Talk:Roman decadence/Archive 1

Old

Hi all,

This is my first wikipedia article so the formatting is a bit rough. Also, I didn't have time to add everything I wanted to. I thought it better to get the raw article into the wikisphere so you could start hammering away on it. In the meantime, I'm going to comb through my copies of Gibbon and Suetonius for more salacious details on Roman decadence.

- Bustahump — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bustahump (talk • contribs) 21:55, December 29, 2005 (UTC)

Very poor quality

Instead of making a list of Suetonus gossips on emperor's sex life, this article should be on litterature (historical and scientific) on the concept and explanations for roman decadence such as Machiavelli, Gibbon, Juvenal.

If it's just a list of leaders sexual vices, then the article should be called "list of gossips on emperors" and not "roman decadence" lol

128.135.194.99 19:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:Speedy delete tag

I don't think this is a candidate for speedy delete. It's probably worth taking to AfD as original research, but I don't think it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. - N (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• upon further review, this article seems beyond hope of salvage. The entire piece seems like a voyeuristic attack from the Christian religion. This does not belong in wikipedia nor do I see how any of it can be salvaged into something worthwhile. I vote for DELETE. Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:RE:Speedy delete tag

After reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion, I am completely astonished that anyone would nominate this article as a candidate. Secondly, nothing contained within this article is orginal research. My sources include Suetonius, Edward Gibbon and J. Rufus Fears. I probably should have more rigourously edited this article before posting it... but I thought that is what the wiki-community is all about. I'm going to extend the article, polish the formatting and cite sources at the end as soon as possible. Please do not delete this article as that would force me to rewrite it in different words (if I've understood the speedy-deletion concept correctly).

I also want to give a justification for this article's raison d'être: I've noticed that many wikipedia articles include useful lists that group loosely related concepts together. In my studies of ancient Rome, I've encountered countless and sparsely distributed amusing examples of what I loosely defined as roman decadence. This article is merely an attempt to group them into a single place. I think it's interesting and I think many others will find it so as well. ~~bustahump

I am removing the speedy tag because there is a clear contention. Please use {{afd}}, rather than {{delete}} when tagging articles that do not obviously meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Bustahump, welcome, and thank you for your contribution. May I suggest you add those references to the article. I have done some minor wikification and added a stub. N (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This article could be improved

Modern historians agree that Roman historians did not hold modern standards of objectivity and fact-checking. Some sensational historical accounts written by Romans almost certainly pass along rumor and deliberate political slander, for example. Some of the accounts in this article regarding Nero, for example, are so extreme and sensationalistic that they probably should be viewed with some doubt. If they are confirmed by multiple independent sources, the article should say so. If they are reported by only one author, particularly if that author is not renowned for his accurate reporting and objectivity, the article should mention that some of these assertions are historically doubtful. Possibly some of this information should be described as "unreliable contemporary accounts," rather then described as if we have some confidence that they actually occurred. Bigvalleytim 19:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the article doesn't seem to mention the fact that the fall of Rome was several hundred years out from Nero and Caligula. The actual fall of Rome had to do with economic and social decline in western Europe, and the fact that Rome was exposed to attack from the invaders of that territory; and simply could not rouse enough interest to field armies to defend itself, largely because the people whose opinions mattered in western Europe couldn't be bothered. To the extent that Roman decadence means anything, it had more to do with the rise of serfdom and the dwindling of the last vestiges of the republican ideals than it had to do with Caligula's orgies. Smerdis of Tlön 04:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A recent lecture at the University of Sydney suggested that the idea of a "Roman orgy" is in fact a myth.

• I agree that this article is undoubtedly worthy of inclusion. Like ohers, though, I think there are some inaccuracies, inappropriate broad conclusions and such... That said, I don't think I'm an expert enough to be the one to correct it. I've added the cleanup tag. Porlob 12:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Bias

this article has a clear bias

• Agreed. It reads like a morality play (i.e. "impure behaviour leads to collapse of society"). Hu Gadarn (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Two other possible additions?

Shall we include the Emperors Elagabalus and Commodus? God knows they were insane and perverted enouth.

Please look up words: decadence; insanity; and perversion in a dictionary.98.167.202.148 (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

Undoubtedly some of the Roman Emperors were quite unsavoury characters, however some contemporary historians have suggested that the stories of Roman decadence not entirely accurate. History is written by the victors who frequently smear their predessors to legitimise themselves and preserve their historical legacy. Then there is always the gossip factor, there is probably a kernal of truth in most of the stories however they are almost certainly inflated. Some of what are percieved to be debaucheries may also be calculated political move, Caligula making his horse consul is a historical fact (to my knowledge) however it may well have been an insult to senators, he could have been saying that his horse would make a better consul than them. Another example is Claudius marrying his niece, I don't know the particulars of this, however royalty have been historcally very inbred and Claudius is by no means the only historical royal to marry his niece. These points should be included in the article to give an approriately balanced and informative view worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. --Chr1sday87 05:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add a few thing

Hi, this is my first go at Wikipedia so please be indulgent. I tried to add to the gossip about the "moral" decadence some issues around the political system, and also, the early influence of Christianity. This is mainly based on Gibbon. I will try to add quotes in the next days. Your comments and corrections are of course welcome, as I am by no means a professional historian

Wallincourt 20:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Huge historiographical subject

I'm pleased that people are still interested enough in ancient Rome to be writing about it, but I think the author has bitten off a bit more than s/he can chew here. This isn't just a matter of 'history' but of 'historiography', ancient and modern. Taking Suetonius or Gibbon at face value is not reasonable. Is it possible to write a complete, accurate life story of Marilyn Monroe? No, because there are rumours and anecdotes and exaggerations; no one knows the whole truth. And she only died forty-five years ago. Suetonius was writing over a century after Nero and Caligula died, and Gibbon 1,700 years later, and in an age, of course, when memories were not preserved by such things as photographs and films. Historiography - the study of the historians and their works - needs to be used, in order to produce anything worthwhile to an encyclopaedia standard.

Roman Decadence is not a 'historical' subject. It is a subject of historiography. You have to define what is meant by decadence - and you have to compare definitions. You also need a more differentiated view of Roman attitudes. The stories of Suetonius are titillating because he wrote them to titillate a Roman audience. This means that the Roman audience was responding in the same way as you - in other words, they had the same or similar taboos and sense of appropriateness. So can you say, based on an anecdote of Suetonius, that Rome was decadent? Or can you just say that decadence was an issue of interest in Rome?

So far, I'm afraid, this article is of not much value. The subject is so vast and complex, I'm afraid I think a professional historian is EXACTLY what's needed if it's going to stay up. 85.177.91.193 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

delete this article

not a single reference. this alone is reason enough. else-wise, clearly motivated by some other goal other than history. it smacks of "preachiness". sexual tastes (in all the emperors mentioned) does not seem to have much to do with "decadence" IMO. and burning Christians (mentioned in "Nero") certainly is not "decadent." this article is an insulting to academia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.202.148 (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)