Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

Project overviewTasksCurationGuidesAwardsOur classicistsTalk page
Shortcut

Good article reassessment for Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant

Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Principate

There was a previous discussion here about terms used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome/Archive_45#Dominate,_Low_Roman_Empire,_Later_Roman_Empire_and_History_of_the_Later_Roman_Empire

Due to the rewrite of Dominate that followed the consensus here, Talk has twice brought up why Principate is not rewritten. My view is that Principate is still used in the literature (unlike Dominate) as a way to distinguish the pagan empire, even though this is not correct. ("Classical antiquity" would be a more neutral way to distinguish the period of the early empire.) This matters because scholarship rejects its usage: Theodor Mommsen created principate on a constitutional basis which is now discredited, most famously by Ronald Syme who called it another variant of monarchy. It's clear the world over that modern scholarship rejects Mommsen's approach now: https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110717495-009/html

My question is should this article become an article about historiography or should it be an article about the early empire with summary style? This is on the basis the term principate is the common name for the early period, which over-rules the above. I reverted an LLM-written edit in September which expanded the article with summary style, and we are currently debating this in Talk with these two opposing views, so other perspective would be appreciated. Biz (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel competent to assess the validity of concerns regarding the imperial period into "principate" and "dominate", a division that I had not encountered before coming here, but which seems well established in scholarly literature, even if scholars debate whether these terms should be used or what states they describe. I will note that you cannot possibly rename a portion of the imperial period "classical antiquity", since that term encompasses all of Greek and Roman history, from at least the early first millennium BC to the fall of the western empire, and sometimes extends to surrounding areas that were involved in Greek and Roman matters (such as Carthage and the Levant). Perhaps that was not what you meant, but that is what '"Classical antiquity" would be a more neutral way to distinguish the period of the early empire.' implies, so I thought I would be clear about that. P Aculeius (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. This is not my main point, but it is worth extending.
The “Roman Empire during Classical Antiquity” would be the more specific application. Everyone understands what that refers to. It is a long formulation, but it is worth remembering that “Empire” is itself historiographic, as is “Classical Antiquity”. This reflects the modern scholarly understanding of the res publica between Augustus and the third century, rather than a constitutional phase (the original intent behind principate that is now discredited).
My point in raising this is that periodisation usage inevitably carry interpretive assumptions and therefore affect neutrality when they are treated as descriptive rather than analytical. Common names should of course be respected, but if we aim for a neutral baseline, we should be clear about when we are using inherited analytical frameworks rather than historically operative categories. In that sense, classical and post-classical function today as broad meta-categories in world history, capable of distinguishing Roman and Greek history when combined with appropriate qualifiers and which allow us to detach from non-neutral periodisation labels. Let me ask this another way: how should we balance the use of common names with neutrality when the analytical framework behind those names has been substantially revised or rejected in the scholarship? Biz (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you clarify My question is should this article become an article about historiography or should it be an article about the early empire with summary style? This is on the basis the term principate is the common name for the early period, which over-rules the above? Are you proposing that the article Principate is changed into an article about historiography, and arguing that using principate as a name for the early period "over-rules" - i.e. is contrary to - your assertions that this is not correct and scholarship rejects its usage? If so, you seem to be arguing against some of the usage in the article you cite, Wang Zhongxiao's Theodor Mommsen and His Legacy in the Study of the Early Roman Empire: A Critical Review[1], e.g. "I will not confine my discussion only to this [Julio-Claudian] period but will try to cover the entire Roman principate". NebY (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NebY, you have done a good job identifying the internal contradictions. That is exactly where the issue sits. To make this concrete, it helps to look at how we've already handled this distinction.
Earlier versions of both Principate and Dominate took a largely narrative approach to the period:
By contrast, the more recent version of Dominate takes an analytical and terminological approach to the concept itself. It is not perfect and needs expansion with specialist scholarship, but the methodological difference is clear
The current version of Principate does three things poorly by comparison
  • It invents the etymology without grounding the term in 19th-century historiography.
  • It relies on uneven scholarship without distinguishing between foundational, revised, and superseded models.
  • It narrates the early empire rather than analysing principate as a modern analytical label.
This is where Wang Zhongxiao is directly relevant. Wang is explicit that principate originates in Mommsen’s legal and institutional framework, and that 20th century scholarship did not simply refine this model but largely displaced it. After Syme, Millar, Veyne, Price, Zanker, and Ando, constitutional definitions are no longer the organising core of the field.
Crucially, Wang continues to use the term Roman principate only as a conventional umbrella label for the early imperial centuries, not as a claim that Mommsen’s constitutional framework remains valid. That distinction is not just missing from the current article, but should inform our decisions of how we apply the common name.
To be clear, I am not proposing a rename. Principate is the common name and that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether the article should silently reproduce a 19th-century analytical framework and be the narrative of the history, or whether it should, like the current Dominate article, make the historiographical status of the term explicit and use the history only in the context of analysing the periodisation decision. Biz (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than trying to summarise what you think is in dispute, please do come right out and say what you're proposing. Is it that our article Principate should "make the historiographical status of the term explicit and use the history only in the context of analysing the periodisation decision"? NebY (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is my preference, yes. This is in contrast to the Talk discussion: This is a widely used and utterly standard periodisation and description of form of government of the Roman Empire. WP:COMMONNAME applies and the article needs to be about that period.
Articles like Principate which are period names of historiography should (1) document their historiography, (2) discuss the history in the context of that historiography (3) Where possible, separated from topics when periodisation is the common name. This means in an ideal world it should not be used, even with summary style, as a narrative history of the period such as this September expansion. Biz (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly opposed to this. The term is potentially problematic and it would be good for principate to discuss that (probably in summary style), but it is a term in common use and the article should not cease to be an article about the period (as Dominate has). The article should continue to include a narrative and a discussion of themes of the period.
All periodisations are problematic and the end result of your approach is that we would have no narrative on WP at all. Furius (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the analysis, not the narrative. Discussing the themes of the period in general is not the same as discussing the themes as historians use them to distinguish the Principate from the Dominate.
There are already many articles that provide narrative history, including Roman Empire, History of the Roman Empire, and dynasty-level articles under neutral titles. This article has a distinct role: explaining why historians group these reigns together and why the label “Principate” is used.
Being the common name of the period does not require the article to function as a comprehensive survey of the period. Analytical frameworks are interpretive, and presenting them without explaining their origins or criteria, such as Mommsen’s original model, is not a neutral way to frame the material. Biz (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's a cart that needs to be put behind the horse first -- it's well to establish that a scholar (Wang), no doubt for good reason, has argued that the term "Principate" has its limitations -- but just about every term does, particularly when we're talking about periodisation. Scholars still, generally, use the term "Principate" to talk about a period of history (roughly, the time from Augustus to Domitian) and an associated model of imperial power. Until/unless that changes, the article by that name should be about the period, per MOS:REFERS and WP:COMMONNAME. With that said, Furius's suggestion of adding a section about nomenclature to that article is a very good idea and would go a long way to helping readers understand the issues Biz raises. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:11, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Title is principate, lead says it generally refers to the period between Augustus and the crisis of the third century. So far, no problem. Adding a nomenclature section, sure, but this is not the same as historiography to me.
Are you suggesting the rest of the article includes a narrative or analysis of the period? This is where I think it gets problematic. Referring to a period is one thing, explaining why it's a period is a whole different beast. This requires us to create analysis, and so what framework do we use? I'm proposing the default one: the one Mommsen invented, and how he contrasted it to the Dominate. As for making this a general narrative of the period, with summary style, yes we can do that but since we need to do the analysis, would it not be better to discuss the narrative in the context of the framework. Is that not reasonable? Biz (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be doing analysis. That's WP:OR. The idea that the article should be solely about historiography seems wrong to me. It should also be about history. Furius (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Well, that's directly against your own assertion that "Wang continues to use the term Roman principate only as a conventional umbrella label for the early imperial centuries" - in other words, that it's a WP:COMMONNAME. Using it is not a "claim that Mommsen’s constitutional framework remains valid". Wang, to stay with your example, uses principate repeatedly (e.g. "the autocratic nature of Augustus’ principate", "Following Syme, historians increasingly came to realize that the principate was, in essence, a variant form of monarchy", "Altogether, it helps us in grasping the nature of the Roman principate more sophisticatedly") but is obviously not reaffirming Mommsen's analysis. Our dictionaries are full of words that have wandered far from their original coinage; we're not going to turn Wikipedia into a mere critique of those origins and otherwise wreck e.g. Mars or Capitalism. NebY (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If this were just a dictionary term, then yes, you're right. Common name relates to the title and the lead. No arguments there.
It's the bit after the lead I'm talking about. It should not be a narrative history of the period (that exists elsewhere), it should not be an analysis of the period (that's original research), and it should be an analysis of the period in the context of the Dominate period (that's historiography). Biz (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent you might see it a narrative history of the entire period, it clearly isn't. It's very abbreviated, and seems focused on the form of government as it evolved during this span. Could it do this better? No doubt, but that can be achieved through ordinary editing. What's there seems to fit the topic. I don't see any sign of original research—though there could be some that can be cleaned up again, through ordinary editing. However, text doesn't become original research merely because it gives an analysis, as long as that analysis is done by the cited sources, and the article merely reports what those sources have to say. I'm not sure that the topic itself should consist primarily of historiography; it should be about the concept as applied to history, rather than the history of the concept. There might be a place to discuss the latter topic in a section of the article, but it shouldn't be the main subject of the article. That is where arguments about the validity of the concept would go, however. P Aculeius (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius This is the narrative addition that was made in September that I reverted due to LLM evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principate&oldid=1311972008. Would you want something like this restored? That's one decision.
Original research to me in more hypothetical: what makes this a period and what it is compared to. If we ground it with the person who proposed it, the original Mommsen model, that's safe and we should call that out. As long as we also recognise the reason scholars reject it is they no longer agree there was a change in the constitution with the Dominate (ie, the lead of the current article is wrong -- an improvement which acknowledges the common name is The principate is the Roman Empire during classical antiquity.). Do you agree? Biz (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about previous edits; I only addressed the article as it currently stands, which is what you want to rename. But the proposed name is simply wrong: nobody uses the term that way. Calling it that, and then trying to justify doing so in the article, is what would venture into original research. So no, I don't agree that it would be any kind of improvement. P Aculeius (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks for your work on Dominate. I remember being part of the initial discussion which urged its being changed to a historiographical article rather than being "played straight" from the 19th century. I also remember saying that principate was and is still used as a label for a period.
As to my sententia for the relatio, I also think principate should probably be rewritten to reflect the historiography of the concept, with a note at the top saying that it is used also as a moniker for the early empire. We already have narrative articles on the history of the Roman Empire (probably too many to properly maintain). Another duplicate is not necessary. Ifly6 (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If that were done, we would need to change the title to "Principate (term)" (or something similar), and retain at least a redirect (e.g. to Roman Empire) for the period for which Principate is the WP:COMMONNAME (this is all per MOS:REFERS). UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is principate the common name for the system of government during this time, or for the period of time the res publica existed during the time? There’s a difference.
The former is what the lead says, and what Mommsen’s original formation was that has been discredited for decades now. The latter is the common usage I see. Being specific about these two differences may help answer this question. Biz (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a primarily a period. Ifly6 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's used equally for both, depending on the subject matter of the publication ("Roman poetry flourished under the Principate" vs "the Principate preserved the institutions of the Republic, such as the Senate"), but I'd agree that readers searching "Principate" probably want to know what the Roman empire was like between about 27 BCE and about 81 CE. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Classical Dictionary says it's the regime started by Augustus and the period of Roman history between Augustus and the late 3rd century. So both.
Doing a quick scan, I also came across The Roman Imperial Court in the Principate and Late Antiquity (2023, Oxford University Press) which says "The Principate (the early Roman Empire) and Late Antiquity (the late Roman Empire)". The tie-in to late antiquity is the main reason why we still see usage of this term in scholarship, as this is supported by Christian studies (ie, pagan versus Christian empire, with late antiquity ending with the Islamic conquests). So a period.
UC, your reference to Domitian and 81 CE I've never come across so curious to see support for that, but given the liberal usage of the word in the survey I did, not surprised,.
So all in all, it appears we have now have ~4 interpretations of the same word. Thanks Herr Mommsen. Biz (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest that Domitian was a mistake for Diocletian, whose reign is typically used as the starting point of the Dominate; surely the emperors from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius embodied the same general philosophy of government as the Julio-Claudian and Flavian dynasties. I'm less certain about the Severans and their successors, though perhaps they also tried to maintain the semblance of Republican institutions—certainly their monumental inscriptions give that impression. However, the use of AD 81 as a dividing line—between Titus and Domitian—would seem to remove any doubt about what was meant here. Regardless, it's some two centuries before the events typically regarded as dividing the Principate from the Dominate, and I'm not sure there's a scholarly consensus for drawing the line so early. P Aculeius (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That date was me replying without looking up — take it as illustrating the point rather than trying to set a definite limit! UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering how modern-day classicists use the term, as opposed to how they define it, I grabbed a few books off my shelves - so not a random sample and very much OR. None had "principate" in the index but skimming revealed (all typos mine):
"Lawmakers in the Principate continued to ensure...."; "the situation in the early Principate"; "During the Principate": Matthew J Berry, Gender Manumission, and the Roman Freedwoman, 2014
"Criminal Jurisdictions in the Principate" (a section heading); "Under the principate"; "From the early principate, the senate also": David Johnston, Roman Law in Context, 2nd edition, 1999, 2022.
"Although well established before the advent of the principate, the freedmen's public role"; "became some of the most ardent supporters of the Augustan principate": Henrik Mouritsen, The Freedman in the Roman World, 2011.
"Feasting the Dead Together: Household Burials and the Social Strategies of Slaves and Freed Persons in the Early Principate" (title of paper), "the novelty in the early Principate was not only"; "private voluntary associations and collegia during the Principate"; "the coming of the Principate"; "the establishment of the Principate"; "the actions of the Principate could directly affect": Carlos R Galvao-Sobrinho in Free at Last! The Impact of Freed Slaves on the Roman Empire (ed Bell and Ramsby), 2012.
It's clearly a useful term and flexible, much as Republic and Empire are. I rather think Mouritsen et al would be astonished to be told they were taking an obsolete Mommsenian view (or that using republic endorsed Cicero). Any of their readers who came to Wikipedia to learn more about the Principate would not be pleased to find a historiographic critique of Mommsen and periodisation; it would seem like one of those odd articles we have that are trapped in the past fighting passé battles or in a peculiar corner of academic debate far away from mainstream discourse. NebY (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That concern is fair, but this is fundamentally an epistemological issue. We routinely use inherited terms without noticing the interpretive assumptions they carry. There is nothing improper in insisting on clearer attribution, definition, and conceptual precision.
In modern scholarship, I believe we all agree principate is widely used as a practical descriptor for the Augustan and early imperial system, often understood as monarchical in operation while formally retaining republican institutions. That usage is not controversial. The difficulty arises when such terms are treated as neutral period markers rather than as analytical constructs with a historiographical origin.
Mommsen’s periodisation emerged from a 19th-century constitutional context, much as Gibbon’s framework reflects Enlightenment concerns. Recognising this does not invalidate the terminology, which remains useful and entrenched, but it does argue for greater clarity about what the term explains and what it merely labels.
Principate remains a valid and necessary term. The issue is not whether we use it, but whether we define it explicitly rather than allowing it to function silently as a period boundary. A term can be analytically useful without doing double duty as a period label. One can speak of cats and lions within the same biological family, but precision still matters when naming the category.
Perhaps this is a simpler way to state the problem: Does the period define the government at this time, or does the government define the period? Biz (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear how it's being used mostly a period and also as a regime. Just substitute "period" and "regime" in your quotes for Berry: Lawmakers in the [regime] continued to ensure; the situation in the early [period]; during the [period]. Your quotes for Johnston are similarly multivalent: the first could go either way (jurisdiction in the regime or in the period), under the [regime]; from the early [period], the senate also. Calling the principate a type of regime which lasted from Augustus to Diocletian is, I think, enormously oversimplifying and inaccurate; the mature Augustus was very different from Nero and definitely more so from Gallienus. Perhaps this is why we now see "Augustan principate" so much. Ifly6 (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The emergence of terms to divide the lengthy period during which the empire has existed is not new. Be it Principate vs Dominate, or High vs Low, or Early vs Late, it is a necessary approach to manage the enormity of time during which it existed and how it evolved during that time. The usefulness of the term Principate (and to a lesser extent Dominate) is that it functions both as a defined time period and as a shorthand for the way in which the ruling elites governed the empire. The critiques of Mommsen are primarily about the reasons why he chose those terms, focusing as he did on differences in the imperial forms as a proxy for divisions in imperial eras.
To my mind, Principate is still a valid scholarly term to circumscribe the Roman Empire from the 1st Augustan Settlement of BCE 31 through to the Constitutio Antoniniana of CE 212. The forms of government, the ways that the elites worked within the imperial model as erected by Augustus, the structures of the provinces (imperial vs senatorial), the existence of dedicated client states outside of the citizenship model, the legion-centric imperial war model, etc, all provide a coherent governing worldview that breaks down during the Crisis of the Third Century. I certainly am not aware of another term that has been embraced by the scholarly world to replace it. The Crisis Period (213-285) is followed by another imperial era - the Later Roman Empire is as good a term as any for this post-Crisis imperial period, marginally better than Dominate (noting that the date of its ending is as bitterly and endlessly debated as the term Principate is). Oatley2112 (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the discussion. This was helpful as it helped inspire other surveying. I am now treating this explicitly as a period of rulership, and below is a longer explanation that brings the pieces together based on my reading.
  • In the 19th century, the concept of the principate emerged primarily from a constitutional framework, most notably in the work of Theodor Mommsen, where it functioned as an extension of the republican system. Within that same framework, the Dominate was treated as the contrasting constitutional model. For those like me who ask why still: Augustus biographer Jochen Bleicken explicitly says it was on the basis of Nomos empsychos (also known as Plato's philosopher king), a concept Augustus rejected association with but that Justininan later codified.
  • That changed with 20th century scholarship as it shifted the emphasis toward the "Augustan Principate", recognising that the decisive transformation of the Roman political system occurred under Augustus rather than Diocletian. This moved the discussion away from a purely legal distinction and toward political practice and power.
  • Over the past two decades, there seems to be a scholarly consensus (across historical, literary, and cultural studies) to frame this period more broadly as the age of Augustus or the "Augustan Age". This approach captures a wider range of social, cultural, and ideological change beyond constitutional law alone.
In the revised Principate article, I have tried to incorporate these perspectives together, distinguishing between them while presenting them as related interpretive frameworks rather than competing labels and explaining the historiography explicitly. My reading so far has concentrated on Augustus, so I may encounter additional terminology as I work further into the scholarship. I also hope the current article puts perspective to what I've been saying. Biz (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Re used mostly a period and also as a regime, yes indeed, "regime" being a similarly flexible term. Collins' captures that nicely, beginning "1: a system of government or a particular administration: a fascist regime; the regime of Fidel Castro. 2: a social system or order." NebY (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Battle of Messana, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

Is this BLP notable?

I want to question the notability of Christopher Collard. The sources used are mostly primary and I wonder if the article passes WP:GNG. I decided to discuss it here before marking it for AfD. Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would think he is notable, and better sources available. Since he is still alive at 92, we won't have obituaries yet. It's a big mistake to just look at the sources actually used - see WP:BEFORE. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did that, but since I don't have access to the Wikipedia Library yet, I did not find much useful stuff. Kingsacrificer (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At first blush he appears notable, even though there are not as many strictly independent sources as desirable. Though as he's an academic, and still living, that isn't too surprising. There are probably additional sources available, however, and they can and should be searched for in any case. P Aculeius (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He passes WP:NAUTHOR, which requires multiple published reviews for his body of work -- see here, here, here, here and here. As noted above, the sources actually used in the article don't have much bearing on whether it should be nominated for AfD. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. Kingsacrificer (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim about child of emperor Gordian III

In the article Tranquillina (wife of emperor Gordian III), there was a claim that the two had a daughter named Furia, which I have now removed. This was added without source in Special:Diff/280650200 (30 March 2009), and remained this way until it was tagged as needing a citation in Special:Diff/1280187477 in March 2025. The user who added it was later blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. I don't see any evidence that this child existed. Is this a hoax, or am I missing something in the sources? The claim has made it into a number of other Wikipedias, like at es:Tranquilina, and WP:CITOGENESIS could be an issue affecting anything published after 2009. Renerpho (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly false, if only because the daughter of Marcus Antonius Gordianus would be named Antonia. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: The Italian Wikipedia article has a daughter "Furia Antonia", which is tagged as unsourced since 2024 [2], too. That daughter had been added as "Furia" in September 2020,[3] and changed to "Furia Antonia" shortly after.[4] Renerpho (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That would still be a very odd name by Roman standards: we would expect the first name to be Antonia, possibly followed by something like the name of a distinguished relative (like Vipsania Julia Agrippina, daughter of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, whose second and third names are that of her mother (Julia the Elder) and the feminine form of her father's famous cognomen. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: From what little I know about Roman names, I agree. By the way, the same happened in October 2024 at the Italian article about Gordian's wife (added as "Furia", changed to "Furia Antonia", both unsourced). Renerpho (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The daughter may well be the invention of a banned editor, but not necessarily: given the nature of Imperial nomenclature, there's nothing implausible about her name. A nomen and cognomen could very well be transposed for any number of reasons, deliberately or through scribal error; don't go by Republican-era practice. Evidently Furia was Tranquillina's nomen, inherited from her father. I haven't checked all of the Roman-era sources for any mention of a daughter, and there may not be any. But the name itself is quite plausible, and it could well be that someone later claimed to be a descendant of Gordian through such a daughter (whether or not the name is authentic, which could be an entirely separate issue; if so, a modern scholar such as Christian Settipani may have assigned a name to an otherwise unknown figure). P Aculeius (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thank you! Of course we still need a source to justify its inclusion. Renerpho (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this forum post from 2022, which apparently cites an unnamed source, as follows: "After the death of Gordian there is no news of Tranquillina except for a reference to the birth of a daughter in 244 who would be given the name of Furia Antonia whom later married Marcus Marcius Orfito, but this news has not been confirmed." EDIT: The unnamed source is an article on romeandart.eu from 2016. Renerpho (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PIR1 has no entry for this supposed Marcus Marcius Orfito. It also makes no mention of any daughters of Furia Tranquillina. Ifly6 (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: You may be right about Settipani. Here's a quote from the Portuguese article pt:Tranquilina (auto-translation from the original Portuguese): "Christian Settipani suggests that they had a daughter named Fúria (born around 244), probably posthumous, who married Marco Maécio Orfito (born around 245), son of Marco Maécio Probo (born around 220), married to Pupiena Sexta Paulina Categila (born around 225) and grandson, on his father's side, of Marcus Pomponius Maecius Probus and, on his mother's side, of Marcus Pupienus Africanus Maximus (son of his protector, Emperor Pupienus Maximus) and his wife Cornelia Marulina, with whom she had no children." There is no actual citation for this in the article, and the list of references don't include Settipani, but this has been present since the article was created in 2013.[5]
@Ifly6: Note that the name is slightly different here ("Marco Maécio Orfito"), which may or may not be due to the auto-translation. Can you find a person of that name?
As far as mentions of this name online are concerned, I do find this wiki page about Tranquillina, which states that "she remarried Marcus Marcius Orfito and is said to have given birth to a daughter, Furia Antonia". Not a reliable source, obviously, but it doesn't make this all less confusing. Renerpho (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably Marcus Maecius Orfitus. The name Maecius suggests a relative of Gordian, since Gordian I's father is supposed to have been "Maecius Marullus", and (as I mention in my reply below), at his downfall Gordian III is supposed to have been accompanied by a kinsman named Maecius Gordianus. I think that past editors have placed altogether too much trust in Settipani's detective work, which has been described by experts as too densely packed to unravel easily, though not necessarily incorrect. I think it involves many inferences and much guessing, some of which may be very good, but perhaps unprovable. But I don't consider myself an expert on his work, which isn't easily accessible or available in English. P Aculeius (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Found this in the Lacus Curtius edition of the Historia Augusta, "The Three Gordians", section 32, following the murder of Gordian III: "The senate passed a decree for the family of Gordian to the effect that his descendants⁠ need never serve as guardians or on embassies or in public duties unless they wished." Note 116, following the word "descendants", states, "none are known". I assume this is a note by Hermann Peter, not Bill Thayer.
One might reasonably infer the existence of children of Gordian III from this passage, and then infer that had there been a son, Philip would have done away with him, though he might have seen a young daughter as too inconsequential to worry about. But this would be scholarly inference, and note 116 seems to preclude any mention of such a daughter in other works known at the time the Loeb Classical Library edition was written. We cannot exclude the possibility that a daughter might be named or inferred from epigraphy since that time (note 94 shows that epigraphy does have some bearing on this family), or even that Hermann Peter (assuming the note is his) did not miss some obscure mention of a daughter in another work.
But at the same time, the word "descendants" could also have been used loosely in the original, to include collateral relatives, the same way that we sometimes use the word "ancestors" to include our aunts, uncles, and other relatives, though strictly speaking the word doesn't include them. So the author (ostensibly Julius Capitolinus, though this is very uncertain) might have meant "descendants of the three Gordians and their family". And lastly there is the possibility that the decree about Gordian's descendants being freed from public service is a mere embellishment, like many such statements in the Historia Augusta, for which there might or might not have been a reason other than the author's knowledge of the existence of any descendants.
I will note that, according to the material about Gordian I and II, Antonius was not his nomen, which was "Maecius", but that "Antonius" was bestowed upon Gordian II following his elevation. It could be that, as the descendants of various illustrious families, all the Gordians could have used it—but if so they had no obligation to, and in Imperial nomenclature names could be moved around in whatever order seemed most desirable. If "Furia" were seen as more helpful in distinguishing a daughter from other Antoniae, it could have been placed first.
And lastly, the Maecius Gordianus mentioned as a kinsman, prefect, and supporter of Gordian III at the time of his downfall—a perfectly likely name given that Maecius seems to have been the family nomen—is, according to note 105, "otherwise unknown", it's clear that we don't have a really great knowledge of this family or who was in it (note, the author, like modern writers on the Gordians, pretty plainly states that there was disagreement on how Gordian III was related to Gordian I and II, though he's fairly certain that he was the grandson of Gordian I). So while the name Furia Antonia and even her existence could be nothing more than speculation by a modern writer or Wikipedia editor, it's not an implausible name and I don't feel confident that it's a hoax—at least not a deliberate one—without more research. P Aculeius (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The family connection is also mentioned in Marcus Pomponius Maecius Probus, which cites "Continuité gentilice et continuité sénatoriale dans les familles sénatoriales romaines à l'époque impériale, 2000". That's [6] by Settipani, so we now know what book to look at for the claim, I guess. Anyone who speaks French and can get a hand on that book? Renerpho (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I might suggest, if someone can find the relevant section in Settipani, just placing the claim of a daughter in context: the Historia Augusta contains a passage that might be read to indicate that Gordian III and Tranquillina had at least one child, and that Settipani (probably the source of the name, though I'd like to verify that he uses a name, so that we know it wasn't invented by a Wikipedia editor) posits the marriage to Orfitus, a probable relative of the Gordians. P Aculeius (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., I think we can probably conclude that while the existence of such a daughter is uncertain, she doesn't appear to be a complete hoax developed by a Wikipedia editor. Whether the name previously existed is another matter. P Aculeius (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: I got my hands on an addendum "Addenda I - III (juillet 2000- octobre 2002)" to Settipani's book, published in 2001. Here, he repeats the claim on page 10, referring to pages 140-143 of the original book. He writes (again, my auto-translation from French): "On rereading, it must be acknowledged that the documentation does not yet allow us to establish with any great precision the ancestors of the aecii of the Late Empire. My proposal was based on the assumption that M. Memmius aecius Furius Baburius Caecilianus Placidus (fl. 343), was more likely a Maecius than an Emmius (see p. 140, n. 4), but we cannot be certain of this." Settipani then give a family tree (allegedly different from the one he had given in the book) where he places this "M. Memmius aecius Furius Baburius Caecilianus Placidus" as a great-grandson of Gordian III, through Gordian's daughter FURIA and her husband M. MAECIUS ORFITUS. Renerpho (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Three more things to note:
Firstly, Settipani puts the name (FURIA) in brackets. Does this indicate that the name is unattested? I'm not familiar with the conventions.
Secondly, if I understand Settipani correctly (and I don't speak any French), the connection does somehow depend on the mother of Gordian III. being named "ANTONIA".
And lastly, the name "Furia Antonia" is unattested so far. Renerpho (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's "unattested" in the sense that Settipani is evidently unaware of a source that gives it thusly, but it can be cited to him with Furia as an inference made by him based on the nomenclature of other persons in the family (I assume that "aecii" and "aecius" occurring in the above post are just typos omitting an 'M'). If we suppose that Gordian III—probably a Maecius by birth, as this was Gordian I's nomen—had descendants with the dual nomina Maecius Furius, when we know that his wife was Furia Tranquillina (and the daughter of Gaius Furius Sabinius Aquila Timesitheus), then it's a reasonable inference on Settipani's part that the daughter of Gordian III and Tranquillina would have been a Furia.
I'm not sure about Antonia, but we this name was supposedly adopted by Gordian I and added to Gordian II's nomenclature when he was proclaimed Augustus. It could have been one of many gentilicia amongst those of their ancestors, which they chose to emphasize; Capitolinus suggests confusion among his sources as to whether it shouldn't be Antoninus, following the example of the Antonines, but later he seems to settle on Antonius.
The notes to the Loeb edition suggest that Antoninus is the result of confusion and inferences relating to the Antonine emperors, and was never a part of the Gordians' nomenclature (though the note is a bit ambiguous about whether Antonius is correct). In any case, it need not have been the name of Gordian III's mother. It could have belonged to any of his ancestors, or (if we didn't know it was already attributed to Gordian I and II) even his wife's ancestors.
I don't think we have enough grounds to suppose that there's any kind of fabrication at issue. While the mention of Gordian's descendants could be an embellishment, it's too vague to be a hoax, and while I question how much faith we should put in Settipani's reconstruction of the imperial nobility, I think it's worth citing as a claim relating to Gordian III and Tranquillina. After all, there's a difference between saying that the daughter's existence or name are verified, and that the claim that there was (probably) a daughter is verifiable. We can verify that Settipani makes the claim, and whether we agree or disagree with his conclusions, he's certainly a scholar with extensive knowledge of the topic. P Aculeius (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I agree -- this isn't a hoax. A historical fabrication, maybe, but none that originated on Wikipedia. Renerpho (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As a trivial extra, the first addition of Furia to the article was in this 2008 group of edits (by a prolifically socking editor) that did indeed add Settipani as a source for the article. That also has the content on Marcus Maecius Orfitus that you'd found in Portugese. NebY (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When I first ran across pages like this, I was annoyed by the use of Settipani to claim descent from antiquity, which I read from reputable sources could not be proven for any living person, and I was under the impression that this is what Settipani's main goal was, making him a kind of fringe researcher constructing Byzantine and ultimately improbable arguments for it.
Over time, my willingness to dismiss his research has declined as I've read more about his work and seen more examples of it. It may still be difficult to verify many of his conclusions, but it does seem to be legitimate scholarship, unburdened by the ulterior motive of flattering living people with the promise of a Roman aristocratic background. I do think said editor was far too willing to take all of Settipani's conjectures at face value and present them as established fact, rather than partial reconstruction and learned speculation.
The original work is still not very accessible, so I think the motive was an honest one: bringing potentially useful historical research out of the shadows and making it more widely available. And this underscores my general feeling about the work of banned editors: judge it based on whether it's credible and verifiable, not on who wrote it. Banned editors nonetheless made extensive and worthwhile contributions to the encyclopedia, in addition to whatever behaviour got them banned—often relating to edit warring or other conduct unrelated to whether their contributions, in general, were appropriate. P Aculeius (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that Settipani seems (I believe based on some experiences online) to be the victim of people making stuff up and then attributing the claims to his research, this is helped (as you say) by his work being very inaccessible. I also think there have been cases of people making mistakes based on what they have been able to read on Google Books previews and similar of the French texts avalable there. His reputation might have taken a hit due to that.★Trekker (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And if anyone here doesn't know why it's not very accessible, it's because it's a scholarly publication written in French and published in France—none of which makes it unciteable. But that means that very few libraries in say, America, have physical copies, and its full text (necessary to understand the claims being made and the sources being cited) isn't readily available over the internet; and unless you're fluent in French (and likely academic French), you won't be able to follow it anyway. Again, it's perfectly good as a source for what Settipani or other scholars he may cite have to say about something, but it's very hard to verify exactly what he says about specific things without being able to obtain and read his text. P Aculeius (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The 2008 edits were before the user was blocked, not by one of their subsequent socks and not of the sort that are usually wound back, so we don't need to go into the treatment of socks in this discussion. NebY (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

I imagine Renerpho you're looking at this article on Academia.org? https://www.academia.edu/40255389/Christian_Settipani_CONTINUITE_GENTILICE_ET_CONTINUITE_FAMILIALE_DANS_LES_FAMILLES_SENATORIALES_ROMAINES_A_LEPOQUE_IMPERIALE_MYTHE_ET_REALITE_Addenda_I_III_juillet_2000_octobre_2002. It is not entirely clear whether this name actually does appear in the original book as Gordian's daughter since the snippet view is so limited. The book is available at a number of libraries in the US (the original BorrowDirect libraries each have a copy as does the NYPL). I'll see if I can do anything remotely in the immediate term but no guarantees. Ifly6 (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho: page 141 starts with a line continuing from the previous page saying that Gordian III died in battle and not in a palace conspiracy and that it is not unreasonable to think that he had issue with his wife Furia Tranquillina, based on HA. A note then follows (my translation): In particular, a child with the gentilician name of Maecia Furia who could be connected with [married?] the grandson of the emperor Pupienius... all lies on the authenticity of the HA. Those who took the scans at the library, though, also cut off the later lines of footnote 1. I will report them when available. Ifly6 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote in full, translated, would be:

In particular, [as daughter of Gordian III and Furia Tranquillina] a girl bearing the gentilician name Maecia Furia who could be connected [married?] with the grandson of the emperor Pupienius. This would be a suitable union in terms of the rank of the spouses (both descending from the emperors deposed in 238) and would justify the onomastics of the supposed descendants of the Gordians in the 4th century. All lies on the authenticity of the Historia Augusta.

Ifly6 (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6: Cool, thanks for taking the time to get scans from the book! I'm a little confused because this doesn't really fit with the proposed family tree in Settipani's later addendum. In that version, Furia's alleged husband M. Maecius Orfitus is a great-grandson of emperor Pupienius, and the granddaughter of emperor Pupienius would have been her mother-in-law. Renerpho (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Area of study on decline in antiquity

Any thoughts on Area of study on decline in antiquity as a short description of our Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire article? I've opened a discussion at Talk:Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire#Short description. NebY (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The title historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire seems eminently self-descriptive to me. Ifly6 (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the term "historiography" requires explanation. However, "on decline in antiquity" is unnecessarily vague and misleading; it's not about "decline" in general (whatever that would mean), and it's not about "antiquity", but specifically about the Western Roman Empire. It should probably say something like, "The study of historical writing about the fall of the Western Roman Empire". I realize that at 62 characters (not including spaces), it's longer than the ideal short description (40 characters), but that's never been described as a strict limit, and clarity seems like it should be of overriding concern. Perhaps it could be even more concise, but probably not if it comes at the expense of clarity. It's hardly too long to be easily read or understood. P Aculeius (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I could wear something like "field of historical scholarship" (to gloss "historiography"), but otherwise would agree with Ifly6 that this is a good candidate for a null SD. Short descriptions are only useful if they add to the title rather than rephrasing it, since their job is to help readers be sure that they're about to click on the right article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer no SD to the current description too, but my revert was reverted[7] and imagination failed me - but at least I knew where to find some experts. :) Yes, "area of study" stands out to me as not supplementing "historiography" at all; we don't need Greek to guess that historiography, like an -ology, is fancy academic stuff. If we're to have anything then "the study of historical writing" captures at least one aspect; "writing history" or simply "histories of the end of the Western Roman Empire" might capture others. NebY (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That article, by the way, is in horrible shape. It should not start with Gibbon. Separately, you should tag the other editor here. Ifly6 (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If only you'd responded at Talk:Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire#Short description. :) Anyway, yes: @Biz, @StarTrekker, @HKLionel, discussion's continuing over here now. NebY (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated on the talk page, "decline" is a contentious term when it comes to modern historians when discussing the period in time, one can certainly talk about the decline of the Western Roman Empire as a functioning institution, but outside of that it should probably be avoided as a descriptor.★Trekker (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New article: Aquileia Dish

I created this article today, right now I've been using the research of Julia C. Fischer to start it, but there are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 10, 11, other sources (with different opinions) as well. Right now I'm a little unsure of how to format it and what to put in the lead section, it seems (at least to me) that the identification with Mark Antony is quite widespread (tho not universal). If anyone is interested in helping out I would be very grateful. ★Trekker (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Claims on Sextus Varius Marcellus about his children

The article claims that emperor Elagabalus had an older brother who was named after Marcellus father, the source seems to be this Livius.org article which simply states that Elagabalus being named "Avitus" after his mother Julia Soaemias's father Gaius Julius Avitus Alexianus marely sugests that Elagabalus might have had an older brother named after Marcellus father. While this is not a terrible guess I don't think Livius.org is a good enough source to reference this speculation from. I don't think I've come across this theory in actual scholarship, if anyone else has I think we can probably mention it in the article as being a theory, not fact, otherwise I think it should be removed. ★Trekker (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To add, this scholar seems to argue that Elagabalus was probably the oldest sibling.★Trekker (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is a hypothesis only. Herbert W. Benario states that Julia Soaemias and Sextus Varius Marcellus had numerous children (https://roman-emperors.sites.luc.edu/sevjulia.htm#Note_js) and it would be reasonable to conclude one of them possessed the cognomen of 'Marcellus'. But it doesn't necessarily imply that Elagabalus wasn't the eldest. The decision to emphasise the maternal cognomen over the paternal would be due to the maternal links to the Severan imperial dynasty, which were much more desirable for the son to possess. And Elagabalus did possess his father's nomen in his attested name of Varius Avitus Bassianus. Oatley2112 (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Sophocles

Sophocles has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome