Talk:List of Roman and Byzantine empresses: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 113: Line 113:

:::See -> https://books.google.com/books?id=sdCjnwoQLR0C&pg=PA8

:::See -> https://books.google.com/books?id=sdCjnwoQLR0C&pg=PA8

:::(Honoria was an Augusta who did not marry an emperor. Pulcheria was Augusta from 414, before she married the emperor.) [[User:Acolex2|Acolex2]] ([[User talk:Acolex2|talk]]) 14:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

:::(Honoria was an Augusta who did not marry an emperor. Pulcheria was Augusta from 414, before she married the emperor.) [[User:Acolex2|Acolex2]] ([[User talk:Acolex2|talk]]) 14:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

::::This still does not adress any of my points.[[User:StarTrekker|★Trekker]] ([[User talk:StarTrekker|talk]]) 09:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Can anybody translate all the name of the empresses into Greek and Latin? It would be a daunty task but it would help the article. Greek and Latin should be used in both periods since that was the two main language in the two empires even if the Roman used Latin more and the Byzantine used Greek more. —Queen Elizabeth II’s Little Spy (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image File:Statilia Messalina.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image’s description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. —11:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the earlier Roman empresses probably weren’t coronated but some of the Byzantine empresses were. I don’t know all the dates can anybody help with this? —Queen Elizabeth II’s Little Spy (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She couldn’t possibly have been born in 1083 because that was earlier than her parents’ birth dates. I guess it’s a typo. Should it actually be 1183? Can anyone confirm? Esmetsai (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list skipped the Valentinians. Valentinian I (Marina Severa, Justina), Gratian (Laeta, Flavia Maxima Constantia) and Valens (Albia Dominica) are missing. José Luiz talk 01:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 Done. José Luiz talk 22:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain why this page is a united list of both ‘Byzantine’ Empresses and Roman Empresses, when the List of Roman Emperors page contains only classical Roman Emperors? JCKaine (talk) 09:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty arbitrary, isn’t it? I can’t think of a real reason myself. I agree with you I think the separate pages for Roman and “Byzantine” should be merged. I Feel Tired (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article currently states, “The Romans had no single term for the position” (i.e. of “women who were Roman Empress, i.e. the wife of the Roman Emperor, the ruler of the Roman Empire”). I’d like to suggest that this formula is misleading, at least for the Classical period, because there was in fact no such position. There were Augustae, but the position of “Empress” as such did not exist. I think we need to wait until much later for the position and title of basilissa to become a regular thing. And if the article is meant to list the holders of a position that didn’t exist, this is a problem. Might I suggest that we rephrase the lede so that it makes clear that “empress” is used (in this article and by historians generally) as a convenient shorthand for any woman who was the consort of an emperor; that we make “empress” lowercase in “Became Empress” and “Ceased to be Empress”; and that we change “Empress consorts of the Roman Empire” to something that doesn’t sound like a 17th-century European absolutist title? Maybe “Empresses in the united Roman Empire” or “Wives of Roman emperors (38 BCE–395 CE)”? Also incorrect are the succession boxes at the bottom of pages on individual empresses indicating their “Royal title” as “Empress of Rome” (sic). Q·L·1968 ☿ 15:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly incorrect. All emperors, empresses and claimants of the Roman Empire held various titles, formal and informal, but modern historians treat them as singular offices and titles. Dimadick (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, it’s exactly incorrect. “Empress” in the sense of being the wife of a Roman emperor was not royal and not a title. (This is certainly the case for centuries after the Augustan constitution of 27 BCE; eventually Byzantine empresses did evolve into titled royalty.) Q·L·1968 ☿ 15:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nero, IIRC, married two man, Sporus and Pythagoras/Doryphorus. Even if probably nobody (beside Nero himself)took the marriages serious, they took place, so the two man should be added as emperor consort or something like this.
83.216.246.126 (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone created List of Augustae and messed up all wikidata interwikis for this page. I believe just Turkish and Portuguese are all right. José Luiz talk 02:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Augustae history page mentions creation in 2005, though it has been sufficiently fleshed out since then. The two articles are not exact matches, because the title “Augusta” was not granted to all Empresses and could be granted to other female relatives of the Emperor (sisters, daughters, etc). Dimadick (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about making some gradual changes to this article. Should the column about these empresses’ father even be included? Considering that what they all have in common is their status as Roman/Byzantine empresses, all that matters is who their husbands were, and details about their life and marriage. Would it be better to just remove it?

Also, regarding the table, should the column regarding their husbands be at the very end of the table at the right, or come right after their name? PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Augustae already includes almost all empresses. The empresses list is also more detailed and fully sourced. I’ve made a new list in my sandbox to test it out, and it turns out that not much is changed overall. Tintero21 (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I see no good reason for this.★Trekker (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There may be distinct similarities, but I think there is enough of a difference to justify separate articles. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Augusta is a title awarded to specific women, and in my opinion we shouldn’t even be calling the wives of Roman emperors “empresses” in the first place unless they were verifiably styled imperatrix. The earliest reference to an Augusta as imperatrix I have located comes from the reign of Leo in the fifth century CE (late antiquity, after Christianization). It’s incredibly misleading to refer to the “Roman empress” as if she ascended to a throne like Catherine the Great, but probably such a kudzu of misapplied terminology that we could never root it out of the encyclopedia. Imposing a term that was not used to designate the role inevitably creates misperceptions because it evokes powers or ceremonies that did not attend on the emperor’s wife. Augusta, however, is verifiable and has a meaning specific to Roman culture. During the Principate, the American “First Lady” might even be more apt than “empress”. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Despite the merger from 2024 being rejected it seems that a bunch of Augustae have been added. All the women who were not married to emperors during their reign should be removed. ★Trekker (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is something I wanted to bring up as well. For quite some time, the list included only the wives of Roman emperors, and the rare women that held the title of Empress in their own right. Why include a bunch of women that simply had the title of augusta but were never empress consorts? PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is not at all appropriate. While it is true that in the past some powerful women (such as the ones from the Severan dynasty) who were not married to emperors were called “empresses” in English it is not really the case anymore. Not every wife of a reigning emperor had the Augusta, and not every Augusta was married to a reigning emperor.★Trekker (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PanagiotisZois: I’ve tried to remove everything. Please give me a ping if I missed anything.★Trekker (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why were so many empresses removed?
Garland included them in the list of empresses. See -> https://books.google.com/books?id=6gWGAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA229 Acolex2 (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what if she does? Her interpetation isn’t universal.★Trekker (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia. Respect the references.
Most of the Byzantine Empress pages were written using this book as a reference.
Does your argument have any references?
There have been many unusual types of empresses/queens throughout history: Junbo-Ritsugō of Japan, Queen mother (Africa) of Africa, Valide sultan of the Ottomans, etc.
Respect the cultures of other countries Acolex2 (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia included every single opinion on everything it would contradict itself nonstop. Wikipedia is done by consensus, and Wikipedia editors have agreed that empresses and Augustae should be listed separately. Add these ladies to List of Augustae if they were Augustae. A Roman empress is a wife of a reigning emperor (and very very rarely, a woman ruling in her own right, not any relative of an emperor with a title), as the article itself states in the actual text. Lots of sources claim many things, there are probably hundreds of lists of Roman empresses which do not include the vast majority of the women you added back. None of the other royalty you mentioned have any relevancy whatsoever, this is about Roman empresses, not African queens, or anything else, there exists no demand to “respect cultures of other countries” by including these ladies on this list.
Also, as far as I can see the book you linked to doesn’t even actualy claim that every single woman listed is a Byzantine empress.★Trekker (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m also a Wikipedia editor. You should agree with me. The reason I disagree with your argument is that I have the references and you don’t. Acolex2 (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re obviously very new and don’t understand how things actually work here.★Trekker (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And where in the book exactly is Antonia Minor claimed to be an empress???★Trekker (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read many pages on this website -> https://www.altegeschichte.uni-osnabrueck.de/Kaiserfrauen-auf-Muenzen/frauen.html
Why don’t you respect many professors and historians? Acolex2 (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you not respecting previous Wikipedia consensus and being accusatory against me as an individual when I’ve explained to you why what you’re doing is wrong?★Trekker (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see you’re continuing to do this but not replying here. I will be bringing this up to the Greece and Rome project.★Trekker (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you don’t have any references. Please show me the references for your opinion. Acolex2 (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m trying to explain to you basic Wikipedia things, which you are just WP:STONEWALLing. I don’t need sources to express “often sources disagree, therefore Wikipedia uses discussion and consensuses from them to decide what and what not to include”.★Trekker (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Lynda Garland is the only person to have authority on the topic of Roman/Byzantine empresses, I don’t see why her opinion is all that important. A list like this should be built based on consensus among academic sources. Does Garland count women that were merely Augustae as empresses? Yes. Does that mean that every other academic/scholar who has written books on the topic count Augustae as Empresses? Not necessarily. What do other similar sources say? The “List of Roman emperors” page has at least 2 separate sources for each sovereign.–PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Garland’s work is cited 40 times on this page as references. It’s too many.
Please show me the references for your opinion so I can change my opinion. Acolex2 (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have any references. Primarily because I don’t really care enough about this topic to do all that research and don’t have the energy to do much stuff on Wikipedia nowadays.
Anyway. My point is that for a historical thing like this, ideally 2-3 separate academic sources should be used that focus primarily on the Roman empresses. Garland is one of them, but 1-2 still need to be found.
If those 1-2 other sources ALSO count mere Augustae as Empresses, then this list is fine as is. But if they don’t, then this list should include only the wives of Roman emprerors; not their sisters, daughters, nieces, etc. PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only three references wouldn’t be enough to me, Wikipedia should do what the majority of sources say, and take into account the use of “common name”, in common tongue an empress is a consort of ruler in her own right. “Empress” is often used as a translation in English for all kinds of titles because it’s a hassle for writers in other languages to find exact terms that translates to what they are speaking about, but it is a form of mistranslation none-the-less. I would not doubt that Acolex2 could find three academic sources which include all imperial women under the word “empresses”, but that still wouldn’t be the correct way for Wikipedia to display it.★Trekker (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the work by Kienast, Eck & Heil is cited more than 40 times on this page as references.
In this work, all Augustas who were not consorts are listed among the emperors and empresses.
See the table of contents for this book. ->
https://archive.org/details/romische-kaisertabelle/mode/1up Acolex2 (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That book is in German. Which just adds to my point about how you’re not taking into account English-language conventions. And since I can’t read German it’s pretty much impossible for me to actually confirm that they’re all refered to as empresses like you claim. The book also seems to be a chronology on the Roman Empire more generally and not about empresses specifically.★Trekker (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the work by Grierson is cited on this page and many other pages as references.
Grierson included all Augustas who were not consorts in the list of empresses.
See -> https://books.google.com/books?id=sdCjnwoQLR0C&pg=PA8
(Honoria was an Augusta who did not marry an emperor. Pulcheria was Augusta from 414, before she married the emperor.) Acolex2 (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This still does not adress any of my points.★Trekker (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top