Talk:Ancient Rome

WP:ERA to CE/BCE

AD/BC is best used on many articles that might have a christian or biblical connotation, tens, if not hundreds of thousands of other articles use the CE/BCE dating system to indicate Common Era and Before Common Era instead of Anno Domini (In the Year of Our Lord) and Before Christ. Given that the Romans themselves used neither system, but did in fact oppress and condemn Christianity until Constantine at the end, I think your general reader would benefit from the use of the CE/BCE system instead. I am familiar with WP:RETAIN as well as WP:ERA though, so I intend to gain consensus before making this change across this article. TY. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, strong oppose. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll add my oppose here, for the record. As I've stated elsewhere, the Christian religion arose out of the instincts of the ancient Roman world, and toward the end of it, was adopted by it. So, AD/BC is appropriate. Another point to consider is the accuracy of the Babylonian–Egyptian solar calendar with regard to starting at the same time each year, especially with the improvements under Caesar. Alternative calendars are often not quite so accurate. I don't really understand the need to relabel when you are retaining the arbitrary nature of the calendar with regard to its denoting a certain epoch. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose suggestion by confirmed sockpuppet account. The use of BCE vs. BC should have nothing to do with whether the subject of an article had an affinity or lack thereof for Christianity. That's tantamount to saying we'd best not use "Thursday" on articles that don't accept Thor as a real deity.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Ditto with the opposition, pending some evidence that a revival of Roman paganism makes the use potentially offensive with regard to this specific article, as opposed to atheists and scholars who'd prefer to end use of the BC/AD nomenclature entirely. — LlywelynII 13:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Hi @Furius. I see you reverted my edit.

1. Do you think it is inappropriate to have a section under historiography about how the term "Ancient Rome" is defined and/or developed
2. If the term "Ancient Rome' is not a proper noun, then what is it?
3. Why do you think writing about Mary Beard, considered by many to be the leading classicist in Britain with a recent Roman history that is well regarded, is giving undue influence? Who else should be mentioned to make this balanced? I'd appreciate this discussion sticks within the bounds of WP:HISTRW.

Biz (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

1. I'm not really convinced that this long article has space for such a discussion, nor that it should be the first thing discussed in the section on "historiography", before even Polybius is mentioned. It seems to be redefining what the section is about.

2. "Ancient Rome" is a noun phrase but I'd probably just refer to it as a "term".

3. I think the prominence of Mary Beard as an individual needs to be separated from the prominence of this particular idea, which has very litte wider purchase and clashes with the scope of the concept as presented in the lead. As written the section gives the impression that there are only two things one needs to know about the term: it was invented in the Renaissance and in 2015 Mary Beard defined it as ending in 212. These two facts are nowhere near being on the same level of importance.

4. If the article is to have a point about the appearance of a concept of "ancient" Rome in the Renaissance, one would probably expect it in the legacy section. Furius (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

1. This is the the very essence of historiography. The first sentence of the article does it. What is wrong with a section that is a paragraph long at the end of the article that can look at the latest scholarship and not what is referenced to Britannica?
2. Sure, "term".
3. I asked what recent scholarship you can point to -- meaning, other than Gibbon from 250 years ago -- that discusses this issue and merits inclusion? As for SPQR, it was on the New York Times best seller list so it stands out on its own right as a notable piece of literature from a scholar. SPQR discussed 212, not the renaissance so let's separate those issues
4. I've spent hours looking for a source that can explain the origin of this term but to no avail. I emailed a well-regarded historian and he said it most likely came from the renaissance when Latin texts were being rediscovered and had to be distinguished from the old. Given Rome's history from when the western empire fell until the renaissance, it's very logical this would be a time when the distinction was made in the same way ancient Greek was being distinguished from medieval Greek and how Byzantine came about. Regardless, it's not necessary to include this but ok it can go in the legacy section if it needs to.

Biz (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I have SPQR beside me. Where on the pages you cited, 7 (Maps) and 527-533 (Epilogue: The First Roman Millennium) does Beard use the term "Ancient Rome", or define it? I can't find it. I can't find any statement in it that the term "was likely first used during the renaissance" either. NebY (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

She only talks about 212, not the renaissance, that's the sentence that was cited.

Hmm. Correct, page 7 was meant to be 17 but the other is correct. Did you read it? Let's be clear, this is not a dictionary definition. The book title is "SPQR: a history of Ancient Rome". The start of the prologue is "Ancient Rome was important". If you read the prologue and epilogue, it's clear she regards Ancient Rome as ending in 212. If you want video's of her, you understand why as well: she is a romanticist of the Romans, so she only want to talk about the good stuff: the progress, growth, the acquisition of Europe.

Below are excerpts, it's very clear and obvious and nothing I'm reading between the lines to interpret that she believe Ancient Rome concludes in 212.

P17: "There are many way that histories of Rome might construct a fitting conclusion...Mine ends with a culminating moment in 212 CE, when the emperor Caracalla took the step to making every single free inhabitant of the Roman Empire a full Roman citizen, eroding the differences between the conqueror and the conquered and completing a process of expanding the rights and privileges of Roman citizenship that has started almost a thousand years earlier"

P527: "But the underlying pattern is clear. Caracalla in 212 CE completed a process that in Roman myth Romulus had started a thousand years earlier--that is, according to the conventional date, in 753 BCE. Rome's founding father had been able to establish his new city only by offering citizenship to all corners, by turning foreigners into Romans".

p529: "Whatever lay behind it, this decree changed the Roman world forever, and that is why my story of Rome closes here, at the end of the first Roman millennium. The big question that had guided politics and debate for centuries, about the boundary between the Romans and those they ruled, had been answered. After a thousand years, Rome's 'citizenship project' had been completed and a new era had begun"

P533: "But, more than anything, this careful refabrication points to the historical distance between the first millennium of ancient Rome, which is the subject of my SPQR, and Rome's second millennium which is a story for another time, another book--and another writer". Biz (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Your suggested text concerns the origin and meaning of the term "Ancient Rome". In the passages you quote, what is "very clear" is that Beard talks about where she chooses to end her book ("my story", "mine ends", "my SPQR"), not the origin and meaning of the term "Ancient Rome". On the one occasion in the epilogue that she uses the term (page 534 in my edition), she writes "the first millennium of ancient Rome", indicating ancient Rome continued beyond that point. She does not explicitly state ancient Rome ended in 212 and Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material says, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. NebY (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

That’s correct. It’s her opinion of what she believes it should be as that’s all it can be. History is dangerous when people don’t mark it as so.

No, it’s not the origin of the term and the original first uncited sentence with which I’ve said we can drop is just to introduce a discussion of the “term”. Don’t conflate.

Mary Beard explicitly several times in different ways states that the first thousand years was ancient Rome and the next thousand was Rome.

That in both of these millennia of Rome were different from each other. She repeatedly makes her argument that citizenship — which first was for men of Rome, then was the issue of brutal battles to extend it to other men — was now bequeathed to all men of the empire. Which changes the character of what was ancient Rome.

But also, the adoption of foreigners as citizens was the original goal when Romulus started it, it was used as a political tool for empire and that now that it was adopted across the Mediterranean the process was complete.

She explicitly says the first history of Rome which we call ancient Rome concludes in 212 and that after that it’s Rome the concept, but not ancient Rome. Biz (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH's not explicitly stated by the source must be read literally, not "literally". You write "Mary Beard explicitly several times in different ways states that the first thousand years was ancient Rome and the next thousand was Rome." With "in different ways" you seem for a moment to recognise that she does not say so explicitly. She doesn't state "that the first thousand years was ancient Rome and the next thousand was Rome" when she writes "the first millennium of ancient Rome", and she does not say "the first history of Rome which we call ancient Rome concludes in 212 and that after that it’s Rome the concept, but not ancient Rome." (She does say "The citizenship decree was only one element in a wide range of transformations, disruptions, crises and invasions that changed the Roman world beyond recognition in the third century CE.")

All we have here is that Beard chose to end her book at 212 and justifies that by saying the Roman world underwent significant changes starting then, or in 192 with the collapse of the Augustan template. This does not amount to a generally accepted redefinition of the term "Ancient Rome"; it doesn't even amount to an explicit redefinition by Beard, who is perfectly capable of doing so explicitly if that was her intention. It's not worth inflating Beard's choice of an endpoint for her book (a book which she had to end somewhere, an endpoint which allows her to use "millennium") into its own section on Wikipedia as if it has transformed nomenclature. NebY (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

We have a difference of opinion because you are challenging me to find a passage where Mary Beard in SPQR says "Ancient Rome as a period concludes in 212" and saying anything else is WP:SYNTH. WP:Synth also explains with analogy that "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article.

What I am saying is she is consistent in her argument through the entire book and she uses terminology separately that distinguishes, which mean this is not WP:SYNTH. What makes this discussion not productive is refusing to acknowledge what she is saying in obvious language her core argument.

Let me try this again.

If you refer to P529-530: "Rome in its second millennium was effectively a new state masquerading under an old name". Do you agree with my interpretation that, a change in substance but using the same name of Rome, she is explicitly acknowledging that what she is calling the first millennium of Rome is not the same as the second millennium? Biz (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

She's not saying that Rome was Ancient Rome for the first thousand years but not in the next year, or in the next century. I completely agree that this discussion is not productive; the proposition is flawed in terms of what Beard says, in terms of WP:SYNTH and in terms of WP:DUE. This isn't going to improve the encyclopedia. NebY (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I asked a specific question -- there was no mention of Ancient Rome deliberately -- and you refused to answer it. What you just showed, is that you are just trying to win an argument rather then find where consensus is. The unfortunate thing is by not recognising this female historian's work it means this encyclopedia is all the worse because of it. Biz (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I hoped to answer whatever it was you were trying to ask (I don't know if you intended a Socratic question that would lead to a clear outcome in your favour, but it didn't come out as a clear and coherent question). Now I need to make something else clear: I do not fail to recognise Beard's work, and most definitely do not in any way disregard her because she is female. She is very, very good and we should pay attention to what she does say and what she thinks matters, which does not include affirming that ancient Rome ended in 212. NebY (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you've said that because I think her work deserves more recognition.

There is only one way, IMHO, to resolve this disagreement in an objective way that other people can weigh in.

It's to agree or disagree on her argument that is stated across the book which I'm saying is (1) The first 1000 years is different to the second 1000 of Rome (2) 212 is the date she chooses to mark the different millennia and (3) she regards the first 1000 years as "ancient Rome". (I believe we do not have a disagreement on whether she is notable and the book is credible per WP:HISTRS.)

I was hoping that we can at least agree on the fact she makes these claims on all three of these components multiple times (but not in sequence in one place as you state). Once we've done that, then it's a matter of specific opinion of whether it's WP:SYNTH if these three claims she makes are part of her core argument or not. It also means separating discussion on WP:DUE, and how it's presented once we can resolve this as it seems to be confusing the core issue. Biz (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Since the intense Renaissance interest in "ancient Rome" was led by Italians mostly from Florence, but also other north Italian cities (in fact anywhere but Rome), I doubt you'll find many references in their writings to the term. They tended to have inflated ideas of the importance of their own cities in ancient times, and perhaps thought they were reviving "ancient Florence" or even ancient Italy. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe this is a term that came out of the Anglo-sphere -- the English and especially the American -- interest in the classics. Biz (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

If there aren't reliable sources on where the term comes from (an unpublished email from an academic isn't one), then a discussion of this cannot appear in the article.

So then, with that eliminated, we would have a sub-section that would exist solely to push Mary Beard's position in SPQR (which is very carefully marked out as contestable and personal "Mine ends"; "that is why my story of Rome closes here"). This book review [1] lists some recent discussions of scope and periodisation in its first paragraph.

If I understand you right, you want this to be the kernel for a section on "how historians have periodised ancient Rome." It makes little sense to me for such a section to precede the discussion of who the historians are who wrote about ancient Rome. Nor does it really make sense to me that the section "historiography" would consist of a sub-section on "who the historians are/were" and another on "what they said about periodisation". Furius (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a source. I wish more people could do in their discussions.

Based on this review, it’s clear this author is using the late antiquity view of Roman history. Which is to mean a continuity of the state until

the 8th century and that these “barbarians” are “alternative Romans”. No where in this review is a distinction made for what is “ancient rome”. That said, I do agree how we treats the end of the Republic as one section — that’s my preferred interpretation of what is the end of ancient Rome but I disgress.

It seems you have form issues of how I am presenting a valid historian’s interpretation of Roman history with 212 culminating as the apex of ancient Rome before it enters a new millennium as a remaining state of Rome. If you can put the way I’ve presented it aside, are you also saying you disagree with my assessment? Biz (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

This distinction between "ancient Rome" and a later "Rome" at 212 is not supported by any source at all, not even Beard ("first millennium of ancient Rome" indicates that there is a further millennium of ancient Rome); I'm totally in agreement with the points made by @NebY on this. You've given no reason why we should be prioritising Beard's view over Fischer's or Sommer's or Giardina's, or Le Bohec et al.'s. I still do not see how the nuances of periodisation should have priority in a section on historiography over an actual explanation of who the historians were and what they did. Furius (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you agree, that somewhere in the article, it merits to have a discussion about all the historians who have an opinion on periodisation? This can appear anywhere and does not need to be prioritised over who the historians are and what they did. Biz (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't really see how there's space for such a discussion in this very long article. There are almost as many different periodisation schemes as there are books on Rome, because - as Beard's book shows - defining the limits of Ancient Rome is one of the main ways of staking a claim to what "Ancient Rome was about." There isn't space for a survey what every major scholar has thought on that question, either.

Most of this article is WP:SUMMARYSTYLE of things discussed elsewhere on wiki. Could there be an article on Scholarly periodisations of ancient Rome (vel sim.), which this article might then include a link to? Maybe? An additional issue would be defining what count as primary and secondary sources in this context. Beard is in some sense a primary source for her own opinion; so one would want scholarly sources discussing different scholarly approaches to periodisation (i.e. review articles).

What I can see space for is (1) a short sentence or clause noting that AD 212 was a significant turning point at the point where the Constitutio Antoniniana is mentioned in the history section (with a citation to Beard); mention of Beard's opinion in a legacy section of the article on Constitutio Antoniniana. Furius (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I like your suggestions.

I'm reading Kaldellis's The New Roman Empire right now (out in Kindle now, hard cover in November) and its a big deal what he has done. His introduction is a direct challenge to the entire discipline that I find it hard for anyone to oppose. The whole historiography of the Roman Empire is being re-evaluated: Beard and Kaldellis being prime examples. So long as "Ancient Rome" incorporates the Roman Empire, it's going to get pulled into this academic debate.

FWIW, Kaldellis also identifies 212 as a turning point., discussing the impact in the provinces and identity.

I'll have a think about both the sentence and the new article, which should be broader and on all Roman history. Should I propose it here or do you want to edit police me (again) but only if I over-step? Biz (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's probably best to present proposed changes on the talk page first.

(As for Kaldellis, the key to incorporating these sorts of challenges to the discipline into WP is to see how other scholarly sources respond to them; i.e. book reviews and review articles). Furius (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

For the new article, maybe we just add a section here: Roman historiography?

For the sentence to this article:

Historian Mary Beard distinguishes the history of ancient Rome up until 212 to be different to the era that follows, "effectively a new state masquerading under an old name". (P529-30 SPQR). This could be it's own paragraph right after the text that says the following: In 212, he issued the Edict of Caracalla, giving full Roman citizenship to all free men living in the Empire, with the exception of the dediticii, people who had become subject to Rome through surrender in war, and freed slaves Biz (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I think Roman historiography (as in historiography produced by Romans) and (?) Modern historiography of Ancient Rome are big enough and distinct enough as topics to both merit their own articles. Although of course they overlap in topic of interest, Tacitus and Mary Beard are doing fundamentally different things (except when she tweets about Trump and Brexit, I guess).

For the sentence, I'd say "Mary Beard points to the edict as a fundamental turning point, after which the empire was "effectively a new state masquerading under an old name."" Furius (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok with that rewrite.

You can't discuss ancient Rome without discussing the Roman empire. And you can't discuss the Roman empire without discussing the Byzantine empire. The incoming monsoon of debate will be on the Roman and Byzantine empires. So may I propose

historiography of Rome (ie, indicating the state). This can incorporate all periodisation debates from the formation of the Kingdom to the conquest of Constantinople? Biz (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Down the road I'm sure there will be long, long debates about whether it should be Historiography of Rome or Historiography about Rome, but for my part; I think "Rome" is good; I think that also leaves space for the article to eventually discuss things like social history, feminist histories of Rome, etc. (which moderns consider important, but which got much less interest was very interested in before the 20th century). Furius (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Great points.

My future self just panicked. But we can blame these people for confirming the direction Historiography of Rome and Its Empire. Feel free to create it and I'll jump in, or if not, I'll dip into some Gibbon and get it started later. Biz (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Legacy subsection

This section is incredibly poorly written and sweeping. To address just one point brought up, taking this paragraph at face value, European literature is inherited from the Romans. This is blatantly false, there are many historical influences on current European literature other than Roman literature. Not to mention innumerable developments after the Roman era including such ubiquitous things as the novel.

The article on legacy of the Roman Empire linked to in this subsection does not make any such generalisations and is actually very specific on the ways in which the Roman Empire influenced later European civilisation! Someone needs to fix this section up. 2001:8003:2422:B800:51E3:27FD:5CD2:4BB5 (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I suppose your issue is with this sentence:

The customs, religion, law, technology, architecture, political system, military, literature, languages, alphabet, government and many factors and aspects of western civilisation are all inherited from Roman advancements.

I agree; it is too sewwping. I think the issue is not with the list of domains, but with the phrase

are all inherited from Roman advancements.

I think

all have roots in the Roman civilization.

or

all have strong influences from advancements made in the Roman Empire.

would be better, but perhaps someone here can come up with a better wording? Nø (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It's far too sweeping; western civilisation has inherited a great deal from the vast part of Europe that was outside the Roman empire, such as the extended family of languages, customs, legal systems and more that includes English and German, while describing Christianity and Judaism, Greek and Hellenistic architecture, drama, epic and the novel - to mention just a few - as Roman advancements is gross appropriation. The list's wrong, introducing it with "The" is wrong, "all" is wrong.... No reference is provided for the sentence. The preceding sentence is sourced to 1906 and 1900, when such generalisations were more fashionable, but why do we even feel the need to make such a massive and contentious claim now? NebY (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I would reverse the order of the sentence to say something like "Ancient Rome influenced the customs, religion, law, technology, architecture, political system, military, literature, languages, alphabet, government and many factors and aspects of western civilisation long after its fall." T8612 (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The Rome of "Romulus"

Modern reconstruction of the marshy conditions of early Rome, along with a conjectural placement of the early settlement and its fortifications

I understand different editors might have different preferences about phrasing, notability, and specific images but the article very much needs some image showing how marshy the original area was. Even if the specific image to the right needs to be removed for whatever reason, kindly substitute some other better image that captures the same major points about the former rivers and lakes long since entirely vanished from the area. Ditto, Roma Quadrata and Murus Romuli might need expansion and improvement but the topics should be linked from this article in some fashion even if we don't go into details here about the various confusions, scholarly arguments, source contradictions, etc. — LlywelynII 13:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

External links

• Move excessive links here for any possible discussion:

Some things just grow by incremental edits. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, had grown to 9 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four links.

The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
• ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
• Also, concerning dead "External links": Dead URLs are of no use.
  • Lacus Curtius
  • Livius.Org Archived 1 July 2017 at the Wayback Machine
  • United Nations of Roma Victrix (UNRV) History
  • Water and Wastewater Systems in Imperial Rome
  • The Jewish History of Rome
  • Roman DNA project -- Otr500 (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The rise of Rome

Could you give me some information about the rise of Rome? 70.78.144.142 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)