Talk:Principate

Convoluted sentence

In the last paragraph of the section on the Dominate: "The political role of the Senate went into final eclipse, no more being heard of the division by the Augustan Principate of the provinces between imperial provinces and senatorial provinces."

I find this sentence really ungrammatical, and I don't think it is clear what is exactly meant by it. Please if someone knows what it means, formulate it in a way that doesn't confuse the reader. Or if I'm just being dumb, please explain its meaning. OberleutnantMarton (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I assume what is meant is: "The political role of the Senate was finally extinguished. Provinces were no longer designated "imperial" or "senatorial" as they were during Augustus's Principate." Two problems with saying that at this point in the article: (1) the article hasn't explained the distinction earlier (see Roman province#Early imperial period). It comes out of the blue as if readers know all about it. (2) I think that distinction had disappeared long before the Dominate. DeCausa (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Stark difference between this page and the Dominate page

Please observe how the Dominate page focuses primarily on subsequent historiographers disputing the Principate-Dominate periodization scheme. According to that page, this is obsolete historiography, to be treated in the history of ideas rather than the history of Rome.

Not so on this page. Somehow these two should be reconciled, and treated consistently across the two pages. 15:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC) 71.167.255.2 (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Dominate was recently updated and could do with more opinions, but that is correct. Principate still enjoys usage but it seems modern historians have their own spin now (Christianity not constitutional law). Nevertheless, you are correct this article needs updating to better align with sources. Biz (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Potential AI Usage

Apologies if this is isn't AI, but the wording, overuse of italics and mixage of curly and straight quotes are kind of weird. The below revision appeard to have been written by AI

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principate&diff=prev&oldid=1311972008 DinoRachs1 (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

clarification on what exactly is suspicious

The edit frequently uses "it's not just X, but Y" and uses italics on a lot of unnecessary places DinoRachs1 (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The term "Dominate"

From the lede of article:

…after which it evolved into the Dominate.

From the lede of that article:

The Dominate is now considered a near-obsolete term.

So, should we be using it here? Marnanel (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Well that article actually says that the Oxford Classical Dictionary says that. It may be overstated. Anthony Kaldellis in his 2015 The Byzantine Republic: People and Power in New Rome certainly uses it - on page 26 he says "The continuity of the republic is broken up and obscured by the compartmentalization of knowledge into semantic fields: there is a division between Republic and Empire, and then the Empire is broken up into Principate, Dominate, and Byzantium." Although maybe not common it does continue to be used eg this in 2009. DeCausa (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Principate is used in the literature still. But "classical" is a more neutral way to describe this period of the Roman empire. This article would serve us better if it is treated as historiography rather than as a descriptive article about the Roman Empire itself.

As a separate point, we should revert the article to what it was before September 2025 as there is evidence an LLM was used. Biz (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

What's not neutral about "Principate"? It sounds like you would just create a WP:REFERS probkem. It's standard terminolgy about an actual thing. "classical" would be totally ambiguous. DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The question here is not whether Principate appears in modern scholarship, but what it refers to.

Principate (like Dominate) is a modern historiographical construct originating in nineteenth-century scholarship, not a term describing a self-identified or institutionally distinct Roman system. Its continued use in the literature reflects analytical convenience rather than reference to a discrete historical “thing”.

This matters for WP:REFERS. The term does not refer to an objective entity comparable to, for example, the Roman Republic which is more akin to a named constitutional order. It refers to a scholarly model used to organise interpretation of imperial continuity and change. Treating it as a descriptive period makes a dated interpretive framework appear as historical fact, even though the scholarship has long moved on.

More specifically, Theodor Mommsen’s model was substantially revised by Ronald Syme and later scholars, who showed that the political, legal, and social transformations of the Roman Empire from Augustus through the third century do not map cleanly onto a binary constitutional shift. Jochen Bleicken goes further in critically warning against reification of this periodisation in Prinzipat und Dominat.

This is the basis of why the article should be framed explicitly as historiography, not as a neutral description of a distinct phase of the Roman Empire. A discussion of what the common name of this period is and how to avoid use–mention distinction, is a different discussion. Biz (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Please don't bring your Byzantine campaign here. "Self-description" is irrelevant. This is a widely used and utterly standard periodisation and description of form of government of the Roman Empire. WP:COMMONNAME applies and the article needs to be about that period. Do not try to turn this into an undergraduate paper on the name. DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

A little premature to discuss conduct DeCausa. Let's stay focused on policy and sources.

I am not disputing common usage. As I noted in April on this talk page, Principate continues to be used, but modern historians increasingly interpret the period through lenses other than constitutional form, which was the basis of Theodor Mommsen's interpretation.

What I am distinguishing is name usage versus referent, which is precisely what WP:REFERS addresses. WP:COMMONNAME governs terminology and titles; it does not determine whether a term refers to a historically operative entity or a modern analytical model. Those are separate questions.

The issue here is if the article presents Principate as a neutral description of a distinct phase of government without explaining that it originates as a 19th century interpretive framework. That framing choice is itself historiographical.

Mommsen’s model is foundational to this terminology, and yet he is not even referenced in the article. Later scholarship, notably Ronald Syme and Jochen Bleicken, substantially revised that framework and cautioned against reifying the periodisation. Whether one agrees with that scholarship or not, it is material to how the concept is presented. Our Talk discussion should be on that, which is what the original post asks for, and anything else is not irrelevant.

I am not proposing a rename. I am suggesting that the article accurately reflect the scholarly status of the term it uses, including its historiographical origins and subsequent critique. We have Roman Empire, History of the Roman Empire, and all the sub-articles; we don't need to repeat that content here. My comment about "classical" is just what I've seen in the scholarship (versus post-classical and late antiquity) and is a more neutral way to discuss this period; it should not affect this article. Biz (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Total WP:REFERS fallacy. This article is about the Empire and its form of government in its first 2 centuries per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. It's a standard periodisation reflected in umpteen standard works. And guess what, the best name for an article with that scope of Principate. If you want to write your undergraduate essay on the term then Principate (term) is thataway....if it survives AfD. DeCausa (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

It appears that the current section "Etymology and anticipations" meets the standard you want Wikipedia to be, which I struggle to comprehend. There is no need for Principate (term) because we have Periodisation of Roman civilisation.

Modern historians commonly use “principate” to distinguish the pagan empire, a usage you have curiously not adopted, even though I have already done the homework for you. Instead, you rely on a page 26 2009 work on "European legal history" (which makes clear, the law of this period is "classical Roman law" which is what it has authority to define, despite its usage of principate) and selectively quote Anthony Kaldellis, whose views you know well from much later scholarship rejecting periodisation labels due to the confusion they create. You have not addressed Jochen Bleicken, who wrote a major monograph on this specific topic (title translated: "Principate and Dominate") and is cited by historians, not least because he also authored a well-known biography of Augustus, which happens to be cited on this article. No mention of recent actual scholarship, like this 2022 book on historiography, which talks about how Mommsen's approach is now rejected by historians. Given the frequency you raise WP:UNDUE, how do you not see this, in between your schoolboy attempts to be funny? Biz (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Look, the point raised by the OP was should Dominate be used in this article as it is obsolete. Nothing about Principate. I merely gave a couple of recent examples of RS using the word so saying it was obsolete was possibly overstated. That's it. You've gone a flight of fancy about something else - it's not very interesting and has little to do with improving this article. That's it as far as I'm concerned. DeCausa (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Based on the original post, I agree with you.

So we are clear, I have no disagrement that Principate is the common name for the government during that time period. I have issue that the scholarship has consensus that the original reason to call it the principate is now flawed, and so we keep the term for convenience and not any other reason. Which is why any reference to government change between the periods (especially Dominate) is problematic. As for the point about other names, that was brought up more in the context of where the narrative history is better suited, not here. It's not here, so no need to discuss further. Biz (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

So, "I have no disagreement that Principate is the common name for the government during that time period". If you're not proposing to change the name and keeping this article to be about "the government during that time period" rather than changing into an article about the term then I couldn't care less. Knock yourself out. No idea what the point of the above posts were. DeCausa (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I never intended a rename, and I always wanted a more specific scope. Talking about (1) the variant of monarchy started by Augustus (2) Roman history between Augustus and the late third century are what this term refers to but are also two different things. We could do with more precision.

I don't believe the narrative history of the period belongs here. That's one point. With the article now back to its pre-September state, this is less of an issue than when the discussion started.

The sources you shared discuss it as a period. The lead discusses it as a form of imperial government of the Roman Empire. It may be nuance, but it's important to distinguish and navigate. Biz (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I see the WP:REFERS mess you made of Dominate, with a side of WP:QUOTEFARM. Replicate that here and I'll revert it. DeCausa (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

And I haven't mentioned UNDUE once. What are you talking about? DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Biz has opened a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Principate. NebY (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)