Talk:Ancient Rome/Archive 4

1536:: "Labels are important, but so are the narratives that sustain them. It is from stories that identities derive their essence, and the narrative of Byzantium is a Roman one as well as a Christian one. That may put it on a bigger map. In finding itself again, Romanía can change our understanding of Roman history broadly. § We should think Big, in bigger terms even than the 1,123 years that elapsed between the foundation and conquest of Constantinople. Let’s try to think even bigger, remembering that “Byzantium” was invented through an attempt to pare history down to a manageable size, by postulating that one phase of the Roman empire was “essentially” different from the others, thereby cutting Roman history into smaller bits. Other than scholarly convenience, there is no good reason to do this. There was only ever one Roman res publica. It began as a city on the Tiber in Italy, expanded to encompass a huge empire, and, in the process, it became an idea: the city had become a world, to which the name Romanía was given by the fourth century AD. There were no major turning points in the history of Rome / New Rome that require us to invent new labels or essences. It was all one history. Is our historical vision broad enough for this conception?" Anthony Kaldellis, 244:

historiography. Removing "in historiography" from the lead does not address your complaint and does not "fix" this "discrepancy". It does nothing to help the reader and it has no positive effect on the article. "Historiography" means "The study of historical writing." It does not mean "this section on this page." The body text of this page addresses that the start and end dates that could be considered part of "ancient Rome". The start date is mythological and the end date is complicated by what one considers "Rome". These are clearly indicated throughout the text and there is no conflict or discrepancy between this complicated historiography and using the term "in historiography" in the lead.

381: 150: 457: 1274:) 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 1867:

state "that the first thousand years was ancient Rome and the next thousand was Rome" when she writes "the first millennium of ancient Rome", and she does not say "the first history of Rome which we call ancient Rome concludes in 212 and that after that it’s Rome the concept, but not ancient Rome." (She does say "The citizenship decree was only one element in a wide range of transformations, disruptions, crises and invasions that changed the Roman world beyond recognition in the third century CE.")

794: 31: 691: 1105: 757: 427: 94: 510: 1154: 1184:“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. 1871:

even amount to an explicit redefinition by Beard, who is perfectly capable of doing so explicitly if that was her intention. It's not worth inflating Beard's choice of an endpoint for her book (a book which she had to end somewhere, an endpoint which allows her to use "millennium") into its own section on Knowledge as if it has transformed nomenclature.

2167:(vel sim.), which this article might then include a link to? Maybe? An additional issue would be defining what count as primary and secondary sources in this context. Beard is in some sense a primary source for her own opinion; so one would want scholarly sources discussing different scholarly approaches to periodisation (i.e. review articles). 1721:

the western empire fell until the renaissance, it's very logical this would be a time when the distinction was made in the same way ancient Greek was being distinguished from medieval Greek and how Byzantine came about. Regardless, it's not necessary to include this but ok it can go in the legacy section if it needs to.

1956:

I hoped to answer whatever it was you were trying to ask (I don't know if you intended a Socratic question that would lead to a clear outcome in your favour, but it didn't come out as a clear and coherent question). Now I need to make something else clear: I do not fail to recognise Beard's work, and

1866:

must be read literally, not "literally". You write "Mary Beard explicitly several times in different ways states that the first thousand years was ancient Rome and the next thousand was Rome." With "in different ways" you seem for a moment to recognise that she does not say so explicitly. She doesn't

1473:

that had existed continuously from 753 BC that died in 1453 AD. Going by the way Knowledge 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

1354:

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

1311:

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

320:

But your contention would be true only if (a) the whole article were about historiography or (b) if the term "historiography" occurred in several places in the article. Neither (a) nor (b) are true. The term "historiography" is tightly restricted to a tiny subsection of the article and occurs nowhere

224:

Thanks for responding quickly Eggishorn. But you are talking at cross-purposes. This is not about the "inherently complicated problem to define the period of Ancient Rome". The edit request is about making the lead agree with the Historiography section. The lead should not promise certain information

2155:

I don't really see how there's space for such a discussion in this very long article. There are almost as many different periodisation schemes as there are books on Rome, because - as Beard's book shows - defining the limits of Ancient Rome is one of the main ways of staking a claim to what "Ancient

2125:

on this. You've given no reason why we should be prioritising Beard's view over Fischer's or Sommer's or Giardina's, or Le Bohec et al.'s. I still do not see how the nuances of periodisation should have priority in a section on historiography over an actual explanation of who the historians were and

1870:

All we have here is that Beard chose to end her book at 212 and justifies that by saying the Roman world underwent significant changes starting then, or in 192 with the collapse of the Augustan template. This does not amount to a generally accepted redefinition of the term "Ancient Rome"; it doesn't

1795:

Your suggested text concerns the origin and meaning of the term "Ancient Rome". In the passages you quote, what is "very clear" is that Beard talks about where she chooses to end her book ("my story", "mine ends", "my SPQR"), not the origin and meaning of the term "Ancient Rome". On the one occasion

1776:

p529: "Whatever lay behind it, this decree changed the Roman world forever, and that is why my story of Rome closes here, at the end of the first Roman millennium. The big question that had guided politics and debate for centuries, about the boundary between the Romans and those they ruled, had been

1772:

P527: "But the underlying pattern is clear. Caracalla in 212 CE completed a process that in Roman myth Romulus had started a thousand years earlier--that is, according to the conventional date, in 753 BCE. Rome's founding father had been able to establish his new city only by offering citizenship to

208:

and (even more to the point) why we have body text. The historiography of Ancient Rome is an enormous subject that entire books have been written about. It is not going to be properly treated in one sentence of a lead section. Removing these two words, as you request here, doesn't fix the problem,

1510:

It's an interesting idea. But the issue with your argument is the same state by what definition? Given how much debate there is about the Roman Empire itself (ie, the very term Byzantine), I'm confident in thinking no professional historian holds this view which unfortunately is what is required to

350:

Your exit would be a pity - I would hate going through this pedantry with someone else from square one - it is no more fun for me than for you. Sleep on it and give it a fresh start tomorrow. A third solution could be to introduce the concept of Roman historiography immediately in the first section

1761:

Hmm. Correct, page 7 was meant to be 17 but the other is correct. Did you read it? Let's be clear, this is not a dictionary definition. The book title is "SPQR: a history of Ancient Rome". The start of the prologue is "Ancient Rome was important". If you read the prologue and epilogue, it's clear

1720:

I've spent hours looking for a source that can explain the origin of this term but to no avail. I emailed a well-regarded historian and he said it most likely came from the renaissance when Latin texts were being rediscovered and had to be distinguished from the old. Given Rome's history from when

1689:

wider purchase and clashes with the scope of the concept as presented in the lead. As written the section gives the impression that there are only two things one needs to know about the term: it was invented in the Renaissance and in 2015 Mary Beard defined it as ending in 212. These two facts are

609:

are apparently truncated orphans, copied & pasted from a different page, with abbreviations nobody can understand w/o having a Sherlock Holmes-type talent. So that article is practically unsourced as of now. It seems that the 2008 creator of the "ustrinum" article is Neddyseagoon, who abruptly

1566:

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

1183:

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

243:

Thank you, I believe that I do understand the problem. The problem is that you are determined to enforce your own understanding of the phrase "in historiography". As I said when you split part of this discussion to my talk, whether the history of Rome starts in 800 BCE or not is not relevant to

2199:

right now (out in Kindle now, hard cover in November) and its a big deal what he has done. His introduction is a direct challenge to the entire discipline that I find it hard for anyone to oppose. The whole historiography of the Roman Empire is being re-evaluated: Beard and Kaldellis being prime

2094:

the 8th century and that these “barbarians” are “alternative Romans”. No where in this review is a distinction made for what is “ancient rome”. That said, I do agree how we treats the end of the Republic as one section — that’s my preferred interpretation of what is the end of ancient Rome but I

2029:

Since the intense Renaissance interest in "ancient Rome" was led by Italians mostly from Florence, but also other north Italian cities (in fact anywhere but Rome), I doubt you'll find many references in their writings to the term. They tended to have inflated ideas of the importance of their own

1941:

I asked a specific question -- there was no mention of Ancient Rome deliberately -- and you refused to answer it. What you just showed, is that you are just trying to win an argument rather then find where consensus is. The unfortunate thing is by not recognising this female historian's work it

1241:

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

1716:

I asked what recent scholarship you can point to -- meaning, other than Gibbon from 250 years ago -- that discusses this issue and merits inclusion? As for SPQR, it was on the New York Times best seller list so it stands out on its own right as a notable piece of literature from a scholar. SPQR

1768:

P17: "There are many way that histories of Rome might construct a fitting conclusion...Mine ends with a culminating moment in 212 CE, when the emperor Caracalla took the step to making every single free inhabitant of the Roman Empire a full Roman citizen, eroding the differences between the

1394:

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.

1651:

Why do you think writing about Mary Beard, considered by many to be the leading classicist in Britain with a recent Roman history that is well regarded, is giving undue influence? Who else should be mentioned to make this balanced? I'd appreciate this discussion sticks within the bounds of

2334:, but for my part; I think "Rome" is good; I think that also leaves space for the article to eventually discuss things like social history, feminist histories of Rome, etc. (which moderns consider important, but which got much less interest was very interested in before the 20th century). 1346:

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

1743:

I have SPQR beside me. Where on the pages you cited, 7 (Maps) and 527-533 (Epilogue: The First Roman Millennium) does Beard use the term "Ancient Rome", or define it? I can't find it. I can't find any statement in it that the term "was likely first used during the renaissance" either.

1892:

What I am saying is she is consistent in her argument through the entire book and she uses terminology separately that distinguishes, which mean this is not WP:SYNTH. What makes this discussion not productive is refusing to acknowledge what she is saying in obvious language her core

1054:

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."

1303:

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

1837:

were different from each other. She repeatedly makes her argument that citizenship — which first was for men of Rome, then was the issue of brutal battles to extend it to other men — was now bequeathed to all men of the empire. Which changes the character of what was ancient

1780:

P533: "But, more than anything, this careful refabrication points to the historical distance between the first millennium of ancient Rome, which is the subject of my SPQR, and Rome's second millennium which is a story for another time, another book--and another writer".

2061:

So then, with that eliminated, we would have a sub-section that would exist solely to push Mary Beard's position in SPQR (which is very carefully marked out as contestable and personal "Mine ends"; "that is why my story of Rome closes here"). This book review

1434:

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

1988:

I was hoping that we can at least agree on the fact she makes these claims on all three of these components multiple times (but not in sequence in one place as you state). Once we've done that, then it's a matter of specific opinion of whether it's

1918:

She's not saying that Rome was Ancient Rome for the first thousand years but not in the next year, or in the next century. I completely agree that this discussion is not productive; the proposition is flawed in terms of what Beard says, in terms of

1674:

1. I'm not really convinced that this long article has space for such a discussion, nor that it should be the first thing discussed in the section on "historiography", before even Polybius is mentioned. It seems to be redefining what the section is

2280:

are big enough and distinct enough as topics to both merit their own articles. Although of course they overlap in topic of interest, Tacitus and Mary Beard are doing fundamentally different things (except when she tweets about Trump and Brexit, I

2140:

Do you agree, that somewhere in the article, it merits to have a discussion about all the historians who have an opinion on periodisation? This can appear anywhere and does not need to be prioritised over who the historians are and what they did.

1709:

This is the the very essence of historiography. The first sentence of the article does it. What is wrong with a section that is a paragraph long at the end of the article that can look at the latest scholarship and not what is referenced to

1957:

most definitely do not in any way disregard her because she is female. She is very, very good and we should pay attention to what she does say and what she thinks matters, which does not include affirming that ancient Rome ended in 212.

2305:

You can't discuss ancient Rome without discussing the Roman empire. And you can't discuss the Roman empire without discussing the Byzantine empire. The incoming monsoon of debate will be on the Roman and Byzantine empires. So may I

1242:

opinions like this get decided to be presented on Knowledge 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.

1762:

she regards Ancient Rome as ending in 212. If you want video's of her, you understand why as well: she is a romanticist of the Romans, so she only want to talk about the good stuff: the progress, growth, the acquisition of Europe.

1796:

in the epilogue that she uses the term (page 534 in my edition), she writes "the first millennium of ancient Rome", indicating ancient Rome continued beyond that point. She does not explicitly state ancient Rome ended in 212 and

1315:

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

133:, the historiography section makes no mention of the 8th century BC, and no mention of the 5th century AD. (In the longer term, the ideal solution would be to rewrite the historiography subsection to include the two dates.) 321:

else. Therefore the quick fix is to delete "historiography" from the lead. Or the more ambitious fix is to expand the historiography section to include the 8th/5th century dates and thus remove the discrepancy in the lead.

1981:(2) 212 is the date she chooses to mark the different millennia and (3) she regards the first 1000 years as "ancient Rome". (I believe we do not have a disagreement on whether she is notable and the book is credible per 614:". It might mean that he copied & pasted from here, and that in 2008 the abbreviations corresponded to notes & bibliography entries on the "ancient Rome" page. Anyone interested in looking it up and fixing them? 2073:

who wrote about ancient Rome. Nor does it really make sense to me that the section "historiography" would consist of a sub-section on "who the historians are/were" and another on "what they said about periodisation".

2068:

If I understand you right, you want this to be the kernel for a section on "how historians have periodised ancient Rome." It makes little sense to me for such a section to precede the discussion of who the historians

1841:

But also, the adoption of foreigners as citizens was the original goal when Romulus started it, it was used as a political tool for empire and that now that it was adopted across the Mediterranean the process was

2121:" at 212 is not supported by any source at all, not even Beard ("first millennium of ancient Rome" indicates that there is a further millennium of ancient Rome); I'm totally in agreement with the points made by @ 2098:

It seems you have form issues of how I am presenting a valid historian’s interpretation of Roman history with 212 culminating as the apex of ancient Rome before it enters a new millennium as a remaining state of

1899:

If you refer to P529-530: "Rome in its second millennium was effectively a new state masquerading under an old name". Do you agree with my interpretation that, a change in substance but using the same name of

2206:

I'll have a think about both the sentence and the new article, which should be broader and on all Roman history. Should I propose it here or do you want to edit police me (again) but only if I over-step?

2164: 201:. I have seen editors blocked for doing it and I don't want anyone to trip over that unawares. I am watching this page, as are over 1200 other editors. Your responses here are already being seen. 2277: 577: 2224:(As for Kaldellis, the key to incorporating these sorts of challenges to the discipline into WP is to see how other scholarly sources respond to them; i.e. book reviews and review articles). 695: 2257:, giving full Roman citizenship to all free men living in the Empire, with the exception of the dediticii, people who had become subject to Rome through surrender in war, and freed slaves 1474:"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. 1341: 1885:

We have a difference of opinion because you are challenging me to find a passage where Mary Beard in SPQR says "Ancient Rome as a period concludes in 212" and saying anything else is

1423:

It's not really a view as much as applying logic when analyzing how Knowledge pages around Rome are structured: there is one page (this one) from 753 BC to 476 AD, and another one (

131:

In historiography, ancient Rome is Roman civilization from the founding of the city of Rome in the 8th century BC to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD

335:

No, we are not reaching common ground, we are reaching total pedantry. Maybe some other editor will respond her further, but I will not. This is not worth this level of debate.

2309: 2249:

Historian Mary Beard distinguishes the history of ancient Rome up until 212 to be different to the era that follows, "effectively a new state masquerading under an old name"

1889:

WP:Synth also explains with analogy that "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article.

1820:

No, it’s not the origin of the term and the original first uncited sentence with which I’ve said we can drop is just to introduce a discussion of the “term”. Don’t conflate.

1317: 684: 387:

I have no expertise in this area and take no position on the request being discussed. However, this cannot be completed as an edit request until a consensus is reached. See

2331: 623: 351:

of the article body. Thereby implying that the whole article is about Roman historiography. But that would require a very strong reference for such a blanket statement.

2058:

If there aren't reliable sources on where the term comes from (an unpublished email from an academic isn't one), then a discussion of this cannot appear in the article.

1374: 1180:

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

138: 738: 567: 356: 326: 234: 184: 1400: 1769:

conqueror and the conquered and completing a process of expanding the rights and privileges of Roman citizenship that has started almost a thousand years earlier"

1693:

4. If the article is to have a point about the appearance of a concept of "ancient" Rome in the Renaissance, one would probably expect it in the legacy section.

521: 719: 179:

contained in the Historiography section as the lead states, but is located somewhere else in the article. Please provide a suggestion how to fix this problem.

1497: 1475: 1366: 1063: 1845:

She explicitly says the first history of Rome which we call ancient Rome concludes in 212 and that after that it’s Rome the concept, but not ancient Rome.

1039: 838: 142: 1977:

It's to agree or disagree on her argument that is stated across the book which I'm saying is (1) The first 1000 years is different to the second 1000 of

1095: 747: 644: 330: 84: 1765:

Below are excerpts, it's very clear and obvious and nothing I'm reading between the lines to interpret that she believe Ancient Rome concludes in 212.

1145: 670:

Is there a section needed for city planning of Rome? I read they had a limit on how many houses anyone could own within the city, but need to verify.

501: 813: 1059: 170: 1817:

That’s correct. It’s her opinion of what she believes it should be as that’s all it can be. History is dangerous when people don’t mark it as so.

647:

at Lacus Curtius. It's almost all material from 1900-1910, and I would be surprised if all pre-WWI interpretations are still accepted after : -->

360: 345: 254: 238: 219: 188: 2312:(ie, indicating the state). This can incorporate all periodisation debates from the formation of the Kingdom to the conquest of Constantinople? 2091:

Based on this review, it’s clear this author is using the late antiquity view of Roman history. Which is to mean a continuity of the state until

1797: 767: 571: 539: 1300:

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,

411: 1469:

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

1312:

the Pope) and upheld a sense of maintaining the Roman state. And Roman (imperial) administration returned with Justinian a generation later.

2044:

Good point. Maybe this is a term that came out of the Anglo-sphere -- the English and especially the American -- interest in the classics.

1356: 2288:

points to the edict as a fundamental turning point, after which the empire was "effectively a new state masquerading under an old name.""

1169: 1603:

What should it contain? Would it mere duplicate contents elsewhere, or be extremely brief with "main article" links to existing articles?

1067: 1567:

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 -

1492:

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". (

1685:

3. I think the prominence of Mary Beard as an individual needs to be separated from the prominence of this particular idea, which has

2170:

What I can see space for is (1) a short sentence or clause noting that AD 212 was a significant turning point at the point where the

1645:

Do you think it is inappropriate to have a section under historiography about how the term "Ancient Rome" is defined and/or developed

917: 707: 657: 638: 1505: 1210:& Diocletian's reforms of 284. This is in line with most scholarship. Beard's view can be mentioned, not in the lead I think. 881: 544: 1904:, she is explicitly acknowledging that what she is calling the first millennium of Rome is not the same as the second millennium? 2174:

is mentioned in the history section (with a citation to Beard); mention of Beard's opinion in a legacy section of the article on

679: 204:

Secondly, the "fix" is that trying to define the period of Ancient Rome is an inherently complicated subject. That's why we have

1639: 464: 391:

regarding uncontroversial requests. Please do not reactivate the edit request template without a clear consensus of editors. ‑‑

1027: 1005: 986: 964: 694:

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available

1389: 742: 476: 1584: 1137: 1089: 488: 134: 1404: 936: 834: 734: 563: 352: 322: 230: 180: 1527: 1483: 1058:

Here "bridgess" is a typo and should be changed to "bridges". As my account is brand new I cannot make the edit myself.

496: 1623: 1396: 1359: 503: 2200:

examples. So long as "Ancient Rome" incorporates the Roman Empire, it's going to get pulled into this academic debate.

1549: 1511:

justify an article. Also, your logic would be considered original research, a violation of a core tenant on Knowledge

1418: 629:

It does not seem this article had anything about Utrinum at around that time, so the source must have been sth else.--

193:

First of all, you shouldn't keep resetting the answered indicator just because you don't like the answer. Please see

1518:

Anthony Kaldellis is an active author and an accessible historian, you could reach out to him to see what he thinks.

1196: 924: 2053: 2039: 1329: 1295: 1251: 1219: 1165: 342: 251: 216: 167: 2364: 2343: 2321: 2297: 2267: 2233: 2216: 2187: 2150: 2135: 2112: 2083: 1802:

do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.

1734: 1702: 1512: 665: 2156:

Rome was about." There isn't space for a survey what every major scholar has thought on that question, either.

2006: 1966: 1951: 1936: 1913: 1880: 1854: 1812: 1790: 1753: 1493: 1442:- "He knew that the empire which is usually called Byzantine was the lawful continuation of the Roman Empire." 2203:

FWIW, Kaldellis also identifies 212 as a turning point., discussing the impact in the provinces and identity.

1993:

if these three claims she makes are part of her core argument or not. It also means separating discussion on

1974:

There is only one way, IMHO, to resolve this disagreement in an objective way that other people can weigh in.

1270: 1175: 1051: 125:

In the lead, the initial words "In historiography" should be deleted. Reason: the lead does not reflect the

1446: 731: 592: 2355:. Feel free to create it and I'll jump in, or if not, I'll dip into some Gibbon and get it started later. 2030:

cities in ancient times, and perhaps thought they were reviving "ancient Florence" or even ancient Italy.

1777:

answered. After a thousand years, Rome's 'citizenship project' had been completed and a new era had begun"

886:... Between 2,900 BC and 900 BC, the EEF/WHG descended population of Rome was overwhelmed by peoples with 852:... Between 2,900 BC and 900 BC, the EEF/WHG descended population of Rome was overwhelmed by peoples with 1207: 404: 69: 64: 59: 2103:. If you can put the way I’ve presented it aside, are you also saying you disagree with my assessment? 1668: 1161: 38: 847: 1279: 1074: 891: 857: 830: 463:

requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to

417: 1501: 1479: 1370: 1141: 1071: 492: 918:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7093155/bin/NIHMS1551077-supplement-Tables_S1-S4.xlsx

388: 2254: 2251:. (P529-30 SPQR). This could be it's own paragraph right after the text that says the following: 2175: 1111: 932: 763: 433: 281: 100: 1823:

Mary Beard explicitly several times in different ways states that the first thousand years was a

1136:

In the founding of Rome paragraph, the word religious is spelled relgious. Should be corrected.

2327: 2160: 1545: 1997:, and how it's presented once we can resolve this as it seems to be confusing the core issue. 1462:

itself: "The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, was

1607: 1085: 898: 864: 725: 156:

As explained above, the "contradiction" is actually supported by the body text. Please see

2273: 2239: 867:

founding population of Rome which subsequently emerged overwhelmingly carried the paternal

822: 559: 316:

Thanks for your patience. We are now starting to find common ground. So your contention is

229:, and then the Historiography section fails to deliver. Do you understand the problem now? 175:

Not so fast, Eggishorn. You implicitly acknowledge that the 8th/5th century information is

1409:

If you could provide a list of sources that support this view that would be a good start.

126: 8: 2351:

My future self just panicked. But we can blame these people for confirming the direction

1597:(but then the lead goes on to identify it with three entities that are in fact state(s)). 675: 600: 472: 339: 248: 213: 164: 610:

stopped editing in May 2017. He wrote at 16:19, 25 January 2008: "Created page with 'In

1431:(the "Roman state" or whatever we want to call it) that existed from 753 BC to 1453 AD. 928: 826: 715: 653: 619: 976: 974: 2035: 1541: 1385: 1291: 1283: 1215: 904: 868: 809: 553: 47: 17: 1040: 993: 2352: 2339: 2326:

Down the road I'm sure there will be long, long debates about whether it should be

2293: 2229: 2183: 2131: 2088:

Thank you for providing a source. I wish more people could do in their discussions.

2079: 1982: 1698: 1653: 1589:"Ancient Rome" is not - I believe - identical to any particular polity. Or perhaps 1580: 1568: 1459: 1081: 971: 482: 1971:

Well I'm glad you've said that because I think her work deserves more recognition.

1758:

She only talks about 212, not the renaissance, that's the sentence that was cited.

1593:

is exactly what it is, but not a particular state. According to the lead, it is a

1445:- Christos Malatras, "The perception of Roman heritage in 12th century Byzantium" 1990: 1920: 1886: 1859: 1629: 1427:

from 27 BC to 1453 AD. Those two periods overlap. Therefore, logically, there is

1275: 887: 853: 393: 2065:

lists some recent discussions of scope and periodisation in its first paragraph.

1619: 925:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7093155/bin/nihms-1551077-f0002.jpg

634: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1962: 1932: 1876: 1808: 1749: 1238: 1203: 804:. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. 699: 671: 468: 336: 245: 210: 161: 2221:

I think it's probably best to present proposed changes on the talk page first.

1451:- Review of Anthony Kaldellis, "The Byzantine Republic", by Warren Treadgold: 819:

Apparently I'm not able to edit myself despite the current protection level.

2360: 2317: 2263: 2212: 2146: 2108: 2063: 2049: 2002: 1994: 1947: 1924: 1909: 1850: 1786: 1730: 1664: 1523: 1414: 1325: 1247: 1192: 711: 649: 615: 584: 531: 1045: 2031: 1489: 1424: 1381: 1348: 1287: 1211: 1115: 912:

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

805: 801: 611: 596: 588: 198: 194: 104: 907:

at a minor but significant rate, and were of about 15-20% steppe ancestry.

2335: 2289: 2225: 2179: 2127: 2075: 1694: 1679: 1635: 1600:

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

1576: 1447:

http://www.rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue7supp/roman-heritage-in-byzantium.pdf

1439: 1206:, and the earliest date our article supports for that is the end of the 732:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982221005352#tbl1

2285: 730:

The frequencies in the paragraph are not present in the paper article.

1615: 1452: 1017: 1015: 630: 487:

thanks to whoever made this article. it helped alot with homework! :)

2122: 1958: 1928: 1872: 1804: 1745: 2163:

of things discussed elsewhere on wiki. Could there be an article on

690: 2356: 2313: 2259: 2208: 2142: 2104: 2045: 1998: 1943: 1905: 1846: 1782: 1726: 1660: 1533: 1519: 1410: 1321: 1243: 1188: 1012: 895: 861: 606: 526: 467:

if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request.

205: 157: 1351:

article has the partially overlapping dates of 27 BC to 1453 AD.

1717:

discussed 212, not the renaissance so let's separate those issues

1648:

If the term "Ancient Rome' is not a proper noun, then what is it?

1342:

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

1606:

What purpose should it serve, that isn't already served by e.g.

954: 952: 950: 800:

According to the page's protection level you should be able to

517: 1798:

Knowledge:No original research#Synthesis of published material

509: 1455:"That Byzantium was continuous with Rome is of course a fact" 916:

under the section "Supplementary material - Tables S1-S4" (

516:

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

947: 1572: 1099: 751: 421: 88: 1228:

That’s reasonable. Apologies for the triggering question.

1942:

means this encyclopedia is all the worse because of it.

2238:

For the new article, maybe we just add a section here:

901:

founding population of Rome which subsequently emerged

1264:

My reading of somewhat outdated material (e.g. Cary's

2117:

This distinction between "ancient Rome" and a later "

685:

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

578:"Ustrinum" page detached from here and left unsourced 1690:

nowhere near being on the same level of importance.

2276:(as in historiography produced by Romans) and (?) 1026:sfn error: no target: CITEREFAntonio_et_al.2019 ( 1004:sfn error: no target: CITEREFAntonio_et_al.2019 ( 985:sfn error: no target: CITEREFAntonio_et_al.2019 ( 963:sfn error: no target: CITEREFAntonio_et_al.2019 ( 1927:. This isn't going to improve the encyclopedia. 1773:all corners, by turning foreigners into Romans". 1096:Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2022 1266:History of Rome: Down to the Age of Constantine 1682:but I'd probably just refer to it as a "term". 1021: 999: 980: 958: 318:It does not mean "this section on this page". 1187:Do other editors support making this change? 788:I'm willing to edit the following paragraph: 643:Done, sorted. It was all based on Platner's 1355:an article showing the combined state that 748:Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2022 1438:- Steve Runciman, "Gibbon and Byzantium": 1202:Certainly not! The end of AR=the start of 1043:Edit request for typo fix: bridgess -: --> 227:specifically in the Historiography section 85:Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2018 871:, and were of about 30% steppe ancestry. 708:Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment 2165:Scholarly periodisations of ancient Rome 1237:I’ve lately become more curious how the 706:Above undated message substituted from 14: 465:Knowledge:Requests for page protection 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2353:Historiography of Rome and Its Empire 2278:Modern historiography of Ancient Rome 1440:https://www.jstor.org/stable/20024419 1080:OK, will do. Thanks for catching it. 1466:primarily in its eastern provinces." 1464:the continuation of the Roman Empire 890:largely tracing their origin to the 856:largely tracing their origin to the 648:1 century. Anyone who's interested? 25: 1864:not explicitly stated by the source 1833:That in both of these millennia of 1453:https://muse.jhu.edu/article/605042 923:And below "ADMIXTURE" in Fig. 2 ( 23: 1460:Knowledge article for Eastern Rome 549:Please add the text at the start: 508: 286:English Oxford Living Dictionaries 129:. Whereas the current lead states 24: 2402: 2245:For the sentence to this article: 1488:One last source: the article for 1152: 1103: 792: 755: 689: 545:Necessary link and clarification 455: 425: 379: 148: 92: 29: 875:To make the following changes: 1513:Knowledge:No original research 1170:23:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 1146:23:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 1002:, Table S2 Sample Information. 274: 13: 1: 1330:18:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC) 1296:07:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC) 1271:The Cambridge Ancient History 1252:16:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC) 1220:14:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC) 1197:04:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC) 1046:_bridges-20220722113500": --> 1041:_bridges-20220722113500": --> 983:, Table 2 Sample Information. 658:23:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC) 639:09:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC) 624:03:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC) 552:"Not to be confused with the 477:04:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 720:14:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC) 389:WP:ER#General considerations 7: 2365:20:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) 2344:19:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC) 2322:19:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC) 2298:19:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC) 2284:For the sentence, I'd say " 2268:23:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC) 2234:22:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC) 2217:22:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC) 2188:22:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC) 2151:18:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC) 2136:17:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC) 2113:15:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC) 2084:10:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC) 2054:04:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC) 2040:03:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC) 2007:20:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC) 1967:19:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC) 1952:19:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC) 1937:18:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC) 1914:18:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC) 1881:17:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC) 1855:15:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC) 1813:11:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC) 1791:23:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC) 1754:18:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC) 1735:00:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC) 1703:18:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC) 1669:16:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC) 1208:Crisis of the Third Century 1130:to reactivate your request. 1118:has been answered. Set the 782:to reactivate your request. 770:has been answered. Set the 497:03:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC) 448:to reactivate your request. 436:has been answered. Set the 119:to reactivate your request. 107:has been answered. Set the 10: 2407: 1827:and the next thousand was 1624:10:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC) 1585:09:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC) 1528:17:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC) 1506:03:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC) 1484:03:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC) 1380:No, I don't see the need. 1176:212 AD end of Ancient Rome 743:03:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC) 2332:Historiography about Rome 1550:09:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC) 1419:06:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 1405:04:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC) 1390:12:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC) 1375:06:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC) 1280:Year of the Five Emperors 1090:11:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC) 1069:11:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC) 937:10:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC) 839:17:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC) 814:17:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC) 605:hi. The "References" for 572:21:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC) 540:02:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC) 127:historiography subsection 2192:I like your suggestions. 2159:Most of this article is 1282:of 193, or the death of 680:07:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC) 524:if you wish to do so. – 520:. Please participate in 504:Redirects for discussion 412:04:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 361:18:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 346:17:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 331:16:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 255:16:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 239:15:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 220:15:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 189:14:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 171:15:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 143:19:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC) 2197:'s The New Roman Empire 2176:Constitutio Antoniniana 2172:Constitutio Antoniniana 1678:2. "Ancient Rome" is a 1575:- are already in use). 1365:What do people think? 593:ExperiencedArticleFixer 522:the redirect discussion 2328:Historiography of Rome 2310:historiography of Rome 2253:In 212, he issued the 1896:Let me try this again. 802:edit the page yourself 666:City planning of Rome? 513: 2302:Ok with that rewrite. 2195:I'm reading Kaldellis 1608:Rome (disambiguation) 1458:- And of course, the 1268:and summaries of the 1162:ScottishFinnishRadish 903:carried the paternal 892:Pontic–Caspian steppe 858:Pontic–Caspian steppe 645:LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 512: 288:. Oxford Dictionaries 209:it makes it worse. 42:of past discussions. 2274:Roman historiography 2240:Roman historiography 197:for more as well as 1022:Antonio et al. 2019 1000:Antonio et al. 2019 981:Antonio et al. 2019 959:Antonio et al. 2019 698:. Peer reviewers: 2255:Edict of Caracalla 696:on the course page 514: 1640:reverted my edit. 1540:, pp. 43-44, 45. 1538:Byzantium Unbound 1284:Severus Alexander 1134: 1133: 1024:, pp. 1-2 Fig. 2. 905:haplogroup R-M269 869:haplogroup R-M269 825:comment added by 786: 785: 574: 562:comment added by 554:Holy Roman Empire 502:Romans listed at 452: 451: 418:Remove Protection 410: 385:Not done for now: 123: 122: 82: 81: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 18:Talk:Ancient Rome 2398: 1923:and in terms of 1569:Byzantine empire 1318:Pirenne's thesis 1160: 1156: 1155: 1125: 1121: 1107: 1106: 1100: 1076: 1073: 1053: 1047: 1042: 1032: 1031: 1019: 1010: 1009: 997: 991: 990: 978: 969: 968: 956: 841: 796: 795: 777: 773: 759: 758: 752: 722: 693: 604: 557: 538: 529: 459: 458: 443: 439: 429: 428: 422: 407: 402: 399: 396: 383: 382: 298: 297: 295: 293: 282:"Historiography" 278: 152: 151: 114: 110: 96: 95: 89: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2406: 2405: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2161:WP:SUMMARYSTYLE 2126:what they did. 1632: 1494:Link to the map 1344: 1276:Marcus Aurelius 1178: 1153: 1151: 1123: 1119: 1104: 1098: 1049: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1025: 1020: 1013: 1003: 998: 994: 984: 979: 972: 962: 957: 948: 888:steppe ancestry 884: 854:steppe ancestry 850: 820: 793: 775: 771: 756: 750: 728: 705: 687: 668: 582: 580: 547: 527: 525: 507: 485: 456: 441: 437: 426: 420: 405: 397: 394: 380: 303: 302: 301: 291: 289: 280: 279: 275: 149: 112: 108: 93: 87: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2404: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2349: 2307: 2303: 2282: 2246: 2243: 2222: 2204: 2201: 2193: 2168: 2157: 2096: 2092: 2089: 2066: 2059: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 1986: 1975: 1972: 1897: 1894: 1890: 1868: 1843: 1839: 1831: 1821: 1818: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1763: 1759: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1711: 1691: 1683: 1676: 1658: 1657: 1649: 1646: 1631: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1604: 1598: 1587: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1516: 1498:Diegojosesalva 1476:Diegojosesalva 1467: 1456: 1449: 1443: 1436: 1432: 1367:Diegojosesalva 1343: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1313: 1309: 1301: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1223: 1222: 1204:Late Antiquity 1177: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1138:142.126.152.35 1132: 1131: 1108: 1097: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1075:_bridges": --> 1072:_bridges": --> 1068:_bridges": --> 1052:_bridges": --> 1048: 1038: 1034: 1033: 1011: 992: 970: 945: 944: 940: 915: 911: 883: 880: 878: 874: 849: 846: 844: 817: 816: 784: 783: 760: 749: 746: 727: 724: 686: 683: 667: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 601:Ichthyovenator 579: 576: 546: 543: 506: 500: 489:180.173.24.120 484: 481: 480: 479: 450: 449: 430: 419: 416: 415: 414: 377: 376: 375: 374: 373: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 300: 299: 272: 271: 267: 266: 265: 264: 263: 262: 261: 260: 259: 258: 257: 202: 135:81.131.172.147 121: 120: 97: 86: 83: 80: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2403: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2348:Great points. 2347: 2346: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2308: 2304: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2258: 2256: 2250: 2247: 2244: 2241: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2205: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2097: 2093: 2090: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2072: 2067: 2064: 2060: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2028: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1987: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1973: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1898: 1895: 1891: 1888: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1819: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1803: 1799: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1764: 1760: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1742: 1741: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1725: 1719: 1715: 1713:Sure, "term". 1712: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1655: 1650: 1647: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1637: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1614: 1609: 1605: 1602: 1601: 1599: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1565: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1514: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1472: 1468: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1454: 1450: 1448: 1444: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1430: 1426: 1425:Roman Empire) 1422: 1421: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1363: 1361: 1358: 1352: 1350: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1314: 1310: 1307: 1302: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1272: 1267: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1240: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1185: 1181: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1129: 1126:parameter to 1117: 1113: 1109: 1102: 1101: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1070: 1065: 1061: 1056: 1029: 1023: 1018: 1016: 1007: 1001: 996: 988: 982: 977: 975: 966: 960: 955: 953: 951: 946: 943: 939: 938: 934: 930: 929:Paolo Calucci 926: 921: 919: 913: 909: 908: 906: 900: 897: 893: 889: 879: 876: 872: 870: 866: 863: 859: 855: 845: 842: 840: 836: 832: 828: 827:Paolo Calucci 824: 815: 811: 807: 803: 799: 791: 790: 789: 781: 778:parameter to 769: 765: 761: 754: 753: 745: 744: 740: 736: 735:84.220.64.252 733: 726:genetic paper 723: 721: 717: 713: 709: 703: 701: 697: 692: 682: 681: 677: 673: 659: 655: 651: 646: 642: 641: 640: 636: 632: 628: 627: 626: 625: 621: 617: 613: 608: 602: 598: 594: 590: 586: 575: 573: 569: 565: 564:191.82.23.167 561: 555: 550: 542: 541: 537: 535: 530: 523: 519: 511: 505: 499: 498: 494: 490: 478: 474: 470: 466: 462: 454: 453: 447: 444:parameter to 435: 431: 424: 423: 413: 408: 401: 400: 390: 386: 378: 362: 358: 354: 353:81.131.171.52 349: 348: 347: 344: 341: 338: 334: 333: 332: 328: 324: 323:81.131.171.52 319: 315: 314: 313: 312: 311: 310: 309: 308: 307: 306: 305: 304: 287: 283: 277: 273: 270: 256: 253: 250: 247: 242: 241: 240: 236: 232: 231:81.131.171.52 228: 223: 222: 221: 218: 215: 212: 207: 203: 200: 196: 192: 191: 190: 186: 182: 181:81.131.171.52 178: 174: 173: 172: 169: 166: 163: 159: 155: 147: 146: 145: 144: 140: 136: 132: 128: 118: 115:parameter to 106: 102: 98: 91: 90: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2252: 2248: 2196: 2171: 2118: 2100: 2070: 1978: 1901: 1863: 1834: 1828: 1824: 1801: 1686: 1659: 1638:. I see you 1633: 1630:Nomenclature 1595:civilization 1594: 1590: 1542:Ashmedai 119 1537: 1490:Roman people 1470: 1463: 1428: 1397:76.14.126.11 1364: 1353: 1349:Roman Empire 1345: 1306:Ancient Rome 1305: 1278:in 180, the 1269: 1265: 1186: 1182: 1179: 1157: 1135: 1127: 1116:Ancient Rome 1112:edit request 1057: 1050: 995: 941: 922: 914: 910: 902: 885: 877: 873: 851: 843: 821:— Preceding 818: 797: 787: 779: 768:changes Rome 764:edit request 729: 704: 688: 669: 612:ancient Rome 581: 558:— Preceding 551: 548: 533: 515: 486: 460: 445: 434:edit request 392: 384: 317: 290:. Retrieved 285: 276: 268: 226: 176: 153: 130: 124: 116: 105:Ancient Rome 101:edit request 75: 43: 37: 1825:ncient Rome 1710:Britannica? 1680:noun phrase 1082:Haploidavey 36:This is an 2286:Mary Beard 1687:very litte 1362:GIFs show 1120:|answered= 961:, pp. 1–2. 942:References 772:|answered= 438:|answered= 269:References 109:|answered= 2095:disgress. 1983:WP:HISTRS 1893:argument. 1887:WP:SYNTH. 1842:complete. 1654:WP:HISTRW 1471:something 1429:something 1060:Bartvpelt 798:Not done: 700:Herstory1 672:Septagram 469:DannyS712 461:Not done: 343:(contrib) 337:Eggishorn 252:(contrib) 246:Eggishorn 217:(contrib) 211:Eggishorn 168:(contrib) 162:Eggishorn 154:Not done: 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 2272:I think 1991:WP:SYNTH 1921:WP:SYNTH 1860:WP:SYNTH 1435:altered. 1286:in 235. 896:Iron Age 882:Genetics 862:Iron Age 848:Genetics 835:contribs 823:unsigned 712:PrimeBOT 650:Arminden 616:Arminden 607:Ustrinum 585:Savipolo 560:unsigned 483:Homework 206:MOS:LEAD 158:MOS:LEAD 2306:propose 2281:guess). 2032:Johnbod 1382:Johnbod 1288:Dhtwiki 1239:WP:NPOV 1212:Johnbod 1044:bridges 806:Baggaet 599:, and 597:Johnbod 589:Krakkos 39:archive 2336:Furius 2290:Furius 2226:Furius 2180:Furius 2128:Furius 2076:Furius 1995:WP:DUE 1925:WP:DUE 1800:says, 1695:Furius 1675:about. 1636:Furius 1591:polity 1577:Furius 894:. The 860:. The 518:Romans 340:(talk) 292:1 June 249:(talk) 214:(talk) 165:(talk) 1838:Rome. 1829:Rome. 1357:these 1124:|ans= 1110:This 899:Latin 865:Latin 776:|ans= 762:This 442:|ans= 432:This 406:Meep? 199:WP:EW 195:WP:ER 113:|ans= 99:This 16:< 2361:talk 2340:talk 2318:talk 2294:talk 2264:talk 2230:talk 2213:talk 2184:talk 2147:talk 2132:talk 2123:NebY 2119:Rome 2109:talk 2101:Rome 2080:talk 2050:talk 2036:talk 2003:talk 1979:Rome 1963:talk 1959:NebY 1948:talk 1933:talk 1929:NebY 1910:talk 1902:Rome 1877:talk 1873:NebY 1851:talk 1835:Rome 1809:talk 1805:NebY 1787:talk 1750:talk 1746:NebY 1731:talk 1699:talk 1665:talk 1634:Hi @ 1620:talk 1581:talk 1573:SPQR 1546:talk 1524:talk 1502:talk 1480:talk 1415:talk 1401:talk 1386:talk 1371:talk 1326:talk 1292:talk 1248:talk 1216:talk 1193:talk 1166:talk 1158:Done 1142:talk 1086:talk 1064:talk 1028:help 1006:help 987:help 965:help 933:talk 831:talk 810:talk 739:talk 716:talk 676:talk 654:talk 635:talk 620:talk 568:talk 534:Talk 493:talk 473:talk 357:talk 327:talk 294:2018 235:talk 185:talk 139:talk 2357:Biz 2330:or 2314:Biz 2260:Biz 2209:Biz 2143:Biz 2105:Biz 2071:are 2046:Biz 1999:Biz 1944:Biz 1906:Biz 1862:'s 1847:Biz 1783:Biz 1727:Biz 1661:Biz 1534:Biz 1520:Biz 1411:biz 1360:two 1322:Biz 1244:Biz 1189:Biz 1122:or 1114:to 774:or 766:to 710:by 528:MJL 440:or 398:Hef 177:not 111:or 103:to 2363:) 2342:) 2320:) 2296:) 2266:) 2232:) 2215:) 2186:) 2178:. 2149:) 2134:) 2111:) 2082:) 2052:) 2038:) 2005:) 1985:.) 1965:) 1950:) 1935:) 1912:) 1879:) 1853:) 1811:) 1789:) 1752:) 1733:) 1701:) 1667:) 1622:) 1616:Nø 1583:) 1571:, 1548:) 1526:) 1504:) 1496:) 1482:) 1417:) 1403:) 1388:) 1373:) 1328:) 1320:. 1294:) 1250:) 1218:) 1195:) 1168:) 1144:) 1128:no 1088:) 1066:) 1014:^ 973:^ 949:^ 935:) 927:) 920:) 837:) 833:• 812:) 780:no 741:) 718:) 702:. 678:) 656:) 637:) 631:Nø 622:) 595:, 591:, 587:, 570:) 556:" 495:) 475:) 446:no 395:El 359:) 329:) 284:. 237:) 187:) 160:. 141:) 117:no 2359:( 2338:( 2316:( 2292:( 2262:( 2242:? 2228:( 2211:( 2182:( 2145:( 2130:( 2107:( 2078:( 2048:( 2034:( 2001:( 1961:( 1946:( 1931:( 1908:( 1875:( 1849:( 1807:( 1785:( 1748:( 1729:( 1697:( 1663:( 1656:. 1618:( 1610:? 1579:( 1544:( 1532:@ 1522:( 1515:. 1500:( 1478:( 1413:( 1399:( 1384:( 1369:( 1324:( 1308:? 1290:( 1246:( 1214:( 1191:( 1164:( 1140:( 1084:( 1062:( 1030:) 1008:) 989:) 967:) 931:( 829:( 808:( 737:( 714:( 674:( 652:( 633:( 618:( 603:: 583:@ 566:( 536:‐ 532:‐ 491:( 471:( 409:) 403:( 355:( 325:( 296:. 233:( 183:( 137:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index