Talk:Roman Empire/Archive 1

2003 and earlier discussion

NOTE: I am undertaking significant edits to this page, reorganizing it into an actual history of the Roman Empire and a useful index page for Imperial topics on Wikipedia. The process will be gradual, since my time is limited, so I hope everyone can join in and help out. If anyone has any questions, please see the discussion at the bottom of this talk page.

Thanks all.

--Ddama 04:18, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I always thought Julius Ceasar was the first emperor?

No Julius Ceasar was the first salad.

---

Shouldn't the simple list of emperors be in a separate page like United Kingdom/Monarchs although we don't like subpages so maybe as a top level page like Roman Emperors.

---

Julius Caesar was dictator for life. I was adding the emperor list as stubs, not as a permanent list; but if there's already an accepted practice, go ahead and make a page for it - sounds sensible to me. MichaelTinkler

---

Sources I have checked say that Julius received the imperium in 46 BC but also that Augustus didn't call himself emperor either. I certainly have no idea on this myself.

---

Typically we call everyone up to Nero "The Principate" because the clearest TITLE the emperors used was "Princeps" or "First Citizen." Julius Caesar can be included or not, but Augustus is more usually treated as the first emperor by historians for administrative reasons - J.Caesar never got the kind of grip on the administration of the provinces that Augustus did. MichaelTinkler

---

thanks for the 'Roman Emperors' list, rmherman - I don't have it on this harddrive anywhere and didn't want to retype it! MichaelTinkler

---

Given the common impression of Julius Caesar as emperor, he should at least be mentioned -to refute or affirm in the article and something about the "princeps" probably also?. -rmhermen

---

Yep. I wasn't going to bother with the early part of the article (principate not being really my thing), but might as well.

---

Minor problem with the emperor list: the last emperor was Romulus Augustulus, not Romulus Augustus. Unfortunately the heading on the page for our man spells it the wrong way or else I'd just correct it. I was all ready to castigate some idiot until I realized I was the one who started the page with the typo :-) Sorry about that chief. Is there a way to fix it, or do I need an admin? -- PaulDrye

---

Well, don't feel guilty about it. We all call him Augustulus (including the copy of Boak & Sinnigen's A History of Rome I have here in the office), but that was always just a nickname. (-ulus in Latin meaning more or less wittle in the baby-talk kind of way in English)

Oh, and I don't know about the page name. -- MichaelTinkler

---

My vote on Julius Caesar's position is to make sure he stays Dictator -- but then explain what a Roman dictator was -- this clears up two misconceptions at once. Michael, can we add that most of the anti-Livia stuff (although it could be true, and makes for interesting reading) is Suetonius? -- JHK

This article could benefit a general introduction to the topic - it dives right in a bit fast for a lay reader. A simple paragraph at the beginning perhaps giving an overview of the romans (great article though!) - MB

---

---

I think it's quite interesting (and sad and a whole host of negative feelings) that people think the Roman Empire was characterized by the doings of the guy on top of the shit heap. The article is called the Roman Empire, right? Not Roman Emperors!

Where's the discussion of architecture, art, social mores, internal policy, religion, languages, philosophy, alliances, foreign and colonial policy? There's hardly any mention of those things (a couple paragraphs out of two dozen)!! No wonder most people have the impression the Roman Empire had a population of a few dozen people!

I think this blind adulation of the guy at the top of the shit heap would provide plenty of fodder for a psychoanalyst. Doubtless, the analysis would prove extremely unflattering. Shame on you all! -- Richard K (someone who couldn't care less who murdered whom and who fucked whom when in order to be able to murder others)

_____

I have the impression that Gaius Julius Caesar is not regarded as an Emperor becuse his authority as Dictator was based on the Republican Constitution (albeit somewhat perverted to his particular needs). Authors such as Robert Syme have shown that it was Octavian (the future Augustus) who launched the revolution that overthrew the Republic. He subsequently based his own authority on the loyalty of the legions, thinly disguised with Republican titles for his various powers. So I'd also say leave J. Caesar as Dictator rather than Emperor.

It was my understanding that the Roman Emperors didn't call themselves Emperor because the word didn't exist then. I thought it came about because each Emperor took the title "Imperator". And that the original meaning of Imperator was that a successful General would be hailed "Imperator" by his legions. By the late Republic it was a kind of way to tell your General that you'd back him in a Civil War. But since Augustus changed things to have the legions swear loyalty to him alone it was natural for subsequent recipients of the Legions' oaths to also use the title Imperator even when they had no triumphs to their names. I guess that the Barbarians pronounced it wrong and came up with "Emperor". Am I making sence?

I noticed that the date of death of Gauis and Lucius Caesar was shown as 2 BC in the Roman Empire entry. Actually Lucius Caesar died in 2AD and his brother Gaius died in 4 AD but I haven't got bold enough to fix it. As a matter of completeness Drussus (Tiberius' brother) died in 9 BC; Tiberius returned to Rome in 2 AD but this was more through the intersession of Livia rather than him being sent for by Augustus; he was kept out of all public life until Gaius died in 4AD, and it was only then that he returned to public life and was adopted by Augustus.

Thanks, Neil Whyman

---

If we're still allowed to talk about doings of those insignificant emperors ;-), a few little details might be worth clearing up here. As it stands, the article makes it seem that Tiberius chose to divorce his wife, but I thought Augustus ordered him quite against his wishes. And Caligula's seashell incident may have been a mistranslation of an order that was more reasonable in the original Latin (but I can't remember what it was).

Alex Clark

---

Julius Caesar was actually offered the crown a few times but he always turned it down (he was in a bit of a no-win situation with honours - he accepted them and people thought he was getting above himself. He didn't accept them and people claimed he was getting above himself because he obviously thought he knew better than the Senate). One of the excuses for his murder was the fear that he would accept and establish a monarchy. The Romans had a few issues with the concept of kings/emperors which is one of the reason the early Emperors went with the Princeps title. They were 'first among many' rather than 'rulers' which made it all O.K. Obviously as the public got used to the concept and the Emperors got more powerful they dropped the spin ;-) Imperator was a military title that was given to a sucessful general by his men. In that context Julius Caesar *was* an Imperator because he had been awarded the title however that is totally distinct from him being an Emperor - which he wasn't. Some Emperors like Octavian/Augustus actually got the title legitimately as well. It was later claimed by various Emperors probably on the basis that it wouldn't do to have a general with an honour that the Emperor didn't have and since Rome was so focused on the importance of manly virtues and the Emperor as military commander it stuck.

Faith Lawrence

Comprehensive rewrite?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to undertake a comprehensive rewrite of this page to actually deal with the subject of the Roman Empire in an encyclopedic fashion, including art, architecture, religion, the economy, the family, life, law and culture. I realize that I am new here and I don't want to step on anybody's toes.

The Roman Empire is the linchpin of European and Middle Eastern history, of Jewish, Christian and Muslim thought, and of cultural ideals that influence the lives of everyone reading this, whether they know it or not. This article must therefore be a showpiece for the entire Wikipedia project.

Currently, both the Roman Republic and the Byzantine Empire pages are in better shape than this one. I think the History of Russia series sets an example to aspire to in terms of integration and comprehensiveness. There should be links from this page to virtually every topic in the Roman article index.

Has anyone else out there had thoughts like this? Ddama (05:13, Mar 11, 2004)

Yes. I agree with your assessment and think your proposal is laudable; there's currently an amazing amount of fine-grained detail on people, places, things, and events (especially battles :-), but a complete, comprehensive overview is sorely lacking. I also wonder if tackling this topic isn't beyond any one person's ability -- doing it properly would entail doing the same for Roman Republic, obviously. I suggest setting up a Wikiproject to deal with this and actively recruiting people to work on it; there are obviously many editors who've taken an interest in this. --67.69.188.80 06:57, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have a couple thoughts for this: first, a Wikiproject wouldn't be that useful, because there is only one or at most a handful of articles involved, while Wikiprojects are for topics with hundreds or thousands of similar articles for which people want to have some consistency. I would also offer the caveat that we don't want the article(s) to get too long; some of the big "history of" series are already book-sized, but readers using WP as a reference really want bite-sized pieces that are usefully interlinked. So the game is to set a budget, say 3000 words, write a beginning-to-end narrative to that length, then link to other articles for additional depth on special topics, such as the Crisis of the Third Century. Early emperors will have to be pruned down a bit (OK because they have their own articles), so as to make room for cultural evolution and the like. It's OK to "cheat" by looking at OCD and Britannica to see how they handle depth and content issues. Stan 07:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the suggestions. Does anyone have any idea how to undertake such a massive edit to what seems to be a reasonably active page, particularly if it represents a major change in that page's direction? Ddama

Depends on your preferred style and work habits. For myself, I generally find I do my best encyclopedizing in small chunks, in this article's case perhaps one century at a time, and spend some time on connected articles harmonizing their contents with this one. In that mode you can go ahead and edit this article directly - still a low chance of conflicts, plus which you can have proofreaders fixing up the typos incrementally. If you want to do a all-at-once approach, create a new page with something like a "/Temp" added, add a note at top about what you're doing, connect from here and/or your talk page, and work away. When it's done, you can ask for comments directly, or "be bold" and paste the new version into the existing article and respond to the ensuing critiques and plaudits. In any case, choose which works best for you personally - there have been a bunch of cases where people got ambitious about writing/rewriting long articles, but ran out of inspiration and never finished, while others have written fabulous in-depth articles at one sitting. Stan 17:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I think I will organize the material on a chronological basis, covering politics, law, religion, literature, art (to the extent available) and economics under each heading. Time constraints will bind me to piecemeal editing. Everyone should be on the lookout :) and I would love to hear any comments that anyone has to make. Ddama

Ddama, good on you for undertaking this. I have a question: what do you mean by organizing the material on a chronological basis? Will you be dividing the history into the classical early, middle, and late empire? Or will it be in more discrete blocks? I would suggest the former - it provides ready made chunks of information for easy use. Reid 05:46, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've been experiencing major technical difficulties for the past six weeks, which may be ending Real Soon Now, so I hope to return to this important work in the near future.

I think 4 eras works fine: Age of Augustus, Early, Middle, and Late Empires. Let us now dispute exactly what fits into those periods :). Most Classicists consider the Late Empire to begin with Diocletian. I have other ideas, as good cases can be made for Aurelian and for Constantine, and the Byzantinist in me favors later dates yet (Nicea, Adrianople, etc.), but will bow to the conventional wisdom. The tougher question is where to break the Early and Middle Empire. Nerva? Trajan? Commodus? Severus? the Edict of Caracalla? Conventional wisdom has not coalesced on the matter. Ddama

Well, I think that, this being an enclycopedia, we should stick with the conventional wisdom, with regard to the late empire. As for the early/middle empire, I have always favored using Commodus' death as a good point. The empire undergoes a sever(an) change in tone - the military begins to take a greater role and then the natural disasters start to pile up. Its almost as thoug Commodus squandered the last of the empire's fortune. Sorry, couldn't resist the pun.Reid 23:46, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I might also add that each of those headings (society, art, warfare, politics, etc.) can easily become their own page. The nice thing about wikipedia is that it need not fit everything on one page - it need only be easy to navigate. Reid 05:46, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Criticism of histotical texts

Though I'm not involved, is there really nothing the public may see in the following "editorial" note that was recently deleted?

It should be noted to the average reader that the amount of negative information concerning early emperors and indeed all emperors to a greater or lesser extent is often false or highly exaggerated. Claims of Emperor Gaius' incestuous relationships with his sisters or the attempts he made to make his favorite horse consul, and the utter contempt history hold against Emperor Nero are the result of the senate and aristocracy of Rome, which doubtlessly opposed minor changes in Roman tradition or culture. A great example can be found with Emperor Hadrian. Shortly after his death, he was declared Memoriae Damnatio by the senate. For his Hellenophile tendencies and his liberal policies towards the Empire (not to mention the great sums of money he spent building in Rome and renovating towns he visited on his trans-imperial tours) he was extremely unpopular, however was restored in public opinion by Antoninus Pius. Nero is the same for his pro-Greek sympathies (which were considered overly-fanciful and un-Roman at times). In contrast, Emperor Antoninus Pius is held in high regards by the chroniclers of the day because of the relative inactivity of his reign. It is wise to examine the actions of Emperors held to be "good" or "bad" and keep in mind the reasons in relations to the Senate why this may be so.

There is material here worth while salvaging rather than suppressing, IMHO. Wetman 02:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why

I was the one who wrote it. Who deleted it, why, and what gave them said right to do so? I am only trying to explain what noted historians of Rome like have to say on the subject. In almost every magazine article or editorial Nero is mentioned in, some outspoken person on the subject always defends him to a certain extent (Especially Dr. Wallace-Hadrill of the British School at Rome). I read Anthony R. Birley's biography on Hadrian, and the senate did damn his memory posthumously, and his image was recovered by Antoninus Pius. I delivered only information that was factual or if not factual cannot be disproven with other facts. So, other than having a bad opinion, why was it deleted? I shall indeed salvage the information and try again.

Well, the page history shows that it was Texture. I assume that he was being bold (that is what happens in Wikipedia!) but why not ask him? For what it is worth, I would not have deleted it. Perhaps you should put it back, but possibly in a difference place - say, a new section "Notes on sources" at the end? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:19, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The addition seems generally good, but being about individuals it's perhaps more relevant to Roman Emperor than to the whole Empire. I assume Texture was misled by the wording - determination of the veracity of ancient accounts of the emperors is an important part of classical studies, and is an active research area. Stan 17:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, I will ask him. I do also agree with your comment on adding it to the Roman Emperor page, and will see what I can do.

Late Antiquity in the West

I wrote the "From Roman to Byzantine in the East" and made a beginning on "Late Antiquity in the West". Does anyone have any comments on my work. It is one of my more serious contributions. User:Magraggae 19:34, 13 Jul 2004 (GMT+1)

I would like to see some more context on the 'fall' of the Roman Empire. Perhaps this would be better presented as a separate page.

The Fall of Rome

The Fall of Rome Ian Wheeler “The city that once ruled the universe, is now itself conquered.” quoted a Roman monk and poet as he watched his city starve. They were surrounded by a Gothic army in 476 AD and could not escape. How could such a glorious civilization have such a fall as the Roman Empire? Several reasons in my mind contribute to the historical fall. A few that I will discuss are: the rise of Christianity; the hiring of mercenaries; and the Huns. There is no such thing as ruling all of Europe, only occupying.

All of these factors contributed to the fall, of course, some more than others. Constantine I, who was a Christian Roman general, was fighting his rivals over the Roman throne. God supposedly gave him a vision in his sleep telling him to put the Byzantine cross, a sign of his Christianity, on the shields of his men. He did just that and in 312 AD, on a bridge near Byzantium (renamed Constantinople), he marched his men with newly painted shields into battle against his rival Liscinius. He slaughtered the non Christian army and thus proclaimed that he was Emperor. Eventually he split the empire into the eastern and western empire, to make it easier to govern. The western empire was eventually overrun but the Eastern Empire, formally known as the Byzantine Empire, thrived for another century.

The second reason I believe contributed was the fact that the empire “outgrew” its armies. What I mean is that the armies of Rome could not protect all of what it had taken. This made it easier for “Barbaric” tribes to invade the northern and eastern European provinces.

Not only were the armies to spread out, but they also consisted of peaceful gothic tribesmen and mercenaries. The Goths who were allowed to come into the empire, unfortunately, were allowed to join the military. They were not nearly as disciplined as the famous, true, Roman legions. They also respected the generals little, and respected Rome even less. Mercenaries basically respected only their generals and cared nothing for Rome itself, much less other generals. Generals often fought each other over the Roman throne.

The Huns were nomadic Mongols who were fierce warriors of many languages. They were merciless, pagan, and brutal. Strictly relying on cavalry for their military force, they brought swift, horrific deaths to Teutonic tribes in eastern and central Europe. They forced a large migration of Teutons to the south west; right into the heart of the Roman Empire. The Teutons began invading Rome constantly and eventually destroyed the western empire. Several miraculous victories helped contribute to Rome’s fall, like the bloody battle of Teutoburg forest.

Although the Roman Empire is diminished, the impact of its once glorious empire still influences culture, and languages of Europe. Latin, the official Roman language, is the language from which most European languages are derived. Many nations tried to reestablish the empire, but all failed. The infamous, all powerful Roman Empire will go down in history, as a beginning of the modern world, as an introduction of new government, and as the city, that once, long ago, had ruled the universe.

Map?

The map looks to be in a combination of German and Latin.

Might I propose that the sections in German be modified to match the Latin of the rest of the map? --Jeff Anonymous 18:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Timeline of the Roman Empire

I thought this article could use a timeline. So here i whipped up something which might be used as a base for a more refined version. The Caesar/Augustus differentiation does probably not make a lot of sense. Ideas how to make the timeline more compact? --Dschwen 10:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cool, but vertical would work better I think - the timespan is immense, and some of the names are long. Stan 13:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about this? I split it into two collums. Now I need some suggestions on the contents. Should I create seperate categories for events like battles or constructions of famous buildings? How can I make it look more polished? --Dschwen 17:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To give it a little push, I put it in the article. --Dschwen 22:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessary caution

Augustus's strategy of intermarriage between the Julii and Claudii resulted in a combination of family and political relationships known as the Julio-Claudian dynasty. This was removed as "untrue" by an anonymous User:68.153.36.3 with no previous record of competence in any history field. Would someone knowledgable add some specifics and return it, if it is not untrue? Or leave it out. --Wetman 18:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This IP's edits are consistently nonsense and graffiti (since September 2004). the text goes back after all. --Wetman 19:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Julii part of the Julio-Claudians was Augustus (ie. Octavian) and the Claudii part was his wife Livia(the mother of Tiberius, who is actually not a Julio-Claudian, just a Claudian). I am adding this now. --Masamax 08:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

in reference to christianity

I have a question in relation to the government-sanctioned persecution of religion prior to the Edict of Milan and Emperor Constantine (and his successors).

If this violence was precipitated by a majority against a minority of religious practitioners, could the outbursts of violence be considered pogroms? If so, when did these pogroms occur?

Perhaps it is more useful to distinguish what was particularly Russian about a pogrom and refer to some parallels with official Roman persecution of Christians. It ossifies flexible thinking to establish a category, label it, and then cram historical facts into the category. `--Wetman 20:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BC/AD or BCE/CE?

An anon user has gone through and replaced (almost?) all year links from the BC to BCE and AD to CE. In most cases they have inlcuded this in the link (60 BCE) which isn't an article. I was tempted to revert the edits, but wondered whether just moving the CE or BCE outside of the link would be better (I don't have time for that at the moment) and so I've left it for now. Do we have a policy on which style to use? Thryduulf

There is, a faint preference for BC over BCE in historical eras. Changing them just to change them is right out, so I reverted; anon can get a login and show up here if he/she wishes to argue the point. Stan 13:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Splitting up Roman Emperor

I left a note at Talk:Roman Emperor, but this page seems considerably more active so I think more of the interested parties might see this here than over there.

Roman Emperor is really long. Really long. 67kb, which is even longer than here & over twice the recommended limit of 32kb. I'd like to split it up; at the article's talk page I've proposed four new articles for its body to be divided between. But I wanted to hear everyone's thoughts first. Binabik80 20:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a general rule, whenever splitting away material, it's necessary to leave a condensed version of it at the parent article, with an indented note in italics telling the reader where to find the more complete material. As long as this is done, there's little harm in splitting. --Wetman 21:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Splitting the article should be based primarily on structural reasons rather on the (now) mostly arbitrary and outdated 32k guideline. Paul August ☎ 16:55, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well the technical limitations are generally outdated, but there are aesthetic reasons for truncating & splitting articles. 32k is a judgement call but I don't think it's really "arbitrary". Articles longer than that (IMHO, articles longer than 24k) are almost certain not be capable of giving their readers a general but comprehensive overview of the topic that can be read in a single reading. Using the 32k guideline allows us to figure out when we're giving a broad topic too detailed a treatment & need to start splitting information up. Using Roman Emperor as an example: this is the article that someone logically is going to go to for a description of the prerogatives of the Imperial office & an overview of how it evolved over the 500 years the Roman Empire was in existence in the West.

They're probably not looking for the 13k treatment of the office during the Principate period that the article had until a week ago, and burying the information they're looking for in that amount of text makes it very difficult for them to find. They get what they want from the 3-paragraph summary that has now replaced that section. For those who do want a more in depth treatment of that specific topic, they still have the link to Roman Emperor (Principate). Furthermore, a reader who does want more detailed information on, say, the transition from the Imperial office as belonging to the heirs of Caesar Augustus to being available as a military prize during the Year of four emperors, probably isn't also looking for information about Petronius Maximus legitimising his assumption of the purple through his marriage to Eudoxia, so they belong in separate articles rather than the same long, interminable "overview". Splitting the articles off like this allows the reader to choose whether they want detailed but narrow information, or broad but general information.

The 32k guideline has become soft rather than hard because it's now only aesthetic rather than also technical, but the aesthetic concerns haven't become any less valid.

I think Hippalus has a great idea, btw. In the meantime I'm going to finish up splitting Roman Emperor because as it stands now, it's half-split & looks pretty weird. Binabik80 17:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Splitting up Roman Empire too

As a response to Binabik80 (see above): shouldn't we combine splitting up Roman Emperor with splitting up the article on the Roman Empire? Both articles could be split and merged into, for example:

• Age of Augustus (as this section is already quite comprehensive)
• Principate
• Crisis of the Third Century
• Dominate
• Christian Empire
• Late Antiquity in the West
• From Roman to Byzantine in the East
• Byzantine Empire

As such they could form a 'History of the Roman Empire'-series, with History of the Roman Empire as a condensed version of the present Roman Empire-article. The article Roman Empire could then become a cornerstone article, with a balance between history, culture, language, architecture, commerce, etcetera. The article Roman Emperor could become an article on the institute of Emperor and its evolution instead of an extended list of Roman emperors. What dou you all think?--Hippalus 09:36, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

That would make a good archetypal scheme for all such splits Hippalus! --Wetman 14:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looks great to me. I've already started splitting up Roman Emperor, but the text I've so far removed & summarised from that article is preserved pretty much intact at Roman Emperor (Principate) and Roman Emperor (Crisis of the Third Century). Binabik80 15:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Wetman and Binabik! As all of this is going to be an enormous effort, maybe we should coin it a project?--Hippalus 19:10, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea; but not just a condensed form of this article, as it rather biased towards the Western half. -Chris5369 23:00 Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

When is this going to continue? I'd genuinely like to see this page reorganized so it is no longer merely a history article. I'd be glad to help. --Masamax 08:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Flavian Dynasty

I really don't agree with some aspects of the descriptions of the Flavian dynasty. In particular, the lines "Another example of his monarchical tendencies was his insistence that his sons Titus and Domitian would succeed him; the imperial power was not seen as hereditary at this point." bother me, since this was standard practice (and indeed the Emperor Claudius was appointed by the Praetorian Guard for this very reason! --Masamax 10:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Province Template

I'm not sure how to turn this into a template, and it probably needs some editing as well. However, I think we should refine and use this to classify and standardize all the subsequent province pages it links too, and create the ones that don't yet exist. --Christopher 20:39, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Province Map

This is the plain thumbnail format without px (pixel) spex.

I think this is a nice map that we can use as the basis for identifying the locations of Roman Provinces. Most of the subsequent province pages are without maps and not standardized to a certain format. --Christopher 20:39, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I put it in thumbnail format. Looks good. Only nerds can find Moesia on the globe, eh GWB? --Wetman 23:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW typo Hispania Tarraconensis will fix one of those pseky redlinks. (I'd do it myself if I knew how...) --Wetman 23:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)