Talk:History of Rome

Don't get this paragraph.

According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, many Roman historians (including Porcius Cato and Gaius Sempronius) considered the origins of the Romans (descendants of the Aborigines) as Greek despite the fact that their knowledge was derived from Greek legendary accounts.[14] The Sabines, specifically, were first mentioned in Dionysius's account for having captured the city of Lista by surprise, which was regarded as the mother-city of the Aborigines.[15]

I don't get the use of 'despite'. What is being said here?

Is despite being used to indicate 'even though'? The use of despite, to me, indicates 'the struggle of historians of the time' and 'that their conclusions were hated, even by themselves'. Yet, is that what happened?

My point is, even the reference (14) uses no emotionally charged word, which 'despite' often is.

NOTE: I won't be returning to read this, take it as you will, just generic feedback to those care-taking here. Thanks for the work.

Timeline

Strongly recommend moving the timeline to its own page (i.e. Timeline of Rome) so this article isn't so claustrophobically formatted at the top of the article and to encourage a concise prose summation of the entire article in the intro paragraphs (I rigged up a quick one as a quasi-placeholder, but it barely addresses post-Classical Rome and is deficient in other ways) instead of just a lengthy list. Once this problem is dealt with near the top, I believe the article will be much more accessible, giving the article room to breathe and allowing images near the top to welcome in visitors. -Silence 13:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Collaborators

Articles needs also collaborators who could correct my prose and, hopefully, add something after the age of Sixtus V. Also early Middle Ages time must be improved (especially 10th century). I promise as first as possible contribute more. Attilios

Made a one word change to Holy Roman Empire Secion. I changed "conjurers" to "deposers." I don't like that word either, since the antecedents aren't that strong, but I like it better than conjurers which seems to suggest magic. I think the author meant to suggest that the dissenters had conjured up the accusations against the Pope.

I would change the part that says "replaced by peoples of Germanic origins" to something a little less extreme. "Replaced" makes it sound like they killed everyone. Also, the beginning I think is a bit too summarized. I would go into a little more detail perhaps. Datus (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Rome population

Could someone give the sources for Rome population table? There are inconsistencies with what is written in the main article on Rome, in particulare there is a difference of ~1,200,000 inhabitants in AD 100.--Panairjdde 17:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a great deal of estimates of the population of ancient Rome, its population could be as low as 450,000 or to be in the order of several millions, depending on the sources in with the estimates are based. If its population is estimated based on the amount of wheat annually imported in the time os Augustus, its population would be about 2 million. If it is estimated on the walled area inside the aurelian walls build in the year 273, its population would be in the range of 450,000 to 650,000.--RafaelG 18:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but the sources for the numbers showed in the table?--Panairjdde 18:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Second to the historian Keith Hopkins, the population of Rome grew from 150,000 in 250 BCE to 1 million in 40 BCE. Then we have a census, dated from around the year 100, with says that Rome had 40,000 insulae, each insulae had an estimated population of 40, plus the 50,000 wealthy people with lived in houses, bring the total population to 1.65 million, with is probably the peak population of the ancient city. By the year 300, the population was reduced to only half million, living in 1400 hectares of walled area. --RafaelG 18:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for these references. As regards the other years?--Panairjdde 10:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The title of the table "Population of Rome" gives as its source footnote 74, which is "De Kleijn, Gerda (2011 [last update]). 'Goldfishy: The Population Of Rome'. goldfishforthought.blogspot.com. http://goldfishforthought.blogspot.com/2007/06/population-of-rome.html. Retrieved 8 July 2011." In fact: -- De Kleijn is not the author of that page, -- the page discusses De Kleijn's book and disagrees with it, -- the page does not give the data points that are in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.106.165 (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Population of Rome

This image is made from the data on this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karig79 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Timeline again

I am remaining on strike against this article from now until the day the timeline is removed. It makes me soul burn and my eyes bleed. As soon as it is gone and there is room to breathe once more, I will gladly do an in-depth copyedit to the article. -Silence 22:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Or, if complete removal is unacceptable, I might be willing to handle a compromise where the bloated timeline is cut up into three thirds, once placed at the top of the "Ancient Rome" section, one at the top of the "Medieval" section, and one at the top of the "Modern" section, so the timelines are both more immediately relevant to what's being discussed and much easier to read and edit and format with the text since they're a lot smaller. Though I still say simply removing it would be a giant boon to this article. The timeline is directly causing a great degradation in the quality of the text, since users aren't trying to make the text as coherent and concise as the timeline, when it clearly should be (we have plenty of daughter articles for the in-depth text). -Silence 22:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Page split

Another issue: this page currently has a major temporal bias towards more recent events. This is in part because we have a whole separate series of articles for the Ancient Rome-section events, including Ancient Rome and Roman Kingdom and Roman Republic and Roman Empire, yet we don't have even one daughter article for anything that came after that! As a result, we currently cover the whole of pre-Medieval Roman history in less than 8 pages, even though it spans almost 1400 years! Meanwhile, we devote almost 10 pages to Medieval Rome, despite this time period covering less than 800 years, much of it on relatively minor or brief events, followed by over 8 pages devoted to the mere 600 years of "modern" Roman history. The first thing we should do, in my view, is create a Medieval Rome (or Rome in the Middle Ages, perhaps?) article and summarize that article here in the same way we've summarized the Ancient Rome series of articles already. We should then consider summarizing (and clarifying) all the sections even more by expanding on and improving their daughter articles; there's a terrible lack of cooperation between this article and many of the other Roman-history articles currently! (For example, there's lots of necessary information presented here that's totally ignored in the Ancient Rome articles, and vice versa.) By creating one or two more daughter articles and being more efficient with our space usage (which removing the timeline(s) would help a lot with, incidentally...), we can very easily trim this overwhelmingly bloated article (it's at 75kb currently) into a trim, sleek, and reader-friendly introduction to the city's history, while providing numerous articles for more in-depth explorations of every time period. As we should, for a topic as important and hugely-spanning as this one. -Silence 23:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... the unbalanced appearance of the article has a good reason. I started to wrote from the Middle Ages, and stopped at that point as I was truly too tired... To define "minor" and "uninteresting" some events derives from what can be typical "Imperial" UK bias. Surely for foreigners, and especially American and British, Rome IS Ancient Rome, plus the usual bunch of things about Renaissance (but Renaissance Rome begins with Avignon Papacy and a medieval pope, Martin V). If you lived in Rome (like me), you'll know that, apart the ancient one, the city has a preeminent medieval and even Baroque appearance. An example: Rome has far more medieval towers than San Gimignano, a city whose entire fame is based on its medieval nature: why we should discard Middle Ages history only because other part of it are more popular? Probably foreigners did not know at all Ferdinand Gregorovius's History of Rome in the Middle Ages, which is probably the BEST history of Rome ever written. --Attilios 23:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't this page a Featured Article?

This page seems pretty good to me, so why not give it a Wikipedia:Peer Review and then nominate it for Featured Article? We need more good quality history articles for FA, and this seems to fit the bill, so why not? Bigdaddy1204 23:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

nominate it if you like Ironplay 15:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Section on Counter reformation Rome - Anachronistic style?

Anyone else think that the section on Counter-reformation Rome has an anachronistic style? To me it sounds like it is written by a curmudgeonly 19th century professor (with a unhealthy obsession about "whores"). I tidied up the syntax and replaced some of the anachronistic terms (eg. replaced "bravoes" with "thugs" - nmaybe not the best term either?) but i do not know enough about the subject to do any more.

Size and missing citations

Aw gee I hate to be a party-pooper when everyone is trying so hard on this article. But, the citations are totally missing. For example, in the etymology section, no scholars or etymological dictionaries are brought into this. I'm familiar with these derivations. The Greek rhome one is not the most likely and was rejected long ago. Why would the Greeks be naming Rome when they weren't even there? We need the authoritave names and assessments and some idea if the theory stated is old, new, rejected, accepted, likely, unlikely. By the time you finish all that the article will be way too long. So, it needs to be split up. If you check out the articles on the Roman military you will see that a portal has been established for them. That is just what we need here, a portal for Roman civilization. Until all those elements are present it is with great regret that I say I could not support this being a featured article. It doesn't look wiki. But all these things are subsidiary considerations that add pzaz and authority to the article. The basic information is there. No, it isn't easy. Making the Roman military articles go from ridiculously substandard to superior was a tough and tedious job undertaken by a genius (not me). Unfortunately that is what good writing is, tough and tedious, except when you get inspired. So take a look at the military portal and form some ideas. Then if you have some time give us some. It's an educational experience. Ciao.Dave 16:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Etymology rewrite needed

The etymology section starts off talking about the history of the word "Rome," but it quickly breaks down into a rant about Etruscan onomastics. Someone needs to move or delete large chunks of that and add some cited scholarship.

Done. I eliminated the rants, non sequiturs, and other junk that didn't belong. --me

As for "Why would the Greeks be naming Rome when they weren't even there," as a user above asked rhetorically, I would ask in return just why the Etruscans would be writing with an alphabet derived from Greek if the Greeks weren't in Italy. Without that writing, we wouldn't have any clue what the Etruscans called Rome; the word "rumach" appears in the Greek-inspired Etruscan alphabet, which in turn raises the possibility that the name itself has Greek roots. As for the u/o vowel difference, consider the Etruscan name Aplu, their version of the Greek Apollo, in which the final o after a liquid has become u.

I'm rather surprised to find no mention of Valerius Soranus, as well: even if the story is questionable, it's pertinent here and mentioned in ancient sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.131.16.137 (talk) 16:19:16, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

The Greek-inspiration of the Etruscan alphabet does not raise the possibility of the name Rome having Greek origins. Vietnamese is written with the Latin alphabet but its vocabulary could not be considered Latin-derived because of that. The Etruscans almost certainly had a language before the arrival of the Greeks (if not, then why is Etruscan so different from Greek?) even if they did not have an alphabet for it. The Greeks may have provided the name, but the use of the Greek alphabet in no way suggests that possibility. DMO, 12/19/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.207.214 (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In their defense, nonsense about Etruscan is better than what the article now has, citing Livy that the name derived from Romulus as if he were right. — LlywelynII 10:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

introduction paragraph

"marking the beginning of the Middle Ages, and that eventually became the seat of the Roman Catholic Church"

Vandalism

Can someone revert this article to its original state (before the introductory paragraph had "and then they began to mate like crazy!")? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.25.167 (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

didn't the pope live in Rome before the Middle Ages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.99.186 (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wheres the rest of the page?!

It looks like theres something wrong with the page, it says it doesnt cite sources but if you go into edit mode youll see that more than half the page isnt showing up, i mean its there in the edit page but a good chunk (including the reflist) wont show up on the main page for some reason, i tried to figure it out but cant, this needs attention now. Terrasidius (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the footnotes was incorrectly encoded. Iblardi (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Isnt the last emperor Romulus Augustus?

The page said the last emperor of rome is someone else. To most information, they say Romulus Augustus is the last emperor of rome in 476 AD. I think this should be fixed by someone who will not be thought of has ruiner of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedvinerasturi (talk • contribs) 02:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes: 'Rome Timeline' window in the section 'Roman Empire' gives the last emperor as Romulus Augustus d.476, but in 'Medieval Rome' it says in the 1st line 'In 480, the last Western Roman Emperor Julius Nepos, was murdered....'Mygodfrey (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Romulus Augustus was the last emperor to actually rule Rome. After he was deposed Julius Nepos became emperor in name, but he had no real power. Coins were minted with Julius' face on it, but he was just a puppet to the barbarian king of Italy, Odoacer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.36 (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

More vandalism?

Hi - just navigated through to this page from another article, and I suspect this page has been vandalised again. Looking over the other comments and the previous versions, it looks like a mess. Is it worth rolling back to an older version? (Please forgive my not editing it myself - I'm new to Wikipedia and don't want to break anything yet!) Karaden (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting information?

In the time line there is this entry:

476 Fall of the empire and execution of the final emperor Romulus Augustus.

However if you follow the embedded link to Romulus Augustus, that page says:

Reigning only ten months, Romulus was then deposed by the Germanic chieftain Odoacer and sent to live in the Castellum Lucullanum in Campania; afterwards he disappears from the historical record.

Was he executed or just deposed and exiled?

Kevdav63 (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

General tone & language of the opening sections:

Nice to see proper English, but the whole feel of the opening sections is weighty and dry. It's hardly inviting to younger users, which seems sad. What's the point in Wikipedia if not to grab the attention and imagination of youth? I don't believe in dumbing-down, but it could be possible to re-arrange things to give a more accessible lead in. By all means shove in the facts, but some general paragraphs to set the scene might stimulate young people, whereas at the moment I believe they would be yawning more or less from line 1. History should be fun! Mygodfrey (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like interested editors could go back to these versions to find better text to use to replace what we have now. — LlywelynII 10:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Founding dates

It says in the article that Rome was founded in the ninth century B.C.E., but the traditional date is the eighth century, in 753. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.56 (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

See Founding of Rome. 753 BC was Varro's opinion and he was absolutely wrong in his calculations. The Romans seem to have more generally preferred 752 BC on the basis of the Fasti and the dates for the 900th and 1000th anniversary Secular Games.

In any case, the settlements at Rome were certainly a little earlier. The Roman kingship may have started earlier, around that time, or as late as a century afterward. — LlywelynII 09:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Romans

I'm quite surprised at the chapter about the extra-italic origin. Talking of physically different, blonde founders reminds me of out-of-date racist theories. No one to date knows exactly what color where the hair and eyes of the ancient indo-european peoples. Furthermore, the use of the "bikini" pictures to illustrate this is irrelevant : the mosaics date from fourth century CE, more than one thousand years after the mythical foundation of Rome and probably even more from the arrival of the indo-european italic peoples in the peninsula, and are located in Sicily, quite a distance frome the city. These mosaics may thus depict anybody from the vast Roman Empire of that time, and not Roman ladies from the origins. In short, the whole chapter looks questionable and should be, in my opinion, edited or deleted. Elpiaf (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was a bit later, but some pope saw northern slaves in Rome and exclaimed that they looked like Angels. Thus the name Anglos. I assume from fair-hair/ fair complexion. But this raises another point - why did he think angels had blonde hair? Student7 (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Most likely, he was just very personally attracted to those specific slaves. Nothing in the Bible or Jewish or early Christian legend would've associated angels with a human form at all, let alone a northern European one. — LlywelynII 09:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to say that it does not seem that the "Out of Italy" section is written appropriately, though admittedly I know almost nothing about that theory. But presuming it is simply a fringe theory I am not sure that it deserves a whole section and, regardless, it should be introduced more carefully (i.e. the reader should be able to assume that anything that is stated is generally accepted scholarship unless the prose explictly states that it is not). --Mcorazao (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nor do I know if it deserved a subsection, but it seems carefully worded. Apparently only one researcher has suggested it. People did come from "all over" in all countries. There were a great mixing of races and nationalities. It doesn't seem totally out of place for that reason. The Nero rebuttal (oddly enough) is not well cited. So far, it appears to deserve mention. But we need other eyes looking at this. Student7 (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's always WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE if there's a single crazy shouting in the wilderness without decent proof. — LlywelynII 09:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Rome was a mixture of races and religions. The Italian peninsula was itself a mixture. The Etruscans were not probably Indo-Europeans (indeed the language it is largely unknown), but oriental immigrants into Indo-European substrate. They came from the sea. The older italics tribes as Adriatic-Veneti, Latins (lived in Italy well before than Etruscans) were Indo-European to see language. In the north-west of peninsula there were more recent immigration of Gauls tribes. All these populations of italian peninsula were mixed and had the Roman citizenship in the first century Augustan period. (IUS SOLII). (Exempted in the 1 century also from military service)

We know from the sources that older Latins of Rome area had usually black hair and eyes. But in the first century often the womans used decolored the hair to make them blonde for fashion. As Playmates ;-)). With the arrive of massive quantities of germanic slaves in Rome the things changed and also the fashion changed. The bikini womans of Villa del Casale were italic womans with decolored hair or germanic concubines slaves

In Italy the blonde hair and blue eyes became an attribute of nobleness only with medieval feudalism. (Longobards invasion see Rotary edict). Indeed the italics have become servants of newer germanic military class. The division of class became law with this edict. (IUS SANGUII). Physical characteristics became class caracteristic (discriminatory) until the 11 century CE century when it ended with the rise of the cities municipalities and commercial bourgeoisie and the liberation of the feudal serfs. But it remained in the figurative arts. Hovewer surely something was also borrowed from Greek religion ... to see blue-eyed Athena.

The old german peoples had other opinions indeed Siegfried had black hair.... ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.77.42 (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Vikings

Someone went through and decided that "Norwegians" invaded in the 3rd century. Actual nation-building didn't really occur in Scandanavia until the 9th century. These were just a pack of barbarians, like all the others. No nation, just another bunch of tribes. Student7 (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of Italy theory

I have removed this section because it is a fringe theory based entirely on a single source of dubious reliability. Edit:I can see above that several editors has voiced their doubts about this back in 2009, not to mention the many editors that have deleted this section through the years, always just to see reinstated by User:Sloppy diplomat. If someone needs to explain themselves it seems it should be Sloppy diplomat. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Strong words, Saddhiyama, but you provide nothing even resembling facts. I'll give you some days to provide evidence to support your statement that the source is of, quote, "dubious reliability". If you can not then it will be reinstated. --Sloppy diplomat (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring against consensus and tendentious editing are both strongly frowned upon. I didn't hear that is also not an acceptable form of discussion. The material stays out. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 03:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sloppy diplomat: Leaving the RS-discussion aside you do not seem to adress the major issue here, namely that it is a fringe theory: No contemporary scholar acknowledges this theory, it has simply been rejected by the academic community (and it never had much support to begin with). --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE states:

Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation [[Wikipedia:Undue weight|in proportion to their prominence]]. A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more [[Wikipedia:Notability|notable]] than it is. Claims must be based upon independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. An idea that is '''not broadly supported by scholarship in its field''' must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,<ref>See [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]], in particular [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight]].</ref> and [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. (my enbolding)

I propose that the material titled 'Out of Italy theory' should not be included in this article on this basis. -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, of course not. — LlywelynII 10:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Bullas?

Hello. I am seeking informaiton regarding the cords that they Romans wore around their neck? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.3.138.59 (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

rome

today i think you should put stuff like if there were any knights in rome because i am doing a project on rome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.34.197 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The Equestrian class are frequently called knights but, no, it isn't what you were thinking of. — LlywelynII 10:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Fragment of wall dating between the 9th c and the beginning of the 8th found

See [1] "evidence of infrastructure building had been found, dating from more than 100 years earlier. The daily Il Messagero quoted Patrizia Fortini, the archaeologist responsible for the Forum, as saying that a wall constructed well before the city's traditional founding date had been unearthed.

The wall, made from blocks of volcanic tuff, appeared to have been built to channel water from an aquifer under the Capitoline hill that flows into the river Spino, a tributary of the Tiber. Around the wall, archaeologists found pieces of ceramic pottery and remains of food.

"The examination of the ceramic material was crucial, allowing us today to fix the wall chronologically between the 9th century and the beginning of the 8th century," said Fortini." Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Demographics section

I propose that we either remove or entirely replace the demographics section of this article. It provides a ton of sources, and yet it never makes it clear which source has been used to provide the population numbers proposed (there is a 0% possibility that each and every source offers the same figures). Personally I find it inherently ridiculous to be able to offer such nuanced figures for so many different years, considering that most estimates are, 1) ballpark figures, and 2) usually differ quite a bit themselves. That's fine as the topic of a scholarly work, and such works definitely ought to be considered, but there is no place from which Wikipedia can offer these numbers with so much authority. And most of the sources cited in this section seem to be university lectures or works focusing on the Roman army or economy, which is tangentially related to demographics.

I've noticed that about ten years ago someone else posted a similar complaint on this page and nothing was changed, so if there isn't much of a response I'll probably just get rid of the section myself. We should have some kind of demographics section, but the one we have now is so terrible I think it'd be better to just get rid of it ASAP rather than waiting for a better one to be written.theBOBbobato (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

As there has not been any response, I am going to be bold and remove this section. This article needs a demographics section, and I'll compile one myself if I get the opportunity, but it's better to have none that the faulty thing we have now.theBOBbobato (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Protect page?

I think this page should be fully protected. Look at this diff[2], and this diff [3]. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

If vandalism continues, then I will request it to be protected. Unfortunately, 2 edits is not enough to request page protection. Quasar G. (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's more: [4] and [5] 68.233.214.74 (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested for temporary protection (see here for status). Quasar G. (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you 68.233.214.74 (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Era adjusted to CE/BCE

Hello,

I think given that this subject matter is not of any Christian origin, we may wish to consider adjusting the style of WP:ERA to the CE/BCE format. I find that date style to be more neutral, and so for this subject in particular I think it would be a painless and beneficial switch. I know both are technically acceptable, but if a new consensus says the CE/BCE can be the date style for the annum here, then we are able to update that accordingly. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Loqui possum et consensus non exsistit. WP:ERA conferatur. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong Oppose as to all his other proposals on this. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Ditto oppose. The 'common' era is the Dionysian one so there's not any need to be shy about it in the English language, pending a resurgence of Roman paganism that makes the formatting specifically offensive w/r/t the actual topic. — LlywelynII 09:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

General Silliness

Ok, yeah, sure, I've been complaining at Foundation of Rome about how needlessly wp:povy the article is, going out of its way to needlessly disparage anyone who might possibly think there could be a historical basis for the traditional Roman accounts. (Y'know, like how nothing in the Bible... oh wait. or the Iliad... oh wait. or Chinese legends... oh wait.)

That said, using Livy as an actual "source" with no other corroboration for a straightforward statement that Rome's name did actually derive from a person named Romulus is just as silly. Some of the editors over here, help clean up over there. Y'all need help from some of them. xD  — LlywelynII 11:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)