Talk:Valentinian II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

I've removed one of the links - it was just a link to a page of adverts--Snozzbert12 00:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I have rewritten the article, expanding, adding and correcting as necessary, as well as removing redundancies and duplications. --Iacobus (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pontifex Maximus

I've removed the box listing Valentinian in the succession of the office of Pontifex Maximus. Thus far I can find no reference which states that he ever held that title, although this may not be surprising, since he was a minor emperor. I will continue to research the subject. Of course, any coin or inscription which shows him bearing that title includes him in the list.--Iacobus (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct. That's because it switched over to the popes in 360. Student7 (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reference for that date?--Iacobus (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(Hope this isn't a blog!) Pointer to 360 date, Gratian, Pope Damasus I. Actually I had the date wrong. It was 376. The "360" may have started some kind of interim period. The popes at the time were more concerned with Arianism and maybe becoming "Pontifex" was no big deal.Student7 (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. I have an article from an academic journal which suggests 383, other proposed dates being 379 or after. I would prefer the journal article to the unreferenced article you link to. Either way, there is no mention of Valentinian bearing the PM title, and every indication that Gratian refused it. It looks like a grey area, not helped by a confused date given by the only ancient source. I'll continue to leave Valentinian out of that title unless documentation proves otherwise.--Iacobus (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)