Talk:Western Roman Empire

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Western Roman Empire article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

Western Roman Empire has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 22, 2018	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 30, 2018	Good article nominee	Not listed
December 16, 2018	Good article nominee	Listed
January 25, 2019	WikiProject A-class review	Not approved
Current status: Good article

Former countries: Italian historical states

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
	This article is supported by the Italian historical states task force.

Classical Greece and Rome Top‑importance

	This article 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Italy Top‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Roman & Byzantine / Classical

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Additional information:
/
	This article has failed an A-Class review.

Rome Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

One of the cities is labelled 'Pissmouth'? Was that a Roman city I'm unaware of? 161.184.237.144 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

can you tell me which account of western Romans it is? because I am longing to find out when the myth of a western empire started. until now I did not find any source prior to the 9th century. if you read the account in a modern translation it can also be due to a translation mistake which are many JGrossmann (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's something I read a long time ago. I think if you look for accounts of people visiting the court of Atilla, you'll find it.

What makes you think "Western Roman Empire" is a myth? Historians use the term a lot. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map quality

A lot of cities are wrongly placed, one of the cities is labelled 'Pissmouth' and some of the city dots don't have names next to them 161.184.237.144 (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to be more specific in order to communicate what issues you're talking about regarding the map. I couldn't figure it out. Remsense ‥ 论 20:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will find a city labeled "Pissmouth" in Venetia, just above where they wrote Tridentum. Clearly the creator wanted to add a fictitious entry to their self-made Wikipedia map as a joke, they said as much on the map's talk page. Should somebody's made-up city called Pissmouth be featured on a map in a Good article?

Several people seem to have thought so, and kept adding this map when it was removed. Interestingly some of these accounts (Shuaaa2 and MrsColdArrow) have been removed after doing this on several pages.

More generally, I'm unsure if a map used in this context is necessarily better just because it is more detailed (especially when the details are wrong). I haven't found all those faults in city placement mentioned above, though some of the markings in Istria are confusing (just left of Tergestum there's half of a dot with no name, and the red border line doesn't reach the coast). Biemöske (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's erroneous and crude. It should be removed immediately. Furius (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to my own inexperience with Wikipedia I was hesitant to make the edit myself, but I think I figured out how to revert the map to the previous one used (I also said that two accounts had been removed, when really their account pages just hadn't been created – apologies for the confusion on my end).

In October 2023, the last map was removed by Shuaaa2 (who uploaded the map to Wikimedia as their own creation), restored by Vif12vf/Tiberius, removed again by MrsColdArrow, restored again by Vif12vf/Tiberius, and once again removed by Teedless, over the course of three (3) days. Seems they made a concerted effort to get their (arguably "aesthetic" but objectively inaccurate) map on Wikipedia. Biemöske (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the rightful outrage over the map and would like to point out that i had a different mentality and it was the first time making anything at all for wikipedia at the time of creation of that map. I would've preferred if i was mentioned directly before about this issue since then this could've been resolved earlier and smoothly. In addition i was already planning for a replacement after the holidays (alongside with completing another map i was working on for wikipedia) for the same reasons you pointed out: It isn't fully accurate, it's overly detailed and it's sources are quite lacking.

Either way i hope you all understand and i apologize for the inconvenience Shuaaa2 (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand you were having your fun, in a way. Some things I don't understand as much. Particularly "I would've preferred if i was mentioned directly before about this issue since then this could've been resolved earlier and smoothly."

Hate to repeat myself, but you did receive a sort of response a few times here, first when you were asked about Pissmouth a year ago. I'll grant that nobody told you in explicit terms you could not put Pissmouth on your Wikipedia map (who doesn't every now and then). But not much later you were told to properly source your own maps; see history and talk page for the Vandal Kingdom, where you readded your map three times. Kind of like this article, where your map was removed twice, and reinstated thrice, in three days. That's a strangely swift response, as I said; can you explain what was going on? Biemöske (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I would've preferred if i was mentioned directly before about this issue since then this could've been resolved earlier and smoothly." If it had been pointed out to me previously, I likely would have removed the map myself. Regarding the other points you've mentioned, I admit I was a bit stubborn, which is why I reinstated the map three times. However, as I've said before, I had a different mindset back then and wasn't fully familiar with how to properly source the maps I created.

I do truly hope I can redo the map in the future and i'd also like to apologize once again for the inconvenience that was caused Shuaaa2 (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving your thought process. I appreciate the work that you put into the maps; I don't mean to diminish your skills or interests by reverting it. The problem I saw isn't so much that a map wasn't reliable, but that an unreliable map stayed on this article for a year. Even if there wasn't an alternative, it doesn't make much sense for WP to display a less faithful picture provisionally. Biemöske (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what happened in 476

Despite the fact that there was no Western Roman Empire the western half of the Roman empire did not collapse in 476. that year the row of emperors in the west stopped, but the territory continued to exist as part of the Roman empire. Odoaker himself ruled the territory as a Roman officer (Patricius). in fact he replaced the emperor in the west. even Theoderich who had much more power ruled in Italy by serving the emperor in Constantinople. JGrossmann (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]