Talk:Vitellius

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vitellius article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

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

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 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.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 22, 2019.

Date Vitellius became imperator

January 2, 69 is not Vitellius' first day as imperator -- that was during Galba's last days, even before Otho. I was amazed to find through Google that this incorrect date is splashed all over the Web as Vitellius' first day; obviously this article, or its source, has been distributed widely with the error intact.

www.roman-britain.org gives Vitellius' first day as April 17, 69, which would conform with the end of Otho's reign (given as April 16 in Wiki), and so I am changing it thus unless someone has better info. --Pontifex 00:37, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

My guess is that the the Jan. 2 date reflects when Vitellius was named imperator by his troops, which would be factually correct. "Imperator" was a military title, not synonymous with "Caesar" or later "Augustus." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.101.146 (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although **uncontested** emperor only after Otho's suicide following Bedriacum (until the proclaimation of Vespasian anyway), no doubt Vitellius - as in common with all other Roman emperors - would have dated the beginning of his reign (his dies imperii) to the day he was first proclaimed, i.e. 2nd January. For a parallel (as both were usurpers until they finally won) note that the beginning of Vespasian's reign was dated by him from the day he was first proclaimed in the east (1st July), irrespective of the fact that Vitellius was not overthrown until 22nd December. The date in the text should be reverted or at least altered to reflect this.82.44.82.167 (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Wikipedia says 17th, French Wikipedia 19th

--JFCochin (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Germanicus

Vitellius was born just plain, simple Aulus Vitellius. He took the titles "Germanicus" and "Augustus" immediately upon his acclaimation as emperor. "Caesar" he refused at first because he wanted to disassociate himself with those emperors who came before him, although he adopted it too eventually. 82.44.82.167 (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Catiline63[reply]

Vespasian's propaganda campaign

Some sources claim that Vitellius bad picture in history (as reflected by this article, e.g. ' "Yet I was once your emperor," were the last and, as far as we know, the noblest words of Vitellius ') was due to a propaganda campaign vaged by Vespasian in order to justify his taking of power. I would suggest to add a sentence along this line to the article and check for 'Vespasian bias' (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespasian#cite_note-21). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.76.185 (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to say-- I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia neutrality guidelines, but isn't it a bit much to declare someone's words or actions to be "noble"? Jrule (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Busts of Vitellius

Orson12345 has persisted in placing an illustration in this article with claims that ought to be discussed here first rather than in the edits. If "pretty much all historians" accept the bust as Vitellius, s/he should provide a source to support that claim. To my eye it resembles the Capitoline bust, much used in Renaissance portraiture, which is now believed to be of someone else. If he'd bother to read the Wikimedia description, the bust is said there to be of the pseudo-Vitellius type. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bust of the Renaissance. It can be kept in the article as it is quite famous, but should not be in the lede since we have contemporary portraits (coins). T8612 (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]