Talk:Roman Empire

A clearer map, please

I had to stare at the map of the extent of the Roman Empire for some time before I realized what I was looking at. Perhaps it's evident to someone more intimately familiar with the geography (I'm from the US, not Europe / Africa) but in its current state it looks like one of those what-is-it optical illusions or a Rorschach inkblot test.

How about something as simple as labeling the Mediterranean Sea?

Thanks.

Template (2)

There are some mistakes in the template Infobox Former Country:

• Augustus 24 BC-13 AD (correct dates: 27 BC-14 AD)
• Romulus Augustus 474-475 (Romulus Augustus was deposed by Odoacer in 476)
• Theodosius I 380-396 (he died in 395)
• Constantine XI 1451-1463 (he died in 1453 fighting the Turks that besieged Constantinople)--93.44.111.17 (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, corrected. Varana (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Empire's Size

I think this article seriously underestimates the size of the Roman Empire. It only includes land area. There can be no question that the Roman Empire owned the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, and the English Channel. With those measurements added to the land area, the total size of the Roman Empire is 7,937,594 square kilometers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.36 (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Romans owned the Black Sea. If we include sea area in this article we would have to follow the same logic in all other country-articles. It would very hard to justify, very easy to challenge, and almost impossible to prove. Flamarande (talk) 04:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You may be right, but they undeniably owned all the land around the Mediterranean, and its area should be included in the empire's size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.56 (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

They certainly did at certain times, but that is no reason to include its area. Seas are different from land. (You may be able to travel more easily, but you can't settle there!) Basically, any measure of area will have some limitations. Including the Mediterranean will just have a different set of limitations than what we have now -- and it will, as Flamarande says, give us an additional set of headaches as well. Jmacwiki (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Including the sea is a very bad idea, since it makes numbers uncomparable, as the usual/traditional measure includes land mass only (same for current countries).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the figure now (note old version included the mediterranean sea but spoke land mass, which was total nonsense) and referenced it too some sources. Now the figure is comparable to country sizes and figures used elsewhere in literature or wikipedia itsself.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

rome had surprassed all empires of the antiquity even all persian empires,the empire of alexander the great,kushan empire and the maurya empire on india,my calculations about the true size of the Roman Empire at his maximum territorial peak on 117bc, including his maritime positions,the Mediterranean Sea,the black sea,the part of the coast of the persian gulf of the mesopotamian roman province,the part of the coast of Caspian sea of armenia as a roman province,the part of the red sea betwen egypt and arabia petrea,the english channel and the coasts and land of the roman britain to south of antonine wall in scotland,with those measurements added to the land area,the total size of the Roman Empire was about 10,155,407 km2,if this is proven,this would mean that the Roman Empire would be the most largest and magnificent empire of antiquity, and only surpassed by a few in al history,in this page show the conquest of trajan as a expeditios and quests even if the roman empire held mesopotamia and armenia for 3 or 4 years, still they are valid conquest for rome ,show some respect for the most powerfull roman emeperor on history , and the roman soldiers who die in that battles defeating the parthian empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.97.234 (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Aside from that fact parts of your argument look somewhat questionable to me, the only way to include this in the article, is to provide a reputable reference explicitly stating that number.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Roman Arabia

The 117 AD map of the empire shows the south and eastern limits of Arabia Petraea as maybe 30 miles east of Bostra, south to Leuke Kome, just east of the Gulf of Aqaba on the Red Sea coast.

This was not the limit of Roman control. A military presence was maintained at Dumatha, over 200 miles southeast down the highway from Bostra. Also, the Romans stationed an ala dromedariorum and an ala Veterana Gaetulorum at Hegra (Mada'in Salih), at least 150 miles southeast of Leuke Kome, over 100 miles inland along the highway to Arabia Felix (Sabaens).

The map should be changed to reflect Roman military control at Dumatha and Hegra. --Tataryn77 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Date of Caesar's dictatorship is wrong

It is listed as 42 BC, which is two years after his death. As far as I can tell from the Julius Caesar page, he was made dictator perpetuo in 44 BC. Someone please fix this (the page is locked). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.236.37.41 (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, corrected. :) Varana (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see a mention of the mythical founders of Rome?

Perhaps Romulus and Remus mythical founder of the city of Rome . Dont belong in the article on the Roman Empire? Yet, no "myth? no longing for greatness thus NO ROMAN EMPIRE! Perhaps a link to Wikipedia article on Rome, Romulus/Remus Thanks! SPQR!DayWeddatedVIIIXIIXxxIcentdecidedE.A.J.VICTORIANUS (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you mean romus and remulus and all thar jazz, that belong to Roman mythology. Possibly it could be mention in a section on the culture/religion of the empire though.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Roman Empire came into existence a long time after the founding of Rome. There is a wikilink to Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 21:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Accurate figures for the size of the empire under Trajan

I'm a bit vary regarding the new figure of 6.5 million that replaced the earlier 5 million. The cited book Empite stops here by Philipp Parker seems ok at the first glance, but I'm not that sure how reliable/reputable the author is. The earlier 5 million figure was backed by an academic publication (Peter Turchin, Thomas D. Hall and Jonathan M. Adams, "East-West Orientation of Historical Empires", Journal of World-Systems Research Vol. 12 (no. 2), pp. 219-229 (2006)). Though that source does not explicitly states that it refers to the size under Trajan, it still seems a reasonable assumption, since other reputable sources give significantly smaller figures for the roman empire in general (Seidel: 4 million) or more specifically at the death of Augustus (Goldsmith, Raymond W. (1984), “An Estimate of the Size and Structure of the National Product of the Early Roman Empire” : 3.3 million, Taagepera, Rein (1979), “Size and duration of empires: growth-decline curves, 600BC – 600AD,” Social Science History : 3.4 million, both figures are quoted in this university source.[1]) I also did a rule of thumb calculation to get a feeling whether 5 or 6.5 is more appropriate. Starting with the 3.3/3.4 figure for Augustus, which is stated in 2 independent academic sources, I considered the areas added after Augustus' death and added approximate modern day equivalents, that can be looked up easily. After Augustus the empire added mauretania (half of morocco), britannia (wales+England), agri decumates (Baden Württemberg), Dacia (Romania), Thracia (Bulgaria), Arabia (Jordan),Cappadocia, Assyria, Mesopotamia (half of Turkey+ Armenia+Georgia+Irak). So we have 3400+446/2+(130+21)+36++238+110+92+(784/2+29+70+438)=5179 or starting with 3300 we get 5079. This seems to speak against that 6.5 by Parker. It would be nice if somebody were to provide an academic figure for the size that either confirms the 5 or the 6.5 for the area under Trajan. Alternatively an exact computation based in map from an academic source might do as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked the Philip Parker and unfortunatly he doesnt give any reference for the size, however in the ancient rome wiki page 6.5 is also listed, its reference is Scarre 1995 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoloney (talk • contribs) 22:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm personally i'm still a bit wary, but Chris Scarre is a professor for archeology at Durham university so his book is an reputable academic source in a way, therefore that should be good enough. Thanks for checking.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Help me out with Galerius

I put a picture of a bust of Galerius on his page but I don't know how to do the liscencing stuff. In order to keep the picture it needs liscencing or else it will be removed! I know it's Galerius because its from his biography on imperiumromanum.com, if they're wrong then we should find a bust of him. Previously all he had was a cruddy coin to represent his likeness. He sacked Ctesiphon and issued the first Edict of Toleration for the christians. He deserves better than a dirty coin. Same goes for Claudius II aswell, I know there's busts of him out there.

--99.232.150.148 (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Principate vs Dominate

I skimmed through here and didn't notice any mention of the changing from Principate to Dominate, which I think was a substantial event, and which many respected historians dating all the way back to Gibbon consider the cause of the Western Roman Empires fall, should we add it in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScriptusSecundus (talk • contribs) 00:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Only if we at the same time acknowledge that the shift from "Principate" to "Dominate" was not an "event", but (if anything) a process, and that it esp. didn't happen all of a sudden with Diocletian; and also, that the fall of the Western Empire cannot be attributed to one cause alone... and basically, that Gibbon wrote when modern historiography just started out, and scholarship has somewhat advanced since those times. ;) Varana (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it is mentioned in the military section (the partition in principate, barrck& illyrian emperors, dominate and decline). However personally (I'm not a prfofessional historian though) I haven't read any description claiming that the dominate was the cause for the decline, on the contrary the dominate was an (at least partially successful) attempt to react to the crisis of the 3rd century. Also Gibbons is very important figure the history of historical research, but his knowledge/information is outdated by more than 200 years now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Legionary time of service

Hey guys,

[[2]]

I'd like to say that from what I have read in different books about Rome, the standard service was 20 years. Then five years as 'veteran' soldiers. According to the book I was reading the veteran soldiers did not have to take part in major offenses and had excused duties. They only really had to take part in the defense of the base they were stationed at. the role of the veterans i would not be as confident of as that they did not have to stay for the additional five years.

I am writing this for your opinion if I can go ahead and edit the statement: "Instead of serving the standard 25 years of the legionaries." okty (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless those 5 years counted as military service and on given emergencies the veterans could be called upon to participate on offensives. Goldsworthy clearly states that "...although the soldier enjoyed these advantages, they came at the price of 25 years of service". There are specialized articles which explain the subject on detail. Don't change the text. Flamarande (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A book by Peter Connolly gives 25 years for the (standard) service of a legionaire. An authoritative German source (Zabern/Junkelmann) gives 25 year total under Augustus (20 years sub aquila and 5 year sub vexillo) and says that the practical difference between sub aquila and sub vexillo might have been relatively small. Also in reality legionaires sometimes served longer, either because in a particular case the emperor required to serve them some additional time or when they became officers, who often stayed with the army for a longer time. In addition it states 25 years of auxiliar troops and 16 years praetorians. The sub aquila time was actually increased from 16 to 20 years in 6 CE by Augustus. Conclusion: the 25 years as a general figure are fine. However the article could mention the partition of the service into sub aquila and sub vexillo.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I also read something about these legionaries serving longer under some emperors. I agree with kmhkmh that we should add both that sometimes thy served longer and about the 'additional' five years.okty (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well. let me give the exact citation in case anybody want to use it:

Markus Junkelmann: Die Legionen des Augustus. Philipp von Zabern Verlag 1986, ISBN 3-8053-0886-8, p. 103-104

If we decide to add that information and lack an authoritative english source, i can provide a translated quote from the book for the footnotes.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of your message, no offense meant by the way. Do you mean you have some source that proves what i put forward in this topic? okty (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Kmhkmh gave the exact citation for what he called above "(a)n authoritative German source (Zabern/Junkelmann)", in case you want to have your claim referenced. ;) As it's a German book, he would even translate the passage. Hope that's clearer, Varana (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So he means that we can add this info o the page?