text:
Talk:Roman emperor

List of emperors
As can be seen at Talk:List of Roman Emperors, my extremely complicated listing of Roman Emperors is far from a finished or satisfactory project. I would greatly appreciate any input as to how it ought to be refined or made more gooder. Pubicus

Focus on dynastic/non-dynastic changes
As I mentioned elsewhere, I think it would be an amazing idea for this page's list of the Emperors to focus on dynastic and non-dynastic changes (so as to justify its separate listing of the Emperors). I put together an example of how this might be done with the Julio-Claudians as an example:

 * Julio-Claudian Emperors:

 * Caesar Augustus ("Imp. Caesar Augustus"; b. C. Octavius), d. 14
 * M. Vipsanius Agrippa, 18 BC – 12 BC
 * Ti. Claudius Nero, 6 BC – 1 BC, 4 – 14 (as "Ti. Iulius Caesar")
 * Tiberius I ("Ti. Caesar Augustus"; b. Ti. Claudius Nero), 14 – 37
 * Note: Tiberius had been co-Emperor with Caesar Augustus from 6 BC to 1 BC, and again from AD 4 until his own accession to the purple
 * Gaius "Caligula" ("C. Caesar Augustus Germ."; b. C. Iulius Caesar Germ.), 37 – 41
 * Claudius I ("Ti. Claudius Caesar Augustus Germ."; b. Ti. Claudius Drusus), 41 – 54
 * Nero ("Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germ."; b. L. Domitius Ahenobarbus), 54 – 68

 * Dynastic Relationships:

 * Caesar Augustus's first wife Livia Drusilla (subsequently "Iulia Augusta") had previously borne two children by her first husband, Tiberius Claudius Nero: Tiberus and Drusus. Tiberius's second wife was Iulia, Marcus Agrippa's widow (his first wife had been Vipsania, Agrippa's daughter by his first marriage); Caesar Augustus adopted Tiberius on June 26, 4, whereupon Tiberius himself adopted his brother Drusus's son by Marcus Antonius's daughter, Germanicus Iulius Caesar. Germanicus married Vipsania Agrippina, Agrippa's daughter by Iulia and Tiberius's stepdaughter, and had by her one surviving son, Gaius "Caligula" ("Bootkins"), and a daughter, Iulia Agrippina, whose second husband was Germanicus's brother by blood, Claudius (she was his first wife); Agrippina had already borne a son (Lucius) by her first husband, Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus. Claudius adopted Lucius under the name Nero in 40; Nero married Claudius's daughter Octavia in 53.

What does everyone think about using this as a general model for the article's second part? It will of course take some time to modify the whole article, and will necessarily make the article somewhat lengthier, but I think it would go a long way toward demonstrating the complicated (dare I say, "byzantine"?) often-familial personality of the Roman Emperor's succession. Comments? Publius

It sounds an interesting idea. But speaking of "byzantine", the familial connections get more complicated from the Tetrarchy and till Anastasius I. Any ideas how to cover the following connections (from a modern Greek encyclopedia)?:

 * Diocletian (284 - 305) was father-in-law to Galerius.

 * Maximian (286 - 305, 307 - 310) was father to Maxentius, father-in-law to both Constantius Chlorus and Constantine I of the Roman Empire, grandfather-in-law to Licinius, grandfather to Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constantius II, and Constans, great-grandfather to Julian and great-grandfather-in-law to Gratian.

 * Galerius (305 - 311) was son-in-law to Diocletian and father-in-law to Maxentius.

 * Constantius Chlorus (305 - 306) was son-in-law to Maximian, father and brother-in-law to Constantine I of the Roman Empire, father-in-law to Licinius, grandfather to Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constantius II, Constans and Julian, and great-grandfather-in-law to Gratian.

 * Constantine I of the Roman Empire (306 - 337) was son and brother-in-law to Constantius Chlorus, son-in-law to Maximian, brother-in-law to Maxentius and Licinius, father to Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constantius II and Constans, uncle and father-in-law to Julian and grandfather-in-law to Gratian.

 * Maxentius (306 - 312) was son to Maximian, son-in-law to Galerius, brother-in-law to both Constantius Chlorus and Constantine I of the Roman Empire, uncle by marriage of Licinius, uncle by blood of Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constantius II and Constans, great-gradfather to Julian and great-great-uncle by marriage to Gratian.

 * Licinius (308 - 324) was grandson-in-law to Maximian, son-in-law to Constantius Chlorus, nephew by marriage to Maxentius, brother-in-law to Constantine I of the Roman Empire, uncle by marriage to Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constantius II, Constans and Julian, great-uncle by marriage to Gratian.

 * Constantine II of the Roman Empire (337 - 340) was grandson to Maximian and Constantius Chlorus, son of Constantine I of the Roman Empire, nephew by blood of Maxentius, nephew by marriage of Licinius, older brother of Constantius II and Constans, first cousin and brother-in-law to Julian, uncle by marriage of Gratian.

 * Constantius II (337 - 361) was grandson to Maximian and Constantius Chlorus, son of Constantine I of the Roman Empire, nephew by blood of Maxentius, nephew by marriage of Licinius, younger brother of Constantine II of the Roman Empire, older brother of Constans, first cousin and brother-in-law to Julian, father-in-law to Gratian.

 * Constans (337 - 350) was grandson to Maximian and Constantius Chlorus, son of Constantine I of the Roman Empire, nephew by blood of Maxentius, nephew by marriage of Licinius, younger brother of Constantine II of the Roman Empire and Constantius II, first cousin and brother-in-law to Julian, uncle by marriage to Gratian.

 * Magnentius (350 - 353's widow was later second wife to Valentinian I.

 * Julian (361 - 363) was great-grandson to Maximian, grandson to Constantius Chlorus, great-nephew to Maxentius, nephew by blood to Constantine I of the Roman Empire, nephew by marriage to Licinius, first cousin and brother-in-law of Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constantius II and Constans, uncle by marriage to Gratian.

 * Valentinian I (364 - 375) was married to the widow of Magnentius, brother to Valens, father to Gratian and Valentinian II, father-in-law to Theodosius I, grandfather-in-law to Constantius III, great-grandfather to Valentinian III and great-great-grandfather-in-law to Olybrius.

 * Valens (364 - 378) was sister to Valentinian I, uncle by blood to Gratian and Valentinian II, uncle by marriage to Theodosius I, great-uncle by marriage to Constantius III, great-great-uncle to Valentinian III and great-great-great-uncle by marriage to Olybrius.

 * Gratian (375 - 383) was great-grandson-in law to Maximian and Constantius Chlorus, grandson-in-law to Constantine I of the Roman Empire, grandnephew by marriage to Maxentius and Licinius, nephew by marriage to Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constans and Julian, son-in-law to Constantius II, son to Valentinian I, nephew by blood to Valens, half-brother to Valentinian II, brother-in-law to Theodosius I, uncle by marriage to Constantius III, great-uncle to Valentinian III and great-great-uncle to Olybrius.

 * Valentinian II (375 - 392) was son to Valentinian I, nephew to Valens, half-brother to Gratian, brother-in-law to Theodosius I, uncle by marriage to Constantius III, great-uncle to Valentinian III and great-great-uncle to Olybrius.

 * Theodosius I (379 - 392) was son-in-law to Valentinian I, nephew by marriage to Valens, brother-in-law to Gratian and Valentinian II, father to Arcadius and Flavius Augustus Honorius, father-in-law to Constantius III, grandfather to Theodosius II and Valentinian III, grandfather-in-law to Marcian, great-grandfather-in-law to Olybrius.

 * Arcadius (395 - 408) was son to Theodosius I, brother to Flavius Augustus Honorius, brother-in-law to Constantius III, father to Theodosius II, father-in-law to Marcian, uncle to Valentinian III, great-uncle by marriage to Olybrius.

 * Flavius Augustus Honorius (395 - 423) was son to Theodosius I, brother to Arcadius, brother-in-law to Constantius III, uncle to Theodosius II and Valentinian III, uncle by marriage to Marcian and great-uncle by marriage to Olybrius.

 * Theodosius II (408 - 450) was grandson to Theodosius I, son to Arcadius, nephew by blood to Flavius Augustus Honorius, nephew by marriage to Constantius III, brother-in-law to Marcian, first cousin to Valentinian III and uncle by marriage to Olybrius.

 * Constantius III (421) was grandson-in-law to Valentinian I, great-nephew by marriage to Valens, nephew by marriage to Gratian and Valentinian II, son-in-law to Theodosius I, brother-in-law to Arcadius and Flavius Augustus Honorius, father to Valentinian III, uncle by marriage to Theodosius II and Marcian, grandfather-in-law to Olybrius.

 * Valentinian III (424 - 455) was great-grandson to Valentinian I, great-great-nephew to Valens, grandson to Theodosius I, great-nephew to Gratian and Valentinian II, son to Constantius III, nephew to Arcadius and Flavius Augustus Honorius, first cousin by blood to Theodosius II, first cousin by marriage to Marcian and father-in-law to Olybrius.

 * Marcian (450 - 457) was grandson-in-law to Theodosius I, son-in-law to Arcadius, nephew by marriage to Flavius Augustus Honorius and Constantius III, brother-in-law to Theodosius II, first cousib by marriage to Valentinian III, father-in-law to Anthemius, uncle by marriage to Olybrius, grandfather-in-law to the daughter of Leo I of the Byzantine Empire.

 * Leo I of the Byzantine Empire (457 - 474) was brother-in-law to Basiliscus, father-in-law to the son of Anthemius, Zeno of the Byzantine Empire and Anastasius I of the Byzantine Empire, grandfather to Leo II.

 * Anthemius (467 - 472) was son-in-law to Marcian and father-in-law to the daughter of Leo I of the Byzantine Empire.

 * Olybrius (472) was great-great-grandson-in-law to Valentinian I, great-great-great-nephew by marriage to Valens, great-grandson-in-law to Theodosius I, great-great-nephew by marriage to Gratian and Valentinian II, grandson-in-law to Constantius III, great-nephew by marriage to Arcadius and Flavius Augustus Honorius, son-in-law to Valentinian III, nephew by marriage to Theodosius II and Marcian.

 * Leo II (474) was grandson to Leo I of the Byzantine Empire, great-nephew to Basiliscus, son to Zeno of the Byzantine Empire, nephew by marriage to the son of Anthemius).

 * Zeno of the Byzantine Empire (474 - 475, 476 - 491), was son-in-law to Leo I of the Byzantine Empire, nephew by marriage to Basiliscus, brother-in-law to the son of Anthemius, father to Leo II. His widow married Anastasius I of the Byzantine Empire.

 * Basiliscus (475 - 476) was brother-in-law to Leo I of the Byzantine Empire, uncle by marriage to the son of Anthemius, Zeno of the Byzantine Empire and Anastasius I of the Byzantine Empire, great-uncle to Leo II.

 * Anastasius I of the Byzantine Empire (491 - 518) was son-in-law to Leo I of the Byzantine Empire, nephew by marriage to Basiliscus, brother-in-law to the son of Anthemius and married to the widow of Zeno of the Byzantine Empire.

As you can see those Emperors are connected to each other but far from consitute a single Royal House. Any ideas of how to indicate this in the article? User:Dimadick

 * Yes, I've been working on upgrading the whole article to my new proposed format, and the Tetrarchy and beyond is definitely a snag. I've been thinking that perhaps we ought to delineate the later houses into separate lines based on Constantinian, Valentinian, Theodosian, and Leonine lines, and add clarification as to how the lines are related. Something along the following lines:

 * Constantius I's first wife St. Helena bore him a son, Constantinus I, whose second wife Fausta (sister of Maxentius and daughter of Maximian by Eutropia, mother of Constantius's second wife Theodora) bore him three sons (Constantinus II, Constantius II, and Constans I) and two daughters (Constantia and Helena). Constantius II's daughter Constantia married Gratianus (see below), son of Valentinianus I (see below), while Helena married her half-cousin, Julianus "the Apostate".

What do you think? (As it happens, I'm glad someone was amused by my "byzantine" pun.) Publius 18:13, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm... pretty good but some connections of lesser significance should perhaps be clarified to avoid confusion. How about:

Constantius I was married twice. First to St. Helena and then to Theodora, daughter to Maximian by Eutropia and sister of Maxentius. He had a single son by the former known as Constantinus I and by the later two more sons (Dalmatius and Julius Constantius) and two daughters (Eutropia and Constantia). Constantine also married twice. First to Minervina and then to Fausta, a sister of his step-mother. The former was mother to Caesar Crispus and the later to three sons (Constantinus II, Constantius II, and Constans I) and two daughters (Constantia and Helena). Julius Constantius in turn became father to two sons: Caesar Gallus and Julian. Their sister Constantia was wife to Licinius. Constantia the younger was wife to Gallus and Helena to Julian. An even younger Constantia, daughter to Constantius II later became consort to Gratianus (see below), son of Valentinianus I (see below).

I am in turn glad to see someone trying to clarify the various conceptions and misconceptions about the Roman and "Byzantine" Emperors. User:Dimadick

What is your opinion of the current revisions (up to but not including Theodosius and his successors)? I'm not entirely satisfied with the Tetrarchical and Constantinian sections, but do you feel that they adequately convey what was happening with the Imperial dignity at the time? Or is more clarification necessary for the average reader? Publius 13:53, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

-

Well, it's finally finished. I have completed the systematic upgrade of the article, including dynastic relationships and other topical information (like economic backgrounds and increasingly non-Italian origins of the Emperors), but I'm afraid I won't be around to discuss further improvements. I can only hope that the article is informative, and that others enjoy reading it as much as I have enjoyed writing it. Publius 06:58, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Splitting
This page is really, really long (67kb right now; over twice the recommended maximum length). Would anyone object to splitting it up? Four sub-articles seem rather obvious to me:

 * Roman Emperor (Principate)
 * Roman Emperor (Crisis of the Third Century)
 * Roman Emperor (Dominate)
 * Roman Emperor (Late Empire)

What does everyone else think?Binabik80 20:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * As a general rule, whenever splitting away material, it's necessary to leave a condensed version of it at the parent article, with an indented note in italics telling the reader where to find the more complete material. As long as this is done, there's little harm in splitting. --Wetman 21:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * See Talk:Roman Empire for my answer.--Hippalus 09:33, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Holy Roman Empire
Are we really going to insinuate that the HRE was a legitimate continuation of the actual Empire, and not merely an imitator? -Chris5369 18:15, 20 Apr 2005

 * I think the edit you've made ("as a separate instution") sums it up sufficiently. Binabik80 23:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Touche. Just didn't want to start an ideological war again... -Chris5369 04:01, 21 Apr 2005

 * For the record (from the Holy Roman Empire intro): "The Empire was considered by the Roman Catholic Church to be the only legal successor of the Roman Empire during the Middle Ages and the early modern period." See Translatio imperii Altanner1991 (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The idea that it is treated by historians as a separate institution might be okay to say. But as it stood it just mucked up the meaning of an already existing sentence, which was saying that historians called them Holy Roman Emperors. At any rate, it seems POV to say that the HRE was not a legitimate continuation of the actual empire - it considered itself to be, certainly. But something talking a bit more about how to distinguish the two might be in order. john k 03:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I've had a go at it while you've been writing this message; what do you think? Saying that the HRE wasn't a legitimate continuation might verge on POV, but I don't think there should be a problem with saying that modern historians don't view it as such.  I mean, they don't, do they?  Binabik80 03:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Is it POV? The only sources that seem to agree with the HRE continuation theory are the occasional German historians. Should we list the Sultans? The Tsars? To even include them, sounds POV. -Chris5369 00:41, 22 Apr 2005

I somewhat disagree with the statement that the HRE was continued through the Austrian (1806-1867) and Austro-Hungarian (1867-1918) Empires. Francis explicitly laid down the HR crown in 1806, having *previously* created the Austrian Emperorship for himself (1804), i.e. carryign two imperial titles in the period 1804-1806. Therefore, the Austrian/Austro-Hungarian Emperorship is clearly not a continuation of the HRE. Neither, by the way, is the German Empire of 1871-1918, where the title "German Emperor" was merely a name for the President of the Federation of German states within the Reich. Thus, I have deleted the passage in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.16 (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Determinating?
Is 'determinating' a word? Would 'determinator' be better? --darklilac 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced statements
There are many statements in the article which quote no sources and thus cannot be verified. Can anyone provide adequate references for them? --Nehwyn 15:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case use the tag, not the  one.--Panarjedde 17:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there are too many "citation needed" tags in this article, especially as we have a similar tag at the head of the article. Some are also in awkward spots that makes the article hard to read. I'm removing some. Master z0b (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Poisoned emperors
Half the Roman emperors are regularly claimed to have been "poisoned", some people say, but this article names onely several potential poison victims, why?, and who are the emperors often cited as being poisoned?

 * Yes, who are they? I'd never heard that "half the Roman emperors are regularly claimed to have been poisoned" before! FilipeS (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I've made a personal count (OR! Don't use) from an oldish history book, giving a natural death frequency not more than 10%, the rest killed in any way, most usually murdered, but sometimes killed in war. I believe the future prospects of any Roman Emperor was as bad as high nazi functionary before 1945 which seems to be an equally dangerous profession.  Said: Rursus   ☻   05:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I.e. much much worse than vulcanologist, a decidedly dangerous research profession.  Said: Rursus   ☻   05:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Imperator
RE: imperator as exclusive use of emperor and the basis of imperial power

I think it has to be mentioned that the use of the titles 'imperator' as well as 'caesar' both evolved sgnificantly over the period of the eraly empire. For example, under Tiberius, it was common to refer to Germanicus as 'Caesar' as in Tacitus' Annals in describing Germanicus German campaigns. Tacitus also mentions here Germanicus being saluted as 'imperator' by his troops. Something which did not apparently bother Tiberius greatly. Contrast to later, even around AD 69.

I would also say that "what makes an emperor, emperor", is in fact this title. For example, Vespasian dated his imperial rule from the time he was saluted as Imperator by his troops in the East (July 69) not his formal accession after the defeat of Vitellius. Second the possession of this title meant command of the Army, the ultimate guarantor of imperial power. (Tacitus' "Secret of the Empire").

Also at no point does the page mention anywhere the concept of "imperial provinces" commanded by men the Emperor appoints (and not the Senate). Another key concept which demarks both the powers and the office of Emperor.

-SM

 * I have replaced the first two paragraphs here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Emperor giving the definition and derivation of imperator. But, after saving, only part of my second paragraph appears and to my dismay the rest of the page content has vanished. However, if I click edit again all my alteration appears together with the remainder. Could someone please check this for me and advise me what I am doing wrong? Many thanks.

 * PeterGh

Since writing that I seem to have solved it by removing this tag (Please click Edit because it is clipping the text again here): , the identical tag (pasted) which I had used earlier in the text.

Move to "Roman emperor"
Why is the second word of this article capitalized? Spa toss 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Because Emperor is a title. (Romanorum Imperator (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

 * So capitalize it when it is being used as part of a title - and not otherwise. It's not a proper noun, after all. By way of analogy, we write "Pope John", but "pope" is not capitalized generally. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It clearly should NOT be capitalized, and ought to be fixed. It's like writing 'He was an English King' instead of the correct 'He was an English king'. Alpheus (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger with Imperator
Strongly disagree. The title Imperator has meanings separate from Roman Emperor. "Imperator" in its original form means something along the lines of "great commander," or "commander of the army," or terms along those lines to suggest a great general. As I understand it, Imperator came to be associated with "emperor" after only lengthy precedent in the matter, in which the original(and very important) meaning of the word was lost.

P.S. - How long has that been there? There seems to have been no discussion on it.

69.142.30.188 (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The title of the Roman Emperor was Basielues for the greatest part of the Roman Empire's life. If it should be merged to anything it should be Basileus but that would exclude the period when the title was in fact Imperator so it is also inadvisable.--Xenovatis (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"First Roman Emperor"
I'm wondering if this section is contradicting itself. At one point it says: "However, Julius Caesar, unlike those after him,[citation needed] did so without the Senate's vote and approval" Emphasis on -without-. A bit later it says: "again he did not gain these positions without the majority of a vote by the people and senate" -> So, which is it? With or without approval? First sentence suggests without, second sentence with. (I'm no expert on the matter, but I always thought he did all that he did with approval) Vince (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Godly
>> His "restoration" of powers to the Senate and the people of Rome was a demonstration of his auctoritas and pious respect for tradition. godly. <<

Whatever this read before, "godly" should either be deleted or made a sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TaoQiBao (talk • contribs) 10:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Some article issues
I removed the veritable rash of tags requesting citation, particularly in the early sections of the article - please note that some have been embedded here for three years - because they served no purpose (QED) other than making the text even harder to read. I replaced them all with a general header. The entire article lacks appropriate sources. Currently, it provides two dictionary definitions (handy, but not really citation), one reference to Dio and an offsite link to Constantine Paleologus. My point here is that the text as a whole offers little or no differentiation between primary, secondary and tertiary sources or sources of argument, opinion (scholarly or otherwise) and critical interpretation. Some parts are more lucid than others - the lede is pretty clear - but overall, the article rambles wordily, and I rapidly got lost in it. I've clarified and simplified a tad but only in subject material I know to be broadly uncontentious and available from virtually any well-written general history of the period.

Regarding sources - otherwise expressed as "what sources?" - a great deal of this article seems based on the online encyclopedic essay series to be found at De Imperatoribus Romanis. I've not gone through this in any great detail, but Domitian Diocletian's so-called Dominate as an "outright oriental monarchy" stands out in particular as a dubious or at least contestable appraisal, sourced from the online de Imperatoribus article. I believe - and I'm happy to be corrected if wrong - that we should not uncritically use other Encyclopedias as building blocks for this one. Haploidavey (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Cut part in intro, re "Emperor" as follows - "The first to bear that title was Michael I Rhangabes in the early 9th century, who was styled Basileus Rhomaiôn, "Emperor of the Romans"—if appreciating that by that time the meaning of "Basileus" had changed from "Sovereign" to "Emperor")". Needs placing chronologically, with citation; "meaning" can be a tricksy thing. Haploidavey (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Republican or monarchy?
I think it is worth discussing whether we should consider the roman emperors monarchs or not. It seems to me that if you describe the emperors as a monarchy, you need to describe a lot of other people as monarchs who aren't normally considered monarchs- such as many presidents-for-life and dictators in many republics in history. In what sense are we using the word "monarchy"? 212.42.188.177 (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 * The difference between dictators and monarchs boils down to customary designation and use of specific titles. It's not possible to define underlying substantive criteria. The Duvaliers of Haiti would probably fulfil any definition of monarchy except the lack of a monarchical title. The Kings of Poland prior to the third partition fulfil any definition of (elected) president-for-life except the title. The title by which they are now known "Emperor", is enough to convey the sense of monarchy. In reality, historians tend to refer to the development of monarchical trappings in the principate until it becomes a fully-fledged monarchy in the Dominate. I understand where you're coming from, after all what substantively was the difference between Julius Caesar as Dictator in the Republic, and Augustus as Princeps, Diocletian as Dominus and Heraclius as Basileus in the Empire? Only that by convention the Republican era ended with Augustus and thereafter there was an Imperial era, the latter monarchical the former non-monarchical. And "convention" (i.e. simply reflecting the sources) is what WP is supposed to be about, not coming up with our own analysis (wich is called WP:OR).

 * You've made the lead inaccurate in describing the Empire after Augustus. It was not in a stasis and republic trappings were soon dropped. The statement that the emperors "were emphatically not royal monarchs, but leaders of a nominal republic" is just plain wrong when applied to Constantine or Justinian for instance, but you could get away with describing Augustus and especially Tiberius in that way. It's a gross oversimplification and you should revert it. I hope this doesn't turn into yet another silly Wiki terminology dispute that historians in the outside world just aren't that bothered about. DeCausa (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume that most people understand "monarchy" to clearly mean a political system where the highest political position is claimed, acquired and legitimised by its inheritance as a right of birth; I also assume most people find this very distinct from a non-monarchical system where the leader claims to be leader on merit though selection or acclamation. I apologize if this seeems too terminological.
 * Of the four you mention in your second paragraph, i.e. Caesar, Augustus, Diocletian, and Heraclius, not one was the natural son of an Emperor. Of the three more you then mention in your third paragraph, i.e. Constantine, Justinian and Tiberius, not one was the natural son of an Emperor. Even Emperors who were descended from Emperors still claimed to be Emperor on merit and popular acclaim, not inheritance.
 * (Regarding our times, I dont think Jean-Claude Duvalier ever claimed inheritance was the basis of his legitimacy for ruling Haiti, and even claimed to want to avoid dynastic rule, whereas Elizabeth II is legitimately entitled to be queen because her father was king, and her son and grandson are by inheritance legitimately entitled to the monarchy after her.)
 * However if the convention is that the emperors were a monarchy, then please direct me to the academic sources, I was unaware of this but i always like to learn. Academic sources of which I am currently aware seem to say the opposite, but perhaps i must read them more carefully! I havent made the lead innaccurate, but i may have rephrased existing innaccuracies, if that is what there are: For example the lead has, for at least six months, said "Since the Roman Republic was constituted on an profoundly non-royalist basis, Rome theoretically remained a republic" etc. etc. 212.42.188.177 (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been several monarchies which weren't hereditary. I mentioned Poland, but also the Holy Roman Empire and, many of the early Germanic monarchies weren't strictly hereditary in the sense that the King was elected from the Royal House. Arguably the modern UAE is anon-hereditary monarchy. As for sources, there are many. Here's some random examples: “The Emperor …was seen as a divinely sanctioned monarch”, “Diocletion was still monarch of the entire empire”, “Augustus was not only the princeps, the first man among many, but also a monarch,”, and "Tiberius…was a monarch". DeCausa (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The UAE is a monarchy in the sense that it is a federation of hereditary absolute monarchies, and all power belongs to: 1) the Council consisting of those Monarchs, and 2) the President, who can only be one of those Monarchs. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Additionally, it's not true that it wasn't hereditary. It was a mixture of heredity and election by the army. There were plenty of dynasties: Julio-Claudian dynasty, Flavian dynasty, Constantinian dynasty, House of Theodosius, Antonine etc. The article needs to reflect the historical consensus that Augustus maintained the pretence that it wasn't a monarchy, but that pretence was soon dropped until in the 3rd century it was an "orientalized" monarchy under Diocletian. I've amended the 2nd para of the lead (with sources) to reflect this. DeCausa (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edits are interesting, I shall look at them carefully!
 * Your sources are good, and they certainly do use the term "monarch". I think the problem is I was confusing monarchy with kings, which is not unreasonable but in this case confusing. My strong impression is that the Emperors tried hard to contrast themselves with "kings" i.e. Roman kings like Tarquinius Superbus etc. and oriental "kings"/"despots". Perhaps instead of "emphatically not royal monarchs" i should have written "emphatically not kings".
 * However once the idea of "not monarchs" has been replaced with the (here different) idea of "not kings" (at least for the first 300 years, according to your source), do you have further sources regarding the formal abandonment of the idea that Rome was (in theory) a republic (is this what you are saying?). I would be as happy with the statement that "the Republican institutional framework (senate, consuls, magistracies etc.) was preserved" or words to that effect. The lead already asserted (before i edited) that it still a nominal republic, which i have (as yet!) no reason to disbelieve. 212.42.188.177 (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * With regard to your last para, I feel that you are falling into an anachronistic trap. Concepts such as what is "official" or not official in antiquity are blurred. It's not as though, as with modern states, there is a written constitution which declares it to be a republic etc. And indeed our concept of what is a "republic" is not exactly the same as the Romans. There won't be a "formal" abandonment of the Republic. But surely it's not disputed that historians conventially end the Republic at 27BC. If you put "History of the Roman Republic" in google books you get 14,800 titles by that name. I checked through several pages of hits with previews and found none that didn't end with Augustus. Here's a good example. Of course it is arguably an over-simplification (like the fall of the Roman Empire in the West happened in 476AD) but that is the convention, and we should reflect it. We're not here to do original research.
 * As far as the changes you've made are concerned, I think the statement "Only after three hundred years of Emperors, at the time of Diocletian, was the idea that the Emperor was not a "monarch" dropped" is wrong. The source doesn't say that. Diocletian was at the end of a process that began with Augustus, when the last fig-leaves of the Republic were dropped. I don't think there was any doubt from Tiberius on that the Emperors were monarchs. And that's what the source in footnote 2 says. DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just seen this discussion on when the Republic ended by Harriet Flower in The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. As you can see, there are a variety of possiblities, but none that include going into the Imperial era. DeCausa (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the statement you think wrong, what distinction are you trying to make between "Only after three hundred years... was the idea that the Emperor was not a "monarch" dropped" [me] and "the last fig-leaves of the Republic were dropped" [you]?? They seem pretty similar to me. The source says "His position was that of a monarch. After three centuries the last shreds of traditional embarrassment about monarchy were disgorged." That seems to me to mean to very strongly imply that prior to this time, traditional embarrassment about monarchy had not been dropped/disgorged. 212.42.188.177 (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You've changed what's "dropped"! The source says "last shreds of embarrassment" about it being a monarchy. You've said "the idea the Emperor wasn't a monarch". At best it's ovestating it, but actually its two different things. One is the actual status, the other is merely reaction to that status. (By the way, normal WP practice is to indent your post - it makes the thread easier to read: see Help:Using talk pages) DeCausa (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

 * I think neither is about the actual status, both regard the principle. After three-hundred years, the principle that the Emperor wasn't a monarch was dropped. In any case, the important point, i think, is that the distinction with kings was maintained.
 * On another point, are you not confusing the period (and accompanying political situation) known, by convention and for convenience, as the republic, and the institution? "Roman Republic" is indeed used to refer to a specific period when specific principles applied, but the "institution" largely continued. The political situation changed enough to consider that a new historical period had begun. If I search for "Roman Republic", I would hope and expect to receive information on the period known by convention as the Roman Republic, but all this that doesnt mean that the institution of the Republic ceased to exist. Chile is a presidential republic, but by convention and for convenience, the term "Presidential Republic" refers (in Chilean history) to a specific period of Chilean history. This in no way stops Chile being a presidential republic today. 212.42.188.177 (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, the period and the institutional situation can both be contrasted with a third thing, the claims of the emperors. 212.42.188.177 (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your last change makes it about right. I suspect that although the choice of Emperor (actually princeps, Augustus, imperator etc), not king, was originally because of traditional repugnance for the royal title, the later reason for maintaining it morphed into a sense that Emperors were greater than kings. I haven't looked for sources to support this though. DeCausa (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Roman Emperor → Roman emperor –

Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony  (talk)  11:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not necessary nor desirable. Emperor is a specific title; that we require separate articles on Roman, Byzantine, Serbian, and Mexican Emperors is a convenience, not a requirement. JCScaliger (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. "Emperor" is not specific enough.  It not an exclusively Roman title, but used widely to refer to other offices (German emperor, Russian emperor, Ottoman emperor, Japanese emperor, etc.). It has lost its specificity and has become so generic now to mean "ruler over a lot of stuff", rather than specifically related to ancient Rome (which is why the "Roman" specification seems necessary qualifier for an article on Roman emperors unlike, say, in an article on Roman bishops, which is merely "Pope" rather than "Roman pope".)  Moreover, even during the Roman imperial period, multiple emperors were common, and there are various "ranks" of emperor (e.g. Augustus "higher" than a Caesar). It is common usage to downcase insufficiently specific titles, particularly when there is an demonym attached e.g. "French king", rather than "French King". Walrasiad (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why this article is titled Roman Emperor. JCScaliger (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support – emperor is not a proper name, and neither is Roman emperor. For a specific one, capitalize, as in "the Roman Emperor Constantine."  Dicklyon (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. It is just a designation that could be applied to a number of rulers. See consistent use with lower case at the nearest relevant guideline page: Naming conventions (ancient Romans). N oetica Tea? 00:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Last emperor to rule from Rome?
It occurred to me to wonder who was the last Roman emperor to rule in Rome itself; you'd think this would be easy to find out, but it's not. As far as I can tell from the biographies of the emperors of this period, Carinus was the last to rule from the city of Rome; does anyone know if this is correct? If so, it should be mentioned in the article as a fairly significant fact; note that the article currently includes the statement "Constantine XI was the last emperor to rule from Constantinople." (I originally posted this in Talk:Carinus, but I have since realized that nobody is ever likely to see it there.) Languagehat (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The last West-Roman Emperor to rule in Rome would probably have been Honorius. He was the one who moved the capitol of the West-Roman Empire to Ravenna. He and his successors didn't rule IN Rome but they continued to rule OVER Rome. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * According to his article, "At first Honorius based his capital in Milan, but when the Visigoths under King Alaric I entered Italy in 401 he moved his capital to the coastal city of Ravenna"; i.e., he did not rule from Rome. As far as I can tell, none of the emperors ruled from Rome after Diocletian established the multiple-capital system; the Western emperors ruled from Milan and later Ravenna.  And of course "He and his successors didn't rule IN Rome but they continued to rule OVER Rome"; that goes without saying.  I'm interested in who was the last to rule IN Rome. Languagehat (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems I was wrong about this; Andrew Gillett, in "Rome, Ravenna and the Last Western Emperors" (Papers of the British School at Rome 69 [2001], pp. 131-167) has done a thorough study of the imperial court in the fifth century and concluded "that the western imperial court occupied Rome for significant periods, including between 401–408 and 440–449, and that Rome was the court’s primary residence between 450 and 476, the last generation of imperial rule in the West. The later years of the reign of Valentinian III and the rule of Anthemius in particular illustrate the role of Rome as the imperial residence." Languagehat (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The last emperor in power over Rome was Constantine V. He was in power 741-775. In 751 Lombards invaded Exarchate of Ravenna and captured it. Only Rome duchy remained from the Exarchate's prevous two total duchies. In 752 pope Stephen II went to Paris and switched alegiance from Constatine V to Frankish king Pepin the Younger because the Emperor turned out to be incapable to defeat the Lombards. In 754 Pepin invaded Italy, defeated Lombards and installed his power there.--2A02:2168:83F:8428:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Semper
This title ("Semper Augustus") is not mentioned.--2A02:2168:83F:8428:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

E for emperor
Isn't Roman Emperor a proper noun, the title of a position or office, as per Holy Roman Emperor, Emperor of China and British Emperor?? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The citizenry of the the Roman Empire were Romans. The "highest" Roman in the state was the emperor of the Romans. To that ends, their title was Roman emperor. However, historians have since referred to holder of the office (as one was appointed to it) as the Emperor of the Roman Empire to differentiate it from the absolute shit show that happened with title usage throughout the centuries succeeding Augustus. Different times, different semantics. LivinRealGüd (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the poster was querying the capitalisation (or otherwise) of "emperor". For the rest, see below. Haploidavey (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverted material
I've reverted quite a lot of sourced material, added over the last few days by an enthusiastic editor. Some of it seems usable; any opinions regarding selective reinstatement would be useful, in consideration of the article's woeful under-sourcing. Haploidavey (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Haploidavey, I am indeed surprised to see such a uniform removal of my content. I am also a bit shocked to see that most of them were whole sale reverts. My goal was only to clean up formatting and add sources. My sincere apologies if I stepped on anyone's work. My foremost intention was to trace what the respective TPs were on about before adding anything. I thought I was just clarifying what was concluded on this talk page with my edits. I certainly didn't mean to go against any consensus. Please do let me know what I can do to improve my contributions. All the best and thank you for looking after those pages. LivinRealGüd (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * LivinRealGüd, thank you for your positive response; mass reversions of one's work are pretty horrible experiences. You've not breached any consensus. Your general good faith and wish to improve the article is very evident. Your grasp of Wikipedia formatting mark-up seems excellent to me (not that I know much about it) and you've not stepped on anyone's toes - at least, not mine; I've done very little work on this article. I wish I'd been able to disentangle some of your edits from the article history, and retain or restore them; it was just too much to handle. As for the other matters you've raised here, I'll address them at your talk page, some time today (I'm an old geezer, and I write very slowly, so it'll take me some time). Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds great. My edits are all in the edit history, feel free to take/leave out what you find improves the article. Let me know if you have any questions about them or would like anything else from me. As for my other edits, all of them were done were done to fix an edit that went against a Wikipedia policy. I would more than happy to cite the policy I was thinking of when I made the edit. For example: 100th Emperor of the Roman Empire --> 100th Emperor of the Roman Empire as per LINKDIRECT. Cheers. LivinRealGüd (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be numbering the Roman emperors. It's not the practice on Wikipedia, to number monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if it was a practice on Wikipedia, how might one deal with joint reigns? No need to introduce complications where none existed. I'm not sure what's meant by policy regarding "LINKDIRECT" (which I've been unable to find in the WP:MOS). Per the offered example (Emperor of the Roman Empire) why would one link from one name for a topic to another name for the same topic? Isn't that the function of a redirect? Piped links can usefully link to subsections of the same article. Haploidavey (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Co-emperors are already mentioned in the respective infoboxes, where present. Therefore, Joint numbering isn't required. For an non-Roman example? see Mary II of England & William III of England articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition to what was said above, the policy I was referring to was: Manual of Style/Linking. The example I gave links directly to a page that specifies the office. Just like we link President of the United States all together instead of President of the United States is to have a direct link to the office. When clicked on it gives the reader information about the office, what it governs (the Roman Empire), and all other information. Same thing with Consul, etc. LivinRealGüd (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What you descibe is not an equivalent to this particular case. Emperor of the Roman Empire is clearly a WP:SELFLINK, because both terms refer to the same information on the same page. It would be far more helpful if this article explained, with support from reliable sources, why "Emperor of the Roman Empire" is sometimes used as an alternative to "Roman emperor". Haploidavey (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. You're right in saying that Emperor of the Roman Empire is a self link, but what I was doing when I made the edit was following the Manual of Style/Linking's MOS:SPECIFICLINK. This policy makes a similar comparison with the flag of Texas and the flag of Texas. But I see that it has actually been corrected already so we can move on to your second topic. I agree with you that an explanation of how Roman emperor and the Emperor of the Roman Empire relate would be very beneficial to this article. If you wouldn't mind renaming this section to "Roman emperor to Emperor of the Roman Empire" or "Roman emperor discussion" so that it be referenced later (in case other editors try to make the similar edits to mine). My contributions regarding it |are here (left side). I added two notes to both titles to explain what was discussed on the TP and the literature I reviewed. Do you think it should be more spelled out in the lead? What are your thoughts? LivinRealGüd (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't yet know the weight this merits - possibly very little - but we have a start (your reverted text, per your link to the article history). It might merit bolding in the lede, as an alternative topic title; a linked footnote might be useful. Let's just see how things pan out. The article needs a hell of a lot of work all round; for a core article, it's in sad shape. PS: presuming you were talking about renaming this talk-page section, I think it best not to retitle. We can still link to it, and a few (a very very few) might have already done so. Unlikely, but one never knows. Haploidavey (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 * LivinRealGüd, I've looked at your sources. Can you please give all the relevant page numbers? I can't find any scholarly discussion of "Roman emperor" and "Emperor of the Roman Empire" as context-dependent terms. Haploidavey (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I looked for scholarly sources as well but came up short. What I cited in the notes (next to the bolded titles) either specifically spell out that the Roman emperor title was used or had textual evidence of the title "Emperor of the Roman Empire" used. Just a quick google search of "Emperor of the Roman Empire" will yield numerous references to it. Unfortunately, I could not find any context-dependent terms. All I could find was links like | this, | this, and | this. They all use the title "Emperor of the Roman Empire" or of 'Rome'. Should we retitle the offices to read Roman, emperor, instead? LivinRealGüd (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We've been caught up on a rather insubstantial matter here. As you know, we follow WP: COMMONNAME for article titles, and WP: RS for article content; in this subject area, that means (ideally, at any rate) using reliable, peer-reviewed scholarly sources from reputable, specialist publishers. Your search examples are not reliable scholarly sources, but they do help confirm common usage; "Roman emperor" and "Emperor of the Roman Empire" is used in non-scholarly and scholarly sources alike. They're commonplace English terms; neither one is a translation of early or late Imperial titles. If reliable scholarly sources don't suggest any significant difference or claim that one is more appropriate than the other when dealing with a particular context or time period, then nor do we. We already have a redirect from "Emperor of the Roman Empire" to this article, and in my opinion, that's enough. Any reader with even the most basic English will assume they mean the same thing, and they'd be right. Haploidavey (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. LivinRealGüd (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Cyriades
Should Cyriades be added to the list? Amir El Mander (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you read the article on Cyriades it is not only made clear that was he a usurper but also that the claim that he proclaimed himself emperor is only found in one notoriously unreliable source. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

translate in hindi
this article is available in many languages but it is not available in Hindi so please kindly translate this article to Hindi Ankush official (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Why still BC/AD ?
The preferred scholarly designations for dating are BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era). BC and AD are Christian terms, imposing that world view on a supposedly neutral article. Is there a fast way of updating and changing offending abbreviations ? -- अनाम गुमनाम 00:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 * See WP:ERA, a truce between those who would remove all uses of BC/AD and those who would remove all uses of BCE/CE. and for the impossibility of making one or the other our norm, see the repeated discussions in the archives of WT:MOSNUM or even the current discussion Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. NebY (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

From Roman emperor to Roman Emperor
It should honestly be renamed as Roman Emperor. EmperorAlexander99 (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

"Imperator Romanorum" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imperator_Romanorum&redirect=no Imperator Romanorum] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Roman emperor


text:
Działdowo

Działdowo (Soldau) (Old Prussian: Saldawa) is a town in northern Poland with 20,935 inhabitants as of December 2021, the capital of Działdowo County. As part of Masuria, it is situated in the Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship (since 1999), Działdowo belonged previously to Ciechanów Voivodeship (1975–1998). The town is a major railroad junction connecting the capital city of Warsaw with Gdańsk and Olsztyn to the north.

History
The first settlement in the vicinity, known as Sasinowie in Polish and Sassen in German, was established by the Old Prussians, a Lithuanian Baltic tribe. The Teutonic Knights conquered the region and built a castle, a wing of which still remains. The new settlement near the castle founded by Mikołaj z Karbowa and named Soldov was granted town privileges on 14 August 1344 by the Grand Master Ludolf König. The name Dzialdoff was first written on a 1409 map during the Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War.

In 1444, the town joined the anti-Teutonic Prussian Confederation, at the request of which King Casimir IV Jagiellon signed the act of incorporation of the region to the Kingdom of Poland in 1454, and then the townspeople expelled the Teutonic Knights and recognized the Polish King as rightful ruler. During the subsequent Thirteen Years’ War, the town was briefly captured by the Teutonic Knights in 1455. After the peace treaty signed in Toruń in 1466, it became a part of Poland as a fief held by the State of the Teutonic Knights.

Within the Duchy of Prussia (a Polish fiefdom until 1657) the settlement converted to Lutheranism during the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. The following communes belonged to the Protestant parish of Soldau: Amalienhof, Borowo, Bursch, Cämmersdorf, Gajowken, Hohendorf, Kyschienen, Königshagen, Kurkau, Niederhof, Pierlawken, Pruschinowo, and Rudolfsfelde.

Kingdom of Prussia and Germany
In 1701 the town became part of the Kingdom of Prussia, from 1773 on within the newly formed province of East Prussia. Within the Kingdom of Prussia and the later German Empire, the settlement developed into an important Prussian Eastern Railway junction in the second half of the 19th century. The town had Polish majority in 1825 with 1496 Poles and 386 Germans living within it. At the same time the Prussian authorities were hostile to the local population due to its Polish pro-independence activity during the November and January Uprisings in Congress Poland. During the January Uprising of 1863 an ammunition depot and contact point was secretly established by local people trying to help their fellow Poles in the struggle against the Russian Empire; it was located at the house of Doctor Russendorf. Prussian authorities arrested several locals and harassed the local population which tried to form military units to aid the uprising. The area remained Polish despite attempts at Germanisation. In 1815 79% of the local population were Poles, and only 21% Germans. In 1837 74% were Poles and 26% Germans. In the second half of the 19th century 87% of the district's population were Poles. With the increase of Germanisation efforts in 1910, the whole district population was divided among 57% Poles, 42% Germans and 1% Jews according to official German statistics. In 1910 the town itself had 4,728 inhabitants, 3,589 of them Germans. In 1912 the Germans introduced the terms "Masurs" and "Masurian language" instead of "Pole" and "Polish language" in the census in the area. It was part of the Landkreis Neidenburg district in East Prussia, and it was the southernmost town in the province.

The town was fought over in the early stages of World War I. It was briefly occupied by Russian troops, and won back by the Germans during the Battle of Tannenberg. The occupation of Soldau is described in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's novel August 1914.

Interwar Poland
Despite the attempts of the local German populace and authorities and the German Government, the town together with neighboring settlements was transferred to reborn Poland on January 17, 1920 by the Treaty of Versailles for geostrategic reasons without participating in the East Prussian plebiscite. The Prussian Eastern Railway connection to German Prussia such as Deutsch Eylau (Iława), Osterode (Ostróda), and Neidenburg (Nidzica) in East Prussia were severed after the border changes. After the town was ceded to Poland, a large number of the German inhabitants left, including not only German-speakers, but, at roughly the same percentage, Polish-speakers, despite Polish campaigns to win them over as Polish nationals.

The candidate of the German Party, Ernst Barczewski, was elected to the Sejm with 74.6% of votes in 1920, and to the Polish Senate with 34.6% of votes for the Bloc of National Minorities in 1928. In 1921, the Polish census gave the following data regarding the ethnic composition of the whole district: Poles, 15,496; Germans, 8,187; others, 44.

During the Polish-Soviet War Działdowo was briefly occupied by the Red Army which was cheered as a liberator by the local populace, and the town hoisted the German flag again but it was soon recovered by the Polish Army.

World War II
During the German Nazi - Russian Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 that began World War II, the town was invaded by Germany, and then the Einsatzgruppe V entered to commit crimes against the Polish population. Under German occupation, the town was annexed back into the Neidenburg District by Nazi Germany. The German minority in the town formed the Selbstschutz death squad that captured and tortured Polish leaders and members of the political and cultural elites before murdering them. Only some of the local Polish activists were caught by the Germans, as most fled and hid under assumed names in the General Government (German-occupied central Poland).

In 1939, the occupiers established a prisoner-of-war camp for captured Polish soldiers at the pre-war Polish military barracks. In December 1939 it was converted into a camp for Polish civilians arrested during the Intelligenzaktion, which later became the Soldau concentration camp, at which 10,000–13,000 prisoners out of 30,000 were murdered. The first mass transport of Polish prisoners came to the camp from the nearby Ciechanów County in December 1939, and those were the victims of the first mass execution in the camp. The Germans also operated two forced labour camps in the town. In 1943 in Warsaw, activists from Działdowo established the secret Masurian Research Institute (Mazurski Instytut Badawczy), which was part of the Polish Secret Teaching Organization.

The town was heavily damaged during the fighting on the Eastern Front. It was assigned to Poland after the war under border changes promulgated at the 1945 Potsdam Conference, and became Działdowo.

Transport
The town is located at the intersection of the Voivodeship roads 542, 544, 545. There is also a train station.

Notable residents

 * Kasia Stankiewicz (born 1977), singer

International relations
Działdowo is twinned with:
 * 🇩🇪 Hersfeld-Rotenburg, Germany
 * 🇺🇦 Truskavets, Ukraine

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Działdowo


text:
Płońsk

Płońsk (פּלאָנסק) is a town in central Poland with 21,591 inhabitants (2022). Situated at the Płonka river in the historic region of Mazovia, it is the seat of Płońsk County in the Masovian Voivodeship.

History
According to archaeological research, the Płońsk stronghold was built in the late 10th century within the early Polish state. Dating back to 1155, is the first historical record confirming the existence of Płońsk. Around the castle a group of inhabitants was formed, most of whom initially worked on the land. As a result of the fragmentation of medieval Piast-ruled Poland, it was part of the duchies of Masovia and Płock, and then it was a royal town of the Polish Crown, administratively located in the Płock Voivodeship in the Greater Poland Province. In 1400, Siemowit IV of Masovia, granted it town rights under Chełmno law, then merchants and craftsmen started to come to the town. Płońsk was located on a trade route connecting Toruń with Brześć.

In the early twentieth century, the population of 10,000 was equally divided between Poles and Jews. It was a centre of the garment industry. The Jews lived mostly within the city, whilst the Poles were more scattered and tended to live in the countryside. On the 16th October 1886 David Ben Gurion was born in Płońsk. Like him, also many other Jewish residents of the city immigrated to Palestine for Zionist reasons, spurred on by the idea of building a Jewish homeland.

On August 14–17, 1920, the Poles successfully defended the town during a Soviet invasion.

During the joint German-Soviet invasion of Poland, which started World War II in September 1939, Germany invaded the town and the Einsatzgruppe V entered the town to commit various crimes against the populace. Under German occupation the town was annexed directly to Nazi Germany and was renamed Plöhnen. The Germans established and operated a court prison in the town. In 1940, the occupiers expelled around 1,000 Poles, whose houses and workshops were then handed over to German colonists as part of the Lebensraum policy. In September 1940, Jews from the town and the surrounding areas were imprisoned in a ghetto. Soon a typhus epidemic broke out. A hospital, a bathhouse for the sick, a pharmacy, and a folk kitchen were organized in the ghetto. In total, 12,000 Jews were prisoners of the ghetto and from October 1942, they were sent to the Auschwitz extermination camp. In 1943 in Berlin, the Germans sentenced six members of the local Polish resistance movement, some to death. On January 16–18, 1945, shortly before retreating, the German police carried out a massacre of 78 Poles in the town.

The town was administratively part of the Ciechanów Voivodeship from 1975 to 1998.

Landmarks

 * Saint Michael Archangel Church - former monastery of Calced Carmelites, founded before 1417 by the Duke Siemowit IV of Masovia and his wife Aleksandra, sister of Polish King Władysław II Jagiełło
 * David Ben Gurion’s family home - 18th century tenement house at 21A 15 Sierpnia Square, where Ben Gurion lived until his emigration to Palestine in 1908
 * The Memorial House at 2 Warszawska Street - the museum of Płońsk's Jews
 * David Ben Gurion Square - monument on a place where he was born
 * The old Sienkiewiczówka manor - home of Polish novelist and Nobel Prize laureate Henryk Sienkiewicz, located in the Poświętne district. There he wrote his first unpublished novel Ofiara.

Museums

 * Płońsk Memorial House - museum with permanent exhibition “Glance and recall” showing the history of the Jewish community of Płońsk, of the Holocaust and of David Ben-Gurion
 * Muzeum Ziemi Płońskiej - local history museum being created at the railway station, to be opened in spring 2024

Transport
Płońsk is located at the intersection of the Polish S7 highway (partly under construction as of February 2022) and National roads No. 10 and 50. There is also a railway station in the town.

Events

 * Memoriał Andrzeja Trochanowskiego - one-day cycling race based in Płońsk, which takes place annually on May 1
 * Jewish Culture Festival - held annually in October or November

In 2018, local Poles held a celebration in honor of David Ben-Gurion, who was born in the town, for the 70th anniversary of the re-establishment of the State of Israel.

Notable people

 * Jan Walery Jędrzejewicz (1835-1887), Polish astronomer and doctor
 * Henryk Sienkiewicz (1846–1916), novelist and journalist, Nobel Prize laureate
 * David Ben-Gurion (1886–1973), the first Prime Minister of Israel
 * Joanna Mucha (born 1976), from 2011 to 2012 Minister of Sport and Tourism of Poland
 * Tomasz Majewski (born 1981), Polish shot putter and a double Olympic gold medalist

title: Płońsk


text:
Mława

Mława (מלאווע Mlave) is a town in north-eastern Poland with 30,403 inhabitants in 2020. It is the capital of Mława County. It is situated in the Masovian Voivodeship.

During the invasion of Poland in 1939, the battle of Mława was fought to the north of the city.

History

The first mention of Mława comes from July 2, 1426, when three princes of Mazovia - Siemowit V, Trojden II and Władysław I came here to a session of a local court. It is not known if Mława had already been an urban center, as there are no sources which would prove it. Three years later, Mława was incorporated as a town It was a royal town, located in the Płock Voivodeship in the Greater Poland Province. In 1521 during the Polish-Teutonic War, the town was captured and looted by the Teutonic Knights. In 1659 the town was burned by the Swedish troops, and in 1795, following the Third Partition of Poland, Mława became part of the Kingdom of Prussia.

In 1807 it was included in the short-lived Polish Duchy of Warsaw. After Napoleonic Wars, in the 1815 Congress of Vienna Mława (along with the entire province) was incorporated into the Russian Partition of Poland, as part of the initially autonomous Congress Poland. During the January Uprising, on February 20, 1864, it was the site of a clash between Polish insurgents and Russian troops. Since the town was located along the pre-1914 imperial Russian-German border, Mława was a place of heavy fighting between the two opposing armies during World War I, and was occupied by Germany.

After the war, in 1918, Poland regained independence and the town was reintegrated with Poland. During the Polish-Soviet War, it was fiercely defended by Poles on August 9–10, 1920, captured by Russians on August 10, and afterwards recaptured by Poles. Within interwar Poland, the town was assigned to the Warsaw Voivodeship (1919–39). The government of the Second Polish Republic constructed several fortifications there due to proximity of the German border.

In the opening stages of World War II, the advancing German army faced strong resistance from the Polish Army in the battle of Mława otherwise known as the Defence of the Mława between September 1 and September 3, 1939. The Einsatzgruppe V entered the town on September 10, 1939, and carried out first mass arrests among local Poles, who were afterwards imprisoned in the local prison. Also on September 10, the Germans expelled 69 Jews from the town. The Germans carried out mass searches of Polish offices, courthouses and organizations, and mass arrests of local Polish intelligentsia, including local officials, teachers and priests, as part of the Intelligenzaktion, continued in the following months, many were afterwards murdered in the Soldau concentration camp. Local disabled people were murdered in Ościsłowo, on February 20, 1940. Shortly after the beginning of the occupation of Poland, Mława was annexed to Nazi Germany on 26 October 1939 and administered as part of Regierungsbezirk Zichenau. The Germans established and operated two forced labour camps in the town.

The town (known as Mielau in German) gave its name to the Truppenübungsplatz "Mielau" military training range built by prisoners of the Soldau concentration camp nearby and nicknamed the New Berlin. The facility was used by the Nazis for repairing and refitting army tanks in Operation Barbarossa, and for testing anti-tank weapons and artillery on an area of 300 km2. Some fifteen villages around Krzywonoś were completely dismantled to make room for it and 25,000 people were expelled in the area. Similar Nazi German military ranges in occupied Poland included the SS-Truppenübungsplatz Heidelager located in Pustków and the SS-Truppenübungsplatz Westpreußen located in Dziemiany.

Jews who had survived the ghetto were liquidated to Auschwitz. The last deportation was on December 10, 1942.

Prior to the arrival of the Soviets in 1945, Mława was the location of the German massacre of 364 prisoners of the forced labour camp adjacent to the Truppenübungsplatz "Mielau". In 1945 the town was restored to Poland, although with a Soviet-installed communist regime, which remained in power until the Fall of Communism in the 1980s. From 1975 to 1998, it was administratively located in the Ciechanów Voivodeship.

In 1991, between 26 and 27 June, the town saw the a series of violent devastations and looting incidents when a group of youth estimated at 200 individuals, including young females, invaded the homes of the local Roma residents causing them to flee. Not a single Roma person was injured in the riot, but the material losses were substantial affecting up to 40% of residences. Many perpetrators were arrested on-site; a number of them sentenced to jail after a trial. The violence was described as motivated by racism and jealousy. The incident that triggered the riot was the killing of a Polish pedestrian struck along with his companion in a hit-and-run by a Romani male driver. The event triggered major discussions around the status of the Romani people in Poland, economic disparity, and the direction of the ongoing transitional political, social and economic reforms as the country adjusts after the end of the PRL era.

Climate
Mława has an oceanic climate (Köppen climate classification: Cfb) using the -3 C isotherm or a humid continental climate (Köppen climate classification: Dfb) using the 0 C isotherm.

Main sights

Among the historic sights of Mława are the Baroque town hall, Gothic-Baroque Revival Holy Trinity Church, the Józef Piłsudski Park, Baroque Saint Lawrence Church and many Art Nouveau townhouses

Industry
There is a large LG factory manufacturing TV sets and monitors located in the city. Mława was the first site of deployment for CONVAERO Polska's Bio-Dry™ technology project, where an annual throughput of 96,000 tonnes of MSW shredded is processed to achieve a 25% reduction in moisture and results in an easily separated and recycled end material

Sport
Mława is home to Mławianka Mława, a men's football team, which played on the second tier in the 2004–2005 season.

International relations
Mława is twinned with:

 * 🇮🇹 Moscufo, Italy
 * 🇷🇴 Năsăud, Romania
 * 🇫🇷 Saverne, France
 * 🇪🇸 Barañáin, Spain
 * 🇩🇪 Viernheim, Germany
 * Raseiniai, Lithuania

People

 * Victor Alter (1890–1943), socialist activist
 * Tekla Bądarzewska (1829–1861), composer and pianist
 * Hanna Rudzka-Cybisowa (1897–1988), artist and teacher
 * Eva Kotchever (1891–1943), feminist writer, was born in Mława
 * Joseph Opatoshu (1886–1954), Yiddish novelist and short story writer
 * Barbara Rogowska (born 1953), comedian actress and comic
 * Grzegorz Skawiński (born 1954), pop-rock musician, guitarist, singer, composer and record producer
 * Józef Skrobiński (1910–1979), film director and painter
 * Iwona Sobotka (born 1981), opera singer and Grand Prix Winner of the Queen Elizabeth Music Competition
 * Józef Unszlicht (1879–1938), revolutionary activist, co-founder of the Cheka

title: Mława


text:
Ciechanów

Ciechanów is a city in north-central Poland. From 1975 to 1998, it was the capital of the Ciechanów Voivodeship. Since 1999, it has been situated in the Masovian Voivodeship. As of December 2021, it has a population of 43,495.

History
The settlement is first mentioned in a 1065 document by Bolesław II the Bold handing the land over to the church. The medieval gord in Ciechanów numbered approximately 3,000 armed men, and together with the region of Mazovia, it became part of the emerging Polish state in the late 10th century.

In 1254, Ciechanów is mentioned as the seat of a castellany (Rethiborius Castellanus de Techanow (Racibor, Kasztelan Ciechanowa)). In 1400 Janusz I of Czersk granted Ciechanów town privileges. The area eventually become a separate duchy with Casimir I of Warsaw using the title "dominus et heres lub dominus et princeps Ciechanoviensis." In the Middle Ages, the defensive gord of Ciechanów protected northern Mazovia from raids of Lithuanians, Yotvingians, Old Prussians and later, the Teutonic Knights. It is not known when it was granted a town charter. This must have happened before 1475, as a document from that year, issued by Duke Janusz II of Warsaw, states that Ciechanów has a Chełmno town charter.

In the period between the 14th and 16th centuries, Ciechanów prospered with the population reaching 5,000. In the late 14th century, Siemowit III, Duke of Masovia, began construction of a castle, while his son Janusz I of Warsaw invited the Augustinians, who in the mid-15th century began construction of a church and an abbey. The Augustinian Friars were brought to Ciechanów in 1358 by Duke Siemowit III. They experienced the most turbulent times during the Reformation. From the 17th century, the Augustinians’ pastoral presence was growing in the towns. The monastery – characterised by mild observance – was usually inhabited by four to seven monks.

In 1526, together with all Mazovia, Ciechanów was incorporated directly to the Kingdom of Poland. It was a royal city of Poland, the seat of the Land of Ciechanów, a separate administrative unit within the Masovian Voivodeship in the Greater Poland Province.

The town was handed over to Bona Sforza, as her dowry. Ciechanów prospered until the Swedish invasion of Poland (1655–1660), when the town was burned and ransacked.

After the second partition of Poland (1793), Ciechanów briefly became seat of a newly created voivodeship. In 1795, it was annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia, and reduced to the status of a provincial town in Przasnysz county. In 1806, during the Napoleonic Wars, Ciechanów was ransacked and destroyed. In 1807 it became part of the short-lived Polish Duchy of Warsaw. Since 1815, the town belonged to Russian-controlled Congress Poland. Its residents actively supported Polish rebellions. As part of anti-Polish repressions, the Augustinian monastery was dissolved in 1864. In the late 19th century, Ciechanów emerged as a local trade and industry center. In 1864, a brewery was opened, in 1867 it became seat of a county, in 1877 a rail station of the Vistula River Railroad was completed, and in 1882 a sugar refinery was opened. The period of prosperity was short, as during World War I, Ciechanów was almost completely destroyed. Following World War I, in 1918, Poland regained independence and control of the town.

During the Polish–Soviet War, in 1920, the town was briefly occupied by the Soviet Russians, who resorted to rape and looting of stores, houses and schools. The one remaining Catholic priest was harassed by the occupiers, however, thanks to the intercession of the local population, he avoided deportation or death. 150 Polish soldiers were hid from the Russians by the local Jews in the synagogue. Some local socialists and intelligentsia joined the occupation structures for diversionary purposes, and when the Polish army reached the city again on August 15, 1920, they immediately disarmed several hundred Soviets.

In the Second Polish Republic, Ciechanów remained seat of a county in Warsaw Voivodeship. In 1938, its population was 15,000, and the town was a military garrison, home to the 11th Uhlan Regiment of Marshall Edward Smigly-Rydz.

World War II

Ciechanów was captured by the Wehrmacht on the night of September 3/4, 1939. The town was annexed by Nazi Germany and was known as Zichenau in German. It was the capital of Regierungsbezirk Zichenau, a new subdivision of the Province of East Prussia. The vast majority of the Polish and Jewish population was seen as racially inferior and Germany planned its eventual annihilation. The Einsatzgruppe V entered the city on September 10, 1939, and carried out first mass arrests among local Polish intelligentsia. Residents were imprisoned in Gestapo jails established in municipal buildings and the Town Hall. The Germans carried out mass searches of Polish and Jewish homes, offices and organizations, as well as synagogues, which were desecrated and looted. Several hundred Poles were transported from the jail in Ciechanów and murdered in large massacres in the nearby village of Ościsłowo as part of Intelligenzaktion. Local disabled people were also murdered in Ościsłowo on February 20, 1940. Local teachers were arrested in October and November 1939, and deported to the Soldau concentration camp, where they were murdered in December 1939, and some were also murdered in the Mauthausen concentration camp.

Poles were also subjected to expulsions. Around 600 people were expelled in December 1939, further expulsions were carried out in subsequent years. In Ciechanów, the Germans also organized a transit camp for Poles deported for forced labor to the areas of Klaipeda, Tilsit (Sovetsk) and Königsberg (Kaliningrad), and a forced labor "education" camp.

Before World War II, Ciechanów was home to a large Jewish community of 1,800, but during the Nazi German occupation, in November 1942, the majority of the Jewish community were transported to the Red Forest (Czerwony Bór) northeast of town and murdered in a mass shooting. During the war many Polish Jews and resistance fighters were executed by the Germans in the castle.

On January 17, 1945, Ciechanów was captured from Nazi Germany by the Red Army, and was restored to Poland after the war.

Demographics
Detailed data as of 31 December 2021:

Monuments and sights

 * Castle of the Mazovian Dukes from the 14th century, alongside the Łydynia river
 * Farska Hill – fortified settlement from the 7th century with a Neo-Gothic belfry from the 19th century
 * Church of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, Late Gothic building from the 16th century
 * Monastery Augustinian Church from the 16th and 18th centuries
 * City Hall from the 19th century
 * Muzeum Szlachty Mazowieckiej (Museum of Mazovian Nobility)
 * Parish cemetery which has functioned since 1828
 * Krzywa Hala, central building of the housing estate Bloki, built in 1942-1943 during the German Occupation of Poland
 * Park Nauki Torus ("Torus Science Park") with the hyperboloid water tower, built in 1972

Economy
The Browar Ciechan brewery is located in the town.

Education

 * Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Zawodowa
 * Wyższa Szkoła Biznesu i Zarządzania

Transport
Through the town are leading two national roads, numbered 50 and 60; and three voivodship roads, numbered 615, 616, 617. Just 25 km away to the West there is the national road number 7, a part of the E77 European route.

The Ciechanów railway station is on the Warsaw - Gdańsk railway, however the Warsaw - Gdańsk - Gdynia express train, colloquially referred as 'Pendolino', does not stop here. Other trains offer connections to Warsaw, Olsztyn, Gdańsk, Gdynia, Kołobrzeg, Kraków and Łódź.

Sports
Ciechanów is home to handball club, which competes in the I liga (Polish second tier), and to football club , which competes in the lower divisions.

Notable people

 * Jan Kazimierz Krasiński (1607–1669), Polish official and nobleman, royal secretary of Polish King Sigismund III Vasa
 * Ludwik Krasiński (1609–1644), Polish royal courtier and official
 * Zygmunt Krasiński (1812–1859), Polish poet, considered one of Poland's Three Bards
 * Maria Konopnicka (1842–1910), Polish poet and novelist
 * Aleksander Świętochowski (1849–1938), Polish writer, educator, and philosopher
 * Stefan Żeromski (1864–1925), Polish novelist and dramatist
 * Ignacy Mościcki (1867–1946), Polish chemist, politician, and President of Poland
 * Roza Robota (1921–1945), Polish-Jewish resistance member during World War II
 * Mieczysław Jagielski (1924–1997), Polish politician and economist
 * Zbigniew Siemiątkowski (born 1957), Polish politician
 * Dorota Rabczewska (Doda) (born 1984), Polish singer-songwriter
 * Kasia Struss (born 1987), Polish model
 * Quebonafide (born 1991), Polish rapper
 * Adam Morawski (born 1994), Polish handball player, member of the Polish national handball team
 * Ania Ahlborn, Polish-American novelist

Twin towns – Sister cities
Ciechanów is twinned with:
 * 🇫🇷 Meudon, France
 * 🇩🇪 Haldensleben, Germany
 * 🇺🇦 Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine
 * 🇸🇰 Brezno, Slovakia

title: Ciechanów


text:
Talk:The Pentagon

Segregated Restrooms
This line exists in the article: "The side-by-side sets of restrooms still exist, but have been integrated in practice since the building was occupied."

This hasn't been true for more than a decade now. As part of a complete renovation of the building, which began prior to the 9/11 attacks, the duplicate bathroom facilities were removed. There are no longer any vestigial segregated bathrooms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.140.32.10 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

How many offices?
How many offices are in that gigantic building? 10,000, 20,000, 30,000? Just curious. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:E93C:B981:47CD:E24D (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to look search that out, (Google is your friend), and if you find an answer from a reliable source, perhaps you can add it to the article, or post it here and then request it be added it for you. Good luck -  wolf  00:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Metonym vs Synecdoche
The first paragraph correctly mentions that "The Pentagon" is a metonym. But should it be added (or replaced) that it's also a synecdoche (a type of metonym)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche LemonPumpkin (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Pentagon


text:
Cape May–Lewes Ferry

The Cape May–Lewes Ferry is a ferry system in the United States that traverses a 17 mi crossing of the Delaware Bay connecting North Cape May, New Jersey with Lewes, Delaware. The ferry constitutes a portion of U.S. Route 9 and is the final crossing of the Delaware River-Delaware Bay waterway before it meets the Atlantic Ocean. It is only one of two direct crossings between Delaware and New Jersey, the other being the Delaware Memorial Bridge.

System

The Cape May–Lewes Ferry, operated by the Delaware River and Bay Authority (DRBA), consists of three ferry vessels and two terminal facilities. Its operations are based at its Cape May terminal, which is actually located in North Cape May, on the north shore of the Cape May Canal. The three vessels in the fleet carry both vehicles (passenger cars, buses, RVs, tractor trailers, motorcycles, and bicycles) and foot passengers. Each has a capacity of 100 vehicles and 800 passengers, selling out in advance during the popular summer weekends (although passenger capacity usually does not). Advance reservations are accepted.

The ferry trip takes approximately 85 minutes. The company's site says that the roundtrip is approximately three hours. The ferry provides a view of three lighthouses: the Cape May Light in New Jersey, and the Harbor of Refuge Light and Delaware Breakwater East End Light near Lewes.

The ferry has two terminal facilities. Both with toll booths, vehicle staging areas, parking lots, and a terminal building with ticket counters for walk on passengers, restroooms and dining facilities. The Cape May Terminal also hosts the maintenance facility for the three vessels, along with lay berths. The terminals were substantially expanded during the mid 1980's with new terminal buildings built in Lewes in 1984 and Cape May in 1988 along with new toll booths, passenger loading buildings. The terminal building in Lewes was renovated and expanded in 1999 and a new Cape May terminal building replaced the existing structure, in 2001. Both terminals now feature unique, recognizable "towers," which contain elevators and staircases connecting the terminal buildings to glass-enclosed walkways. The walkways allow foot passengers to board the vessel directly on the second deck from the terminal building, avoiding vehicles driving onto the car deck below.

As the ferry is a part of US 9, it is included as part of the U.S. Highway System. The only other U.S. Route to use a ferry is U.S. Route 10, which uses the SS Badger across Lake Michigan. Routewise, taking the ferry avoids going around the Delaware Bay and avoids highways and bridges such as the New Jersey Turnpike, Delaware Memorial Bridge, US 13, and DE 1.

Current fleet
The current vessels are part of the second generation Cape May Lewes Fleet, with the MV Delaware, MV New Jersey and MV Twin Capes replacing the original ferry fleet that was purchased from the Chesapeake Bay and was in operation for the ferry's first 10 years in the mid 1970's. The MV Cape Henlopen and MV Cape May supplemented the first three vessels during the 1980's. The MV Twin Capes was decommissioned in 2014 and the MV Cape May decommissioned in 2010 leaving the MV Delaware, MV New Jersey and MV Cape Henlopen in operation.

Each vessel consists of an open car deck situated atop a hull that is low to the water. Because of the ships' shallow displacements, the ships appear almost barge-like, sitting directly atop the water, from a distance. The ships were built with two decks atop the car deck with the second deck consisting of a gift shop, snack bar, and interior and exterior seating areas, and the third deck consisting of outdoor seating areas, an interior crew room. The pilot house is on the fourth deck. Subsequent renovations changed these plans on the vessels third decks with an exterior bar and a additional passenger lounge up forward on the MV Delaware.

Each vessel can hold 100 cars and 800 passengers. All have a length of 320 ft and a breadth of 68 ft, a displacement of at least 2,100 tons, a maximum draft of 7 ft, two 4000 hp diesel engines, and a top speed of 16 kn (18 mph).

MV Delaware
The MV Delaware was the first of the original three vessels of the new 1970s fleet. Christened in June 1974, she is the flagship of the fleet. The Delaware has undergone several renovations and refurbishments. The first in 1994 added an additional passenger lounge on the third deck which included a deli and an outdoor bar with refurbishments to her main passenger lounge on the second deck. New "shark fin" smokestacks were added in 1997 replacing her original stacks. A renovation in 2001 resulted in her second and third decks being extended forward and aft and the outdoor bar moved behind the stacks along with renovations to both interior spaces. A third renovation in 2013 reconfigured the interior space on the second deck.

MV New Jersey
The MV New Jersey is the second of the original three vessels of the new 1970s fleet, christened in November 1974. An outdoor canopy was added to the third deck in 1996 and in 1999 she received upgraded finishes and seating to the interior passenger lounge. Her main passenger lounge was upgraded in 2013 with new carpeting and seating. In 2020-2021 the MV New Jersey received a $20 million dollar renovation, refurbishment and upgrade when her exterior was sandblasted down to bare metal, her passenger lounge was gutted and stripped down to the studs, her pilothouse stripped down, original stacks removed and her original powerplant was taken out. It was replaced with new propulsion systems, new stacks, new windows and doors to the passenger lounge, a new console in the pilot house and a fresh coat of paint giving the MV New Jersey many more years of reliable, safe, and comfortable service.

MV Cape Henlopen
The MV Cape Henlopen, the fourth vessel of the fleet built in 1981 was christened New Del in July 1981. The vessel was renamed Cape Henlopen in 1984. She received new outdoor seating and a canopy along with new indoor seating in 1998. A more recent refurbishment in 2012 resulted in new interior lighting, flooring, seating and climate control.

Former fleet
The original fleet of four steamships and two diesel-powered ships was purchased in 1964 from the defunct Little Creek-Cape Charles Ferry in Virginia, replaced by the Chesapeake Bay Bridge–Tunnel. Those ships were the SS Cape May (originally the SS Delmarva 1934), the SS Delaware (originally the SS Pocahontas 1941), the SS New Jersey (originally the SS Princess Anne 1936), the MV Cape Henlopen (originally named USS Buncombe County (LST-510) in 1944 and renamed the MV Virginia Beach in 1955) and later in 1964, the MV Atlantic (originally the MV Old Point Comfort converted from USS LST-970) (this vessel was sold at the end of 1966).

The four remaining ships were replaced beginning in 1974 with five new, diesel-powered vessels, of which two have themselves been retired.

MV Twin Capes
The MV Twin Capes was one of the original three vessels of the 1970s fleet, christened in May 1975. She was extensively renovated in a $27 million project between 1994 and 1996 resulting in the original superstructure on and above the second deck removed, the second deck extended forward and aft, and a new superstructure with four new decks, multiple lounges, new pilot house and "shark fin" smokestacks added. The vessel was then marked as a miniature cruise ship, complete with two sets of elevators, a sweeping interior staircase, interior areas on four different decks, an enlarged retail shop, a food court with a brick pizza oven, four different bars, and a buffet restaurant in a two-deck-tall, glass-enclosed atrium. Although the restaurant was shut down in 2000 after U.S. Food and Drug Administration inspectors found numerous violations in the galleys of all five vessels, the ship remained an attraction. Her sister ship is the MV Delaware. In July 2010, due to decreasing ridership, the DRBA announced that the vessel was for sale. The Twin Capes was taken out of service and retired in October 2013. On July 20, 2017, the Twin Capes was towed out of the Cape May Terminal to be stripped before a planned sinking as an artificial reef in 2018 in a project led by Captain Tim Mullane. The Twin Capes was scuttled on June 15, 2018, in the North Atlantic Ocean off Bethany Beach, Delaware, at 38.515°N, -74.515°W to form part of the Del-Jersey-Land Inshore Artificial Reef.

MV Cape May
The MV Cape May, which was the newest vessel of the fleet christened in May 1985, was refurbished in 1998 in a $20 million project that retained the original superstructure and added deck extensions and a new fourth deck. The renovation added a fourth-deck buffet restaurant, bars, an enlarged gift shop, an elevator, and additional interior seating. In 2007, in order to help close an operating deficit, the DRBA removed the Cape May from service and announced that the vessel was up for sale. The vessel's added expense of operation and low use—it had made only fifteen crossings in 2007—were additional factors leading to its removal from service. The owners of Cross Sound Ferry in Connecticut had shown interest in purchasing the ferry. In 2013, the Cape May was sold to Northstar Marine Services for $750,000, to be converted to a support vessel for offshore wind farms.

History
In 1926, a ferry between Cape May and Lewes was planned. The idea was to use a World War I military ship to transport passengers and cars across the Delaware Bay. The project was abandoned after a few months.

After several months of preparations, the Delaware River and Bay Authority conducted a trial run using the ferry Pocahantas borrowed from Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Ferry Commission on October 17, 1962.

Service officially began on July 1, 1964, utilizing a fleet of five ships purchased from Virginia. Those ships had previously provided service across the Chesapeake Bay, connecting Cape Charles with Virginia Beach, but the opening of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge–Tunnel in 1964 rendered that service obsolete. The first trip went from Cape May to Lewes.

All of the steamers were replaced in the 1970s with the service's current fleet.

When it began service, the Cape May–Lewes Ferry operated under a 24-hour schedule. That schedule was cut back in 1975 to 16 hours per day.

Nolan C. Chandler, a former oiler for Virginia's Norfolk–Kiptopeke Ferry, was the first manager of the Cape May–Lewes Ferry. Chandler started on March 15, 1964.

The Cape May–Lewes Ferry welcomed its first female permanent captain, Sharon Urban, in August 2020.

Tourism

The ferry was constructed with transportation as its primary use, providing a connection between the south Jersey Shore towns and the Delaware Beaches and Ocean City, Maryland, on the Delmarva Peninsula. Prior to its inception, travelers between these areas needed to drive across southern New Jersey to the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and then down through Delaware on U.S. Route 13, or vice versa if they were coming from Delaware. The Delaware River and Bay Authority (DRBA) later recognized the ferry's potential as a tourist attraction. While it continues to provide transportation between Delaware and New Jersey, the experience has also been optimized to draw in tourists.

The ferry fleet was substantially overhauled during the 1990s, adding several amenities—including buffet restaurants, bars, and lounges—intended to promote the ride as a draw in itself. The DRBA operates a shuttle bus service on both sides of the bay in the summer months, giving foot passengers both a ride on the ferry and round-trip transportation from the terminals into Cape May and Lewes for one combined rate. In New Jersey, the shuttle connects the ferry to the Cape May Welcome Center in downtown Cape May. In Delaware, the shuttle operates from the ferry to the Tanger Outlets and a park and ride lot in Rehoboth Beach. DART First State operates the Route 204 bus which connects the ferry terminal with downtown Lewes and the Lewes Transit Center park and ride, where transfers can be made to DART First State's Beach Bus routes that serve the Delaware Beaches and provide connections to Ocean City Transportation's Coastal Highway Beach Bus in Ocean City, Maryland. The DRBA also operates a shuttle bus that links the ferry to the Cape May County Park & Zoo on select days from late June through August and to the Tree to Tree Aerial adventure park at the zoo from late May to late September. The Mid-Atlantic Center for the Arts operates trolley tours of Cape May, the Cape May Lighthouse, and the Emlen Physick Estate from the ferry terminal from late June to the end of August. A private operator also runs a coach bus that connects the ferry in Cape May to the Resorts Casino Hotel in Atlantic City; the package includes round-trip ferry service, round-trip coach service, and free play for slots. The DRBA has partnered with local merchants to give discounts to passengers, allowing passengers to purchase a round-trip ticket and not disembark midway.

In addition to these promotions, the ferry also offers special holiday excursions, including the annual fireworks cruise on the Fourth of July. The cruise features entertainment on the car deck and a catered meal.

Incidents and accidents
On the evening of December 10, 2009, the New Jersey ran aground on a sandbar near the mouth of the Cape May Canal during an unusually low tide. The ferry was freed by a rising tide and did not suffer any structural damage.

On March 30, 2019, after going 3 mi from Cape May, New Jersey, the ferry lost power with 143 passengers on board. After two hours being stuck in the bay, the ferry was towed back to Cape May.

On November 17, 2020, after leaving Cape May in high winds, the Cape Henlopen ran aground off the coast of Cape May, New Jersey. The passengers were not harmed and the vessel was towed back to Cape May shortly after.

title: Cape May–Lewes Ferry


text:
Arturo Michelena International Airport

Arturo Michelena International Airport is an airport serving the city of Valencia in Venezuela. The airport was named after artist Arturo Michelena, who was born in Valencia. It is a hub for Turpial Airlines and was once a secondary hub for Avior Airlines.

title: Arturo Michelena International Airport