Talk:Macrinus

Macrinus has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 31, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed
January 19, 2017	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

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 (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

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

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

Berbers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Berbers 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.BerbersWikipedia:WikiProject BerbersTemplate:WikiProject BerbersBerbers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Move

I moved this to just "Macrinus" because that is how he usually appears in the big list of emperors. Stan 17:57, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

War

What an outrageous assumption about Parthia: "historically inferior enemy such as the Parthians". Parthia was no "historically inferior enemy", as was illustrated by Carrhae and the failed expedition of Antony. A better way to phrase something of that intention should instead relate the constant internecine fighting among the Parthians. A blanket statement such as the former is far from correct, however. Alan 20:28, 04 May 2005 (EST)

I agree with Alan. The Parthians were until the very end a super-power and her equestrian armies were far from "inferior". Why should it be accorded to Roman incompetence rather than Parthian brilliance? Not only an outrageous assumption, but an enormously ignorant article which fails to mention the two times Marc Anthony lost at Phraaspa (As Julius Caesar too wanted to invade Parthia before his death), Crassus at Carrhae, the initially enormously successful campaign of Pacorus and Labienus, and the fact that Parthia made significant advances into India and Dravidia through the Indo-Parthians under Gondophares and the Pallava? I suggest an imminent change to this. Usually the loss at Carrhae is accorded to Roman incompetence, completely dismissing Surena's brilliance and the fact that this general had a successful record against the Greeks of Mesopotamia (And the accounts of his valour at the city of Seleucia) and such behaviour is something I find to be completely down-playing at Parthian achievements who even brought down the Seleucids, conquering the Iranian possessions.

The Parthians built the second largest defensive wall in the world in Hyrcania and the Parthian legacy of architecture has remained in the form of impressive citadels and castles, the forming of many large cities, their enormous trading by both land and later also by sea. I on the other hand find it rather idiotic to wage a war against a nation that far away, wasting money and resources when previous campaigns were more or less foiled. This is the mere exploit of the lack of Parthian sources. The Parthians were not inferior to the Romans. Graeco-Romans and Iranians alike have their moments of embarassment and triumph, or are Romanophiles going to dismiss the triumph of Shapur I as a mere "Roman miscalculation"? How typical.--The Persian Cataphract 19:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Any chance of someone finding a better image to illustrate this article? There are some marble busts of Macrinus (or at least conventionally identified as such) which would be an improvement on the coin. Zburh (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked for a bust, google images, google, etc. I found one that fell under creative commons, but, it wasn't suitable for Wikipedia. The image was a CC-BY-SA-NC-3.0, and unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't seem to accept non-commercial licenses. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found an image of the bust that has had its copyright released, of all places on the Suomi version of this article. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The erased emperor" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The erased emperor and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 20#The erased emperor until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some contradicting statements about his equestrian origin

The introduction here states: "As a member of the equestrian class, he became the first emperor who did not hail from the senatorial class [...]."

Which is in contradiction with the introduction of the Vespasians article, which states: "Vespasian was the first emperor from an equestrian family and only rose later in his lifetime into the senatorial rank as the first member of his family to do so."

Also it seems in contradiction with the Severan dynasty article, which states about Macrinus: "Although coming from a humble background not dynastically related to the Severan dynasty [...]."

I doubt equestrian rank could be considered all that humble, so this seems misleading. Would someone more knowledgeable please take a look over these statements? MrThe1And0nly (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Domna

The article about her says she committed suicide as soon as she heard of Macrinus' rebellion, while this one seems to suggest that she died of her disease some time later, while placed under house arrest. One of the articles needs to be amended, or, if there are different accounts, both should be mentioned in both articles. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Goldsworthy (2009) p. 76, she starved herself whilst under house arrest. Her death was hastened by illness, speculated to be breast cancer. Whether it was her intent to commit suicide or not isn't mentioned. To quote: The new emperor [Macrinus] treated Julia Domna well until he discovered that she was intriguing against him, after which she was placed under house arrest. In protest she starved herself to death, her end hastened by a long-term illness that may have been breast cancer. You can check Birley 1999 and Jones 2005 for their version of events. I don't have either work to hand. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]