Talk:Gratian

Untitled

About Slavery in wikipedia, it's mentioned that Gratian ordered to burn any slave that accused his master of a crime, does anyone know about a source?

'Full' name

Given that Flavius is a nomen, not a prænomen, it seems dubious that this was actually his full name. Was he a Gaius or a Publius or a what? or had personal names really somehow gone out of fashion during this period? — LlywelynII 13:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. Seems to be addressed: it had become a prænomen by the late Classical period. — LlywelynII 14:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gratian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025063840/http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/imperial-laws-chart-364 to http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/imperial-laws-chart-364

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this English?

"On other side his tutor Ausonius which has worked toward religious tolerance, has lost influence with time as bishop Ambrose' influence over Gratian grew. This has resulted with Roman Senate protests and fall of emperor popularity."2A02:AA1:161B:17D9:6D6E:16F3:7408:1B3B (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gratian/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 04:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I am planning to complete the review in a couple of day. Prima facie I see no major issues to be solved, but I need some time to thoroughly read the article. 04:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

First remarks:

• Most sources' ISBN is omitted in section "Sources". The place of publication is sometimes mentioned, sometimes ignored.
• Too many pictures?

• Sandwiching is still a problem, but I do not know how to solve it. So I put it aside for a while. :)

• I miss a map.
• Perhaps section "Revolt and death" should follow section "Empire and Christianity". Borsoka (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Isbn has been added to all sources.
• Removed two pictures.
• Let me see what I can find for a map.
• Moved section "Revolt and death" to after section "Empire and Christianity". --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Added a map. Give me your thoughts. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Are the four references in the first sentence necessary?
• I understand his father became Roman Emperor only after Gratian's birth.
• Consider mentioning that Gratian was his parents' only child and his father divorced his mother to marry a second wife who gave birth to Valentinian (II).
• Marina Severa The cited source calls her Severa or Marina (Lenski), but Vanderspoel (cited at the end of the sentence) confirms this form.
• Consider linking Pannonia either to Diocese of Pannonia or Pannonia Secunda.
• Consider introducing Gratian the Elder.

• Removed two references from the first sentence.
• Added information stating Valentinian was living in exile at time of Gratian's birth.
• Stated Gratian was only child of Valentinian and Marina
• Link Pannonia in lead
• Added information about Gratian the Elder. Was not sure how much information you wanted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Consider mentioning when Valentinian I became emperor of the West. Consider mentioning that his brother, Valens was made emperor of the East.
• Gratian was first married to Flavia Maxima Constantia, daughter of Constantius II. 1. Lenski explains that the first marriage was Valentinian's attempt to link his dynasty with the family of Constantine the Great. 2. When did he marry Constantia?
• His second wife was Laeta. 1. Bond & Nicholson mention that Gratian married Laeta after his first wife's death. 2. When did he marry Laeta?
• Both marriages remained childless. Source?
• On 24 August 367 Gratian received from his father the title of Augustus. 1. Lenski writes that Gratian first received the rank of consul, then was awarded with the title of nobilissimus puer. 2. Lenski explains that Valentinian II wanted to demonstrate his determination to secure the throne to Gratian with the grants of titles. 3. Explain the title augustus and Gratian's role during his father's reign.
• Syvänne writes of a power struggle between the Gallic and Pannonian troops after Valentinian I's death. He also mentions that Gratian most likely favored the Gallic fraction and got rid of some of his father's favorites.

• Mention Valentinian and later, Valens elevation to Augustus.
• Added information on Constantia, year of marriage and death, year of marriage to Laeta. Found one source stating Constantia had no children with Gratian. Still working on Laeta.
• Added Gratian receiving the rank of consul and nobilissimus puer.

I may need some more time. Just moved and half my library is still in boxes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Added information of Gratian's role after his ascension to augustus.
• Added information about the Gallic/Pannonian factions just after Valentinian's death.
• For Augustus did you want the definition form or the reason(s) why Gratian was made co-Augustus.??--Kansas Bear (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• • I added an explanation for the title ([1]). Please feel free to adopt alternative method. For the explanation, please my remark below. Borsoka (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Gratian was named after his grandfather Gratian the Elder, who was a tribune, and later comes of Britannia, for Constantine the Great. Consider mentioning it in connection with Gratian's birth.
• In 375, Gratian married Flavia Maxima Constantia, daughter of Constantius II, she died in early 383. He later married Laeta. Both marriages remained childless. Consider following chronology, especially because Gratian's first marriage was allegedly an attempt to strengthen his claim to the imperial throne.
• Gratian was given the title of consul in 366 by his father. When Gratian was seven he was titled, nobilissimus puer, indicating he was to be proclaimed augustus. I understand Gratian was seven in 366 (in the same year when he was made consul).
• On 24 August 367 Gratian received from his father, Valentianian, the title of augustus. Lenski provides an explanation: "This proclamation secured the family's claim to the empire....the boy became the repository of hopes both for dynastic continuity and for the continued strength of Rome." Hebblewhite also writes of Valentinian's "near-death illness" as the principal reason of Gratian's promotion to co-emperorship.
• Valentinian, concerned with Gratian's age and inexperience, stated his son would assist commanders with upcoming campaigns. Does Hebblewhite verify this statement? Hebblewhite mentions the lack of dynastic legitimacy, adding that "To legitimize Gratian, Valentinian must have reassured the army that the young boy would one day offer the strong military leadership they demanded", because Gratian's ancestors had been successful military commanders. Borsoka (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• The following year, Gratian was held out of harm's way guarded by the Ioviani Seniores, while Valentinian engaged the Alemanni at the Battle of Solicinium. 1. Does the cited page verify the sentence (in my copy, page 156 contains the relevant info). 2. Who are the Ioviani Seniores? Consider also link them to Jovians and Herculians.
• ...the Gallic theatre of the Western Roman Empire. Is not the term "Western Roman Empire" anachronistic?
• Fearing the Gallic cohorts would nominate comes Sebatianius... 1. Introduce Sebastianus. 2. I am not sure it is clear that Sebastinianus was regarded as a possible candidate to the imperial throne.
• Merobaudes quickly ordered Sebatianius to a distant place with few troops and, along with Aequitius, persuaded the councilors to elevate Valentinian's four-year old son to augustus. Days later, Gratian's half-brother Valentinian II, Valentinian's four-year old son, is proclaimed augustus by troops in Pannonia. 1. Some copy-edit? The two sentences refer to Gratian's four-year-old half-brother, Valentinian II. 2. Syvänne also mentions a certain Aequitius.
• In response, the Gallic faction had all favourites of Valentinian I removed from their appointments, while the most ardent of followers were executed. Close paraphrasing?
• Gratian favoured the Gallic faction... Is this a fact or an assumption? Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• "2. I am not sure it is clear that Sebastinianus was regarded as a possible candidate to the imperial throne."

"According to Ammianus, the highest ranking councillors[sic] feared that the Gallic cohorts could nominate their own emperor, as a result of which they sent a message to Merobaudes in the name of Valentinian to come there immediately. When Merobaudes received the message he either guessed what had happened or the messenger told him. As a result, Merobaudes immediately sent Sebastianus to a more distant place where there were not many troops present, because it was feared that the soldiers might raise him on the throne because of his great popularity among the men." Syvanne, page 175.

• Yes, I read Syvänne's text, but the article's text does not clearly state it.

• "Gratian favoured the Gallic faction... Is this a fact or an assumption?"

"Oddly enough Gratian also seems to have favoured the Gallic faction." Syvanne, page 175. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I read Syvänne's text. I understand he assumes that Gratian favored the Gallic faction. The article presents this info as a fact. Borsoka (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think this GA should be canceled. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• It is your choice. I am ready to complete the review. Borsoka (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• On the advice of my spiritual advisor, I withdraw the request. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• I respect your decision. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Big revert

@Kansas Bear: This is drastic ... GPinkerton (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

This could've been done more carefully. Removal of 'bad sources' was the justification for the edit, but the action was essentially a rollback which deleted practically the whole bibliography and instead brought back Gibbon. I reverted and then deleted two of the 'bad sources' in question. Avilich (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not feel it was drastic at all. I removed what are clearly unreliable sources and the information along with it.

• "...and instead brought back Gibbon."

Mon Dieu! Do not be stomping all over the god-in-the-flesh Gibby! Someone might start sifting through your edits. :-o You will notice that I offered a simple link to a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard and instead someone else made it personal.

Also, all information referenced by those unreliable sources will be removed until sources by authors who clearly meet all our criteria can be found. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I like Gibbon too, though you clearly didn't think the source was good enough when nominating the article for good status. You had basically rolled back everything you had done so far! Avilich (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Do not blame me, when others make things personal. I see no reason for those type of individuals to benefit from my work. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Kienast?

Somebody has added a load of stuff referencing "Kienast" who ... is not explained anywhere. In this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gratian&direction=next&oldid=991643493

Ah looks like stuff from the "Valentinianic Dynasty" article, copied and pasted without due care.

Alans practiced human sacrifice?

The article says Gratian's Alan bodyguard were hated because Alans practiced human sacrifice. Really? This particular assertion is not footnoted. If it is true, it should be mentioned in the article on Alans. If it is false and was simply used to smear the Alans, the article should qualify it accordingly. RMcPhillip (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This statement was introduced on 29 April 2022 by an unknown user account, they are only identified by the IP Address. Here is the archived page where it was added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gratian&oldid=1085274609. Looking at their user contributions, it appears that many of this user's additions were reverted. I agree that it is not supported by any source, and certainly I've never heard of this particular accusation. It can safely be deleted. Oatley2112 (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. RMcPhillip (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)