final sentence with a statement about its importance in world history such as “The Roman empire remains central to debates about political regimes, history, imperialism, and slavery down to this day, especially in western countries.” Biz (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I actually liked August 2018 pretty well, but the follow-on ones you have developed work very well also. I still have various little thoughts or ideas for improvement, but at this point I think it's better not to contribute them now, but to come to a conclusion fairly rapidly; you don't need me stirring the pot just to add a couple of beans at this point. The thread is quite long now, a lot of effort has been expended (much less by me, and I appreciate all your efforts!) and we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Remember also, that this is still a wiki and the article won't be done when the paragraph is updated; this is not the final version. Whatever ends up going in there, could just as well be changed a week later, when Mr. GoodFaith Newbie comes here on their seventh-ever edit, and goes straight to where most newbies do, which is right to the lead, and often the first sentence, and makes some changes, blissfully unaware that this has been talked out in detail here on the Talk page. (Newbie: "What's a Talk page?") So, take your best version to date, and go ahead and update the lead; you've got my vote whatever it is. And if upon further reflection you think of something better later, well, you know what to do! Mathglot (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the wise words! I thought I'd given up lead-editing but the current one got to me, and I am happy that we've improved on it. So I've gone ahead and done it. Biz, I didn't use "the territory" because it seemed strange to describe the sea as territory – but that does rather go to show just how deep we've been diving into the minutiae! I'll be hoping to step away; Athena has a problem that could take a while, Dionysus's might not be over .... NebY (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"Crisp" is the word that came to mind when I read the new lead. David Deutsch, the worlds smartest man in some people's opinion, would call this a "good explanation" and one of the things that matter most in life. Thank you NebY and Mathglot. Unfortunately, it may take me a few years to get to Olympus NebY, as the medieval Roman's have grounded me for now, far from the lead and deep in the belly. Biz (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

BC to BCE

I would like to propose changing the usage of "BC" to "BCE" throughout this article to align with a more inclusive and secular terminology.

Rationale:

1. Inclusivity: Using "BCE" (Before Common Era) instead of "BC" (Before Christ) ensures that the terminology is inclusive of readers from all religions and cultural backgrounds.

2. Consistency with Modern Standards: Many academic and historical publications have adopted "BCE" and "CE" to provide a neutral point of reference. Adopting this standard would bring the article in line with contemporary practices.

3. Neutral Point of View: Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral point of view. Using "BCE" helps avoid religious connotations, thus preserving the neutrality of the article.

Proposed Changes:

- Replace all instances of "BC" with "BCE" in the article.

- Ensure that the first instance of "BCE" includes a brief explanation for readers who may be unfamiliar with the term (e.g., "BCE (Before Common Era)").

I believe these changes will enhance the article's accessibility and neutrality. I welcome any feedback or discussion on this proposal.

Thank you for considering this suggestion. 174.109.17.136 (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

In my experience there's very, very rarely a good reason to prefer one form over the other in specific articles, but if there's one article that should use BC/AD, surely it's the article on the state that invented those calendar eras? – Joe (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose See WP:ENGVAR for how this works. Both stystems "provide a neutral point of reference" and are perfectly current. There's evidence that in many places (especially outside the US) BC remains more widely understood, so wins on accessibility. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per what site policy actually says Remsense诉 19:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Support Christian terminology is insulting to this Empire. Dimadick (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to see Christian terminology as insulting to an empire that converted to Christianity. NebY (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

So, we're using the inherently Christian system in an identical manner, but we're just pretending it's "common" instead? Seems equally insulting. Anthony Kaldellis had this thought experiment that I think clarifies a lot of the spin here: if we decided to adopt the al-hijri calendar, but relabel it such that we're living in 1446 CE instead of 1446 AH—it's still obviously an Islamic epoch that entered use in an Islamic context. Of course, there's nothing really wrong with that, as it's more or less arbitrary for our purposes, but it's equally inane to pretend that it's not that.

There is no escaping that AD/CE is a Christian epoch, so any argument on that grounds is inane. There is only ever going to be one honest answer to the question of what the epoch was chosen to represent—of course, it was always meant by Dionysius Exiguus to be "close enough", e.g. to also be pragmatically in sync with the indiction tax cycle. Remsense诉 17:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per MOS:ERA: "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content." The reasons given here are just general ones. And, for what it's worth, Christianity was at one point the empire's official religion. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Question What is the era style most commonly used by the sources cited in the article? Sometimes published scholarship in a given topic area will switch styles (typically BC → BCE) and it makes sense for us to follow the sources. IIRC, Classical Studies is still majority BC, but I haven't looked at the sources cited to see what they're using. Folly Mox (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not think this should be a pattern at all. They are two sets of universally understood labels for what is the same era system, and MOS:ERA says what it says for a very good reason. Remsense诉 18:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You're probably right, and what I notice in published scholarship isn't a "topic area", but a subset of individual scholars, possibly with some interference from publishers. Folly Mox (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Recent sources or all of them? My impression is that for that to be a persuasive argument to most editors here, it would have to be a significant majority of sources over a substantial period, and that even if we only looked at sources from the last 10 years, we still wouldn't find a majority using BCE/CE. NebY (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, but only on the grounds that we should follow MOS:ERA. There's certainly nothing wrong with the secular Common Era dating method (especially in science articles); it's just that Anno Domini has long been the established dating system used for this article. Ideally, in a just world, I would love to see Ab urbe condita based on the founding of Rome (753 BC) as the preferred dating system (LOL), but alas, we don't live in that world. We live in one where the absolute vast majority of readers (yes, including non-Westerners and non-Christians) coming to this article will immediately understand BC/AD, on an encyclopedia with guidelines that favor this dating system when it is the original one chosen for an article. If this was some article about a topic dealing with Islamic history then using the Hijri year would make sense instead. However, we're talking about the Roman Empire, which was originally polytheistic/pagan (with a Jewish minority), but then became predominantly Christian in the century before the western half collapsed. Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

My argument above is both forms are equally secular—that is to say, mostly secular. Remsense ‥ 诉 18:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

user:PericlesofAthens, there are books using both forms, e.g. "Romulus founded Rome in 753 BC/1AuC". Mommsen comes to mind. Barjimoa (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Aye! Many Roman books I read do that, ditto with the Hijri calendar. I think we should maybe consider showing some dates using both systems in a consistent way more often, since it does genuinely help a little bit—at least AH does for me since I'm slightly less situated reading about early Islamic history than early Roman history, but that should tell us something about what average readers might get out of it. It genuinely helps to have a sense of proximate epoch. Remsense ‥ 诉 19:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Many Roman books I read do that? I'm surprised; I can't think of one modern work on ancient history that's used dual BC/AUC dating (two inaccurately based systems, yay!) and of course the Romans didn't use either one. NebY (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Support the article uses grammatically incorrect forms of BC/AD which would make much more sense if it used BCE/CE Garflasange (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

They are not grammatically incorrect. Remsense ‥ 诉 18:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll change it to gramatically clunky then, if it pleases you. Garflasange (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Making a significant change in terminology isn't a better option than correcting grammar, if grammar can easily be corrected and needs it. In this case, it doesn't. Times change; we are no longer speaking mediaeval Latin, and the symbol has moved on from its origins as an initialism. Collins' notes that

In strict usage, AD is only employed with specific years: he died in 1621 AD, but he died in the 17th century (and not the 17th century AD). Formerly the practice was to write AD preceding the date (AD 1621), and it is also strictly correct to omit in when AD is used, since this is already contained in the meaning of the Latin anno Domini (in the year of Our Lord), but this is no longer general practice.

— Collins English Dictionary[1]

On Wikipedia, we have our own Manual of Style, AD appears before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD), and by and large editors prefer the modern postfix. NebY (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough that it's not gramatically incorrect but it's still clunky, and CE just works better I feel. Garflasange (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Per the prefix point—I thought so too when I started encountering it consistently in what I was reading. Now I'm used to it! Remsense ‥ 论 09:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: they could be used interchangeably really, but I understand the need some have for consistency. In that case it's better to keep it as it is.Barjimoa (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• After a month, I think we can close this now. Btw, starting this was the ip's 2nd and (so far) last edit. Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2024

Following sentence should be removed: "Mehmed II adopted the title of caesar in an attempt to claim a connection to the Empire. [54]"

Cited source does not have any information about Mehmed II adopting the title of "caesar". Yasdiman (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Not done. Rather than removing text, try finding a source. The statement in question is factual, and is sourced twice (at least) in the Mehmed II article. Source and text now copied from that article into this. Well done for finding the deficit, Yasdiman. You might try a similar strategy (searching other articles for confirmatory sources) if you come across this sort of thing again. Haploidavey (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

First and last emperor

Should the infobox include the first and last emperors only? This is usually the format on other articles about empires. SKAG123 (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Per a previous Talk discussion last year, we resolved to link to the List of Roman emperors instead of listing names as there is disagreement who the last one is and people always want to include their favourite emperor. We probably could word it better than the current "link" but it does the job better than any info box. Biz (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)