Talk:Fasces

Cincinnatus

I've added the image of Cincinnatus, but I'm not sure if it is too much for the page -- some people don't like multiple pictures in a small article. I thought it was a good illustration of the object; what do you think? Rdikeman 23:02, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

List of Symbols Containing the Fasces

In the interest of keeping the main un-cluttered would it be a good idea to make a seperate article called "List of Symbols Containing Fasces"? I think it would be immensely helpful for resaerchers of symbolism to have a list of images containing the fascses (or any symbol for that matter), as a reference and also to be able to compare and contrast different usages. 24.18.35.120 01:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It would keep the main page uncluttered. The Mace of the United States House of Reprensentatives is one historical example. GuitarTesseract (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

RIC IVa 422A

@T8612: Hey there! I have yet another question about coins. Brennan, in Fasces (2022), cites the sestertius which shows the redesigned fasces as RIC IVa 422A (id at p 229 n 37; formatting verbatim). Do you know if we have an image of it? Happy holidays! Ifly6 (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Added picture. T8612 (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic. Ifly6 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Essentially the source for this entire article is a book by this guy Brennan, who has a PHD in philosophy and a Masters in art, ie, who is not a historian, and honestly seems like a quack. The content of the page seems biased and inaccurate (the fasces is a symbol of oppression and terror reee!, the concept of strength in unity is a myth reee!, Roman empire bad reee!). Really comes off as your typical ahistorical political/woke nonsense (wherein western history = bad and needs to be vilified and misrepresented). I don't find this article trustworthy at all. So I would like to see better sources than some pop-history book from someone who isn't a historian. --User:anonymous 16:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.40.56.20 (talk)

Brennan is a professor of classics at Rutgers. His PhD, in classics, was from Harvard was directed by Ernst Badian; it came after he was the 1988 fellow at the American Academy in Rome and the recipient of the 1987 Rome prize. His dissertation was published as Praetorship in the Roman Republic at Oxford University Press. He was the editor of the American Journal of Ancient History, the professor-in-charge of the American Academy in Rome, and a member of the AAR's board of trustees. He has written numerous contributions to books such as Cambridge companion to the Roman republic, the Encyclopedia of ancient history, and the Oxford classical dictionary (3rd, 4th, and online eds). If you disagree with Brennan, you'll have to do better than make up stuff about his CV. Doing so only displays how you don't know how to read a CV, are not familiar with Roman history and its practitioners, or (most likely) both. Ifly6 (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ifly6: The GP's point stands. Terry Corey Brennan is not a professional historian. None of the things you listed make one a professional historian. 2001:569:7F6C:9800:A81F:FF89:B8B5:7245 (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Lol. Ifly6 (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ifly6: Do you know what a professional historian is? 2001:569:7F6C:9800:A81F:FF89:B8B5:7245 (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

How Really Comes Off as Your Typical Ahistorical Political/Woke Nonsense

That is not typical ahistorical political/woke nonsense

And that article is historical, whether you like it or not

And a reliable source, you like it, but no one needs the trust of a donkey like you. 2A02:CB80:4244:891C:7CF8:5EE7:B5C:DC76 (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Appearance

I wonder if this would benefit from a section on the physical appearance? The fasces depicted in Etruscan grave goods are quite different from those depicted on roman coins and reliefs (double-headed vs. single-headed axe, much thinner bundle vs a fatter, tapered bundle). Roman fasces also are regularly depicted with an additional item above the axe (in the case of the relief in this article they are shown to be little cameos, but on coins I'm not certain what it is). The shape of axe head is also quite distinctive (and impractical!) in Roman iconography. Then later, post-enlightenment depictions are different again (much stouter bundle, more conventional axe head, and even axe poking out of the top of the bundle). Does anyone know of research into this that we can cite? DrJonJ (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)