Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

Project overviewTasksCurationGuidesAwardsOur classicistsTalk page

Requested move at Talk:Anax#Requested move 19 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Anax#Requested move 19 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Diocletianic Persecution at FAR

I have nominated Diocletianic Persecution for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Major rewrites needed on Roman calendar and related articles

This was something that was raised a few years ago on its talk page, but I've gone through some material related to the Roman calendar, and a while back I came to the conclusion that much of the article and some related articles (Mercedonius, which might need to be moved to Intercalaris, and the Leap year error section of Julian calendar) will need to be looked at and possibly rewritten entirely. Especially due to the interference of a certain LTA, there's a lot of places where they focus on explaining the classical sources and/or downplaying modern research, and in particular they focus on an outdated model of how the leap month is handled in the Roman Republican calendar.

Unfortunately I don't have the time or energy to deal with it myself, and probably won't for a long time. As such, is anyone here willing to help? (I've also asked on WikiProject Time, but they don't seem to be as active at the moment.) Arcorann (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

If you produce a rewrite and it is of better quality than the existing article I will support your pushing it to the mainspace. The existing article needs work. It is the doing of that work – in a manner keeping with modern quality standards – which is the difficult part, I suppose. Ifly6 (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Legio I Germanica

I've corrected an old error at Legio I Germanica, linking to a battle in 1081 AD rather than 48 BC, as prompted on the talk page. It was introduced in this 2020 edit together with several other bits of content sourced only to livius.org. I haven't checked whether any other errors crept in and am aware that that's not really a WP:RS - would anyone more familiar with such content care to take a look? NebY (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not very keen on Lendering. It doesn't appear he's has a PhD and his BMCR review of Shadows in the Desert was rubbished by the rest of the field: https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009.02.02/. I've used his website from time to time because it's one of the few online translations for the Periochae. However, I generally try not to cite him directly. There are better and more reliable sources at hand. As to the P&Gs, taking everything most generously, Livius.org should be used as WP:SPS. Ifly6 (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Livius.org is a useful ressource, but certainly not a reliable source. T8612 (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Castra, again

A notice was previously posted to WT:CGR on castra in February this year. Comment is again requested on it. Specifically as to three matters:

1. Is there a distinction between castra and castrum in Latin where one means a fortress and a camp? My immediate thought was to look at the OLD and it does not seem to make such a distinction – https://archive.org/details/aa.-vv.-oxford-latin-dictionary-1968/page/282/mode/2up
2. Is there such a distinction in English?
3. If the answer to either is yes, which should the article reflect? (Or, if the answer is no, then what should it then say?)

There were recent major changes to the article and discussion has again flared up. Ifly6 (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

In Latin, there is no distinction in meaning (that is they both identify a fortress and a camp), but there is a distinction in usage; in that castrum is used when identifying a proper placename. The closest analogy in English is the difference between lower case and upper case for the same word when used as a proper placename (i.e. colonia vs Colonia).

In English, there is a difference between fortress and camp (one implying permanence with significant infrastructure, the other a temporary location or setup with minimal defensive infrastructure). However, this distinction does not work for Roman castra, which were heavily fortified and could endure for years. Hence why a generally preferred English phrase for castra is "fortified camp".

In the way of things, it is probably accurate to state that all entities called Castrum started off life as a traditional castra before their permanence in one location saw them referred to via a proper placename. In English, that what started off as fortified camps became over time permanent fortresses. Oatley2112 (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you crosspost this on the article talk page? Ifly6 (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Low Roman Empire

The Low Roman Empire article seems to be an effective duplicate of the one we have on the Later Roman Empire (the Low Roman Empire having been translated last year from the French Wikipedia article Bas-Empire romain). I don't think the French historiographical perspective, which is hardly present in the article, is enough of a reason to have a separate article on essentially the same topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see this has already been discussed several months ago: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome/Archive_45#Dominate,_Low_Roman_Empire,_Later_Roman_Empire_and_History_of_the_Later_Roman_Empire, my apologies, but the conversation seems to have stalled. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The conversation at Talk:Later Roman Empire looks a bit newer than that one (Feb vs May). Might be worth pinging those participants - Biz, Srnec, Trekker — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The history of the Wikidata items is that d:Q2886278, now Low Roman Empire was created in 2013 and d:Q120754706, Later Roman Empire, was created in 2023 by StarTrekker. The items were merged in 2025 by Srnec and unmerged by StarTrekker. The Low Roman Empire article was created in 2024 by an editor working for the Open Knowledge Association (OKA). I would suggest blanking and redirecting Low Roman Empire and merging the two Wikidata items. The content of Low Roman Empire would still be available if anyone wanted to use it later. TSventon (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with merging the Wikidata items as Wikidata's notability and functions are different than those of Wikipedia. Since there are different periodisations of the Roman Empire in scholarship I think it makes sense to have different items for them on Wikidata even if articles are merged due to overlap.★Trekker (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with TSventon. I do not believe these are different periodizations, just different names for the same period. Srnec (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the pages should be merged to later Roman empire. Ifly6 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Contradiction between Aurelian and Tetricus I regarding the Battle of Châlons (274)

Sorry for making another thread in short succession to the last one, but this is bugging me. The articles on Aurelian and Tetricus I present contradictory accounts of the Battle of Châlons (274).

Aurelian:

In 274, the victorious emperor turned his attention to the west, and the Gallic Empire which had already been reduced in size by Claudius II. Aurelian won this campaign largely through diplomacy; the "Gallic Emperor" Tetricus was willing to abandon his throne and allow Gaul and Britain to return to the Empire, but could not openly submit to Aurelian. Instead, the two seem to have conspired so that when the armies met at the Battle of Châlons at Durocatalaunum that autumn, Tetricus simply deserted to the Roman camp and Aurelian easily defeated the Gallic army facing him. Tetricus was rewarded for his collusion by Aurelian who made him a senator and corrector (governor) of Lucania et Bruttium.

Tetricus I:

After Aurelian had succeeded in his reconquest of the Palmyrene Empire, he turned his attention to the Gallic Empire, beginning preparations for an invasion in 273. In early 274, Aurelian began to march into northern Gaul, while Tetricus led his troops southward from Augusta Treverorum to meet him. The armies of Aurelian and Tetricus met in February or March 274 at the Battle of Châlons, near modern-day Châlons in north-eastern France. The higher discipline of the Roman forces, coupled with the greater military command of Aurelian, tipped the harsh battle in Roman favor, and after Tetricus was captured in the combat, the morale of the Gallic forces broke. The army of Tetricus was soundly defeated, and Tetricus surrendered either directly after his defeat or later; the latest possible date for his surrender was March 274, when the Gallic mints switched from minting coins of Tetricus I and II to those of Aurelian. Some Roman sources including Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, the Historia Augusta, and Orosius report that Tetricus had already made a deal with Aurelian, offering to surrender in exchange for an honourable defeat and no punishment, quoting the ghost of Palinurus from Virgil's Aeneid 6.365: eripe me his, invicte, malis [it] ('pluck me out, O undefeated one, from these troubles'). However, this is believed by modern historians to be a product of Roman imperial propaganda.

The Aurelian account is sourced to Gibbon and Goldsworthy, while the Tetricus account doubting the surrender is sourced to the De Imperatoribus Romanis, Vagi, David L. (2000). Coinage and History of the Roman Empire, c. 82 B.C.– A.D. 480 and Southern, Pat (2015). The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine. How secure is the idea that reports of Tetricus I's conspiring to surrender to be imperial propaganda in the scholarly literature? Does the Aurelian article need to be changed? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

This is what Patricia Southern says:

Aurelian mobilised against Tetricus perhaps late in 273, though some authors prefer to date the beginning of the campaign to the early part of the year and the final outcomes to the autumn.

The story goes that the opposing armies seemed to be ready to fight each other when they met at Chalons-sur-Marne but neither of the two Emperors were committed to risking a battle. It was said that they had already been in contact, and that despite the wishes of his soldiers Tetricus sent his famous message to Aurelian, quoting Virgil: 'eirpe me his incte malis' (rescue me undefeated from these troubles).

More recent authors have doubted the veracity of this tale, insisting that there was indeed a battle at Chalons-sur-Marne and that Tetricus did not necessarily give up immediately after it. Whatever is the true version, it does not alter the fact that the history of the Gallic Empire came to an end probably in March 274, when the mint at Lyons changed from coining for Tetricus and began to issue coins for Aurelian, declaring him the restorer of the east, and indeed the restorer of the world. The hyperbole was customary, but very apt [...] the time for Imperial modesty had long gone.

This is on page 119. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, the account in Tetricus I did seem better sourced, my only quibble is that I wasn't sure what Goldsworthy had said. He says this in the quoted source (thanks Archive.org):

Occupied first on the frontiers and then dealing with the disorder in the eastern provinces, in 274 Aurelian attacked the ‘Gallic Empire’. Victorinus’ successor Tetricus seems to have had little enthusiasm for the struggle and had serious problems maintaining the loyalty of his own troops. It is even claimed that he betrayed them, sending them out to fight in a hopeless position against Aurelian. Tetricus himself surrendered. Unusually, he was spared by the victor and even appointed to an administrative post in Italy. Similarly, many men who had held office in the army and administration within the ‘Gallic Empire’ continued their careers in imperial service afterwards. None of the Gallic emperors had their names formally damned and wiped from the record.

Goldsworthy seems to consider the claim that Tetricus conspired to surrender questionable. Gibbon is so dated as to be pretty questionable as a source, so I think he can be safely discounted. I guess I should update the Aurelian article then. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that Southern steers clear of declaring what actually happened, and does not characterize the sources listed in the Tetricus article as "imperial propaganda". I don't know what Vagi says, so I don't know whether that's his characterization, and Southern is merely cited for having described the controversy. The two paragraphs could probably be harmonized by following Southern's approach: describe the traditional account as given under Aurelian, then explain the alternative interpretation placed on events by some modern scholars, cite all of the sources mentioned for the portions that come from them, and steer clear of suggesting which version of events is correct or "probably" correct. P Aculeius (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Reading the Goldsworthy paragraph, I don't see anything inconsistent with maintaining some uncertainty as to what exactly transpired. It's quite likely that contemporary Romans argued about what actually occurred—but it sounds to me like Goldsworthy is saying that the account in the Roman sources isn't entirely implausible, and that there is reason to believe there might be some truth to it—even if we're not sure exactly what that truth is. Gibbon may be dated, but he's still widely read, and for good reason, so a parallel citation is not undue. P Aculeius (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I've made a go at improving the section on Aurelian's article, largely based on the version at Tetricus I [1], but without proper access to many of the book sources I'll defer to the judgement of those who have access to the sources. I note the contradiction in the accounts of Southern and Goldsworthy, Southern apparently suggesting that Aurelian surrendered without a fight, and Goldsworthy suggesting that Aurelian conspired to surrender after his troops had fought. I'm not sure how to harmonise these narratives given their brevity and lack of reference to the primary sources they are based on, and I'm not familar with the primary narrative accounts of this period to know where to look (presumably including the always dubious Historia Augusta). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see where you're finding a contradiction. Southern says (paraphrasing): "the traditional story says that Tetricus agreed to surrender before the battle, betraying his own forces, but some modern scholars disagree." Goldsworthy says (again, paraphrasing): "there was a confrontation of some sort; it's claimed that Tetricus betrayed his own forces, and in any case he surrendered and was treated leniently." They're saying roughly the same thing: "we don't know what really happened, but here's what contemporary sources relate, and there may be some basis for that account, though it's not universally accepted."

What's inconsistent is what it says under Tetricus (still paraphrasing): "Tetricus was captured, and the story of his surrendering in exchange for lenient treatment, as reported by multiple sources, is merely propaganda". So unless that comes from Vagi, it looks like it might be a distortion of what the sources actually say; the scholars being quoted are equivocal about whether the traditional account is true, but the Tetricus article makes it sound as though we know the truth. Now if that's what Vagi says, then he would fit into the category of those scholars mentioned by Southern who disagree with the traditional account. But clearly there isn't a strong scholarly consensus for or against it. P Aculeius (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I just found the rather brief accounts in the recent scholarly sources confusing wtihout having read the primary sources to verify about when Tetricus is supposed to have surrendered and whether his troops actually engaged in battle depending on which source is consulted. Obviously over 1700 years on we can't really know for sure. I've made a further attempt at harmonising on the Aurelian article [2], but it's still a bit rough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Vagi writes on this across two chapters. The first comprises Aurelian's coinage entry and the second comprises Tetricus I's. The story is not recounted elsewhere. From Chapter 8 (Aurelian):

• Since its foundation in 260 by Postumus, the fortunes of this Empire had fallen greatly, and it seems that Aurelian was not only able to arrange the surrender of its two Augusti, Tetricus I and Tetricus II, in advance, but was actually invited to invade and "liberate" them.
• Thus, instead of fighting an Empire that was at its peak of power (as had been the case with Palmyra), Aurelian was prepared for an easy conquest. However, a battle was still required — at least to achieve the illusion that there was a struggle for independence. The Roman and Gallo-Roman armies met not far from Paris, at Châlons-sur-Marne, in the spring of 274. Though the battle was harder-fought than Aurelian may have anticipated, he was victorious in the end, and captured the Tetrici for use in his triumph.
• Aurelian could now rightly claim to be the most successful emperor since Trajan more than 150 years before, and he was not modest about taking credit where it was due.

From Chapter 9 (Tetricus I):

• Though Aurelian may have begun his conquest as early as the summer of 273, Tetricus' Gallic army was defeated by Aurelian’s legions in a hard-fought battle at Châlons-sur-Marne in the spring of 274. There, Tetricus and son surrendered to Aurelian. At long last, the Roman Empire was whole.
• The battle at Châlons-sur-Marne may have been a mere formality, since there is ample circumstantial evidence to suggest that Tetricus had secretly agreed to surrender before the armies clashed. Indeed, Tetricus may have invited Aurelian to invade, and to thus to rescue him from the difficulties he faced.
• Although paraded as trophies in Aurelian's triumph, Tetricus and his son were honored and taken into Aurelian’s administration. When the family's senatorial status was restored, the father was appointed governor of Lucania (in southern Italy) and is said to have lived to a greatly advanced age.

— ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not clear to me where the statement in the Tetricus article that this [surrender plot] is believed by modern historians to be a product of Roman imperial propaganda comes from. Southern' statement is merely that this narrative is doubted, which shouldn't be placed (in Tetricus) at all so dogmatically. Ifly6 (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ifly6: I've had a look to find out. The imperial propaganda claim on Tetricus I was added to the article in a 2018 edit by Iazyges. It was, and is, cited to text on Roman-Emperors.org written by historian Michel Polfer; Polfer has an article on the Luxembourgian Wikipedia. There are ~16 other citations to Polfer on the article. Hope this is helpful — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, then, if Polfer is a reliable source, and that's what he actually says (it's not clear from what you write whether it's what he says, or whether he's merely being cited for the statement, the way that Vagi and Southern were here) he can be cited for his opinion. But it seems to be a minority opinion, at least among the sources identified here. It seems to me that Vagi is still more accepting of the traditional account than either Southern or Goldsworthy, at least as a starting point for discussion, and neither of the others discounts it; Southern merely says that some modern historians doubt it, but like Vagi uses it as the starting point for discussion, since it cannot be disproved, while Goldsworthy alludes to it and suggests that there are reasons to believe that something along those lines happened. I'm not saying that the story wasn't imperial propaganda; it's certainly not implausible that it was. But none of the other sources seem convinced. P Aculeius (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

My brain is a bit tired but I'm pretty confident I agree with your analysis. Hemiauchenia asked about the primary sources; Polfer is useful in that he does list them. As to whether he supports the imperial propaganda claim, he does: "it is, however, likely that [the traditional account] of the end of the Gallic Empire only reflects the position of the Aureleanic propaganda and is therefore open to suspicion".

Polfer's statement that there is good evidence to suggest that Tetricus did I remained absolute and did not betray his troops is at odds with Vari's statement that there is ample circumstantial evidence to suggest that Tetricus had secretly agreed to surrender.

I think this is all the relevant material from Polfer:

• According to our literary sources (SHA Tyr. Trig. 24. 3; Eutrop. 9.13.2; Aurel. Vict. 35.4), Tetricus I, wearied by the insubordination of his soldiers and facing the revolt of Faustinus, had previously offered to betray his army if Aurelian would come to his rescue, quoting Vergil in his letter to Aurelian: "eripe me his, invicte, malis" (Vergil, Aen. VI, 365).
• The victorious Aurelian spared the life of both Tetricus I and his son Tetricus II. In spring of 274 AD, both Tetrici were put on display in Rome during Aurelian's triumph, but Aurelian kept his side of the bargain and pardoned them. Tetricus I was even given the office of corrector Lucaniae (Aurel. Vict. 35.5; Eutrop 9.13), and quietly ended his life in Italy, where he died at an advanced age at an unknown date (Eutrop. 9.13).
• It is, however, likely that this account of the end of the Gallic Empire only reflects the position of the Aurelianic propaganda and it is therefore open to suspicion. There is good evidence to suggest that Tetricus I remained resolute and confident in his political and military strength to the last and did not betray his troops.
• After his military defeat at Châlons-sur-Marne and his subsequent humiliation, he would thus have owed his life not to his own previous treachery, but rather to Aurelian's need to establish and stabilise his own administration in the western part of the empire.

I have delivered the sources; I shall leave deciding whether Polfer is reliable and how to bring the articles into unity etc to other participants. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I've revised again [3]. Hopefully this is enough to satisfy all parties in this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)