Talk:Vespasian

Untitled

Originally the passage I copied from the 1911 EB read as follows:

"He went with Nero's retinue to Greece, and in 66 was appointed to conduct the war in Judaea, which was threatening unreast throughout the East, owing to a ubiquitous tale in those parts that from Judaea were to come the future rulers of the world."

After some further reflections, I realised that this might appear to some readers as pushing a under-handed agenda of promoting one view of the contents of the article on Jesus Christ. This was not my intent: I reserve all opinion on the historical facts of this personage, & am not interested in presenting them here. The author of the 1911 EB article -- who is my source about this -- was merely recasting the statements of Suetonius, who actually reports that there was a story to this effect in circulation at this time. Or so our manuscripts say. -- llywrch 03:59 Nov 15, 2002 (UTC)

Name

The article says: "originally known as Titus Flavius Vespasianus". But Titus Flavius Vespasianus redirects to Titus, not to Vespasian. Please clarify, disambig or error. mikka (t) 21:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

They both had the same name. I've disambig'd it. --Nicknack009 21:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Is "Imperator" really part of his official name? I thought that was his title.Student7 17:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In Latin there's precious little difference between a name and a title, especially for Roman Emperors ("Augustus" and "Caesar" are good examples of this). Lots of emperors used the words that we think of as their titles, including "Imperator", as names. Binabik80 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Corn

This page links to the disambiguation page Corn, but I'm not sure which sense is intended. Can you help? Thanks. — Pekinensis 15:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed the word to "grain" since it obviously wasn't referring to maize. siafu 15:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

But might it not be referring more specifically to wheat? — Pekinensis 15:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It might. Unfortunately, I don't know for sure, so I put "grain" which can't fail to be accurate, if imprecise. If you do know it to be wheat, by all means change it. siafu 15:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course this is fine if we don't know, but I'd imagined I was addressing the original author and that they would know what they had meant. Perhaps that person is gone now. Thanks — Pekinensis 22:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Vespasian tax on urine

On the urinal page there is a note about Vespasian:

Parisians referred [their street urinals] as vespasiennes, the name being derived from that of the Roman Emperor Vespasian, who imposed a tax on urine.

Is this true, or just an another misunderstanding like Caligula and the horse?

Talamus 00:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The tax was on public lavitories. It is true and mentioned in Suetonius, but more in the light of a joke than as an act of tyranny. RBobicus 21:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have heard that Vespasian actually invented the public toilet, and that in France public toilets were referred to as vespasiennes as recently as thirty years ago (and may be still, for all I know). My understanding, which doesn't come from a reliable source unfortunately, is that Vespasian invented the public toilet for the purpose of collecting human urine for the tanning of leather, and that this much easier urine collection made leathers much more affordable to Romans. I thought I'd put that into the discussion in case anyone else has a citable source on it! Songflower 21:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well there were privately operated public toilets in Rome a couple of centuries before Vespasian. You had to pay to use them, though. Binabik80 17:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

POV

The last section really needs some NPOV cleanup. Tell us who said he was a great emperor. Nippoo 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael Grant, Gibbon and H.A. Mattingly come right to mind. I see your point about the final section though. It looks like there are a lot of unsourced statements there.RBobicus 21:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have duly flagged it so. Sources for these opinions need to be found. Daniel Case 03:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said Vespasian was a great emperor? Firstly, his son Titus, who deified him (of the earlier emperors only Augustus and Claudius had been deified up to this point), but he would say that, wouldn't he. Secondly, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus uses phrases such as "mighty reputation" (Suetonius, Vespasian 8), and consider Suetonius Vespasian 12; "In all other matters he was from first to last modest and lenient", and Vespasian 16 lists his "one serious failing" as avarice. Sue. Vesp 17; "Vespasian behaved most generously to all classes", Sue Vesp 22; "nearly always ... good natured".

In modern authors, I would add Garzetti, in 'From Tiberius to the Antonines: A history of the Roman Empire AD 14 - 192' translated by J.R. Foster. For example; pg 226 "... the hope that the civil war ... had finally completed its destructive cycle, but also by the weariness of Italy and the words of wisdom and peace which came from the new Princeps. The reality did not belie the expectations." Page 227; "With the fading of the bloom of the urban emperors ... the Princeps who now followed brought with him, ... the new element which, grafted onto jojoba the old, still standing trunk, was to ensure the exuberant continuation of the empire at its political summit." Ibid; "The administration was once again the saving element ...". Pg 228 "Thus it is right to equate the reign of Vespasian with the first decisive change of direction in the empire. ... the Roman imperial state resumed, after this first crisis, its still prosperous progress ... ". Pg 239 "... more disposed to live in harmony with a Princeps who embodied the ideals of its own Italian and provincial origins." Finally, on page 257 the concluding sentence about Vespasian is "By the last few years of the reign, abroad as well as at home, the most stable and well-ordered security system ever enjoyed by the empire had been organized."

Pliny the Elder called him "the greatest ruler of all time" in his Natural History, Book II, part 18: "Deus est mortali iuvare mortalem, et haec ad aeternam gloriam via. Hac proceres iere Romani, hac nunc caelesti passu cum liberis suis vadit maximus omnis aevi rector Vespasianus Augustus fessis rebus subveniens." 74.214.103.181 (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Pliny the Elder wrote the work under Vespasian's rule, so it must be seen with a caveat: as somewhat flattering. It's true though that after the series of civil wars that racked the empire after the fall of Nero, Vespasian was the one who finally was able to provide stability. That may account for some of the praise as well. -- fdewaele, 22 February 2010, 19:50 CET.

Vandalism?

Well perhaps a fitting irony of "vandalism" here. It is claimed that Vespasian dies of a bad case of diarrhea, stands, and says "Shit. I am already becoming a god!" [28]. The source text claims he came down with the gout, a fever, and simply said: "I am already becoming a god!", and not "Shit. I am already becoming a god!". Mikecnn (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a better translation might be "Oh dear! I think I'm becoming a god" I'll see if I can find some sources for various translations. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• The penguin classic Suetonius says "Dear me!...". Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Barbara Levick says "Oh!..." She also says it was perhaps not an example of Vespasians ironic sense of humour but a scurrilous rumour put about because it is an oblique reference to Claudius' last words "Oh! I think I've messed myself!" Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• One translation of Cassius say's "Woe's me!....." Another says "Now I shall become a god" with out the "vae".Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Etymology for Vespasia\Vespasian

Anyone knows the etymology of the names Vespasia\Vespasian? Does it simply come from vespa (wasp)? --Codrin.B (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the article

1. Far too much reliance on primary sources. Suetonious, who is often wrong and full of gossip, for one thing. Secondary modern historians' work needs to be utilized much more heavily. 2. Nothing at all about his Christian persecutions, which were a part of his reign. The 'second founder of the Principate' was treated pretty well in the Roman pagan sources, but it is far from the full truth. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

3. The usage of "CE" and "BCE" would be historically preferential to "BC" and "AD" in this article for the following reason: the consensus academic name for the figure known in English as "Jesus Christ," Yeshua ben Yosef, was one of several insurrectionists the Roman authorities fought at this general time of unrest in the Judean province (later renamed Palestrina by the Romans) which this article describes, culminating ultimately with the destruction of the Second Temple in the Jewish War. To cite dates such as "BC" and "AD" in this article, which are motivated by those within what is academically-speaking a Roman-era Jewish cult (Christianity)--originating within a province (Judea) whose destruction Vespasian himself sought to secure--is perplexing in such a context. Neutral dates such as "CE" and "BCE" would make more historical sense. - added by some Anon that didn't sign in

Nope. We go by the Wiki rules. If it started using BC/AD, it stays that way.50.111.19.178 (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Titus Flavius Sabinus

The paragraph about Vespasian's older brother refers to his career in the 30s & 40s (working with Caligula), but the link to Titus Flavius Sabinus has him first mentioned in 45 and then active in the 40s and 50s (working with Nero). Can anyone resolve this apparent inconsistency - or am I just very confused? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.238.27 (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vespasian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100712205746/http://homeros.godsong.org/FRANKS_CASKET.pdf to http://homeros.godsong.org/FRANKS_CASKET.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Burial

Do we know where he was buried (beyond "Rome"). He's not listed as one of the occupants of the mausoleum of Augustus.Furius (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Vespasian's early political offices

This article contains a contradiction in regards to Vespasian's early career and the years he was aedile and praetor. In "Early life", it says He rose through the ranks of Roman public office, being elected aedile on his second attempt in 39 and praetor on his first attempt in 40, taking the opportunity to ingratiate himself with the Emperor Caligula. However, in "Military and political career / Early career", it says Vespasian failed at his first attempt to gain an aedileship but was successful in his second attempt, becoming an aedile in 38. Despite his lack of significant family connections or success in office, he achieved praetorship in either 39 or 40... (bolding added). Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Content gone

Unless it’s a problem at my end, it appears that the majority of content on this page has disappeared. This seems to follow from an extensive series of edits by user “Cote D’azur”. FreddieRainbow (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

What content do you think has disappeared? All I can see in the recent changes you refer to is an argument between two editors on whether to use CE or AD? Chewings72 (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

It’s all back! Maybe it was a problem at my end after all - or maybe somebody was mid-edit or something. Anyway, all is well. FreddieRainbow (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Head of Vespasianus in Palazzo Massimo (Rome).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Connection between Christianity and Pharaonic enthroning traditions?

Last par of the "Year of the 4 emperors" section:

"As Pharaonic precedent demanded, Vespasian demonstrated his divine election by the traditional methods of spitting on and trampling a blind and crippled man, thereby miraculously healing him. (This Egyptian tradition of healing is related to the healing the man blind from birth, one of the miracles of Jesus of Nazareth.)[24]: 14 "

How is the tradition related to this miracle? Jesus had only died around 33 years earlier. The first gospel was written by a dying Mark around this time, in Egypt granted. How had the religion/sect become so entwined into Egyptian culture?

If the relationship is that they both involve healing blind men this is so vague as to be irrelevant and presumably an attempt to shoehorn Jesus into the article.

Sorry im being lazy not researching myself or editing, but first time commenter and I don't have proof, just seems ridiculous. 81.107.156.207 (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The claim does sound dubious and I'm not sure how relevant it is in any case. The text was added in January 2021 by @GPinkerton:, who can perhaps shed some light on the matter? Furius (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Time contradiction

Para. 3: "While Vespasian besieged Jerusalem[...]" This is not possible in terms of time. 2A02:8108:8F80:7FB4:14AE:802C:4204:D8B2 (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. Though the First Jewish–Roman War had begun and V was in command of the Roman forces fighting against it, the siege of Jerusalem was the next year and conducted by V's son Titus. I've changed the third para of the lead to begin "While Vespasian was fighting against a Jewish rebellion", not going into more detail there because the paragraph is more about Vespasian's rise to emperor. NebY (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Why were my edits removed?

I removed subjective and overdramatic statements in the leading section, but another user added the them back. Words like "chaotic", or "plunges" are dramatic and go against the neutrality of Wikipedia. I replaced them with "civil war" and "lead" respectively, to ensure a more specific and accurate narrative. I also removed the statement "the financial system of the Rome Empire" and replaced it with "Rome's financial system" to reduce complexity in the leading section. Please acknowledge my reasons for my edits and if edits are going to be made removing my edits, please place your reason here. Davidninjaking (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully we can get @NebY: to discuss here. I'm not him, but I mostly agree with his reversions. You wrote ...led the Roman forces in the Jewish rebellion which is so misleading as to be flat false. I happen to already know which side the Romans were on, but your change made it sound like the Romans were leading the rebellion. In another part, you removed the description of Mucianus, which was questionable. And you also left a blatant typo in the text ("tRome"), which suggested you hadn't really sanity checked your edits. So, per WP:BRD, you were bold, you got reverted (partially), and you are now discussing. Tarl N. (discuss) 07:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with NebY's revert (and with Tarl above). Davidninjaking, I think to an extent, in common with many new editors, you misunderstand what "neutrality" means in Wikipedia. It doesn't mean that text can't be opinionated or "subjective". That's actually fine provided it reflects the preponderance of reliable sources. See WP:NPOV particularly WP:DUE. I think what you are actually talking about is WP:PEACOCK. But I don't see that in the text you want to change. It seems perfectly reflective of how reliable sources talk about Nero. DeCausa (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I provided reasons in my edit summaries. You can see them by examining each edit or in the article history.

I see that after posting here you repeated parts of your changes to the article without waiting for discussion. Those changes leave our readers not knowing why we mention Galba and Otho and make the events a little harder to follow

... the Year of the Four Emperors, during which Galba and Otho died in quick succession. After Vitellius became emperor in April 69, the Roman legions of Egypt and Judaea

. Your edit summary was "Removed again overdramatic statements and reduce complexity in the leading section.", but I see no overdramatic statements in that edit and do see the removal of a little clarity concerning a complicated and chaotic year. You have also given us

Vespasian joined forces with Mucianus, the governor of Syria, and Primus, the governor in Pannonia, who led the Flavian forces against Vitellius, while Vespasian took control of Egypt.

, which can too easily be read as if they were already leading the forces against Vitellius. That's easily dealt with by breaking the sentence, as I did:

Vespasian joined forces with Mucianus, the governor of Syria, and Primus, a general in Pannonia, who led the Flavian forces against Vitellius, while Vespasian took control of Egypt.

Your change didn't make the text briefer or less complicated, so please can you explain how that's an improvement and on what basis you describe Primus as the governor of Pannonia? NebY (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand thank you for the clarification. What I reffered to as overdramatic were words such as "plunged", and "chaotic", which aren't wrong themselves, but seem as if they are appropiate for fantasy fiction book, but not a Wikipedia article. The word "plunged" can sound emotionally targetted or dramatic, not exactly specific to what the article must coney. Words such as "which lead to" or "plummeted" or even "entered" are more specific and accurate sounding, just without the emotional or dramatic sense to it. Davidninjaking (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. First, I should correct my post above, where I pasted the wrong text as the last block-quote. That should read "That's easily dealt with by breaking the sentence, as I did:

Vespasian joined forces with Mucianus, the governor of Syria, and Primus, a general in Pannonia. They led the Flavian forces against Vitellius, while Vespasian took control of Egypt.

I've no particular affection for "plunged", but it remains better than "Emperor Nero died by suicide in June 68, leading Rome into ..." - having died, he did not lead Rome into anything. However "chaotic" is a fair description of the reigns of Vitellius, Otho, Galba and at least the later stages of Nero's, and the contrast with Vespasian's stability is helpful.

You've not said why you wish to remove the brief identification of Galba and Otho as two of the four emperors, or why you described Antonius Primus as governor of Pannonia. NebY (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

By using the word leading, there isn't an implication that his death lead to the year-long civil war. Rather, just like what the word "plunged" does, the word "leading" implies that the entire combination of Nero's death, and the surrounding chaos lead to the civil war. I prefer using the word "leading" rather than "plunged" since the latter has a kind of emotional or dramatic effect. I, however, understand that in specific circumstances, such as these as you've claimed, the word is appropiate.

For the other edit I made, I thought Judea and Egypt's reaction to Vitellius becoming emperor was made clearer. Davidninjaking (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

From "I thought Judea and Egypt's reaction to Vitellius becoming emperor was made clearer", I'm guessing you thought Pannonia was in Egypt or Judea; not so. You've not mentioned any reliable source describing Antonius Primus as governor of Pannonia, rather than as the lead described, a general who was there, so I've restored "general" along with the brief indentification of Galba and Otho as two of the four emperors, and the sentence breaking I describe above. NebY (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I was unaware of my mistake with the governors; thanks for changing that. I was referring to the flow of the sentences. With the way you edited the sentences introducing Galba and Otho, with Vitellius, and how the legions reacted by choosing Vespasian as emperor, the three sentences sound very systematic, naming a group of facts, rather than a nice flow through the then. I liked my edit since it consisted of "After Vitellius became emperor, the legions reacted…". This sentence allows a nice transition through the facts, rather than just naming them. Davidninjaking (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

That left "year of civil war known as the Year of the Four Emperors, during which Galba and Otho died in quick succession. After Vitellius became emperor", in which only Vitellius is described as an emperor. In the article as it stands now, the narrative proceeds clearly and smoothly through the events; there's no need to gloss it with conjunctive phrasing that obscures the facts. NebY (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't exactly see how my version obscures the facts, but I believe we can leave your version since it doesn't either. Davidninjaking (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

No, we can leave the current version because no one supports your changes. You seem to have a habit of seeing problems in existing text that no one else does. DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll take that as a compliment. :) Davidninjaking (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Domitian's occupation of Rome

More details should be listed. The fighting in the city was extremely cruel, with thousands of innocent civilians murdered in the streets and Vespasian's forces brought under control with difficulty. See Tacitus, and the modern interpretations of the event. The chaos was not unlike what happened in the Caesarian civil wars.~2025-32599-64 (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)