Talk:Principate: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

In the last paragraph of the section on the Dominate: “The political role of the Senate went into final eclipse, no more being heard of the division by the Augustan Principate of the provinces between imperial provinces and senatorial provinces.”

I find this sentence really ungrammatical, and I don’t think it is clear what is exactly meant by it. Please if someone knows what it means, formulate it in a way that doesn’t confuse the reader. Or if I’m just being dumb, please explain its meaning. OberleutnantMarton (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume what is meant is: “The political role of the Senate was finally extinguished. Provinces were no longer designated “imperial” or “senatorial” as they were during Augustus’s Principate.” Two problems with saying that at this point in the article: (1) the article hasn’t explained the distinction earlier (see Roman province#Early imperial period). It comes out of the blue as if readers know all about it. (2) I think that distinction had disappeared long before the Dominate. DeCausa (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe how the Dominate page focuses primarily on subsequent historiographers disputing the Principate-Dominate periodization scheme. According to that page, this is obsolete historiography, to be treated in the history of ideas rather than the history of Rome.

Not so on this page. Somehow these two should be reconciled, and treated consistently across the two pages. 15:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC) 71.167.255.2 (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dominate was recently updated and could do with more opinions, but that is correct. Principate still enjoys usage but it seems modern historians have their own spin now (Christianity not constitutional law). Nevertheless, you are correct this article needs updating to better align with sources. Biz (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this is isn’t AI, but the wording, overuse of italics and mixage of curly and straight quotes are kind of weird. The below revision appeard to have been written by AI

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principate&diff=prev&oldid=1311972008 DinoRachs1 (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

clarification on what exactly is suspicious

The edit frequently uses “it’s not just X, but Y” and uses italics on a lot of unnecessary places DinoRachs1 (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the lede of article:

…after which it evolved into the Dominate.

From the lede of that article:

The Dominate is now considered a near-obsolete term.

So, should we be using it here? Marnanel (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well that article actually says that the Oxford Classical Dictionary says that. It may be overstated. Anthony Kaldellis in his 2015 The Byzantine Republic: People and Power in New Rome certainly uses it – on page 26 he says “The continuity of the republic is broken up and obscured by the compartmentalization of knowledge into semantic fields: there is a division between Republic and Empire, and then the Empire is broken up into Principate, Dominate, and Byzantium.” Although maybe not common it does continue to be used eg this in 2009. DeCausa (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Principate is used in the literature still. But “classical” is a more neutral way to describe this period of the Roman empire. This article would serve us better if it is treated as historiography rather than as a descriptive article about the Roman Empire itself.

As a separate point, we should revert the article to what it was before September 2025 as there is evidence an LLM was used. Biz (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What’s not neutral about “Principate”? It sounds like you would just create a WP:REFERS probkem. It’s standard terminolgy about an actual thing. “classical” would be totally ambiguous. DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is not whether Principate appears in modern scholarship, but what it refers to.

Principate (like Dominate) is a modern historiographical construct originating in nineteenth-century scholarship, not a term describing a self-identified or institutionally distinct Roman system. Its continued use in the literature reflects analytical convenience rather than reference to a discrete historical “thing”.

This matters for WP:REFERS. The term does not refer to an objective entity comparable to, for example, the Roman Republic which is more akin to a named constitutional order. It refers to a scholarly model used to organise interpretation of imperial continuity and change. Treating it as a descriptive period makes a dated interpretive framework appear as historical fact, even though the scholarship has long moved on.

More specifically, Theodor Mommsen’s model was substantially revised by Ronald Syme and later scholars, who showed that the political, legal, and social transformations of the Roman Empire from Augustus through the third century do not map cleanly onto a binary constitutional shift. Jochen Bleicken goes further in critically warning against reification of this periodisation in Prinzipat und Dominat.

This is the basis of why the article should be framed explicitly as historiography, not as a neutral description of a distinct phase of the Roman Empire. A discussion of what the common name of this period is and how to avoid use–mention distinction, is a different discussion. Biz (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t bring your Byzantine campaign here. “Self-description” is irrelevant. This is a widely used and utterly standard periodisation and description of form of government of the Roman Empire. WP:COMMONNAME applies and the article needs to be about that period. Do not try to turn this into an undergraduate paper on the name. DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A little premature to discuss conduct DeCausa. Let’s stay focused on policy and sources.

I am not disputing common usage. As I noted in April on this talk page, Principate continues to be used, but modern historians increasingly interpret the period through lenses other than constitutional form, which was the basis of Theodor Mommsen’s interpretation.

What I am distinguishing is name usage versus referent, which is precisely what WP:REFERS addresses. WP:COMMONNAME governs terminology and titles; it does not determine whether a term refers to a historically operative entity or a modern analytical model. Those are separate questions.

The issue here is if the article presents Principate as a neutral description of a distinct phase of government without explaining that it originates as a 19th century interpretive framework. That framing choice is itself historiographical.

Mommsen’s model is foundational to this terminology, and yet he is not even referenced in the article. Later scholarship, notably Ronald Syme and Jochen Bleicken, substantially revised that framework and cautioned against reifying the periodisation. Whether one agrees with that scholarship or not, it is material to how the concept is presented. Our Talk discussion should be on that, which is what the original post asks for, and anything else is not irrelevant.

I am not proposing a rename. I am suggesting that the article accurately reflect the scholarly status of the term it uses, including its historiographical origins and subsequent critique. We have Roman Empire, History of the Roman Empire, and all the sub-articles; we don’t need to repeat that content here. My comment about “classical” is just what I’ve seen in the scholarship (versus post-classical and late antiquity) and is a more neutral way to discuss this period; it should not affect this article. Biz (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Total WP:REFERS fallacy. This article is about the Empire and its form of government in its first 2 centuries per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. It’s a standard periodisation reflected in umpteen standard works. And guess what, the best name for an article with that scope of Principate. If you want to write your undergraduate essay on the term then Principate (term) is thataway….if it survives AfD. DeCausa (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]