Talk:Roman triumph

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roman triumph 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.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ).
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Article policies

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 1, 2014.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

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.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Additional information...

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

(Rated C-class, Mid-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.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

Mid

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

WikiProject Festivals

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Festivals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Festivals 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.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Note 11 page ref[edit]

I only have access to an electronic library version of this book, but the relevant discussion was to be found on p85f. I realise the print book may have different pagination, so I haven't made an edit, and indeed whole chapters may have been swapped round from one edition to another which may explain why the change is so great, but I thought I'd mention in case anyone can check. Prhodian (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Cave ne cadeas[edit]

Wasn't the phrase of the slave Cave ne cadeas? -- Error 00:34, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I dont know that one. Do you know what it means? Muriel Gottrop 13:29, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Take care that you won't fall" -- Error

Hmmm, i think the first one makes more sense in the context that Romans loathed personal power. Di you have a reference? Muriel Gottrop

Google akbar!

In French

Le triomphe était une du plus grandes solennités de l'ancienne Rome, et la plus brillante récompense qu'elle accordât à ses généraux vainqueurs. Le triomphateur (imperator), vêtu d'une tunique de pourpre, couronné de lauriers, et tenant en main un sceptre d'ivoire surmonté d'une aigle, s'avançait sur un char doré, au milieu d'un long cortège de citoyens qui le saluaient de leurs cris d'allégresse. Immédiatement derrière le triomphateur, pour rabattre son orgueil, un esclave, portant une couronne d'or, mêlait sa voix aux acclamations et faisait entendre des chants moqueurs et des paroles satiriques : Cave ne cadas, criait-il, prends garde de tomber !

[http://www.terravista.pt/Enseada/2674/latim_bc.html Expressões em Latim

e outras línguas estrangeiras] (You read Portuguese, didn't you?)

cave ne cadas lat Cuidado, não caias. Advertência que fazia um escravo ao triunfador romano, para que ele não se deixasse possuir de orgulho excessivo

caveat

Cave ne cadas ("cuidado para não caíres"), sabiamente usada nos triunfos romanos: enquanto o general vitorioso, à frente de suas legiões, vestido de púrpura, num carro puxado por quatro cavalos brancos, avançava lentamente pelas ruas de Roma, sob o aplauso ininterrupto da população, tendo à frente do cortejo, em correntes de ouro e de prata, os reis e generais capturados, e os cativos que carregavam os tesouros que tinha conquistado para o Império, atrás dele, no mesmo carro, vinha um escravo repetindo - por que era fácil esquecer! - "Lembra-te de que és homem; cuidado para não caíres"

This "source" mentions both

Cave ne cadas! Trad.: Prends garde de tomber!

Précédé de ses licteurs, richement vêtu et couronné de lauriers, le triomphateur traversait la ville, monté sur un char attelé de quatre chevaux blancs, un esclave à ses côtés lui murmurant des phrases telles que «Rappelle-toi que tu es mortel» afin de conjurer les conséquences négatives qu'un tel succès pouvait entraîner. La phrase «Cave ne cadas.» était l'un de ces rappels de sa condition humaine.

Actually, I have heard about "Remeber that you are mortal", but I don't remember "Memento homo".

-- Error

I do read portuguese, i'm portuguese despite the danish name and father, but french not really. I'll add the cave ne cadas to the text. "Memento homo" is "Remeber that you are mortal" in Latin, which i can also read, but not that good :) Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 12:13, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It says in the article that Flavius Belisarius was the last person to receive a triumph...but I've read examples of Triumphs being celebrated in Constantinople as far as the ninth century. Does the article refer to strictly Roman triumphs, or what? Nicephorus

Have noticed a persisting discrepancy regarding the last recipient of a Roman Triumph; in this article, Belisarias is specified, for which Graves is cited. In the article 'Emirate of Crete', it is stated that Phokas was honored by a Triumph in the 960's CE, and the citations are to persons other than Graves. For both claims, Constantine's City is the venue. [[User: David P West (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)]]

What is the source for the 'memento mori' slave behind the Triumphator? Tertulian mentions that 'A voice at his back keeps whispering in his ear, "Look behind you; remember you are but a man."' (respice post te. hominem te memento.). But this could easily be simply a reference to conscience or self-knowledge, particularly within the context of Tertulian's writing. Is there a definite reference to the slave anywhere?

143.167.109.158 14:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Adam 22/01/07

The Via dei Fori Imperiali does not belong to Benito Mussolini. I am certainly removing that distasteful reference from the article. --Laocoont (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Lack of refs and inline citation[edit]

One ref? Mary Beard's recent-ish The Roman Triumph is a milestone in this subject. She approaches the source material and accumulated myths with stringent scholarship. The article looks sad and bereft, nearly orphaned, and badly needs a copy-edit. I may have a shot at it, unless someone else feels like jumping in sometime soon. Haploidavey (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

revision and copy-edit of article[edit]

Am rearranging sections in chronological order. Will be leaving all the uncited material (thus, most of it) and removing as and when it can be replace or backed by inline citation. Main source to start will be Mary Beard's work (details as refs). Haploidavey (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Roman Military info-box[edit]

This was gigantic and very intrusive, therefore I've removed it entirely. As it's a shared template, I daresay its originator(s) would rather it stayed as it was. I really don't think the article needs it. Interested parties should post here.Haploidavey (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

horrible temporary headings and sub-headings[edit]

They're all my doing. Or fault, if you prefer. There's a lot of misinformation to be ploughed through and substitute with more considered scholarly opinion (and debate, where appropriate - that means every tagged para, in event of dispute. If disputed material is not sourced very soon, out it goes!) Haploidavey (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

cuts and changes[edit]

Lead inaccurately describes hereditary nobility as ruling empire. Have changed. Further cited changes required in intro. Will not notify these unless challenged. Haploidavey (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

More pics![edit]

I'd sort of given up on the article - comes of reading too much Beard, I think - but Botteville's addition of Trajan's column pics has re-stimulated my interest. A few more (assuming they're available) might even kick-start things again. Haploidavey (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting article in user-space[edit]

There's almost enough material here for a readable and informative article, but it's jumbled and confusing. The Bacchic elements give me a clue on how to approach this. We need, I think, to steer away from Smith's very detailed but idealised, generalised model, and Livy's lengthy expositions of particular cases. Rather, we need to unpack particular features, issues and developments of the Triumph within a strong narrative structure. That'll take some time to sort out. I don't think readers need to witness the inevitable mess-in-progress (yes, I'm that optimistic) so I'll tackle the whole thing on a dedicated user-page - which of course "anyone can edit". Haploidavey (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A relatively important mistake - Roman Generals did not earn the Imperium by winning battles the imperium was a specific type of power that was granted to the upper enchelons of the Republican public officials - see for example Richardson, J. S. (1975). 'The Triumph, the Praetors and the Senate in the Early Second Century B.C.' Journal of Roman Studies, 65, 50-63. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.41.199 (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, perhaps you'll point out where this error is to be found in the article, or change it yourself. I've searched the text twice, and can't find it. Haploidavey (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Era convention[edit]

The earliest forms of this article had no dates; the first instance I've found of a year with an era occurs here in 2007 and uses "AD." At some point, it was changed to BCE/CE; it's claimed in one edit summary that a "consensus" supported this, but I don't see any discussion of that on this talk page. I see that scoundrel Haploidavey claiming in edit summaries from 2009 that the convention was BC/BCE. Throughout December 2009, this seems to have been a football. It may be that substantial revision had been made of the previously dismal article in which years were rarely stated; a thorough revision would justify changing the era convention (well, IMHO), but I can't pin down when this occurred. I shall leave this matter to those who care. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm, Haploidavey could at least get his story straight; maybe he's gotten old and lazy? Anyhow, I just put all this to him and he responded with a mumbled string of obscenities (which I won't repeat) and the occasional bark about "substantial contributions" and "lame tedious disruptive era wars"; otherwise, he doesn't count himself among those who care, and prefers a simple life in his barrel. So, for now, here's an Io triumphe for the IP and BC/AD, and hubris to the Haploid and BCE/CE. Haploidavey (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the consensus lies in the fact that the current era style has survived for several years. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, one would certainly have thought that a sign of consensus, whether or not consensus was explicitly sought and obtained on the talk-page. And as far as I can tell, consensus trumps precedence. The era style doesn't bother me either way; the disruption does. A quite fabulous waste of time and energy, imho. Haploidavey (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, it seemed that when the article was revised with actual sources the era convention became CE/BCE; the guideline over at WP:ERA changed recently. It no longer privileges the convention ab origine, and requires only consensus rather than "substantial" reasons to change a convention. Which ought to result in lots of useless bloodshed. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Jugurtha's death[edit]

His wikipedia page mentions he died of starvation, not strangulation. I've inserted a citation needed tag for now, but this needs to be resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.90.127 (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up this error, and tagging. Have changed text to conform with Plutarch's account and removed the tag - the link to Jugurtha's cited article will probably do for now. That said, this section's quite problematic; see article text on the difficulties in reconstructing anything like a "typical Triumph". Haploidavey (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Search This Blog

anhduc wiki 4