Talk:Roman Emperor (Crisis of the Third Century)

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Purpose

So I'm not clear on the purpose of this article; the biographical details are (or should be) with each bio, and the Crisis already has its own article, which could be expanded if one wanted more narrative detail. Stan 13:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that this was never intended as a separate article. I wrote this text as part of Roman Emperor, where it featured in an extended overview of the position of the Roman Emperor and how the office evolved throughout the course of the Empire's history, with emphasis on dynastic developments and locations (hence the remarks about geographical origin and intermarriage). Another user has seen fit to split the Roman Emperor article which I had written, turning the sections on the Principate, the Crisis of the Third Century, and the Dominate into independent articles. Personally, I think the article was much stronger and more coherent the way I had written it, but it is not "my" article. If other users think it flows better as separate articles, well, laīsa muşkulatī. Publius 21:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I split the article up because it was huge (67KB) & not really possible to be read comfortably in a single sitting as an encyclopaedia article should be; I asked for opinions both at talk:Roman Emperor and talk:Roman Empire before doing so, and the only response I got before splitting the article up was positive.

Perhaps spurred by my initial inquiry, User:Hippalus has suggested a comprehensive overall reorganisation for articles on Roman history, at talk:Roman Empire. Binabik80 00:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I remember now, I didn't think there was a strong rationale for the original overlong Roman Emperor either. People like to retell the story I guess; 67K really is too long for a single narrative article, you won't find any actual readers that get through it all. Ironically, if the goal is to produce a continuous narrative, the right approach is to tighten and prune the text of the single narrative, not split it into multiple articles... Stan 14:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I cannot successfully parse the first two sentences of the article:

"During the Crisis of the Third Century marked the end of the early phase of Imperial Roman government, the Principate. A series of soldiers, the Barracks Emperors, assumed the office of Roman Emperor as the previous system of Imperial government, in which the Emperor had functioned within the fiction of a preservation of the old republican forms of government."

Does the following capture the intended meaning?

"The Crisis of the Third Century marked the end of the Principate, the early phase of Imperial Roman government. A series of soldiers, the Barracks Emperors, assumed the highest office, leading to the breakdown of the previous system of Imperial government, in which the Emperor had functioned within the fiction of a preservation of the old republican forms of government."

Molinari 19:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks much better. I'm not quite sure how they ended up the way are now. Binabik80 02:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge?

Is there a reason this article couldn't be worked into Crisis of the Third Century and abbreviated for inclusion into Roman Emperor proper? Jamesmusik 00:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Crisis of the third century should be a seperate article because so many articles link to that phrase, its significant enough to have its own article. The two articles could merge, but probably in name only, they are different approaches and complimentary. One is a narrative and includes social history, the other is more a detail list of emperor musical chairs. Stbalbach 02:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with Jamesmusik. Reading Crisis of the Third Century, I felt there was a gap because most to the emperors were not listed. --Rumping (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style, content tags added

I added unreferenced and copyedit tags – its tone (what does "accession to the purple of" mean?) and format are confusing to the average reader. It might be more understandable and informative in a list format similar to List of Roman Emperors. momo ricks 04:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]