Talk:Stilicho

diptych

The diptych of Stilicho is in German Wikipedia as Bild:Stilicho.jpg. If I were competent to transfer it, it would serve well here, and perhaps at Brooch. --Wetman 00:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Now added.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Born in Germany?

What source is there for Stilicho's being born in Germany? The Vandals in the late 4th century were living in "Germania", but not modern Germany. We should make sure the terms aren't being confused. --Abou 20:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Abou, from what I can tell, his father was a cavalry officer in the legions, so he could have been born physically anywhere. There doesn't seem to be a contemporary record of his birthplace. I'll keep looking, though. --Dhartung | Talk 23:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The PLRE does not say anything about his birth place which to me indicates that nothing is known about it. Fornadan (t) 16:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Great article

This is a great article. It could do with a bit of editing in some places. If I knew more about the subjects, I would do it. I am not very familiar but it is a model article nevertheless. It is a good example of what Wikipedia should be. Thanks to all of you. - Pernambuco 13:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's fairly solid but it isn't nearly up to Featured quality. Citations need to be improved and some of the writing remains POV (arguing one side or the other) without attribution to a historical source or a modern historian. --Dhartung | Talk 23:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A diffeent picture

For a different perspective, see http://www..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 09:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Blanked out non-historical weird fantasy link. Wiki uses Reliable Sources.50.111.19.250 (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Gildo?

The Gildo article does not cite Stilicho as quelling gildo's revolt. Who is right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.130.139.95 (talk • contribs).

Good catch. That article omitted Stilicho's role in commanding the overall war, with Mascezel in command of the expedition itself. Bury --Dhartung | Talk 08:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

patricius is not "patrician"

The mistake made at Patrician reinforces the same error here, which occurs in the second line and discourages one from reading farther. An article Patricius on the 4th-6th century significance would be moire helpful than the current simple-minded redirect to Patrician. --Wetman (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The word is the same but it has changed its meaning over the centuries.

We cannot solve the errors of other articles here. Go, fix it there. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"rumoured to be Arian"

I partly reverted the changes including this phrase. I have seen Stilicho described as Arian but I am not sure how certain that fact is (therefore the fact tag). However, he was certainly not "rumoured" anything in his time. Also, there was nothing that would preclude an Arian Germanic from high miilitary ranks, even in the later 5th century we have important Arians in command. Theoderic the Great also was an Arian and officially acted as a representative of the Emperor. I also fact tagged the claim that the burning of the Sibylline books played a role in Stilicho's demise. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

some changes to be made

I´ve done some changes to the section about Stilicho´s career. I have access to good sources and I intend to improve the article over time. For now, I deleted the nonsense about Stilicho being tasked by Theodosius to suppress the Goths - this is true for not earlier than 395 (when Theodosius died and the Goths rebelled).Eunapios (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And yet in version 19:25, 17 June 2020, said nonsense about suppressing the Goths was added (or re-added). I do not have the reference book at hand (Hughes, Ian, 'Stilicho') so I don't know what Hughes' primary source was. RMcPhillip (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Radagaisus in 401 attack?

The article states Radagaisus was involved in the 401 attack on Rhaetia - I don't think this is correct. Does anyone have any references to back this? The Radagaisus article doesn't mention it. (I don't have my own references handy or I'd do it myself. )--Jmullaly (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Unified RE?

Is there any real sense in which the following statement in the article is true? "Theodosius I, who ruled the Eastern half of the Roman Empire from Constantinople, and who was to become the last Emperor to rule both the Eastern and Western halves of the Empire jointly...."

The issue of wording here isn't about what lands are in the RE, but about what's ruled by a single monarch. Surely Justinian and his immediate successors could be said to rule both regions jointly, to the extent that the lands in question were still part of the RE. What we have upon Theodosius' death is just the temporary existence of two separate states: They were merely separate administrative regions of a single, unified RE before that (and any emperor in either had full authority in both). And those lands were also part of a single, unified RE after Justinian took them back, to the extent that he was able to.

I am tempted to delete the statement outright, except that I think there is a version of it (properly rewritten) that is useful to the article. Alas, I haven't found the wording of that rewrite, yet. Any thoughts? Jmacwiki (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Scholarship recognizes Theodosius I as the last emperor of a united Roman Empire. Justinian's conquests in Italy and the West were temporary and he lost much of it by his death, and in no way impacted huge territories now under Barbarian occupation.50.111.19.250 (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The Stilicho Diptych should be edited.

A recent reassessment of the Stilicho Diptych has reidentified it as a Diptych of Aetius.

https://www.academia.edu/8782362/THE_PORTRAIT_OF_FLAVIUS_AETIUS_390-454_FROM_DUROSTORUM_SILISTRA_INSCRIBED_ON_A_CONSULAR_DIPTYCH_FROM_MONZA._In_STUDIA_ACADEMIA_%C5%A0UMENENSIS_1_2014_p._7-21

I am not suggesting it should be removed, but I suggest it should be edited that its identity is stated to be controversial.

MMFA (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Pictish war

The one line in this article on the war, says it went badly, yet the article on the war itself says Stilicho won. Since both cite the same source which is unavailable online, I don't know which one is correct so didn't want to change this, incase the other article is wrong. Can anyone check the source and see what it actually says?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.41.138 (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Sarcophagus of Stilicho into Flavius Stilicho. The content in the article about his sarcophagus is minimal. I think it would do better as a subsection of this article. Ewf9h-bg (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It probably wasn't anything to do with Stilicho, see its own article, which should remain separate. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Rename the Article

The article is titled "Stilicho," however it should be titled Flavius Stilicho. Other articles about Romans don't just use their last name. For example it is Julius Caesar not Caesar.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewf9h-bg (talk • contribs) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Stilicho is unambiguous, no others exist, but there are lots of Caesars. He's usually referred to simply as Stilicho and I can see no good reason to change. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus, Wiki CN is policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.250 (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what "Wiki CN is policy" means. If it is a Wikipedia edit policy, where would I find it described? RMcPhillip (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)