Talk:Ancient Rome

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeAncient Rome was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
November 15, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
September 25, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
Article Collaboration and Improvement DriveThis article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of December 11, 2006.
Current status: Former good article nominee

genetic paper[edit]

The frequencies in the paragraph are not present in the paper article. (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2022[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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


... 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.[1] The Iron Age Latin founding population of Rome which subsequently emerged overwhelmingly carried the paternal haplogroup R-M269,[2] and were of about 30% steppe ancestry.[1]

To make the following changes:


... 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.[1] The Iron Age Latin founding population of Rome which subsequently emerged carried the paternal haplogroup R-M269 at a minor but significant rate,[3] and were of about 15-20% steppe ancestry.[4]

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

[2] under the section "Supplementary material - Tables S1-S4" ( )

And [4] below "ADMIXTURE" in Fig. 2 ( ) Paolo Calucci (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ a b c Antonio et al. 2019, pp. 1–2.
  2. ^ a b Antonio et al. 2019, Table 2 Sample Information.
  3. ^ Antonio et al. 2019, Table S2 Sample Information.
  4. ^ a b Antonio et al. 2019, pp. 1-2 Fig. 2.

Edit request for typo fix: bridgess -> bridges[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2022[edit]

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

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:ERA to CE/BCE[edit]

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

Just for the record, strong oppose. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll add my oppose here, for the record. As I've stated elsewhere, the Christian religion arose out of the instincts of the ancient Roman world, and toward the end of it, was adopted by it. So, AD/BC is appropriate. Another point to consider is the accuracy of the Babylonian–Egyptian solar calendar with regard to starting at the same time each year, especially with the improvements under Caesar. Alternative calendars are often not quite so accurate. I don't really understand the need to relabel when you are retaining the arbitrary nature of the calendar with regard to its denoting a certain epoch. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

212 AD end of Ancient Rome[edit]

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? Elias (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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. Elias (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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. Elias (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

No, I don't see the need. Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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. (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you could provide a list of sources that support this view that would be a good start. Elias (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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": - "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"
- Review of Anthony Kaldellis, "The Byzantine Republic", by Warren Treadgold: "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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]