Talk:List of Roman emperors/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sourcing for the list

I have made the columns and column widths consistent from section to section and in doing that I can see that there are some holes in the data. I am willing to put time into fixing that, but after checking the names in this list against the names in the list from De Imperatoribus Romanis (direct link), I can see that there are a lot of differences. Most significantly, the list at that website has an additional 92 names that do not appear on the wikipedia list. The wikipedia list also has another 22 names that do not appear on the DIR list. I am not going to remove those now because I assume they will be found in other reliable sources and I think wikipedia policy requires us to include any name that is found in any reliable source. However, I presume many of the sources listed in the Sources List for discussions section above are so outdated that they are no longer considered reliable. Does anyone have thoughts on which sources we should be using (or not using) for a comprehensive wikipedia list? AmateurEditor (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This list needs a bit of a reshuffle. A "list of Roman emperors" on Wikipedia should follow what other lists include and don't include (i.e. some usurpers like Eugenius, included here, are typically omitted). I have been planning on working on this but have not had the time yet. The DIR list is far too inclusive to use as a guideline, most published lists in academia omit many of the pretenders and usurpers included in that list. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we must base the list entirely on reliable sources, rather than creating our own OR criteria for inclusion. My reading of NPOV policy at WP:PROPORTION, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:BALANCE is that, if there is no consensus on a point of fact, then we are to include all significant (non-fringe) views. I assume that means we would include in this list any individual that any reliable source includes as an emperor, which would make this list a superset of its sources. But if just one source includes an individual and every other source does not, we would have to indicate that somehow to avoid giving undue weight to that assertion. I am not sure what the best way to do that would be, but a comment in one of the columns and a color difference might be enough. Or the unusual entries might be segregated into a separate list a the bottom, or something. I would rather us have this discussion and reach a consensus before people spend time and effort filling out the list. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I have looked on a lot of lists, and will look on a lot more, but there does seem to, broadly speaking, be a consensus for which emperors to include and which not to in most cases. If 20 lists include an emperor, we can pretty confidently say that this emperor should be included, if the same 20 lists omit a figure, we can pretty confidently say that this figure should be excluded. The DIR list includes several pretenders and usurpers that are not included in any other list - DIR is a good resource when it comes to information on these figures, but its list of emperors should not be followed as the standard accepted sequence of rulers. I think we can both agree that the current list is problematic. There are enough lists in RS to establish which emperors should be included and excluded, but they have not been followed in the current iteration of the list here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

If you share those lists, I can start to figure it out. I haven't looked at any book lists yet, but I have checked the following websites:

1. http://www.roman-emperors.org/impindex.htm (ends at 1453; 92 additional names versus wikipedia)
2. https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/roru/hd_roru.htm (ends at 518; 15 additional names versus wikipedia)
3. https://www.livius.org/articles/misc/list-of-roman-emperors/ (ends at 668; 8 additional names versus wikipedia)
4. https://www.ostia-antica.org/dict/topics/emperors.htm (ends at 602; 7 additional names versus wikipedia)
5. https://www.britannica.com/topic/list-of-Roman-emperors-2043294 (ends at 491; 3 additional names versus wikipedia)
6. https://www.ancient.eu/timeline/Roman_Emperor/ (ends at 337; 1 additional name versus wikipedia)

AmateurEditor (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

You've found a lot of the same lists. I'm working on a List of Roman emperors that follows RS lists here (inclusion criterion essentially being that the emperor is listed in more than one list, which I think is better than us as Wikipedians arbitrarily deciding which emperors were legitimate), based on the lists by Encyclopedia Britannica, Ostia Antica, Livius, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, as well as lists published in Levick (2000), Moxom (2011), Rutherford (2004) and Craven (2019). Right now I've disregarded the DIR list because it's different from the rest (and appears to differentiate between legitimate emperors and usurpers anyway though indentation and placing them in the same entries - I think you see what I mean). Let me know what you think and if you think there should be more lists used as references. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree Wikipedians arbitrarily deciding which emperors were legitimate would not be a great idea. But in the section Legitimacy a well thought out rationale is given for which claimant to include and which to exclude. So it seems to me that the choices for this list are not arbitrary. If we add/remove emperors from the list for reasons other than those listed in the Legitimacy section, we need to clearly communicate those reasons. (Or risk making arbitrary decisions ourselves). DutchHoratius (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that the list as it stands is arbitrary. As I brought up above, Nepotianus is an example of an emperor that checks all the criteria for legitimacy but isn't included here because he is not included in other lists. Other figures that are not included in other lists, such as Victor (Magnus Maximus's co-emperor) and Marcus (Basiliscus's co-emperor) are included here without comment. We cannot decide our own criteria for legitimacy since Wikipedia should avoid WP:OR - the best and easiest way to comply with that policy is to just follow how other lists of Roman emperors in reliable sources (WP:RS) do it. The list will not be that fundamentally different from what we have here (some emperors added, some removed) but it will comply much better with Wikipedia policy and better reflect the current understanding in academia as to which figures ought to be counted as "legitimate" Roman emperors. If I personally were to create a "correct" list of legitimate emperors I would include figures like Nepotianus and Stephen Lekapenos, who ruled as fully legitimate senior emperors for short periods, but no other list of emperors does that so they shouldn't be in this one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point about WP:OR, but are we not making a choice anyway? All the lists include or exclude emperors based on a set of criteria. Even if we select emperors based on being included in a majority of lists, we are still making a choice to follow the criteria of those lists, against the criteria of the minority. As the definition of an emperor is not crystal clear, different criteria will be used. That is why there are different lists in the first place. And thus whatever we do, we will be making a choice. Now to cut a long story short: No objection to your proposal. I think if the list can be improved, that is only for the better. My point is only that we need to clearly explain in the article how our list came about. For the reader it is important to know why names are or are not included. DutchHoratius (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point as well. Roman emperors present a problem that most other lists of rulers do not - there are for instance no real disagreements to be had about who should be included in the list of kings of Babylon or the list of kings of Greece because in those cases we do have pretty clear understandings of legitimacy and every single source agrees on who should and should not be listed. We cannot define our own criteria for what makes a legitimate emperor, I think you can agree that that would be WP:OR. Besides, any definition would have problems - Gordian I and Gordian II were technically usurpers, who only held some land in Africa and were in opposition to whoever was governing in Rome at the time. By any real definition of legitimacy, they would not be included in the list. However, they are included in most published lists of emperors elsewhere, so this list devolves to recognizing those listed in other lists. The same goes for other usurpers that are often included in lists (Magnentius for instance).

I've tried to be very clear in my working draft (in the notes) about why certain emperors are included and others are exluded, based on several lists of emperors in published RS and IMO that's the way it should go. Most published lists broadly agree with each other, with there only really being a handful of figures that are in contention. Following other lists is a choice but I don't think it goes against WP:OR. The list can contain a (sourced) discussion about what historians consider as defining a legitimate emperor, but I don't think we can go ahead and apply those criteria ourselves to pick and choose who to include and who not to. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator, I see what you mean about usurpers being included in the DIR list. When I exclude those, most of the discrepancies go away. I think we should use that list as one of the reliable sources, based on the authors[1] and other reliable sources that reference it.[2] It's easy enough to ignore the entries indicated as usurpers in the list. I have completed a survey of the following website and book sources:

roman-emperors.org

Livius.org

ostia-antica.org

metmuseum.org

britannica.com

ancient.eu

Craven; The Imperial Families of Ancient Rome

Elton; A History of the Roman Emperors From the Accession of Augustus to the Fall of the Last Constantine

Gordon; Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigraphy

Cooley; The Cambridge Manuel of Latin Epigraphy

Rutherford; Classical Literature A Concise History

Levick; The Government of the Roman Empire A Sourcebook

Moxom; From Jerusalem to Nicea The Church in the First Three Centuries

Removing all entries identified by a source as an unsuccessful usurper, I am left with the following entries missing from the wikipedia list (the number of sources for the entry is in parentheses):

Julius Caesar (3: Craven, Livius.org, Rutherford)

Britannicus (1: Craven)

Piso/Galba II (1: Craven)

Julius Sabinus (1: Livius.org)

Lucius Aelius (1: Livius.org)

Zenobia [Palmyrene Empire] (1: Craven)

Vaballathus [Palmyrene Empire] (1: Craven)

Odenathus (1: metmuseum.org)

Crispus (1: ostia-antica.org)

Dalmatius (1: ostia-antica.org)

Gallus (3: ostia-antica.org, britannica.com, Rutherford)

Theodora II (1: Elton)

Eudocia (1: Elton)

Baldwin I [Latin Empire] (1: Elton)

Henry [Latin Empire] (1: Elton)

Peter of Courtenay [Latin Empire] (1: Elton)

Robert of Courtenay [Latin Empire] (1: Elton)

Baldwin II [Latin Empire] (1: Elton)

John Paleologus I (1: Elton)

Manuel Paleologus (1: Elton)

John Paleologus II (1: Elton)

I don't think wikipedia policy allows us to exclude entries based on them being found in just one reliable source list. A reliable source is a reliable source, and we are supposed to be comprehensive of what is found in all reliable sources on a given topic. Maybe the Elton list should no longer be considered an reliable source because it was published in 1825. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Or maybe we should just be reflecting what is found in all reliable sources regardless of the contradictions, warts and all. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@AmateurEditor: There are some other sources I reference in the draft I have as well, but I think we have the same conclusions about which emperors are typically included, excluded and which end up in a grey area. I agree that a reliable source is a reliable source and that all sources should be taken into account, but there has to be some sort of consensus approach as well. I think the DIR list can be used as one of the lists - it is a reliable source - but we also have to take omissions into account. To express what I think in the clearest terms possible, an example: Piso/Galba II (aka. Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus) is only included by Craven. While Craven is a reliable source, all other lists omit Piso/Galba II - if included in our list, I would interpret that as going against standard historiographical practice and against the consensus. A figure like Gallus, or even Julius Caesar, is more in the grey area since multiple reliable sources include them. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I've postponed working on my draft since I think it might be worthwile coming up with concrete inclusion criteria first. I've collected together the sources and made a series of tables over which emperors are included in which lists - you're welcome to take a look here (and add to it if you want). I'm not sure what the best criteria for inclusion would be but I do not think including emperors who only appear in a single list is the way to go. I would argue that including a figure in a list because they are included by one author, while omitted by nine others, is dangerously close to WP:FRINGE (obviously that policy is not applicable here, but I think you can see my concern). Omission of figures by an author is just as strong a stand as inclusion, and should be taken into account. Including someone like Piso/Galba II would be going against mainstream current academic historiography, as he is not typically regarded as an emperor. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• The old system of 5 columns – portrait, name, reign, succession, and miscellaneous life details – was definitely better: it was more compact, allowed for more information to be displayed in each box, and did not contain empty holes that will probably never be filled anyway (like birth dates). A good source not mentioned here is Kienast's Romische Kaisertabelle, which can be downloaded for free, though it is in German and ends with the death of Theodosius in 395. Caesars can be omitted without much question.

  Looking at each and every source to assess the 'legitimacy' of emperors is a futile and hopeless exercise. The usurper question is probably not that difficult to begin with. For the pre-476 period I only see Magnentius, Nepotianus, and Eugenius as being in the grey area. Romulus Augustulus is always listed as emperor by historical convention, and his position was more or less the same as (say) Basiliscus and Marcus, and so those two should probably be classed as emperors too. Avilich (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator:, I agree with your concern about an entry that is included in one reliable source and excluded in nine others being included in the same way as an entry that is found in all 10 sources. I also agree that we should be following what the reliable sources do and following wikipedia policy as best we can. So that we are on the same page, here is the policy language I think is relevant, with underlines added for your convenience:

Per WP:LISTCRITERIA, "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.".

Per WP:STANDALONE, "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines."

WP:NPOV says "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

WP:NPOV#Due and undue weight distinguishes views into three categories: "majority" views, "significant minority" views, and "fringe" views. I don't think any of these sources contain fringe views, which are things like "flat earth theory" and "moon landing conspiracy theory". I think we are only dealing with majority versus significant minority views.

I am saying that we need to include both the majority views (where, for example, 9 out of 10 reliable sources include the entry) and the significant minority views (where 1 out of 10 reliable sources include the entry). Unless we are going to dismiss a source as unreliable, its "significant minority" entries should be included, but in a way that clearly distinguishes them from majority view entries. This could be done with any number of formatting differences and/or explicit language to that effect (Note that MOS:COLOR says "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information."). AmateurEditor (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avilich:, per MOS:LISTORG, "Lists should never contain "Unsorted" or "Miscellaneous" headings, as all items worthy of inclusion in the list can be sorted by some criteria, although it is entirely possible that the formatting of the list would need to be revamped to include all appropriate items. Not-yet-sorted items may be included on the list's talk page while their categorization is determined." The list width should now be dynamic to your browser window, so you can view it more compactly that way. There was not a consistent set of headings between all the subsections of the list before and I don't think that adding one to make them all consistent is worse than before. I also don't think we should include a lot of information in each box, since that is what the main article for each entry will provide (Per MOS:LONGSEQ, "Keep lists and tables as short as feasible for their purpose and scope: material within a list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail; and statistical data kept to a minimum per policy."). And I am not concerned about some boxes remaining empty if there is no reliable source for a particular birth date, for example. That there is no reliable source for that information can itself be interesting to the reader (and there is always the possibility that additional information could come to light in the future). AmateurEditor (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@AmateurEditor: Yes, I think we see the same problems with the list as it is right now and we agree that something has to be done in order to make it more in-line with Wikipedia policy, and with the reliable sources we have available to us. The problem with a list of Roman emperors in regards to WP:LISTCRITERIA is that none of the lists in RS make clear what their inclusion criteria are. You and me both seem to agree that the inclusion criteria here should be that we follow what the reliable sources do (in my mind the only way to achieve clear and unambiguous inclusion criteria since several of the figures typically included - see the Gordians or Magnentius - are included out of convention rather than legitimacy of extent of rule), but we seem to disagree on what that practically means. I think an emperor's presence in at least three lists is the best option (since it establishes that several researchers concur on their inclusion), you think an emperor's inclusion in just one list warrants their inclusion here. Neither opinion is objectively wrong but we can't have both.

Yeah, I don't think any of the sources can be described as "fringe" either - what I meant to convey was that the inclusion of someone like Piso/Galba II is clearly a minority opinion (only Craven does this). I don't think the inclusion of someone like Piso/Galba II represents a "significant view" per WP:NPOV, the clear consensus based on the other lists appear to be that he should not be included. Including figures who are only present in one list also presents other problems; DIR includes Celsus and Saturninus, who are fictional and never existed, and (jumping forwards to Byzantium) Mango includes a "Heraclius III", who appears to be made-up or a mistake. By the same logic as including other emperors that only appear in a single list, we would not be able to omit those. It is my belief that if we include every emperor in every list, even only a single author has deemed them necessary to include, we will end up with a Frankensteinian and unorthodox list that conflicts with all other lists of emperors. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: I think we are very near agreement and the remaining issue is only what to do with names found in a small minority of sources, such as just one or two sources. I think we agree that they should not be included in the same way that the consensus emperors are included, but rather than exclude them entirely, I think we need to include them with some kind of labeling information that the entry is not commonly identified as an emperor. I don't think we should be creating an "orthodox" list when there is real variation in our reliable sources. The article should instead reflect that variation in an appropriate way. I read NPOV "significant view" to be any majority or minority view from a reliable source that is non-fringe (with "fringe" being pretty extreme stuff like flat earth theory), rather than being restricted just to "consensus" views (which I read as "majority" views). About your examples, I think wikipedia gives us the leeway as editors to exclude names identified as non-emperors in a source list from this list as irrelevant and to exclude obvious errors in a source list from this list as against common sense (WP:LISTCRITERIA says "Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." and "... so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list."). The DIR list does include Celsus and Saturninus, but if you click on those name you are taken to a section called "6. Fictitious usurpers: Trebellianus, Celsus and Saturninus", so I don't think they would qualify for this list even if using DIR as our only source.

@AmateurEditor: Yes. One obvious issue with my current approach is that things will get messy with the publication of new lists in reliable sources, which would force us to look over and cross-reference with previous sources concerning on which emperors are included where. I am still not sure if I view an emperor appearing in a single list as a "significant minority view" - see for instance Lucius Mussius Aemilianus, who is included by DIR but omitted by all of the 17 other lists I found covering the Crisis of the Third Century. I still favor a "multiple source includes this figure" approach, but I think that maybe we should get more people to weigh in on the issue.

If we were to include these figures that do not have as much acceptance as the others, the big issue would of course be how to indicate that. The List of popes uses dark grey background color and italics rather than bold text for antipopes, but as you mentioned earlier, color is not enough per WP policy. It is worth mentioning that both the German and Finnish versions of this list seem to follow your ideal approach, but they also differentiate with color. Craven (2019) employs a somewhat similar approach in his list in his book, where usurpers are included, but indicated with dark grey, rather than black, text and italics. There would also need to be some form of system that allows for differentiation of usurpers (such as Domitius Alexander), legitimate rulers with limited acceptance as such in the sources (such as Nepotian or Silbannacus) and junior co-rulers who were not technically emperors but are sometimes included in lists (Constantius Gallus, Crispus, Valerian II, Licinius II etc.). Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avilich: I agree that the old format was better. The biggest issue with this list is that it needs to have clear inclusion criteria per WP:LISTCRITERIA and they can't be made up by us per WP:OR. IMO the best way to establish clear inclusion criteria is to use the inclusion and omission of emperors in lists published in reliable sources as the inclusion criterion - that's perfectly in-line with Wikipedia policy and far better than what we have now. Besides, if we were to establish our own criteria it would be impossible to get something matching a "normal" list of emperors, where many emperors tend to be listed by convention rather than because they were "legitimate" (i.e. Romulus Augustulus as you say, Magnentius, Gordian I and II, etc.). Some Caesars are included in several reliable sources, notably Gallus, and should thus be included here. Some additional usurpers, most notably the Gallic emperors but also figures like Pacatian, Jotapian and Domitius Alexander, also appear to be included frequently enough in other published lists to warrant their inclusion here. Wikipedia should work of off reliable sources and not be an arbiter of truth. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Caesars were heirs-apparent, not on equal footing as Augusti, and most sources (I think) don't list Gallus (that wasn't even his formal name) as an 'emperor'. I'm not quite trying to establish 'my own criteria' here. The problem for determining who was 'legitimate' is nonexistent for before 284: whoever the Roman Senate recognized as emperor was legitimate, and everyone else a usurper. I don't think any significant number of sources deviate from this line of thinking. After Diocletian, the Senate was of course irrelevant, so now it's not that simple. Looking at your own list of sources, the only post-284 claimants who seem to be controversial are the three I mentioned previously plus Valerius Valens and Martinian (which I should also have mentioned). So, if one claimant has recognition from at least part of the existing imperial college (Valens and Martinian) or controls vast amounts of territory along with any of the major 'capitals' (Eugenius and Basiliscus), he may be considered 'legitimate', whereas lesser claimants like Calocaerus (334) and Jovinus (411) can safely be omitted from the list. Now, I know this might sound like blatant original research on my part, but I believe this is how to best reconcile the sources available. Domitius Alexander and Domitius Domitianus (for example) are absent more often than not, so I tend to favor their omission here too. Avilich (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with you on the role of a Caesar or that they most accurately should not be included, nor am I disagreeing with you in that I too would favor something along your line of thinking if I were to create my own list. What I am saying is that unless these criteria are given by a reliable source, which they are not, it's WP:OR and can't be used as a basis for the Wikipedia list. At the same time, we need clear and unambiguous inclusion criteria per WP:LISTCRITERIA. The easiest way to do that, since no source provides any concrete inclusion criteria and instead work off of partly historical convention and partly personal opinion, is to follow other published lists for which emperors to include and which to exclude - per WP policy we should reflect reliable sources, not the true political situation in the Roman Empire.

The situation before 284 is not entirely clear-cut either. A big thing is whether to start the list with Julius Caesar or Augustus; available sources seem pretty divided on that (AFAIK the Romans themselves varied in this as well). There is also Lucius Clodius Macer, who sometimes appears in lists, and notably Clodius Albinus and Pescennius Niger, who are variously either treated as usurpers or included in lists as legitimate emperors (included more often than left out though). There is also the issue of the junior co-Augusti, such as Philip II, Diadumenian, Hostilian etc. The legitimate co-emperor Herennius Etruscus, though included in quite a lot of the lists, is left out more frequently than Niger and Albinus. Postumus, Victorinus and Tetricus of the Gallic Empire appear more often than Philip II and Etruscus. I also have to give a shout-out to Silbannacus, who appears in several of the lists (3/18, a clear minority, but in several different sources nonetheless), who appears to have minted coins in Rome, and thus held the capital, and should thus be included based on your ideas for criteria. Nepotian is a similar case.

Domitius Domitianus and Domitius Alexander are left out more often than left in, yes, but they are still listed in a significant enough number of lists, about as often as Martinian, Valerius Valens, Vetranio, Victor and Basiliscus. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

AmateurEditor: of course, what I labeled as 'miscellaneous' isn't really miscellaneous, just extra life details which would be of interest to the general reader. Indeed, Life details is how the column was labeled previously. There is absolutely no need to have a column dedicated solely to birth date and birth place. This cannot be more complicated than it needs to be, and no more than 5 columns are necessary. Avilich (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Avilich, the "Birth" column is pretty un-objectionable information for a list in my view, and existed in some sections prior to my making all the sections consistent with one another (per MOS:LISTFORMAT, "List items should be formatted consistently in a list. Unless there is a good reason to use different list types in the same page, consistency throughout an article is also desirable."), but if you want to combine that information into another column I have no problem with that. The "Life details" column was not in all sections prior and only ever contained death details, so it seemed better to use the more accurate "Death" header, which was also a pre-existing column used in just some sections. I don't see any requirement about limiting the number of columns to 5 and I assume that is just your personal preference. Personally, I have no preference for the number of columns but I do prefer that the columns be chronological from left to right (ignoring the image and name columns) and I think that a broad "Life details" column is a bad idea because it will be an open invitation to editors to add all sorts of "unnecessary details" (in the language of MOS:LONGSEQ) that they consider to be interesting but that are actually better left to the individual emperor-specific articles. By the way, I think I misread the meaning of "heading" at MOS:LISTORG ("Lists should never contain "Unsorted" or "Miscellaneous" headings, ..."). Re-reading it, that appears to relate to section headings, rather than table columns, which have "headers" instead of "headings". I think it is saying that we should not have sections of miscellaneous/unsorted entries separated from the rest of the sorted/organized entries, which we do not have in this article; not having a general "Life details" column would instead be to avoid the "unnecessary detail" mentioned at MOS:LONGSEQ. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Break - further discussion

In order to clear this discussion up and get some order, and hopefully get more people weighing in, this is the options I see going forwards. Neither is objectively wrong, but the current list requires overhaul in sourcing and in its inclusion criteria (clear criteria, based in reliable sources, are needed per WP:LISTCRITERIA) - which at this time appears to be WP:OR (as its inclusions, omissions and reasoning are not referenced to any reliable source). A list of Roman emperors is not just a matter of presenting the "truth" (as it would be for a list of British monarchs or Babylonian monarchs for example - where every list in existence is in agreement and the legitimacy of monarchs is more clear - almost every published list of Roman emperors is different in some regard. For reference I put together these tables for which figures are included in lists of emperors by various authors. Here's the ideas for approaches:

• Option 1 - Include everything: We could disregard what the sources do, as in many cases inclusion/omission appears somewhat arbitrary, and instead simply include every single figure who claimed the titles Augustus or Caesar, with some way of distinguishing unsuccessful usurpers and successful rulers. A problem with a "hyper-inclusive" list would of course be that it would be highly unorthodox.
• Option 2 - Include based on single list: Include figures if they are included in at least one list published in a reliable source, with some formatting way of differentiating rulers with a lot of acceptance and little acceptance in the sources. Will force the inclusion of a lot of figures not typically included, including many minor usurpers and figures who never claimed to be emperor. Can however be argued to best accord with WP:NPOV, which says to include all significant views published in reliable sources without editorial bias.
• Option 3 - Include based on several lists: Include figures if they appear in several (i.e. 3 or more) lists published in reliable sources, indicating wider recognition of this figure as an emperor. A cut-off of 3 lists may seem arbitrary, and the publication of more lists in the future might necessitate changes.
• Option 4 - Include based on majority of lists: Include figures if they appear in a majority of published lists in reliable sources, indicating consensus that they should be included. This option is not without problems and would force the exclusion of several legitimate emperors who have appeared in this list for years - such as Philip II and Herennius Etruscus, whereas usurpers such as Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus (who do appear in a majority of lists) would remain.
• Option 5 - Include based on all lists: Include a figure only if they appear in every single list of emperors in reliable sources, indicating complete consensus. This approach increases the problems of Option 4, and would force the omission of several figures commonly listed, such as Gordian I, Gordian II, Lucius Verus and Geta.
• Other options; there is the option of including only "legitimate emperors", but what that means is arbitrary. Controlling Rome does not work as a criterion after the Tetrarchy, or even before (see the Gordians, Pescennius Niger, Clodius Albinus etc.).

I personally favor Option 3. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Among the lists discussed, I think roman-emperors.org, ostia-antica.org, worldhistory.org (previously ancient.eu) are not reliable sources and should be discounted. I have reservations for the others too, eg. Livius.org, metmuseum.org, britannica.com, which for me don't have enough authority for this. I may come back on the subject tomorrow. T8612 (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It's fair to discuss the reliability of the sources in question but I think you have to provide your rationale if you're going to dismiss them - as far as I'm aware WP quite frequently uses, for instance, Britannica, Livius and DIR as sources in articles. Ichthyovenator (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The author of this Britannica page is not an academic. I use Livius regularly, but I don't cite it because it is not peer-reviewed content. Same all the other lists. I think that saying whether someone was emperor or not cannot be proved with any of the lists cited and I oppose making the Wikipedia list from them. T8612 (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that comment isn't clear to me: Naomi Blumberg is the author of which Britannica page? Andrew Dalby 13:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this is the only name that appears on the page. T8612 (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@T8612: Which page? (The link you gave just above was to her biography, not to an encylopedia page.) Andrew Dalby 13:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, please imagine I never pinged you. I see it now, it's in that great big table. I didn't see it there the first time. Andrew Dalby 13:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I imagine you at least find (some of) the books I referenced to be reliable sources? If Britannica and Livius do not hold up as sources I imagine a lot of articles at GA, or even FA, level will be in need of revision. There's of course also the issue that if not based on something like this, what would we base the list of? We cannot make up our own criteria for inclusion and omission. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

T8612's comment isn't clear to me: Naomi Blumberg is the author of which Britannica page? [I've got it now.]

In general, there's no requirement for authors that we cite to be academics. Britannica is a tertiary source and if we cite it for a fact in an article aiming for GA or FA, the citation should be replaced by something better. Livius is not peer-reviewed (I believe); again, if it's cited in an article aiming for GA or FA, the citation should be replaced by something better. But the question here and now is quite different, and it isn't a matter of reliable sources: what are Britannica's criteria for inclusion in the list of Roman emperors? Ditto for Livius. Ditto for those other lists if we want to take account of them. Are those good criteria for us too, or should we aim at something different? Andrew Dalby 14:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Britannica can be used as RS on WP, but I would not base an entire list like this one on a semi-anonymous article with no explanation on the methodology. I would rather use individual articles from Britannica (with an identified author), the Realencyclopadie, or other standardised works (perhaps the Cambridge Ancient History could be used too). T8612 (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the entire list should be based on Britannica's list alone and that there is no explanation of methodology is the main issue with every list - I don't think there is a published list of emperors in a reliable source that explains in detail why it includes/excludes certain figures. Craven (2019) sort of does but his list is not very conventional. The idea I had was to look at as many lists as we can find and compare them to see how they handle it. I don't see how we can fulfill WP:LISTCRITERIA otherwise (unless we just include everything) since no source makes the criteria separating a legitimate emperor from an usurper perfectly clear, or why certain junior rulers are counted as emperors and others are not. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Option 3 seems most reasonable to me, but I have no strong preference. Every option has pros and cons, but as long as we make clear in the final article which rationale we use, any option would be fine with me. DutchHoratius (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I would go for option 1. There is no definitive list now in existence nor are there any agreed criteria for inclusion in modern scholarship. When I'm looking these things up I'd find it very useful to have a list of every single figure who claimed the titles Augustus or Caesar, with some way of distinguishing unsuccessful usurpers and successful rulers. A note against the usurpers and failures should be fine. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I can also see the merits of Option 1, it is what the German and Finnish lists appear to be doing, but if we were to go with Option 1 we would need a good way to diffentiate Augusti, Caesares and claimants with limited recognition. I'd also be worried about the massive size the list is going to reach, it's already quite massive since it includes everyone from 27 BC to 1453. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the list should end in 476. T8612 (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Even if we were to separate Byzantines and Romans, 476 is far from an universally agreed cut-off point - Zeno (491), Anastasius I (518), Maurice (602) or even someone later are equally valid. This is a big issue with separating the list - regardless I think this is a separate discussion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reminder that there is a long-neglected list of Roman usurpers which should be used for controversial entries, so option 1 is not a good idea. Comparing tons of different lists is a perennially difficult problem and no one will get anywhere by doing this. We just need a criterion that is more or less compatible with the majority of lists and that produces as little controversy as possible (like being recognized by the Senate, before the Tetrarchy, and so on), and then deal with each controversial entry individually. There is also no good reason to list every single emperor until 1453 when there's a perfectly good list of Byzantine emperors. Avilich (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the logic of what you're saying holds up, but I also think your approach conflicts with what WP:LISTCRITERIA says: "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item." I think this is a pretty clear case of membership criteria in the list being likely to be disputed (that pretty much every published list of emperors is different in some regard is evidence enough for that), which means that inclusion has to be based on reliable sources. I take this as meaning that inclusion in the list has to follow inclusions/exclusions in reliable sources but I'm happy to see any counterarguments since comparing lists is an arduous task (though not impossible, as I have demonstrated). Discussions on whether or not to include the Byzantines have never achieved consensus or have leaned towards including them from what I remember. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Therefore the List of Byzantine Emperors should be a redirect... I also think that the list should end with Romulus/Zeno. I know that the end of the Roman Empire/beginning of the Byzantine Empire is a touchy subject on Wikipedia, but some consistency on the matter is really needed, because WP gives very contradictory information on this topic. This is the most important problem I have seen regarding information provided by WP so far. There may be the possibility of elaborating a WP:policy on this. T8612 (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

LISTCRITERIA needn't contradict what I said at all. If 'usurpers' are referred to as such in reliable sources, then they should be included in list of Roman usurpers. They then might simply be omitted from the emperors' list on strength of WP:CONTENTFORK alone, which discourages duplication of content. Thus, the best arrangement IMO is for the emperors' list to feature uncontroversial entries and the usurpers' list the rest. This seems much simpler than weighing the advantages of a morass of 'reliable sources' that contradict each other. Avilich (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This of course creates the problem of what an uncontroversial entry is. There are figures who some regard as legitimate and others regard as usurpers. There are figures that are largely agreed to be usurpers (Niger and Albinus) who nevertheless are typically included in lists and there are figures that are largely agreed to be legitimate (Herennius Etruscus, Philip II, and to a lesser extent even Lucius Verus or Geta) that often, or sometimes, get omitted, which to me seems to lead to the same issue of weighing contradictory reliable sources. If inclusion is supported by references to reliable sources referring to an emperor as an "emperor" rather than "usurper" we can essentially end up with Option 2 above since you will be able to find reliable sources justifying the inclusion of certain non-typical figures. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Herennius, Philip, Verus and Geta are all definitely 'legitimate', and their hypothetical omission in some 'reliable sources' is doubtless because of their limited importance rather than actual concerns about their legitimacy. If the problem is classifying what a controversial entry is, then I could divide them into 3 groups.

1. Minor usurpers of little consequence, like Calocaerus and Jovinus.
2. Major regional pretenders without official recognition from the Senate or the rest of the imperial college, like Niger, Albinus, Domitianus, and Firmus.
3. Claimants recognized by at least part of the imperial college (or by the Senate), like Magnentius, Magnus Maximus, and Constantine III.

Dividing into groups helps because we need to be consistent in which criterion to use (WP:LISTCRITERIA). It's also simpler to evaluate the attitude of sources to each of these groups instead of going through every single pretender. I for one think the first two can be readily sent to the usurpers' list. The ones in the third group might be worthy of individual consideration. Avilich (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, and this is why I see Option 1 as the only really sustainable one in the long term. Anything else involves picking and choosing between competing sources that were never intended to rule upon the legitimacy of individual candidates; they can be considered as reliable for an inclusion, but not for an omission or exclusion. Also, for this encyclopedia, I'd like to see a really comprehensive list, including absolutely everyone who is recorded as having claimed the title - for example Silvanus (magister peditum), a very low-grade candidate but whose brief aspirations furnish him with his only real claim to notability. I feel that this approach will not only save endless wrangling but will also give the best results for the encyclopedic reader. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the problem I am getting at. If I was to produce an "accurate" list of emperors I would follow your idea for the list, I am not arguing that your approach does not make sense. I am arguing that I do not think it satisfies the WP policies that have been brought up. You say that the first two groups can be sent to the list of usurpers, but that is your opinion. It is an opinion that I would normally agree with, but it seems to be WP:OR to me since it is not based on a source, especially when there are multiple lists that inlcude figures like Niger and Albinus (more than include Philip II or Herennius Etruscus, as I said). I am not arguing that Niger or Albinus are "more legitimate" than Philip II or Herennius Etruscus, I am simply stating the fact that they are included more often based on the lists I found. WP:LISTCRITERIA also includes that inclusion criteria should adhere to what readers would expect to find in the list - if a majority of lists include Niger and Albinus then those are figures that readers would expect to find. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

In many ways, this list is much like the one for Roman consuls: at first glance, it would seem to be a simple & straightforward exercise but once you get into the details all sorts of problems emerge.

One factor that has been overlooked is that we can make an arbitrary definition of what this list includes. We can say it begins with the year 31 BC (date of the Battle of Actium, when many historians consider the Roman Empire to have started), & use that to exclude Julius Caesar. We can say it ends with AD 476 & does not include the emperors based in Constantinople (for those, see the List of Roman Emperors). And it does not include persons who only governed a part of the Empire, e.g. the rulers of the Gallic Empire. Stating this explicitly would allow us to get close to the kind of list people expect to find here, & shuts down any trolls or cranks who insist someone who otherwise fits the criteria be included, say Constantine III. (I note he is currently included, but regardless I have a fondness for the individual since his was one of the first articles I wrote for Wikipedia, IMHO he is considered a usurper. The official lineage [i.e., those recognized by the co-emperor at Constantinople] proceeds Honoratus -- Constantius III -- Valentinian III.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, if an over-long article is the problem, we can perfectly well set our own date limits. Formally categorizing all of these individuals as legitimate or not will lead to, literally, endless problems. Listing them all, some as undisputed and universally-agreed rulers of the entire Empire and others as definitely not, with a middle category for disputable cases, would be a lot easier, and adding individual notes on the claims would solve the remaining problems. Option 1 looks best. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we can set our own arbitrary date limit - we would need one reinforced by reliable sources and as has been pointed our here before reliable source vary considerably in the dates they pick. The traditional 476 is not necessarily more commonly used than 491, 602 or even something considerably later. I agree that Option 1 works as an approach, as I pointed out it fits well with how several other language versions do their lists, but we would need to come up with a good formatting way to distinguish unsuccessful claimants and junior rulers from the senior line of emperors (color was not enough per one of the policies). Option 3 would circumvent that problem, but the main problem with Option 3 would be that the list will likely end up looking quite arbitrary in terms of who is included and who is excluded. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Stuffing all usurpers, Roman emperors and Byzantine emperors into a single page will definitely not help readers. You'll never find a common ground between all different 'reliable sources' and Wikipedia guidelines when there's hundreds of individual entries to consider. It's impossible to do this without deviating from at least one reliable source. Just WP:IGNOREALLRULES and find a WP:COMMONSENSE way to distribute the entries across the 3 lists, with as little overlap (WP:CONTENTFORK) as possible. If someone can be reasonably called a 'usurper', put him on list of Roman usurpers. If someone can be called Byzantine, put him on list of Byzantine emperors. The rest belong here. Most people browsing here will want to see only the classical-era emperors anyway. Avilich (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

We can't find a complete common ground but it is possible to create criteria based in reliable sources - all of the five options I listed at first would in my mind work in tandem with the policies brought up. Your approach would be problematic - if everyone who can be called Byzantine should be placed in the list of Byzantine emperors we should cut off the list with Constantine the Great, if people who can reasonable be called usurpers are omitted we will have to leave out several figures that most lists agree should be listed (Niger, Albinus, Gordian I, Gordian II) etc. It is possible to stuff everything into a single page - see the Finnish, German and French lists (French list has a pretty good, though not perfect, way of indicating usurpers). These all exclude the Byzantines but include usurpers (and the Finnish version also includes the Caesares). Achieving common ground between reliable sources could alternatively be to include a figure if a reliable source includes them, which could work with WP:NPOV, or including a figure if several sources include them (which gives more weight to their inclusion). I don't think WP:IGNOREALLRULES should be used here to justify WP:OR in violation of WP:LISTCRITERIA when there are ways to work it out. "Most people browsing here will want to see only the classical-era emperors anyway" is an opinion and not objective fact. I for one like that we have all the emperors in a single list, though I think we could rename it so it matches the List of Roman and Byzantine empresses. The problem with splitting is that we 1) need consensus for splitting the list and 2) we need consensus for which date to use (395, 476, 480, 491, 518, 602, 800 etc.). Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Though arbitrary criteria like dates and locations are fine in Wikipedia, options 2 to 5 would be very unusual. Generally speaking, when we're asking if someone/something belongs in a "List of ... " article, we look at that person/thing. If they're blue-linked, it should be fairly clear from their article; he was elected in 1810, it's a film by X, she was a Nobel laureate. I can't think of any "List of ... " articles whose criterion is that they appear in an RS list. If the issue is how to handle usurpers, is part of the answer that "usurper" itself is an anachronistic term that imposes too much order? Would it be better to mark some as, for example, recognised only in some region or by some forces, or simply as failing to win general recognition? NebY (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that arbitrary dates are not fine without references to reliable sources. If we're going to cut the list of, we'd be marking someone as "the last Roman emperor", which would need considerable RS backing since who that is is controversial. Right now the problem is circumvented by listing everyone up to 1453, which is how it has been handled for years. The issue here, and why I think we either have to 1) include everything or 2) look to reliable sources on who to include (I'm supporting either Option 1 or 3 above), is that every published list of emperors is different and there is disagreement on the status of several figures. In that regard, this list is fairly unique. If we don't reference reliable sources for inclusion/exclusion, we are conducting WP:OR. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently wrong with arbitrary dates (eg "Emperors of the second century AD") if they produce useful articles, and whether they do is an editorial decision, not WP:OR. Neither is it WP:OR to look to reliable histories to decide whether or not to include someone. If good secondary RSs say Claudius was an emperor, he can be included in a list of emperors. What's more, we don't need to use the same source for Claudius as we do for Constantine to justify including them both in a list, as long as each appears in RSs - looking in different RSs isn't WP:OR either, it's how Wikipedia's put together. If RSs disagree about someone's status, we can say so. That's normal too. It's only WP:OR to make our own deductions; for example, we can't claim that Agrippina must have been an emperor because Caratacus paid her respect, instead we would need an RS saying she was an emperor. What would be exceptional for Wikipedia and contrary to practice, if not policy (which is usually the codification of developed practice), would be to rely instead on published lists rather than specific histories. NebY (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to all, but especially to NebY for their particularly wise words. Both the German and French approaches to this list seem good. They include all claimants however unsuccessful, our current option 1, and describe briefly the actual extent of their power. They have decided, presumably by consensus, their limits. I feel that we should do something similar, though I do prefer our approach of including every claimant from Augustus to Constantine XI. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:SIZERULE article size rule only apply to readable prose, and not lists, so list size is not actually a concern we need to pay attention to. For this reason, and because 1) we've had the Byzantine emperors in this list for years 2) there is no universally agreed date where the Roman-Byzantine transition happens and every date has its fair share of problems 3) a "List of Roman emperors" should reasonably contain every emperor of the Romans, I also support going all the way to Constantine XI (though I think we could rename the list to "List of Roman and Byzantine emperors", as has been done for the List of Roman and Byzantine empresses and merge the List of Byzantine emperors here). I also agree that there is merit in what NebY says, and since any usurper or emperor will probably have secondary RSs that refer to him as an emperor, I am not opposed to Option 1. With arbitrary dates being WP:OR I was mainly referring to the end date, since picking an end date before 1453 would be picking a last Roman emperor that is not Constantine XI and would need RSs to back up that decision since there is controversy in the sources on this point. I opted for relying on published lists since they presented a quick way to see which emperors are typically listed in RSs - i.e. WP:LISTCRITERIA stating that lists should include what readers expect to find, but I can also see the problems with that approach. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Strongly oppose merging both lists. Just add a remark at the bottom of the Roman list saying that it continues in the Byzantine list. By doing so, you're not actually picking an arbitrary date for a 'Roman-Byzantine transition', it simply means you're compartmentalizing the entries for convenience, in the same way the term 'Byzantine' itself was coined for historical convenience. The so-called arbitrariness of a non-1453 finishing date is a red herring: using two pages to list Roman emperors instead of one doesn't mean Wikipedia is taking a position on what makes an emperor 'Roman' – so long as a proper clarification is made. Avilich (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I think at the very least we should be consistent in our approach. If there is a single list of consorts there should be a single list of emperors, if there are two lists of emperors there should be two lists of consorts. If this list repeats the content of the list of Byzantine emperors in full, they should be merged etc. I think you can agree with that sentiment. As I've mentioned, previous discussions on splitting the list have either not reached a consensus or been skewed towards not splitting. If we split, we would also need to agree on where to split. The date is arbitrary because different authors (of those who do split) use different dates, 476 works quite poorly because of Julius Nepos (480) and because of Zeno ruling until 491, and there are also issues to consider with other potential dates, such as 518, 602 or 800/802 - regardless of the approach there will also be overlap between the lists since a list of Byzantine emperors has to begin with Constantine I (since all of them do). I don't see how picking a date, and a final figure who is listed in the "list of Roman emperors" is not picking a final person who is more of a Roman emperor than anyone who comes after. I feel like this could also be construed as a case where there is risk of going against WP:NPOV. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I do think the list of Empresses should be split as well. Where are the previous discussions you mention? I think there is ground for a new discussion on this and that whatever the date chosen for the split, it would apply to all the articles dealing with the Roman and Byzantine empires. As I said above, there is a lot of inconsistency on Wikipedia regarding this. T8612 (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The last point it was discussed, as far as I can tell, was late last year in a discussion raised by me on this talk page. I can't tell what the result of that was but as obvious, the status quo has been preserved since then. I remember it also being discussed elsewhere previously. I agree that discussing this again would be a good idea, but it is important to remember that this would also be a two-step process. Step 1 would be to discuss whether they should be separated, and Step 2 would be deciding on which date (out of which there are several contending dates) the split should be around. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how picking a date, and a final figure who is listed in the "list of Roman emperors" is not picking a final person who is more of a Roman emperor than anyone who comes after. Do Byzantine emperors‎ having their own category mean they are not Roman? No, they're simply listed as a subcat of Roman emperors. There is no reason why a similar logic couldn't be followed here. The issue of the specific year to cut the list off (491, 602, 641...) is irrelevant: whatever is chosen would not be incorrect, since they're historical conventions. There's also no problem with a slight overlap. Avilich (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel like that's the implication, yes. The issue is that picking an end date and a final figure to include in this list, necessitates picking a final figure to be included in the list of Roman emperors, even if we have a note at the bottom saying "this list continues at the list of Byzantine emperors..." the implication of the title and scope of the list (one would expect a list of Roman emperors to list every Roman emperor) is that the final person is the last Roman emperor. I don't see how the subcategory example is similar - the Byzantine emperor category is a subcategory of the Roman emperor category which means they are included in that category, article structure does not work in the same way. As I said, I think that this can easily turn into a WP:NPOV issue since it is not possible to reconcile the different views on when Rome "transitions" into Byzantium. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Can we hope to resolve this? So far the current positions seem to be (excluding the discussion on whether to omit the Byzantines for now):

• Include everyone who was recognized or claimed the title of Augustus, or the later equivalent Basileus - Richard Keatinge, Ichthyovenator
• Include everyone who is referred to as "emperor" in at least one RS (I think the list produced by this approach would be the same as the one produced if the above position is what we would go with) - NebY
• Include everyone who appears in multiple lists of emperors in RSs - Ichthyovenator, DutchHoratius (no strong preference)
• Include everyone who appears in at least one list of emperors in RSs - AmateurEditor
• WP:IGNOREALLRULES, maintain the current approach of wikipedia editors picking who goes on the list - Avilich

Again, relevant policies that the currently live list, at least to me, is breaking are WP:LISTCRITERIA, WP:OR, and potentially WP:NPOV. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, my position is that anyone who can reasonably be described as a usurper should not be listed here, but instead on the list of usurpers. I don't really disagree with you that we should 'include everyone who appears in multiple lists of emperors in RSs' (only I think 'multiple lists' should preferably be 'majority of lists'). 'Ignore the rules' was mostly about discouraging hair-splitting analyses of what exactly makes one emperor legitimate. Avilich (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if I misrepresented your position, I was skimming through the discussion trying to find definite stances. I think that "can reasonably be described as a usurper" is dangerously vague (and POV?) and would necessitate a lot of case-by-case looking (the western Constantine III is a prime example that comes to mind - usurper or legitimate?), some figures who indisputably were usurpers - Niger and Albinus -are also included in a majority of lists (do you suggest omitting them?) whereas some indisputably legitimate figures - for instance Philip II and Herennius Etruscus - are not. My idea with multiple lists rather than majority of lists was that it would fit with WP:NPOV and at the same time produce a list that vaguely resembles the one we have now, with a few additions rather than omissions. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I used "emperor" to be brief, without discussing whether the criterion should be "emperor" or "Augustus"/"Basileus" or any other term. My point is that each inclusion depends on WP:SECONDARY reliable souces and as normal for Wikipedia, these do not have to be the same sources in each case. There should be no exclusions for non-appearance on a list or lists, and presence on a list or lists is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. Such WP:TERTIARY sources may be useful to an editor reviewing the article for surprising omissions or inclusions, but that's all.

If RS histories say someone met the criterion (be it "emperor", "Augustus"/"Basileus", or whatever), they should be included. It would be contrary to the very purpose of Wikipedia to exclude them and a breach of WP:NPOV, as well as a recipe for conflict whenever an editor arrived to make a fully RS-based addition. Likewise, if someone meets the criterion, that will be traceable to RS histories cited in their bluelinked article or directly in this article, and without that their bare appearance in some tertiary list will not be sufficient grounds for inclusion. There is no shortage of better sources. NebY (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks NebY, I agree entirely. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

My thinking concerning the idea of looking at other lists was firstly that inclusion of a figure in a list of Roman emperors implies that figure being recognized as a Roman emperor. Craven (2019)'s list is for instance backed up by the rest of his book, where the entries of each figure specifies whether he views them as a usurper or legitimate emperor and why (in-line with his list). Secondly, I also thought looking at other lists fit with WP:LISTCRITERIA's point of including things readers would expect to find in the list, reasonably our list of emperors should resemble other lists of emperors. I think your approach works as well - as I said I think the resulting list would probably be more or less the same. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Wasn't Clodius Albinus granted the title of Caesar by Septimius Severus at some point, and since Severus has become regarded as "legitimate" from 193 shouldn't that count for something?★Trekker (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but recognition as caesar does not mean recognition as augustus. If Clodius Albinus would be added in we'd then also need to add in figures like Lucius Aelius Caesar and Constantius Gallus. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't Caesar the official title of many so called "Junior emperors" like during the Tetrarchy?★Trekker (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This was already discussed above. The caesar are omitted since they were subordinate of the augustus, or at least they were not treated as equals. Tintero21 (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't article be called List of Augusti then?★Trekker (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

No one search a "List of Roman augusti", they search a "List of Roman emperors". The title caesar is bellow augustus (and later basileus), is as simple as that. We just call them "emperors" because it's the historiographic convention. Tintero21 (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thats kind of the problem tho, "Roman emperor" is anachronistic and made up, not everyone considered Roman emperor in a lot of sources were "official Augusti". And some people who were Augusti ruled in any meaningful way, yet many Wikipedia articles follow sources thatsay they count as emperor.★Trekker (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@*Treker: What do you mean with that last part? Tintero21 (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus seemingly don't count as Emperors according to this list, yet its commonly known as Year of the Five Emperors.★Trekker (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources overwhelmingly consider only those who were augusti (and in later times senior basileus) to have been "emperors". The majority of scholars consider Niger or Albinus to be usurpers, IMO a label both fit quite well in terms of the sourced section on the distinction in this list. "Year of the Three Emperors and Two Usurpers" does not roll of the tongue quite as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't say I've gotten that impression myself. As I see it the title "Roman emperor" honestly seems kinda anachronistic anyway, the rulers of Imperial Rome held many titles, "Roman emperor" was never one of them. I'd personally rather list "Augusti", "Caesares" and "Basileis" by titles, but I realize I'm probably alone on this.★Trekker (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the term is anachronistic and that distinctions between augusti and caesares are at times blurry (the caesar Constantius Gallus clearly wielded more power than the augustus Diadumenian) but we're forced to follow common conventions and mainstream usage. I don't think we need a separate list of Basileis since it's the same office (emperors were not uncommonly called basileus in the east long before Heraclius) but I support the idea of creating a list of caesares. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Caesar (title) already has an incomplete list of holders. Starting in the 1st century and ending in the 20th century. Dimadick (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe a split might be in order, with a list one that could look more similar to this one.★Trekker (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Sponsianus

If we are to include Silbannacus, it probably makes sense to include Sponsianus as well: both are extremely obscure and only known from two coins. Winthrop23 (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Difference is Silbannacus ruled in Rome, although I would not have included it as well. T8612 (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

A list of Visigothic Kings

A list of Visigothic Kings uses, at least in part, material from this article. I thought I would post here in case anyone was interested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Lucullus19: Are you watching this article? You may want to vet recent edits. Srnec (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

This list is a par excellence original synthesis: individual data can be verified but lists of Roman Emperors published in reliable sources typically does not mention Byzantine Emperors after the 6th and 7th centuries. Borsoka (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

To verify my tags, I copy Srnec's words from an ongoing AfD discussion: "Our current list of Roman emperors page represents a highly "legitimist" interpretation. The Latin emperors are excluded in favour of the Laskarids, as are the rulers of Trebizond. The Holy Roman Emperors, who had a stronger connection to Rome, are ignored entirely. The list stops in 1453 without regards for any subsequent claims. In fact, we have three articles on such claims: Succession of the Roman Empire, Succession to the Byzantine Empire and Ottoman claim to Roman succession. I'm not saying this interpretation is wrong, but it is a particular POV that treats the claims of the Byzantine rulers very seriously and the claims of everyone else as nonsense. My own opinion, which agrees (IIRC) with that of E. A. Freeman, is that calling the empire "Roman" is unproblematic and preferable down to the 8th century. During that century, the emperors lose control of Rome (permanently) and, in 800, a rival claim to legitimacy is created. After that, "Byzantine" is preferable for the eastern empire for clarity." We should list the Roman emperors as they are listed in modern reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The claim in the 8th century was because a woman was empress, the seat of emperor was vacant. And before Charlemagne's coronation, no Pope had even blessed a Roman Emperor and his authority was based on the forged Donation of Constantine. If the pope claimed authority from Constantine and Constantine is the emperor who made New Rome and supported Christianity, why is the unbroken lineage from Constantine considered different after the 8th century?

Have you ever considered why the word Byzantine replaced Charlemagnes "Empire of the Greeks" in the 19th century? Why isn't Empire of the Greeks -- invented by Charlamagne and when the problem starts -- a more appropriate term after the 8th century?

Based on the view of Anthony Kaldellis, the term Byzantine is problematic and it makes perfect sense to call all "Eastern" emperors as emperors of the Roman Empire. The truth of the matter is that it's politics for power that historians are now fighting over and Wikipedia needs to stand above this. "Reliable sources" on this topic are a myth as it's a battle to control the narrative of the origin of the West. Biz (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

WP is based on reliable sources and most reliable sources make a difference between the ancient Roman Empire and the medieval Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire. For more than a week no editors have referred to reliable source verifying the timeframe of this list. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is one that lists every emperor from Augustus to Constantine XI: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/byzantium/texts/byzemps.asp Biz (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

And it is splitted into two separate list of western and eastern emperors after 395. Borsoka (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

True. But the title is "The Rulers of the Roman Empire". biz (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but if you look at similar lists linked in this article you will see that they do not cover the whole period. Neither do cover the same period the books cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Check Ian Mladjov: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I6aQjcxem4viTf_t0j8OJxPQHy_2QjVr/view

Listed here. (Not sure how to best attribute the work.)

If you read the foot note on page 11, you will see how 395 was not the final year "East" and "West" had a sole emperor for the combined empire which was theoretically still one. It actually was 473.

I also like the headings he uses to categorise the rulers. Biz (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

...and to your point about books cited not covering the entire period, well of course! This is such a big history, it's not practical to cover the entire period in one book. Mike Duncan's excellent History of Rome Podcast went for 70ish hours and by that stage he was exhausted to go past 478 despite acknowledging there was another 1000 years of history to cover just not centered at Rome Biz (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sources which cover certain period will naturally only include emperors of that period. It wouldn't make sense to include all eastern emperors unless the author is specifically talking about the Byzantine period. Most reliable sources do not include all rulers of Persia or China, yet we still have a List of monarchs of Persia and List of monarchs of China. The Byzantine emperors were the rulers of the Eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, so in that sense they were still "Roman" emperors. It was always the same state (at least until 1204). The problem is that their culture became quite different of what we consider "Roman", even if they called it as such. Tintero21 (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

All true things you've said. But a landmine of opinion as well. I'd love to explore how Romanitas differed from Hellenism, how much Latin influenced Greek versus how Greek made Latin, and how much of Christianity are pagan traditions but in a different form. But not for an encyclopaedia.

Which is why Wikipedia needs to stand above it: Roman and Byzantine are the same state just in different periods of European history. Historians invented a name for the later Roman Empire for whatever reason, but let's not make that naming a different entity. Biz (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Even so you can easily find publications to verify those lists like the volumes of The Cambridge History of China ([3]) or The Cambridge History of Iran ([4]). Borsoka (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The histories of Italy and Greece claim heritage of the Roman and Byzantine Empires. Byzantine history is considered "medieval Greece" in Greece's schooling system.

But what you are pointing out supports what I was trying to say earlier. History gets used to control the narrative to support modern day politics and why it keeps getting rewritten. The history of the two modern nation states of China and Iran is not more than a century and yet they are claiming thousands of years as heritage. The difference with the Greco-Roman history (versus Iran and China) is that all of Europe claims it as heritage. Biz (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, you are right. However, we are here to write of history as it is presented in reliable sources not to write a history as we think it should be presented in reliable sources. I think my proposal in the following section could solve all problems. Splitting the large List of Roman emperors into three different lists would be fully in line with the sources cited in the article, or at least would not contradict either of them, and we could avoid the use of "Byzantine", an expression that is obviously an anathema for many editors. Borsoka (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

What are the reliable sources that are guiding this direction?

Anthony Kaldellis has a new book forth coming: https://www.amazon.com/New-Roman-Empire-History-Byzantium/dp/0197549322 which says the Eastern Roman Empire starts in 324, not 395. Biz (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

What is clear after 395 separate emperors ruled the eastern and western half of the empire until 480. Borsoka (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Borsoka I did a scan on talk and I think there is a lot there that can guide our discussion. But more usefully, here is a list of sources that you said are lacking in the article (and which is also apparently what prevented this list from becoming featured): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Roman_emperors#Sources_List_for_discussions Biz (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I studied the lists before concluding that the present list is in fact an original synthesis. Borsoka (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

1. The Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire cannot be added to the list because it is not a continuation of the Ancient Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire emerged as a political problem for the pope. 2. Byzantine emperors were added to the list simply because they are a continuation of the Roman Empire itself. Even if it is a reliable source, it cannot be cited if the author's subjective thoughts are involved. 3. Edward Gibbon described the fall of the Roman Empire in 1453. 4. Since the Empire of Nicaea restored the Byzantine Empire, a claimant to the throne like Emperor Trebizond cannot be included in the list. To include them, include the claimant to the throne in the list of current European monarchs. The current claimant to the throne of United kingdom is Ernst August V. Ricedylano (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

My argument against Ernst August V after the exact investigation was wrong, sry Ricedylano (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you refer to reliable sources cited in the article that cover the period between 27BC and 1453AD? Borsoka (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a proposal to discuss

I am just making an informal proposal about splitting the article. To avoid original synthesis, I think the article could be splitted into three articles: 1. List of Roman emperors (covering the period from 27 BC to 395 AD); 2. List of Western Roman emperors (395-476/480); and 3. List of Eastern Roman emperors (395-1453). Borsoka (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That's an improvement but the term Eastern is also a problem. Why do we define it as 395? Theodosius's successors, per this pages list, continued nearly to the end of the Western Roman Empire. Which then goes back to who was "Eastern Roman" versus who was "Roman". Shouldn't Constantine be considered first Eastern emperor? Justinian would be Eastern under your view, but he is also considered the last Roman while simultaneously the greatest Byzantine? Geographically, the term "Eastern emperors" is problematic as they had territory in Italy up until the 11th century, including Rome until the 8th century. Is the term Eastern not also an original synthesis issue as well?

There is no real scholarly consensus of when Byzantine started and it is being actively challenged as a term today. Fundamentally, before we had confusion we blame the historians for, it was confusion due to politics so the very nature of Byzantine will always be problematic to define.

I like the suggestion I read to rename the page "List of Roman and Byzantine emperors" so that Wikipedia does not take a stance of what is Roman and what is Byzantine. Biz (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

395 is a quite natural point of division between Roman, Eastern Roman, and Western Roman Emperor since after this year no emperors ruled the whole Roman Empire alone. Yes, Eastern Emperors ruled parts of Italy, but the bulk of the one-time Western Roman Empire was ruled by independent kings. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Except for Theodosius II (425) and, nominally, Marcianus (456–457), and Leo I (457, 461, 465–467, 472–473), during vacancies in the West. Biz (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Borsoka I reached out to the historian Anthony Kaldellis and he thinks 364 is a natural split as the East formed its own administration (which you will also see in the source I posted separately). This is despite 425 like I pointed out, or later when Anthemius was sent west. Biz (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The traditional date of the separation is 395. From then on, emperors are listed as Western or Eastern Roman emperors. Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I would like to research this more. What sources support this date? Biz (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

[5]: from 395 all emperors ruled the east or the west according to the list. A recent monography about the Late Roman Empire also verifies the date: "With the succession of Theodosius by his sons and grandsons Honorius and Valentinian III in the west, Arcadius and Theodosius II in the east, the two parts of the Empire began to take different directions." (Elton, Hugh (2018). The Roman Empire in Late Antiquity: A Political and Military History. Cambridge University Press. p. 151. ISBN 978-1-108-45631-9.) Borsoka (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. But the point I made is administrations starting distinguishing themselves from 364 (sorry I did the wrong link earlier, this one page 10) and my point earlier is the head of state of the unified empire was not the last at 395 (footnote on page 11 to before mentioned). And if we run with Pirenne's thesis, it was business as usual just the West got Germanified and the East Greekified over time. (And then by Decemeber 25 800 AD different enough they were unrecognisable, by 1054 the separation, and by 1182/1204 the divorce). Biz (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

We are not discussing the separation of the two halves of the empire, but the division of the list of emperors. 395 is a quite natural point: vacancies in the west did not restore a unified empire. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure. So the current article uses the well established Principate, Dominate and "later eastern". Why do we need to replace those terms? Biz (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Eastern and Western are more familiar and more widely used in the article's context. I have never read any reference to any "Emperor of the Principate/Dominate/Later Eastern Empire". Borsoka (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

That's true. But why not have pages as Roman emperors (Principate period) and Roman emperors (Dominate period) with divisions as subheadings? Within Dominate -- which is the only time these references actually matter -- simply list west or east emperor as sub-headings on those pages. More practical as it's time based, contextual, and avoids the opinions that causes issues.

I guess I'm not really sure what problem we are solving. I feel your original post is less an issue since I shared that source but I'm also sensitive to how a article split can be used for narrative on other pages. Biz (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Why should we have separate pages about the Roman emperors of the Principate and the Dominate periods? I would be grateful if you could verify your proposals with references to reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe based on the sources, including the above mentioned list that was referred to me by a leading professor of Byzantine history, that there should be only one article page listing all emperors as defined from Augustus to Constantine XI.

I was trying to accommodate a way to break up the list given the page is 186kb. But I find the costs outweigh the benefits given the way the eastern emperors are portrayed inconsistently and in contrast to western Europe especially after the 8th century. As individual emperors and terms Principate and the Dominate can be independently verified with time periods that overlap with the emperors, I don't believe an additional verification is needed. But as you make the point it needs to, then I defer back to how the article currently is and what I've said: the cost of splitting outweigh the benefits. Biz (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

A list presenting the emperors of the Principate and the Dominate would be even more an original synthesis than the present list. Works on the history of the "Roman"/"Byzantine" Empires only exceptionally cover the whole period from 27BC to 1453AD (as it is demonstrated by works cited in this article, or listed above). Borsoka (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I would support 3 lists personally, because I think a very detailed list for all of them, both classical Roman and later Byzantine Roman emperors would probably become too large.★Trekker (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

All of them? Do you intend to include figures from the List of Roman usurpers and the List of Byzantine usurpers? Dimadick (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean "all" as in both classical Roman and Byzantine ones, as I explicitly stated.★Trekker (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is there a POV tag? Disputes appear to be academic

I don't really understand why the tag is appropriate. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The list presents only one claim to the succession of the Roman Empire. Borsoka (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Byzantine Empire were just the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, as pointed in its own article and in the comments above. I think it's weird to say that the Byzantines had a "claim of succession" when the Roman Empire never ceased existing at all. The "Romanness" of their culture it's an entirely different topic, and does not change the fact that they indeed lived in the same Roman state their Western counterparts did. Tintero21 (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Where did survive the Roman Empire after 1204? In Constantinople, in Trapezunt or in Nicaea? Borsoka (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Deleted the neutrality and synthesis tags. The only real question under discussion is how to split and merge some of the content with the list of Byzantine emperors. The article is not arguing whether they count as "Roman", and only on the talk page is there a discussion of whether all emperors who could be called "Roman" should be included in a single list. The discussion is not about whether they can be called "Roman", either. It's about whether the list should be split and ended at some point between the third and fifth centuries (or later), with the remaining examples left only on the List of Byzantine emperors. The results of this discussion—currently stalled due to irrelevant arguments and lack of wider participation—would not establish whether Byzantine emperors were or weren't "Roman" either. Merely whether they should all be in the same list. Whether to split the list or keep them all together isn't synthesis—it's a matter of perspective only. Plenty of reliable sources verify that the Byzantine Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire were essentially the same thing called by two different names. Choosing one or splitting the list doesn't require any synthesis. Tag spam isn't collaboration; it's potentially disruptive. P Aculeius (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

There really should not be a "PoV" tag on the page based solely on the succession to the Roman Empire. The Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire. Not a continuation, not a claim, literally just the Roman Empire itself. Notwithstanding academic consensus to treat the two topics separately, there is a clear line of continuity from Augustus to Constantine XI. Correct me if I am mistaken, but from what I currently fathom, some people seem to want to imply that the Holy Roman Emperors, Ottoman sultans, or others should also be considered "Roman emperors" and thus listed on this page. This is, quite frankly, a very bizarre claim, since academic consensus for the HRE or OE being a legitimate successor to the Roman/Byzantine empire is effectively nonexistant. Neither the Holy Roman, nor the Turkish, nor the Russian claims are taken seriously by any scholar as far as I am aware.

Imagine being a Wikipedia reader who does not know much about Roman or Byzantine history. You look at the list of Roman emperors and suddenly notice one of the Austrian Habsburgs in the list. Apparently, the Holy Roman Empire is now also the Roman Empire. Why? The Pope said so, that's why – completely ignoring the fact that the Pope really had no power or legal right to appoint or dismiss the Roman emperor anyway. Scrolling further, you run into a Russian tsar. Why? Because they're also Eastern Orthodox and because one tsar of an extinct dynasty with very shallow blood ties to the Romanovs married a very distant relative of Constantine XI. And lastly you also notice a Turkish sultan. Why? Because the Ottomans conquered the empire and claimed to thus be a new dynasty, taking the name "Caesar of Rome". As this novice Wikipedia reader, you would almost certainly be very confused, and possibly have a wrong impression of history.

It's perfectly plausible that I completely missed the mark of this discussion, and that the PoV tag was added for other reasons. In which case, I do apologize. But as Wikipedia, even as a neutral source of information, we should not entertain alternate claims of "Roman-ness" or being a Roman emperor that have no academic consensus or which were upheld entirely by foreign monarchs as part of political games. The consensus among scholars is that the Byzantine Empire alone is the Roman Empire, and that the HRE, Ottoman state and others are completely unrelated countries.

As for the Fourth Crusade, the Empire of Nicaea is deemed the legitimate Byzantine state during this time because it recaptured Constantinople in 1261.

Regardless, I agree that there should not be a PoV tag on this page and certainly not to entertain alternate claims of Roman succession that are rejected by scholars. LVDP01 (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that the article be splitted into three separate articles:

• 1. List of Roman emperors, covering the period until 395;
• 2. List of Western Roman emperors, presenting the emperors who ruled the Western Roman Empire from 395 to 476/480;
• 3. List of Eastern Roman emperors, presenting the emperors who reigned in the Eastern Roman (or Byzantine) Empire from 395 to 1453 (this list could be merged with the List of Byzantine emperors).

The present long list of the Roman emperors is exceptional in scholarly literature. It represents only one single claim to the succession of the Roman Empire (for example, it ignores the claims of the emperors of Trapezunt and Thessalonica). Furthermore, no corresponding article exists primarily because a corresponding article (covering the history of the Roman Empire from 27BC to 1453AD) would be an original synthesis. Borsoka (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment (Two) I don't see why you need to split 2 from 1. We should have one list down to 476 (1 & 2) and another from 395 (3). I wouldn't mind if there was an overlap by listing eastern emperors down to Zeno in the first list. T8612 (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• Two is enough, one ending in 476/491/602/641 and the other comprising 395-1453. The question of the Roman-ness of the Byzantines can be avoided altogether by presenting (3) as a subtopic of (1). 476 and 491 don't mean much, but cutting the present list at those points is preferable to the current arrangement. Avilich (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. Splitting the article into three would improve readibility as our readers would not be forced to construct their own list of the Western Roman emperors after 395 from a long list of emperors. The splitting would be in line with the sources cited in the article, or at least would not contradict either of them. From 395 emperors ruled either the eastern or the western half of the empire, and wars between the two halves of the empire were not unusual. A recent monography about the Late Roman Empire verifies the date: "With the succession of Theodosius by his sons and grandsons Honorius and Valentinian III in the west, Arcadius and Theodosius II in the east, the two parts of the Empire began to take different directions." (Elton, Hugh (2018). The Roman Empire in Late Antiquity: A Political and Military History. Cambridge University Press. p. 151. ISBN 978-1-108-45631-9.) Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There are very few western emperors, and readability is hardly a concern as there is already an explicit subsection dedicated to them. Indeed, your source seems to support ending the Roman list in 602 or 641, not 395, since the title associates "Roman Empire" with "Late Antiquity", and Late Antiquity is often held to have ended with in 602. Avilich (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Two lists is the appropriate division—virtually all lists of Roman emperors in both scholarly sources and general references include rulers of the Western Empire down to 476. Most of these include contemporaneous Eastern rulers down to the same period, although it makes sense to include these—from 395 makes sense—in a "List of Byzantine emperors". Please note that I am not arguing that the latter is not synonymous with a "List of Eastern Roman emperors", but the former title is more recognizable in English, and will avoid any confusion over whether the latter title is appropriate after say, 476 or Justinian or some time in the seventh or eighth century—an argument which experience shows is unlikely to be resolved here. Following the usual practice will result in both lists including some rulers—specifically those who reigned in the East between 395 and 476—but otherwise the division will be clean and serve our readers better than one very, very long list that doesn't distinguish between Romans and Byzantines at all. P Aculeius (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

"... virtually all lists of Roman emperors in both scholarly sources and general references include rulers of the Western Empire down to 476." That's not what we see in the assembled sources list here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Roman_emperors#Sources_List_for_discussions 2601:14D:4F81:5400:54C8:D88E:DC7B:76F0 (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

All but two of those sources include all of the emperors down to 476; the two that don't end in the late third and middle fourth centuries, for reasons that have nothing to do with distinguishing between Roman and Byzantine emperors, and I don't believe that either of them contend that emperors after those periods weren't Roman. P Aculeius (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• One The page is 186kb, which as a rule of thumb, suggests Wikipedia:TOOLONG. But when you break it down, the introductory text is 1673 words; the list of emperors is 10,253 words; and the remaining text (ie, references mostly) is 5,373. Based on the main focus of the article, it's borderline WP:SIZERULE. Separately, I've found a modern credible source on recommedation of a leading Byzantine scholar that support the one list so once validated, will no longer make this WP:SYNTH. So therefore, although an article split may he helpful for information digestability (but not considered necessary), I feel the cost far outweighs the benefit. First of all, this has been a sensitive topic since the 8th century that's been politicised and continues to affect modern politics and splitting the list feeds those narratives. Secondly, scholars since the 1970s have dropped Gibbon's worldview of the symbolism of Rome falling to a late antiquity view that no longer sees Rome falling, which is now further being challenged by modern leading academics which is the Empire continued on and Rome being controlled temporarily by the Goths is a temporary loss of control like the splits that Aurelian patched together a century earlier (ie, Gallic Empire and the Palmyrene Empire). Finally, if you ignore all my previous reasons, the history of this page and the arguments I see all over Wikipedia is that as soon as there is a split there will be a push to combine it again wasting everyone's time. So while I respect Borsoka's efforts and want to support his proposals regrettably, I don't see the burning why. I vote we stay with the status quo because the sensitivity to how split lists are used for narrative that's already being misused on Wikipedia on this topic and the predictable reaction once we split the list, for an article that is very readable and accessible to the reader, means there is little net value in doing this. Biz (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I think that WP should reflect the most widely accepted scholarly approach when presenting history, and in this case most scholars seem to prefer a split. I can refer to the The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c.500-1492, published several times between 2008 and 2019 ([6]), The Oxford History of Byzantium first published in 2002 ([7]), Timothy E. Gregory's A History of Byzantium published in 2010 by Blackwell, and Warren T. Treadgold's well known History of Byzantium first published in 1997 by Stanford University Press ([8]). I could continue the list. Furthermore, neutrality problem should also be addressed: the list only promotes one single claim to the succession of the Roman Empire. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

    If the issue is not accessibility for the reader but a matter of neutrality due to the conflict by historians to write history, then this is why I believe one list is the only way as that is what makes it neutral. (The cut off points is where the neutrality is a problem.) Succession is not relevant as it's universally acknowledged that the Byzantine Empire is more or less the Medieval era Roman Empire.

    As you mention The Oxford History of Byzantium first published in 2002, I want to note they support one list. What follows is a quote that describes exactly the problem. "Byzantium, then, is a term of convenience when it is not a term of inconvenience. On any reasonable definition Byzantium must be seen as the direct continuation of the Roman empire in the eastern half of the Mediterranean basin, i.e. that part of the Roman Empire that was Hellenistic in its culture and language. Being a continuation, it had no beginning, although a number of symbolic dates have been advanced as marking that elusive birthday: the accession of Dioclecian (AD 284), the foundation of Constantinople (324) or its ceremonial inauguration (330), the adoption of Christianity as the all but exclusive religion of the empire (c.380), the division of the empire into separately ruled eastern and western halves (395), the abolition of the western empire (476), even the accession of Leo III (716), the last being still enshrined in The Cambridge Medieval History. To all of these dates more or less cogent objections have been raised. That, however, does not solve a problem that probably owes more to a feeling than to the kind of 'objective' criteria that are supposed to underpin historical periodization."

    The Cambridge Medieval History Volumes 1-5 also supports one list. "With the loss of the Western provinces, cause by the expansion of the Germanic peoples, the ancient Roman Empire persisted only in the East. Until it finally succumbed to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, this Later Roman Empire - this Greek or Byzantine Empire - was the true Roman Empire, its Emperors being the legitimate successors of Augustus in an unbroken line of continuity;" Biz (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Even so, these books do not cover the whole period covered by the article. We could hardly write an article corresponding the list without ignoring WP:SYNTH Borsoka (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No argument that we need reliable and credible sources. I also accept your argument that it needs to reference that the emperors started with Augustus and ended with Constantine XI for it to be relied on. However, now I believe you are requiring a third criteria which is they also have to cover the history of this entire 1500 year period as well? So as an example, does this mean Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire cannot be counted as he started in the year 180AD and/or its WP:SYNTH that we connect the emperors from before 180AD? Biz (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: there is no issue with synthesis here, and whether to include or exclude sources such as Gibbon is not particularly relevant. History supplies a variety of dates along which these lists could be sensibly arranged, and it is up to the interested editors to pick one, or to decide how much overlap there should be between them. Arguments for not splitting the list at all are really not relevant at all, since numerous discussions have already established that this is what most interested editors feel we should do. These issues all seem to be distractions from the original proposal. P Aculeius (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  What is driving the original proposal if WP:SIZERULE and WP:SYNTH are distractions? Biz (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment (One): I support three lists over two lists if it came to it. Two lists being the most problematic because it's reflecting the traditional historical view derived from Western European sources that the Western Empire was a direct continuation of Ancient Rome and the Eastern Empire a spin-off "successor". Modern scholarly work is correcting this very misconception which would be perpetuated with two lists. This factor is one of the many reasons why I believe one list is needed to avoid these debates which are all inventions of historians. This list should not be used as a way to distinguish Roman from Byzantine (which is why I also support renaming the page). Period-based emperor list (such as Principate and Dominate), to enable linking from other articles, does though make sense. Biz (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Disagree (One) The length of this list is close enough to the length of the List of popes article, so it is not alone in that respect. One list consolidates all of the emperors, and avoids any arguments about how many lists and when the splits should be made (as evidenced above). Although many published texts in this area do not contain a single list of emperors from Augustus to Constantine XI (such as The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c.500-1492), these texts are generally limited in themselves to a specific time period, and so there is no need in those texts to list all of the emperors that go beyond the timespan of the text itself. But at no point would any of those authors or editors go so far as to say that the complete list of Roman emperors was not the set from Augustus to Constantine XI. Oatley2112 (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment (Two): I think splitting the list into three separate ones would be overkill. The Western Roman Empire existed for barely 100 years, and had only a few emperors after the Roman Empire was split in half. If the list is split, it should be in just two articles; one for the Roman Empire from the age of Augustus until the death of the last Western emperor, and another for the Byzantine emperors. Of course, the question is on how exactly to deal with the period where the Roman Empire was not yet split, but still had two co-emperors. Would the list on just the Byzantine emperors also take into account the Emperors of the East, from before the split occurred, or only the ones after 395? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Disagree (One) Oatley2112 and Biz explain it better than I can myself, but summarized, I do not see the advantage gained by splitting the list, especially when similarly large lists (E.g. that of popes) exist perfectly fine and when alternate lines of succession are generally not considered by scholars (especially when Nicaea is seen as the legitime Byzantium for retaking Constantinople, and claims of succession by e.g. Ottoman Turkey, Russia, and the HRE are completely rejected). Furthermore, as explained by Oatley, there is no credible source that insists that the range of emperors starting with Augustus and ending with Constantine XI is not the correct list of emperors. LVDP01 (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The idea is that the "List of Roman emperors" is already pretty long by the time it reaches AD 476, and when most people think of the "Roman Empire", they're thinking of the Latin-speaking empire based in Rome that effectively (if not legally, or beyond all challenge) ended with the deposition of the last western emperor. Meanwhile we have a separate List of Byzantine emperors covering all the rulers of the Eastern Roman Empire, substantially overlapping with the second half of this list, and there is a strong consensus for keeping it. Nobody is arguing that they weren't Roman, in the legal sense, even if their culture became increasingly Greek over the first few centuries; there is a significant degree of historical and legal continuity, unlike say, the Holy Roman Empire, which was a sort of "spiritual reconstitution" intended to give Charlemagne and his descendants a claim of authority, or the even more far-fetched claims by the Russian czars to be the proper heirs of Byzantium (if anybody here is arguing that, it's not very clear, but I agree that if that's the basis for the PoV tag, it can go).

But the proposal to split and merge the second half of this article with the List of Byzantine emperors is simply one to follow the usual historical practice and treat Byzantine history as a separate topic, making the scope of "Roman" history more manageable by using it primarily to describe the western empire, while stipulating that there was also an eastern Roman empire that grew out of its predecessor and continued for nearly a thousand years after the western one was extinguished. After all, the article "Roman Empire" is based almost entirely on the western empire, following standard scholarly practice, although it also points readers to articles about successor states, including the Byzantine Empire, and explains that briefly in the lead. The question of this proposal wasn't so much whether to split off and merge the Byzantine emperors with the existing list, but at what point in time to do it, and how much overlap should remain, since many treatments of Roman emperors include all of the eastern emperors up to 476 or so before concluding, and naturally most treatments of the Byzantine empire begin either with Constantine or Theodosius or the latter's children.

The proposal may have been fatally flawed from the start, since instead of two lists corresponding with traditional historical divisions between "Roman" and "Byzantine" history, it incorporated an option to have three lists, one of them covering a sort of intermediate period that could have begun at some point following Constantine and concluded in the eighth century, with the idea that Byzantine rulers up to that point were sufficiently "Roman" to be included under that title—which IMO misses the point of splitting the list. The idea was never to claim that the Byzantines were not a legitimate continuation of the Roman state; it was simply to cover the topics of Roman and Byzantine emperors separately to match both common expectations and scholarly practice, while avoiding the apparently endless string of talk page arguments that we don't need a separate list of Byzantine emperors because they're all listed here. And quite frankly the degree of resistance to splitting this list along those lines strikes me as bizarre, and can only be explained by some emotional attachment to the "greater truth" that the Byzantine empire was not merely a legal continuation of the Roman state, but was fundamentally identical to it, and that it is positively heretical to describe it as a successor state or anything other than completely and utterly Roman in every respect and down to its conclusion... but there we are, and we seem to be intractably stuck because of it. P Aculeius (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

First, the issue -- and this is not just a Wikipedia problem but an academia problem -- is there is no consensus when the Byzantine Empire "started". As it was a continuation, there was no start and will always be subject to academic debate.

Second, the Roman Empire ending in 476 is also no longer the consensus among historians. Treating the historian invented term "Western Roman Empire" in the same group as Republican Rome but not the "Eastern Roman Empire" is historical bias that's had a history of misuse. Case in point: you correctly call out what Charlamagne did but still use Charlamagne's argument of Latin vs Greek which is what he said why power was vacant in the East for him to take.

However, the big issue in my eyes, is that any distortion to the historical narrative is significant to modern politics. For example, this plays to the origin of the "West" and "East" division that impacts us today (ie, the post Ukraine new world order emerging of Eurasia vs the West). As history is rewritten every generation to suit their political goals, this slicing and dicing of the Roman Empire is dangerous because its the stuff of war. Biz (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but rather than representing mainstream thought, this argument is out of step with all mainstream academia. The idea that there was no division between the eastern and western empires, and that the Byzantine empire was a direct, indistinguishable, and inseparable continuation of the Roman empire as ruled by Augustus and his immediate successors is not merely a matter of opinion, but a fringe theory. There is no connection whatever between any of this and Ukrainian history—the claim of Russia being the "third Rome" is no more than a dynastic metaphor with no legal or historical basis; even if someone descended from the Byzantine emperors married an ancestor of the czars, it does no more than allow the czars to claim spiritual descent from Roman civilization. There is no actual continuity of state or culture. I can't quite tell, but that seems to be what you're getting at.

As for 476, the exact date that the western empire ceased to be a functional state can certainly be argued—was it when Valentinian III personally slew Aëtius a generation earlier, or when the last German king recognized by the Byzantine court as ruler of Italy died, or when the conquests of Belisarius melted away? Was Julius Nepos the last emperor, because the Byzantine court didn't recognize Romulus Augustus? All possible interpretations, I'm sure amongst many others—but 476 remains the most common date for concluding histories of the western empire—or at least lists of its emperors, because he was the last emperor who was resident in and had at least nominal control of what remained of the Roman state, excluding Byzantium and the provinces under its control, and no new emperor was ever appointed or took power after that date; by the reign of Justinian, the western empire had effectively ceased to be a political unity in any form, and all that his reign achieved in relation to it was the temporary reconquest of some of its territory, as part of the Byzantine state.

I fail to see what you hope to achieve by preventing the split of this list. It does not serve some kind of "greater truth" about the Byzantines really just being crypto-Romans who have been unfairly maligned by ignorant and biased historians for the last sixteen centuries. You were willing to split the list, but only into three separate lists, the one option that it was clear would never achieve consensus. Why not follow the example of nearly all scholarship, and treat the two periods of history in different regions of the Mediterranean as distinct topics each deserving fuller exploration than is practical when they are stuck back-to-back? Nobody is denying that the Byzantine empire was in part a continuation of the Roman empire, but no reputable scholar claims that the two are identical or that they cannot be separated as topics. This persistent refusal to follow mainstream scholarship seems more like deliberate obstruction. P Aculeius (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, there is no need to get so political here. By this point I don't really care what the outcome is. Everytime this discussion comes up there seem to be no consensus on what to do and everyone end up fighting each other. I don't know if there's a way to get more people involve, although it's very likely that any kind of outcome will inevitably piss off one of the parties. Tintero21 (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Truth, not obstruction, is what drives me.

This is an article about Roman emperors. I believe it's a valid question to ask who are Roman Emperors. But I believe its also a valid question to follow with why can't we keep all of them on the same article? I already asked this before but let me ask again: the reason to split the list is why again? The burden to convince is not on those that want the one list but on those who want to justify changing this narration of history, which I'm calling out on an epistemological level.

But since we went there, let me clear something up: the term Byzantine is a political term. If we accept the meticulous research of Anthony Kaldellis, Athenian historian Laonikos Chalkokondyles in the mid 15th century advocated a neo-Hellenic identity of the Romans and was the first to use the term in this way. Which saw new life, when it replaced Charlemange's "Emperor of the Greeks" branding, in the 19th century as a result of politics of the Crimean War, which included Greece's Megali Idea. Anyone that uses the term, is making a play at historical bias, whether they realise it or not. Bias that has roots in the politics for power.

But like I said, this is an article about Roman emperors, not Byzantine emperors so we should focus on that. I do not think the Eastern Roman Empire is a copy of the earlier Roman Empire. In fact, I appreciate the term Byzantine as it helps simplify the complexity of what was the Roman empire in the medieval era. But medieval is just as problematic as Byzantine, and where I stop is when this convenience distorts truth.

Why are we using the end of the Western Roman Empire, which I do not dispute, as also the end of the "Roman Empire" (and just to tie this back to why we are here: the end of the list of Roman Emperors or a particular succession)? A date that has been mythologised and is just as arbitrary but equally symbolic as Mary Beard's thesis that the empire ended with the edict of Caracalla. Why is the ~70 years Gothic occupation considered an end to the empire and it's return is by a different empire, by the -- this is a question within a question -- "last Roman" Justinian? (Temporary as it was, it was a legacy that would have territory held onto until the 11th century.)

Yes, different administrations of the empire began to take form that they eventually became different beasts as the West became German and the East Greek. But why are we letting 8th century politics of the pope and his forgery from Constantine distort the truth? What is wrong with calling this entire history the Roman Empire, but using terms like principate and dominate like the article currently does, to break up this incredible history of Europe?

My position is there are good reasons to split this article. It's just the cost far exceeds the benefit. (And never mind the talk pages, that's assuming we can get the historians to agree where we draw the line.) Biz (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep one list

"The present long list of the Roman emperors is exceptional in scholarly literature. It represents only one single claim to the succession of the Roman Empire (for example, it ignores the claims of the emperors of Trapezunt and Thessalonica)"

This is a valid objection, but seems more like a reason to add Trapezuntine claims than remove western and eastern Roman ones.

Also, if you removed Roman Emperors after the final division in 395, the correct title would be "List of Roman Emperors from 27 BC–AD 395" or something like that. Otherwise the title would be incorrect to imply that it's a full list of Roman emperors. Koopinator (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It would also be easy to add the Emperors of Thessalonica, since there were only 4 emperors of this state. Dimadick (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Two My view is a pragmatic one: this list should be navigable, and a split in two is justified.
  • WP:SIZERULE/WP:TOOLONG: With 188 KB it Almost certainly should be divided. 188 KB is almost twice above the upper limit of 100 kB to keep an article readable and navigable. The fact that it has only 7,687 words does little to detract from the fact that the current list is hardly navigable. A neat split in two mostly addresses the issue.
  • WP:OVERLAP/WP:REDUNDANTFORK: The fact that we've got separate List of Byzantine emperors and Succession of the Roman Empire shows there is no need for putting it all together. I mostly agree with P Aculeius that "Roman emperors" can continue until 476/480 based on the fact that WP:RS say that there were Roman emperors reigning from Rome / the Western Roman Empire until 476/480, but that the emperors reigning from Constantinople, especially after 395, may/should be considered "Eastern Roman/Byzantine emperors", which already have their own list.
  • WP:SYNTH/WP:NPOV: Although nom's rationale is focussed on WP:SYNTH, that is the least important (but still relevant) point of the three for me. I see a lot of long comments here which do not invoke any sort of policy or guideline at all, but are concerned with issues of continuity and succession. If we do split this list, it doesn't automatically somehow "demote" the Byzantine emperors from being "Roman emperors" (or at least claiming to have been, and many people accepting/believing they have been). I, for one, am content with Wikipedia presenting that claim, with lots of caveats of course, as one that is widely accepted in WP:RS, but that can be done in List of Byzantine emperors and Succession of the Roman Empire if we really want to. The fact that they already do (The Byzantine Empire was the direct legal continuation of the eastern half of the Roman Empire...) also undermines the need for a unified long list. We have no need for an uncomfortably long, hardly navigable list of holders/claimants that do not help the reader at all, and may implicitly convey a WP:POV, namely that so-and-so (the Byzantine, Latin, Holy Roman, Trapezuntine, Thessalonian, Epirote, Ottoman, Russian monarchs – I'm missing Nicean, but alright, we could always add more I guess – etc.) were still "Roman emperors", when a sentence or two with a bunch of RS suffices. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

    Your perspective based on policies is welcome. My issue with this discussion is the interpretation of policies, and by extension, the interpretation of sources which does not take into account modern historians and the new consensus. The intent of Wikipedia policies is not being followed.

    • WP:SIZERULE/WP:TOOLONG: Readable prose is the main body of the text and excludes tables or lists. Which means it's 1674 words as of today.
    • WP:OVERLAP/WP:REDUNDANTFORK: I agree. The Byzantine list should redirect here and the page renamed; or as Koopinator suggests, this page needs to be renamed to the years it relates to. But that aside, our opinions fall short as not relevant: Wikipedia:RELART
    • WP:SYNTH: I've previously addressed this issue, see previous discussions. The short answer is this is not true.
    • WP:NPOV: This is the convincing reason, for me at least, why this topic requires to be one list. This is for the fact there is no consensus on when the "Roman Empire" ends and the "Byzantine Empire" starts. Roman respublica or Roman imperium is what they were actually called, all other titles are inventions by historians so there will never been a static consensus. Undue weight is being placed on older historical interpretations that has now changed. The modern consensus is the Roman Empire did not end in 476 (note: the Western Roman did fall then, but that's different) so why is this list ending the list of Roman Emperors then if the other policies are not relevant?

    TL;DR: If we change the name of this page to be more specific, we wouldn't have this debate; but as it's making a claim to all Roman Emperors, then the above takes precedence. Biz (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks for your response.

    • You have not addressed my point that 188 KB is almost twice above the upper limit of 100 kB to keep an article readable and navigable. WP:TOOBIG isn't just about readable prose.
    • This is a strange conclusion. Are you also arguing Byzantine Empire should be merged into Roman Empire per WP:REDUNDANTFORK? Surely not. The Eastern Roman / Byzantine emperors should be removed from this list because they are already mentioned in List of Byzantine emperors. Not for principle reasons, but pragmatic navigational reasons (WP:TOOBIG).
    • Doesn't address my point.
    • As I've said, if we split this list, it doesn't mean we are necessarily saying that the Byzantine emperors weren't "Roman" emperors (anymore). The List of Byzantine emperors explicitly claims they were still Roman emperors, and cites that with RS. I don't care whether the modern consensus is whether or not the "Roman Empire" "fell" in 476 or not, because that is not the question. (Yes, AFAIK, historians only say the "Western Roman Empire" "fell"; but as you say, that's a different conclusion). The List of Byzantine emperors begins before and ends long after 476, so it should be obvious that the "fall of Rome" in 476 did not stop the continued succession of Eastern Roman / Byzantine emperors reigning in Constantinople. "Byzantine" is just the commonly accepted term of convention for them (WP:COMMONNAME), especially after 476, but sometimes also already from 330. (Whether or not the emperors reigning from Constantinople after 476 were the "legitimate successors" of the emperors which until 330 had always been reigning from Rome is not even a question for me personally, but that is irrelevant. This is a WP:NOTFORUM topic about which way too much text has already been wasted on this talk page. Let's not add more.)

    TL;DR there is no need for these concerns. The lead section of List of Byzantine emperors provides enough context for readers to understand that the earliest of these are synonymous with "Eastern Roman emperors", and eventually are more commonly known as "Byzantine emperors" in historiography. What our readers need most is comprehensible, navigable lists. That's why we need to split per WP:TOOBIG. Not because the "Byzantines" were or weren't "Romans", which isn't the question. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

    Before I jump into this, let me summarise my position on the issues:

    • WP:TOOBIG is not entirely relevant but is also addressed with mediating factors and secondary to other issues specifically neutrality; WP:RELART makes the discussion about List of Byzantine emperors not relevant as well as the pages about Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire; WP:SYNTH is the original reason for this discussion and has been addressed; and WP:NPOV is the biggest issue and my opinion is that it can only be addressed by staying out of the crossfires of the debates by making this one list. Which is also the current status quo.

    Let's break this down and see if we can uncover the consensus.

    • WP:TOOBIG relates to readable prose only and not to wiki markup size. It also calls out not relevant to "history lists". This is a list page not a regular article so as long as the the list is in summary form (which it is) and in sections (which it is), it's readable and maintainable. It's a valid concern to want to split the list for the size due to technical issues, but overall based on Wikipedia's policy, it's mostly not a reason to do it. If you disagree, please point me to the text in WP:TOOBIG that says otherwise. Wikipedia:Splitting considers size, content relevance, notability and potential neutrality issues. So let's focus on that before we discuss this again, as what I'm calling out is NPOV demands one list even if it was a size issue.
    • I am not proposing any changes to Byzantine Empire and Roman Empire. The page on Byzantine Emperors also justifies not being changed due to RELART. Let's please scope this out for now, if we really need to discuss let's discuss it separately.
    • WP:SYNTH: It seems you want me to re-explain what was previously discussed. This was the original proposal to split the list due to not having a source which supports the entire list. In my discussion, I identified that the proposer Borsoka was looking for a source that was (a) reliable (b) references the complete list of emperors (c) narrates the entire 1500 year history of the Roman Empire. I disagreed that it needed to narrate the entire history as that's not necessary. It invalidates most reputable sources (including the now disregarded Gibbon who set the standard) but agreed it needed to reference an entire list. I provided a recently published and reliable source that meets this criteria https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I6aQjcxem4viTf_t0j8OJxPQHy_2QjVr/view and this Talk page seems to have a list of older publications that do the same (see Talk which seems to have been discounted unnecessarily or overlooked.
    • WP:NPOV: This was also brought up in the original proposal due to the competing claims of succession, especially after the 8th and then again 13th centuries: see talk WP:SYNTH. I am also bringing up that my understanding of the modern consensus among reputable historians who are published is that there is no consensus on when the Roman Empire ended and when the Byzantine Empire started. One list addresses the need of covering the majority and significant minority views that WP:RS requires and is the most neutral way to cover this topic.

    Despite all this, let's remember this is not a page about those "Empires", but a page of dynastic succession of Roman Emperors which we both agree this list were all considered Roman Emperors regardless of what label is attached to the period they reigned in. There is no challenge to WP:COMMONNAME. If the article page was to grow, which it has no reason to, and is deemed to have a technical issue due to say, a mobile phone on the international space station not being able to edit it easily, then List of Roman Emperors (x century to y century) is the NPOV-compliant solution of splitting. But given Wikipedia:Splitting makes clear neutrality issues come first, and so far, no one has made a convincing case against my NPOV reasoning, this entire discussion stops there. But another way of saying it, lets save some trees because the moment we split, we will create in perpetuity the problem of WP:NOTFORUM you raised. As I've said before, the costs exceed the benefit. Biz (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

References

The Nicaean Empire did not exist...probably

Why in the notes does it say,

"the four emperors of Nicaea, who are often seen as the "legitimate" emperors during the interregnum of 1204–1261)"

The Roman Empire had, after the Fourth Crusade attack, lost some territory. That's it. As far as there being a Roman Empire, I can't imagine they called themselves Nicaean Empire ever, just Roman Empire/Romania from Augustus to Constantine XI. I'm not saying we should stop using Nicaean, we should think about whether we need to use the word, use it if we need to, but as far as legitimateness, those Roman Emperors were 100% legitimate (putting aside things like usurping/inheriting). Middle More Rider (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The term "Nicene Empire" is not used to delegitimize the emperors ruling from Nicaea, it is used because the #1 key to legitimacy as a Byzantine emperor was the control of Constantinople, which the Nicene emperors did not have. They are retroactively seen as legitimate by most historians today because their successor state retook the city but the rulers in Thessalonica and Trebizond had claims just as valid 1204–1261. All the successor states considered themselves to be the legitimate government of the Roman Empire and would have referred to themselves as such.

You could consider the Latin emperors as having the superior claim 1204–1261 but they are universally rejected as such today because of Catholicism and because their "empire" was effectively a foreign military occupation. Rheskouporis (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is not used to delegitimise them, but when the Latin occupation happened, those leaders of the unoccupied parts were all legitimate Roman Emperors, as you mentioned, so legitimate is a meaningless term, which if only refering to the Romans at Nicaea would be biased. Until it was sorted out after someone from the Empire took back Constantinople, that someone could have potentially been the Romans from Trebizond beating the Romans from Nicaea, and if anyone was most legitimate it could be claimed to be the Komnenos family at Trebizond, as they were descendants of Alexios I and the emperors down to Andronikos I in whose reign the throne was stolen from the family, but inheriting and usurping were both normal forms of gaining the throne, so not historically more legitimate. In the east before Constantinople the capital was Nicomedia, but no one was called a Nicomedian Emperor of the Nicomedian Empire, or legitimate Nicomedian Emperor. Nor in the west did anyone ruling from Ravenna have to be called legitimate or Ravennan Emperor.

Also, Constantinople itself, before it had built up any history, no one had define Constantine as legitimate, because he was not ruling from Rome, he is just considered as legitimate. That's a long answer for a small point! But, they just were, so no need to mention it.

Middle More Rider (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I would personally not include the emperors in Nicaea at all, because they (and their rivals) don't really qualify for any of the criteria established to determine "legitimacy". As mentioned before, any of them could have potentially recovered Constantionple, and had it not been for the fact that the city was recovered, all of them would be seen as mere claimants. Tintero21 (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you would say that, Theodore I of Nicaea, Alexios I of Trebizond and Michael I of Epirus were all related to ancester Alexios I of Constantinople, all in that royal family, and Theodore I was married into the Angelos family of Constantinople and was an actual definite heir to the throne.

Middle More Rider (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they all had valid claims to the throne, but that’s not my point. They lacked control of Constantinople, which is really the only factor that distinguishes “usurpers” from “legitimate” emperors. Tintero21 (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"Laskaris dynasty (1205–1261)" section

The small-print "note" for the section "Laskaris dynasty (1205–1261)" currently says that "modern historians recognize the line of emperors of the Laskaris dynasty, reigning in Nicaea, as the legitimate Roman emperors during this period". This is ostensibly sourced to Treadgold (1997: 734). However, the statement is not supported by the source at all. What Treadgold is saying is that the emperors after the reconquest of Constantinople used regnal numbers implying that they considered their Nicaean ancestors as part of the line of Roman emperors, and that modern historians have "followed this tidy practice" as far as the naming of emperors is concerned. He is not saying anything about what modern historians consider as constituting a "legitimate" claim to succession, and he himself quite explicitly says that this naming practice "tends to distort events through hindsight" and that the Laskaris rulers as Nicaea were factually *not* successors of the pre-1205 emperors.

In any case, I'd be rather surprised if any modern historian considered it their business to make pronouncements about "legitimacy" of succession regarding historic rulers like this. "Legitimacy" was hardly a meaningful category for the contemporary Byzantines themselves, much less so for modern historiography.

This is independent of the question of whether nor not we want to include these names in the list – I'd probably tend towards removing them, as per Tintero21's arguments above, but if we keep the section, the note clearly needs to be changed, or we need a better source for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Page 911-923 of the new Kaldellis history. No mention of legitimacy, just a list that includes them as the senior emperors.

• Kaldellis, Anthony (2023-08-24). The New Roman Empire. Oxford University Press New York. ISBN 0-19-754932-2.

Biz (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)