This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 02:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The "barbaric invasions" has now been reduced to "the great germanic migrations"! I don't think the romans viewed it as either great or as a a migration.Eurocentricism at it's best. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Romano-Byzantine rule survived in Algeria during Vandal occupations?
One of my most respected sources, Bruce Gordan's Regnal Chrononlogies, makes a mention in his entry for the city of Constantine in north Africa. And Euratlas' maps of Europe in 500 AD and 600 AD both show a "Kingdom of the Romans and Moors in Algeria, not under Vandal control.
They also show a distinct "Mauri" kingdom in Morrocco.
Would it be plausible to then say that part of the Western Empire survived the fall of Nepos and Syagrius? I unfortunately don't yet have more information, and wanted to bring it to your mutual attentions. It would make a very interesting note in this and a few other articles... Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0(talk) 16:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
That should probably also be Iudaea (Roman province). Someone's been doing some strange things to the Africa article. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge. Agree that the topic "History of Roman-era Tunisia" is not meaningful. Probably "Africa (Roman province)" is best place. Hard to define precisely with articles on Carthage, Carthaginian Empire and Phoenicia in existence. While they don't overlap in time, they certainly do in geography. Student7 (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Let it Be. The artilce "Africa (Roman province)" is predominantly cast in the form of a series of lists of articles, which lists work well when collected into that current article. The "History of Roman-era Tunisia" article, however, contains the text of an historical narrative. Each article now has its strengths and utility. To attempt to merge the two would likely result in the diminution of both articles. Elfelix (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The "anachronism" issue is a red herring, like saying a History of France cannot include prehistory, or the Roman period, or Charlemagne, because in those eras the territory was not called France, nor the people called French. Please note that this issue of nomenclature was addressed in the introductory article History of Tunisia, where various historical names for land of Tunisia are listed. Elfelix (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
There are other related Tunisia history merges being discussed at the moment (see below), and it may well be that the whole scheme of the history of Tunisia articles will need restructuring as there appears to be a fair degree of overlap resulting in some confusion for the general reader. The parent article History of Tunisia is unhelpful as it is, though it used to look like this:  which was quite satisfactory. SilkTork✔Tea time 10:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I have restored history of Tunisia to the condition it was in before being split into several articles. The size is too large to read or navigate easily, so needs to be reduced. I will work on this over the next few days, and any help would be appreciated. SilkTork✔Tea time 11:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus to rename this article. Perhaps it would be better to create subarticles and spin some stuff from this article into them. Jenks24 (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense, that's how say Westermann does it: Do in the Roman Empire like the Romans! Arcarius (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, no objection to this move. We have some other Roman provinces with similar names; should any of them also be under consideration for a move? P Aculeius (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
But it wasn't always Africa Proconsularis. This article covers the original Africa (Vetus) and Africa Nova as well. Srnec (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The article mentions Africa Vetus which I take to be synonymous with Africa Proconsularis. Is this correct? Apart from a stray line in the illustration, the article does not mention Africa Nova. Was this a real province? Or was it just the name given to the new Numidian Kingdom? If so, it could hardly be described as a province. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Africa Nova was a real province between 46 BC and AD 27, when it was united with Africa Vetus to form Africa Proconsularis. The Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, for example, has articles on all four of these Africas (Africa, Africa Vetus, Africa Nova and Africa Proconsularis). The article on Africa is very general, since it is about not just the original province but the whole history of Roman Africa (i.e., what the Romans called Africa). Srnec (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Most articles on Roman provinces tend to be around the time of the greatest extent of the Empire (i.e. under Trajan circa 117AD). Would you object if this was the main thrust of the article while relegating the Republican entities so a separate historical note? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I would object to "relegating the Republican entities to a ... note", yes. As for the page title, it seems to me that the current title is a better catch-call for the all the provinces that lay in the region the Romans called Africa and which had "Africa" in their names. If we move to Africa Proconsularis, then we should probably have article on all the African provinces. Srnec (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment: what if we have an umbrella article under either the current title, or perhaps "Roman Africa" (since that wouldn't imply that it was a single province), with separate articles splitting off information that applies specifically to the daughter provinces of Africa Vetus, Africa Nova, and Africa Proconsularis? These wouldn't all have to be created at once, but by organizing the present article chronologically it would be easy to split off details into a separate article if and when there are enough of them to warrant one. This way, other articles could link directly to the appropriate one, if it exists, or here, if it doesn't. P Aculeius (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment There are links to all these names as the nomenclature is very interchangeable. Irrespective of what the name of the article is the names Roman North Africa and Africa (Roman Province) need to be kept as redirects, because even collectively we could not go through and recode every article where these phrases exist. I think we should leave it as it is.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.