Talk:Western Roman Empire

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ChristopherNoell21 (article contribs).

Parthia

I have edited the small part about the Parthian threat. The article failed to note that the Roman Empire, on numerous occasions attempted to invade Parthia (later Persia under Sassanian dynasty). Just like the Parthians, the Romans failed in invading their neighbour. The Romans, attempted to invade on more occasions - Sassanian king Shapur warned the Romans about their impending defeat, yet Valerian ignored the advice and was subsequently captured by Shapur; as was another Roman Emperor (who's name i forget.).

The article, later describes Valerian's capture; hence my disclusion of this note in the Parthian Section.

Temporary redirect

Temporary (hopefully) redirect until someone sees fit to expand this. -- Itai 15:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've started it, hopefully others can fill in the rest since I don't know when I'll have time to. Kuralyov 07:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Eastern provinces

Do we really need all of this history concerning the eastern provinces under the Roman Republic? The eastern empire did have a noticeably different culture than did the western half. However, that was not the ultimate cause for the split of the empire into 2 was a combination of the distances involved & the events of the 3rd & 4th centuries. Once divided, the different cultures did play a major role in keeping the 2 parts from effectively reuniting -- but so did Justinian's ultimate failure in reconquering the Western half.

I'd like to see this entire section removed -- or at least reduced to a brief background paragraph or two. -- llywrch 17:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sectional additions

Added and edited a few sections. I am going to revise openning sections a bit, and esspecially focus on the economic collapse of Italy, and eventually much of the West during the 2nd and 3rd Century. --Masamax 10:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Added section titled "Economic Division" detailing the economic decline of the west during the late empire. --Masamax 08:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I deleted vandalism, I will delete next time too. Zello 20:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Monophysitism

On first reading, the particular mention of Monophysitism in the East strikes me as NPOV. Is there a particular reason why they should be mentioned, and not for example Nestorianism, or German Arianism in the West?

I think you are right, and anyway it's better to leave out all heresy from the head. Zello 00:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits as of September 2005

I am doing some major restructuring and copyediting - when I started reading the article, without much background knowledge, I found it lacked some basic definitional information - like what the Western RE was, where it was, when it was, etc., and much of the opening para dealt with differences from the Byzantine and reasons the Byzantine thrived. I hope I'm improving the article... Kaisershatner 17:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Western Roman Empire infobox

Hi, I made this Template:Western Roman Empire infobox in a effort to improve this article. My reasons are the following:

It simply "simplifies" things,

Many usefull things are linked in this "box",

It helps to make a easier "over-look",

It seems to a "official policy" in articles about countries,

I really hope you like it and if you think some "data" is wrong, simply correct it. Flamarande 13:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC) PS: I haven´t yet found a good picture of the Western Roman Empire but if you find one simply add it or tell me and I´ll do it. I invented "Ocidentalis", perhaps somebody knows the correct term?

Pars Occidentis, coined by Diocletian

oh? I thought it was PARS OCCIDENTALIS.

Reorganization

I think this article needs to be reorganized a little. Although I think the data is good, I think it needs to be better organized for an easier read.

--Masamax 11:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you planning? Flamarande 12:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it has all these sections that could be inter-related. There is no reason to have so many main sections when it would be better served by only a few with a few subsections each. I don't plan to rewrite much actual information, just change the way the article itself is organized.

--Masamax 22:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Differences

This part of the article hardly seems accurate to the description. It seems mostly to be obsessed with Augustus and his rise to power. I am going to edit it to be more accurate to the heading, if no one objects? --Masamax 16:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Do it, but be carefull. Notice that I made that paragraph with such detail (list of the provinces) to explain that the political east - west division did NOT came out the blue. It had been done before between Ocatavian and Antony and there also was a cultural division. Flamarande 12:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag + ADs

I thought I should explain why I added the clean up tag... I did quick read-through of the text and found dozens of typos and poor sentences. The article badly needs a good going over. I corrected the errors I spotted, but the frequency of problems concerned me enough to think it needs someone to look into it in more depth -- hence the clean up tag. Anyone? - Motor (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Along the subject of clean up, I've noticed many pages moving from the Anno Domini to the Current Era format. Since the last mofifications have been aimed at the ADs should these be transformed to CEs while where on the subject?Dryzen 16:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This a part of the "dirty war" of AD/BC versus BCE/BC users. The official policy is that such changes have to be debated and agreed upon but some zealots (of both sides) don't bother even to ask and in their self-rightousness simply change the articles. Seems to me that the war still drags on, with "sneaky" changes and behaviour being now the norm. Flamarande 13:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This article has no need to use either AD or CE. Common practice is to use AD or CE, only in a date range which spans eras (see:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras). Paul August ☎ 21:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, I have plenty of books wich use the AD/BC system. I am under impression the impression that BC is used in all dates prior to the official birth of Jesus of Nazareth. AD as far as I know is bit more complicated, being used in all dates during the first 900 year (it is very unclear, but it is around there somewhere). I was following that style but now you are seeing some problem with it. So I have to ask you: Why are you deleting the ADs? Should we use them in this article or not? Flamarande 13:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well as I said Wikipedia's Manual of style says to use AD or CE, only in a date range which spans eras. Paul August ☎ 05:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering the common misunderstandings some people get when one speaks of ancient empires and in particular the Roman empire, due to its spaning both the end of BC/BCE and the begining of AD/CE, this temporal denominator is therfore well within its usage paramaters. As to changing AD to CE I have no real preference at the moment.Dryzen 16:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am asking: we should we use a temporal denominator or not? Notice please that most of the WRE happened after the "zero event" but not all of it (precedends paragraph at the start of the article), in particular the dealings between Octavian and Antony, Tiberius and Germanicus. Flamarande 12:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

We should.Dryzen 18:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In Latin and Greek?

What were the Eastern and Western Empire called in Latin and in Greek (with their translations in English)? Ahassan05 23:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)ahassan05

I found in some original documents "in partibus orientis" for eastern empire and "occidentis" for western.
The Bizantines called theiself "romani" in latin and "romanoi" in the greek period (after Justinian).

Also the musulmans called the bizantines "romans", and conquering a part of bizantine country thei founded the "Rum" (from "roman") caliphate.

--Lorenzo Fratti 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization part 2!

In the middle of finals right now, but I figured I'd propose a slight reorganization of this article under the following guide:
-Reasons Behind Division
--Political Effectiveness
--Economic Factors
--Western Roman Army

--Origins of East/West Schism
-History of the Western Empire
--Principate
--Crisis of the Third Century
--Tetrarchy
--Constantine Dynasty
--Final Division
--Fall of the Western Empire
--Byzantine Reconquest
-Legacy of the Roman Empire in Western Europe
--Catholic Church
--Romance Languanges
--Roman Law
-List of Roman Emperors

--Masamax 17:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Masa, 1st we have to reorganize the article about the Roman empire and only then should we reform this article. It is easy to propose reforms and then never to carry them out. Flamarande 15:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

End date

• "History is written by victors and by losers, interpreted and sometimes rewritten by intelectuals and fools, manipulated and used by politicians, and simply ignored by rebels and the masses, who always make the same mistakes."

It says somewhere in the intro that the WRE ended "officially" in 476, whereas the point is that exactly this did not happen. It may have ended de facto that year, 'officially', it was reunited after having been split between Augustus Romulus and Julius Nepos and the latter continued to be its Emperor until 480. At that date (officialy), either the Western Empire ended, or it was reunited with the Eastern Empire, I don't know what the sources say about this.

Julius Nepos is not commonly recognized as the "last" emperor. On the whole it is a matter of legal tecnicalties of dubious importance. Flamarande 21:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that one could find many historians specialised in Roman history who would subscribe to the statement that Augustus Romulus was officially the last Roman Emperor, and to my knowledge all the actors involved at the time recognised Julius Nepos as Emperor post 476. The statement is incorrect for the same reason that the statement "Kosova is officially independant" is incorrect, because 'officially' is all about legal technicalities.

Furthermore, even if one takes into account actual power when trying to determine the last West-roman emperor, I don't see how Romulus Augustus has any claim to that title whatsoever. Certainly he held less power still than Julius Nepos, at least Julius Nepos was recognised by the East and had actual control over some territory (Dalmatia). It seems then that one way or another, the Western Roman Empire ended with Julius Nepos - either in 480 or in 475.

But then you would be overlooking the rule of Romulus Augustulus :). Officially: The Western Roman Empire ended at the 4 of September AD 476, the last emperor being Romulus Augustulus. All books (written by profesional scholars) that I own largely ignore the claim of sovereignty by Julius Nepos after that date. Unofficially, under a purely technical point of view (whatever that means) you can defend that Julius Nepos was the last emperor. Don´t forget that history is a human science, as such it is imperfect, unlike mathematics. Flamarande 10:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Please sign your statements with four "~"

All well that the common perception is that Romulus Augustus was the last, but it should be based on objective criteria nevertheless. On what grounds do these scholars classify Romulus Augustus as the last? Why is a 'technical' point of view 'unofficial'? History may be a 'human science', but that means it is still a science and should still work scientifically. And do we know of any one actual decision made by Romulus Augustus himself? :) Sephia karta 15:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The grounds are simple. Romulus Augustulus abdicated all his power to Odoacer, and the Imperial insignias were sent to the Byzantine emperor. Italy, the heartland of the Western Roman Empire along with the old capital Rome and the new capital Ravenna had been conquered. The claim by Julius Nepos was ignored by almost everybody, EXCEPT the Eastern Roman Empire (and as such entered into history) and his later "rule" was only de jure - by law. De facto - in pratice, or better "in reality", who ruled was Odoacer, who was later suceeded by Theodoric the Great

Look, it is only a question of point of view mixed with a bit of politics. Who was the first Roman emperor? Technicaly, none as the title itself hadn´t been invented yet. Yet we (comon ppl and scholars) have agreed upon Augustus. Who is Jesus? Technically, he is mainly a mythological figure with all his miracles being doubtful. Yet he has entered into history as a historical figure.

Wow, just wow. you took a detour Just to offend Christians in a historical disscussion. I happen to be one and that little remark you made I find offensive and totally off subject!! >:(

But look, that is *exactly* my point. That *de jure* Julius Nepos was emperor. And this was not only recognised by the east, but by Odoacer himself. The text refers to someone being officially the last emperor, thus the last de jure emperor. This we agree was Julius Nepos. The fact that he had no power is moot, as it is 'official' = de jure emperorship we are looking for.

My second point was that even if one looks for the last de facto emperor, Romulus Augustus still does not qualify. Just as in reality Odoacer ruled over Julius Nepos, so in reality Flavius Orestus ruled over Romulus Augustus. Romulus Augustus was not an inch more of an emperor than Julius Nepos was, neither de jure nor de facto.

So if you do not agree with this, if de jure rule is not your criterium for being the last official emperor, then what is? Sephia karta 18:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand and sympathize with your point, and agree partially with it, but the defining criteria is "common understanding" or better yet "common point of view" (see below), nothing else. It is not my particular point of view which I am defending, I am defending common scholarship. Almost everybody (common ppl and scholars) have agreed that Romulus Augustulus is the last emperor of the Western Roman Empire. As they have agreed upon it, so it simply is. His "rule de jure" has been declared "null and void and neglible" by common understanding and has entered down in history as such. I am not going to write that Julius Nepos was the last emperor as almost noone today (and even it ancient times) acknowledges him as such. I know that that is not fair, but this is how whe write history. This also works in almost everything. It is also "When did the Byzantine Empire fall"? As the capital was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1453? Someone can argue that the Empire of Trebizond was also a part of Byzantine Empire, and that the Byzantine Empire only fell when it was also conquered. It is a bit like political correctnes: Too many countries are in reality dictatorships, but officially they are single party republics. I am not going to write an article about modern China telling that it is a dictatorship, alltough it is true under a certain point of view. "...you will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." - Obi-Wan Kenobi from Star Wars, the Return of the Jedi (where truer words ever spoken? :) Flamarande 19:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I wrote a small paragraph detailing the whole issue. I hope you are happy now. Flamarande 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with that paragraph, I find it to be precise and fair. I guess that what I am looking for is either an objective criterium other than popular perception today that distinguishes between the emperorship of Romulus Augustus and that of Julius Nepos or that the 'official' be dropped and the sentence be rephrased into something like "the last emperor is commonly considered to have been Romulus Augustus".

I think our approaches differ in that you seem to accept present day perception, where I don't consider it to be a relevant objective criterium in itself. Maybe an anology can be drawn to the listing of Malenkov and Ivashko as General Secretaries of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. General perception today is that Khrushev succeeded Stalin and that Gorbashev was the last and few will remember Malenkov and Ivashko but that is not sufficient reason to not list them on the page for General secretaries.Sephia karta 10:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Barbarians"

The word barbarian is used many times and always in quotes (""). But the reason for the use of quotes is never explained to the reader. Would it be better to replace barbarians with Germanic tribes and make a single mention that the German tribes were sometimes called 'barbarians'? Ashmoo 03:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Better to remove the quotes as there were more than Germanic tribes invading, like the Slavs, Mongols, etc. Flamarande 19:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume the usage of quotes was because the term is extremely general and, like the Charlemagne article, controversy breaks out due usage of it for a number of factors. For the sake of factual accuracy, it's better to be specific anyway. I've since gone through the article and swapped the term out for appropriate specifications wherever possible. If you see something incorrect, please feel free to change it. :bloodofox: 12:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

By Mongols I think you mean Huns. Quintus Petronius Augustus 12:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintus Petronius Augustus (talk • contribs)

"Resurrecting" the Empire

I was puzzled by the following paragraph.

The ideal of the Roman Empire as a mighty Christian Empire with a single ruler continued to seduce many powerful rulers. Charlemagne, King of the Franks and Lombards, was even crowned as Roman Emperor by Pope Leo III in 800. Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire like Frederick I Barbarossa, Frederick II and Charles V, and mighty Sultans like Suleiman the Magnificent of the Ottoman Empire, among others, tried to a certain extent to resurrect it, but none of their attempts were successful.

In what sense did these efforts fail to "resurrect" the Roman Empire? In other words, how would one define a "successful" resurrection of the Empire? --Mcorazao 04:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

help

I found something to change:

fi

1- the Christianity as religion. When the west empire was founded by Diocletian (not so keen on this religion :-) this religion was still prohibited, just untill the 313 (Edipt of Milan). But Costantinus never declared the cr. the official religion of Empire. But the chr. diffused in some countries of the W Empire even after his fall, mhen the diffusion was largeley ufinished. At this time the religions was differents: the pagan religion one, the celtic, etc

2 the list of emperors on the table on the right is uncomplete, because the first Western Emperor was Maximianus 286-305, the augustus colleague of Diocletian. And after Galerius, Valentinianus, Gratianus, Aureolus and so on, like on the bottom.

But I'm afraid to change these myself these data with no disasters

Thenks for your patience.--Lorenzo Fratti 18:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am tired about story how Diocletian has made division of Roman Empire. He has not done anything other but confirmed division between Carus and Numerian which has ruled before him..--Rjecina 7:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC

---

Sorry, but I'm not agree :-) I think the two situations are completely different. Numerianus follows his father in war, meanwhile his brother stayng in Rome. There is no geographical division, just different delocation of the same power, I mean, of some person from same family, with one augustus and two caesars, a main pole (Rome) and remote one close to finibus imperii. Weh the father died, there was two colleagues, the access of power was an access to one half of power ;-) This is not a true division. Numerianus and Carinus thei was just two coleagues, and Numerianus himself (when got Caesar - > Augustus) moved to Rome thinking to partecipate at the same power in the same city of his brother, with no clear perspectives (Differents sources represents differents situations, but prob Mumerialus left the war and got back to Rome and was killed in this circumstance). Numerianus, I mean, when got Augustus got an half-augustus in the same place, and I dont'see any geographical division of Empire, neither western or eastern. So, I can't imagine the west empire was founded in this circumstace...

Diocles (the only emperor and absolute monocrates, wit no parents, relatives or limitation in his to be princeps) reformed the empire in many aspects, and one among these was the 1-OFFICIAL 2-PERMANENT (in his mind) 3-IDEAL 4-ADMINISTRATIVE 5-COMPLETE and wit no PRELATIONS or any sort of difference (except the geographical area, of course) in two distinct parts, both with the same dignity, with no predominance or more or less importance, no fathers, patrons, titula and so on :-) The most original (and paradox) of this formula is in cutting off Rome: In this way, at the same time

1-the urbs Romae is too important to get "one beetwen" two capitals, but

2-Rome is not enough important to have a specific role in distribution ofthe power .

This is an important reform, because duplicates the burocracy (cfr Jones, The Later Roman... Blackwell, Oxford) and formed the ideal "tetrarchy", like a permanent structure of the empire. This formula felt immediately, but the two parts survive (with some intermittences)in the mind of Emperors even when thei are the uniques monarca(the same Costantinus reformed the Diocetian's idea , but everybody had in mind there are two parts) until the fall of western and eastarn one dominations, everyone in differents ways, times, culture etc etc etc.

The demnostation of my idea? In the Eastern Empire (the bizantine one) sometimes there was two augusti (one time there was also 5 -I tell five- augusti at the same time!) but nobody think this represented a division of the bizantine empire....

Regards--Lorenzo Fratti 23:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem

A very simple question, so simple in fact that it is weird to notice NOTHING about this: who is the FIRST christian emperor, seeding christianism throughout the world via the Catholic Church? Please, when you write articles, be objective. This information is a primer, but nothing about it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.50.68 (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Romano-Byzantine rule survived in Algeria during Vandal occupations?

One of my most respected sources, Bruce Gordan's Regnal Chrononlogies, makes a mention in his entry for the city of Constantine in north Africa. And Euratlas' maps of Europe in 500 AD and 600 AD both show a "Kingdom of the Romans and Moors in Algeria, not under Vandal control.

Would it be plausible to then say that part of the Western Empire survived the fall of Nepos and Syagrius? I unfortunately don't yet have more information, and wanted to bring it to your mutual attentions. It would make a very interesting note in this and a few other articles... Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Map of Near East in 475 AD

This map is relevant to the article because it shows the remnants of the Western Empire, the Eastern Empire, and other nations the WRE interacted with in one way or another. Besides, the map was already scaled down. Srnec just hates the maps period. There's no reason to delete it, and it is FAR more relevant to this article than the map of Parthia, which NEVER interacted with the WRE. Thomas Lessman (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My reasons are the following: the map is way too large and is not centered upon the WRE. I know that you created these maps (and they are fine but they show the whole eastern hemisphere - and that is it rightfull subject; the hemisphere). Scaling down the map makes it very hard to distinguish the individual nations. You claim that the map is "FAR more relevant to this article than the map of Parthia, which NEVER interacted with the WRE". Please notice that your map shows also shows Parthia and even the more easternly Hephalite Khanate (your comment makes simply no sense at all). Just because you created these hemisphere maps doesn't mean that all articles are forced to display them. Flamarande (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My map shows Persia, which did have some interaction with WRE and ERE. The Parthians fell in 224, the WRE/ERE first split didn't happen until the 290s. And as already stated, this map you are referring to is NOT a full hemishpere map; it's already been scaled down to show only the near-eastern area. It gives readers great info about that part of the world during the time of the fall of the west. Also gives valuable info about placement of successors, conquerers, etc. Eventually the map could be customized to highlight the WRE, at least when I get time and info available. For now, the main argument against it is that it shows too much info or too many nations? That enhances article, giving readers more information about the Romans and the world they lived in. The map should stay. Thomas Lessman (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If the subject is the WRE one provides a map centered upon the WRE. The map is not a hemisphere map however it simply shows too many nations at the same time; most of them had few precious relations with the WRE, if any at all. The map is about the whole Mediterranean area and about the whole Near East, and should be shown in an article which deals with that wide area (and not this article). Flamarande (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And eventually the map could highlight WRE lands to make them stand out, same way the map on the Byzantine Empire article highlights ERE lands. Just "showing too many nations" is not an argument against the map, it's an argument FOR the map, because it gives readers valuable info about the peoples who interacted with the Romans one way or another. Gives readers better ideas of what other peoples to read about too. Other maps doesn't show nearly as much detail, and it's all relevant to the article. FAR more relevant than the image of Parthia, which fell before there ever was a WRE. Thomas Lessman (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Eventually" is an excuse. Too many nations is a good arguments, there something as too much information. The article is about a nation in particular and not about an enormous geographical area. If your map showed the WRE and its neighbors I wouldn't oppose. But your maps shows the neighbors of the neighbor of the neighbor of the WRE. That is simply too much. Your comment about the map showing Parthia only shows that you failed to read the relevant paragraph. Flamarande (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Who's not reading? Parthia fell before there was ever a WRE. Persia existed during WRE times, even interacted with WRE emperors. Parthia NEVER interacted with ANY WRE emperor. Yet you and Srnec delete my map because it shows "too much information"? And you leave the map that shows a nation which never interacted with the WRE. Again, who's not reading? The map adds useful information that gives readers a great idea of the world and neighbors of the WRE. Leave it. Thomas Lessman (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You failed to read the paragraph were the map appears. The Roman Empire had been divided upon a East/West axis previously between Octavian and Mark Antony. This trend also appeared with Tiberius and Germanicus and the same axis re-appeared later many times. The threat of Parthia ensured that a large number of legions were stationed on the eastern border. That fact caused several civil wars (bloody hell just read the beginning of the article). The use of showing the neighbor of the neighbors of the neighbors of the WRE is beyond any reasonable logic. You created the maps and now you seem intent in forcing them upon every article you can find. This is unwise and I object. As I'm not interested in a revert war, I reported the whole issue in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please present your arguments there. Flamarande (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Flamarande, for someone not interested in a revert war, you sure seem determined to get these maps off of pages where they provide useful information. Show me what other maps on the article show the WRE, the ERE, and the peoples and tribes they were in conflict or traded with? I'm not saying any of the other maps should be deleted, but the Near East map should stay.

You mentioned the WRE/ERE of Octavian and Antony, but they are never recognized as such (though I admit that you should bring that into discussion of the articles, as they would be some kind of predecessor, in any case something to think about). But the maps were designed to show a lot of information, relevant to the article, and you should leave it up while we discuss whether they should stay or not. Don't just arbitrarily delete them. Thomas Lessman (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't just arbitrarily include them everywhere (and not in this article). The map is simply too large (is that so hard to understand?). Just picking a couple of examples: it shows Ghana, the Bhantu tribes, the Ugrian peoples, the Finish tribes (and many more). Are you claiming that these nations interacted with the WRE? Showing the neighbor of the neighbors of the neighbors (etc) of the WRE is beyond any reasonable logic. The map is not centered upon the WRE and one must search for the WRE to see it at all.

What we need in most of the articles is maps like this one Image:Politically divided Gaul, 481.jpg. The map is more-or-less centered upon the subject and shows its neighbors (its a bit old and a bit "faded" in color). Even showing the neighbors of the neighbors is still valid (many alliance are made with these states to threaten - and to attack - an aggressive neighbor). Most articles don't need an enormous map which a too wider area.

Let's just compare your map with this Image:Location Germany EU Europe.png which is used in the article of current state of Germany. First of all don't forget that modern nations have way more relations with each other than in Late antiquity (horizons are way broader). Even so the map about modern Germany shows a smaller area than yours, and your map is about a state of late antiquity! Your maps are fine for an article whose subject is "History of the Mediterranean area" (not this map is particular it is even too large for such an article) not the WRE.

What you are doing is creating huge maps which show a large (enormous) area, and then including these maps into every single country/nation inside of that area. Other users think that your maps fail to show the state in question in a reasonable fashion and remove the maps, you simply ignore their opinion and re-add again and again. Just picking the example above: imagine you pick a modern version of your map (showing the area today) and include it in the article Germany. You would have a map which shows an area from Iceland to Iran to Somalia and even Côte d'Ivoire. The map wouldn't have a chance in hell to survive inside the article Germany (or France, whatever). Flamarande (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully Flamarande, you're comparing apples and oranges. I'm not advocating deleting ANY maps, but instead saying we need to leave the different maps up. What's so bad about providing additional information on an article? There's a section for "See Also" on most articles, which includes some articles on neighbors, allies, enemies, etc. - that's what helps readers learn more about history than just what's in that particular article. Having two or more maps that each show different information helps readers get a better understanding of the subject.

There's nothing wrong with having more than one map on an article, especially when each map shows different information. The map of Gaul in 481 shows details my maps simply can't show, like cities. The NE map has details the Gaul map can't show, like who their neighbors were and what their lands they ruled, possible allies and trading partners (you'd never know there was another Roman enclave like Syagrius' domains, only in north Africa, by looking at that map of Gaul.)

Again, I'm advocating keeping BOTH maps, because they both provide different but useful information for readers, and they improve the quality of Wikipedia in general. Thomas Lessman (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm comparing apples and oranges? You are forcing your maps upon every article you can find. I never said that you were intent in deleting any maps (where did see that one?). If someone looks at your maps one has to search for the subject. Your maps don't just show the neighbors; they show the neighbor of the neighbor of the neighbor (etc). Flamarande (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just take a look at the Topeka, Kansas- article. The map shows its location inside of state of Kansas. One could include a map showing its location inside the USA. One shouldn't show the location of Topeka inside the whole continent of North America. And your maps are even larger than that (they show a whole continent of Europe + more or less half of Africa + the whole of the Near East). It's simply Overkill. Flamarande (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, what's wrong with leaving two maps up, if they both show different information that is relevant and useful to the article? The maps I made show info that is accurate and relevant to the article. The "search" for the subject is very minimal - the maps were already scaled down for that reason. When you click on any of the maps, you can easily see the larger version of that map, and thus can easily see the subject, their neighbors, and their neighbor's neighbors. It shows you what kind of scale the subject was on in the world of their time. If readers aren't interested in that info, they don't have to click on the map and thus no harm done. But don't remove that extra information from the readers just because it doesn't focus directly on the subject, especially when it STILL contains information very relevant to the article and helpful to the readers. Thomas Lessman (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You bring up a good point with the Topeka article, though in my opinion it would be best if articles about cities show 1. Map of city, 2. map of province or state, 3. map of nation, and 4. map of city's position in world or hemisphere. With history articles about nations, they should show 1: zoomed in for local (major cities, provinces, etc.), 2. zoomed out for region (nation & neighbors), and 3. location in world or world region (nation, region, wider region). Thus giving readers access to more information if they are interested in it, but not "forcing" it on them. Again, what's wrong with showing more than one map? Thomas Lessman (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There nothing wrong in showing more than one if the maps are worthy (and make no mistake your map simply isn't relevant). You preach that your maps show relevant information. Fine, then explain me the relevance of Ghana for someone interested in the WRE? What is the relevance of Somali tribes for someone interested in the WRE? What is the relevance of the Hephlatite Khanate for somebody interested in the WRE? Yemen, the Bantu tribes? I could go on, and on, and on... Look Talessman you are avoiding the main issue: your maps are simply way too large. They are enormous. they don't belong into many country-articles.

To be quite honest you are trying to force everybody into accepting you enormous maps no matter what. Other users 8including myself) who don't agree with the relevance of the maps are starting to resent your self-righteous attitude. Take a look at History of the Basque people the history and the talk-page of the article. It's just a single example of the effect of your "take-no-prisoners attitude" ("this article has to use my map no matter what"). Take a look at the articles where you plastered your maps? How many did survive until today? I'm quite honestly of the opinion that the majority articles where your maps do survive either a) there isn't any other map and your maps are better than nothing. or B) no one reads (and noticed) your maps at all. So please stop peaching and imposing your maps on every article you can find and do something constructive (for example maps which show the country in question with its neighbors and allies). Now that would be something useful. Flamarande (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Are you seeing what I'm seeing?

"...for this is in my blood"? meh

That wasn't in the code. I checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.200.179 (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC) And now it's happened to Halo 2. And no-one seems to be doing nything. WP COVER-UP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.200.179 (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The page is completely blanked now. I've tried to revert it but I'm not able to.

Exiledone (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Vexiloid

Since the motto is SPQR, couldn't it be said that is also the flag? JuliusNero (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Romance speaken by a majority in the Basque Country

Only 20% of Basques use the Basque language usually while the overwhelming majority (80%) speak in Spanish usually.--88.18.148.161 (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And I doubt that in Britanny the majority language is not French...

The Gaul Roman Empire only breifly metioned

Know theres an article just on the Galulic Roman Empire Wikipedia But wondering if article could provide a link to this Wkipedia article. ?Thanks!evepmdtadewedo8110921stcentdeced.Aslashingsword (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Exaggeration of Papal Power

This line is anachronistic:

" as well as the recognition and support of the powerful Catholic Church"

What power exactly did the Church have beyond the loyalty of conquered peoples in the 5th & 6th century in the midst of barbarian ruled & ruined Italy? The temportal power the Catholic Church had was either:

1) After the fall of first Byzantine Italy, then Frankish rule, when the Pope protected himself 2) With the rise of the European Medieval Monarchs.

Neither of the 2 conditions above being true at the time of the Germanic invasion - the Germans did not benefit from the Pope's power, rather they gave him temporal support in exchange for spiritual support (conditional upon their conversion, which they eventually did, to Nicaean Catholic Christianity).98.176.7.5 (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal

I've removed the passage about the eastern provinces having been "always wealthier,". Precisely, there's no conclusive evidence that the orient was much richer during the high empire. Italy was by far the richest province and in the west, Tunisia, southern spain and southern Africa were also very prosperous (just as Egypt, except for Alexandria, had a poor population). The main point is that precisely, starting in the 3rd century, we see a shift in power from west to the east, with a stagnating Italy and other regions (notably Gaul) devastated by war. It's at that time that western cities started to recede and become more fortified, a phenomenon that started several centuries later in the orient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.181.126.68 (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems fair. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Dacia

I noticed that Dacia is not included as part of the Western Roman Empire in the introductory infobox map, which claims to depict the Western Roman Empire's maximum extent. I'm not familiar with the exact demarkation between the Western and the Eastern empires in that area, but given that Dacia was an entirely new conquest not part of the traditional Hellenic realm and given the fact that use of Latin became widespread in Dacia, it would seem logical to assume that Dacia being culturally part of the Latin West also was part of the Western Roman Empire? I would appreciate a clarification as to whether it was, or why it wasn't if it was not. Abvgd (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The east/west division of the Empire was far more westward than the lands north of Greece. Also, while Greek was the dominant language in the east, Latin was not absent either (especially in the early years).  —Sowlos  15:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

motto?

Calling SPQR the "motto" of the WRE is pushing it a bit. It is a designation of the idealised souvereignty of the res publica, but not a "motto". Any sources that would call it that? Trigaranus (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Add links to the Gothic & Vandal wars article in the "Byzantine reconquest" section

Perhaps we should add a links to the articles about the Gothic War (535–554)and Vandalic War under the section about the the Byzantine reconquest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.145.0 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevance

The great tsunami of 365 has no relevance except possibly to the decline of the imperial rule in the western territories. Even if that is the intention, it is not stated, and it is placed randomly in the article. This has to be removed or fixed.

Hyperum (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Hyperum

Thanks. I have removed it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Western Roman Empire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 12:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: I'm noticing a lot of missing references for paragraphs, is this a result of splitting paragraphs and the refs just not being applied to the split paragraphs, or are these bits uncited? -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: On second thoughts my GA nomination of this one might have been premature. I have really only worked on the "History", "Political Aftermath" and "Legacy" sections, all of which I feel are adequately cited. I have tried citing the "Background" section a bit but it is difficult to cite something that I haven't written. Perhaps it would be best to put the review on hold until I can rewrite and cite the lacking sections (or perhaps cut down on them as the "background" bit would be the history of the Roman Empire itself)? It would still be good to have some specific examples of missing references and some general feedback. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: Sounds good. I'll try and start on that soon. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

GA Criteria
GA Criteria: 1 1.a Y 1.b Y 2 2.a Y 2.b N 2.c Y 2.d Y (16.7% is highest, but PD source.) 3 3.a Y 3.b Y 4 4.a Y 5 5.a Y 6 6.a Y 6.b Y

• No DAB links Y
• No Dead links Y
• Images appropriately licensed Y

Prose Suggestions

Would you mind if I switch the refs to {{sfn}}? -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, so go right ahead. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I’ve begun work in User:Iazyges/WRE format. If you want to add refs to sections as I work, that’ll be good. I’m planning on leaving any references I can find an identifier for, and removing the ones I can’t. Then I’ll try and grab page numbers if they aren’t already there. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to drop the GAN for now, and re-vamp the article together, if you're interested. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this would be the best idea. The references obviously need work and it would be good to get a second opinion or perhaps rewrites on some parts of the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional comments by Lingzhi

This article mixes references written freehand (i.e., without a template) with one {{cite book}}. Templates are your friends. Templates are a HUGE help in avoiding errors and inconsistencies, and checking for the same.

To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:

• First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
• On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
• Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.

When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link; archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Expansion of the "List of Western Roman Emperors"

@Iazyges: I saw you put up that the sections under the List of Western Roman Emperors needed expansion but I really intended them to only be short summaries to not detract from the main function of the section, as a list. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: I am trying not to make them too long, with a 1-2 line mini summary for their reign. I’ve finished work on the 1st non-dynastic period, and the Valentinian dynasty period, I’d you'd like to see my end goal for the sections. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Ah, okay, I see, Yeah that would be good. Maybe it would be better to put the bullet-listed emperors before their respective summaries instead of after them, e.g.

• Valentinian II: 383–392.

After the death of Gratian, Valentinian II succeeded him, although he only controlled Italy itself, with all other Western Roman provinces recognizing Maximus. In 387 Maximus invaded Italy, to depose Valentinian. Valentinian fled to the court of Theodosius, where he succeeded in convincing Theodosius to attack Maximus, and to reinstate himself as Western Emperor, which was done after Maximus was defeated in battle near Aquileia. Valentinian continued to rule the Western Empire until 392, when he was murdered by Arbogast.

Instead of:

After the death of Gratian, Valentinian II succeeded him, although he only controlled Italy itself, with all other Western Roman provinces recognizing Maximus. In 387 Maximus invaded Italy, to depose Valentinian. Valentinian fled to the court of Theodosius, where he succeeded in convincing Theodosius to attack Maximus, and to reinstate himself as Western Emperor, which was done after Maximus was defeated in battle near Aquileia. Valentinian continued to rule the Western Empire until 392, when he was murdered by Arbogast.

• Valentinian II: 383–392.

I will see if I can get some work done on the missing citations. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: I've inverted them as suggested. I'm considering adding ref-improve tags to all the sections that aren't perfectly cited, but wanted to discuss with you before tag-bombing the article. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: That would be a tag in virtually every section right? Maybe you could reserve the tags for the sections that are the worst off for the time being and we could work on improving the citations as fast as possible? Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I’ll add <!—Needs work—> to them, since it will be invisibible to readers. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"when he was murdered by Arbogast."

Should we state it as a certainty? The idea that Valentinian II was murdered rests on the testimony of Zosimus (6th century). The only contemporary source about the death is a work by Ambrose (d. 397), but is rather ambiguous on the cause of death. The article on Valentinian II notes the uncertainty. Dimadick (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dimadick: The source I used almost literally says that Arbogast had him offed, I'll check other sources and try to include the uncertainty. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Ichthyovenator: That's the end of the citation work. I'll see if I can polish off the list of emperors, and then we should be good to go. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Sounds good! I'll leave you to it then. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: The article is good to go! -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Nice! It's nominated! Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Iazyges, Ichthyovenator, Dimadick: I am quite surprised to see that the scope of this article has been expanded all the way back to 285! While there is merit to tracing the history of the imperial divisions begun with the Tetrarchy, the WRE as a term is pretty always considered as the polity that began with the death of Theodosius I in 395. The change was therefore very much WP:OR, even if well-intentioned (and a similar change was made in the infobox to the Byzantine Empire, with far less justification IMO). I've already fixed the infobox in this regard, but the list of emperors remains as it is for now, starting with Diocletian. Before I take the shears to it, and possibly launch an edit-war, I wanted to give you a heads up and possibly a chance to provide some sources supporting its retention in its present form. Constantine ✍ 16:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Too be fair, starting the article at 285 was the way it looked before me or Iazyges got to expanding it. The article was quite similar in scope (link, this is the edit immediately preceding my first edit of the article) before we got to it, and made clear that it dealt with the western provinces at any point in which they were governed by a separate emperor (which would qualify the previous divisions for inclusion). As it is now, it is mainly focused on 395+, dealing with 285-395 in a single section so it should not be too much of a problem in terms of the article itself? You might notice that pre-285 was much more prominent than post-395 in the previous version of the article.

I did not do the 285 edit on the Byzantine Empire, but I would assume that it was added for consistency, seeing as the Eastern Empire logically begins at the same point in time as the Western one. Of course there is no clear agreement on when the "Byzantine" period begins, which complicates that.

If you look at the previous version of the article, the list of emperors began with the tetrarchy in that one too and, again, we merely expanded the content of that section. I do not think referring to the tetrarchic emperors as "Western" and "Eastern" is very controversial seeing as there were two "separate" imperial courts at the time. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that the date was changed arbitrarily by what appears to possibly be a throw-away account. I addressed the three of you since you were the most active editors recently, and engaged in the section about the emperors. Anyhow, my concern is WP:OR, and not confusing the uninitiated reader. If the WRE started in 395, including the emperors before that is beside the point. Perhaps the pre-395 emperors that ruled over a "western portion" of the empire could be retained and summarized somewhat, but seeing Constantine I, Julian, Jovian et al. referred to, even indirectly, as "Western Roman Emperors" is simply incorrect and contrary to historiographical practice, at least as far as I am aware of. Constantine ✍ 17:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If 395 is to be kept as the start date then including emperors prior to Honorius might be confusing, yes. I am not sure what to do with the list as it is right now however. I think outright removing everything in the list before the Theodosian dynasty could be detrimental. Maybe Iazyges, who expanded much of the individual entries, could comment on it as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the entries themselves can be kept, although it is worth specifying your points about the difference of the emperors. I tried somewhat to address this by putting the dates of their different roles, for instance Julian is marked as a Sole emperor for his entire reign. Perhaps the descriptors of the emperors before 395 should be modified to say "Western Controller", or something to that effect, and we should add a note explaining how the WRE didn't strictly exist as an entity before 395, even if the concept did? -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"If the WRE started in 395, including the emperors before that is beside the point."

Why is that? The division of the two halves is pretty much solidified with the Valentinian dynasty, and Theodosius I only briefly unified them (392–395). Dimadick (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Because we follow sources, and the common historiographic convention is to place the starting date for the WRE (and for the ERE, in that context) in 395, not earlier. The practice was there, true, and should be mentioned to provide context, but the permanent and final division began in 395. The previous periods of division/collegial rule were in the end temporary, and hence ad hoc. Constantine ✍ 21:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Western Roman Empire/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 13:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It should take a day or two to start this assessment. In the meantime, could you indicate what drew you to doing this article and of this article's relation to its sibling articles on Byzantium and the older Roman Empire. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• For me, I wanted to work on this article specifically because it felt very underdeveloped in comparison to the articles on the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire. As for its relation to these sibling articles, this one is essentially a more in-depth look at the western provinces of the Roman Empire, primarily about when they were ruled by an independent imperial court and the aftermath of its fall. The aftermath part is closely related to the Byzantine Empire as the fall of the west is hugely influential in Byzantine history. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Assessment outline (preliminary set-up for assessment; do not alter until notification)

0 Lead section

1 Background

1.1 Rebellions and political developments

1.2 Crisis of the Third Century

1.3 Tetrarchy

1.4 Further divisions

2 History

2.1 Reign of Honorius

.2 Escalating barbarian conflicts

2.3 Internal unrest and Majorian

2.4 Collapse

2.5 Fall of the Empire

3 Political aftermath

3.1 Germanic Italy

3.2 Barbarian Kingdoms

3.3 Imperial reconquest

4 Economic decline

5 Legacy

5.1 Nomenclature

5.2 Attempted restorations of a Western court

5.3 Later claims to the Imperial title in the West

6 List of Western Roman Emperors

6.1 Tetrarchy (286–313)

6.2 Constantinian dynasty (309–363)

6.3 Non-dynastic (363–364)

6.4 Valentinian dynasty (364–392)

6.5 Theodosian dynasty (392–455)

6.6 Non-dynastic (455–480)

Preliminary outline for assessment; do not alter the outline portion until notification. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Preliminary discussion with both co-nominators

My initial assessment for the past day or two has been based on the 2 of you as co-nominators who believe that this article is at a peer review level comparable to the GA article for Roman Empire and the FA article for Byzantine Empire. A closer look at your article compared to these 2 sibling articles seems to point out some very direct contrasts which appear to be unfavorable to a side-by-side comparison and I am hoping that I am just over-looking something which the 2 of you will clarify quickly for me. First is that the Infobox for this article for the Western Roman Empire appears to be poorly developed compared to the two sibling articles I just mentioned; "Notable" emperors appear to replace a full list of emperors as they appear in the Roman Empire article; the years of the empire do appear to be consistent and I am not even sure your Infobox clearly stated the dates for the Western Roman Empire; and just what is the relation of the ambiguous and overlapping dates between these 2 articles for the Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire, are you planning a redundant coverage of the overlapping historical periods or do you plan some larger re-organization. Moving to a second point here. The lede section appears to have a poor sense of time frame and its own historical placement; in fact the first date you list in your lede appears only in the second paragraph which is the exact opposite of what is done in the 2 sibling articles I have mentioned here for comparison which have clear dating explicitly stated from the first lede paragraph onwards throughout their own lede sections. On to the 3rd point which is the structural outline which you are using for your article which does not appear to have the same degree of organization which I see in both of the 2 other peer review articles I have singled out here for direct comparison, since you are asking to place this current article next to them at peer review status upon the completion of this assessment as comparable to them in quality. @Iazyges and Ichthyovenator: Please respond to all three issues I have raised here since I appear to be missing something when faced the discrepancy between the quality in the 2 peer review articles I mentioned on the one hand, and this article you have nominated here for full assessment. I request to hear from both co-nominating editors on these three points in case I am missing something in this article as presented here for assessment. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure what you are referring to with your criticism of the "notable emperors" part. This is directly based on what was done with the Byzantine Empire article where 8 of the more notable of the 80+ emperors of that empire are listed ("Notable emperors" is the phrasing used there). There is not full list of emperors in the Roman Empire article and in fact that seems to include only "notable" emperors as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• I assume what you are referring to with the inconsitency in the years of the empire is the 476/480 part? I am sure you are aware that there is no universally accepted historiography for the fall of the Roman Empire and the fall of the West (if such a fall is even recognized) has most commonly been described as occuring in 476 (loss of Italy) or 480 (abolition). The article explores this in quite a lot of detail. If one date is required in the infobox, 476 is the most common one but both dates need to be discussed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• I believe years and dates are fairly well stated at every point, the "background" section could potentially be reduced but I feel like it is necessary in order to understand the previous history of the Western provinces and the origin of their problems. Perhaps the lead could be expanded as to reflect the timeframe of the background section as well? Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

It is fairly significant that both co-nominating editors acknowledge the start of a peer review assessment and Iazyges appears to be on Wikibreak since last Monday. His acknowledgment of being ready to start is essential to starting the full assessment of this article. This article is currently at "C"-level and in its present form appears to not be comparable in quality to either the GA for Roman Empire and certainly not at the level of the FA for Byzantine Empire. The dates of this article are very poorly established in the text here and the dates appear inconsistent with the disambiguation page organization of these 3 sibling articles which needs repair. The 1st paragraph of the lede section remains undated; in comparison to the 2 sibling articles nearly every single paragraph includes at least one historical date explicitly stated, which you consistently do not do throughout your article. The issue of "Notable Emperors" needs to correspond to the dates for the Empire which you are using which is the very narrow 395-480, compared to the disambiguation page which states the dates as 286-476, following the first division of empire. These are only preliminary comments before this assessment starts since I need to hear from the co-nominator prior to initiating this as a full assessment. At present the article is listed at "C"-level and appears to be below the quality of the 2 sibling articles being discussed as significant comparisons. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges and Ichthyovenator: It is normally the expectation that when an article has co-nominators that they would both be available for doing the assessment together. In this case, Iazyges is not available and there has been no editing on the article to improve it from a "C"-level article. If both editors are not editing the article to improve it then this assessment would normally be subject to quick close until the article is first improved to "B"-level prior to being considered for renomination. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator and JohnWickTwo: Apologies, I was away for a few days on a fishing trip but forgot to leave notice. I will look into editing the article as soon as is possible. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me know when you are ready after your unpacking from your trip. Possibly, give your replies to the above points and ping me when you're ready. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• (1) I would first like to point out the only reason the article is assessed as C currently is for lack of assesment. Of the three projects tagged here, only one contains a B-class checklist, which is not even slightly filled out. The raw assessment of the article is immaterial to the review; I've had many articles I've reviewed be at Stub class and easily make the jump to Good Article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• (2) For the first point, I am rather confused. While the Roman Empire page [perhaps erroneously] simply calls them Emperors, it is so expansive as to contain the last Byzantine emperor, and skips a great many (According to my count there were something like 190). The Byzantine Empire page contains Notable Emperors, which again hit the high notes. I personally don't think all emperor should be mentioned in the Infobox, as many of them were not exceptionally important to the country as a whole, especially when one considers the age of puppet emperors. For your comment on dating, The infobox quite clearly states the dates: "395–476/480". The overlap of the Roman Empire and here is necessary; we cannot ignore the overlap here while having an article and giving background, and the overlap is needed there to provide context. The history is hardly redundant because it is far more in-depth here; indeed the term "Western Roman" appears only 7 times in the Roman Empire article, two in the Infobox and one in the "see-also" section. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• (3) For the second point, I think the differentiation in dating is actually neccesary, given that the WRE is unique in a sense; The Roman Empire has a hard date of start, and the Byzantine Empire's given date amounts to "when the WRE fell" in the lede. The WRE, on the other hand, is explained as a concept first because it only existed conceptually, in a sense, despite the fact it was arguably an independant country. Because of its unique position, I think it is appropriate to explain how it was a conceptual country to begin with, then get into the history of the concept. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• (4) For the third point, I fail to see a significant difference in organization; except for a smaller amount of sections, which should be expected given the Roman Empire article can span out 15 centuries in some places, and the Byzantine Empire lasted 10 centuries, whereas the WRE lasted a century, which is expanded out to two with background, but which is still much smaller than either other article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• @Ichthyovenator and JohnWickTwo: I have responded to the points as best I can. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  (5) Somewhat beside the point, but I would question the usage of using other article as a comparative for a criteria; an article only need to pass the six criteria to pass as Good Article; and using comparative articles as a criteria are something I haven't ever seen before in my time reviewing good articles. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Six criteria to pass as Good Article

Your five items from the last section I have now numbered for convenience with my responses below which answer your inquiries in reverse order, most recent first:

(a) "Using other articles as a comparative for criteria" is not really questionable. There are any number of Wikiprojects which apply shared criteria for the development of sibling articles, for example in Economics, in Law, in "Frankfurt School", etc. These study groups often further establish their shared criteria in a dedicated Subject Infobox which is posted under the regular Infobox for any particular sibling article. It may be useful to create such a generally applied Subject Infobox for these Roman history sibling articles. The articles are interrelated. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Again, that is for development of articles; not for Good Article review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(b) Differences in organization are significant when they affect the quality of an article being reviewed. Because these are 3 sibling articles which are interrelated then the quality of each does bear upon the others. At present, this article or its outline organization is not nearly close to the quality for the FA for Byzantine Empire, and its not very close to the quality of the outline for the GA for Roman Empire. If the structural outline can be made more like the one for Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire, then it might help. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(c) The dating being applied is of primary importance to this article. The dating here also contradicts the DAB page which gives a start date for both WRE and Byzantine Empire as in the 200s. The 3 articles and the DAB page should be in agreement. Also, Byzantine Empire ought to be used throughout and not Eastern Roman Empire according to the title currently in use for it. Your current article does not seem to do this consistently. The first paragraph of the lede section needs to give the dates fully, consistently and without any unexplained ambiguity. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• The DAB page is immaterial for this. I can correct it later. Byzantine Empire should not be used; it would be like calling the 13 Colonies the United States because they later became the United States. And there is no need for the lede paragraph to give dates, simply because others do. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(d) The difficulty of not having a Wikiprojects subject Infobox is an issue for these 3 sibling articles (and there are other sibling article but I am confining attention to these 3 articles here). This extends to the issue of naming Emperors selectively and all the other topics in the Infobox as well. They 3 Infoboxes should be structurally consistent and not be re-invented for each and every sibling article as a grassroots development issue. Consistency in outline would be useful here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(e) The quality of writing I do not find to be quite as good as that found in either the GA for WRE or the FA for Byzantine Empire. If you believe that it is at B-level or better, then I may need to make a number of challenges. For example, the second sentence of the first paragraph in the lede section appears long-winded and over-worked, and it should be shortened or broken up into 2 sentences after the dating issues are addressed: "The terms "Western Roman Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" are modern inventions that describe political entities that were de facto independent; however, at no point did the Romans themselves consider the Empire to have been split into two separate Empires, but rather continued to consider it a single state but governed by two separate Imperial courts of administrative expediency." There are many such instances of sentences throughout the article which do not appear to be at peer review level of writing. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

These are the responses to your five points. Ping my account when you add your edits or have further questions and clarifications. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• @JohnWickTwo: I don't think the six criteria you've listed here are related even slightly to the good article criteria. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  @JohnWickTwo: Listing here the criteria, please base your arguments upon this rather than any comparative articles argument. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

*Well written:

• 1. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
• it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2]

• Verifiable with no original research:[3]

• it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[4]
• all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[5]
• it contains no original research; and
• it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

• Broad in its coverage:

• it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[6] and
• it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[7]
• Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:[8]

• media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
• media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Close of review as article

Thanks for your comments. I have also re-read the article again and it is my assessment that this article should be submitted for GOCE editing for improvements and enhancements to the prose and narrative which I find to be significantly lower at present than peer review standards for GA-articles. I have mentioned this per (e) above for excessive length and wordiness in many sentences like the example I have given, which you have chosen not to edit further. Since this article is being recommended for much needed GOCE editing, it is also recommended that an editor there be requested who has experience with preparing articles for the peer review level. Because the current wait time at GOCE is 3-4 weeks, this puts it outside the scope of this peer review assessment and this article is subject to a quick close at this time. It is further recommended that this article not be accepted for re-nomination until GOCE editing is completed and until another impartial editor first promotes it to a B-Class article, since it is currently rated at C-Class. By an impartial editor I mean someone other than the nominating editors here, and only someone who has not been part of the direct editing of this article itself in order to be impartial. If any attempt is made to re-nominate this article serially without first submitting it for GOCE editing, then I recommend that any editor quick close it accordingly as a failed review. This article is currently not promoted. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copy edit

Hi all. As requested at GOCE I will be copy editing this article. I will be making bold edits where I feel necessary, and relying on you to tell me where I go wrong. So if you disagree with any of my edits, or just don't understand why I have made them, please feel free to flag this up here. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Query 1

Is there a reason why the caption of the image above the ingobox is in small? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't think so. Changed it to normal size. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Query 2

I am struggling to make sense of this:
"With the support of the Gallic nobility and the barbarian Burgundians and Alans, Honorius turned to the Visigoths under King Ataulf for support against Jovinus."
Perhaps one of you could have a look at it.

What is meant is that the usurper Jovinus had the support of the gallic nobility, and the Bugrandians and Alans. To counteract this, Honorius turned to the Visigoths for help. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. (I thought so.) Copy edited. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Query 3

"The barbarian kingdoms gradually replaced the old Roman system..."

I struggle to understand this. What is the system which is being replaced? (Do you mean 'gradually replaced the old Roman institutions', or something like that?) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, while the Barbarian Kingdoms made strives to preserve roman continuity their new institutions came to replace the older ones that had been created and maintained by the romans. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a go. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the current version looks good. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion 1

The article could do with a disambiguation. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

As in a Western Roman Empire (disambiguation) page? Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Oops sorry. I clearly need my own copy editor! I meant that there are a lot of duplicated Wikilinks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I can have a go at removing duplicates, should I do it as soon as possible or maybe wait until the copy-editing is finished as some links might change? Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Start whenever you want. It won't disturb the copy editing. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Economic decline

The fourth paragraph of this section is uncited. I am also surprised (very) that you have written this section without referring to Ward-Perkins. If you like, once I have finished the copy edit I will add in something from him. (Entirely optional.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure if I wrote the paragraph (I don't recognise it and I am pretty sure everything was cited before) but it is possible that I am just forgetting stuff. Perhaps it would be best to remove the uncited paragraph? If you have more relevant information to add to the section that would of course be appreciated. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a go. Usually I try to keep the roles of copy editor and content contributor separate. But this is right in my area of knowledge and sources so I will give in to temptation. Feel free to be harsh if you don't like it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Query 4

"All surviving Celtic languages, Albanian, and Slavic languages such as Polish and Czech and even the non-Indo-European Hungarian." This isn't a sentence. Care to give me a clue as to what it is trying to communicate? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• I believe this is what remains of a longer discussion on latin influence in these languages but the sources used for the discussion was mostly just dictionary entries of select words and maybe not as notable for an article discussing a specific state and I think that is why it was removed. Not sure why this "sentence" remains, would probably be best to just remove it since there is already coverage of the romance languages which are direct descendants of latin and the germanic languages which were influenced considerably more than the others mentioned. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. That makes sense. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Map

I have added a map of the Exarchate of Africa, because it seemed to need one. If you disagree just delete it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think the article needs to be overcrowded with images, the Exarchate of Italy was put in since the capital was Ravenna and it covered Italy (which is typically seen as the Roman heartland). I put both the exarchate maps together into a double image, does that work? Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't, personally, find the article image heavy at all. Although that is just one editor's opinion. Your solution looks very good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

I don't personally like those notes at the bottom of the infobox. Is there a reason why they are not at the bottom as "Notes"? (Eg as in this article - Razing of Friesoythe.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Mainly based on what was done with notes in the infobox over at Byzantine Empire. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Fin

And I am call that a peace. I am sure that there are more bits to pick up, but I am glazing over and I am sure that it is up to GA standard. I shall be back in a day or three to make some input into the Economics section. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to look through and copy edit the article! Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thank you very much for the time spent improving our little (or rather, large...) article! -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Mostly I enjoyed it. I should probably have done more, but my brain was starting to melt! I will be back, as a normal editor, to make some contributions to the economics section. You have a fine piece of work here. You just need to find a GAN assessor who is a glutton for punishment . Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Division of the Roman Empire

Division of the Roman Empire redirects here. I replaced the redirect with a page explaining the basic chronology of the events from Diocletian to Theodosius but it's been reverted asking for a discussion.

Barjimoa (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe your edit was reverted since it was completely without sources and because this article already does a reasonably good job at explaining why the Empire was "divided" (juridically it never was, as this article explains). Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It was without sources because the links redirected to sourced articles. In any case, Division redirects only here right now and not also to the east. Plus not enough emphasis is put on Diocletian: he was the one to start the separation of imperial courts. The process of division "ended" with Theodosius' successors but began with Diocletian. You can't pick a single year for the West-East divide: it was more like a continuum, a process. Isn't it pretty established? Most importantly, 395 is not a conventional date like 476 or 27 BC. I may be fine with Western Roman Empire starting from 395 for practical purposes in the infobox but should thd redirect of Division be here instead of other articles like Tetrarchy or Diocletian? Barjimoa (talk)

Yes, but articles still need to be sourced individually. I do agree that it is far from optimal that "Division of the Roman Empire" only redirects here, the East was just as divided from the West as the West was from the East. I'd argue that the Empire itself never truly was divided. Diocletian created two independent imperial courts, yes, but they were governing parts of the Roman Empire, not two separate empires (this is sourced and stated in this article) and due to that the best date for the divide would be 286. I do not think 395 is the best date but since it is the most cited date for the start of what is referred to as the Western Roman Empire (due to the courts never being truly reunited after that if one does not count Emperor Zeno), it is what must be represented in the article, I do believe this article touches on dates and controversies pretty extensively. The Tetrarchy article seems to discuess the administrative nature of the Tetrarchy moreso than its history and Diocletian is a biography. At the moment, the most extensive treatment of the various divisions of the Roman Empire, who made them, why they were made and so fort is found in the "Background" and "History" sections of this article which is probably why the redirect redirects as it does. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I see your point but a reader goes in here and thinks that the Western Roman Empire began in 395 and that is not correct. Can we make that clear? (here and on the page of Eastern Roman Empire). Perhaps replace 395 with 286 or 286/395 in the infobox? Regarding Division of the Roman Empire, maybe a solution could be a redirect to Dominate#Multiple Emperors where the line of multiple "Augusti" is explained....Barjimoa (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I get what you're saying but the most important aspect of this discussion, when pertaining to Wikipedia specifically, is the notion of consensus. Whilst the first appearance of a separate Eastern and Western Augustus is under Diocletian in 286, the overwhelmingly cited date of a "division" is 395. Wikipedia must follow academic (or in cases when that is not applicable popular) consensus and as such the stated date has to be 395. It is clarified in the first sentence of the article that the term "Western Roman Empire" is particularly used for the period 395-476 but that it can refer to any time where there was separate courts. Additionally, prior divisions are extensively covered under the "Background" section and information regarding dates is introduced in the lead.

Adding 286/396 to the infobox would muddle it in my opinion, it would have to be either 395 or 286, not both. The reason we have both 476 and 480 as end dates is that both are extensively used as end dates for the "Western Roman Empire", with citations for usage of 480 used in the "Fall of the Empire" section. Of course, the Roman Empire was first divided into East and West in 286 but to add this you will need to provide sources (preferably academic and more than one) that put the year 286 as the start date of the Western Roman Empire and it would be good if we could get more editors to join this discussion as well, that's how Wikipedia operates. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Western Roman Empire/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 17:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy to review this, finally! First comments below. Since the article is waiting for a long time, could you, maybe, briefly confirm that you are still on it?

Thank you for taking on the review! Yes, I'm still on. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Just wondering; I have the impression that the "background" section is disproportionately long. It could almost be an article on its own. Wouldn't it make sense to reduce it, keeping only the more general information that relate directly to the topic, leaving detail for the respective articles where the stuff belongs? I mean, it does a very good job in explaining that the political and cultural subdivision into east and west was there from the beginning on, and how the empire got increasingly difficult to govern. But do we need to retell the complete history of the empire?

It is a bit long, yes. Originally the article used 286-480 as the time range of the "Western Roman Empire" but as pointed out in an discussion on the talk page, consensus is that 395 is the start date, the last two subsections of the "background" section were originally the first two of the "history" section. We could do a separate "Division of the Roman Empire" article as proposed in a recent discussion and cut this one down but to me at least, a lot of the background history is relevant to understanding the Western Roman Empire and I'm not really sure what could be cut. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I would avoid oversplitting. But moving the last two subsections back to the history section might be an idea, it would make sense to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, moved them back into History. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• First paragraph in "collapse" is without a reference.

Added reference. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Economic decline" also has an unreferenced paragraph.

Added reference. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• all in all, it reads very well, but I need much more time to read through. More soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A couple of proposals. (I don't know if I have to put this here since I proposed this in the section above in the talk page):

• It could be more historically accurate to use the older date there was (286) as starting point (perhaps put both: 286/395, unless it causes too much confusion).
• Also, I think it would make more sense to redirect Division of the Roman Empire to Dominate#Multiple Emperors (or make it a new specific article) rather than redirecting it here which is just about the Western half.

Barjimoa (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I've responded to both of these points on the above talk page, it might be best to continue discussion of them there. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if the information in "Economic decline" should be incorporated into the "history" section, and the section dissolved. This section does not feel as part of this article. It contains a lot of redundancy, just retelling the same stories, just from an economical perspective. It is written as it would be an article for itself. The whole article would more concise without this.

Done, I removed some repeated content and moved the retained stuff to appropriate places in "history" and "political aftermath". Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Same with "Barbarian Kingdoms". The early history of these kingdoms was already provided in the "History" section, and is repeated here. It also feels like an "article within an article". Why not having the "Political aftermath" as a single, continuous chronology? I really would encourage you to consider this option, but this is optional if you just want to reach GA status.

Yes, I agree. "Germanic Italy" and "Imperial reconquest" are already in a single continuous chronology, "Imperial reconquest" picking up right were "Germanic Italy" ends. And yes, there is a bit of repeated stuff in "Barbarian kingdoms" but there are also relevant bits of information (such as the bit on the Franks) that can't be moved to "History" due to chronology and doesn't fit with either "Germanic Italy" or "Imperial reconquest", I'll see what I can do. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Done now, you might want to take a new look at the affected sections just in case. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• In 286 he elevated Maximian to the rank of augustus (emperor) and gave him control of the Western Empire. – I would add "while himself ruling the east" for clarity – it got me confused.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Constantius was born in 317 at Sirmium, Pannonia. He was the third son of Constantine the Great, the second by his second wife Fausta, the daughter of Maximian. Constantius was made Caesar by his father on 13 November 324.[36] – This is an example of what I would consider "too much detail". It appears in the "background" section only, and is much more detail than given for any other ruler in the main part of the article.

Yes, it's a bit odd considering that his brothers are not detailed at the same level. I've cut this down a bit and changed the placement around a bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• It was as a result of the campaigns of the generals Belisarius and Narses on behalf of the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian I from 533 to 554 that long-lasting reconquests of Roman lands were witnessed.[111]
• During the 6th century, the Eastern Roman Empire under Justinian reconquered large areas of the former Western Roman Empire. – this is mutually redundant, and repetitive, in parts.

Removed the second one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Justinian prepared an expedition led by prominent general Belisarius. – No need to introduce him as "prominent general", he was just introduced in the preceding sentences.

Removed "prominent general". Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• hyper-rich – just "rich" would be enough I think, this does not seem like an encyclopedic choice of words. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, removed "hyper". Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Closing note: Had the chance to read the rest now, no problems apparent. Very well done article, and the new structure now feels much better. I would encourage to take this to FAC. Passing GA now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, it's been a long road to get here! I've personally got some paleontology articles I'm hoping to work to FA at the moment (both smaller than this article) so I'm hoping to test out the system with those first. Maybe Iazyges would be open to co-nominating this for FAC (as we did for GA)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Paleontology articles are a worthy thing also, of course! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

ACR?

Hi Ichthyovenator. Could I suggest that putting it up for an A class review at MilHist may be a useful way of both testing the water for FA and helping to get it two-thirds of the way there?

And congratulations to both yourself and Iazyges for finally getting this over the line. A huge amount of work.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely a good idea, I've put it up for a review. And thank you! Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Roman Mauretania

The map in the infobox showing the Western Roman Empire's territory is inaccurate, the Romans did not loose their coastal territories in Mauretania as there was a Roman Road System in existent and Rusadir, modern day Melilla was in Roman hands before the Vandals invaded the region. Could we get a updated map eventually? Slapnut1207 (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Get the DEFINITION (YEARS) right before anything else

The first sentence, which contains the definition, reads

"The Western Roman Empire comprises the western provinces of the Roman Empire at any time during which they were administered by a separate independent Imperial court; in particular, this term is used in historiography to describe the period from 395..."

395? Why? This very article lead goes on to contradict the use of this very late date. The list of emperors of the entity includes everything from the Tetrarchy (286–313), to the first emperors of the Theodosian dynasty (392–455), who were all before 395. W/o a clear definition that's not constantly contradicted within the article, it all becomes arbitrary, confusing and useless. What makes the use of the term pre-395 weaker or less well-accepted than after? This belongs at the very start of the article, since everything else depends on it ("it" being the definition, the topic of the whole article.) Arminden (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

395 is true - the term "Western Roman Empire" typically does refer to the western provinces from the death of Theodosius I to whenever you consider the West to fall/collapse. This is followed in much of the rest of the article as well, such as the 'background' section going up to the time of Honorius, whose reign is the first described under 'history'. 'Western Roman Empire' is a thing made up by historians given that the Romans themselves did not see the empire as divided. There was a separate Western court several times before 395, intermittently from 286 onwards, but historiography mainly places its beginning in 395. The few cases where 286 is adhered to instead (capitals in the infobox, the list of emperors at the end) are not that many, certainly not as big an issue as 'constantly contradicted within the article' makes it seem to be. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Map of the Empire

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Western_Roman_Empire_-_400_AD.png I believe this map would make a better map than the current one. It has more time accurate coastlines, more cities, and shows the western empire closer to it's peak. The first map shown on the Byzantine Empire article is also at it's peak, same with the Roman Empire article, so why should the first map show the Western Empire after it lost land? It feels more appropriate for a section further down. Also, the suggested map is in english while the current one is in spanish, and an english map would be preferable I believe for an english wikipedia article. If the issue is sources, I could see if the original poster can provide some as we've talked before. I am sure she could provide, as she has made many historical maps in the past. MrsColdArrow (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I tried to find any issues with the map, but honestly I couldn't find them. It shows more cities, looks cleaner, and is in English. I don't really agree that the empire necessarily needs to be shown at its peak, though. In fact, showing the barbarian territories inside of Rome's borders would better represent the issues the empire was facing at the time, but honestly it doesn't matter. 296cherry (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrospective Term?

I once read a contemporary account of "Western Romans" (they used that term) visiting the court of Atilla. They mentioned that "Eastern Romans" were also present. This says to me that it makes perfect sense to speak of a "Western Roman Empire" as a contemporary concept. The way to tell me I'm wrong about this is to cite a source that backs up the claim that nobody talked about a WRE before the middle ages

I have an agenda here: I'd really like to apply WP:REFERS to the opening sentence. But that's difficult as long as the definition of WRE is contentious. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the text completely. Beshogur (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)