|This article 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)
- And how might this article differ from Roman Italy in scope, I have to wonder? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2012 (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)
- Don't worry, Diegriva, I know very well that Italy wasn't a province. I'm sorry you thought otherwise. What I was at pains to correct was the erroneous suggestion that Italy was Roman territory throughout the period of the Republic. I hope you still find the lede acceptable without that. I look forward to reading Keaveney's account of the extension of citizenship in the decade after the Social War - do you recommend it? I am not quite sure what you mean by "the Augustus regiones formalize anything..." nor your dismissal of the census as if a mere counting of heads. Do you think it is utterly inappropriate to show the map of Augustus's organisation and the listing taken from Pliny, as the article does at present.? I haven't touched that part. NebY (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Relevance of reverted information
- why the mention of the "Lex Roscia" and the info about the abolition of province Gallia Cisalpina in 42 BC and its incorporation to the administration of Italy should be "not relevant" to the article;
- why the sourced description of the successive enlargements of the territory of Roman Italy under Augustus after 42 BC would constitute "Italian Nationalism";
- why he has removed references to previously unsourced informations;
- 1) That paragraph describes the use of the term "Italy"; all Italian provinces (not just the Cisalpine Gaul) became part of the administration of Italy only during the time of Augustus.
- 2) The Aosta Valley did not even exist at that time; it's a clear reference to the current Italian borders. Also, it was not part of the Roman Italy (see both the maps inside the article).
- 3) What?!
- --Enok (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- 1) Which would be these other "Italian provinces"? 42 BC (which is not "the time of Augustus", which starts in 27 BC, but still the time of the Republic) is crucial for the integration of Cisalpine Gaul into Roman Italy, since the removal of the proconsular administration gave to the region the same status as the rest of the peninsula. The concession of the roman citizenship under Caesar with the Lex Roscia has not the same importance, since at that time there were already since a long time several roman colonies outside the peninsula, but this did not mean that they were part of Italy.
- 2) My additions complete the information about the expansion of the definition of the territory considered Italy. Before Augustus, the borders of "Italy" were set at the southern foot of the Alps. Aosta Valley (which is a geographical definition: BTW, to remove the geographic anachronism I wrote "today`s") western and central Alps, and the eastern regions up to Istria were not part of Italy, but were (partly) annexed under Augustus. Without these addition, there is a "hole" in the narration between republican "Italy" and the later addition of the major islands.
- 3) You removed the info about the Lex Roscia, the correction about the southern foot of the Alps, and the reference which I introduced. Now the sentence about Caesar is wrong, since the Alps were not part of the Roman state (see what I wrote above).
- Alex2006 (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Third Opinion Request declined
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.