Jump to content

Talk:Ancient Rome/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4


the sole superpower of Antiquity

Is this true? I suppose it depends on whether antiquity is a period of history, or if it is also geographically limited. 131.116.254.198 (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Prose

Romulus and Remus are the grandsons of the Latin King, Numitor of Alba Longa.

Since neither of them is still living, in this context, the word "were" should be used in place of the word "are". —Precedingunsigned comment added by 69.120.80.42 (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

2007 comment

The opening paragraph of the article staes that Rome began in the 9th century BC and ended in the 5th century AD; it then says that Rome was around for ~1200 years. The rough number should be around 1400 years based upon the 9th BC to 5th AD. Lauriemayer 14:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Website

I found a cool website on ancient rome and decided to add it here as adding it to the article would be unencyclopediodic. address is http://www.redrampant.com/Is there any otheer websites besides this one? Iam a great fan of the ancient romans. Skuld88/ Jan 28/ 2008

Linear Format Issues

While perusing the article, I noticed a fairly informative section on the Circus Maximus in the "Culture: Games and Activities" section. Imagine my horror as I scroll down to the "Great Roman Buildings" section only to find the exact same information worded in a different manner! I understand neither section can be completely removed while retaining the relativity of each topic. I would suggest a smaller reference to the Circus Maximus in the "Games and Activities" section, and leave the mass explanation for later. Thanks. -ExNoctem 22:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the detail on subjects like the Circus Maximus and other buildings is inappropriate for this article. I'd like to see them replaced with links to the appropriate article elsewhere. Other opinions?Mlouns 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
good ideaWardhog 19:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It's how it should be done but unfortunately this article is group edited and the group seems to want to go against much of Wiki policy on large articles. Personally I believe that "Ancient Rome" should be a block of articles all linked together to be as comprehensive as possible. Seems everyone wants to try and include everything in one massively long article, difficult to manuever through. Oh well.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Change in gross error

Forgive me for coming in and just editing but I could not help myself. The original file for the Temple of Iulius Caesar stated it was the temple of Sean Taylor; and the text goes on to talk about Taylor. This must be an act of vandalism or someone's joke, in either case I changed it to what is should read.

Neos Dionysos 07:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Phil, 11/23/06

Vandal deletion on 3 May 2006 still not reinstated

A heap of info was deleted by a vandal in this diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Rome&diff=51351666&oldid=51307108) on the 3rd of May, about 150 edits back. None of it is in this current version of the article. This is likely to be a high traffic article. We need to be more careful.

Any volunteers to patch this article back up? I'm going to do the government and law sections patching up since that's where I was reading when I couldn't decipher the sentence! — Donama 07:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: I already fixed it -- only a few edits have been allowed to go through since then and, except for changing the spelling to American, I've been reasonably happy with the edits. — Donama 00:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
One edit changed "princeps" to "imperator" but I'm not sure either word should be used since we normally say emperor. — Donama 00:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • (And I suppose nobody cares about the fact that this article's entire "History" section was deleted a couple of weeks after the aforementioned incident, and has, apparently, yet to be noticed by a single editor? Fun.) -Silence 05:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Somebody correct me before I edt, but didn't Rome allow any religion to pertain in its civilization? There was no religious persecution, I believe, and I'm pretty sure military service was mandatory.Oyo321 22:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Depends when you mean. In the early republic, military service was more or less mandatory of you owned any property (although I imagine the sons of the very rich could find ways out of it — a trip to Rhodes to study under a master of rhetoric, perhaps). If you had no property at all you weren't eligible for military service. After Marius it became a professonal volunteer army, and by the late Empire virtually no Romans served — the army was largely made up of provincials and foreign federates.
As for religion, in pre-Christian times observing the Roman state religion was a matter of allegiance to the Roman state, so as long as you were prepared to sacrifice to Jupiter and so on on official occasions I think they were more or less happy to let you do what you liked on your own time. Other pagans could fit in reasonably easily by identifying their gods with the Roman ones, and some foreign deities, like Isis, became popular in their own right. Jews and Christians were a problem, because they believed their god was the only one and worshipping any other was an affront to him, so they weren't prepared to sacrifice to Jupiter publicly and worship their own way in private. There were periods of persecution of both religions (and I believe of other foreign cults) from time to time, because they were effetively refusing to swear allegiance to Rome. Eventually the Empire made the mountain go to Mohammed by making Christianity their official religion, so by worshipping their own god in their own way the Christians were swearing allegiance to Rome as well. After that there were periods of persecution of paganism and of heretical versions of Christianity.
So, mostly, you're wrong. There was religious presecution, and military service wasn't mandatory. --Nicknack009 00:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Not sure. The Roman army was made up of many "disposable" armies of mercenary and only the legions were true Roman decendents. I'm pretty sure military service was mandatory in order to remain in the Roman Empire. I see you are right about religious persecution. I must have been misinformed. Before an ethnic group could enter Roman boundaries to serve under Rome for their protection. Oyo321 00:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Druidism in Gaul was another example of a religion that was officially banned by the Romans and whose adherents were persecuted. Ostensively because their worship involved human sacrifice. I believe I read that in Gibons' "Decline and Fall".

Persecutions were not common, but they definitely existed. Essentially, the ancient Romans mostly left people free to practise whatever religion they wanted, as long as that did not involve human sacrifice, and as long as it did not represent a threat to Rome's political supremacy. Celtic druidism, for example, was actively persecuted for both reasons: it did involve human sacrifice, and druids, being not just "priests", but also intellectuals and to some extent judges, acted as an important focus to rally celtic opposition to Roman rule. So, they had to go. As for early Christianity, in the very early days they were heavily influenced by mysteric cults that were all the rage in the Roman Empire; they practised their rites in the privacy of people's homes, not in public temples, so they were always eyed with suspect by authorities. As with any "secretive" sect, at that point you can attribute to them pretty much any practice you despise, so they were accused of human sacrifices (no evidence of that ever emerged), and of infiltrating the political structure of the Empire (this was essentially true, as the religion spread among Roman patricians), and consequently perceived as a threat and persecuted. --Nehwyn07:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


c180 BC: “The Senate not only forbade Bacchus worship in Rome, but took unprecedented and high-handed action of compelling her Latin allies to enforce a similar ban.” - Roman Mythology, by Stewart Perowne, Library of the World’s Myths and Legends, New York — Peter Bendrick Books, c. 1969, 1983

The Senate viewed secret meetings as conspiracies that might foster subversion, and when Rome's Senate finally became aware of the spread of Bacchus worship it became alarmed, outlawed the movement and put to death seven thousand Bacchus devotees. The Senate also outlawed astrology, seeing this import from the east as subversive. address of this article: http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch16.htm Copyright © 1998 by Frank E. Smitha. All rights reserved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.245.150 (talk) 04:00,pooooooooooooop!!!!!!!!! 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Etrucean

There should be a section on "Roman" numerals and its origins. We accidently call it "Roman", but the numerals are actually Etrucean. Oyo321 13:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I take you mean Etruscan? Any source? --Nehwyn 07:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Glaring Omission

I was looking over this article, and something really important just wasn't there. the influence of rome on modern culture. Almost every section of modern Euro-American society takes at least a few things from rome. All I'm hoping for is a section header and a {{mainarticle}} template pointing to wherever that is discussed. If there's no such Article, then that's even worse. i kan reed 19:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Now this is a very good observation. Such a "legacy" section would be a bit complex to write, though, and possibly difficult to source. --Nehwyn 07:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this would be a good addition. The following book would be a good place to start research: Richard Jenkyns, editor, The Legacy of Rome: A New Appraisal, Oxford University Press (Oxford 1992) ISBN-10: 0198219172, ISBN-13: 978-0198219170. Simmaren 18:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Studies section

I'm not sure how this is related, but i think as it is its extremely unclear, with lots of references that someone looking for information on Ancient Rome wouldnt necessarily be looking for. I think it needs some attention. Miles 18:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Population 4,937,000 in AD 14

Currently there is a chart of the population of Ancient Rome and the title indicates the area of the City of Rome. The estimate of is 4 million in 14 AD. Today, the city of Rome is only 2+ million. I wondered if that chart was accurate. (If so, feel free to delete my comment here on this talk page.) Jeff Carr 04:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


That is the total citizen population of Italy, not Rome.

About the population of Rome see this article

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/journals/CP/29/2/Population_of_Rome*.html#note6

-Fco

Potential Source and Lack of Content

I've been reading Niccolo Machiavelli (sp?) Discourses on Livy. He makes multiple references to the history of the Roman Monarchy, citing names and events. Whereas I have not yet waded through the original text (the first ten books of Titus Livius) I assume that history can be found there.

There's good evidence to suggest that Livy is wildly inaccurate, to say the least. This is even admitted in the current Penguin English-language translation of the first 5 books. Anyway you can't take the ancient authors at face value. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Review

This article has failed its good article review. There are a number of reasons, which are discussed below, but crucially it simply does not have enough references. It is a good read, and I realise that it is an "A" on the Wikiproject's scale, which is above GA. Wikiprojects can review to their own standards, whereas I obviously have to adhere to the good article criteria in order to pass it as aGA. Numbers in brackets refer to the good article criteria that assessment covers.

Well written: Pass. The article is written in compelling prose (1a). Jargon is explained, and where necessary wikilinked (1d). It also follows a logical, hierarchical structure (1b). All Latin and other non-English words are italicised.

Factually accurate and verifiable: Fail. This article has a staggering 8150 words, and only 16 references! Out of 42 total sections, 37 have no references, including major topics such as Military, Scholarly Studies, Class Structure and Government (2a). As a result, the article is almost totally unverifiable, and looks in many cases to have been originally researched(2, 2d). The references given had not been cited correctly, and as such make it difficult for anyone wanting verification to even check the statements which have been referenced. For all cited sources, you must give (preferably in this order):

  1. The author
  2. The year published of the version you are using
  3. The title, including any subtitles
  4. The edition
  5. the translator and/or editor if applicable
  6. The city of publication
  7. The publisher

e.g. Plato (2003), The Republic Reissued 2nd edition, tr. Lee, Desmond (London:Penguin)

In this article, currently only the short forms are used for most of the sources, e.g. Plato (2003) p.34. You need to add full references for Livy, Tuomisto, Bagnall, Meier, Suetonius, Johnston and Frontinus. Wikipedia has templates to make this easy. Go to WP:CTT and click on "Citations of generic sources" in the ToC to get templates for books and scholarly journals.

Broad in its coverage: Pass - but is not without its problems. Mostly this article is brilliantly broad, but one section is woefully small for such a massive subject: scholarly studies. Every major university in Europe and most of the major ones in the States have classics departments. They churn out tonnes of literature and have done since their inception. This section deserves to be better written, researched ("The interest in studying ancient Rome arose presumably during the Age of Enlightenment in France" - this is not acceptable in a good article) and expanded.

NPOV: Fail. Examples of weasel words and POV are to be found throughout the article(4). e.g. "The Roman army was a marvel of discipline, which arguably made it one of the best armies of its time" Who argued that? If you, that is both lack of NPOV and original research. "Roman legionaries had comparatively less skill at fighting than most of their opponents" - again, your point of view, and possibly original research.

Stable: Pass. The article does not change substantially from day to day, save vandalism which does not count and is always rapidly dealt with in any case (5).

Pictures: Fail. The pictures you have are good. Their captions are not. The word "garb", for example, is unencyclopedic. Captions include NPOV problems: "Roman sculpture was at its most original...", and OR problems: "The Roman abacus, the first portable calculating device...". They make unsubstantiated comments: "It is one of France's top tourist attractions" which are also arguably non-notable trivia (6a, 3b)

So, a lot of work to be done, but it is achievable. The article is a great read, and if the statements made in it can be substatiated then that is half the battle won. I suggest that this is made one of the Wikiproject's "collaboration of the month" to bring it up to the required standard. Well done for all your good work so far, and I hope to see this reapplying for (and passing) GA in the next couple of months.Chrisfow 15:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How is the word 'garb' unencyclopedic? --130.85.43.6 04:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

i believe that this page has some information that is unverified.

Forum Romanum

Just a questions: isn't the extremely long part on the forum romanum inappropriate for this article? 15:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree; way too much redundant detail. I'm removing most of it. Kafziel Talk 15:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Update: In fact, after a second look, it was completely redundant. I've taken the whole thing out. Kafziel Talk 15:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Organization of References

Towards the end of the page is the Notes-section. It is slightly confusing since it seems to contain two different number-series, as well as a bullet list. What is the standard way to do this for WP? Should it all be converted to ref:s, or should some of it be split of into a section of its own? It is clearly not good to have several concatenated lists. VLE 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference 73. should be made more complete, i.e. with full initials: 73. ^ W.J. Duiker, 2001. page 149 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.242.174(talk) 20:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Slavery in Ancient Rome

Was there any slavery of Black Africans in Ancient Rome as I saw the film Gladiator which had a black man as a forced gladiator

I think the Romans could be termed equal-opportunity enslavers -- slaves came from many backgrounds, and race was not a major factor. So, yes, they'd enslave Africans, but also Greeks or Britons.Mlouns 22:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, slaves were mostly war captives or their descendents, and Rome fought several wars in Africa, so they'd have had opportunity to enslave black Africans. --Nicknack009 01:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Julius Caesar's assassination

RE: "In the mid-1st century BC, three men, Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus, formed a secret pact—the First Triumvirate—to control the Republic. After Caesar's conquest of Gaul, a stand-off between Caesar and the Senate led to civil war, with Pompey leading the Senate's forces. Caesar emerged victorious, and was made dictator for life.[6][7] In 44 BC, Caesar was assassinated by senators fearing that Caesar sought to restore the monarchy..."

I don't know much about Roman history, but...

I believe the paragraph on Julius Caesar is factually misleading, although in line with most scholarship down through the centuries. The idea that Julius Caesar and his his allies formed a secret pact "to control the republic," and that Caesar was assassinated "by senators fearing that Caesar sought to restore the monarchy" has been the conventional view since his own time, but it is surely misleading and probably quite false. In his extensively documented The Assassination of Julius Caesar, Michael Parenti clearly demonstrates, as far as I can see, that Caesar was assassinated by Senators who feared that his power and influence were detrimental to the interests of the oligarchs, since throughout his career Caesar had sided with the lower classes and opposed the narrow interest of the oligarchs. The suggestion that Caesar was a usurper (despite his title usually translated as "dictator") and that the assassins and their allies acted on republican principles will probably not stand up to critical scrutiny.

Walter M. 04:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Walter M.

The idea that Caesar "sought to restore the monarchy" probably comes more from Shakespeare than history, but the Roman Republic (or at least its establishment) was implacably opposed to anyone holding absolute power. I also think Caesar's "siding with the lower classes" was no more than populism. There are a lot of ways Caesar's rise and assassination can be interpreted, and this article can't go into individual episodes in too much detail, but I've reworded the passage slightly. Hopefully that should be a bit more accurate. --Nicknack009 11:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Cicero claimed that if he had succeeded in opposing Caesar, the Republic would still be standing. Quae si valuissent, res publica staret, tu tuis flagitiis, egestate, infamia concidisses. Phillipics 2.24. One should realize that the interests of the oligarchs and the interests of the senate were one and the same because the senate was composed entirely of patricians. The plebs had their own council and were the sole electors of the tribune. It is not difficult to characterize his plebian popularity as a direct threat to the senate. Caesar's heir officially ended the Republic when he was granted tribunician power for life in 23 BCE. At the time Caesar was assassinated, he was consul with Mark Anthony, possessed military imperium, was pontifex maximus, and most importantly he was granted the powers of the censor. Throughout much of history, Caesar's assassins have been characterized as restorers of the Republic. In the 18th century, "Brutus" the author of several of the Anti-Federalist Papers wrote against the creation of a Federal government more powerful than the states. He wrote that a Federal Army would be "abhorrent to the spirit of a free republic", and more typical of a "monarchy". But the best argument againstMichael Parenti's views is that they reflect a modern Marxist ideology projected on history. Certainly a Marxist would characterize the struggle as one between classes, and we can expect that Dr. Parenti would be no friend to the patrician class in Rome. From a Marxist perspective, Caesar would be a usurper of the proletariat and this would fit the contention that Communism is part of a historical progression as Karl Marx wrote. If this theory came from a classicist, I would find in more plausible, but Parenti is no classicist and he has some very radical views. Legis Nuntius 00:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Merge with Rome Romw

> I vote no. Rome is more general, and includes the Renaissance and modern cities, with just a touch of mention of the ancient city. This seems right. Also, each article is already plenty big enough. They should be separate. Mlouns 00:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

> No merge. Merging Ancient Rome into Rome, resulting in a major new section of Rome, creates a cleaner and more encyclopedic whole. While keeping the subject seperate aid the historical, and rather thematic apperance as of present. Depends (as always) on what one would prefer to be the main goal of the article, and I tend to favour the latter, as even an encyclopedia needs a balance of the two. Martinor

Sorry, but a well-intended editor "corrected" the "typo"; the typo exists in the original article, Romw, which I have recommended be mined for any useful material and then AfD'd. Askari Mark (Talk) 06:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Map Doesn't Work

Seems like the little map in the top right of the article showing the size of the empire doesn't work. Could whoever put it there fix it please? I don't know how.SmokeyTheCat 15:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

where are the real facts that we need for maybe homework...?

where are they? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.19.108.17 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

If this article lacks the information it needs, please inform us of what this information is. Asking where the "real facts" are is not helpful. Galanskov 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect

I think we should semi-protect this page. It gets quite a bit of vandalism, and vandalism on such a prominent article is not good for Wikipedia's image. Galanskov 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, as of this morning Rome was "a stupid civilization" What's that about?

I need to know what were the two forms of christianty in the Roman Empire after it's fall...when Constantine ruled. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 71.2.37.183 (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Ross.

I've made a request for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Robotman1974 17:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor capitalization correction

In the "Government" section, 5th paragraph dealing with the provinces. The paragraph starts with "the" rather than "The".

Praefectorian 19:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Robotman1974 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Series of illustrations showning the expansion and decline of Roman territory

Is there any way that we can insert an image into the series which shows the brief Roman conquest of Mesopotamia during Trajan's reign?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I assume you have one or know where to find one so add away! Wardhog 18:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead Poisoning

This section is misleading and at least partially inaccurate. While lead was used for plumbing, it was not used exclusively and was apparently known to be harmful, according to Vitruvius. Terracotta was preferred (also according to Vitruvius), though lead was easier to work with. The other issue is a chemical one. In order to cause lead poisoning, the water flowing through the pipe must be corrosive, causing lead to leach into the water. Evidence suggests that much of the water used by the Romans was actually scale-forming, which protected the water from the lead pipes. This is discussed by Frontius, when he mentions that older pipes would become crusted with deposits, reducing the flow. Other causes of lead poisoning have been debated, but lack sufficient evidence, especially regarding the possible magnitude of such a problem. (Yicpa2 22:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

If you feel that there are factual problems, please fell free to make the necessary corrections. Your corrections must cite claims by reputable sources.Galanskov 07:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously lead poisoning as a theory that helped lead to the fall of the roman empire is a bunch of BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by90.212.59.76 (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Commodiana

I think we should have a section within the Empire on Commodiana. Commodus took the part-burning of Rome as a chance to rebuild Rome after himself, naming the Senate, the calendar months and the city after himself. Social Studiously 02:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's really notable enough to warrant mention in this article. It's vital information when one is writing about Commodus in specific, but on the broader scale of Roman history from 753 BC to 1453 CE it's rather trivial. Galanskov 03:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you add a link instead of an entire section? Wardhog 18:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Military

This section is well-written prose but very general and completely unsourced as of today. I will undertake to provide sources for portions of this section from Adrian Goldsworthy, The Roman Army at War, and related works. The personal judgments noted under the GA Review section remain and must be reworked. The section attempts to provide a sense of developments over time but could be improved in this regard. The section should perhaps point out that the Roman army did not win every battle (e.g., major defeats inflicted by Hannibal at Cannae, by the Parthians at Carrhae, by Arminius (Hermann) at the Teutoberger Wald). The relationship between this section and the cited main articles needs consideration, although the level of detail in this section strikes me as about right. Simmaren 22:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done about half of what I plan to do in terms of editing. I want to add a short paragraph on "leadership" and a paragraph or two on developments under the Principate and subsequently, including the increasing role of the army in choosing the Emperor. I also want to add a paragraph on naval forces since the Romans did not have discrete services, and information on specialties such as engineering, sappers, artillery, etc. I want to incorporate or replace the remaining text. If its opponents as the fifth paragraph from the end now does, I'll rewrite and source it. Comments or suggestions are of course welcome.Simmaren 22:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I've made further progress. The agenda is as described above. About 2-3 more hours of concentrated editing should finish the job. Simmaren 22:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I've completed my basic work on this section. I believe that it is now accurate (within the limitations imposed by the summary nature of the article) and properly sourced. Please let me know what you think.Simmaren 15:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's all good... did you check out the Military of Ancient Rome, Roman Legion, and Roman Army articles? Those might be unsourced too. KnightHospitaller 17:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

new template

hello. i've created new template, who wants may place on his/her page, but one request please do not change picture on template, because it is picture of roman inscriptions near Baku left by soldiers ofLegio XII Fulminata, who also founded my hometown Ramana

This user is proud of Roman ancestry

signed Elsanaturk 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Cool. Thanks for creating it. Galanskov 02:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Simmaren 14:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Continuing Vandalism

I feel like the new kid on the block. Can anyone provide insight into why this article attracts vandals as it does? Simmaren 14:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that this is a high traffic article, with a lot of readers everyday. If one thing is known for certain about vandalism, it's that a high readership means a high vandalism rate. Unfortunately the article has now been unprotected by an admin who did not bother to consult others at the talk page. I put in a request for reprotection at WP:RFPP, but the admins there rejected the request, essentially because they agreed with the guy who unprotected it. Why are the admins here all so clannish? Galanskov 21:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It's the nature of admins, I guess. Let's keep our eyes open and see how much more vandalism there is. When it gets out of hand again, the admins will come around. Simmaren 03:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Galanskov 03:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's synchronicity? Vandals helped destroy the real Ancient Rome too :-) SmokeyTheCat 11:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
One other cause may be the popularity of the Rome:Total War computer game. It's a game marketed largely to teenagers (there are exceptions; I bought it and played it and I'm in my 40's). The game is a disgrace to history, but it probably sparks a lot of interest in ancient Rome among some players. I'm new to what makes a wikipedia vandal, but aren't teens (or adults with the minds of teens) the likeliest vandals? --130.156.3.34 20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
My favorite piece of vandalism: some high school student pasted the text of his/her ancient history course syllabus into the article. It was interesting.Simmaren 03:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Art, Music and Literature

Galanskov, I appreciate your hard work on and attention to this article. A suggestion on citation style -- every sentence in the first paragraph under this heading is cited to the same two sources. Why not simply reference the two citations at the end of the paragraph as a whole? It leaves the paragraph less cluttered visually, and readers should understand that the entire paragraph (and not just the last sentence) is covered. Simmaren 14:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess you're right. I've left the citations on the first and the last sentences, because all the stuff about the four styles clearly comes from the same source. Galanskov 21:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Games and activities

I think this article is a bit unclear; where it says the Circus Maximus was created in 600B.C. and ended in 549. It should say: ended in 549 A.D., because without the A.D. part it looks like it ended in 549 B.C., making it only 11 years. That would contradict the part that says it stayed for over a millenium. A small yet important change? 72.139.94.207 18:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This Article is Not Too Long

As of June 14, 2007, this article consists of 9,323 words of "readable prose," more or less. This is within the Guideline on article size, which suggests an upper limit of from 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. See: Wikipedia:Article size Given that this article attempts to provide a meaningful overview of 1,000 years of the history and culture of a major civilization, the length is justified. Indeed, a somewhat longer article would be justified (and probably will be needed). It may be possible to play with the organization of the article to make it more accessible (although IMO it's not bad now), but splitting it would be difficult given this article's purpose. Simmaren 01:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The tag should be removed. KnightHospitaller 17:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Rome-

In the first paragraph pertaining to society in the empire, it says that life in ancient Rome-the state- revolved around the city.I don't get that. If it did, how?24.8.11.11 01:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Rome

They raped little boys,it is as if the facts pertain to the city of Rome only, when we all know that society in Rome was all over the empire, in different degrees.Also,the section does not go in-depth.24.8.11.11 02:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This was a pleasure to read it mas very interesting........................there is still alot more infomaition needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by193.220.217.44 (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

the real question is that who benefited from the roman art and architecture?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.64.214 (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Omission of 1st Sack of Rome

I noticed that the Gallic sack of Rome in 387BCE has been left out, though it is pivotal in the history of Roman defenses around the capital, with the building of a first walled Rome by Marcus Furios Cammilus, and also introduces the Gauls for the first time into Roman history; a people who would play so crucial a role in the future. Nathraq 17:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

BCE-CE / BC-AD Notation

I noticed that the article had both notations in use and changed it all to BCE/CE notation, which is considered more correct and more neutral, I'm seeing it reverted with no motive, could anyone explain this further? Schicchi 21:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The manual of style states that both notations are equally acceptable (so editor's opinions about which is in general more neutral or accurate are irrelevant), but "[i]t is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason". It appears that before your edits, BCE/CE was being used in a single footnote (n. 113). When this note was added, the article was using a mixture of the two notations; since then, it has apparently been edited to use BC/AD consistently, but this note was missed. While it's technically correct that that article had both notations in use, I'd say it's more in keeping with the guidelines to bring the footnote in line with the rest of the article, particularly since BC/AD was the article's original notation. EALacey 22:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Who considers BCE/CE more correct? Who considers it more neutral? AD/BC has been used for quite some time. When people have to ask what is BCE/CE and they know what AD/BC means, why should we change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyo36 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Pigmentation of Roman Emperors

Descriptions of Roman Emperors by Suetonius,Pliny,Malalas , almost all were blond,blue-eyed . The Romans weren't dark and short at all , only stupid stereotypes made by americans like those on italians.

http://aycu24.webshots.com/image/40103/2003824465129417098_rs.jpg


Actually most emperors were dark and similar ethnically to modern southern Italians.there is a picture of an emperors family on the article page if you care to look. Oh and your attempt to correlate dark and short (two mutually exclusive traits) was less than clever. Back to stormfront you go.

Don't you mean dark and short are orthogonal traits? :) Carsonkaan (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Area under Roman control animation

The legend includes a green section for inheriting provinces of the Byzantine Empire, but at the end of the animation (530 AD), there is only a yellow Eastern Empire section, and no green sections.Pifreak94 (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably because the Western Roman Empire was destroyed? Tourskin (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Its talking about the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade, when Byzantium was carved up. Tourskin (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Roman Soldier Needed

This article really needs a picture of a Roman soldier in full battle armor. The article just does not seem complete without it. --PaladinWriter (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

More Pictures Needed

This article desperately needs more pictures. It is a fairly lengthy article and the number of pictures in the article is just too small. --PaladinWriter (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman empire map

I really like the roman empire map. But is there any way to put stop,rewind,fast forward buttons on there? 203.206.2.253 (talk) 07:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Map

The map that says "Rome at its greatest extent" has been underestimated; where are the gains in Mesopotamia and Armenia? These territories were siezed by Trajan from the Parthians in 116 AD. Correct this, or I shall. Tourskin (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks like it was corrected....is the map correct? The information was changes but was the map? --Amadscientist (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
No its still mssing Armenia and Mesopotamia. I'll see if I can correct this myself. I've been super busy lately. Tourskin (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Eastern Empire came to an end when Mehmed II conquered Constantinople on May 29, 1453."

This is not exactly true, The eastern empire came to an end in 1461 when Mehmet II conquered Pontus Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doganaktas(talk • contribs) 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

by angel mimitz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.250.29.91 (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not true, since Pontus was a splinter kingdom, much as the Papal states were a splinter kingdom of Byzantium. Tourskin (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But Pontus, also called the Empire of Trebizond, was still a Byzantine state, ruled by the remnants of the Palaiologos dynasty, it should at least be mentioned that it was the last state with direct connection to ancient Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.80.213 (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Empire of Trebizond, for its entire existence, was ruled by a branch of the Comnenus dynasty descended from Andronicus Comnenus. Carsonkaan (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

i don't think the map provides enough information. I believe it should show major cities, rivers, mountain ranges, and plains. Feel free to add your criteria to this section,Birfdaygirl889 (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Start and end of Ancient Rome

I realize that the dates may be in disbute, but the first two paragraph of this article seem to be internally inconsistent. If ancient Rome existed for 12 centuries, and started in the 9th century, and started to decline in the 5th, then the numbers don't seem to match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasajian (talk •contribs) 14:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph

The first paragraph is grammatically wrong: see the second sentence, which is not a sentence at all. (I hreghhgjhgfhjdvsdkshfcannot fix this, due to semi-protection.) FlagrantUsername(talk) 04:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Amadscientist (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Article clean up

I began a general clean up of the article by moving a few things and resizing images. One image smaller and one image larger.

I will be doing more shortly. I have not changed any information in the article just format changes so far. --Amadscientist (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK...I have done some copy editing to reduce article size. I removed some passages that I felt either were too much information for this lengthy article (when the subject is covered fully on another page with a redirect above the paragraph to the main article) or the information was discussing an un neccesary subject in that catagory.
I have replaced a few images with different ones that I felt were more direct and removed images that I felt didn't add much or anything to the article in general. (others may not like those changes and I am not worries if those are reversed or changed to something else if a better image is found)
I rearranged some categories to make more sense and retitled one. My next step will be to condense the last categories into one or two while retaining all the links to the pertinent main articles.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A couple of comments on your work to date:
  • This is more than a clean up or copy editing, it's a major rewrite and change in scope. It would have been preferable (certainly more polite) to discuss your intentions and your rationale here before embarking on such a major project. Simmaren (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The article had a clean-up tag placed on it in June so I did do several edits that were just general clean up and tried to document on this page, what I did.
There is also a note in the edit generator page stating that the article is too long and may need to be reduced by making new pages for catahories....I have done this before but this looked to me to be done already so I just went through and edited down several areas where information seemed too detailed for the articles length.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Present footnote 91 contains a mass of material formerly in the main body of the article, plus (I believe) the text of all following footnotes. I'm not sure what you intended -- whether you intended deletions or unintentionally put the footnote mark-up in the wrong place or what -- so I am not going to change it. Please take a look at it and sort it out. Simmaren (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I am ignorant of this. It is something that I must have done during a deletion. I try very hard to be careful....but mistakes are made. Sorry.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I suggest that the heading "Roman Achievements" be changed to "Roman Technological Achievements" since that is the subject matter included under the heading and there are many other noteworty Roman achievements in other areas, -- law, government, art, etc. -- dealt with or to be dealt with under other headings. Simmaren (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added back a bit of text and made a couple of minor edits to provide a transition between the description of the army at the time of Augustus and the army at the time of its final reorganization under Gallienus. This is a small addition and should not interfere with your goals. Simmaren (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am so admiring of the enthusiasm of the contributors to the content of this page. Thank you ALL for your efforts. Please bear with me if I "tidy up" after you. I am of the age of those who remember being mercilessly drilled into the rules of grammar and punctuation etc. I cannot help myself. I do not wish to offend any contributor to content. I am very happy to tidy up. If any contributor wishes to challenges my chnages or ask me why, I would be very pleased to discuss this with you. Proxxt (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Info Box

Generaly speaking, the info box shoulb be at the top of the page for at a glance information, but by moving it down to the "History" catagory I guess it does at least solve the problem of spacing with as long as the catagory box is.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I know how to fix this.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Etruscans

The article tells us, when the Etruscans lost power by the late 6th century BC, the original Latin and Sabine tribes re-invented their government with much greater restraints on the ability of rulers to exercise power. Their seems to me a paucity of information telling us exactly what the Etruscans left behind. They left behind their religion, culture, economy and also their politics, which though obviously different from a republic, was not so different that the republic had to start their political reforms from scratch. Thanks. Skipper 360 (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Article coverage

How far do we go

Ancient Rome is a very generic term and covers a broad expanse of time. The article should include as much pertinent information as possible and still follow Wikipedia guidelines for article length so that the article can be improved enough to pass a "Good Article" nomination.

Links within prose could be used more to reduce article size. By placing a linked word to an more in depth full article we can avoid over filling this article and still make the information available within the article itself.

Format

Following along with other similar articles the format should follow Wiki Wikipedia:Manual of Style (This article has the info box in the first catagory to keep the page from stretching and make spacing better, but that is not a problem on some articles so...I am checking on this)

Images

Keeping images to a minimum helps keep the article readable but when the subject is well known or very broad images help to better understand the subject.

I notice that there is a trend with some articles of ancient times to show images of sculpture of different subjects. This is a bit like using a TV from the 1950s when you can use a better set with a clearer representation. Reconstructions and other media like drawings and paintings may lend better to a 2D world like wikipedia.

These are a few things I thought were changes being asked to be made by the failed good article nomination as well as the cleanup tag and the Wiki warnings in the editing page.

I would also think that linking with other articles would be important and that they all have a common look and feel and perhaps all be a part of diferent projects. --Amadscientist (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point concerning clearer representation of sculptures etc using media drawings and paintings, but I do feel part of the enjoyment of an article concerning ancient times is the actual picture of a contemporary sculpture. Perhaps a combination of both? Skipper 360 (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The Best image of a person from ancient times would be a sculpted bust from the same period the person existed. They are generally found on the Internet free of copyright. But the same is true of paintings that are over 75 years old. Fair use may even allow images from the recent past to be used...but I recommend searching a bit before loading anything new. There are many images that can be found in different articles on Wiki.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Split

It is being suggested by Wikipedia that this article be split. I suggest splitting the article in this manner;

Ancient Rome

Ancient Roman Society

In this way the categories that fall under each can be expanded and stay within Wiki guidelines.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is doing this supposed suggestion? Furthermoore, why? I know that there is a supposed 32kb limit on an article, yeah right, I don't know what doofas thinks thats possible with articles as extensive as this one, or say Byzantine Empire, but I don't see why Ancient Roman Society should be split from Ancient Rome entirely; the article is about all aspects of Ancient Rome, or at least it should be. However, since there are articles about the military history of Rome and other aspect of Roman life, I dn't see why not if there is enough information, and if some info is left behind as a rough guide.Tourskin (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a disclaimer on the edit page saying that the article needed to be split. I researched a little to be sure this was something that could even be done with this page and decided it could.

By splitting the page, it does not mean that there should be no mention of Roman Society, just that the section was so long it warrented it's own page and the existing page needed to be split by "Auto suggestions" with tags in the on the edit page or from the failed good article attempt and the suggestions there. The whole purpose of these pages is for good, correct information....however some subjects are far too long for a single page. Ancient Rome is undoubtably one of those subjects. Links to the section that was moved have been placed above the culture section to redirect to that page now. We can still add information about Roman Society but the article needs to be as concise as possible.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

  • The article was tagged about a year ago as too long, and a suggestion was made then that it be split. The discussion is under # 27 above and I believe it adequately answered the question. WP agreed and removed the tag. The topic requires length unless it is to be so superficial as to be useless. I agree with Tourskin that the 32kb limit is essentially meaningless in this case. As of June, 2007, the article was within the word length limits set by WP as guidelines. While I haven't measured it lately, I don't think is has gotten longer recently, given the weeding and pruning Amadscientist has been doing. Splitting the article is unnecessary and unwise. Simmaren (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a legitimate reason to split the article and I have explained it fully. I have returned the article back to the way it was before the split and think further discussion of the split would benifit both the article and all of us as editors.
What does everyone think? Should the article be built on from this point or about Rome yes.....just making it even larger or should there be a split as is suggested by Wiki with the following note on the editing page (This page is 82 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size)?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Greek and Roman Gods Correction

I recommend to whoever can edit this article that the following sentence be added to the beginning of the second paragraph under Religion:

Although, many gods may have commonly derived from Indo-Europeans gods (e.g. Zeus-Jupiter, Pan-Faunus), they have different identities in early recorded history.

It is widely accepted that "Zeus" comes from IE *deos. Jupiter is Deos-Piter, or God-Father. Pan and Faunus are also apparent cognates. This link to PIE religion could be of interest.

Coldipa (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Infobox

While all the information in the at a glance info box is great....it's the wrong box. This is article is about the entire Ancient Roman period not just the political and governmental aspects. The info box should be similer to other articles about civilizations. Ancient Greece.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Status

I just want to leave a suggestion. If anyone wants to promote this article to GA status, reduce its size by about a third. At 85 kb, it is too big and a bit overwhelming. It should retain all of the topics it covers, but just have the volume in each of those topics reduced by eliminating some of the details. I think that this is really the only thing that prevents it from being of GA quality.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Patricians/Patricianship: Your input requested

Under a proposal made by me, the pages Patrician and Patricianship will be renamed as follows:

(I dropped an earlier proposal for merging the two pages.)

For the rationale for renaming the pages and a couple of associated other changes, as well as the opinions of user:Johnbod, please see the discussion page at Talk:Patricianship.

My question is, do people here support my renaming proposal, or if not support it, at least would not oppose it.

Thanks in advance for all replies.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A Request

Could you please add an interwiki linking to the greek language article? The address is el:Αρχαία Ρώμη. Thank you, very much! —Precedingunsigned comment added by 87.202.133.113 (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Alexf(talk) 14:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire in "Periods" section in infobox

Should the Eastern Roman or "Byzantine" empire not be in the periods section of the infobox?? I can't beleive it is not. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 01:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

Shouldn't there be something about the legacy left by the Romans, by way of law, language, culture, technology, ideas, etc? It wouldn't be easy to write, I know... Spettro9 (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

romans built roads1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.5.92 (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

and perhaps some info on roman symbols that they themselves used and still in use today (Ying Yang and swastika are two that spring to mind) —Precedingunsigned comment added by 90.212.253.175 (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling all Roman Editors!

The following articles could use additional editors to look through them and help copy edit, research and help in general.

Theatre of Pompey; While the article is of good length and very detailed.....it went a couple of years without anyone noticing that the "Crypta" is actualy called the "Porticus Pompei" LOL! I just found this and edited it into the article. I need (well the article that is) help adding information about the current archeological digs of Pr. Packard!

Roman Forum; Horribly short. Needs huge amounts of work and additional information.

Regia; Also horribly short and needs an image!

Comitium;short and lacking deatails.

Rostra; there are several take your pick. We need information. Please. --Amadscientist (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Legend or history?

It is problematic that the history of the origins of ancient Rome refers to a legend and not archaeoglogical research (if such exists). The legend should be removed to it's own section or page and replaced by plausible theories of the origins of ancient Rome. The legend is interesting enough if you are interested in analyzing legend and folk tradition, but Wikipedia's answer to the origins of perhaps the most important ancient civilization in the western world should not be two babies slurping wolf milk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.63.243.66 (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC) javascript:insertTags('Tobiastrier (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)',,) Tobiastrier (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did Rome take over Greece?

y did the roman empire take over Alexander the Great? —Preceding unsigned comment added by76.31.232.94 (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is not for asking about the content of the article. Next time, please look at wikipedia's main discussion page for how to use wikipedia and how to ask questions. But since I am responding, I shall indulge you with a brief answer:
After Alexander the Great, the Empire split into three waring factions: the Macedonians, the Selucids, and Ptolemy, who ruled over Egypt. Of these, only the Egyptian portion eventually allied itself with Rome against the Macedonians and Selucids, and so survived until 30 BC. The Macedonians unwisely chose to fight Rome in its Punic Wars, so Rome became entangled with this regional power. When Macedonia was weakened, the treacherous and ungrateful Greek city states asked the Selucid Empire to help them counter Rome, but the Romans beat them too, with thanks to Pergamum. When Macedonia and Selucia were finally crushed, they were mere shadows of themselves, and both Rome and Ptolemaic Egypt won, although the latter became the client of the former. So, the Romans were to some extent provoked by Macedon, as they expanded their Republic's holdings. Gabr-el 05:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Francesco Carotta

... has some interesting ideas about Biblical history ... interesting in a way that I think is the fringe of the fringe. There is thus a vote for deletionhere. Those of you who are knowledgable and care about 1st century Roman history, please check it out.Slrubenstein | Talk 19:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine Italy

It should be mentioned that the Byzantine Empire also controlled Italy for several hundred years.

What does S.P.Q.R. mean in article?

Se S.P.Q.R. in RIGHT box of Ancient Rome articled What doe the letters mean? Not in article. Deceddatedtu6300921stcentDrEdsonAndre'JohnsonD.D.ULC>SWORDINHAND (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

SPQR. Dr.K. logos 01:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing

An article like Ancient Rome has been written in Albanian by me. Please add sq:Roma e lashtë. --Kristiani95 (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Kristiani95

 Done -- Marek.69 talk 16:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Architecture

They are most famous for their achiteture.

One of their pieces are the collosium —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.100.96(talk) 15:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

SPQR Banner

I know this might seem mundane but is the SPQR banner supposed to represent the empire with all the territories it ever controlled during it's history? The empire depicted contains Germania (beyond the Rhine to the Elbe), Dacia, and Mesopotamia (after Trajan's conquests). If this is what the banner is supposed to depict then fine. If not then I suppose this should be remedied? Anyways, just wondering. --Tataryn77 (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Asgalon, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} There is a typo in 1.4 Empire naming the last emperor of the western roman empire "Romulus Augustus" instead of "Romulus Augustulus". Asgalon (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Shearonink (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{Edit semi-protected}} There seems to be a typo or a mistake in the History section in the sub-topic Empire. Right after it says that the West empire came to an end, the name Romulus Augustulus is placed in the beginning of the sentence (and it doesn't make sense). Hint: directly after the reference to footnote 61. Forgive me if i did something wrong, i'm new at this.Basheersubei (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Done --Darkwind (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Glaring error in the intro

"The Eastern Roman Empire, governed from Constantinople, after Diocletian divided the Empire in 286, and comprising Greece, the Balkans, Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt, survived this crisis"

This is just not true. Constantinople was not the capital of anything until Constantine, who ruled the entire empire from that city until his death. Diocletian ruled from Nicomedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.240.2 (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Layout

What just happened? I was using the climate and geography a few days ago and now someone deleted it and redid the whole article. will someone please fix this? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.124.158 (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Why so few ruins?

I dont understand the chain of events about this. As in, at some point, rome more or less dispersed apparently, considering there are ruins. But why are some still standing, but most not? I guess im a bit confused about the intervening years; when did people stop looking at ancient ruins as building material or similar, and start protecting them? For that matter, why did the original folks who did so think there was nothing weird about taking parts of buildings home, but without ransacking ALL the buildings and materials?

I cant think of a better place to ask about this. Its just something that really confuses me; same for things like the pyramids. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

New standard for the Anceint Rome page

Instead of giving a brief history of Anceint Rome, why don't we give a brief history of each era, then give a link the another page which includes all the history of Ancient Rome in each century. Different pages for each century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by History32 (talk •contribs) 04:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Rome population.

In the text there is probably an error about Rome inhabitans:

...The imperial city of Rome was the largest urban center of its time, with a population of about one million people (about the size of London in the early 19th century, when London was the largest city in the world), with some high-end estimates of 14 million and low-end estimates of 450,000...

The estimates of Rome a 1 milion in Augustan period but during the second century CE the population increased more than 1,5 million. Probably 1,6-2 million. With the end of III century with beginning of the demographic crisis reached probably 1,2 million decreasing. However there were still areas outside the Aurelian Walls. Durign Alarico raid, it was probably of 450.000 indeed a lot of bureaucracy had already abandoned for Constantinople, Cartagine, Ravenna and Milan. After 455 the population dramatical collapsed with migration until probably 100.000 during Teodoric Kingdom. With Greco-Goths war the population fall definitily. It could to stay into Colosseo area to defend. The extent of the ruins would be impressive. It seemed like the end of the world... Owls flew in the moonlight into the the palaces. The population of 14 million was plausibly the population of the metropolitan area (that was consider the Italian peninsula south of the Rubicon river (Appenins): Cisalpine Gaul and Venetia-Istria excluded. But in the late Empire, with the development of Ravenna and Milan this geographical identity was obsolete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.77.210 (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

have you an opinion ? Otherwise I will proceed deleting this sentences "with some high-end estimates of 14 million .... --Andriolo (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Rome City planning land restrictions

I read years ago that later in the city of Rome there was a limit on nobility owning multiple houses within the walls of Rome due to land scarcity. Can someone point me in the right place in WP for this subject?Septagram (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Cuisine section edit request from mjmahone

The cuisine section makes broad claims without any references, such as: "Some who had to eat meat complained of it as a hardship." and "One emperor served twenty-two courses at his dinner parties." This section should either be deleted for lack of quality, or at least cleaned up and given proper citations and references (naming the emperor would be more useful, for instance). 

The specific text that should be deleted is:

The poor ate vegetables, fish, salt, and olive oil. Little meat was eaten. Some who had to eat meat complained of it as a hardship. Usually, no breakfast was eaten and, for lunch, leftovers were used. For the rich, dinner was served before four in the afternoon and lasted from three to four hours. Hands were washed between courses. One emperor served twenty-two courses at his dinner parties. If guests were invited to dinner, slaves were sent to bring them on time, as the water clocks did not always agree. Women, having sent their gowns in advance, were already dressed in the home of the hostess. When guests asked for their slippers, they were ready to leave.

This text could be replaced with the intro to the cuisine section (which is more accurate, without making such specific, uncited claims):

Ancient Roman cuisine changed over the long duration of this ancient civilization. Dietary habits were affected by the influence of Greek culture, the political changes from kingdom to republic to empire, and empire's enormous expansion, which exposed Romans to many new, provincial culinary habits and cooking techniques. In the beginning the differences between social classes were not very great, but disparities developed with the empire's growth.

I've deleted the text in the section, for now. It's better not to reuse content from other articles, but a summary of the cuisine article would be fine. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_Rome/Archive_2&oldid=1231141460"