Talk:List of popes: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
who put these ERAE in here? They are bad. I am removign them. |
explanation for removing 'erae' from list. |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The 'Erae' are highly idiosyncratic. I've never seen them used in English. Having an "Era" identified by "secular" political rulers makes a statement that is historiographically suspect. I am removing these. |
The 'Erae' are highly idiosyncratic. I've never seen them used in English. Having an "Era" identified by "secular" political rulers makes a statement that is historiographically suspect. I am removing these. |
||
There would be a '''kind''' of logic to putting in secular ruler-indications in periods in which the popes reported their elections to particular rulers for approval/notification (and that in itself is a very controversial issue - no eastern emperor ever 'refused' a papal election, so 'approval' isn't exactly it), but to even mention the 'Savoyards'! Better to call that 'the prisoner of the Vatican phase' or some such. Better yet to leave this a simple, chronlogical, unmodified list. [[User:MichaelTinkler|MichaelTinkler]] |
|||
Revision as of 07:54, 30 August 2002
The 'Erae' are highly idiosyncratic. I've never seen them used in English. Having an "Era" identified by "secular" political rulers makes a statement that is historiographically suspect. I am removing these.
There would be a kind of logic to putting in secular ruler-indications in periods in which the popes reported their elections to particular rulers for approval/notification (and that in itself is a very controversial issue - no eastern emperor ever 'refused' a papal election, so 'approval' isn't exactly it), but to even mention the 'Savoyards'! Better to call that 'the prisoner of the Vatican phase' or some such. Better yet to leave this a simple, chronlogical, unmodified list. MichaelTinkler