Talk:Magister equitum

Proposal to merge list of Roman Magistri Equitum into this article

In principle, it sounds like a logical decision. If the list were sufficiently long, it could stand on its own; but right now it's very short. But noting that the article is really just a stub of a list, with two entries out of dozens of magistri equitum (not used to seeing this plural, probably because rarely are two of them mentioned together; is there anyone who's heard it anglicized as "magisters equitum"? I might have heard that), listed together with the "concurrent dictator", I doubt that it's worth including, as it would need to be substantially bulked up to be of any use, and might imply that there were only two. The list is just the beginning of a list that was never completed, or even taken beyond the very beginning of the office, and including it here would make this article woefully incomplete.

At the same time, this material would make much more sense included as part of the List of Roman dictators. Currently that article doesn't include the magister equitum for each dictator, but there's no reason why it shouldn't, except perhaps the title (and that could be changed). I suggest postponing a merge in either direction until someone has the chance to make a revised table format that might allow both to be combined, and to enter both the dictator and magister equitum under each year. I could do it myself in a week or two. Then we could simply point this article to the list, for anyone who wants to see a list. Any objection? P Aculeius (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: One objection. I'd keep this page for the purpose of describing what a Magister equitum was and the powers such a title conferred. Otherwise the people holding the title could be included as part of the List of Roman dictators like you suggested. Psychotic Spartan 123 01:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That's actually what I was suggesting. It's the list that needs to be merged into the list of dictators, as there's really no need to keep two separate lists. This article is probably okay where it is. P Aculeius (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge the list here. Montanabw^(talk) 01:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Octavius as mag eq desig in 44

See also Talk:Augustus#Octavius as mag eq desig in 44. @NebY: What do you think should be done in this case? I would remove the entire ¶ since it's very hard to know who was or was not the first or last. Under those circumstances combining the existing language that says it was Lepidus, Octavius, and Domitius in certain ways would be a strange WP:SYNTH. Alternatively, if we just replaced it all with Wilson Dictator (2021) p 329 and MM 2021 p 491 n 17, we could note the possibility of Octavius as mag eq desig in 42. Looking at the table in Wilson 2021 p 309 it also seems there's no reason to believe Lepidus was not the last to take office; but also the sources seem to disagree whether Octavius was made mag eq desig for 42, per Wilson 2021 p 329 n 117, so it should definitely be phrased questionably. Ifly6 (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd be happy if Wikipedia didn't say who was last; we're not keeping score. After "with Lepidus his master of the horse" we could continue in the same paragraph that Caesar may have designated magistri for the following two years, Octavius being one, but was assassinated first. That would pretty much cover everything currently in the second para. NebY (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

That seems reasonable: basically just a statement that he designated two MEs named X and Y but they never took office due to his having already died lived. Ifly6 (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done - you might like to check it. NebY (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

No objections. Thanks for getting this sorted. Ifly6 (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Separately are we sure that all the OCD citations are from OCD²? If so the citations should all be altered to reflect that per guidance. Ifly6 (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Don't know; I can say those page numbers aren't for those articles in OCD¹ or OCD³. Looking at the two references to OCD Magister Equitum, I see the first, on the expiry of imperium, supported in both editions but the second, Even when the Roman army was in the field, the dictator might choose to divide his command, taking the field while relying on the magister equitum as his deputy in Rome, or sending the magister equitum into the field, allowing the dictator to remain at Rome, better supported by OCD¹'s "in later practice, to represent the dictator either on the field of battle or at Rome" than by OCD³'s "dictator's lieutenant and deputy, whether at Rome or on military service". NebY (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I suppose that's plausibly in OCD² then. A lot of the citations seem to be to essentially the same page. Regardless, I think I'd prefer if it were in sources that are readily accessible online inasmuch as we have OCD^Online now. Ifly6 (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)