Template talk:Roman provinces AD 117: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:55, 9 March 2008

It says circa 120 AD; the link clealry goes to 117 AD, when Mesopotamia was a province. And I agree that those missing privnces need a page of their own, but until they get one, it's betetr to have them link to something than be empty. Kuralyov 23:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a source for Mesopotamia as province in 120? It is not present in Roman_province#List_of_Roman_provinces_in_117_AD, nor in Image:Roman Empire Map.png--Panairjdde 07:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the articles on Trajan (the emperor who conquered Mesopotamia) and Hadrian (the emperor who released it). Plus, here are some sites:

And there are many other sources out there; these were just the first returns. Kuralyov 11:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so it is necessary to find a source with the whole list of roman province around 117/120, and rewrite the template and the list in roman provinces. Are you going to do that? We can't keep provinces from differents periods. --Panairjdde 17:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, no provinces here are out of date with each other. I don't know why whoever made that list kept Mesopotamia out, especially since the year 117 is known due to the fact that the Roman Empire reached its largets extent then, with Trajan's capture of Armenia and Mesopotamia.Kuralyov 02:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I do not understand well your answer. Are you saying that all the provinces in the template (with Mesopotamia) where those actually established in 120 AD? Furthermore, I noticed that in 117 AD Hadrian became emperor, and gave up Mesopotamia and Armenia, so Mesopotamia should be removed from the list - it was a Roman province for less that five years!--Panairjdde 08:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corduene

Here is the reference for Corduene being a province of Roman Empire: Corduene; a fertile and friendly province, which acknowledged the sovereignty of Rome[1]. To verfiy that it was a Roman Province at 120 AD, check here [2]. Between 47-252 AD it was a province of Rome.Heja Helweda 04:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corduene was not a Roman province in 120 ad. If you search in google, you will see the only links that say so are the mirrors of Wikipedia. 85.96.105.94 06:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source for the timeline of Gordyene (Corduene) [3]. This is not a wiki mirror.Heja Helweda 22:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and where does your source mention that Corduene was a Roman province in 120 a.d in this link? Please stop adding false information to wikipedia.

Here To the Roman Empire.................................47-252[4], I suppose 120 is between 47 and 252 :).Heja Helweda 17:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pisidia

Is there any source for Pisidia being a Roman province about 120 AD? It's neither in Image:Roman_Empire_Map.png, which Roman province says shows the situation after 120, nor in Image:Roemischeprovinzentrajan.png. Wikipeditor 10:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template reorganization

There are a few things wrong in this template, as it stands now. It covers the territorial extent of the Roman Empire ca. 120 pretty well, but not its actual administrative structure. It includes several provinces that did not exist in 120 AD (Trajan's Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia in particular) or that had been divided in smaller ones (Pannonia and Moesia) or not yet divided (Lycia and Pamphylia) or split off from larger ones (Armenia Inferior, Pisidia and Numidia), as well as territories under Roman rule, but not constituted as provinciae but ruled either by the military or by client kings, such as Taurica, Osrhoene and Sophene (to which one should also perhaps add the Agri Decumates). I propose eliminating the incorrect provinces, and creating a separate section for the Roman-administered, but not of "province" status, territories. Any comments? Cplakidas (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin

Why not use English names? I have no idea where some of these are unless I click them 84.216.44.45 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 == Template reorganization ==
 There are a few things wrong in this template, as it stands now. It covers the territorial extent of the Roman Empire ca. 120 pretty well, but not its actual administrative structure. It includes several provinces that did not exist in 120 AD (Trajan's Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia in particular) or that had been divided in smaller ones (Pannonia and Moesia) or ''not yet'' divided (Lycia and Pamphylia) or split off from larger ones (Armenia Inferior, Pisidia and Numidia), as well as territories under Roman rule, but not constituted as ''provinciae'' but ruled either by the military or by client kings, such as Taurica, Osrhoene and Sophene (to which one should also perhaps add the [[Agri Decumates]]). I propose eliminating the incorrect provinces, and creating a separate section for the Roman-administered, but not of "province" status, territories. Any comments? [[User:Cplakidas|Cplakidas]] ([[User talk:Cplakidas|talk]]) 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
+== Latin ==
+Why not use English names? I have no idea where some of these are unless I click them [[Special:Contributions/84.216.44.45|84.216.44.45]] ([[User talk:84.216.44.45|talk]]) 13:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)