Talk:Roman Empire

Archive 1

Contents

1 NPOV: Greek versus Latin Empire 1.1 I fear arguing with ignorant men … 1.2 Lost People 1.3 In continuation with the Hellnic Nature of Rome 1.4 I wont touch your article I am waiting for you to change it. 1.5 Moved text here 1.6 Common Language and Christianity 2 Masamax use of the NPOV tag 3 Name of the article: "Roman Empire" ended in 1453; this article goes to 476 (apart from 1 para) 4 Everything here was relocated to Imperial Rome. 5 RfC 5.1 CASE For Reverting to Ephestions' Edit 5.2 Case against Ephestion 6 My two cents 7 Official Language 8 Complete Reorganization of Article 9 Lifetime and Perspective

NPOV: Greek versus Latin Empire

I fear arguing with ignorant men …

"I fear arguing with ignorant men" Plato

What can we argue amongst such profound ignorance amongst so many contributors. One bases his views on one book another on another book and each thinks they know something. If in the scope of historical exploration, especially something as deeply involving and overwhelmingly abundant in information such as the Roman Empire, you base opinions and so called facts from so few sources that focus on such a narrow perspective how can you possibly summerise the Roman Empire.

"For the majority of time and by the majority of people and by the majority of emporers the Roman Empire was a Greek speaking Empire." Warren Treadgold.

"There were only two emporers who spoke exclusively Latin Julius and Nero." Warren Treadgold.

"Roman History in the West all too often omits the heirachy and lineage of emporers in the East." Warren Treadgold.

The Celts traded in Tetradrachmas not in Aureus profound vanity and dillusions irrespective of the overwhelming fact the west rebelled and found opportunity to control Alexanders' empire for 200 years before the Greek born Diocles renamed himself Diocletian in Rome and began teh process that Constantine finalised by moving the capital and seat of authority back to the Greeks.

Julius was despite the high praise a victim of Cleopatra living descendant of Ptolemy (Alexanders Generals), Greek states allied with him and used Roman power to break the overwhelming strength of the Eastern Kingdoms. Mithridates was a sign of the turn around when teh Latins resorted to henious crimes against Greeks and Christians.

"Roman Law, Greek Language, Christianity, sciense, art, philosophy, math all spread because of the Greeks and Byzantium." Warren Treadgold.

The above was an unsigned comment by Ephestion at 16:03, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC). Paul August ☎ 22:57, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Lost People

If the empire fell in 465AD Then what was Leo doing in Byzantium? If the empire fell in 465AD then what do we do with the COnstantine decree to move the capitol to Byzantium? (Burn it?) If the empire ended in 465AD then what was the Eastern Empire? It was never called the Holy Roman Empire at all. Not a single historical first hand source says so. It was called the Roman Empire.

If rome fell in 465AD then why are you talking about the Tetrarchy of Diocletian. He ruled the Eastern Half and that continued unbroken in lineage till 1453AD. Constantine ratified the shift of the captal by decree making it official.

If the Roman empire was different to Byzantium then what should we do with the ancient parchments that stipulate the term POMAIOI = ROmans in reference to the Greeks of Byzantium? Occuring post 465AD and prior.

If the empire had an official language of LATIN then why did only 2 emporers Ioulios and Nero speak latin exclusively? And why did all other emporers west and east speak Greek?

Infact why did they need to declare an official language if they were all LATIN speakers?

What happened to the Greek colony Neapolis, Kolabria, Sicily? As I recall Sicily didnt even use Roman coins the Greek King and his bloodline of the island preserved autonomy throughout the empires life till late ....800?-1453?

If the language of the Roman army was LATIN then what do we do with the fact the Lingua Franca during Christs' time was Greek including in ROme, Carthage and almost every part known as the Roman EMpire. What do we do with the Bible which was only first re-translated in 365AD into LATIN (but was considered heretical by the Pope and never used). Are you saying that up-until 465AD there were no christians in the West?

Why are the "nomisma" of Byzantium found throughout the entire empire yet the coinage of Latin Rome sporadically dotted in close proximity to the city Rome and a few locations west eg England. Their coinage never reached Babylon or Persia. By volume of discovered coins alone we know the common coinage of the Roman EMpire always continued to have a Greek side.

The Latin revolution around 100BC gave control to the Latin and Greek peasants by 100AD their control subsided. By 285AD the control was back where it started. The Roman Empire was more Greek than Latin by the number of people, the number of Greek speaking emporers, the number of Christians, the number of of of ..... in anyway you want to measure it even physical area. The bottom line is that the Roman EMPIRE was Helleno-Roman. Something totally misunderstood by those contributing.

Your foundations and opinions are biased and focus on a totally western perspective that entirely defeats the purpose of history. The mistakes of Edward Gibbon still persist despite all the new information, knowledge and plethora of evidence discovered in the East. It was not until 1958 for gods sake that anyone from an english speaking country realised there was Byzantium. Since then bigots and narrow minded people have refused to consider this as a treasure instead they persist with some pathetic historical ritual established in the 1800's.

The above was an unsigned comment by Ephestion at 20:11, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC). Paul August ☎ 22:57, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

---

Where exactly are you getting your information from? If greek was the language of the empire, why is the entirety of the former Roman west composed of Romance languages? In truth, although greek was an extremely important language, why did latin continue to be the language of nobility and science in the west for centuries after Rome's fall? Why, if greek was the language of soldiers, why is Vulgar Latin so widespread? Why is the roman alphabet used everywhere in western Europe?

The empire was greek AND Roman. After all, a large portion of the empire was composed of the Greek successor states. However, this doesn't mean that the empire was dominated by either. The west was pretty much dominated by Roman influence, and the east by Greek (although both were merely unifying factors in regions with numerous indigenous peoples and dialects completely different from both). Your changes and post here are what's narrow-minded. If you want to be a revisionist historian, make a site on Geocities, but please, this is an encyclopaedia. --Masamax 21:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In continuation with the Hellnic Nature of Rome

[ Where exactly are you getting your information from? ] From over 20 assorted personal books written in Greek and English. Along with over 10 years of studying many many books on teh subject.

[ If greek was the language of the empire, why is the entirety of the former Roman west composed of Romance languages? ] The academic language of the West is still Greek. For example:

The plethora of didactics and symposiums formed by proto Hellenic philosophers gave genesis to an aristotolean epistimiological method. (English words used The, of, and, by, gave, to, an) I can continue to write in this manner to express any idea. True for all Romance languages but also true of all former Byzantine states. Unlike Latin which is considered a dead language Greek persists to be the academic language.

[ In truth, although greek was an extremely important language, why did latin continue to be the language of nobility and science in the west for centuries after Rome's fall? ]

Indirectly answering your self and also further proving that Romance languages were heavily influenced post 1453AD by Italic/Latin. It was not until the fall of Rome 1453AD that the Greek texts were initially translated from Greek and later passed on to other nations most were Italic/Latin translations many were French. (Hence many French and Latin derived words in late English post 1453AD) Comparing Shaksperian English with Modern English gives you enormous variations. English in 1200's is clearly Germanic. Post 1453AD English has Greek and Latin foundations also French which was the major source of these Greek and Latin Words. The very Germanic nature of Old English compared to post 1453AD, something Edward Gibbon was probably embarassed about. That is the English (Saxxons) were relatives of the the very barbarians he was talking about. he made a point to diistinguish himself and justified his nationalities herritage to Rome. Although it is transparent if you take into account allot more than what he writes verbatim.

[ if greek was the language of soldiers, why is Vulgar Latin so widespread? ] Amongst many proofs an important one to note is that Diocles was born to a poor family in Illyciria he spoke Greek as his primary langauge and had no need to learn Latin. His decrees and commands were recorded as being Greek.

perhaps it comes down to your failure in seeing that Rome was to Greece as USA is to Britain. Perhaps a better example would be Mexico to Spain. Rome Neapolis was a colony of the Greeks period!

[ Why is the roman alphabet used everywhere in western Europe? ] The so called Roman alphabet was used along side Attic before Rome the city was established. All the letters in the Roman Alphabet come from various derivative Greek Alphabets. Not one letter in the Roman Alphabet is original. The Spartan Alphabet for example used the letter "R" instead of "P" to mean the same thing. Aside archaeological evidence that supports this we also have a blurb of history stating it was a Gift to Rome as Cyrilic was a Gift to the slavs (Saint Cyril being a Greek Orthodox Monk who invented the Cyrilic Alphabet). Despite Archaeological and historical proof. Western historians still persist in some fantasy about Romulus....Something completely absurd.

[ The empire was greek AND Roman. After all, a large portion of the empire was composed of the Greek successor states. However, this doesn't mean that the empire was dominated by either. ]

There was a continous bloody battle between former Greek colonies against the usurption of Power by the peasantry (Latin mainly but also the Italiotes being Greeks of Italia) in Rome. Teh republic they introduced aimed to mimic Athens instead it unleashed a hidden dictatorship. When the Dictators took their efforts out of the Italic Peninsula between 32BC -100AD the Greeks sluggishly manouvered to counter the domination of ROman power. In 285AD the purpose of the resistance was apparent when Diocles took control over the empire. No sooner did he take it than he placed all his investments in the Eastern half. In terms of military domination Latin Rome dominated for 200 years an empire pre-forged by the Greeks, Given that the continuity of teh Greek colonies remained for the most part untouched including their coinage and lineage it would even be difficult to say that Alexanders Empire had diminished. If Diocles formed a Tetrarchy, the still existing Polyarchy of Alexander remained.

[ The west was pretty much dominated by Roman influence, and the east by Greek (although both were merely unifying factors in regions with numerous indigenous peoples and dialects completely different from both). ]

This is again a falsehood. The West was pretty much dominated culturally and linguistically by Greek hence the term Hellenisation. Greek culture was spread in both directions further proving the dominions' keepers. The Latin Roman influences were apparent in the West and hardly a sign of their existance in the East. The only great and significant thing the Romans (Latin) provided was a better system of Laws. However, the ones who spread this system were not Latin romans but the Greeks.

Treadgold mentions "predominantly Christianity, Roman Laws, Greek Language and Culture were spread by the Greeks of Byzantium".

I refer you to Warren Treadgold and Vasiliev purely to enlighten you on the Eastern part of Rome.

I would say Latin became influential not because of the ROman EMpire but because Byzantium fell in 1453AD. While the Greeks of Byzantium Rome were supressed for 400 years all their literature was stolen, revised and republished as if it was Latin in origin. Most if not all Latin and Roman literature presents itself as such. I guide you to the Perseus Project which contains first hand historical sources and texts. Read them and make what you will out of them.

As for your last comment you have very little to offer other than more questions that bury you deeper . The article is a fake and has no valid substantiation for the claims it makes. The first hand sources all support what I am saying, yet you call me a revisionist. I suggest you read the subject elsewhere before plastering such a disgraceful article and claim it to be history.

The above was an unsigned comment by Ephestion at 22:38, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC). Paul August ☎ 22:57, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

The whole introduction as it stands now is still very unsatisfactory and gives a heavily eastward slant; it's still very POV, and the current tweaking of the recent edits don't go far enough to redress the balance. Djnjwd 22:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wont touch your article I am waiting for you to change it.

The tetradrachma was the common currency. The other imperial coins were decoratives they printed millions over the centuaries and kept them in vaults or treasuries to stabalise the value of their circulated money:

Official Circulation of coin Tetradrachma 56BC (http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/sear5/s1989.html) [1] (http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/nero/milne_131.jpg)

Missing image
Http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/nero/milne_131.jpg
Image:

The above was an unsigned comment by Ephestion at 20:01, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC). Paul August ☎ 22:57, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Moved text here

Ive moved the below block of text from the opening lead section to here:

The original Bible was written in Koine, the dialect or language that spread the word of Judaism and Christianity; but it was also the vehicle that allowed Roman law to spread once Christianity became the state Roman religion in Late Antiquity. Thus some scholars (Warren Treadgold) beleive it was essentially the Greeks of Byzantium (the inheritors of the Roman Empire) that transmitted Christianity, Roman Law, Philosophy, and Administration to western Europe.

It's theory on transmission of Roman institutions by way of the Byzantine Empire to the West, via the Bible. I'm not sure what article this text belongs, but ROman Empire is more a narrative political history article, and it's allready over 60k in size, about twice what it should be, so we need to trim back and more tightly focus, moving stuff to other articles. Also, this paragraph really needs more explanation and citations. Stbalbach 23:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My question is how were the greeks of a small city like Byzantium responsible for spreading roman laws everywhere? This statement basically is saying that Romans spread their laws to Byzantium, which then spread them BACK to Rome? Excuse me if I am confused. --Masamax 23:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Common Language and Christianity

I don't feel that Vulgar Latin was a common language in the West see "basilect" and it certainly wasn't used in the East Empire. Between 400-1453 we have clearly different languages hardly to be considered Latin such as French for example and Spanish. To constitute a common Language it must 1. be used east and west 2. form an important part in administration, military etc 3.

hence I will revert the Lingua France of the empire (which is already well documented) back to Koine. There are many books referring to the Lingua Franc as Koine none stipulate Vulgar Latin. So I will add a new table heading called popular languages in that will be Vulgar Latin, Frankish (established by 476AD) etc.

In terms of Roman Achievements the reference to Csars and the name is unimportant it has a political conitation of relation to them where in fact it should not. For example the first Czar of Russia was post 1453. The terms Kaisar are immediate derivatives from the Greek usage of the word not Latin. So I will remove this text because it is not substantiated by fact.

I will replace this text with reference to the spread of the Bible there is no mandate requisite to refrain from ommiting the truth and the truth is that Koine, Bible and Christianity were the vehicle for transmitting christianity it is not a theory it is established by fact. For 795 years after christ the only version of the bible was written in Greek. All christians in the West learned Greek and read teh bible this was the foundation for their common language. Sorry but on a historical point of view the church, christ and the bible deserve more mention. Oh and also will add that Christ was killed by Romans as an achievemnt of the Romans. -Comment left by Ephestion June 9 2005

This article, in scope at least, refers ONLY to the Roman Empire as it existed until 476 AD (at which is where the Western Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire articles take over. The languages you refer to (ie French, Spanish, etc) almost CERTAINLY did not EXIST during the Roman Empire, and instead were regional dialects of Latin (ie. Vulgar Latin). And btw, even if Koine was a Lingua Franca of the empire (which I would not necessarily agree with) it was certainly NOT the language of all commoners in the empire. Latin and Greek both were important cultural contributors to the Empire, and although it's certain that the Greeks had a great influence upon the development of Rome, that doesn't mean that Rome was forever in their shadow as you seem to believe.

--Masamax 09:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article, in scope at least, refers ONLY to the Roman Empire as it existed until 476 AD Well any mention of Rome must include the full picture before you procede with the finer points and details. So everything done here so far is fixing up some minor issues on that whole view rather than a narrow view. Better to do it that way by introducing both parts of the empire and then leading off to describe the seperate parts. I would suggest moving all the content bellow the intro to appropriate headings like Early Roman Empire, and then two other divisions Western and Eastern Roman Empire. But then we again lose that whole image of the empire so its up to you and others.

And btw, even if Koine was a Lingua Franca of the empire (which I would not necessarily agree with) it was certainly NOT the language of all commoners in the empire. As mentioned by many already the Roman Empire was a superficial Authority over pre-existing Greek colonies and pre-established civilised people. The Latins did not colonise Europe they took over the colonies of the Greeks. Most of the places they took were Hellenic and if not Hellenic were undergoing self civilisation such as the Celts who were in trade with the Greeks for thousands of years. The 5 good emporers for example wrote in Greek Marcus Aurelius has preserved his memoirs at the perseus project.

Latin Romans offered little towards cultural value until ~400AD when some decent Latin works started to come into fashion. You could say that as the Empire approached 1453AD Latin in the west was slowly but surely becoming more important. But I dont want to sound like that guy that fixes everything with Windex, by saying almost all the founding and root words in Romance languages are from Greek first. Then there is that Grey of what was Indo European and how much overlap was already existing. Take for example the word "Base" being Greek, does it mean it replaced a word meaning the same thing in all of those languages or was it already there? Having said that the etimology of European languages especially ROmance languages places them in lineage to Greek be it foreign influence or otherwise. While Western Germanic philosophy tends to put Greek in a class of its own, Eastern thought tends to feel all of europe was one big family and certainly the seeds of knowledge , civilisation, and language were passed on by the Ancient Greeks not Latin Rome. Also existing proof is in the English language where by the amount of Greek words in it surpass the Latin Lexicon. In a standard medical dictionary some 60% of terms a Greek these words did not choose to live in a medical dictionary they were once part of the common lexicon. If today all English speakers decided to learn the Greek in their language they would be speaking clearly Greek as I mentioned earlier. The scope(gr) of didactics (gr) and symposiums(gr) is to form(gr) a basis(gr) for the genesis(gr) of syncarpous(gr) pragma(gr) called orthographia (gr) in truth (no idea :D ). This suggests that at some stage Greek was psrt of these languages but became replacesd by more "trendy vocab and cooler ways of getting on the same wave with folks" ie language just changed based on what each nation felt was best for it. Latin was important post 1453AD between 400-1453AD is when LATIN starts having an impact on Europe but hardly to be called a Lingua Franca. (Latin implied throughout as either classical or Vulgar.)

Agreed the commoners did not all speak Greek or Vulgar Latin. the commoners spoke their native languages. However, traders and people who travelled and certainly anyone with anything close to an education would learn Koine for sake of reading teh Bible and also Latin post 400AD becoming increasingly important.

The Lingua Franca most certainly was Koine

...and although it's certain that the Greeks had a great influence upon the development of Rome, that doesn't mean that Rome was forever in their shadow as you seem to believe.... I never implied this! its just how the real history seems to stipulate. :D Just kidding. The Latin Romans as I mentioned dominated by military force for 200 or so years the remaining 1200 years of Rome were ruled from the East. What can we say? I mean they did have an awsome army, and they did have a good system of Laws, their architecture was not as impressive I dont beleive to the Greeks nor was their literature...but thats all personal preference. From purely an aesthetic pont of view I mean. However, the Basilica churches were awsome architectural deisgns. Rome, especially Latin and its impact is over-hyped in the West. I am not putting their history into a shadow, its their history as it really happened. But I am interested to see what you feel should change so tell me more.

I have given you some quotes already from historians stating so. also the 5 good emporers such as Marcus Aurelius wrote in Greek. Modern Etimology is now changing the way it views ROmance languages as many are starting to realise the more common link they have. Modern historical accounts such as EU meetings have had many argumanets over the common language one man I beleive stated "If we wanted a common language we would all revert back to Greek". -Ephestion

To whomever wrote "Rome, especially Latin and its impact is over-hyped in the West" -- I'm honestly at a loss of words over how to respond to this opinion. It can only be believed if one ignores a number of facts:

• The modern languages of several European nations -- French, Provincial, Spanish, Italian in Western Europe, Romanian in Eastern Europe -- all have been shown to be derived from Latin. Languages related to Greek in Western Europe is spoken only in some small enclaves in southernmost Italy. While some of the words in the vocabulary of many of modern European languages is taken from Greek, they also take words from Arabic, Sanskrit, Chinese & Japanese.

• The vocabularity associated with Empire all come from Rome & its history, not Greece: for example, the European words for Emperor comes either from Latin imperator or from Julius Caesar's name, not from the Greek Basileus. (And to argue that "Tsar" & "Kaisar" come from an immediate Greek borrowing is disingenuous, because Greek borrowed the word from Latin. And German form "Kaisar" is possible only if the "C" in Caesar is pronounced like a "K" -- which points to a direct borrowing from Latin, similar to German Fenster ("Window") from Latin fenestra.)

• BTW, a number of polities proclaimed themselves either a new Roman Empire (e.g., Charlemagne's, or the Holy Roman Empire), or described themselves as a "New Rome" (most notibly Constantinople & Moscow).

New Rome or Nova ROme was the official name given by Constantine when he by decree and un-arguably relocated the capital to Byzantium/Constantinople aka NEW ROME (unsigned comment, assumably from Ephestion)

• Use of Latin by the military & civil servants has been attested throughout the Empire: in papyri from Egypt & Mesopotamia, from inscriptions in Greece and Turkey -- & a number of important writers from Spain & North Africa (Seneca, Apuleius, Tertullian, Cyprian, & forward).

• Civil law was developed at Rome -- although some scholars at Constantinople did contribute to it (who received their education at places like Beirut), they published their work in Latin. Further practically all legal proceedings under Roman Law were in Latin until c.600, because that was the language of the conquerors, who decided the point of the sword gave them the right to make everyone else subject to their laws & customs.

• The language of the Christian Church in Western Europe was Latin until a few centuries ago; & a person was not truly thought educated unless he could read & write in Latin until at least as late as the 18th century (e.g., John Milton was Cromwell's Latin secretary -- the person who carried on Cromwell's diplomatic correspondence).

You're not trolling us, are you? -- llywrch 18:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is you Opinion Coins of for example Pontius Pilatos of Jerusalem 56AD and there after many coins use the phrasing KAISAP not Latin at all! The Majority of EMporers spoke Greek exclusively....(Warren Treadgold) During the trial of Socrates there was a Jury, Judge, a respresentative and lawyers. ROme had laws and bypassed the rest and went straight for a Judge and executioner(cant remember i think Critio) This is your opinion Only in the West Greek is testified both East and West - eg Hadrian insignias in Greek Latin writers emerged post 465AD when the Koine was no longer accessable due to cut trade route by the Hun, Goths, Germanics of whom over-ran the West

Democracy was a better system, the Orthodox Church preserved that as each Bishop is still elected into power by the people and not the clergy All Greek writings were stolen by either Western crusaders, Papal Jesewits or Turkish Invaders I cant provide much evidence other than the fact the Administrative language was officially Greek 'Koine was still in use throughout Europe until Western Rome fell to Goths and Hun

This is your opinion The first bible in Latin was a rejected Heresy 365AD, in 750AD the first LATIN bible became used. So from 750AD onwards Latin begins to grow in contrast Greek shrinking in usage in Europe between 750AD till today. There are no Latin words in the Orthodox liturgy (gr word). "Kirie Eleison" used in the Papal or Catholic Church is one of many small reminders that the Church of Christianity was spread from the Greek NT most certainly not Latin. This reached beyond any military borders even into Asia. No you just didnt read what I wrote properly and you became emotional. Restoring the page again I suggest you investigate further what has been said I have given you ample directions. -Left by 203.59.216.xxx who I can only assume is Ephestion.

No, it is not my opinion; it is the consensus of Classical scholarship (and linguistics -- you did notice that part about Latin being the parent language of all of those European languages, right?) And even were I the only one to embrace it, it is at least as valid as yours -- & you are the one who is removing any mention & leaving only yours, which is against the spirit of NPOV.

And since it is the consensus of Classical Scholarship, I can easily document these points. I asked Ephestion to supply sources that prove or assert that koine was the official language of the Roman Empire -- & have not seen a reply. (And your arguments based on the language of the New Testament are irrelevant here.) Can you supply any reference that I can check that states what you claim? And I need more than just a name: if it is a book, I need the title & page number; if it is an article, the name of the periodical, title of the article & the year & pages it was printed on. So far all you have provided me is what we call on Wikipedia original research, & is not allowed.

A last point -- putting your comments in bold do not make them any more true. Instead, they make you appear emotional. -- llywrch 22:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Masamax use of the NPOV tag

Masamax, when asked why you put a NPOV tag on the article, you hsve gone back through the discussion history and pulled up every commentary from past authors, most (none?) of who even brought up using the NPOV tag. This is not how it works. NPOV tags are put up when there is a specific reason. When there has been a lengthy discussion on the talk page. When there has been no reconciliation between the parties. Your behaviour here is somewhat bizzare. We need to know why the NPOV tag is on the article, so the article can be acted on and adjusted accordingly, or, an argument made on why the artucle is justified to have a NPOV tag. I suspect you have some reason for the NPOV tag, but you are not telling us what it is. Stbalbach 15:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added the tag for a very good reason. Ephestion sees this article as completely biased and inaccurate, and this article has gone through half a dozen reverts in a few days based upon POV from either side. If that's not enough to warrent the NPOV tag, what exactly IS? --Masamax 23:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dates are all wrong Western pre 1960 bias NPOV reverting back to historical account.

We can go step by step on this if you like. First of all

1. Roman Empire continued till 1453AD

If anyone has any historical proof to counter this or any decent theory then we will consider it.

Cmon, there is no "right" answer, there are various opinions. There are various opinions on this, and no single one is the right answer. Wikipedia represents all opinions. What this article should do is state that: there are multiple points of view, and then detail those points of view. Simple. Stbalbach 18:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2. Koine was used in Europe and in the Middle east since teh time of ALexander the Great up until a period which varies for each area but lets assume the first instance of a recorded Translation from Greek to English was the Vulgar Bible 324AD. In otherowrds before this we have no proof that there was a need to translate Greek into Latin. Keep also in mind that the Vulgar Bible was for the Church in Rome. Also we have church history where all the letter of Paul except a hndfull were written in Greek. The few that were sent to Roman administration were for the formal consideration of the Latin speaking emporer. The Septurgian OT bible in Greek was translated from Aramaic/Hebrew during the reign of Alexander ~300BC. The old testiment was in circulation in Europe. If the empire had anythingclose to a common language then it would have been Greek. Latin was important only in the West post 479AD when better translation of teh Vulgar Bible became increasingly more popular.

3. I want to establish a basis for the reader to undertand the life span and flexibility of teh empire that allowed it to survive in teh east. Diocletian, Leo I, Justinian deserve mention simply for their efforts ie Diocletian was an administrator, Leo I a negotiator, Justinain a Warrior.

So without further delay the post is being reverted and you can debate here exactly what you want changed before doing it. I have done that so others should also try. User:Ephestion

Cmon, there is no "right" answer, there are various opinions I disagree! :D

Name of the article: "Roman Empire" ended in 1453; this article goes to 476 (apart from 1 para)

The point here is a clearly defined event in history Rome fell in 1453AD not in 479AD. The move of the capital is in writting how can you argue with that? What i do agree with is we have educated opinions and ignorent opinions. If there is a reason for changing then it should be noted with proofs.

(The above was a post by Ephestion)

Well, I think I see the one of the roots of the argument. Ephestion is taking a view of the total historical continuity of the Roman polity, beginning in 31BC and ending in 1453. Within this timescale, there is no doubt that the Koine was the commonest language and that the Hellenic nature of the Empire, important in the first few centuries and increasingly dominant after the capital was moved to the east, was (in that timescale as a whole) the most important.

Where I disagree is the place of your continued comments in the introduction of this particular article. Maybe the old article didn't stress enough the political continuity between "classical" Rome and "Byzantium" - but we do have a separate article for the Byzantine period, and this article refers to the period from 31BC to well - 476 AD is probably too definitely a Western cut-off date for you, but at some point to overlap with the Byzantine article.

It is within the timescale of this period that your comments about Koine and others are inappropriate. Djnjwd 18:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I came to this page in search of inormation relating to the Roman EMpire by searching Roman Empire instead I came to a page that was clearly mentioned that the empire fell in 479AD. Further more the page clealry ommitted the Emporers of the east between 285AD and 479AD. So it was not merely a page based on early rome it was a regugutation of some pre 1960 view of the Roman Empire looking at the listed bibliography it is evident that all these authors were focussing only on a western perspective. Gibbon for example although very famous had no idea how to read and write Greek or Turkic so his entire works were as biased as the Latin sources he read. But things have come a long way in the last 50 years on this subject. If the cut-off date is 476AD then this article should be renamed Early Roman Empire (31BC-476AD) but if it was as i found it the title should be Early Western Roman Empire (31BC-476AD). If you want to keep the article as it was before I arrived simply change teh heading to what you wish. But the title of ROman EMpire is inclusive of Early, West and Eastern Empire. It's up for debate as to what to do but the choices are clear: 1. Rename it Early Western Roman EMpire and keep the article as it was...pre Ephestion. 2. Rename the article Early ROman EMpire and keep references to a Western and Eastern Empire along with various relative changes. 3. Moving the entire content beloow the Introduction to another page called "Early Western Roman Empire"

Personally I opt for the third because there is still allot to put here and redirect people to relevant pages. For example a table is now setup with a complete list of emporers this is good to have under the heading "Roman Empire". SOme cut and pasting is needed. As for the Byzantine EMpire page OMG! that needs allot of work and if it takes this long to simply get an intro formed I dont think ill bother moving on to add the missing pieces.

(Above post was Ephestion)

I have some sympathy with those comments, although in an encyclopedia of this nature, I think that renaming the whole thing "Early..." is too drastic. Personally, I favour removing the line at the top which disambiguates it from the Holy Roman Empire (confusion with which is most unlikely) and replacing it with a large notice stating that the article is about the period 31BC to 500??AD and directing the reader that the continuing history of the Roman Empire in the east may be found in the article Byzantine Empire. Djnjwd 19:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

^^ Above DJ I think simply removing holy empire as a whole because it has isolated 1 of many such empire. There woudl be the Third Rome, Rum (Turks called themselves new rome post 1453AD) etc...

Not agreed with your solution on the title it is akin to name stealing. The term Roman Empire belongs with the information pertaining to the Roman Empire ie 32-1453AD. It is like having a page called Hellenistic Empire and only talking about the Ptolemy reign and not the other like Assyria. Or like Having a page called British colonisation and only speaking of USA colonisation and not australian. The term Roman Empire implies, I feel, a complete continous period and should be the label of the page that contains information pertaining to the whole empire. I think you should reconsider the renaming solution or provied me with more feedback. User:Ephestion

Please sign your posts, Ephestion!

My only comment is that if you look at most history books and most history classes they end the Roman Empire in the 5th century. It is standard mainstream. If you want study Late Antiquity or Byzantine Empire there are other articles that cover that. Stbalbach 19:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(have no Idea how to sign) :) Well that is standard in your country. I appreciate that. However, we are not from one location in the world and all i have done is given some input from an eastern perspective. By the way doesn't thearticle just seem so much more fuller and impressive? 31BC-1453AD is a long time. One thing I would like which has been stopped by this arguing is a re-write that includes what has been mentioned already but also another paragraph in teh Intro regarding Western Rome. Would like to see for example battles of defining moments mentioned in the Intro ie when the ROman State expands west and east, (When it reaches Spain, Britain, Anatolia and Africa). Then Leo I deserves a mention between Diocletian and Justinian I.

Everything here was relocated to Imperial Rome.

That was the only solution I am affraid to continue working on what you were doing please visit Imperial Rome I restored back to almost pre-Ephestion updates. Go there and make appropriate modifications. Bring back to this page whatever is relevant.

You can sign your name either by simply writing your name at the end of your comment, or by doing the shortcut of 4 tildes ~~~~.

Umm. just because you personally dont agree doesnt me you fork off your own personal copy of the article. It doesnt work like that. Ill be removing the article and restoring the redirect of Imperial Rome here. I would suggest you read the guidelines on how Wikipedia works and work with the community and not against it. If you want to discuss the various POV's on when the Roman Empire ended (and there are many, of which you are excluding a bunch -- how come?) than please do so in the correct manner, in a neutral way, in the correct place. Stbalbach 03:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is Stbalbach, is that I don't think it's possible for the article to accurately reflect Ephestion's viewpoint (hence my addition of the NPOV tag). The current version of the article is completely different from his viewpoint, and unless this can be resolved I think the NPOV tag should remain. We've seen more reverts in the past week on this page than I can ever remember seeing on an article of this importance. --Masamax 07:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If someone can succinctly summarize Ephestion's POV, could she/he add a note about this dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for comment? That would be a useful step in this process. I'd do it myself, but "arguing over whether Koine was the real language of the entire Roman Empire" sounds too silly to be plausible. -- llywrch 09:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will right now. Unfortunately, the Koine aspect of it is just a broader part of Ephestion's point of view as I understand it, which is that the Roman empire was hardly Roman at all, but was dominated by Greeks. I think we have to determine two things: One, does the scope of this article include the Byzantine Empire, or simply as the united Roman Empire which ended in 476 AD? Secondly, was greek culture and language as important as Ephestion claims? I agree with neither, but I will post such on the disputed articles section. --Masamax 11:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Masamax, it's very simple, Ephestion's views are not mainstream. If I go to a University class to learn about the Roman Empire there is a standard canon of information. Wikipedia is not a place for revisionists. If he has an alternative POV, and its not Original Research (which is not even clear), it can be discussed, but with the context of it being an alterantive view supported by citations so that its not Original Research. He has done none of those things. He has presented a minority view as mainstream, and has not provided any supporting evidence.

Id like to see us keep our current article without the NPOV tag and do whatever is required to do that. Stbalbach 14:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Could I ask the two sides in this debate to briefly outline their respective positions, just so I can get a clear idea of the dispute? Thanks :-) Dan100 12:25, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

CASE For Reverting to Ephestions' Edit

1. The name Roman Empire implies a period from 31BC - 1453AD 2. The title must match the content. 3. The content must include an overview of both sides of the empire East and West. 4. The content must depict information over the whole period not just the first 300 years or even 500 years.

Categorisation of information:

- Imperial Rome implies 31BC-285AD The dates may vary or overlap for example some say Imperial Rome fell in 476AD. - Roman Empire implies 31BC-1453AD The dates may vary or overlap for example some say Roman EMpire fell in 1453AD others say 1210AD other 476AD. The point being argued is not the fall or start but the naming of the topic and matching the content to the title.

The pages presented by others depicted a majority beleiving the Roman Empire fell in 465AD. This is the reason that the content should be moved to Imperial ROme of which consisted for the most part the Western part of the empire that fell or fragmented in 476AD.

I want a complete picture representing continuity between 31BC and 1453AD and to link to all our pages Imperial Rome, Western Roman EMpire, Eastern ROman Empire, Byzantine EMpire, Hellenic EMpire all being the same as the Roman Roman EMpire during different time periods. I feel the content on the page for the ROman EMpire should have 3 maps: 1. Imperial Rome 2. Tetrarchy 3. Hellenic Empire (The last phase before the final assault by Turks)

This is my intended format of which I have been stopped from doing: 1. Name and Other names of Roman Empire 2. Date of Rise and Fall 3. Where.. it was 4. How... it Started 5. What... it was composed of 6. Who led and how it was led 7. Describe Defining Events 6. The Outcomes and eventual results of the fall and occurance. eg Enlightenment, Renaisance, Romance periods.

I want this format throughout. The title Roman Empire is not suitable for the content it is not from a neutral point of view because the content is topocentric and very biased towards a lack of appreciation and acceptance of Eastern Involvment.

(I DIDNT SIGN MY NAME)

The eastern empire was always viewed as something separate; a subset of the Roman Empire, maybe, but the Roman empire, by its very name, needs Rome to be part of it. The Byzantine Empire can go on its own page; we'll even mention the Byzantine empire at the top of the article. There's also the stylistic note that articles shouldn't be longer than 32k. Samboy 23:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Case against Ephestion

I will start with reasons against and hope others will add more.

1. The article currently covers the accepted mainstream period of the Roman Empire which is up to to the Fall of Rome, when the last Roman Emperor was disposed. This is traditional. Most books and school classes that cover the Roman Empire end here, and pick up with either studies in Late Antiquity, or studies in Byzantine Empire.
2. We allready have other articles that cover the other periods.
3. Wikipedia has a long tradition of doing it the current way its structured. To restructure would require a major re-write of many articles that have been worked on by countless authors over the course of years, it would be highly disruptive, and dubious if anyone besides Ephestion would go along with it.
4. As a matter of practicality, the current Roman Empire article is over 60k -- to add all these additional elements would make the article at least twice as big if not more.
5. Ephestion's reason for doing this is because he is from an "Asian country" and thats how they do it there. Of course, some countries have different historiographical traditions, but its not maintream for the majority of English Wikipedia readers.
6. Ehestion has a history on Wikipedia of being somewhat abrasive to how we do things here (see his talk page and history). Just as one minor example, despire numerous requests and instructions, he still does not sign his comments.

Stbalbach 14:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(I formatted Stbalbach's comments for better readibility. -- llywrch 19:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))

---

The Roman Empire, in modern terms, does not include the later Eastern Empire. The fact is that post-476 AD, the Roman Empire as we think of it ceased to exist. While the eastern portion DID continue to refer to themselves as Roman (and the Romanian language attests to Latin influence that survived in the East) following the collapse of the East it was NOT the Latin controlled empire that this article covers. Yes, I said Latin, because the fact is that although Greek/Koine was certainly a widely spoken tounge, esspecially among the elite, Latin was still the predominant language of the Empire as laws, currency, etc were conducted in Latin. Even in the east Latin survived as the language of government at least a century after the west fell. However, Ephestion is attempting to argue that Greek was by far the dominant language, and that Koine was the language of the commoners, apparently ignoring Romance languages. This is made FAR simpler for him if we are to include the Byzantine Empire in this article, as it steadily became more and more Greek dominated as time went on (and it was cut off from latin control).

Another section of this page talks about reorganizing this article away from the historical aspects of the Empire, however the issue at hand is the continual revert war going on between Ephestion and several other users (including myself) who disagree completely with his viewpoint. I have no problem with relating to the Byzantine empire in this article, but there is a reason they are seperate. The Roman Empire that this current article describes ends when the Latin west ceased to be a part of the empire for certain. While the exact date could be argued to be one several dates during the 5th Century, the entity that fell to the Turks in 1453 was not the Empire we are discussing today. I would liken it to attempting to make the United Kingdom and United States articles the same because one was the progenitor of the first, and therefore they are the same thing when clearly they are not, anymore than the Holy Roman Empire is the same as the Roman Empire. Again, they are different articles for a reason.

Currently this article is a history article that covers the modern definition of the Roman Empire. I have no problem with linkages to the Byzantine Empire which I (and every history book I've ever read) consider a different entity. This article is not a soapbox for a POV that is has not been proven the least bit credible, nor for revisionist history. If Ephestion wants to argue about how Roman culture was nothing more than immitation of the Greeks, he's welcome to do so in the correct article, which I've provided for easy access. However, unless he can provide better counter-arguements than 'This is your opinion' than I can't see how he can make such drastic changes to the tone and message of the article. It may be my opinion, but it's not just my opinion. My opinion has been formed by reading many texts on the subject. Here are a few of them.

• Meijer, Fik. (2004). Emperors Don't Die in Bed. ISBN 0415312019
• Le Glay, Marcel. (2005). A History of Rome, 3rd Ed. ISBN 140511083X
• Paolucci, Henry. (2004). Lectures on Roman History. ISBN 1932107061
• (2004).Roman Imperialism: Readings and Sources. ISBN 0631231188

That is four more credible sources than Ephestion has choosen to share, and they should be fairly availble at a library near you. Of course, I could list many more, but that would just be redundant, as these are simply the ones I most recently read.

--Masamax 14:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ephestion does touch on a valid point -- that ancient Greece played a significant role in the culture of the Roman Empire -- which I doubt anyone here would seriously object to. However, he has taken such an extreme stand on this (e.g., that Koine Greek was far more commonly spoken that Latin in the western Empire), & refuses to acknowledge that other interpretations could be equally valid, that he sabotages his own argument.

And the exact date that the Roman Empire fell is another matter that has a number of POVs, & adding a brief discussion of these would improve this article. (I say brief because Edward Gibbon wrote over a thousand pages on that very point.) However, again Ephestion sabotages any work on this point by insisting that including the Byzantine Empire is essential to this article, & refuses to concede that there is any other valid POV on this matter.

Because he appears to have only begun editing a few days ago (based on a glance at his list of contributions), it may be that he does not understand Wikipedia policies such as NPOV & the need to provide sources in a useful manner. If this is the case, then I suggest he educate himself & learn how to be a more effective contributor; Wikipedia is always in need of more material. But if this is not the case, & Ephestion simply does not care to follow our procedures & customs to participate here, then I invite him to find another project similar to ours elsewhere. -- llywrch 19:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Roman Empire article in it's current form isn't condusive to much more than lipservice to the subject of Greek influence because it is a history article that focuses on events. I know in the future this article will be reorganized into a gateway article, with a seperate Roman History article which will contain the jist of this one, and when that happens, we can easily show the influences of the greeks on the Roman Empire in the sections of the new gateway article (although, again, Ephestion's main arguement seems to deal with culture, which in this future article would simply be a brief summary of the current Roman culture article which I already directed him to). I am happy to admit that the Greeks were extremely important in the Roman Empire, but refuse to agree to Ephestion's edits. He did sabotage his arguement. The articles of the Roman Empire that such an arguement apply to probably could use some editting to balance their POV on the matter, but Ephestion's edits do nothing more than make the POV of this article completely opposite without compromise. --Masamax 22:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with llywrch here - a read of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Cite sources seems in order. I can see that Ephestion is trying to make points that could be valid (I'm no expert) but he needs to be able to cite for what he's saying. Dan100 18:27, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

My two cents

I was always taught that the Roman Empire was the empire where, well, Rome was the capitol. Yes, my history teachers mentioned the Byzantine empire, but that was always considered something separate from the Roman empire proper. And, once the empire fell in the 5th century, what showed up later during the dark ages was considered something else.

So, I feel this article should cover just the Roman empire until the 5th century fall of Rome. Also, it's better to split up, since an article shouldn't be longer than 32k. Samboy 23:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The logical conclusion of this approach is that the "real" Roman Empire was over when the emperor moved to Milan.--Wetman 22:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that all periodization is to some extent arbitrary: leaving this article as it stands has the huge merit of being consistent with the majority of other works of reference. Anyone who is interested can soon see for themselves the continuities of history between Rome and Byzantium, and the successor states in the West. Djnjwd 22:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Official Language

I re-entered Greek as one of the two "official" languages in the infobox. Although no such thing existed during the Roman empire, neither in antiquity nor in the middle ages, if "official" is any indication of the importance and usage by the people or the state, Greek should by no means be absent from the infobox. "Official" presupposes an elevated status of importance for something. Modern constitutions state clearly what the official language of the state is. The Italian constitution states Italian is the official language of Italy. The EU has 25 official languages, one for each of its member states, as stated by EU law. Yet no such law existed in the Roman Empire to assign to any language "official" status. The Roman Senate enacted laws in Latin, which in theory applied to all four corners of the empire, but in practice were enforced only in a few, and in those cases "official" is a mute point. In the Senate itself, a speech could be delivered in Greek and every Senator was expected to understand it, even though it seldom happened. Beyond state afairs, Roman society, at least the aristocray, is best described as bilingual. Greek schools operated and Greek works were read in equal volume with Latin. Even so, after the foundation of Constantinople, laws were enacted in Greek as well as Latin, and at least in the East, Latin fell drastically out of use. I'm against the use of any box that tries to sum up in a few lines the characteristics of the Roman empire, escpecially for such a long living and changing entity. But if "official" should mean anything in Rome (and in Byzantium), it would only mean degree of use.

I go along with that. The existence of such things as the Res Gestae of Augustus in Latin and Greek support the idea of Greek as a language used by the administration (if that's what official means in this context). Djnjwd 14:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one was trying to argue that Greek wasn't important an important language and culture in the Roman world, but Ephestion's changes consistently brought a tone that Greek was the only important culture and language, which it obviously was not. --Masamax 18:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Complete Reorganization of Article

Starting this week I plan on writing a completely reorganized version of this article that will be a gateway article to Roman Empire related articles. I will be doing this on my home PC and uploading the new version all at once to avoid convolution. Once it is up, the wording can be reworked, but the organization and spirit will be done at once which I think will be hugely helpful. Here are the sections I plan on including in the article:

• Government
• History (very brief version of the current article, broken down as follows:
  • Age of Augustus
  • Julio-Claudians
  • Flavian Stabalization
  • Five Good Emperors
  • Crisis of the Third Century
  • Stabalization (Diocletian->Constantine)
  • Final Decline (361-476 AD)
  • Explainations for Decline
• Economy
• Culture
• Military

As well, the current parts of the article such as the "See Also" as well as Links will just be recycled.

If you have any suggestions for sections of the article please post here. I will upload the article as soon as it's done, and instead of reverting, if you see anything you disagree with please EDIT IT. Admitedly, my article may not stand up to complete Wikipedia standards, so I leave it up to the community to edit the new article I will create. I know this seems drastic, but the current article is unacceptable to most, but the scope of the work has just meant most want to stay away. --Masamax 08:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now that the Ephestion argument has (hopefully) subsided, I agree that a substantial rewrite of the main body is a good idea. For my part, the principal problem with the current article is the way in which it duplicates biographical information and event-by-event history per Emperor; I think what we should have in each of the sections is an overview of historical trends, rather than the detailed political history that we have now (as long as it's suitably linked by date, person and subject). Djnjwd 18:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reason I'm going to arrange the sections the way I've planned them is because in the early to middle empire the easiest way to organize the history is who was ruling at the time. I don't intend to do much biographical work, instead I will focus on the major events during each period, as well as the atmosphere of the Empire. --Masamax 20:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lifetime and Perspective

The text includes the statement:

"at Augustus's death, there would have been few living who could recall a time before Augustus himself. The average Roman had a life expectancy of only forty years."

I suspect this is a misconception (as well as being peripheral to the subject of the article).

In fact, it was quite normal for Romans of this period to live to the age of about 70 years. The reason for the low life expectancy was high infant mortality (ie almost half of newborns died during their early childhood).

I am very tempted to adjust the text, but not wanting to be percipitous, I wish to solicit viewpoints before making the correction. --Philopedia 23:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to adjust it, do so, as I agree, and I will work it into the new article I am currently writing (see above). --Masamax 06:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very well. Done (and simplified). --Philopedia 10:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)