Talk:Valentinian III

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Valentinian III 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

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 23, 2008, October 23, 2009, October 23, 2010, and October 23, 2013.

Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Classical Greece and Rome 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.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / 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 articles

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 and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

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

Greece: Byzantine

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Roman and Byzantine emperors Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Roman and Byzantine Emperors WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Roman and Byzantine emperors. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roman and Byzantine emperorsWikipedia:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsTemplate:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsRoman and Byzantine emperors articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Date of abandonment of Britain[edit]

"...the final abandonment of Britain in 446." Can anyone explain this late date? It does not tally with the account in Roman Britain. --Wetman 23:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Roman Britain: "A significant date in sub-Roman Britain is the famous Groans of the Britons, an unanswered appeal to Aëtius, leading general of the western Empire, for assistance against Saxon invasion in 446". This must be what the article refers to. Rome had of course abandoned Britain much earlier. --Jon kare 12:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this incorrect statement.Dudleymiles (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar is capitalized[edit]

Here we go again, Panarjedde. The title of "Caesar" is capitalized; please review The Later Roman Empire by Averil Cameron (as well as hundreds of other academic sources for this period). I'm restoring the proper usage. Dppowell 16:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment on my talk-page (let's keep discussions about specific articles to their respective Talk pages): "Caesar" is a title, yes, but it's a special case because it's also someone's name, and the title existed in honor of that name. Just from the books in the room with me right now, I could cite dozens (if not hundreds) of authoritative examples of upper-case usage. I think the only place I might have ever seen "Caesar" decapitalized is on menu listings for "caesar salad," and I'd argue that's incorrect, too! Dppowell 16:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but it is still a title, and according to MoS it is to be in low capitals. I write "the titles caesar, zar and kaiser all come from the name Caesar": would you correct me?--Panarjedde 16:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS is not a sacred text; it's a guideline. Clearly, the MoS authors weren't thinking about titles of the Roman Tetrarchy when they wrote it. If I provide sufficient documentation to get an exception entered into the MoS, will you leave the capitals alone? Dppowell 16:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will ask for a mediation, since this is your interpretation. According to me, you should have the MoS changed, before putting capitals to every title you like.--Panarjedde 16:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"According to me" seems to be your primary justification for your edits. This is not just my "interpretation." I didn't make it up while lying in bed last night. This usage is supported by the entire academic community. I implore you, pick up some books (start with those listed in the references for this article) and read. Read about Julian. Read about the Tetrarchy. Read about the Caesars. Then look at the bibliographies for those books and read some of those. Research is not something you do from the seat of your pants while citing Wikipedia style manuals; it takes effort. I'm trying to edit articles according to standards established by the experts on the topics in question; you are the one asserting an individual point of view. Dppowell 17:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, you're right, Augustus should be capitalized, too. I missed that. Dppowell 16:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait caption wrong?[edit]

The caption in the portrait seems wrong to me. If Galla Placidia was the mother of the two, shouldn't she be the oldest woman, at the middle? FilipeS 00:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quotation from Goldscheider, L, Roman Portraits, applying to the portrait of a Roman family, which was being described in this article as depicting Galla Placidia and family: "Portrait-group on Glass. About 250 A.D. Brescia Museum. (Formerly called the Portraits of Galla Placidia and her two children, and dated about 420 A.D.)." Therefore, it is not intended to represent the trio, and seriously predates them. So, I'm removing them from the relevant articles. Michael Sanders 12:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A shame, it's a beautiful portrait. But thank you for the information. I'd been discussing this in my talk page with another editor. The picture is currently in the three articles Galla Placidia, Valentinian III, and Justa Grata Honoria. (Come to think of it, they did look like a very "classical" Roman family. Too classical, I guess, for the troubled times when Placidia, Valentinian, and Honoria lived.) FilipeS 12:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed them from those articles now. You are right, it's a very nice picture: are there any relevant articles it could be used in? Michael Sanders 12:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about putting it here, with a new caption? :-) FilipeS 23:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Pleased. :-) Michael Sanders 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely inappropriate for the Theodosians... I read the captions, and while they are beyond my understanding, the names are definitely not those of Theodosian ladies. --Svartalf (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The words in the portrait are in Greek. They are not the names of the people depicted, but most likely of the artist who painted the portrait. FilipeS (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]