Talk:Roman imperial cult

Requested move 1 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Roman imperial cult per nom. I don't find the opposing arguments very persuasive: disambiguation is needed here, and we prefer WP:NATURAL and WP:CONCISE one, and the proposal fits the bill. No such user (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Imperial cult of ancient Rome → Roman imperial cult – Sources use both "Roman imperial cult" and "imperial cult of ancient Rome" or variations of that. However, the first appears to be more common judging from my Google Scholar search (for "imperial cult") and also is more WP:CONCISE. (t · c) buidhe 20:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: here are some examples of "Roman imperial cult" in reliable sources:[1][2][3][4][5][6] "imperial cult" is not consistently capitalized regardless of which formulation is used. When it is capitalized in running text, it's usually "Imperial Cult". (t · c) buidhe 20:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The name of this subject is "imperial cult." The "of ancient Rome" is a natural disambiguator. IMO, this disambiguation is not necessary since this usage is clearly primary. This ngram shows that the phrase "imperial cult" is vastly more common than any of the alternatives. This gbook search shows that this subject is overwhelmingly primary. 99to99 (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • IMO the term imperial cult should not be moved because it is indeed the generic term. Most sources on the Roman imperial cult do include clarification in the title that makes it clear that it doesn't refer to some other imperial cult. (t · c) buidhe 03:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support consice—blindlynx (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per 99to99 - searchers are likely to begin with "Imperial...." Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONCISE, WP:NDAB and WP:COMMONNAME. As a search term "Roman imperial cult" is overwhelmingly more common. "Cult of [thing]" also somewhat implies that [thing] is the object of worship, even if the context here makes it obvious that 'ancient Rome' does not have that function. What word a search term begins with has no bearing on this discussion. "Roman imperial cult" is brief, natural and unambiguous. Avilich (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support - "Imperial cult of ancient Rome" is a descriptive name that should not be used if there is a more common name. "Roman imperial cult" fits the bill. Web search (and even Wikipedia's internal search) is has gotten more sophisticated, so there are no real concerns of people getting lost because they can't find this article. Additionally, Wikipedia's search looks at redirect to help guide people to the right place; for example, typing "Words coined" into the Wiki search box results in Shakespeare's influence popping right up, as it knows that you are likely searching for "Words coined by William Shakespeare". A similar thing would surely happen here.  Mysterymanblue  21:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I'd prefer Imperial cult (ancient Rome). Roman imperial cult causes it to disappear into a sea of other Roman... pages. Furius (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong with a sea of 'Roman xxx'. But, if a qualifier is to be used, then it should be imperial cult (Roman). Avilich (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverted see also section link

User:Editor2020 reverted my addition of a link to Symbolism of domes in the See also section with a "Related?" edit summary. To show how it is related, here is an excerpt from the Symbolism of domes article:

According to Michael Walter, a tradition of the "golden dome" identifying the ruler with the cosmos, sun, and astrological values originated in Persia and spread to later Roman and Turkic courts.[10] Persian kings used domed tents in their official audiences to symbolize their divinity, and this practice was adopted by Alexander the Great.[6] According to Smith, the distinct symbolism of the heavenly or cosmic tent stemming from the royal audience tents of Achaemenid and Indian rulers was adopted by Roman rulers in imitation of Alexander, becoming the imperial baldachin. This probably began with Nero, whose Domus Aurea, meaning "Golden House", also made the dome a feature of Roman palace architecture.[11] One way the Romans depicted the celestial tent in architecture was as a corrugated or gored dome.[12]

Michele Melaragno writes that the allegory of Alexander the Great's domical tent in Roman imperial architecture coincided with the "divinification" of Roman emperors and served as a symbol of this.[13] According to Nicholas Temple, Nero's octagonal domed room in his Domus Aurea was an early example of an imperial reception hall, the symbolism of which "signaled an elevation of the status of the emperor as living deity, which in the case of Nero related specifically to his incarnation as Helios and the Persian Mithra."[14] The semi-domed apse became a symbol of Roman imperial authority under Domitian and depictions into the Byzantine period used overhead domes or semidomes to identify emperors.[15] Karl Swoboda writes that even by the time of Diocletian, the dome probably symbolized sovereignty over the whole world.[16] Roman imperial reception halls or throne rooms were often domed with circular or octagonal plans and, according to Nicholas Temple, "functioned as a ceremonial space between the emperor, his court and the gods", becoming a common feature of imperial palaces from the time of Constantine onwards.[14]

AmateurEditor (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Editor2020 (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

worthiness

In the introduction the divinity is ascribed to worthiness, but although we know that some early emperors were deified, the first mention in the article of a judgment of worthiness is to Decius. What source shows who determined this worthiness. Don't cite to Gibbon; he has no attribution for such a judgment, that's why I'm adding this comment. Read this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3141986.pdf 100.15.127.199 (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobody likes to talk about it but I will

This site minimizes the persecution of Christians, which still occur today by the way. Nobody says 'Oh my Allah' they say either 'Jesus Christ' or 'Oh my God' as swear words.

Furthermore, if Nero was willing to use Christians as living torches, what other persecutions did the Christians endure (this is common sense)? Rape? Strangulation? Drowning? Dismemberment?

I propose the Christians endured all that and more during the time of the Imperial cult, and your minimization of the persecution of Christians is paramount to denying what the Jews went through during the Holocaust. It's absurd and dishonest to not recognize that these groups of people's during these time periods were subject to the worst of tortures. You do not need archaeological proof either, you can formulate the facts based upon the circumstantial evidence.

Thank you. 174.240.65.77 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments on article talk pages should be related to the article and how it should be changed (see WP:NOTAFORUM). Moreover, your claims that there is insufficient discussion of the persecution of Christians on this site seems groundless. See Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, Persecution of Christians in the New Testament, Decian persecution, Diocletianic Persecution, Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Protestantism, Captivity of Mangalorean Catholics at Seringapatam, Christianity_in_Madagascar#Repression, Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution, Christianity_in_the_Ottoman_Empire#Persecution, Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany, Persecutions of the Catholic Church and Pius XII, Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union, Persecution of Christians in the Eastern Bloc, Pope_Pius_XII_and_China#Persecution, Persecution of Christians in North Korea, and all the articles in Category:Persecution of Christians. If you consider the suffering of these people are the same as the suffering that you experience when a non-Christian says "oh my god", then you should rethink. Furius (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Eh, revisit WP:AGF. OP is obviously wrong that Wikipedia articles should be formulated based on fever dreams and circumstantial evidence rather than archaeological and historical proof. Even so, the comment can be taken as criticism that the importance of the imperial cult on Christian persecution is minimized by the article. It's certainly true that that persecution is one the primary impacts of the Roman imperial cult on the modern world, still affecting millions of Christians as they worship saints martyred because of the obligations to provide the cult with formal vows (vota). The article should highlight that in the lead paragraphs and have a section discussing the persecution with links to the relevant articles you brought up.

Of course, the article does already have that section as of 2024, so we're back to waiting for specific issues that need further improvement. Failure to clearly discuss and link the persecutions in the lead certainly qualifies (given its importance), so I'll post that below. — LlywelynII 13:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"Nobody says 'Oh my Allah' they say either 'Jesus Christ' or 'Oh my God' as swear words." How is a reference to Christianity's false prophet and its deity have anything to do with persecution? Dimadick (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Remember to be WP:CIVIL. Whether you're repeating Christian treatment of Muhammad as a false prophet or Jewish claims that Christ was one, either is off topic and not remotely appropriate. — LlywelynII 13:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Five obvious omissions

The current article is fairly thick and length text wall but there are at least five major issues:

• 1st) As the overenthused editor above mentioned, the primary impact of this cult on the modern world is the Christian persecution it occasioned and the resulting martyrs. There should be links to Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire in the lead and in the subsection on Christianity. There should be some mention of those persecutions in the lead, phrased in a more direct manner than the current "treasonous", "revivalist", and "debate".
• 2nd) There should be links to vota in the article itself, clearly expressed and dealt with at paragraph length if not in a whole new section.
• 3rd) There should be links to dies imperii in the article and discussion of the development of the timing of the other annual vota in 44 BC, 30 BC, and AD 38.
• 4th) There should be links to decennalia (or quinquennalia) in the article. These last 3 were the occasion of the principal observances of the cult and it's bizarre that they don't seem to be mentioned or linked yet.
• 5th) The primary confusion concerning the cult—particularly among Christian writers, generalist historians, and in lazier modern scholarship—was that the reigning emperor was generally worshipped as a living god. Sources like this one should be provided to point out that that seems never to have been the case, with worship being provided indirectly through vota and sacrifices to actual gods on the emperor's behalf and through worship of the imperial genius. The mistaken belief and its refutation should be clearly expressed in the lead and dealt with at greater length below.

Apologies if some of this is in the tl;dr area of the article but the point stands that the links need to go in and the lead needs to be rephrased a bit to address them with the clarity and importance they require. — LlywelynII 13:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The Latin name of the cult was also missing but that's easy enough to pop in. I took it from the Latin Wiki but if there was a better attested name in the inscriptions or modern scholarship, add that instead obviously. — LlywelynII 13:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Most of this is very well said. Two provisos: I'm very sceptical of the Latin term taken from la.wiki. "Imperatorius" is a rare word; I'm not convinced that the Imperial cult had a name in Latin; we shouldn't be including terms like this unless we're certain they're real. The claim that the reigning emperor was never worshipped as a living god probably holds for the western empire (although it often seems a very fine distinction), but it's false for the east, where sacrifices, altars and temples are regularly targetting at the reigning emperor, who is often called theos or Zeus etc. Furius (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The article is indeed thick and long. It seems that every emperor up to Diocletian is included and everything any of them did that related to religion in any way, but there's hardly anything relevant in the part on Caracalla, for example. However, re (1), our Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire doesn't really support the proposition that the persecution was caused by Christian resistance to the imperial cult. I remember being taught it, but that's another matter. NebY (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire#Ideological_conflict seems to show that at least some scholars think the imperial cult and the persecution of Christians were linked. Furius (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Some, sure. Is that enough for it to be WP:DUE to recast the article to say the cult caused the persecution, and do they or other scholars say that was the primary impact of the cult on the modern world? NebY (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)