Talk:Roman emperor

As can be seen at Talk:List of Roman Emperors, my extremely complicated listing of Roman Emperors is far from a finished or satisfactory project. I would greatly appreciate any input as to how it ought to be refined or made more gooder. Pubicus

As I mentioned elsewhere, I think it would be an amazing idea for this page's list of the Emperors to focus on dynastic and non-dynastic changes (so as to justify its separate listing of the Emperors). I put together an example of how this might be done with the Julio-Claudians as an example:

Julio-Claudian Emperors:

• Caesar Augustus ("Imp. Caesar Augustus"; b. C. Octavius), d. 14
  • M. Vipsanius Agrippa, 18 BC – 12 BC
  • Ti. Claudius Nero, 6 BC – 1 BC, 4 – 14 (as "Ti. Iulius Caesar")
• Tiberius I ("Ti. Caesar Augustus"; b. Ti. Claudius Nero), 14 – 37
  • Note: Tiberius had been co-Emperor with Caesar Augustus from 6 BC to 1 BC, and again from AD 4 until his own accession to the purple
• Gaius "Caligula" ("C. Caesar Augustus Germ."; b. C. Iulius Caesar Germ.), 37 – 41
• Claudius I ("Ti. Claudius Caesar Augustus Germ."; b. Ti. Claudius Drusus), 41 – 54
• Nero ("Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germ."; b. L. Domitius Ahenobarbus), 54 – 68

Dynastic Relationships:

Caesar Augustus's first wife Livia Drusilla (subsequently "Iulia Augusta") had previously borne two children by her first husband, Tiberius Claudius Nero: Tiberus and Drusus. Tiberius's second wife was Iulia, Marcus Agrippa's widow (his first wife had been Vipsania, Agrippa's daughter by his first marriage); Caesar Augustus adopted Tiberius on June 26, 4, whereupon Tiberius himself adopted his brother Drusus's son by Marcus Antonius's daughter, Germanicus Iulius Caesar. Germanicus married Vipsania Agrippina, Agrippa's daughter by Iulia and Tiberius's stepdaughter, and had by her one surviving son, Gaius "Caligula" ("Bootkins"), and a daughter, Iulia Agrippina, whose second husband was Germanicus's brother by blood, Claudius (she was his first wife); Agrippina had already borne a son (Lucius) by her first husband, Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus. Claudius adopted Lucius under the name Nero in 40; Nero married Claudius's daughter Octavia in 53.

What does everyone think about using this as a general model for the article's second part? It will of course take some time to modify the whole article, and will necessarily make the article somewhat lengthier, but I think it would go a long way toward demonstrating the complicated (dare I say, "byzantine"?) often-familial personality of the Roman Emperor's succession. Comments? Publius

It sounds an interesting idea. But speaking of "byzantine", the familial connections get more complicated from the Tetrarchy and till Anastasius I. Any ideas how to cover the following connections (from a modern Greek encyclopedia)?:

• Diocletian (284 - 305) was father-in-law to Galerius.

• Maximian (286 - 305, 307 - 310) was father to Maxentius, father-in-law to both Constantius Chlorus and Constantine I of the Roman Empire, grandfather-in-law to Licinius, grandfather to Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constantius II, and Constans, great-grandfather to Julian and great-grandfather-in-law to Gratian.

• Galerius (305 - 311) was son-in-law to Diocletian and father-in-law to Maxentius.

• Constantius Chlorus (305 - 306) was son-in-law to Maximian, father and brother-in-law to Constantine I of the Roman Empire, father-in-law to Licinius, grandfather to Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constantius II, Constans and Julian, and great-grandfather-in-law to Gratian.

• Constantine I of the Roman Empire (306 - 337) was son and brother-in-law to Constantius Chlorus, son-in-law to Maximian, brother-in-law to Maxentius and Licinius, father to Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constantius II and Constans, uncle and father-in-law to Julian and grandfather-in-law to Gratian.

• Maxentius (306 - 312) was son to Maximian, son-in-law to Galerius, brother-in-law to both Constantius Chlorus and Constantine I of the Roman Empire, uncle by marriage of Licinius, uncle by blood of Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constantius II and Constans, great-gradfather to Julian and great-great-uncle by marriage to Gratian.

• Licinius (308 - 324) was grandson-in-law to Maximian, son-in-law to Constantius Chlorus, nephew by marriage to Maxentius, brother-in-law to Constantine I of the Roman Empire, uncle by marriage to Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constantius II, Constans and Julian, great-uncle by marriage to Gratian.

• Constantine II of the Roman Empire (337 - 340) was grandson to Maximian and Constantius Chlorus, son of Constantine I of the Roman Empire, nephew by blood of Maxentius, nephew by marriage of Licinius, older brother of Constantius II and Constans, first cousin and brother-in-law to Julian, uncle by marriage of Gratian.

• Constantius II (337 - 361) was grandson to Maximian and Constantius Chlorus, son of Constantine I of the Roman Empire, nephew by blood of Maxentius, nephew by marriage of Licinius, younger brother of Constantine II of the Roman Empire, older brother of Constans, first cousin and brother-in-law to Julian, father-in-law to Gratian.

• Constans (337 - 350) was grandson to Maximian and Constantius Chlorus, son of Constantine I of the Roman Empire, nephew by blood of Maxentius, nephew by marriage of Licinius, younger brother of Constantine II of the Roman Empire and Constantius II, first cousin and brother-in-law to Julian, uncle by marriage to Gratian.

• Magnentius (350 - 353's widow was later second wife to Valentinian I.

• Julian (361 - 363) was great-grandson to Maximian, grandson to Constantius Chlorus, great-nephew to Maxentius, nephew by blood to Constantine I of the Roman Empire, nephew by marriage to Licinius, first cousin and brother-in-law of Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constantius II and Constans, uncle by marriage to Gratian.

• Valentinian I (364 - 375) was married to the widow of Magnentius, brother to Valens, father to Gratian and Valentinian II, father-in-law to Theodosius I, grandfather-in-law to Constantius III, great-grandfather to Valentinian III and great-great-grandfather-in-law to Olybrius.

• Valens (364 - 378) was sister to Valentinian I, uncle by blood to Gratian and Valentinian II, uncle by marriage to Theodosius I, great-uncle by marriage to Constantius III, great-great-uncle to Valentinian III and great-great-great-uncle by marriage to Olybrius.

• Gratian (375 - 383) was great-grandson-in law to Maximian and Constantius Chlorus, grandson-in-law to Constantine I of the Roman Empire, grandnephew by marriage to Maxentius and Licinius, nephew by marriage to Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constans and Julian, son-in-law to Constantius II, son to Valentinian I, nephew by blood to Valens, half-brother to Valentinian II, brother-in-law to Theodosius I, uncle by marriage to Constantius III, great-uncle to Valentinian III and great-great-uncle to Olybrius.

• Valentinian II (375 - 392) was son to Valentinian I, nephew to Valens, half-brother to Gratian, brother-in-law to Theodosius I, uncle by marriage to Constantius III, great-uncle to Valentinian III and great-great-uncle to Olybrius.

• Theodosius I (379 - 392) was son-in-law to Valentinian I, nephew by marriage to Valens, brother-in-law to Gratian and Valentinian II, father to Arcadius and Flavius Augustus Honorius, father-in-law to Constantius III, grandfather to Theodosius II and Valentinian III , grandfather-in-law to Marcian, great-grandfather-in-law to Olybrius.

• Arcadius (395 - 408) was son to Theodosius I, brother to Flavius Augustus Honorius, brother-in-law to Constantius III, father to Theodosius II, father-in-law to Marcian, uncle to Valentinian III, great-uncle by marriage to Olybrius.

• Flavius Augustus Honorius (395 - 423) was son to Theodosius I, brother to Arcadius, brother-in-law to Constantius III, uncle to Theodosius II and Valentinian III, uncle by marriage to Marcian and great-uncle by marriage to Olybrius.

• Theodosius II (408 - 450) was grandson to Theodosius I, son to Arcadius, nephew by blood to Flavius Augustus Honorius, nephew by marriage to Constantius III, brother-in-law to Marcian, first cousin to Valentinian III and uncle by marriage to Olybrius.

• Constantius III (421) was grandson-in-law to Valentinian I, great-nephew by marriage to Valens, nephew by marriage to Gratian and Valentinian II, son-in-law to Theodosius I, brother-in-law to Arcadius and Flavius Augustus Honorius, father to Valentinian III, uncle by marriage to Theodosius II and Marcian, grandfather-in-law to Olybrius.

• Valentinian III (424 - 455) was great-grandson to Valentinian I, great-great-nephew to Valens, grandson to Theodosius I, great-nephew to Gratian and Valentinian II, son to Constantius III, nephew to Arcadius and Flavius Augustus Honorius, first cousin by blood to Theodosius II, first cousin by marriage to Marcian and father-in-law to Olybrius.

• Marcian (450 - 457) was grandson-in-law to Theodosius I, son-in-law to Arcadius, nephew by marriage to Flavius Augustus Honorius and Constantius III, brother-in-law to Theodosius II, first cousib by marriage to Valentinian III, father-in-law to Anthemius, uncle by marriage to Olybrius, grandfather-in-law to the daughter of Leo I of the Byzantine Empire.

• Leo I of the Byzantine Empire (457 - 474) was brother-in-law to Basiliscus, father-in-law to the son of Anthemius, Zeno of the Byzantine Empire and Anastasius I of the Byzantine Empire, grandfather to Leo II.

• Anthemius (467 - 472) was son-in-law to Marcian and father-in-law to the daughter of Leo I of the Byzantine Empire.

• Olybrius (472) was great-great-grandson-in-law to Valentinian I, great-great-great-nephew by marriage to Valens, great-grandson-in-law to Theodosius I, great-great-nephew by marriage to Gratian and Valentinian II, grandson-in-law to Constantius III, great-nephew by marriage to Arcadius and Flavius Augustus Honorius, son-in-law to Valentinian III, nephew by marriage to Theodosius II and Marcian.

• Leo II (474) was grandson to Leo I of the Byzantine Empire, great-nephew to Basiliscus, son to Zeno of the Byzantine Empire, nephew by marriage to the son of Anthemius).

• Zeno of the Byzantine Empire (474 - 475, 476 - 491), was son-in-law to Leo I of the Byzantine Empire, nephew by marriage to Basiliscus, brother-in-law to the son of Anthemius, father to Leo II. His widow married Anastasius I of the Byzantine Empire.

• Basiliscus (475 - 476) was brother-in-law to Leo I of the Byzantine Empire, uncle by marriage to the son of Anthemius, Zeno of the Byzantine Empire and Anastasius I of the Byzantine Empire, great-uncle to Leo II.

• Anastasius I of the Byzantine Empire (491 - 518) was son-in-law to Leo I of the Byzantine Empire, nephew by marriage to Basiliscus, brother-in-law to the son of Anthemius and married to the widow of Zeno of the Byzantine Empire.

As you can see those Emperors are connected to each other but far from consitute a single Royal House. Any ideas of how to indicate this in the article? User:Dimadick

Yes, I've been working on upgrading the whole article to my new proposed format, and the Tetrarchy and beyond is definitely a snag. I've been thinking that perhaps we ought to delineate the later houses into separate lines based on Constantinian, Valentinian, Theodosian, and Leonine lines, and add clarification as to how the lines are related. Something along the following lines:

Constantius I's first wife St. Helena bore him a son, Constantinus I, whose second wife Fausta (sister of Maxentius and daughter of Maximian by Eutropia, mother of Constantius's second wife Theodora) bore him three sons (Constantinus II, Constantius II, and Constans I) and two daughters (Constantia and Helena). Constantius II's daughter Constantia married Gratianus (see below), son of Valentinianus I (see below), while Helena married her half-cousin, Julianus "the Apostate".

What do you think? (As it happens, I'm glad someone was amused by my "byzantine" pun.) Publius 18:13, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm... pretty good but some connections of lesser significance should perhaps be clarified to avoid confusion. How about:

Constantius I was married twice. First to St. Helena and then to Theodora, daughter to Maximian by Eutropia and sister of Maxentius. He had a single son by the former known as Constantinus I and by the later two more sons (Dalmatius and Julius Constantius) and two daughters (Eutropia and Constantia). Constantine also married twice. First to Minervina and then to Fausta, a sister of his step-mother. The former was mother to Caesar Crispus and the later to three sons (Constantinus II, Constantius II, and Constans I) and two daughters (Constantia and Helena). Julius Constantius in turn became father to two sons: Caesar Gallus and Julian. Their sister Constantia was wife to Licinius. Constantia the younger was wife to Gallus and Helena to Julian. An even younger Constantia, daughter to Constantius II later became consort to Gratianus (see below), son of Valentinianus I (see below).

I am in turn glad to see someone trying to clarify the various conceptions and misconceptions about the Roman and "Byzantine" Emperors. User:Dimadick

What is your opinion of the current revisions (up to but not including Theodosius and his successors)? I'm not entirely satisfied with the Tetrarchical and Constantinian sections, but do you feel that they adequately convey what was happening with the Imperial dignity at the time? Or is more clarification necessary for the average reader? Publius 13:53, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's finally finished. I have completed the systematic upgrade of the article, including dynastic relationships and other topical information (like economic backgrounds and increasingly non-Italian origins of the Emperors), but I'm afraid I won't be around to discuss further improvements. I can only hope that the article is informative, and that others enjoy reading it as much as I have enjoyed writing it. Publius 06:58, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This page is really, really long (67kb right now; over twice the recommended maximum length). Would anyone object to splitting it up? Four sub-articles seem rather obvious to me:

• Roman Emperor (Principate)
• Roman Emperor (Crisis of the Third Century)
• Roman Emperor (Dominate)
• Roman Emperor (Late Empire)

What does everyone else think?Binabik80 20:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a general rule, whenever splitting away material, it's necessary to leave a condensed version of it at the parent article, with an indented note in italics telling the reader where to find the more complete material. As long as this is done, there's little harm in splitting. --Wetman 21:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Roman Empire#Splitting up Roman Empire too for my answer.--Hippalus 09:33, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Are we really going to insinuate that the HRE was a legitimate continuation of the actual Empire, and not merely an imitator? -Chris5369 18:15, 20 Apr 2005

I think the edit you've made ("as a separate instution") sums it up sufficiently. Binabik80 23:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Touche. Just didn't want to start an ideological war again... -Chris5369 04:01, 21 Apr 2005

For the record (from the Holy Roman Empire intro): "The Empire was considered by the Roman Catholic Church to be the only legal successor of the Roman Empire during the Middle Ages and the early modern period." See Translatio imperii Altanner1991 (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The idea that it is treated by historians as a separate institution might be okay to say. But as it stood it just mucked up the meaning of an already existing sentence, which was saying that historians called them Holy Roman Emperors. At any rate, it seems POV to say that the HRE was not a legitimate continuation of the actual empire - it considered itself to be, certainly. But something talking a bit more about how to distinguish the two might be in order. john k 03:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've had a go at it while you've been writing this message; what do you think? Saying that the HRE wasn't a legitimate continuation might verge on POV, but I don't think there should be a problem with saying that modern historians don't view it as such. I mean, they don't, do they? Binabik80 03:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it POV? The only sources that seem to agree with the HRE continuation theory are the occasional German historians. Should we list the Sultans? The Tsars? To even include them, sounds POV. -Chris5369 00:41, 22 Apr 2005

I somewhat disagree with the statement that the HRE was continued through the Austrian (1806-1867) and Austro-Hungarian (1867-1918) Empires. Francis explicitly laid down the HR crown in 1806, having *previously* created the Austrian Emperorship for himself (1804), i.e. carryign two imperial titles in the period 1804-1806. Therefore, the Austrian/Austro-Hungarian Emperorship is clearly not a continuation of the HRE. Neither, by the way, is the German Empire of 1871-1918, where the title "German Emperor" was merely a name for the President of the Federation of German states within the Reich. Thus, I have deleted the passage in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.16 (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is 'determinating' a word? Would 'determinator' be better? --darklilac 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

There are many statements in the article which quote no sources and thus cannot be verified. Can anyone provide adequate references for them? --Nehwyn 15:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

In that case use the {{unreferenced}} tag, not the {{OR}} one.--Panarjedde 17:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think there are too many "citation needed" tags in this article, especially as we have a similar tag at the head of the article. Some are also in awkward spots that makes the article hard to read. I'm removing some. Master z0b (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Half the Roman emperors are regularly claimed to have been "poisoned", some people say, but this article names onely several potential poison victims, why?, and who are the emperors often cited as being poisoned?

Yes, who are they? I'd never heard that "half the Roman emperors are regularly claimed to have been poisoned" before! FilipeS (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've made a personal count (OR! Don't use) from an oldish history book, giving a natural death frequency not more than 10%, the rest killed in any way, most usually murdered, but sometimes killed in war. I believe the future prospects of any Roman Emperor was as bad as high nazi functionary before 1945 which seems to be an equally dangerous profession. Said: Rursus ☻ 05:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I.e. much much worse than vulcanologist, a decidedly dangerous research profession. Said: Rursus ☻ 05:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

RE: imperator as exclusive use of emperor and the basis of imperial power

I think it has to be mentioned that the use of the titles 'imperator' as well as 'caesar' both evolved sgnificantly over the period of the eraly empire. For example, under Tiberius, it was common to refer to Germanicus as 'Caesar' as in Tacitus' Annals in describing Germanicus German campaigns. Tacitus also mentions here Germanicus being saluted as 'imperator' by his troops. Something which did not apparently bother Tiberius greatly. Contrast to later, even around AD 69.

I would also say that "what makes an emperor, emperor", is in fact this title. For example, Vespasian dated his imperial rule from the time he was saluted as Imperator by his troops in the East (July 69) not his formal accession after the defeat of Vitellius. Second the possession of this title meant command of the Army, the ultimate guarantor of imperial power. (Tacitus' "Secret of the Empire").

Also at no point does the page mention anywhere the concept of "imperial provinces" commanded by men the Emperor appoints (and not the Senate). Another key concept which demarks both the powers and the office of Emperor.

-SM

I have replaced the first two paragraphs here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Emperor giving the definition and derivation of imperator. But, after saving, only part of my second paragraph appears and to my dismay the rest of the page content has vanished. However, if I click edit again all my alteration appears together with the remainder. Could someone please check this for me and advise me what I am doing wrong? Many thanks.

PeterGh

Since writing that I seem to have solved it by removing this tag (Please click Edit because it is clipping the text again here): <ref name="OCD">, the identical tag (pasted) which I had used earlier in the text.

Why is the second word of this article capitalized? Spa toss 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because Emperor is a title. (Romanorum Imperator (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC))Reply

So capitalize it when it is being used as part of a title - and not otherwise. It's not a proper noun, after all. By way of analogy, we write "Pope John", but "pope" is not capitalized generally. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

It clearly should NOT be capitalized, and ought to be fixed. It's like writing 'He was an English King' instead of the correct 'He was an English king'. Alpheus (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Strongly disagree. The title Imperator has meanings separate from Roman Emperor. "Imperator" in its original form means something along the lines of "great commander," or "commander of the army," or terms along those lines to suggest a great general. As I understand it, Imperator came to be associated with "emperor" after only lengthy precedent in the matter, in which the original(and very important) meaning of the word was lost.

P.S. - How long has that been there? There seems to have been no discussion on it.

69.142.30.188 (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Disagree. The title of the Roman Emperor was Basielues for the greatest part of the Roman Empire's life. If it should be merged to anything it should be Basileus but that would exclude the period when the title was in fact Imperator so it is also inadvisable.--Xenovatis (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm wondering if this section is contradicting itself. At one point it says: "However, Julius Caesar, unlike those after him,[citation needed] did so without the Senate's vote and approval" Emphasis on -without-. A bit later it says: "again he did not gain these positions without the majority of a vote by the people and senate" -> So, which is it? With or without approval? First sentence suggests without, second sentence with. (I'm no expert on the matter, but I always thought he did all that he did with approval) Vince (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

>> His "restoration" of powers to the Senate and the people of Rome was a demonstration of his auctoritas and pious respect for tradition. godly. <<

Whatever this read before, "godly" should either be deleted or made a sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TaoQiBao (talk • contribs) 10:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I removed the veritable rash of tags requesting citation, particularly in the early sections of the article - please note that some have been embedded here for three years - because they served no purpose (QED) other than making the text even harder to read. I replaced them all with a general header. The entire article lacks appropriate sources. Currently, it provides two dictionary definitions (handy, but not really citation), one reference to Dio and an offsite link to Constantine Paleologus. My point here is that the text as a whole offers little or no differentiation between primary, secondary and tertiary sources or sources of argument, opinion (scholarly or otherwise) and critical interpretation. Some parts are more lucid than others - the lede is pretty clear - but overall, the article rambles wordily, and I rapidly got lost in it. I've clarified and simplified a tad but only in subject material I know to be broadly uncontentious and available from virtually any well-written general history of the period.

Regarding sources - otherwise expressed as "what sources?" - a great deal of this article seems based on the online encyclopedic essay series to be found at De Imperatoribus Romanis. I've not gone through this in any great detail, but DomitianDiocletian's so-called Dominate as an "outright oriental monarchy" stands out in particular as a dubious or at least contestable appraisal, sourced from the online de Imperatoribus article. I believe - and I'm happy to be corrected if wrong - that we should not uncritically use other Encyclopedias as building blocks for this one. Haploidavey (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Cut part in intro, re "Emperor" as follows - "The first to bear that title was Michael I Rhangabes in the early 9th century, who was styled Basileus Rhomaiôn, "Emperor of the Romans"—if appreciating that by that time the meaning of "Basileus" had changed from "Sovereign" to "Emperor")". Needs placing chronologically, with citation; "meaning" can be a tricksy thing. Haploidavey (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think it is worth discussing whether we should consider the roman emperors monarchs or not. It seems to me that if you describe the emperors as a monarchy, you need to describe a lot of other people as monarchs who aren't normally considered monarchs- such as many presidents-for-life and dictators in many republics in history. In what sense are we using the word "monarchy"? 212.42.188.177 (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The difference between dictators and monarchs boils down to customary designation and use of specific titles. It's not possible to define underlying substantive criteria. The Duvaliers of Haiti would probably fulfil any definition of monarchy except the lack of a monarchical title. The Kings of Poland prior to the third partition fulfil any definition of (elected) president-for-life except the title. The title by which they are now known "Emperor", is enough to convey the sense of monarchy. In reality, historians tend to refer to the development of monarchical trappings in the principate until it becomes a fully-fledged monarchy in the Dominate. I understand where you're coming from, after all what substantively was the difference between Julius Caesar as Dictator in the Republic, and Augustus as Princeps, Diocletian as Dominus and Heraclius as Basileus in the Empire? Only that by convention the Republican era ended with Augustus and thereafter there was an Imperial era, the latter monarchical the former non-monarchical. And "convention" (i.e. simply reflecting the sources) is what WP is supposed to be about, not coming up with our own analysis (wich is called WP:OR).

You've made the lead inaccurate in describing the Empire after Augustus. It was not in a stasis and republic trappings were soon dropped. The statement that the emperors "were emphatically not royal monarchs, but leaders of a nominal republic" is just plain wrong when applied to Constantine or Justinian for instance, but you could get away with describing Augustus and especially Tiberius in that way. It's a gross oversimplification and you should revert it. I hope this doesn't turn into yet another silly Wiki terminology dispute that historians in the outside world just aren't that bothered about. DeCausa (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I assume that most people understand "monarchy" to clearly mean a political system where the highest political position is claimed, acquired and legitimised by its inheritance as a right of birth; I also assume most people find this very distinct from a non-monarchical system where the leader claims to be leader on merit though selection or acclamation. I apologize if this seeems too terminological.

Of the four you mention in your second paragraph, i.e. Caesar, Augustus, Diocletian, and Heraclius, not one was the natural son of an Emperor. Of the three more you then mention in your third paragraph, i.e. Constantine, Justinian and Tiberius, not one was the natural son of an Emperor. Even Emperors who were descended from Emperors still claimed to be Emperor on merit and popular acclaim, not inheritance.

(Regarding our times, I dont think Jean-Claude Duvalier ever claimed inheritance was the basis of his legitimacy for ruling Haiti, and even claimed to want to avoid dynastic rule, whereas Elizabeth II is legitimately entitled to be queen because her father was king, and her son and grandson are by inheritance legitimately entitled to the monarchy after her.)

However if the convention is that the emperors were a monarchy, then please direct me to the academic sources, I was unaware of this but i always like to learn. Academic sources of which I am currently aware seem to say the opposite, but perhaps i must read them more carefully! I havent made the lead innaccurate, but i may have rephrased existing innaccuracies, if that is what there are: For example the lead has, for at least six months, said "Since the Roman Republic was constituted on an profoundly non-royalist basis, Rome theoretically remained a republic" etc. etc. 212.42.188.177 (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

There have been several monarchies which weren't hereditary. I mentioned Poland, but also the Holy Roman Empire and, many of the early Germanic monarchies weren't strictly hereditary in the sense that the King was elected from the Royal House. Arguably the modern UAE is anon-hereditary monarchy. As for sources, there are many. Here's some random examples: “The Emperor …was seen as a divinely sanctioned monarch”, “Diocletion was still monarch of the entire empire”, “Augustus was not only the princeps, the first man among many, but also a monarch,”, and "Tiberius…was a monarch". DeCausa (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The UAE is a monarchy in the sense that it is a federation of hereditary absolute monarchies, and all power belongs to: 1) the Council consisting of those Monarchs, and 2) the President, who can only be one of those Monarchs. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, it's not true that it wasn't hereditary. It was a mixture of heredity and election by the army. There were plenty of dynasties: Julio-Claudian dynasty, Flavian dynasty, Constantinian dynasty, House of Theodosius, Antonine etc. The article needs to reflect the historical consensus that Augustus maintained the pretence that it wasn't a monarchy, but that pretence was soon dropped until in the 3rd century it was an "orientalized" monarchy under Diocletian. I've amended the 2nd para of the lead (with sources) to reflect this. DeCausa (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your edits are interesting, I shall look at them carefully!

Your sources are good, and they certainly do use the term "monarch". I think the problem is I was confusing monarchy with kings, which is not unreasonable but in this case confusing. My strong impression is that the Emperors tried hard to contrast themselves with "kings" i.e. Roman kings like Tarquinius Superbus etc. and oriental "kings"/"despots". Perhaps instead of "emphatically not royal monarchs" i should have written "emphatically not kings".

However once the idea of "not monarchs" has been replaced with the (here different) idea of "not kings" (at least for the first 300 years, according to your source), do you have further sources regarding the formal abandonment of the idea that Rome was (in theory) a republic (is this what you are saying?). I would be as happy with the statement that "the Republican institutional framework (senate, consuls, magistracies etc.) was preserved" or words to that effect. The lead already asserted (before i edited) that it still a nominal republic, which i have (as yet!) no reason to disbelieve. 212.42.188.177 (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

With regard to your last para, I feel that you are falling into an anachronistic trap. Concepts such as what is "official" or not official in antiquity are blurred. It's not as though, as with modern states, there is a written constitution which declares it to be a republic etc. And indeed our concept of what is a "republic" is not exactly the same as the Romans. There won't be a "formal" abandonment of the Republic. But surely it's not disputed that historians conventially end the Republic at 27BC. If you put "History of the Roman Republic" in google books you get 14,800 titles by that name. I checked through several pages of hits with previews and found none that didn't end with Augustus. Here's a good example. Of course it is arguably an over-simplification (like the fall of the Roman Empire in the West happened in 476AD) but that is the convention, and we should reflect it. We're not here to do original research.

As far as the changes you've made are concerned, I think the statement "Only after three hundred years of Emperors, at the time of Diocletian, was the idea that the Emperor was not a "monarch" dropped" is wrong. The source doesn't say that. Diocletian was at the end of a process that began with Augustus, when the last fig-leaves of the Republic were dropped. I don't think there was any doubt from Tiberius on that the Emperors were monarchs. And that's what the source in footnote 2 says. DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've just seen this discussion on when the Republic ended by Harriet Flower in The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. As you can see, there are a variety of possiblities, but none that include going into the Imperial era. DeCausa (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the statement you think wrong, what distinction are you trying to make between "Only after three hundred years... was the idea that the Emperor was not a "monarch" dropped" [me] and "the last fig-leaves of the Republic were dropped" [you]?? They seem pretty similar to me. The source says "His position was that of a monarch. After three centuries the last shreds of traditional embarrassment about monarchy were disgorged." That seems to me to mean to very strongly imply that prior to this time, traditional embarrassment about monarchy had not been dropped/disgorged. 212.42.188.177 (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

You've changed what's "dropped"! The source says "last shreds of embarrassment" about it being a monarchy. You've said "the idea the Emperor wasn't a monarch". At best it's ovestating it, but actually its two different things. One is the actual status, the other is merely reaction to that status. (By the way, normal WP practice is to indent your post - it makes the thread easier to read: see Help:Using talk pages#Indentation) DeCausa (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think neither is about the actual status, both regard the principle. After three-hundred years, the principle that the Emperor wasn't a monarch was dropped. In any case, the important point, i think, is that the distinction with kings was maintained.

On another point, are you not confusing the period (and accompanying political situation) known, by convention and for convenience, as the republic, and the institution? "Roman Republic" is indeed used to refer to a specific period when specific principles applied, but the "institution" largely continued. The political situation changed enough to consider that a new historical period had begun. If I search for "Roman Republic", I would hope and expect to receive information on the period known by convention as the Roman Republic, but all this that doesnt mean that the institution of the Republic ceased to exist. Chile is a presidential republic, but by convention and for convenience, the term "Presidential Republic" refers (in Chilean history) to a specific period of Chilean history. This in no way stops Chile being a presidential republic today. 212.42.188.177 (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Of course, the period and the institutional situation can both be contrasted with a third thing, the claims of the emperors. 212.42.188.177 (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think your last change makes it about right. I suspect that although the choice of Emperor (actually princeps, Augustus, imperator etc), not king, was originally because of traditional repugnance for the royal title, the later reason for maintaining it morphed into a sense that Emperors were greater than kings. I haven't looked for sources to support this though. DeCausa (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

It occurred to me to wonder who was the last Roman emperor to rule in Rome itself; you'd think this would be easy to find out, but it's not. As far as I can tell from the biographies of the emperors of this period, Carinus was the last to rule from the city of Rome; does anyone know if this is correct? If so, it should be mentioned in the article as a fairly significant fact; note that the article currently includes the statement "Constantine XI was the last emperor to rule from Constantinople." (I originally posted this in Talk:Carinus, but I have since realized that nobody is ever likely to see it there.) Languagehat (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The last West-Roman Emperor to rule in Rome would probably have been Honorius. He was the one who moved the capitol of the West-Roman Empire to Ravenna. He and his successors didn't rule IN Rome but they continued to rule OVER Rome. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

According to his article, "At first Honorius based his capital in Milan, but when the Visigoths under King Alaric I entered Italy in 401 he moved his capital to the coastal city of Ravenna"; i.e., he did not rule from Rome. As far as I can tell, none of the emperors ruled from Rome after Diocletian established the multiple-capital system; the Western emperors ruled from Milan and later Ravenna. And of course "He and his successors didn't rule IN Rome but they continued to rule OVER Rome"; that goes without saying. I'm interested in who was the last to rule IN Rome. Languagehat (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

It seems I was wrong about this; Andrew Gillett, in "Rome, Ravenna and the Last Western Emperors" (Papers of the British School at Rome 69 [2001], pp. 131-167) has done a thorough study of the imperial court in the fifth century and concluded "that the western imperial court occupied Rome for significant periods, including between 401–408 and 440–449, and that Rome was the court’s primary residence between 450 and 476, the last generation of imperial rule in the West. The later years of the reign of Valentinian III and the rule of Anthemius in particular illustrate the role of Rome as the imperial residence." Languagehat (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The last emperor in power over Rome was Constantine V. He was in power 741-775. In 751 Lombards invaded Exarchate of Ravenna and captured it. Only Rome duchy remained from the Exarchate's prevous two total duchies. In 752 pope Stephen II went to Paris and switched alegiance from Constatine V to Frankish king Pepin the Younger because the Emperor turned out to be incapable to defeat the Lombards. In 754 Pepin invaded Italy, defeated Lombards and installed his power there.--2A02:2168:83F:8428:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

This title ("Semper Augustus") is not mentioned.--2A02:2168:83F:8428:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Isn't Roman Emperor a proper noun, the title of a position or office, as per Holy Roman Emperor, Emperor of China and British Emperor?? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The citizenry of the the Roman Empire were Romans. The "highest" Roman in the state was the emperor of the Romans. To that ends, their title was Roman emperor. However, historians have since referred to holder of the office (as one was appointed to it) as the Emperor of the Roman Empire to differentiate it from the absolute shit show that happened with title usage throughout the centuries succeeding Augustus. Different times, different semantics. LivinRealGüd (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think the poster was querying the capitalisation (or otherwise) of "emperor". For the rest, see below. Haploidavey (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted quite a lot of sourced material, added over the last few days by an enthusiastic editor. Some of it seems usable; any opinions regarding selective reinstatement would be useful, in consideration of the article's woeful under-sourcing. Haploidavey (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Haploidavey, I am indeed surprised to see such a uniform removal of my content. I am also a bit shocked to see that most of them were whole sale reverts. My goal was only to clean up formatting and add sources. My sincere apologies if I stepped on anyone's work. My foremost intention was to trace what the respective TPs were on about before adding anything. I thought I was just clarifying what was concluded on this talk page with my edits. I certainly didn't mean to go against any consensus. Please do let me know what I can do to improve my contributions. All the best and thank you for looking after those pages. LivinRealGüd (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

LivinRealGüd, thank you for your positive response; mass reversions of one's work are pretty horrible experiences. You've not breached any consensus. Your general good faith and wish to improve the article is very evident. Your grasp of Wikipedia formatting mark-up seems excellent to me (not that I know much about it) and you've not stepped on anyone's toes - at least, not mine; I've done very little work on this article. I wish I'd been able to disentangle some of your edits from the article history, and retain or restore them; it was just too much to handle. As for the other matters you've raised here, I'll address them at your talk page, some time today (I'm an old geezer, and I write very slowly, so it'll take me some time). Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

That sounds great. My edits are all in the edit history, feel free to take/leave out what you find improves the article. Let me know if you have any questions about them or would like anything else from me. As for my other edits, all of them were done were done to fix an edit that went against a Wikipedia policy. I would more than happy to cite the policy I was thinking of when I made the edit. For example: 100th Emperor of the Roman Empire --> 100th Emperor of the Roman Empire as per LINKDIRECT. Cheers. LivinRealGüd (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

We shouldn't be numbering the Roman emperors. It's not the practice on Wikipedia, to number monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Even if it was a practice on Wikipedia, how might one deal with joint reigns? No need to introduce complications where none existed. I'm not sure what's meant by policy regarding "LINKDIRECT" (which I've been unable to find in the WP:MOS). Per the offered example (Emperor of the Roman Empire) why would one link from one name for a topic to another name for the same topic? Isn't that the function of a redirect? Piped links can usefully link to subsections of the same article. Haploidavey (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Co-emperors are already mentioned in the respective infoboxes, where present. Therefore, Joint numbering isn't required. For an non-Roman example? see Mary II of England & William III of England articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

In addition to what was said above, the policy I was referring to was: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. The example I gave links directly to a page that specifies the office. Just like we link President of the United States all together instead of President of the United States is to have a direct link to the office. When clicked on it gives the reader information about the office, what it governs (the Roman Empire), and all other information. Same thing with Consul, etc. LivinRealGüd (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

What you descibe is not an equivalent to this particular case. Emperor of the Roman Empire is clearly a WP:SELFLINK, because both terms refer to the same information on the same page. It would be far more helpful if this article explained, with support from reliable sources, why "Emperor of the Roman Empire" is sometimes used as an alternative to "Roman emperor". Haploidavey (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely. You're right in saying that Emperor of the Roman Empire is a self link, but what I was doing when I made the edit was following the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking's MOS:SPECIFICLINK. This policy makes a similar comparison with the flag of Texas and the flag of Texas. But I see that it has actually been corrected already so we can move on to your second topic. I agree with you that an explanation of how Roman emperor and the Emperor of the Roman Empire relate would be very beneficial to this article. If you wouldn't mind renaming this section to "Roman emperor to Emperor of the Roman Empire" or "Roman emperor discussion" so that it be referenced later (in case other editors try to make the similar edits to mine). My contributions regarding it here (left side). I added two notes to both titles to explain what was discussed on the TP and the literature I reviewed. Do you think it should be more spelled out in the lead? What are your thoughts? LivinRealGüd (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

We don't yet know the weight this merits - possibly very little - but we have a start (your reverted text, per your link to the article history). It might merit bolding in the lede, as an alternative topic title; a linked footnote might be useful. Let's just see how things pan out. The article needs a hell of a lot of work all round; for a core article, it's in sad shape. PS: presuming you were talking about renaming this talk-page section, I think it best not to retitle. We can still link to it, and a few (a very very few) might have already done so. Unlikely, but one never knows. Haploidavey (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

LivinRealGüd, I've looked at your sources. Can you please give all the relevant page numbers? I can't find any scholarly discussion of "Roman emperor" and "Emperor of the Roman Empire" as context-dependent terms. Haploidavey (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I looked for scholarly sources as well but came up short. What I cited in the notes (next to the bolded titles) either specifically spell out that the Roman emperor title was used or had textual evidence of the title "Emperor of the Roman Empire" used. Just a quick google search of "Emperor of the Roman Empire" will yield numerous references to it. Unfortunately, I could not find any context-dependent terms. All I could find was links like this, this, and this. They all use the title "Emperor of the Roman Empire" or of 'Rome'. Should we retitle the offices to read Roman, emperor, instead? LivinRealGüd (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

We've been caught up on a rather insubstantial matter here. As you know, we follow WP: COMMONNAME for article titles, and WP: RS for article content; in this subject area, that means (ideally, at any rate) using reliable, peer-reviewed scholarly sources from reputable, specialist publishers. Your search examples are not reliable scholarly sources, but they do help confirm common usage; "Roman emperor" and "Emperor of the Roman Empire" is used in non-scholarly and scholarly sources alike. They're commonplace English terms; neither one is a translation of early or late Imperial titles. If reliable scholarly sources don't suggest any significant difference or claim that one is more appropriate than the other when dealing with a particular context or time period, then nor do we. We already have a redirect from "Emperor of the Roman Empire" to this article, and in my opinion, that's enough. Any reader with even the most basic English will assume they mean the same thing, and they'd be right. Haploidavey (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

That sounds good to me. LivinRealGüd (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Should Cyriades be added to the list? Amir El Mander (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you read the article on Cyriades it is not only made clear that was he a usurper but also that the claim that he proclaimed himself emperor is only found in one notoriously unreliable source. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

this article is available in many languages but it is not available in Hindi so please kindly translate this article to Hindi Ankush official (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The preferred scholarly designations for dating are BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era). BC and AD are Christian terms, imposing that world view on a supposedly neutral article. Is there a fast way of updating and changing offending abbreviations ? -- अनाम गुमनाम 00:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

See WP:ERA, a truce between those who would remove all uses of BC/AD and those who would remove all uses of BCE/CE. and for the impossibility of making one or the other our norm, see the repeated discussions in the archives of WT:MOSNUM or even the current discussion Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Article titles for years: BC/AD or BCE/CE. NebY (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

It should honestly be renamed as Roman Emperor. EmperorAlexander99 (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Imperator Romanorum has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6 § Imperator Romanorum until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply