![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should this page be moved to "Italia (Roman region)" or "Italia (Roman diocese)"? The title seems a bit of a misnomer, as there was never a single Roman "province" of Italia. -- Abou 16:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
My proposal is renaming this "Italia (Roman Empire) - the use of "province" look awkward as it was the heart of the empire and never a province officially --Korovioff 19:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution Neby. However there are some errors: the Augustus regiones formalize anything... moreover, these districts had no administrative function, probably in the beginning, regiones were only used to organize censuses. At the beginning, the Lex Julia granted the rights of the cives romani to all socii states that had not participated in the Social War or who were willing to cease hostilities immediately, but after the conclusion of the war, Roman citizenship was extended to all of the Italian Socii states. All italic peopels, not mostly of them... Finally. I think it is wrong to delete the most important characteristic of Italia: Italy's status as a territory distinct from the Roman provinces. It is an universally known fact...I'm surprised you did not know this. -- Diegriva ( talk) 16:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian ( talk) 16:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Italy (Ancient Rome) → Roman Italy – Assuming that the current title is not quite correct ("Ancient Rome" is also the name of the city), as well as the other redirects ("Roman province" or "Roman Empire"), I think this is the best option for three reasons: 1) It isn't an ambiguous title; 2) It maintains the standard used in Roman Britain or Roman Gaul; 3) It's actually supported by several sources (see Further reading). Enok ( talk) 02:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I have three questions for User Enok about these recent reverts:
Of course, other interested users are also welcome here to give their opinion. Alex2006 ( talk) 18:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
About your Third Opinion request: I'm a regular volunteer at 3O. The request made there for a third opinion has been removed because all requests for moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia, including 3O, must be thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. With only one comment by Enok, the discussion here cannot be seen to be thorough. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Despite the difficulties in titling this article, it has really good information not easliy found elswhere. I would question whether Constantine didn't found Constantinople as a new capital. Surely that was his intention in some way, even if the city did not for several decades have the full institutional trappings that Old Rome had (probably only to placate the old aristocracy on the Tiber). Certainly Constantine wanted to call the city New Rome, even if the name never became popular. Either way, the sentence on Clarii becoming Clarissimi seems garbled. The article on Constantinople itself seems pretty good on this if one reads the whole thing (the opening paragraph doesn't quite get it right, I think).
The administrative division of the Empire following the death of Theodosius I did not create two Empires, and it would be good to find a way to express that succinctly. Further, if one calls the western half "Western Roman Empire", then the eastern half should be called "Eastern Roman Empire" as "Byzantine Empire" is not really expressive politically or culturally of the "Eastern Roman Empire" in the period 395-476 CE which is the context here. "Byzantine Empire" here encourages the idea of two completely separate political entities during this time period, as well as the more fully "easternized" culture that, though already nascent, most would associate with developments, at the earliest, in the later 5th century or even the reign of Justinian. Eastern/Western Roman Empire is probably a better approach in the context of this article.
Finally, there could be more sourcing on this page.
Those who observe and care for this interesting article, please let me know your thoughts before I take on these issues.
43hellokitty21 ( talk) 13:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Propose to merge State of Rome -> Roman Italy; the articles are essentially about the same thing (Roman administrative division of Italia). GreyShark ( dibra) 10:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Change the name of the article to ITALIA (which refers specifically to the administrative unit) and the problem is solved. Barjimoa ( talk) 08:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Or probably a compromise is to change the title to Italy (Roman State). Barjimoa ( talk) 08:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Aside from the previous one on the title a new issue has emerged. Someone has changed the lead removing the information that Italy was the homeland of the Romans. Let's reach a consensus here (on both lead and title). For now I've reverted the change on the lead made without consensus and added various sources that describe Italia (the peninsula) as the homeland of the Romans who were a mix of Latin, Sabine and possibly Etruscan peoples. But I won't rechange the title, cause I'll wait for a consensus as I have been suggested.(Tho ITALIA is the best option imho) But regarding the birthplace of the Roman civilisation, there's pretty established historical evidence. Rome originated in the Italian peninsula
Barjimoa ( talk) 08:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
"Rome originated in the Italian peninsula" True, but "homeland of the Romans" makes it sound as if everyone with Roman citizenship was from the Italian Peninsula. Which is far from true. Dimadick ( talk) 10:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
The concept of a common birthplace is more related to etnicity rather than citizenship in Roman sources like Cato's origines. So I don't read that homeland as referring to citizenship. But still, Roman citizenship also originated in the Italian pensinsula, first only for Rome and then for the rest of the Italic peoples (wheter they were in Italy or settled in provices). So it would be fine anyway. But the problem does not arise since the lead says "classical antiquity". Of course things have a development in Late antiquity but that's explained in the article. Barjimoa ( talk) 10:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't "Regio" also be written in italics? JackkBrown ( talk) 18:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should this page be moved to "Italia (Roman region)" or "Italia (Roman diocese)"? The title seems a bit of a misnomer, as there was never a single Roman "province" of Italia. -- Abou 16:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
My proposal is renaming this "Italia (Roman Empire) - the use of "province" look awkward as it was the heart of the empire and never a province officially --Korovioff 19:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution Neby. However there are some errors: the Augustus regiones formalize anything... moreover, these districts had no administrative function, probably in the beginning, regiones were only used to organize censuses. At the beginning, the Lex Julia granted the rights of the cives romani to all socii states that had not participated in the Social War or who were willing to cease hostilities immediately, but after the conclusion of the war, Roman citizenship was extended to all of the Italian Socii states. All italic peopels, not mostly of them... Finally. I think it is wrong to delete the most important characteristic of Italia: Italy's status as a territory distinct from the Roman provinces. It is an universally known fact...I'm surprised you did not know this. -- Diegriva ( talk) 16:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian ( talk) 16:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Italy (Ancient Rome) → Roman Italy – Assuming that the current title is not quite correct ("Ancient Rome" is also the name of the city), as well as the other redirects ("Roman province" or "Roman Empire"), I think this is the best option for three reasons: 1) It isn't an ambiguous title; 2) It maintains the standard used in Roman Britain or Roman Gaul; 3) It's actually supported by several sources (see Further reading). Enok ( talk) 02:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I have three questions for User Enok about these recent reverts:
Of course, other interested users are also welcome here to give their opinion. Alex2006 ( talk) 18:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
About your Third Opinion request: I'm a regular volunteer at 3O. The request made there for a third opinion has been removed because all requests for moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia, including 3O, must be thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. With only one comment by Enok, the discussion here cannot be seen to be thorough. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Despite the difficulties in titling this article, it has really good information not easliy found elswhere. I would question whether Constantine didn't found Constantinople as a new capital. Surely that was his intention in some way, even if the city did not for several decades have the full institutional trappings that Old Rome had (probably only to placate the old aristocracy on the Tiber). Certainly Constantine wanted to call the city New Rome, even if the name never became popular. Either way, the sentence on Clarii becoming Clarissimi seems garbled. The article on Constantinople itself seems pretty good on this if one reads the whole thing (the opening paragraph doesn't quite get it right, I think).
The administrative division of the Empire following the death of Theodosius I did not create two Empires, and it would be good to find a way to express that succinctly. Further, if one calls the western half "Western Roman Empire", then the eastern half should be called "Eastern Roman Empire" as "Byzantine Empire" is not really expressive politically or culturally of the "Eastern Roman Empire" in the period 395-476 CE which is the context here. "Byzantine Empire" here encourages the idea of two completely separate political entities during this time period, as well as the more fully "easternized" culture that, though already nascent, most would associate with developments, at the earliest, in the later 5th century or even the reign of Justinian. Eastern/Western Roman Empire is probably a better approach in the context of this article.
Finally, there could be more sourcing on this page.
Those who observe and care for this interesting article, please let me know your thoughts before I take on these issues.
43hellokitty21 ( talk) 13:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Propose to merge State of Rome -> Roman Italy; the articles are essentially about the same thing (Roman administrative division of Italia). GreyShark ( dibra) 10:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Change the name of the article to ITALIA (which refers specifically to the administrative unit) and the problem is solved. Barjimoa ( talk) 08:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Or probably a compromise is to change the title to Italy (Roman State). Barjimoa ( talk) 08:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Aside from the previous one on the title a new issue has emerged. Someone has changed the lead removing the information that Italy was the homeland of the Romans. Let's reach a consensus here (on both lead and title). For now I've reverted the change on the lead made without consensus and added various sources that describe Italia (the peninsula) as the homeland of the Romans who were a mix of Latin, Sabine and possibly Etruscan peoples. But I won't rechange the title, cause I'll wait for a consensus as I have been suggested.(Tho ITALIA is the best option imho) But regarding the birthplace of the Roman civilisation, there's pretty established historical evidence. Rome originated in the Italian peninsula
Barjimoa ( talk) 08:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
"Rome originated in the Italian peninsula" True, but "homeland of the Romans" makes it sound as if everyone with Roman citizenship was from the Italian Peninsula. Which is far from true. Dimadick ( talk) 10:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
The concept of a common birthplace is more related to etnicity rather than citizenship in Roman sources like Cato's origines. So I don't read that homeland as referring to citizenship. But still, Roman citizenship also originated in the Italian pensinsula, first only for Rome and then for the rest of the Italic peoples (wheter they were in Italy or settled in provices). So it would be fine anyway. But the problem does not arise since the lead says "classical antiquity". Of course things have a development in Late antiquity but that's explained in the article. Barjimoa ( talk) 10:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't "Regio" also be written in italics? JackkBrown ( talk) 18:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)