Disputatio:Decius

My knowledge of Roman history in comparison to my knowledge of Latin is a thing of shameful paucity...is this the only Decius? Or is this page movenda?--Ioshus ^(disp) 14:54, 19 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sems to me one shoudl discuss how to name emperor pages in general. I suppose that although there are many Decii, this is the Decius. But should Emperors be listed under the one-name form of their titulary? It seems wrong to me, but then so does writing out the whole damn protocol, so I don't know how they should be listed. --Iustinus 17:11, 19 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<<sigh>> A conversation, as always =]. I agree that the one name is not the way to go, and I also agree that the full title is a bit overdoing it. Maybe we can just do praenomen, gentilicium, cognomen...--Ioshus ^(disp) 17:43, 19 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest common name + (imperator).

All proposals would have their problems, including mine! But I think the emperors did all have the title imperator, even if it didn't mean the same thing throughout. Ioshus's suggestion has the difficulty that in the later period (as with Decius for example) those three name-categories were no longer consistently used. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:11, 19 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All except for Augustus! But seriously, the main problem with your proposal is that it is ugly, and that's the least problematic problem in play. So I think Andrew is probably going to win here. --Iustinus 21:21, 19 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(crossing) I think, "Augustus" would be somewhat better, because "imperator" continued to be just a military title or designation also for generals below Ceasars or Augusti. In late Rome the highest emperors (of the four) were Augusti and the lesser ones Caesares. --Alex1011 21:25, 19 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the way. First of all, if I recall correctly, the title for generals was effectively abolished at some point, being considered tantamount to rebellion. But even if that is wrong, well I can't imagine we'll ever need to use (Imperator) as a disambiguation for an honored general: to say general we would presumably use (dux militaris) [unfortunately, dux having more than one meaning, we can't use it on its own], to say emperor (imperator). I can't imagine a situation where (dux militaris) wouldn't be specific enough for a non-emperor imperator. --Iustinus 21:34, 19 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]