Talk:Galerius

Untitled

Galerius was born near Serdica or near Sardica ? i know there was a Sardis in N-W Asia Minor. wasn't Serdica/Sardica the capital of Dacia Aureliana ?

dates

This just occurred to me after getting the email with this and the Gregorian calendar: how do we deal with dates in different calendars? The persecuting christians edict was issused 24 Feb in whose calendar? Their current or our modern one?

Serdica (modern Sofia) is meant here.

Dates in ancient history are usually given as what they were referred to by the sources, without any regard to possible alterations by later calendar reforms. So February 24 is the day the ancient sources name (Roman calendar), whatever the adjusted date in whatever calendar may have been. Varana 21:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

booty?

However, in 297, advancing through the mountains of Armenia, he gained a decisive victory over Narses, with an enormous amount of booty that included Narses' harem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.84.212.137 (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

"Identified with Dacians?"

The bit about his being a Dacian avenging angel sounds like pretty boilerplate political hyperbole, questioning his credibility as a Roman, imputing traitorous intentions towards the Empire, etc. Should it perhaps be contextualized here? If it is credible, than by all means, say so, but as is it's just "Person Y said X" without a whole lot of info for newcomers to this person and his numerous political enemies. 142.167.170.59 02:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

yes, I would like to have the Lactantius' text about Galerius' avenging his dacian ancestors contextualized in the article. I find that side of Galerius biography interesting. But i am not sure i can formulate it in the best way. So i will just report "Lactantius about Galerius: etc". Criztu (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Bibliographic note

I have used similar talk spaces to suggest bibliographic resources for revision and expansion. It appears that David Woods plans to publish an article in a forthcoming Studia Patristica on Galerius' deathbed conversion. "The Deathbed Conversion of Galerius Maximianus to Religious Tolerance: Fact or Fraud?" As stated on his page at UCC. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"Anti-Roman" etc

Oatley2112 hs undone one of my edits with the astounding edit summary "Undid revision 523207852 by Paul Barlow (talk) This section refects the view of Lactantius, a Christian writer, whose view of Galerius was extremely prejudiced. Galerius was not "anti Roman!". Perhaps Oatley2112 should actually read the section before making such utterances. This is the entire content of the section (none of it written by me. I just retitled it):

According to Lactantius, Galerius affirmed his Dacian identity and avowed himself the enemy of the Roman name once made emperor, even proposing that the empire should be called, not the Roman, but the Dacian Empire, much to the horror of the patricians and senators. He exhibited anti-Roman attitude as soon as he had attained the highest power, treating the Roman citizens with ruthless cruelty, like the conquerors treated the conquered, all in the name of the same treatment that the victorious Trajan had applied to the conquered Dacians, forefathers of Galerius, two centuries before.

In other words, the section is clearly about anti-Roman attitudes. But of course "Galerius was not 'anti Roman!'" - how absurd!, you imply. He was Roman emperor! This merely shows you haven't even read what it says. The whole point is that Lactantius claims he wanted to treat the city of Rome as part of his empire like any other, with no special status, or even that he wanted to somehow avenge his defeated Dacian ancestors. The section says nothing whatever about "Christian" attitudes. The fact that Lactantius was a Christian is on the face of it utterly irrelevant, since his comments have nothing to do with Christianity. The word "Christian" is not even once mentioned in the section! Of course one can claim that Lactantius's view is linked to his Christianity, but that has to be argued in the content and placed in context. Even then it is just his view, not "Christian views", since no one else is quoted, nor is any evidence presented that he represents Christians in general. If you have problems with the content, alter that, but the title has to reflect the content of the section. Paul B (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... it’s good to see you are passionate about such things Paul. Passion is good. Sneering comments about how a fellow editor did not read the section... not so cool.

Leaving aside for the moment that Lactantius is a primary source, and should be used with caution, like most primary sources, this whole section deals with Lactantius’ view of Galerius, which borders on caricature. It is not an unbiased modern historical appraisal of Galerius’ reign, but a propagandist, invective filled diatribe where Galerius is painted as an “unRoman” monster, who had an satiable blood lust which he took out on the Christians. No modern historian takes seriously, for instance, Lactantius’ claim that Galerius wanted to rename the Roman Empire as the Dacian Empire. It is fiction, dressed up as history, and it’s only purpose here in this article is to demonstrate the effect the Diocletianic Persecutions had on the Christian communities, and their view of Galerius as represented by the writings of Lactantius.

In short, Lactantius’ writings had a profound impact upon the traditional Christian view of Galerius, who was one of the key architects of the last great Roman persecution of Christians. Because he was a Christian, and he was writing on behalf of the Christians who had suffered under Galerius, his writings were given great weight by the Christians (and the Christian states) which followed him, and it is still the accepted version of history that the Christian churches subscribe to. However, modern historians take a less emotional view of Galerius’ reign, and they discount much of the fantasy which Lactantius speaks about. See Elizabeth DePalma Digeser, The Making of a Christian Empire: Lactantius & Rome (2000) for an excellent modern account of Lactantius’ version of history and the political points he was seeking to make with his revisionist account of Galerius’ reign.

However, in order to reach a quick consensus, we could rename this section as either “Lactantius’ view of Galerius” or “Anti-Roman accusations”, which is essentially what Lactantius accused Galerius of. Are one of these acceptable to you? Oatley2112 (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... what you call 'sneering' is merely a statement of fact. It derives from the fact that you quite clearly did not check the section before reverting, or you would not have written the edit sumnmary you did. You made a "knee jerk" reversion on the basis of what seemed superficially "obvious" to you. Your charge also displays double-standards, since the 'sneering' originated with your own edit summary, so your reproof about "Sneering comments" about "a fellow editor" boomerangs. Not so cool. The rest of your homily is largely irrelevant to the issue at hand, since at no point have I claimed that Lactantius was unbiassed or even accurate. If you wish to expand on these points in the section you may, of course do so. I have already suggested that. "If you have problems with the content, alter that, but the title has to reflect the content of the section." I am of course happy with either of the alternatives you suggest, both of which had occured to me too. I think the latter option is better, because it describes the essential content of the claims. Paul B (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Option 2 it is. Have a good day. Oatley2112 (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Paraphrasing & Plagiarizing in Section 3, Rule as Augustus from Gibbon's Decline & Fall, Vol.01 Chapter 14

Section 3 of this article is merely creatively plagiarized from Gibbon's Decline & Fall, Vol.01 Chapter 14. The author merely omits large sections and changes a few adjectives to make the sentences unique. Gibbon's work is in the public domain, but he should be quoted, not paraphrased. Personally, I don't have a problem with it (as I love Edward Gibbon), but is certainly against Wikipedia's guidelines. I am quite sure this paraphrasing happens with Gibbon often on Wikipedia, because I've noticed it before. I will cite only one example, and you will find it quite striking.

The importance of the occasion called for the presence and abilities of Galerius. At the head of a powerful army collected from Illyricum and the East, he entered Italy, resolved to revenge the death of Severus, and to chastise the rebellious Romans; or, as he expressed his intentions, in the furious language of a barbarian, to extirpate the senate, and to destroy the people by the sword. But the skill of Maximian had concerted a prudent system of defence. The invader found every place hostile, fortified, and inaccessible; and though he forced his way as far as Narni, within sixty miles of Rome, his dominion in Italy was confined to the narrow limits of his camp.

Gibbon, Edward, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol.1, p.411, Penguin Classics, ISBN 978-0140433937

The importance of the occasion needed the presence and abilities of Galerius. At the head of a powerful army collected from Illyricum and the East, he entered Italy, determined to avenge Severus and to punish the rebellious Romans. But due to the skill of Maximian, Galerius found every place hostile, fortified, and inaccessible; and though he forced his way as far as Narni, within sixty miles of Rome, his control in Italy was confined to the narrow limits of his camp.

"Galerius." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 16 Feb. 2017 18:57. Web. 20 Apr. 2017.

I did not extend my investigations to any other sections of this article, or other Wikipedia articles. Mousebelt (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Arch of Galerius

Detail of Galerius attacking Narseh on the Arch of Galerius at Thessaloniki, Greece, the city where Galerius carried out most of his administrative actions.

The picture seems displaying Dacians (Carps) based on their Phrygian cap (see Dacian statue) rather than Sassanians. Is it attested that Sassanians used Phrygian caps? -- Saturnian (talk)

Ctesiphon

The problem with the sack of Ctesiphon by Galerius is that this is a suggestion by certain historians, but not something scholars agree upon in general. (See Udo Hartmann, "The Tetrarchy, 284–305") As Patricia Southern admits this is never explicitly stated in any source and is based on certain arguments that they make, but these arguments are very speculative. Also if you go through the works of for example David S. Potter, Engelbert Winter and the Iranica article by Jens Kröger, they don't mention it at all in their works. Kröger also clearly state that Carus was the only one able to do so during the Sasanian period. I've seen also many scholars (such as Engelbert Winter) state that Diocletian prevented Galerius from doing anything like that.

Recently the article has taken this somewhat into account by mentiong that there are no explicit sources, but the argument that it is generally assumed that he took Ctesiphon by Southern is rather problematic, as mentioned before many scholars do not accept it. So I would suggest to be more clear in the article that this is a debate rather than something generally accepted.

This brings me also to the first part of the article. Since this is something very uncertain I don't think it is right to mention it there and as I suggest should solely mention the battle of Satala as this is the main event in Galerius conflict with the Sasanians. HormizdIV (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Image of head, "probably Galerius"

Going to the museum site where the image originates, we find this description:

"The identity of the individual, however, is hard to determine. The head does not resemble closely any of the known portraits of Roman Emperors. As a result, various interpretations have been proposed. Initially, it was suggested that the sculpture represents Galerius and that it was carved around 310 AD. Later, it was suggested that it portrays Theodosius I (late 4th c. AD). Recently, a new theory has been proposed, according to which it is a provincial portrait of Trajan, dated either in the 2nd or in the 4th c. AD."

That doesn't sound much like "probably Galerius", does it? 2A02:AA1:1643:DC72:7533:E5E6:D348:8992 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)