Talk:Ancient Rome/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2018

In the lead, the initial words "In historiography" should be deleted. Reason: the lead does not reflect the historiography subsection. Whereas the current lead states In historiography, ancient Rome is Roman civilization from the founding of the city of Rome in the 8th century BC to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD, the historiography section makes no mention of the 8th century BC, and no mention of the 5th century AD. (In the longer term, the ideal solution would be to rewrite the historiography subsection to include the two dates.) 81.131.172.147 (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Not done: As explained above, the "contradiction" is actually supported by the body text. Please see MOS:LEAD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Not so fast, Eggishorn. You implicitly acknowledge that the 8th/5th century information is not contained in the Historiography section as the lead states, but is located somewhere else in the article. Please provide a suggestion how to fix this problem. 81.131.171.52 (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all, you shouldn't keep resetting the answered indicator just because you don't like the answer. Please see WP:ER for more as well as WP:EW. I have seen editors blocked for doing it and I don't want anyone to trip over that unawares. I am watching this page, as are over 1200 other editors. Your responses here are already being seen.

Secondly, the "fix" is that trying to define the period of Ancient Rome is an inherently complicated subject. That's why we have MOS:LEAD and (even more to the point) why we have body text. The historiography of Ancient Rome is an enormous subject that entire books have been written about. It is not going to be properly treated in one sentence of a lead section. Removing these two words, as you request here, doesn't fix the problem, it makes it worse. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding quickly Eggishorn. But you are talking at cross-purposes. This is not about the "inherently complicated problem to define the period of Ancient Rome". The edit request is about making the lead agree with the Historiography section. The lead should not promise certain information specifically in the Historiography section, and then the Historiography section fails to deliver. Do you understand the problem now? 81.131.171.52 (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I believe that I do understand the problem. The problem is that you are determined to enforce your own understanding of the phrase "in historiography". As I said when you split part of this discussion to my talk, whether the history of Rome starts in 800 BCE or not is not relevant to historiography. Removing "in historiography" from the lead does not address your complaint and does not "fix" this "discrepancy". It does nothing to help the reader and it has no positive effect on the article. "Historiography" means "The study of historical writing." It does not mean "this section on this page." The body text of this page addresses that the start and end dates that could be considered part of "ancient Rome". The start date is mythological and the end date is complicated by what one considers "Rome". These are clearly indicated throughout the text and there is no conflict or discrepancy between this complicated historiography and using the term "in historiography" in the lead. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Thanks for your patience. We are now starting to find common ground. So your contention is It [The first lead sentence] does not mean "this section on this page". But your contention would be true only if (a) the whole article were about historiography or (b) if the term "historiography" occurred in several places in the article. Neither (a) nor (b) are true. The term "historiography" is tightly restricted to a tiny subsection of the article and occurs nowhere else. Therefore the quick fix is to delete "historiography" from the lead. Or the more ambitious fix is to expand the historiography section to include the 8th/5th century dates and thus remove the discrepancy in the lead. 81.131.171.52 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

No, we are not reaching common ground, we are reaching total pedantry. Maybe some other editor will respond her further, but I will not. This is not worth this level of debate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your exit would be a pity - I would hate going through this pedantry with someone else from square one - it is no more fun for me than for you. Sleep on it and give it a fresh start tomorrow. A third solution could be to introduce the concept of Roman historiography immediately in the first section of the article body. Thereby implying that the whole article is about Roman historiography. But that would require a very strong reference for such a blanket statement. 81.131.171.52 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Not done for now: I have no expertise in this area and take no position on the request being discussed. However, this cannot be completed as an edit request until a consensus is reached. See WP:ER#General considerations regarding uncontroversial requests. Please do not reactivate the edit request template without a clear consensus of editors. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 04:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove Protection

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. DannyS712 (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Homework

thanks to whoever made this article. it helped alot with homework! :) 180.173.24.120 (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Romans listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Romans. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Necessary link and clarification

Please add the text at the start:

"Not to be confused with the Holy Roman Empire" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.82.23.167 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

"Ustrinum" page detached from here and left unsourced

@Savipolo, Krakkos, ExperiencedArticleFixer, Johnbod, and Ichthyovenator: hi. The "References" for Ustrinum are apparently truncated orphans, copied & pasted from a different page, with abbreviations nobody can understand w/o having a Sherlock Holmes-type talent. So that article is practically unsourced as of now. It seems that the 2008 creator of the "ustrinum" article is Neddyseagoon, who abruptly stopped editing in May 2017. He wrote at 16:19, 25 January 2008: "Created page with 'In ancient Rome". It might mean that he copied & pasted from here, and that in 2008 the abbreviations corresponded to notes & bibliography entries on the "ancient Rome" page. Anyone interested in looking it up and fixing them? Arminden (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It does not seem this article had anything about Utrinum at around that time, so the source must have been sth else.--Nø (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Done, sorted. It was all based on Platner's LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS at Lacus Curtius. It's almost all material from 1900-1910, and I would be surprised if all pre-WWI interpretations are still accepted after > 1 century. Anyone who's interested? Arminden (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

City planning of Rome?

Is there a section needed for city planning of Rome? I read they had a limit on how many houses anyone could own within the city, but need to verify.Septagram (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Herstory1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

genetic paper

The frequencies in the paragraph are not present in the paper article. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982221005352#tbl1 84.220.64.252 (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2022

I'm willing to edit the following paragraph:

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Baggaet (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not able to edit myself despite the current protection level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolo Calucci (talk • contribs) 17:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Genetics

... Between 2,900 BC and 900 BC, the EEF/WHG descended population of Rome was overwhelmed by peoples with steppe ancestry largely tracing their origin to the Pontic–Caspian steppe. The Iron Age Latin founding population of Rome which subsequently emerged overwhelmingly carried the paternal haplogroup R-M269, and were of about 30% steppe ancestry.

To make the following changes:

Genetics

... Between 2,900 BC and 900 BC, the EEF/WHG descended population of Rome was overwhelmed by peoples with steppe ancestry largely tracing their origin to the Pontic–Caspian steppe. The Iron Age Latin founding population of Rome which subsequently emerged carried the paternal haplogroup R-M269 at a minor but significant rate, and were of about 15-20% steppe ancestry.

According to the following sources already linked in the original version:

under the section "Supplementary material - Tables S1-S4" ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7093155/bin/NIHMS1551077-supplement-Tables_S1-S4.xlsx )

And below "ADMIXTURE" in Fig. 2 ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7093155/bin/nihms-1551077-f0002.jpg ) Paolo Calucci (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Edit request for typo fix: bridgess -> bridges

The Technology section contains the sentence "Roman civil engineering and military engineering constituted a large part of Rome's technological superiority and legacy, and contributed to the construction of hundreds of roads, bridgess, aqueducts, public baths, theatres and arenas."

Here "bridgess" is a typo and should be changed to "bridges". As my account is brand new I cannot make the edit myself. Bartvpelt (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thanks for catching it. Haploidavey (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2022

In the founding of Rome paragraph, the word religious is spelled relgious. Should be corrected. 142.126.152.35 (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

212 AD end of Ancient Rome

I’m noticing a conflict across several Wikipedia pages and discussions on how to segment the end of classical Rome and how that transitions into the Byzantine Empire.

Mary Beads book “SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome”, which came out in late 2015, says that Ancient Rome fell in 212 AD when Caracalla opened up citizenship to the entire empire. It’s a powerful argument as ancient Rome was always about its citizens and this symbolically was the real change of Rome “falling”. Where the facade Augustus setup with the Principate had now unravelled. It times with the change from the crisis of the third century where we see a new empire evolve. It’s also more practical than the traditional 476 AD date. Given Justinian reconquered Rome 78 years later and held onto it until the 8th century, I think Beards thesis should hold more weight.

Do other editors support making this change? Biz (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Certainly not! The end of AR=the start of Late Antiquity, and the earliest date our article supports for that is the end of the Crisis of the Third Century & Diocletian's reforms of 284. This is in line with most scholarship. Beard's view can be mentioned, not in the lead I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

That’s reasonable. Apologies for the triggering question.

I’ve lately become more curious how the WP:NPOV policy is implemented in practice. I understand these are just opinions and there are university professionals who dedicate their lives to fighting these positions. Late antiquity is certainly more dominant in British and German universities so appreciate why you say that. I was wondering how do opinions like this get decided to be presented on Wikipedia when there is little in the article or talk to show the competing viewpoints. I did a scan on JSTOR and have not found much that evaluates all the competing perspectives. Biz (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

My reading of somewhat outdated material (e.g. Cary's History of Rome: Down to the Age of Constantine and summaries of the The Cambridge Ancient History) doesn't tell me much about the extension of citizenship, and their verdicts range from it being merely a measure to streamline bureaucratic procedures and raise revenue, by extending citizenship to the few who weren't already citizens or had some dispensation from paying taxes, to its being an epoch-signalling, if not an epoch-making, achievement. The edict itself is shrouded in mystery and controversy. At the very least, 212 has competition as an epochal date of that time, from such as the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180, the Year of the Five Emperors of 193, or the death of Severus Alexander in 235. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Yes it was a revenue raising tactic, nothing special at the time, which only now we see the significance for what it did,

What I'm trying to get at is why is the collapse of the Roman Kingdom, the collapse of the Roman Republic, the collapse of the Principate (with the events you mention that merit as that moment) and the collapse of the Western Roman administration ("Empire") considered the same Ancient Rome?

By the time of Augustus, power had transferred. By the time of Diocletion, who visited once in his reign, power was not being exercised in the city any more. That said, by the time of Odacer's capture, the Senate was still functioning. Theodoric would base himself in Ravanna and worked with them (and the Pope) and upheld a sense of maintaining the Roman state. And Roman (imperial) administration returned with Justinian a generation later.

This article leads with "In modern historiography..." and yet there is no discussion about this decision. Historians of Late Antiquity for example have turned away from the idea that the Rome fell at all – refocusing instead on Pirenne's thesis. Biz (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Add unified article for the state of Rome from 753 BC to 1453 AD?

While this article on Ancient Rome is clearly necessary, there might be a need for another article for the "state of Rome" (for lack of a better term) that existed continuously from 753 BC to 1453 AD. This article makes it seem as if there was one state from 753 BC to 476 AD, while the Roman Empire article has the partially overlapping dates of 27 BC to 1453 AD.

There is a legal-political entity that existed continuously from 753 BC to 1453 AD, whatever we want to call it (Roma, Res Publica Romana, Imperium Romanum, Basilea ton Romaion, Byzantine Empire, SPQR, etc.), and it should have a unified article (however brief) to highlight that unity. Think of it as an article showing the combined state that these two GIFs show

What do people think? Diegojosesalva (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't see the need. Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Any reason why you disagree? I gave at least a few arguments in favor, and it would be great to understand your reasoning. I don't think a unified article is unreasonable at first glance, given that there was indeed one continuous state, in whatever form, that existed from 753 BC to 1453 AD. 76.14.126.11 (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

If you could provide a list of sources that support this view that would be a good start. biz (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not really a view as much as applying logic when analyzing how Wikipedia pages around Rome are structured: there is one page (this one) from 753 BC to 476 AD, and another one (Roman Empire) from 27 BC to 1453 AD. Those two periods overlap. Therefore, logically, there is something (the "Roman state" or whatever we want to call it) that existed from 753 BC to 1453 AD.

If you want sources with the view that the Byzantine Empire is, in some legal sense, the same state as the Roman Kingdom, here are a few. Even Gibbon, who was not favorable to Byzantium at all, reluctantly recognized that it was the same state, however altered.

- Steve Runciman, "Gibbon and Byzantium": https://www.jstor.org/stable/20024419 - "He knew that the empire which is usually called Byzantine was the lawful continuation of the Roman Empire."

- Christos Malatras, "The perception of Roman heritage in 12th century Byzantium" http://www.rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue7supp/roman-heritage-in-byzantium.pdf

- Review of Anthony Kaldellis, "The Byzantine Republic", by Warren Treadgold: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/605042 "That Byzantium was continuous with Rome is of course a fact"

- And of course, the Wikipedia article for Eastern Rome itself: "The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire primarily in its eastern provinces."

We can certainly debate what we should call this entity or how different Byzantium was from the rest of Roman history. But there is clearly something that had existed continuously from 753 BC that died in 1453 AD. Going by the way Wikipedia itself organizes its articles, there were four stages to that entity: a Kingdom, a Republic, a united Empire, and a divided and later solely eastern Empire. This article groups together three of those stages as "Ancient," which is fine. I'm not saying we should add Byzantium to this article. Just suggesting that there be some article highlighting the continuity between all four of those stages. Diegojosesalva (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

One last source: the article for Roman people includes a map with the same continuity I'm referring to: "Border changes of the Roman state from 6th century BC to 15th century AD". (Link to the map) Diegojosesalva (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea. But the issue with your argument is the same state by what definition? Given how much debate there is about the Roman Empire itself (ie, the very term Byzantine), I'm confident in thinking no professional historian holds this view which unfortunately is what is required to justify an article. Also, your logic would be considered original research, a violation of a core tenant on Wikipedia Wikipedia:No original research.

Anthony Kaldellis is an active author and an accessible historian, you could reach out to him to see what he thinks. Biz (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Biz: "Labels are important, but so are the narratives that sustain them. It is from stories that identities derive their essence, and the narrative of Byzantium is a Roman one as well as a Christian one. That may put it on a bigger map. In finding itself again, Romanía can change our understanding of Roman history broadly. § We should think Big, in bigger terms even than the 1,123 years that elapsed between the foundation and conquest of Constantinople. Let’s try to think even bigger, remembering that “Byzantium” was invented through an attempt to pare history down to a manageable size, by postulating that one phase of the Roman empire was “essentially” different from the others, thereby cutting Roman history into smaller bits. Other than scholarly convenience, there is no good reason to do this. There was only ever one Roman res publica. It began as a city on the Tiber in Italy, expanded to encompass a huge empire, and, in the process, it became an idea: the city had become a world, to which the name Romanía was given by the fourth century AD. [...] There were no major turning points in the history of Rome / New Rome that require us to invent new labels or essences. It was all one history. Is our historical vision broad enough for this conception?" Anthony Kaldellis, Byzantium Unbound, pp. 43-44, 45. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think anything useful would be achieved by this. It would overlap with existing articles. It inherently pushes a PoV. A "continuation" is not the same as "it was the exact same thing". The fact that there is no common name for the concept that you want this proposed page to cover is a sign that it is not a natural topic (all of the proposed names favour one period or another, none are common names, and some of them - Byzantine empire, SPQR - are already in use). Furius (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"Ancient Rome" is not - I believe - identical to any particular polity. Or perhaps polity is exactly what it is, but not a particular state. According to the lead, it is a civilization (but then the lead goes on to identify it with three entities that are in fact state(s)).

I think two good question to ask concerning the proposed new article is,

1. What should it contain? Would it mere duplicate contents elsewhere, or be extremely brief with "main article" links to existing articles?
2. What purpose should it serve, that isn't already served by e.g. Rome (disambiguation)?

Nø (talk) 10:41, 21 March 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)