Talk:Ancient Rome/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2018

In the lead, the initial words "In historiography" should be deleted. Reason: the lead does not reflect the historiography subsection. Whereas the current lead states In historiography, ancient Rome is Roman civilization from the founding of the city of Rome in the 8th century BC to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD, the historiography section makes no mention of the 8th century BC, and no mention of the 5th century AD. (In the longer term, the ideal solution would be to rewrite the historiography subsection to include the two dates.) 81.131.172.147 (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Not done: As explained above, the "contradiction" is actually supported by the body text. Please see MOS:LEAD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Not so fast, Eggishorn. You implicitly acknowledge that the 8th/5th century information is not contained in the Historiography section as the lead states, but is located somewhere else in the article. Please provide a suggestion how to fix this problem. 81.131.171.52 (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all, you shouldn't keep resetting the answered indicator just because you don't like the answer. Please see WP:ER for more as well as WP:EW. I have seen editors blocked for doing it and I don't want anyone to trip over that unawares. I am watching this page, as are over 1200 other editors. Your responses here are already being seen.

Secondly, the "fix" is that trying to define the period of Ancient Rome is an inherently complicated subject. That's why we have MOS:LEAD and (even more to the point) why we have body text. The historiography of Ancient Rome is an enormous subject that entire books have been written about. It is not going to be properly treated in one sentence of a lead section. Removing these two words, as you request here, doesn't fix the problem, it makes it worse. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding quickly Eggishorn. But you are talking at cross-purposes. This is not about the "inherently complicated problem to define the period of Ancient Rome". The edit request is about making the lead agree with the Historiography section. The lead should not promise certain information specifically in the Historiography section, and then the Historiography section fails to deliver. Do you understand the problem now? 81.131.171.52 (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I believe that I do understand the problem. The problem is that you are determined to enforce your own understanding of the phrase "in historiography". As I said when you split part of this discussion to my talk, whether the history of Rome starts in 800 BCE or not is not relevant to historiography. Removing "in historiography" from the lead does not address your complaint and does not "fix" this "discrepancy". It does nothing to help the reader and it has no positive effect on the article. "Historiography" means "The study of historical writing." It does not mean "this section on this page." The body text of this page addresses that the start and end dates that could be considered part of "ancient Rome". The start date is mythological and the end date is complicated by what one considers "Rome". These are clearly indicated throughout the text and there is no conflict or discrepancy between this complicated historiography and using the term "in historiography" in the lead. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Thanks for your patience. We are now starting to find common ground. So your contention is It [The first lead sentence] does not mean "this section on this page". But your contention would be true only if (a) the whole article were about historiography or (b) if the term "historiography" occurred in several places in the article. Neither (a) nor (b) are true. The term "historiography" is tightly restricted to a tiny subsection of the article and occurs nowhere else. Therefore the quick fix is to delete "historiography" from the lead. Or the more ambitious fix is to expand the historiography section to include the 8th/5th century dates and thus remove the discrepancy in the lead. 81.131.171.52 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

No, we are not reaching common ground, we are reaching total pedantry. Maybe some other editor will respond her further, but I will not. This is not worth this level of debate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your exit would be a pity - I would hate going through this pedantry with someone else from square one - it is no more fun for me than for you. Sleep on it and give it a fresh start tomorrow. A third solution could be to introduce the concept of Roman historiography immediately in the first section of the article body. Thereby implying that the whole article is about Roman historiography. But that would require a very strong reference for such a blanket statement. 81.131.171.52 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Not done for now: I have no expertise in this area and take no position on the request being discussed. However, this cannot be completed as an edit request until a consensus is reached. See WP:ER#General considerations regarding uncontroversial requests. Please do not reactivate the edit request template without a clear consensus of editors. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 04:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove Protection

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. DannyS712 (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Homework

thanks to whoever made this article. it helped alot with homework! :) 180.173.24.120 (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Romans listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Romans. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Necessary link and clarification

Please add the text at the start:

"Not to be confused with the Holy Roman Empire" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.82.23.167 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

"Ustrinum" page detached from here and left unsourced

@Savipolo, Krakkos, ExperiencedArticleFixer, Johnbod, and Ichthyovenator: hi. The "References" for Ustrinum are apparently truncated orphans, copied & pasted from a different page, with abbreviations nobody can understand w/o having a Sherlock Holmes-type talent. So that article is practically unsourced as of now. It seems that the 2008 creator of the "ustrinum" article is Neddyseagoon, who abruptly stopped editing in May 2017. He wrote at 16:19, 25 January 2008: "Created page with 'In ancient Rome". It might mean that he copied & pasted from here, and that in 2008 the abbreviations corresponded to notes & bibliography entries on the "ancient Rome" page. Anyone interested in looking it up and fixing them? Arminden (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It does not seem this article had anything about Utrinum at around that time, so the source must have been sth else.--Nø (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Done, sorted. It was all based on Platner's LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS at Lacus Curtius. It's almost all material from 1900-1910, and I would be surprised if all pre-WWI interpretations are still accepted after > 1 century. Anyone who's interested? Arminden (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

City planning of Rome?

Is there a section needed for city planning of Rome? I read they had a limit on how many houses anyone could own within the city, but need to verify.Septagram (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Herstory1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

genetic paper

The frequencies in the paragraph are not present in the paper article. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982221005352#tbl1 84.220.64.252 (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2022

I'm willing to edit the following paragraph:

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Baggaet (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not able to edit myself despite the current protection level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolo Calucci (talk • contribs) 17:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Genetics

... Between 2,900 BC and 900 BC, the EEF/WHG descended population of Rome was overwhelmed by peoples with steppe ancestry largely tracing their origin to the Pontic–Caspian steppe. The Iron Age Latin founding population of Rome which subsequently emerged overwhelmingly carried the paternal haplogroup R-M269, and were of about 30% steppe ancestry.

To make the following changes:

Genetics

... Between 2,900 BC and 900 BC, the EEF/WHG descended population of Rome was overwhelmed by peoples with steppe ancestry largely tracing their origin to the Pontic–Caspian steppe. The Iron Age Latin founding population of Rome which subsequently emerged carried the paternal haplogroup R-M269 at a minor but significant rate, and were of about 15-20% steppe ancestry.

According to the following sources already linked in the original version:

under the section "Supplementary material - Tables S1-S4" ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7093155/bin/NIHMS1551077-supplement-Tables_S1-S4.xlsx )

And below "ADMIXTURE" in Fig. 2 ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7093155/bin/nihms-1551077-f0002.jpg ) Paolo Calucci (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Edit request for typo fix: bridgess -> bridges

The Technology section contains the sentence "Roman civil engineering and military engineering constituted a large part of Rome's technological superiority and legacy, and contributed to the construction of hundreds of roads, bridgess, aqueducts, public baths, theatres and arenas."

Here "bridgess" is a typo and should be changed to "bridges". As my account is brand new I cannot make the edit myself. Bartvpelt (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thanks for catching it. Haploidavey (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2022

In the founding of Rome paragraph, the word religious is spelled relgious. Should be corrected. 142.126.152.35 (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

212 AD end of Ancient Rome

I’m noticing a conflict across several Wikipedia pages and discussions on how to segment the end of classical Rome and how that transitions into the Byzantine Empire.

Mary Beads book “SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome”, which came out in late 2015, says that Ancient Rome fell in 212 AD when Caracalla opened up citizenship to the entire empire. It’s a powerful argument as ancient Rome was always about its citizens and this symbolically was the real change of Rome “falling”. Where the facade Augustus setup with the Principate had now unravelled. It times with the change from the crisis of the third century where we see a new empire evolve. It’s also more practical than the traditional 476 AD date. Given Justinian reconquered Rome 78 years later and held onto it until the 8th century, I think Beards thesis should hold more weight.

Do other editors support making this change? Biz (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Certainly not! The end of AR=the start of Late Antiquity, and the earliest date our article supports for that is the end of the Crisis of the Third Century & Diocletian's reforms of 284. This is in line with most scholarship. Beard's view can be mentioned, not in the lead I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

That’s reasonable. Apologies for the triggering question.

I’ve lately become more curious how the WP:NPOV policy is implemented in practice. I understand these are just opinions and there are university professionals who dedicate their lives to fighting these positions. Late antiquity is certainly more dominant in British and German universities so appreciate why you say that. I was wondering how do opinions like this get decided to be presented on Wikipedia when there is little in the article or talk to show the competing viewpoints. I did a scan on JSTOR and have not found much that evaluates all the competing perspectives. Biz (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

My reading of somewhat outdated material (e.g. Cary's History of Rome: Down to the Age of Constantine and summaries of the The Cambridge Ancient History) doesn't tell me much about the extension of citizenship, and their verdicts range from it being merely a measure to streamline bureaucratic procedures and raise revenue, by extending citizenship to the few who weren't already citizens or had some dispensation from paying taxes, to its being an epoch-signalling, if not an epoch-making, achievement. The edict itself is shrouded in mystery and controversy. At the very least, 212 has competition as an epochal date of that time, from such as the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180, the Year of the Five Emperors of 193, or the death of Severus Alexander in 235. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Yes it was a revenue raising tactic, nothing special at the time, which only now we see the significance for what it did,

What I'm trying to get at is why is the collapse of the Roman Kingdom, the collapse of the Roman Republic, the collapse of the Principate (with the events you mention that merit as that moment) and the collapse of the Western Roman administration ("Empire") considered the same Ancient Rome?

By the time of Augustus, power had transferred. By the time of Diocletion, who visited once in his reign, power was not being exercised in the city any more. That said, by the time of Odacer's capture, the Senate was still functioning. Theodoric would base himself in Ravanna and worked with them (and the Pope) and upheld a sense of maintaining the Roman state. And Roman (imperial) administration returned with Justinian a generation later.

This article leads with "In modern historiography..." and yet there is no discussion about this decision. Historians of Late Antiquity for example have turned away from the idea that the Rome fell at all – refocusing instead on Pirenne's thesis. Biz (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Add unified article for the state of Rome from 753 BC to 1453 AD?

While this article on Ancient Rome is clearly necessary, there might be a need for another article for the "state of Rome" (for lack of a better term) that existed continuously from 753 BC to 1453 AD. This article makes it seem as if there was one state from 753 BC to 476 AD, while the Roman Empire article has the partially overlapping dates of 27 BC to 1453 AD.

There is a legal-political entity that existed continuously from 753 BC to 1453 AD, whatever we want to call it (Roma, Res Publica Romana, Imperium Romanum, Basilea ton Romaion, Byzantine Empire, SPQR, etc.), and it should have a unified article (however brief) to highlight that unity. Think of it as an article showing the combined state that these two GIFs show

What do people think? Diegojosesalva (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't see the need. Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Any reason why you disagree? I gave at least a few arguments in favor, and it would be great to understand your reasoning. I don't think a unified article is unreasonable at first glance, given that there was indeed one continuous state, in whatever form, that existed from 753 BC to 1453 AD. 76.14.126.11 (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

If you could provide a list of sources that support this view that would be a good start. biz (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not really a view as much as applying logic when analyzing how Wikipedia pages around Rome are structured: there is one page (this one) from 753 BC to 476 AD, and another one (Roman Empire) from 27 BC to 1453 AD. Those two periods overlap. Therefore, logically, there is something (the "Roman state" or whatever we want to call it) that existed from 753 BC to 1453 AD.

If you want sources with the view that the Byzantine Empire is, in some legal sense, the same state as the Roman Kingdom, here are a few. Even Gibbon, who was not favorable to Byzantium at all, reluctantly recognized that it was the same state, however altered.

- Steve Runciman, "Gibbon and Byzantium": https://www.jstor.org/stable/20024419 - "He knew that the empire which is usually called Byzantine was the lawful continuation of the Roman Empire."

- Christos Malatras, "The perception of Roman heritage in 12th century Byzantium" http://www.rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue7supp/roman-heritage-in-byzantium.pdf

- Review of Anthony Kaldellis, "The Byzantine Republic", by Warren Treadgold: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/605042 "That Byzantium was continuous with Rome is of course a fact"

- And of course, the Wikipedia article for Eastern Rome itself: "The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire primarily in its eastern provinces."

We can certainly debate what we should call this entity or how different Byzantium was from the rest of Roman history. But there is clearly something that had existed continuously from 753 BC that died in 1453 AD. Going by the way Wikipedia itself organizes its articles, there were four stages to that entity: a Kingdom, a Republic, a united Empire, and a divided and later solely eastern Empire. This article groups together three of those stages as "Ancient," which is fine. I'm not saying we should add Byzantium to this article. Just suggesting that there be some article highlighting the continuity between all four of those stages. Diegojosesalva (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

One last source: the article for Roman people includes a map with the same continuity I'm referring to: "Border changes of the Roman state from 6th century BC to 15th century AD". (Link to the map) Diegojosesalva (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea. But the issue with your argument is the same state by what definition? Given how much debate there is about the Roman Empire itself (ie, the very term Byzantine), I'm confident in thinking no professional historian holds this view which unfortunately is what is required to justify an article. Also, your logic would be considered original research, a violation of a core tenant on Wikipedia Wikipedia:No original research.

Anthony Kaldellis is an active author and an accessible historian, you could reach out to him to see what he thinks. Biz (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Biz: "Labels are important, but so are the narratives that sustain them. It is from stories that identities derive their essence, and the narrative of Byzantium is a Roman one as well as a Christian one. That may put it on a bigger map. In finding itself again, Romanía can change our understanding of Roman history broadly. § We should think Big, in bigger terms even than the 1,123 years that elapsed between the foundation and conquest of Constantinople. Let’s try to think even bigger, remembering that “Byzantium” was invented through an attempt to pare history down to a manageable size, by postulating that one phase of the Roman empire was “essentially” different from the others, thereby cutting Roman history into smaller bits. Other than scholarly convenience, there is no good reason to do this. There was only ever one Roman res publica. It began as a city on the Tiber in Italy, expanded to encompass a huge empire, and, in the process, it became an idea: the city had become a world, to which the name Romanía was given by the fourth century AD. [...] There were no major turning points in the history of Rome / New Rome that require us to invent new labels or essences. It was all one history. Is our historical vision broad enough for this conception?" Anthony Kaldellis, Byzantium Unbound, pp. 43-44, 45. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think anything useful would be achieved by this. It would overlap with existing articles. It inherently pushes a PoV. A "continuation" is not the same as "it was the exact same thing". The fact that there is no common name for the concept that you want this proposed page to cover is a sign that it is not a natural topic (all of the proposed names favour one period or another, none are common names, and some of them - Byzantine empire, SPQR - are already in use). Furius (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"Ancient Rome" is not - I believe - identical to any particular polity. Or perhaps polity is exactly what it is, but not a particular state. According to the lead, it is a civilization (but then the lead goes on to identify it with three entities that are in fact state(s)).

I think two good question to ask concerning the proposed new article is,

1. What should it contain? Would it mere duplicate contents elsewhere, or be extremely brief with "main article" links to existing articles?
2. What purpose should it serve, that isn't already served by e.g. Rome (disambiguation)?

Nø (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)