Talk:Magnus Maximus

Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Classical Greece and Rome C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

King Arthur C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject King Arthur, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.King ArthurWikipedia:WikiProject King ArthurTemplate:WikiProject King ArthurKing Arthur articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wales C‑class Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece: Byzantine

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Military history: Biography / Roman & Byzantine / Classical

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Roman and Byzantine emperors Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Roman and Byzantine Emperors WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Roman and Byzantine emperors. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roman and Byzantine emperorsWikipedia:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsTemplate:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsRoman and Byzantine emperors articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

What a great name. It's like a transformer or something.

His name means something like "Greatest Big". Wow.Hattes 22:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Save[edit]

As I have made a little research regarding Maximus in Battle of the Save I believe that the battle occured at Siscia and not Emona (see talk:Battle of the Save). Navportus 18:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences for Britain[edit]

Should be more about how he removed Roman troops from Britain to support his bid to be Emperor, which weakened Roman Britain's defenses, and was in fact the beginning of the end of Roman Britain... AnonMoos 18:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The effect on Britain's defences is a matter of debate, but his establishment of the two military bases in Armorica and Galicia had long-term benefits for European civilisation. Galicia repelled the Moors and began the Reconquista. Armorican forces (in particular, archers) were essential to the defeat of Attila the Hun in 451. In the 900s, descendants of the troops Magnus left in Armorica inflicted crushing defeats on both the Loire and Seine Vikings, thus ending a long series of raids on both England and France. In 1066, Armoricans, speaking languages descended from Gallo-Roman and Romano-British, reclaimed Britain. (Contrary to the popular view, most of William the Conqueror's ancestors were native Armoricans, not Vikings.) Zoetropo (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clemens[edit]

As far as I know, the attribution of nomen is not properly confirmed (see entry in PLRE?) and should probably not be included here. Anyone know different? fluoronaut (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Clemens" is mistakes. see here [1] From page 445 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikythos (talk • contribs) 06:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link. Since there seems to be some debate on here I have done a bit of internet research and will summarise it here.

The 'Clemens' nomen is a mistake, as you said. Here's the link above in English Google. Go to the top page listed (p.445, n. 91) and you will see the following excerpt from Sulpicius Severus:

Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.49.5: "iam tum rumor incessant clemens, Maximum intra Britannias sumpsisse imperium ac brevi in Gallias erupturum."

The note on this (which is correct) says:

For 'clemens' meaning 'gradual' cf. Tac. Ann. 13.38, Hist. 3.52. The reading clementem led to the mistaken view that the emperor was called Magnus Clemens Maximus, reproduced e.g. by J. Ziegler, 'Zur religiosen Haltung der Gagenkaiser' (1970), 74, and B. Vollmann, RE Suppl. 14 (1974), 506, in spite of W. Ensslin, RE 14 (1930), 2546.

Basically it's an error in the reading of Sulpicius which was compounded by later historians not checking their sources. I have removed the information about Clemens from the page.

fluoronaut (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, the Historians allowed that mistake to endure until the author of that article on Collier's Encyclopedia, Volume 15, Longinus to Meta, pg. 574. Yours is is a good Historical and research work, though! Dgarq (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, can't trust those sneaky Historians! fluoronaut (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey and legends[edit]

Currently the article reads, "According to Geoffrey of Monmouth's fictional Historia Regum Britanniae (ca. 1136), basis for many English and Welsh legends...". Is this correct? Are many legends that have been recorded at later dates demonstrably based upon readings of Geoffrey? Or has the writer of these words meant to say that Geoffrey's work contains early versions of many legends? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of problems[edit]

The article is largely citation free, it confuses what is known about the historical Magnus Maximus with conjecture, legend and tradition in a totally unstructured and uncritical manner. In particular, the familial connections of Maximus are presented as fact, when they are largely conjecture. It is believed that there might have been a familial connection between Maximus and Theodosius the Great, possibly by marriage (Maximus's wife being related to Theodosius), but we are presented here with the two men being first cousins, with no caveats. The lower section has Maximus being the ancestor of Ambrosius Aurelius, the figure named by Gildas as "Almost the Last of the Romans", this is entirely based on legend, but this is not presnted as such. As it stands at present the article should be treated with extreme caution by any reader. I suspect that the article would benefit by being split into two articles, one entirely concerned with established historical fact, the other containing Maximus's place in legend and the 'Matter of Britain'. Urselius (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a few refs, but tend to agree that the life section especially needs condensing to established (and referenced) historical fact.Jacobisq (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Maximus' main historical impact is his elevated role in British legend and literature. It would be a disservice to the reader to not cover them. Dimadick (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Urselius -- He plays a significant role in Welsh legends and the traditions of the founding of various Welsh dynasties. I read in a book (I can't find it right now; maybe it was Leslie Alcock's Arthur's Britain: History and Archaeology A.D. 367-634) that it's probable that Magnus Maximus made local defense arrangements against the Picts and Saxons when he withdrew most Roman troops from Britain, and some of the chieftains he put in place for this purpose became founders of Welsh dynasties. Whether he's the literal biological ancestor of any of them is presumably much more doubtful... AnonMoos (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested source for claim regarding Galicia and Suebi role in the Reconquista of the Iberian peninsula. There is no credible account of that History, that I’m aware of, which cites Galicia or credits the Suebi — whose kingdom had long since fallen to the Visigoths (who had established themselves as the hegemonic power in the peninsula following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire) — with having played such a critical role in Spanish history. The Reconquista in universally understood to have begun in the neighboring region of Asturias (a territory that had a long established history and reputation of fierce resistance to foreign domination — culminating in the protracted/largely unsuccessful Roman campaign that became known as the Astur-Cantabrian Wars.)

The victory of Don Pelagius (Pelayo) Hispano-Gothic/Celtiberian highland army over the Moorish forces of the Umayyad Caliphate marked the beginning of the Reconquista and the betrothal of Pelagius‘ daughter to the Peter of Cantabria’s son founded the royal houses of Asturias (the earliest Spanish nobility) and founded the first Christian [and distinctly Spanish] Kingdom in the peninsula. It was not until the reign of King Alfonso I that Galicia would be liberated from Moorish control. Astur Cantabri (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is the same as yours: The Kingdom of Galicia was subsumed into the Visigothic Kingdom long before the Moorish invasion, and the Reconquista began not from Galicia, but from Asturias (led by Don Pelayo). AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Urselius’ post from 2017. There are two different topics covered by this article: the historical Magnus Maximus and the legendary literary Macsen Wledig, albeit the latter is loosely - very loosely based on the former. It’s a mistake, and actually unsupported by scholarship to treat Macsen Wledig as an alternate name. I propose splittig the article into two covering the topics separately. DeCausa (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ventriloquism???[edit]

I have moved this sentence here for clarification: "It was on his orders that Priscillian and six companions became the first people in the history of Christianity to be executed for heresy, in this case of Priscillianism, by other Christians (though the civil charges laid by Maximus himself were for the practice of magic or "witchcraft", technically spiritual fraud by use of ventriloquism), citation:Hans-Josef Klauck, Brian McNeil Magic and paganism in early Christianity: the world of the Acts of the Apostles (2003), p.66 (added 2 August 2014)

Nowhere in any sources is ventriloquism attributed to Priscillian.
The source cited never mentions Priscillian, but rather a slave girl soothsayer St. Paul encountered, apparently in Philippi some three hundred years earlier.
-If anyone can find a connection between the two, other than that ventriloquism has been viewed as magic, by all means restore it. Here's the link: [2] Mannanan51 (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maxentius?[edit]

The article does not explain why the Welsh legends have confused Maximus Magnus and Maxentius: his Welsh name Macsen is clearly a learned form of the latter name, as the former would be rendered something like Welsh *Maesyf. Fulgentian (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]