Talk:Translatio imperii

Unclear

The choice was not arbitrary as these empires were figuratively mentioned in the Book of Daniel as four beasts coming out of the sea, or, alternatively, as four parts to a statue. What does this sentence imply? Prophetic fulfillment? -FredrikM

Present?

Since after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 France became the greatest continental power, and after Waterloo / Trafalgar ~ 1815 Great Britain became the greatest world power, and after 1945 the United States of America became despite Russian competition the world superpower... could the line be said to have continued up to this day?

The author of the paragraph above is mistaken by associating it with military power. This is about legitimacy from the Roman emperors and the right to bear the title "Emperor of the Romans".

I thought the proposal was that Empress Irene's son was supposed to marry Charlemange's daughter, not Irene and Charlemange marrying each other. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio 06:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Charlemange states a third; that Charles offered to marry Irene.--XtremeNL 19:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article could be good, but it needs some work. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio 06:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian empire/German empire

What about Austrian empire and German empire as well as Bulgarian empire?--Dojarca 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westward course empire

The sort-of-related concept in the 18th-20th centuries was "Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way", which could be referred to. The German Wikipedia has an article on it: de:Westward_the_course_of_empire_takes_its_way -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin section incorrect

The origins section claims that the Holy Roman Empire had to be formed "in order to salvage the validity of the prophecy"; in traditional Christian thought, it was perfectly fulfilled as Jesus was born under the Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire was founded primarily for political, not religious, reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.144.250.239 (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

The first sentence of the "origin" section is referenced to a single, obscure journal article, and the rest of the section seems to be entirely a novel synthesis and original research from that article. I have good faith that the journal article in question uses the words translatio imperii, but I have serious doubts that the notion that the Book of Daniel invented the terminology translatio imperii as the concept of imperium and word itself doesn't come about until several centuries after the book of Daniel is written. Daniel would have used the word for kingdom, and most reliable translations of Daniel into English use such a word, or the equivalent in whatever language the book is translated into. Wikipedia's own article is at Four kingdoms of Daniel for that reason, the idea that Daniel meant "empire" is plainly incorrect as the word and concept did not exist until the Roman Empire, and assigning it to any pre-Roman concept is simply not correct, except by broad analogy. On the face of it, writing an entire section like this is a massive over-reach, and would need to have widespread, easily accessible, and multiple mainstream sources to support such a definitive and detailed assessment of the words, and it doesn't have that. Unless and until such sources can be produced, the section should be tagged as original research, if not pared back or even removed all together. --Jayron 32 16:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Translatio imperii

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Translatio imperii's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Kirsch":

From Pope John XII: Kirsch, Johann Peter. "Pope John XII." The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 4 Jan. 2016
From Diploma Ottonianum: Kirsch, Johann Peter. "Pope John XII." The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 4 January 2016

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]