Talk:Roman people

As a modern identity section

Hello, Ichthyovenator. I'm glad you decided to expand this article, and I think you did a good work. However, the last section seems pretty Greek-centered. I guess it makes sense, after all the Byzantine Empire was practically ruled by Greeks, but I think you could expand the parts about the Romanians and the Romansh people a bit more (although since I'm Romanian, I admit that my opinion is probably biased and it's fine if you don't want to).

I also think you should specify that not all Istro-Romanians (I'm glad to know that you've taken them into account!) call themselves "Romans". The Istro-Romanians don't have a very strong feeling of unity and they mostly name themselves after their respective village. "Vlach" is also used. You could also mention the Aromanians, who have many names among which there are some derivatives of "Roman". In case you want to know, the other Balkan Romance people, the Megleno-Romanians, use "Vlach" exclusively. I think it would also be a good idea to mention somewhere in the article that none of the terms used is related to the Romani people. I can help with the Aromanians, but that would have to happen in the next few days. Excellent article, as usual! Super Ψ Dro 22:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Yeah, the focus of this article really is a bit distorted; I'm most familiar with the Romans who eventually disappeared in western Europe and the Romans who lived on in the Byzantine Empire and so those Romans are what the article focuses most on at this time (the Romans in the Republic and Empire in Antiquity; what most people see as the definite "Romans" aren't explored in as much detail for instance). Since the Byzantines are explored quite a lot and the "main" portion of the Byzantines became what we today call the Greeks, I thus put more focus on them since those are the ones I knew most about.

Since you are more knowledgeable than me in regards to Romanians, Istro-Romanians and the other Balkan Romance people(s?) you'd be more than welcome to expand the information on them (and other portions if you find anything)! Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I've added information about the four Balkan Romance peoples (peoples because they are not a single ethnicity but a group of them). I have to admit that it was more interesting than I expected. I might add something else about the Romansh people and the Romands, but the section is getting pretty large. Do you think it would be a good idea to divide the "Romance peoples" subsection into "Western Europe" and "Eastern Europe" subsubsections? Also, I guess the lead should be updated regarding modern Roman self-identification. Super Ψ Dro 11:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Nice! As of now I don't think we need to divide the "Romance peoples" subsection but if more is added on the Romands and the Romansh that might be necessary (more text would also allow us to fit in another image, though I don't know what image might be suitable). As for the lead, yes I agree. One thing I feel might be important is that while the name of the Romanians and Romania itself (and the identities of the other Balko-Romance peoples) obviously derive from Rome (either through the actions of the old Roman Empire in that part of the world or maybe through something having to do with the Byzantines - Romania was after all the informal name the citizens of that empire called their country) it might be interesting to incorporate how the modern day people with these identities see it. Modern "Romans" in the city itself and modern Greeks who use the name Romioi obviously connect themselves to Ancient Rome (as seen in the numerous attempts to revive the Roman Republic) and its medieval continuation the Byzantine Empire, respectively.

The reasoning behind why the small western groups (Romans and Romansh) and the Balko-Romance peoples use the identities is made pretty clear in the article (maybe not for the Romands, but for the rest) but what (if anything) it means for them to be modern "Romans" isn't. I'm not sure if there are any sources on that or if it's something relevant at all but it's interesting to think about. Either way you are free to modify the lead in any way you want, I do agree that continual self-identification as "Romans" is as relevant to mention for the Balko-Romance peoples and the "Romans" in the alps as it is for the Greeks. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I tried to search a bit and I couldn't find anything for none of those groups. The most useful thing I found is that Romans are sometimes seen as aggressors against the Dacians, which are preferred by some Romanians. In fact, I have read on the Internet some comments from Romanians that would like Romania to be renamed to Dacia, but I think this is just limited to some Dacian fanatics and is no serious movement. Super Ψ Dro 13:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I finally added something about the Romands, so all ethnic groups are now covered in the article. There are some other ethnicities and languages whose name is derived from the Latin language (Ladin people, Ladino language...), but they should probably be mentioned in the article about the Latin language, although if you want I can briefly mention them here too. Super Ψ Dro 11:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution on the obscure Romands! I've split the quite long subsection on Romance peoples into two, one for western Romance peoples and one for the Balkan Romance peoples. Would be nice with an image for the Balkan Romance peoples (preferrably something Rome-associated as with the others) but I don't know if there are any good ones to use for that.

I don't think it is necessary to mention the Ladin people or the Ladino language here, but it could be mentioned in the article on Latins, as per that article the term "Latin" has meant many different things in different times and places and doesn't necessarily imply a connection to the Romans. For example, the Byzantines called everyone from Western Europe "Latins" and they certainly did not see western europeans (not even those in Rome itself) as Romans. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is no really adequate image for the Balkan Romance peoples subsection. Perhaps we could use this linguistic map of the Balkans in the Early Middle Ages, this map that shows the Latin-speaking territories that were under the Roman Empire or a map of Dacia. Perhaps I could create a map myself comparing the borders of the Roman province of Dacia with those of Romania, although that would exclude the Aromanians and Istro-Romanians. Maybe we could add somewhere a map about the ethnic groups that still use a name derived from "Roman"? Super Ψ Dro 20:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Note on the infobox picture

Just gonna leave a note here to future editors who might have some opinion on the infobox picture; I've changed the original lineup of 9 famous Romans (link to how that looked) to a collection of some of the famous Fayum mummy portraits. Why? Because in most other articles on ethnic/national groups the infobox picture is either just some normal people of that group (see Istro-Romanians, Croats, Bedouin, Sahrawi people), a flag (see Italians, Romani people, Assyrian people, Swedes) or a map (see Romanians) and I didn't feel like using a map of the Roman Empire would be of much encyclopedic use here (since the borders changed so much throughout the empire's existence) or a flag (since the Romans didn't have any). The Fayum portraits would be the closest we can get to that for the Romans.

Some alternatives could be the Ravenna mosaic of Justinian and his homies (but that's of an emperor and I feel like many would argue that he is "too Byzantine" to be the poster child of the "Roman people" page) or either of these two lineups of Roman busts (1, 2) but one is all-male and the other is all-female which isn't very good for inclusivity. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: I'm not sure that I'm especially keen on the idea of having images of people in the infobox at all. The Fayyum mummy portraits are probably more representative of the overall population of the Roman Empire than the lineup of nine famous Roman men, but it is worth pointing out that they all come from Egypt. The people depicted in these portraits are probably mostly of Egyptian and/or Greek descent and they most likely would have thought of themselves primarily as Egyptians, Greeks, or somewhere in between.

These portraits are probably representative of the appearance of the population of Egypt during the time of the Roman Empire, but Egypt was just one part of the Roman Empire. For large parts of its history, the Roman Empire also ruled Italy, France, Switzerland, Britain, large parts of Germany and Austria, Iberia, northern Morocco, northern Algeria, Tunisia, northern Libya, the Levant, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, the Balkans, areas along the Black Sea, and even briefly Mesopotamia. We're talking about an enormous, ethnically diverse empire here. I'm not convinced that there is a way to fully represent the entire diverse population of the Roman Empire in a single image. —Katolophyromai (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Yes, I agree. My main point is that if we are going to have an image of Roman people in the infobox, I think the Fayum portraits is the best option since they are actual contemporary color portraits (plus, I think they are really cool). It is, as you say, problematic that everyone in the picture is from Roman Egypt (or at the very least died there) and it would be good if a picture could encapsulate more of the empire's diversity. The people in Roman Egypt were of course just as Roman as the people in Rome itself by the time of the 3rd century and onwards (from when most, if not all, of the portraits in the infobox image should be) but yeah.

Do you have any suggestions on what could replace the image? I think it would be a bit boring to not have an image at all the infobox. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Modern Italians and Roman kingdom

@Futurama 55: @RomanHawk7: If you want to discuss incorporating more on modern Italians and the political history of the Roman kingdom, which I feel is quite unrelated to what the article is about, then it would be better to discuss it here on the talk page than edit-warring over its inclusion in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Futurama 55: and what the hell was this?

Look all I want is to put most of the history of the Romans on this page because I feel along with other people that this page isn't telling the whole history. What I put is some truth. There are sources that support what I say. Look the Romans were Italian 2,000 years ago, the Romans are the hisory of Italy along with the Renaissance, but that was then, saying they are not related is like saying that Mexicans are not descended from the Aztecs and the modern day Spanish are not descended from the Conquistadors, and modern Greeks are unrelted to the Spartans. If I find the sources will you let me write what I say? Futurama 55 (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources (see this page for what that means on Wikipedia) that support what you are saying you are welcome to add it to the article, yes. I take issue with your additions because they, at least from what I understand, to some degree contradict what is already in the article. As the article says, "Roman" was never really an ethnic identity in the way that "Italian" is today. During the Roman Republic it was a civic identity, referring to someone that lived in the city of Rome and during the time of the Roman Empire it was more similar to a national one in the sense that a "Roman" was a "citizen of the Roman Empire". In the 4th century, a person who was born in Egypt and lived there their entire life could be seen as equally Roman as someone who lived in the city itself. The idea that modern Italians have some big claim to being Romans just because they happen to live in the Italian peninsula is dangerously nationalistic; all Romance peoples (be they Spaniards, French, Romanians or others) have an equal claim to "Romanness" (and you'll notice that none of them claim to be Romans, this is in the article). Italy has been invaded, and the people living there "reshuffled" (the Germanic Lombards ruled the peninsula for centuries for instance) countless times since Antiquity so there is unlikely to be an especially strong connection just because Rome is located in Italy. The same goes for modern Mexicans being descended from the Aztecs and modern Greeks being descended from Spartans; this is modern ethnical and nationalistic thinking that ancient peoples didn't engage in. That the Roman Empire continued in the eastern Mediterranean for centuries after the Romans lost control of Italy is another nail in the coffin for there being a special Italian connection beyond just geography. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. However I know in my heart that the Romans are Italians, but if I am not able to find "reliable sources" to put on the Roman People page to support my claims, will you at least allow me to put that the Romans started out as an "Italic" civilization on said "Roman People" page? After all they were the Latins before they established Rome. And they were a part of many Italic civilizations that lived on the Italian Peninsula along with the Etruscans, Greeks and Samnites. On every other Wikipedia page about the Romans and history of Italy it does say that the Romans were one of many Italic civilizations that eventually rose up and became the dominant superpower. Will you please allow this? I just want to make sure that the Romans remain a part of the history of Italy, and I want people to know that. Just like the Aztecs are Mexican History and Spartans are Greek history. That's all I want. RomanHawk7 (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@RomanHawk7: Wikipedia is built on reliable sources; if reliable sources are not used how are readers supposed to know that Wikipedia editors are not just making stuff up?

That being said, Roman civilization was founded by Italic people, yes. You'll notice that the infobox on the top lists "other Italic peoples" under "related Ethnic groups". This article currently begins in the Roman Republic because it is about Roman identity (people who identify as "Roman") and we do not have any surviving contemporary sources from before the Roman Republic in regards to this. What I'm saying, and what is sourced in the article right now, are two things:

1) what "Roman" meant changed a lot throughout the centuries. Rome as a civilization lasted for a long time. In 200 BC, a Roman was a citizen of the city Rome but in 400 AD a Roman could be a citizen of anywhere in the empire (i. e. not necessarily Italic/Italian at all). In the Middle Ages a Roman was either a citizen of the city itself or a greek-speaking citizen of the Byzantine Empire, both of which self-identified as "Romans". For much of its history, Rome was a large multiethnic empire, not just an Italic civilization. No one denies that Rome is a large part of the history of Italy, but Rome is a large part of the history of all of Europe, and to a degree the rest of the world, not just Italy. If you read the "Later history in Western Europe" section of this article you'll see how Roman identity changed and transformed in Western Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire (a lot of it is about Italy in particular).

2) yes, Roman legacy is very present in Italy and of course modern Italians would be descended from the Romans to some degree but modern Italians do not self-identify as "Romans" (other than those who live in the city to a degree) and would not have an exclusive claim to Roman identity even if they did; modern Spaniards are for instance the descendants of Romans and Goths in the same way that modern Italians are the descendants of Romans and Lombards. Neither group self-identifies as Romans but they are both "Romance" peoples. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

As they told you, Romans were much more than "Italians", they were people from many other places around the Mediterranean Sea. In fact, the majority of Romans weren't from Italy during the Roman Empire, particularly since Caracalla. 31.221.138.112 (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"and Hellenized peoples"

To stop the current round of edit-warring, I'll explain why adding "and Hellenized peoples" to the sentence in question is unnecessary. In context, the text in question is this:

To the Romans and Italians of the 8th and 9th century, the original Roman Empire was a thing of the past. There definitely used to be an empire, such as during the time of Constantine the Great, but it had now transferred itself to the Eastern Mediterranean and ceased to be properly Roman, now inhabited by "Greeks".

It serves to illustrate what the Italians of the 8th and 9th century perceived the Roman Empire to be, saying that they 1) saw it as a thing of the past and that 2) that it had been transferred to the east but was now no longer Roman since it was not inhabited by people they called "Greeks". Adding "and Hellenized peoples" at the end does absolutely nothing here. The passage is about how the Italians viewed the Eastern Empire - they did not have a concept of "hellenized peoples", but referred to all of the east's inhabitants as "Greeks". This is also in the sources used for this section. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Due to your lack of inquiry you will be somewhat impressed to learn that they, like the Byzantines, did have a concept of "Hellenization" and that this only adds more sense to the text.

"My late father and emperor Basil had persuaded the Slavic tribes to change their ancient customs, and hellenised them, and subjected them following the Roman (Byzantine) system, liberated them from their leaders, honoured them by the baptism and trained them to fight against people at war with the Romans (Byzantines)" Leo The Wise. (Not logged User :b)

I'm not arguing that the Byzantines did not have a concept of hellenization. I'm pointing out that the passage in question is only about the perception of the Italians. The entire article is about self-identity; Byzantine perceptions of themselves and "Romanness" is covered later on. This passage is solely about how the Italians viewed the empire and what Romanness means and as such it makes no sense to add "and Hellenized peoples" since the Italians did not have a concept of this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes they did have a concept of "Hellenization" once again make your search. Im well aware this is just the point of view of the Italians yet they did know that apart from the Greeks were pepople ho adopted their same way of life and culture as a letter from the City of Rome to the Emperor Justinian testify.

‘the citizens of Rome stated that they would rather ‘serve the Goths than the Greeks and their Graecid (Hellenized) pepoples ’

(Not logged User :b)

If you want this information added you should have added it with a source and you should definitely not have edit-warred in the way that you did. Do you have a citation for this letter? Is this the only mention of "Hellenized" (and note that "Graecid" meaning "Hellenized" is very much a matter of opinion) in the context of someone from Italy referring to the easterners? In that case it is not notable. The source currently used to corroborate this passage in the text does not use "Hellenized", just "Greeks", and as such if you want this added you need to also add a source that uses the term "Hellenized" in this way. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I will add a source than :) (Not logged User :b) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

You're of course welcome to respond to my concerns about this as well... Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roman people/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 05:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: As of today, you have 7 days to address, implement, and/or engage with the comments below. Gug01 (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: This article is really good, and almost all the points in the review have been addressed! Other than maybe a few minor points, the only thing that's left is for me to give a prose review of the "Later history" section, which I'll do as soon as I can (lots of schoolwork). Gug01 (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gug01: Many thanks. I'll see about going through the few remaining points soon. I am sorry for being so slow with working through this, it's a daunting article to handle due to its size and the extra research + rewrites that have been needed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't be sorry - I'll admit my edits were a bit demanding, and I thank you for your collaboration! Gug01 (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

They were as demanding as they needed to be :) In any case, I'm grateful for the review, just looking through this article is not a small undertaking. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Rubric

I won't comment too much on the rubric; while many of these would've been "no" at the start, the article has made great improvements during the review.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Some edit warring in the past, but no undos after August 1, 2021. As more than a 30 days' period has passed from any meaning controversy / contention in editing whatsoever, it's safe to say the article is stable. [This is included in table as this wasn't discussed in the body of the review.]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Copyright checks are clean.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Great work on the mammoth task of summarizing Roman identity!

Hello, @Ichthyovenator:! I'm Gug01, and I'll be reviewing your Good Article nomination. If possible, I ask you to work towards completing this review as efficiently as possible. The article is long and dealing on a complex subject matter, school for me starts in only a few days, and I'd like the review to be prompt without sacrificing any quality or detail whatsoever. The topic of the Roman people is one that's fascinating for me and dear to my heart. Let's begin! Gug01 (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gug01: Hello! Thank you for taking the time to review this article! It's nice to see that it's a subject that's interesting to you, I started working on this myself because I could not find much of the information here anywhere else that was easily accessible. I'll try to get through your comments as quickly as I can, but given that my university studies have kicked off again and you've been very thorough (which of course is a good thing), it might take some time, hopefully that's fine with you. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: That's no problem! We'll figure it out! Good luck on your university studies; what are you studying? Gug01 (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gug01: Great to hear! If you at any point feel like progress is going too slowly, let me know. I'm studying computer science so researching and writing about history is a nice sort of escapism :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: And a very productive sort of escapism at that! :) Gug01 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

"came to rule large parts of Europe, the Near East and North Africa through conquests made during the Roman Republic and the later Roman Empire" - It's my impression that the Roman people / culture / entity came to rule over all of North Africa and the Near East at their height. Consider rewording to "came to rule the Near East, North Africa, and large parts of Europe" Gug01 (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, reworded to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"Originally only referring to the Italic citizens of Rome itself" - is there evidence to suggest that a citizen of Rome in the early days who happened to be non-Italic (surely these were very few in number) would be excluded from the term "Roman people"? Gug01 (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, and I don't think there is much source material available for this. IIRC this was one of the changes made by Italian nationalist(s?) during the past edit-warring, which seems to have died down. I'd personally prefer "originally only referring to the citizens of Rome itself". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"civilisation" - written in non-American English. I'll take note not to make unintentional "corrections" (heavy quote-unquote here) to American English.

I tried to write this in British English but given that I'm neither British nor American, there is probably a lot of mixing

"sharing common customs, values, morals and ways of life" - I'd suggest an Oxford comma between the phrases "morals" and "and ways of life"

Added a comma. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"As the result of the creation of colonies throughout the empire and citizenship grants, the number of Romans rapidly increased" - consider rewording to something like "Citizenship grants, demographic growth, and settler and military colonies rapidly increased the number of Romans." Gug01 (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Reworded to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, this sentence seems to be equating the number of Roman citizens increasing with the number of Romans increasing. Shouldn't changes in identification (when people began identifying as Roman) be an equally important, if not more important, factor? Gug01 (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, self-identity is IMO far more important than citizenship, but a lot of the portions discussing antiquity talk about citizenship because I did not find much source material in regards to personal identity. I see that you get to this more further down so I'll wait with changing anything around here until I get to your further comments on this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, sounds fair! Gug01 (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

For now I've changed "Romans" here to "Roman citizens". Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I like that the animated map includes the entire run-through of the Roman state until 1461 - the proper timeline, in my opinion :) Could you explain how the map deals with client states (particularly in Crimea and Arabia)? Just from my naked eyes, it seems a bit inconsistent, but that could be my faulty memory. Gug01 (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)~

I also find this to be the proper timeline. In most articles people would probably oppose this map going that far since a lot of editors want to keep "Rome" and "Byzantium" separate, but I think it's suitable here either case since the continuity of Roman identity in the East is discussed at length in this article. I didn't make the map but yes, it's possible that it's inconsistent, for instance the Bosporan Kingdom is depicted as part of the empire but the Ghassanids do not appear to make an appereance. There is another version of the animated map (here), I think the color choices are not as good but perhaps the borders are better (client states appear to be completely excluded). Another option would be to make a completely new animated map but that'll be time consuming. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The current version of the map you chose is, in my opinion, far better than alternate map you linked. It chooses far better time increments to depict and has a better timespan. Also, given that Rome held more tight control over Crimea than the Ghassanids, there's some logic to be had about Crimea's inclusion and Arabia's exclusion. You might want to animate a better, sourced map by hand if/when you eventually nominate this for Featured Article, but for Good Article it's not necessary. Gug01 (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

"It is for the most part not clear to what extent the majority of Roman citizens in antiquity regarded themselves as being Roman. Most likely, local identities were prominent throughout the Roman Empire due to its vast geographical extent, but Roman identity provided a larger sense of common identity and became important when distinguishing from non-Romans, such as barbarian settlers and invaders." I strongly agree with this sentiment. Still, I feel it needs a cite in the lead, as while this is likely the historical consensus it's likely to be highly contested in many circles. Since it's an important idea, the source material should be readily available. Don't be afraid to have a string of references at the end of the idea, by the way. Gug01 (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I've added the two relevant citations from the article body to this part in the lead. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"Roman identity survived in the west" - I've seen "west" both capitalized and not in this context. If you're going to keep it all lower case, please make sure it's consistent throughout the article. Thanks!

It looks to me that "west" and "east" are already consistently lower case through the article (though I could be wrong), unless referring to political entities (Western/Eastern Roman Empire) or Western Europe (where it should be capitalized). Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Y

"also called the Byzantine Empire by modern historians" - I don't think it's just modern historians who call the ERE the Byzantine Empire; if anything, in recent years academia seems to be leaning less in favor of the term "Byzantine Empire" than popular culture is. I know the "Byzantine Empire" as a term was created by "modern" (Renaissance) historians, but the term "modern historians" here conjures images of historians in 2021. Consider eliminating "by modern historians" Gug01 (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. I removed "by modern historians". Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"of reconquering and keeping control of the west and suppression from the new barbarian kingdoms" - perhaps replace "barbarian" with "Germanic", as "barbarian" historiographically is both derogatory and fluid / non-specific? Or is "barbarian kingdom" a term newly resurgent in the modern historiography? Gug01 (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge, "barbarian kingdoms" still remains the most common term for the post-Roman western kingdoms, but in this context I think replacing "barbarian" with "germanic" is fine to be more specific. Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"in the end" -> "eventually", I suggest

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"In the alps" -> capitalize "Alps"~

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"Among the Balkan Romance peoples, though their descent is in most cases unclear, ethnonyms also evoke Roman identity," - the "among" and "though" clauses are awkward. Find a way to reword / split the sentence. Gug01 (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've reworded and split the sentence, let me know what you think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: It's an excellent rewording! Gug01 (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

"deriving from the Germanic walhaz (which was used to refer to the Romans; adopted in the form 'Vlach' as the only self-designation of the Megleno-Romanians)." - this most definitely needs a lead cite, as I've seen alternate etymologies for Vlach that claims it comes from "wallach," the word for "foreigner", or alternatively that "Vlach" either came from or came to mean the word "shepherd". Gug01 (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware of any alternate etymologies when I wrote this; added a lead cite. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Y Gug01 (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

One major point of difficulty I see is in how exactly you're defining Roman identity. The article seems to identify Roman identity with Roman citizenship, but this is imperfect, as one can feel and/or act "Roman" without becoming a citizen. (For example, the Balkan Romance peoples who strongly identify with the Empire far after its demise, and thus aren't Roman citizens.) Self-identification, citizenship, and other factors in Roman identity need to be juggled, and I'd like to hear how exactly you're defining "Roman identity", and what proportional importance each factor in this definition. Gug01 (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The lead simplifies the current historical consensus on Roman identity. For example, see statement: "Throughout the majority of Roman history, the Romans did not see Romanness as something based on shared language or inherited ethnicity,[6][7][8][9]" While I can't access all sources, I've skimmed the University of Michigan PhD dissertation cite, and it doesn't seem to support this statement. The source sustains "that 'nationality' can be created by a belief in the existence in a group identity not solely defined by geography, language, or ethnicity - is critically important to understanding developments between the fourth and first centuries BCE in the ways Romans and non-Romans understood what it meant to be 'Roman.'" [emphasis mine] The key word, here, is "solely", which suggests that geography, language, and ethnicity had a role, maybe even a major one, in Roman identity, but weren't the only defining factors. That's a lot different than the Wikipedia article's wording quoted above. The abstract states: "Following the Social War, therefore, there were three distinct ways of understanding Roman citizenship: hereditary Romans understood Romanness to be a combination of ancestry and social and political participation; new men understood it to consist entirely of behavior that conformed to Roman traditions of virtue and service to the state; and the new, Italian, Romans saw it as a legal status to be acknowledged and enhanced by certain public behaviors," which is a lot more nuanced than "language and inheritance weren't considered at all." This is a level of nuance - different groups perceiving Roman identity differently, with some mix in salience between shared citizenship, values, and customs as well as language, ethnicity, and bloodlines - that, if corroborated by your other sources, I would like to be reflected in this article section. Perhaps reword to something like "shared language and inherited ethnicity were secondary to Roman citizenship" - assuming the sources actually support even that. Gug01 (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there is an issue in that the definition of Roman identity feels inconsistent in the article. In my opinion, personal identity is the deciding factor of inclusion/exclusion into any cultural group. A "Roman" in 8th-century Ravenna and a "Italian" living in the same city a hundred years later were not very different genetically or linguistically. The reason why Romans are often equated to Roman citizens in the sections on antiquity, as I alluded to previously, is that there is little concrete evidence in regards to self-identification. The relevant theories are mentioned, but there is little to go on and I could not find many sources going into much detail. The majority of people granted citizenship by Caracalla's decree probably did not begin to regard themselves as "Romans" overnight, but the majority of people may have seen themselves as such by the 4th century or so, which would have been impossible without the extensions of citizenship. Citizenship and identity thus seem to be linked to me, but they are not the same thing, no. I'm not sure how to resolve this well.

I totally agree with what you've written. I wonder if in the body of the article you could explain the impact of Caracalla's citizenship grant as an act that eventually led to an expansion of the Roman people, even though most recipients of citizenship didn't come to regard themselves as "Romans" overnight. That explanation might hint at the self-identification - citizenship difference. Other than explanations like that here and there, I'm not sure how to resolve the problem. For the purposes of becoming a Good Article, I'm fine if we do our best on this, even if we don't manage to eliminate the problem entirely. Gug01 (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I will try to search around for sources to see if any historians have properly commented on this connection, otherwise I'll add just a brief comment. Yeah, I'm fine with working to minimize the problem as much as possible. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I've expanded on Caracalla's grant and its effects on the populace in the text, let me know what you think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I love your expansion in the "Classical Antiquity" section. Gug01 (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, great to hear :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

In regards to the "throughout the majority of Roman history, the Romans did not see Romanness as something based on shared language or inherited ethnicity" statement, in the original version of this article before the edit wars, this was sourced only to Woolf (2000). The other sources added were meant to support the statement further, since attempts were previously made to remove it entirely in order to emphasize ethnicity and blood descent, they do not support the statement in its entirity. I can see how more nuance could be added, but I will try to find an accessible version of Woolf (2000) to see what it actually says and I will see if I can re-read the relevant and cited portions of the other sources. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've been unable to track down a version of Woolf (2000). I've tried to rephrase this part of the lede to be more nuanced, let me know what you think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I like the rephrasing of the lead. Gug01 (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Nice. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Romanness

"The term 'Roman' is today used interchangeably to describe a historical timespan, a material culture, a geographical location and a personal identity." - For clarity's sake, I suggest you use the Oxford comma. If you opt against this, please ensure that the comma style is consistent throughout the article. Gug01 (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Added the comma. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

"Unlike many other ancient peoples, such as the Greeks or Gauls, the Romans did not see their common identity as one necessarily based on shared language or inherited ethnicity." - The word "necessarily" is an improvement on nuance vs the lead. Still, please see the long comment at the end of the "Lead" section, and try to implement into "Romanness" section. Gug01 (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've implemented something similar to the lead here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

"The key to 'Romanness' in the minds of some famous Roman orators, such as Cicero, was keeping with Roman tradition and serving the Roman state.[14]" - It's probably relevant to mention Cicero as a new man / novus homo, which encouraged him to promote a "Romanness" emphasizing public service (which he did) and not "pristine" (heavy quote-unquote here) inheritance/bloodlines, which Cicero didn't have. Gug01 (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Added this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

"This is not to say that the importance of blood kinship was wholly dismissed. Orators such as Cicero frequently appealed to their noble contemporaries to live up to the 'greatness of their forefathers'.[14]" - Important addition to the section! Gug01 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

👍👍 Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

"Neither author, however, suggested that the naturalisation of new citizens should stop, nor did their concerns of blood purity match modern ideas of race or ethnicity, and had little to do with features such as skin colour or physical appearance.[17]" - Out of curiosity, given their concerns of blood purity, what were they suggesting? That might not go in the "Romanness" section, but should be included somewhere as Romanness' negotiations' "darker side." Gug01 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

They were suggesting that manumission (freeing slaves) and grants of citizenship should be less frequent, not stopped altogether, and praised Augustus for having done both less frequently than the leading figures of their time. I've added this here, but if you think it fits better in some other form or somewhere else let me know. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I really like the way you've included it in the "Romanness" section; don't change a thing here! More detail on this segment of Roman thought (opposition to citizenship grants) should also be incorporated into the "Classical Antiquity" section imo. Gug01 (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"integrated into the Roman world, i. e." -> reduce the 2 spaces between "i." and "e." into 0 Gug01 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

"but slavery in Ancient Rome did not have an ethnic element, with slaves being part of various different ethnic groups.[20]" - They certainly didn't have a racial element. Given that most/many slaves were POWs, ethnicities along the border of Roman expansion were disproportionately represented (unless the sources refute this). Gug01 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You are of course correct, the meaning here is that the Romans did not enslave people because they viewed them as ethnically inferior in the same way as Europeans and others did over the course of the modern period. Perhaps this could be rephrased. I don't think changing "ethnic" to "racial" works since the modern concept of races at least to me does not appear to have been much of a thing in the ancient world. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Gug01 (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Tried to explain this better in the text. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you've succeeded! Gug01 (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"In the eyes of many Romans, the Jews were the most disliked group of foreigners, though they were never considered to be barbarians. Roman antisemitism, which led to several persecutions and massacres, was not rooted in racial prejudice, but rather in that the Jews uniquely among conquered peoples refused to integrate into the Roman world; they were totally opposed to Roman customs and evoked suspicion with their exclusivist religious practices.[25]" - Obviously the Roman state & many Romans disliked and brutalized Jews, and the Roman state & many Romans disliked and brutalized many other peripheral ethnic groups as well; the words "the most" creates a higher burden of proof, so I'd like even stronger sourcing. Rubel 2020 is very recent and probably not so established. Adding a second and maybe even third scholarly cite corroborating this point would help. Gug01 (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've removed "most" for now from here since I think it's unnecessary, will look for more sources to cite here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It's great that you've removed the word "most"; it's much better the way you've rewritten it. A few comments: "A particularly disliked group of foreigners were the Jews, though they were never considered to be barbarians. Roman antisemitism, which led to several persecutions and massacres, was not rooted in racial prejudice, but rather in that the Jews uniquely among conquered peoples refused to integrate into the Roman world; they were totally opposed to Roman customs and evoked suspicion with their exclusivist religious practices.[29]" - (1) is the "Jews were never considered to be barbarians" information from the cite - how could they be considered foreigners and not barbarians? It also is odd to call Jews "foreigners" as they lived in the empire for hundreds of years, even though that's how the Romans conceived of them. (2) For better tone, perhaps consider rewording to something like: "Roman antisemitism, which led to several persecutions and massacres of Jews, came from the perception that the Jews uniquely among conquered peoples refused to integrate into Roman identity; they were opposed to Roman religious customs and evoked suspicion with their exclusivist religious practices.[29]" I've italicized "the perception that" and "religious" because I'm not sure if the evidence warrants these additions; if Jews genuinely were unique in not integrating into Roman culture, then feel free to not include "the perception that". Also feel free to exclude "religious" if that underplays the scope of Jewish resistance to Roman customs. Gug01 (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Specifically on your emphasis of antisemitism not being rooted in racial prejudice; I've noticed that (in a history paper / thesis-like fashion) the article sometimes emphasizes common themes that don't always have to be emphasized so explicitly, and this is one example. What you're saying is true in that Roman antisemitism was based on cultural factors which then became strongly associated with ethnicity/race; however, merely explaining the reason for Roman antisemitism comes across as more neutral and relays information equally effectively. Looking for other emphases like these and rewording them will help on the tone issue. Gug01 (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I should have time on Thursday to hopefully go through a lot of stuff here and hopefully make quite some progress, but for now just a quick comment: yes, the main point here was to emphasize that the Romans did not persecute the Jews because they viewed themselves as "racially superior" or something like that, which I felt was important since the persecution of the Jews by the Romans is so well-known today. "Jews were never considered to be barbarians" is from the source, yes, but I will see if I can track down more sources that support that. Not all "non-Romans" were considered Barbarians - Greeks for instance were not seen as barbarians to my knowledge, even before they were conquered and then granted citizenship. Given that the Roman emperors often considered the Parthian and then Sasanian shahanshahs their equals I'm also not sure whether the Iranians were considered barbarians. Jews in particular do seem to have resisted Romanization; notably the belief in a monothesistic god was not reconcilable with the Roman religion, or the often "divine" status of the Roman emperor, in the same way that Hellenic or Egyptian paganism (for instance) were. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I've reworked and expanded this part. I replaced "foreigners" with "non-Romans" which feels less odd. I added a few more sources; Roman attitudes on Jews were, perhaps unsurprisingly, more complicated and variable than I initially made them out to be. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I like your reworking. Jews fell in bizarre and complex middle ground between "Greeks" and "barbarians" which you've expressed really well; that makes any way of discussing the topic stick out a little bit in the article, but I think it works as well as it could. Great work! Gug01 (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah; I agree that it sticks out a bit but it also felt weird to talk about Rome's inclusivity of foreign ethnicities and not bring up the most famous example of Roman oppression of non-Romans. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed! Gug01 (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Antiquity

Classical Antiquity

The first paragraph seems to recap the legends of Rome's founding and, except for the last sentence, doesn't directly treat with Roman identity. Rome's founding is of course very important to Roman identity; make this section more concise and more explicitly emphasize its implications for Romanness. Gug01 (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Tried to make this more concise using notes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Great work! Gug01 (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Except for the last paragraph, this whole section strays too much into merely recapping Rome's history (many articles already do this), whereas this article should center around Roman identity and the Roman people, not the state. Gug01 (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I have significantly cut down on the second paragraph, which I feel was the the main paragraph pushing Roman history rather than the history of Roman identity. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I like it. Gug01 (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Nice. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

"Caracalla's grant contributed to a vast increase in the number of people with the nomen (name indicating familial association) Aurelius.[44][c] " - I absolutely love footnote [c]. Great attention to detail, @Ichthyovenator:!

Feels like the increase in people named Aurelius would have been pretty confusing otherwise :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Also love the image depicting Trajan as pharaoh - it speaks volumes. Gug01 (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I also wrote most of what's currently at Roman pharaoh so it was nice to be able to squeeze in something on that subject, which I find fascinating. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a pretty cool article! Do you think it makes more sense to hyperlink the word "pharaoh" in the caption to Roman pharaoh rather than simply pharaoh? It's your call. Gug01 (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I've replaced the link, makes sense as the content at Roman pharaoh will be more helpful to understanding what's going on with the image further than the regular pharaoh article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Late Antiquity

"In the writings of the 4th-century Greek-speaking Roman soldier and author Ammianus Marcellinus, Rome is described almost like a foreign city, with disparaging comments on its corruption and impurity.[50]" - The anecdote of Ammianus, in my mind, isn't enough to prove "Rome is like a foreign city" to the rest of the Empire. Keep this sentence, and add an additional scholarly cite after the "Late Antiquity" section's first sentence. Gug01 (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've added a cited sentence on how Rome lost status partly owing to emperors beginning to reign from elsewhere (Tetrarchy and then Constantinople & Ravenna), is that sufficient or should I search for and add more? Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine. Gug01 (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

"In whatever case, the Roman military increasingly came to embody 'barbarian' aspects that in previous times had been considered antithetical to the Roman ideal.[56]" - Barbarian aspects in terms of culture/values or ethnicity? More specificity is needed. Gug01 (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Added and expanded. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

"Though their bariarian nature is repeatedly emphasised" - bariarian -> "barbarian"

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Shorten the third paragraph on Pacatus & the Goths, as right now it's a bit long and detracts from the article's main thread. Gug01 (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"The ideas of Symmachus were not popular among the Christians." - not surprising lol

Hehe. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

"As Rome lost, or ceded control of," -> change Rome to Roman Empire / state Gug01 (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

"As such, roman identity remained political, rather than ethnical, and" -> "As such, Roman identity remained political, rather than ethnic" (spelling errors)

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

"The fall of the Western Roman Empire coincided with the first time the Romans actively excluded an influential foreign group within the empire, the barbarian and barbarian-descended generals of the 5th century, from Roman identity and access to the Roman imperial throne.[67]" - interesting observation! Gug01 (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I found this to be very interesting! One wonders if things would have gone differently if the Germanic kings and figures like Ricimer or Odoacer had considered themselves, and been considered by others, as Romans. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This article section reads more like a history paper, citing secondary sources and primary anecdotes to build an argument, rather than an encyclopedic source summarizing the topic of Roman people & identity dispassionately. Gug01 (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware, this is because the sources I used are history papers and do the same and for most cases primary anecdotes is all there is. I also think most of the anecdotes are quite interesting, but if you have suggestions as to how to make this more encyclopedic I'm all ears. For a lot of anecdotes and specific sources in the "later history" section I used footnotes for specific examples so perhaps something like that could be used here as well? Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I really do like your use of footnotes in the "later history" section, and it'll likely work well if you implement it earlier as well. I agree with you that many of the anecdotes are interesting and illustrative, provided that they're kept concise. One thing that might help to remember this is an article on Roman identity and people, and so we have to be careful not to stray away into the rich fields of Roman imperial history. Another way to improve the tone is to notice themes (theses, almost) that you're repeatedly emphasizing; see my comment on the Jewish section. I've realized I left the original comment in the thread without providing concrete steps forward; thanks for prompting me to provide suggestions for improvement! Gug01 (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I've separated two of the anecdotes into footnotes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Later history

"Few empires in history impacted their subjects to the same extent as the Roman Empire. Through imperial expansion, Romanness spread out over a wide stretch of territories that had never before shared a common identity and designation, and never would again. The personal identities of the population under Roman rule was affected to a considerable extent and Roman identity lasted throughout the lands of the empire until long after the empire itself had faded away.[68]" - Again, this feels like a thesis and like introductions I've written for scholarly historical papers. The tone is a bit off for an encyclopedic entry. Gug01 (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, do you recommend rewriting/rephrasing or removing entirely? Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It encapsulates some important ideas, maybe try rewriting or alternatively incorporating these ideas (which you already do) into the rest of the section? Gug01 (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Tried rewriting it to be more encyclopedic in tone, but now it's also quite short. Let me know what you think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Drier, but more encyclopedic. It's a bit on the short side, but I don't think that's much of a problem. Gug01 (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, "throughout the lands of the empire until long after" -> "throughout the lands of the empire long after" Gug01 (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Both the "Western Europe" and "Eastern Mediterranean" sections cover a breathtakingly large section of time. Indeed, the Eastern Mediterranean of the 5th century was much more similar to 5th century Western Europe than to the 19th century Eastern Mediterranean. Consider subdividing these sections. Gug01 (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

These sections were originally subdivided (see here), do you think those subdivisions are good (then I can bring them back) or should the divisions happen in some other way? Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed some pros and cons about the original subdivisions, but before I'm comment, I'm curious what was the original reason why the subdivisions were changed in the first place. Also, the current version of the article (just in terms of prose) is noticeably better even than in the August 2021 permalink - good work! Gug01 (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I originally removed the subdivisions because I was working on shortening the sections on later history and expanding the sections on antiquity since I imagined that most readers would be interested in the Roman people of Ancient Rome. The subdivisions were then removed because the earlier sections did not have them. I now realize that this sounds a bit flimsy so I'm open to subdividing again if you have any ideas on how that is best done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Expanding on the evolution of Roman identity in North Africa will ensure that the reader doesn't miss these multiple centuries of history in a region with pivotal implications. Gug01 (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've added a short section on North Africa; Roman identity appears to have disappeared more swiftly there than elsewhere, but there were interesting things to touch on. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I like the way you discussed it. Gug01 (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The section needs work on encyclopedic tone and concision, paralleling my earlier comments, so I'm not going to review it point-by-point for now. Gug01 (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Will wait with working on this until you've gone through it point-by-point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok! Gug01 (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Point-by-Point

Western Europe

@Ichthyovenator: I'm back and reviewing this section point-by-point! I hope school has been treating you OK; I've been quite busy the whole month of October but I finished a couple of major projects and am a bit more available now. Gug01 (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gug01: Glad to have you back! There's a lot to get through here but I'll try to be quicker with it this time around. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"a situation distinct, yet clearly evolved, from the society of late antiquity" - word choice; "evolved" unduly implies progress rather than simple change / origination. Either change the word choice or remove entirely; not sure this is necessary.

Removed this part, I agree that it is not necessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact, it's unclear what rulers' naming customs has to do with the Roman people directly. I get you're trying to use this as evidence to prove that Roman legitimacy and thus identity persisted in the West; still, the way it's written, especially as the first paragraph, it seems tangential. You can cut down most of the paragraph's details (there should be a separate article on naming conventions) and move the rest as supporting evidence. Gug01 (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the talk on Barbarian titles and naming customs entirely. I'll be saving this and other information that is interesting, but not strictly relevant to Roman identity, at User:Ichthyovenator/Roman people so that it might be incorporated elsewhere later. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"rarely used any ethnic qualifiers" -> "rarely used ethnic qualifiers"

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The second paragraph is also much too long. Once again, it's unclear how the nitty-gritty of consular titles and ERE vassal politics relate to Roman identity; remember, this is an article about the Roman people and Roman identity first and foremost, not a summary of post-Odoacer state politics. I would suggest cutting details from the paragraph by at least one-third.

"Had they gone to war with each other, which appeared likely several times, it is not impossible that one of the two would have re-established the Western Roman Empire under their own rule." - this is really interesting information and I hope it's found in Theodoric's and Clovis' Wikipedia pages; if there's enough evidence and content, maybe even an entire article on "diplomatic tensions / potential war between Theodoric and Clovis" should be opened; I'm confused what place it has in an article on Roman identity. It feels like - and this is 100% something I've also done before - got carried away with general Roman history, which makes sense, as it's fascinating, but doesn't serve this part of the article best. Gug01 (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I will work on cutting this down since I agree that naming customs are excessively discussed, but the threat of a Clovis vs. Theodoric showdown is relevant since this threat leads to the eastern empire beginning to assert itself as the only properly Roman state. Among other factors, the assertion of this ideology through Justinian's wars then leads to the gradual disappearance of Roman identity in the west. Ichthyovenator (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. As of now the article can make that thread much clearer. Gug01 (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

(response to both this point and the previous point) I've significantly reduced and combined the first two paragraphs - though it is geopolitics and not identity stuff, they now only contain what I believe to be crucial political developments that greatly affected Roman identity going forward. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Culturally and legally, Romans remained prominent in the west for centuries. Roman law continued to be used in Western Europe throughout the early Middle Ages.[96] For a time, Roman identity still provided a sense of unity throughout the Mediterranean." - combine these sentences, they sound choppy. Overall, this third paragraph is the kind of stuff I'd expect in a Roman people article over the content of the first two paragraphs. Gug01 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Combined and restructured. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Throughout the rule of Odoacer and then the Ostrogoths, the Roman Senate continued to function, and even dominated the politics of Rome" -> "Italy's Ostrogothic Kingdom preserved the Roman Senate, which often dominated politics in Rome, illustrating [EXPLAIN HOW THIS DEMONSTRATES THE CONSERVATION OF ROMAN INSTITUTIONS AND THUS CONTINUED SALIENCE OF ROMAN IDENTITY] ..."; concision. There are a lot of cases throughout the section where you can pinch words for readability. Gug01 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Reworked this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, I've generally noticed an overuse of the word "even" in this section, so please go through the section and eliminate unnecessary uses of the word. Gug01 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Removed some "even"s. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

In the third paragraph, you have a lot of extra anecdotal detail - the kind proper for a history paper but not so much an encyclopedia entry - like "A 731 law by the Lombard king Liutprand specifies that if a "Roman" married a Lombard wife, that wife and all children of the couple would become Roman and the wife's relatives would no longer have the right to sue her, perhaps an idea which seemed attractive to Lombard women who wanted to escape the control of their relatives." which I'd eliminate as tangential to Roman identity. Also, the article never explicitly states that Roman identity was held in high regard and Roman people occupied high social status, even though a lot of your evidence trends towards this direction; the paragraph is an example of too much granular evidence and not enough encyclopedic analysis. Gug01 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to cut down on the unnecessary details. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"A key development was the so-called "Justinianic ideological offensive", which involved a re-writing of 5th century history to portray the west as lost to barbarian invasions, rather than attempting to further integrate the barbarian rulers into the Roman framework" - this sentence becomes redundant with the third paragraph. Eliminate, and add a brief explanation of the Justinianic ideological offensive in the third paragraph, so you have to mention it only one time.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"but the ideology had also been asserted" - vague, rewrite

Rewrote and explained in more detail. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Roman identity in those regions experienced a dramatic decline" - "Roman identity in those regions declined dramatically"; concision is important and I again strongly encourage you to go through this section and pinch words like this wherever you can & I miss it Gug01 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Although the senate achieved a certain legacy in the west,[n] the end of the institution removed a group that had always set the standard of what Romanness was supposed to mean.[100] As a result of Justinian's wars, the Roman elite in Italy and elsewhere were also split between those who enjoyed barbarian rule and those who supported the emperor and later withdrew to regions governed by the empire, with Roman identity ceasing to provide a sense of social cohesion." - footnote n is great, and this information is critical and relevant for the article! Great work! Gug01 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it's interesting that in his attempt to restore the Roman Empire as it had been, Justinian essentially ended up destroying the afterglow of the old Roman world. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"The disappearance of Roman identity was accelerated by the political division into multiple kingdoms leading to the gradual fragmentation and splitting of Latin into what would develop into the modern Romance languages. The unifying Roman identity was replaced by local identities based on the region one was from.[101] Though many of the features of Romanness continued, such as language (though increasingly fragmenting), law, culture and literacy of Latin, their connectivity faded away.[17] Where Romans had once accounted for the majority of the population, such as in Gaul and Spain, they quietly faded away as their descendants adopted other names and identities.[101]" - these sentences are fragmented, confusing-to-read, and seem to all be trying towards the same idea. Rewrite, combine, and condense!

I see what you mean; I've tried to rework this part. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"By the year 800, when the Frankish king Charlemagne was crowned as Roman emperor in Rome, the first time an emperor had been crowned in the city since antiquity, Roman identity was largely gone in Western Europe and the Romans that remained had a low social status." - "By Charlemagne's coronation in 800, Roman identity largely disappeared in Western Europe and fell to low social status."

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Charlemagne actively hoped to suppress Roman identity to avoid the possibility that the Romans could proclaim a Roman emperor in the same way as the Franks could proclaim a king of the Franks" - is it historically accurate to replace Charlemagne with the Frankish state? Gug01 (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It is possible to argue that Charlemagne was the Frankish state, but yes, since this presumably also continued under his successors and he would have been unable to do anything without other officials onboard. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"the term 'Roman' became more and more associated by authors and intellectuals in Western Europe with the population of the city itself" - "Western European authors and intellectuals increasingly associated Romanness with the city itself" (passive -> active voice) Gug01 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Done the change. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"meaning that the political implications were still somewhat important" - political implications of what? This sentence needs to be tightened up and clarified. Gug01 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Reworked this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"accompanied, supported and legitimised" - add an Oxford comma

"constitutional identity" - a constitutional identity? What does that mean; "Constitution" as in the US Constitution? Gug01 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Reworked this - the point here is that the popes could use the fact that they were backed by the city's population as something that increased the legitimacy of their sovereignty as temporal rulers. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"The population of Rome and most of the rest of Western Europe saw Charlemagne and his successors, and not the Byzantines, as true Roman emperors" - you're framing this with a focus on regal politics rather than Roman identity (i.e. Western Europe associated Roman identity more strongly with Charlemagne and his successors over the Byzantines). Make sure to retain that focus on Roman identity & the people. Gug01 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"the Byzantines were typically seen as Greeks rather than Romans and were deemed to have abandoned Rome and Roman culture; not surviving intact but rather fleeing from their responsibilities" - "the Byzantines were typically seen as Greeks who had abandoned Rome and Roman identity" (concision edit)

"Were typically seen" by who? The peasants, the church, the political elite, or the intellectual elite? Or some combination of the above? Gug01 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"The prevalent view was that there used to be an empire, but that it had now transferred itself to the east and ceased to be properly Roman." delete Gug01 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Charlemagne's empire and the later Holy Roman Empire were not seen as Roman either per se, but the support of the Papacy and the Romans in Rome itself was seen as making the rulers of that empire into Roman emperors." - this contradiction can be further explained. How come the Romans saw Charlemagne as a legitimate Roman emperor yet not a Roman? Gug01 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've reworked this in the text but they were seen as Roman emperors in the sense of governing the Roman Empire, not in the sense of being emperors who were Romans. George I of Great Britain was German (not British) but could still be the King of the United Kingdom. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Despite this support, the Romans held a considerably dislike for the Franks, whom they equated with their most ancient enemies, often referring to them as the 'Gauls'. The Franks were considered aggressive, insolent and vain, and often a threat since Frankish armies coming to Rome was not an uncommon event." - collapse into one sentence, and remember to use Oxford commas! Gug01 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"In some cases, Frankish nobles are noted to have used the antiquated Frankish language when they did not want the Romans to understand them." - seems haphazard, perhaps delete

(response to the seven or so points above) I've reworked the entire last paragraph, these comments should be addressed and it should flow better now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Part of the bad reputation of the Romans probably resulted from sometimes trying to take an independent position towards the popes or the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, rulers seen as having universal power, and thus being considered intruders in affairs and questions that exceeded their competence" - important to include in this article! Wordsmith a little for concision, though. Gug01 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Reworked a bit, should flow better now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for some of these observations being a bit out of order, as I reread the section multiple times. I hope I've used enough direct quotations to make it clear what I'm referring to; if anything's unclear let me know.

No worries, everything is perfectly clear :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Consular diptych of Rufius Gennadius Probus Orestes," - this image and its caption are so powerful and great inclusions to the article!

Rufius Gennadius Probus Orestes was also the penultimate consul to ever be appointed by the original Roman Senate (only followed by Decius Paulinus) but that felt excessive to mention. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Personifications of (from left to right) the Slavic, German, Gallic (French) and Roman peoples, depicted as bringing gifts to Holy Roman Emperor Otto III" - I'd move this image a bit lower so that its bottom lines up with the last sentence of the section, which discusses how the Romans were seen as meddling in the affairs of universal rulers in a fashion above their competence Gug01 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It almost lines up now, not sure if I can get it to line up better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

As an overall point, this section needs a lot of work on concision/prose/wording. It also needs work on topicality - this is an article of Roman identity, not a summary of 6th-century politics! In that sense, the section is too broad. The section is also too narrow in the sense that Roman identity in Iberia and Britain are entirely missing. Gug01 (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've worked to rework what was here - let me know what you think. Iberia is mentioned here and there but I'll see if I can find more to add and if I can find anything on personal identity in post-Roman Britain. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Added a new sentence each on Iberia and Britain. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Presumably Roman identity was relatively potent in Iberia since there was a Roman general there in the 7th century powerful enough to attempt independence (Flavius Paulus - I wonder if some of the stuff in his article could be incorporated here). Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Since subdivisions work really well in the ERE section, perhaps consider subdividing into an "early Italy & Gaul" section, "late Italy & Gaul" section, and "Rome proper" section? I'm open to suggestions on this, of course. Gug01 (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I found it difficult to subdivide the section geographically and temporally since information is not really presented in a strict chronological or geographical order - I've divided it into "Early endurance of Roman identity", "Disappearances of Roman identity" and "Reversion to Rome proper" sections, let me know what you think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It would also improve the scope of the article for Roman identity in Spain, Britain, and the Balkans to be mentioned / briefly discussed, as these three regions were important components of Roman history and later world history too. A lot of Wikipedia articles could exist on Romano-Britain society after Rome's retreat; if that's the case, then a simple one-paragraph summary of what happened to the Roman people there and a section link to some other relevant articles would suffice. The same might also be true for Spain and the Balkans, though probably to a lesser extent. Gug01 (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

After your revisions, I reread the Western Europe section. It's so much better, and the section division works really well. Continuity and changes in Roman identity in Hispania is also much more clear in the new version. I fixed a few typos. One sentence still remains that doesn't quite fit into the flow and is a bit confusing:

"The Frankish state actively hoped to suppress Roman identity to avoid the possibility that the Romans could proclaim a Roman emperor in the same way the Franks could proclaim a king of the Franks.[104]" - in the context of the article, setting aside the explanations you've given me here as ordinary readers won't read the full extent of this page, this is still confusing given the Romans already have an emperor in the east, and feels like a tangent from the rest of the prose.

Other than that, this section is so great, and I'm really happy with how it turned out! Great work! Gug01 (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I've tried to rewrite the sentence so let me know what you think. If this isn't an improvement the sentence could be removed entirely. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

North Africa

"Unlike the other Germanic kingdoms that rose up in the former territory of the Western Roman Empire, the Vandal Kingdom in North Africa did not maintain any pretense of loyalty to the remaining empire in the east" - concision, especially with "remaining empire in the east" and "the other Germanic kingdoms that rose up in the former territory of the Western Roman Empire." Both phrases can be shortened. Gug01 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Shortened. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"adherance" -> "adherence" (spelling)

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Footnote r is hilarious! Great research!

Sometimes not being Roman could be an advantage :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"Throughout the early Middle Ages, the Germanic ruling classes of the new kingdoms in the west culturally and ethnically merged with the Romano-African populations they governed. Through many Romano-Africans adapting themselves to Vandalic identity, there were few cultural differences between a "Vandal" and a "Roman" in North Africa by the time of the kingdom's fall during the reconquest of Africa by the eastern empire," - you can shorten this, focusing especially on trimming long background phrases that merely orient the reader and don't actually discuss Roman identity. The flow of your paragraphs, with sentences connected, should also be worked to reduce reliance on these phrases.

For example, shorten "Germanic ruling classes of the new kingdoms in the west" to "the Vandal ruling class" since you're talking about Africa here, not Africa and Western Europe. That change alone saves quite a few words and makes the sentence quite more readable. Gug01 (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Also mitigate redundancy. The ideas of "culturally and ethnically merged" and "Romano-Africans adapting themselves" can probably be merged into a single sentence discussing cultural fusion (which seems to be what you're describing - the idea that the Vandal elite and Roman people grew towards a more similar, hybrid, middle-ground fusion of identity)

"invidiuals" - "individuals" (spelling)

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact, you should move the sentences about Romans and Vandals becoming more similar towards the section's end, as it breaks chronological flow and confuses the reader. Start by talking about how the Vandals didn't keep loyalty to Rome, then talk about how they gained legitimacy through Rome and Carthage, then talk about the profound effect on the formerly Roman populace (which segues nicely into Justinian's invasion) and merge this with the concept of Roman and Vandal identities fusing (eliminating redundancy).

How come the Vandals both appealed to Roman legitimacy and saw Roman identity as politically loaded? Perhaps the two processes occurred at different times under different rulers? Could you explain?

The contents of footnote S are really important. Bring them into this section's main prose!

Overall, this is a pretty good section, and a few sentence reorderings and some concision will make it excellent! Gug01 (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

(reponse to all above without responses of their own): I've reworked this section per your comments, let me know what you think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Once again, this is a great reworking!

These two sentences are a bit choppy: "By the time the kingdom fell, there were next to no cultural differences between a North African "Roman" (or "Libyan") and a "Vandal".[117] The only real differences that would have been obvious were that the Vandals adhered to Arian Christianity and were permitted to serve in the army.[118]"

Other than that, everything's great!! Gug01 (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I've combined the two sentences into a single and shorter sentence. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Eastern Mediterranean

"dEUS AdIUTA ROMANIS" - was the capitalization this inconsistent on the original coin? Gug01 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is the way it is written on the coins. Here are two clearer examples for reference: 1, 2. It's not strictly necessary to write it out in the same way in the caption so it could be changed to Deus adiuta Romanis if you think that's better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Image 2 it appears the "m" in "Romanis" also isn't capitalized. I think it's best to change to Deus adiuta Romanis as it's not an eyesore, can't be perceived as mistaken, and the coin's capitalization doesn't convey any real information to the reader (after all, this isn't a numismatics article). Gug01 (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"In the eastern Mediterranean, the Eastern Roman Empire, frequently referred to as the Byzantine Empire by modern historians, survived the 5th century more or less intact. As they remained inhabitants of the Roman Empire, the predominant identity in the east remained "Roman" (Rhōmaîoi)." -> "Eastern Mediterranean populations, which remained under Eastern Roman or Byzantine control after the 5th century, retained "Roman" as their predominant identity." (concision and grammatical clarity)

Is it appropriate to label "Romans" with the Hellenistic "Rhōmaîoi" term as early as the 6th century AD, when much of the East (especially Balkan regions) remained Latin-speaking?

I answered my own question from later in the article; "The late 7th century was the first time (in the writings of St. Anastasios the Persian) that Greek, rather than Latin, was referred to as the rhomaisti (Roman way of speaking)." - in other words, it's not necessarily appropriate to include Rhomaioi this early chronologically in the section.

Made the suggested change and removed this early mention of Rhōmaîoi. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"The Byzantine Empire was throughout its history frequently seen as "Greek", and its inhabitants as "Greeks", by Western Europeans.[130] One of the earliest references to the easterners as "Greeks" comes from Bishop Avitus of Vienne who wrote, in the context of the Frankish king Clovis I's baptism; "Let Greece, to be sure, rejoice in having an orthodox ruler, but she is no longer the only one to deserve such a great gift".[131]" - condense these two sentences and focus more on the ERE's identification as Roman above Greek/Hellene.

Done, I think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

In general, you can condense this section by eliminating a lot of primary evidence that would be great for a history paper but not needed for an encyclopedic entry. See "Western Europe" section for more examples of this.

"the terms "Greeks" and "Hellenes" were seen as offensive," - fascinating!

Indeed! One wonders what the old emperors would think if they knew that their lands were today divided between Turkey and Greece. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"In the 6th-century letters of the Frankish king Childebert II to Emperor Maurice, the emperor is referred to as princeps Romanae reipublicae.[15] " - not sure this sentence is necessary, you can allude to "western writers and rulers" in the previous sentence

Yeah, it's not necessary. Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Significantly condense the second half of the third paragraph (I'd say by around a half). I'd also overhaul the flow to keep the ideas that western writers recognized the ERE as a Roman state and its citizens as Romans, which are naturally linked, together; eliminate the anecdotal evidence in between. Gug01 (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Condensed and combined with the previous paragraph. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

In the fourth paragraph, the concepts of "people by constitution" and "gens" appear to be narrative lenses specific to the arguments of a few academic historians. The terms need more explanation; to do so, when writing, describe the concepts behind the terms first, and then attach the terms (this will hopefully help keep focus on the substance of Roman identity rather than defining academic narrative lenses).

I believe this is better handled now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

" who believed they shared a common origin, followed Orthodox Christianity and spoke the same Greek language" - ordering of clauses is a bit problematic; as written the sentence implies they merely believed they followed Orthodox Christianity (which may or may not be true; in contrast to the real world where the vast majority of the ERE was Eastern Orthodox).

Fixed ordering. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest subdividing the "Eastern Mediterranean" section into two clear subsections, one pre and one post Arab conquests. This is because the narrative naturally has a pretty clear dividing line - the end of the third paragraph. Gug01 (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"The capture of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204 shattered the Byzantine view of unbroken continuity from Rome to Constantinople." - as written it sounds like you're saying that the Fourth Crusade forced a historiographical reckoning, rather than literally ending Roman continuity by inserting a Latin Empire, Frankish-dominated interregnum. Rewrite and also briefly mention the capture of Constantinople "by non-Roman Franks" or something like that

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Shorten & condense sentences in the third-to-last paragraph as it gets hard to read.

Attempted to rework and restructure it a bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

From footnote T: "Some Byzantine authors went as far as to return to using 'Hellenic' and 'Greek' solely as terms for the ancient pagan Greeks." - add this in the main prose; it's important enough not to be relegated to the footnote section

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"One such narrative was the myth that the last emperor, Constantine XI Palaiologos would one day return from the dead to reconquer the city." - Were such narratives and pride in the former Byzantine Empire concentrated among the elite / upper middle classes, or did they penetrate deep into the peasant population as well? Worthwhile to add. Gug01 (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Added that it endured in Greek folklore (presumably much of the population being aware) for a very long time. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The last paragraph

delete " or "resurrected""

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

As a broader problem, it's unclear how the evidence actually ties into Roman identity, in particular the Greek chroniclers' reaction to the Russo-Turkish War's failure to live up to expectations, as wanting to restore the Roman Empire doesn't necessarily mean they identified as Roman. Rely less on direct quotes from anecdotal evidence pieces; you can paraphrase and/or cut a lot of this stuff and increase the article's readability without hindering quality.

I've relegated the more interesting anecdotes to a footnote and reworked this a bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Create a "post-ERE" subsection and place the last two paragraphs under it. Gug01 (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)~

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

There is room for improvement in the ERE section's pictures. "Scenes of marriage and family life in Constantinople" and "Emperor John I Tzimiskes (r. 969–976) celebrates a triumph after defeating Bulgaria" would be great for an article discussing the political/cultural/general history of this time period, but not so much for discussing the Roman people & identity. Perhaps eliminate these pictures and replace with even 1 picture that is much more relevant to the topic at hand. Gug01 (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Difficult to find a better image, but added one that at least shows very late insistence on being Roman. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The section reads so well now! I did a few minor copy edits; no other comments. Gug01 (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Modern identity

"The self-identity as Roman among the Greeks only began to lose ground by the time of the Greek War of Indepence, when multiple factors saw the name 'Hellene' rise to replace it." -> "Roman self-identification among Greeks only began losing ground with the Greek War of Independence, ..." Gug01 (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Focus a little more on the link between the terminological change to "'Hellene'" and Greece's pivot to identifying with ancient Greece over the ERE. Gug01 (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding more sources for this; is there anything in particular you feel is missing that I could search around for specifically? Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've added more. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"Roman identity showcased considerable tenacity." - changed "showcased" to "showed" Gug01 (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

"though these names have lost strength and Istro-Romanians often prefer other ones, most usually that of their native villages.[141]" -> "... and Istro-Romanians often identify with their native villages instead" Gug01 (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

See also

Perhaps add Roman Empire and Rise of Christianity? Gug01 (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Roman Empire is already linked in the article so IIRC should then not be in the "see also" section. I've added a link to Rise of Christianity at the section of Late Antiquity. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Round 2: Later History

I've made this new section just so the feedback is less cluttered and I can better follow what gets addressed. Gug01 (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

And I realized I haven't used this section at all lol! Still, just wanted to let you know, @Ichthyovenator:, that I've finished reviewing everything. We really only have to work on the "later history" section as everything else is great. The "later history" section, though, to be honest, doesn't currently meet the high standard of quality you've set in the rest of the article - but we can work to fix that! Gug01 (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Great! Yes, the section is a bit of a mess :) Hopefully we can a reach a state in which it flows better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I added a few comments to the Later History sections. Overall, it reads so much better; I like what you did with both prose and images! There are literally two revisions left for you to make, which are both minor; I promise I have nothing else. After that, I ask you generally read over the article and make any minor copy edits (ex. spelling) I might've missed. We've done a great job, and to be honest I think you should at least consider pushing for FA-status with this article! Gug01 (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gug01: I've responded to both comments above and tried to revise accordingly. I'd also like to thank you for the mammoth task of reviewing this article (the length of this page is approaching that of the article itself!) - the substantial improvements over the last two months are your doing. FA is definitely a possibility in the future, I don't think there are more extensive summarizations of the long history of Roman identity than this one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Everything is great! You flatter me, but this article - both its initial state and improved state - is really all thanks to your diligent research and writing! And it is now a Good Article! Gug01 (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Extra Citations

If, for whatever reason, you feel you need more scholarly books on the topic of Rome (not implying that's the case), I suggest you take a look at David Potter's Ancient Rome: A New History and Peter Brown's The World of Antiquity. If not, I suggest you still read these books just for leisure; they're academic, and also well-written and well-thought-out. Gug01 (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll definitely check these out in the future. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

About the revision

I did it. Which romance populations descend from such intermingling? 62.10.60.222 (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Quite unnecessary to remove text to ask a question. All romance populations descended from such intermingling, that's why they're called romance. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Catalan, and many more. Gug01 (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Latins

Hi Ichthyovenator, congratulations on bringing this to GA! It's been interesting to read this article. There is an issue however that I have noticed for a while now. How does this article stand regarding the article Latins (Italic tribe)? We could say that both are like different stages of the same people, but the articles are not linked or mention each other. There are various places to mention the Latins here, such as in "Originally only referring to the Italic citizens of Rome itself" at the lead. I also think that the Latins can give more to talk about the Romans as an ethnic group, since they were clearly one single ethnic group at start. I think the biggest expansion to integrate the Latins into this article should be done at "Founding myths and Romans of the republic", perhaps including a short mention of the inter-ethnic Roman–Latin wars. Some text would ideally also be added to the article about Latins so that it ends more like as a transition to this article. I can help with these proposals. What do you think? Super Ψ Dro 10:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Thank you! You're free to work on integrating this and Latins (Italic tribe) more closely if you want. I think it is important to note that whereas the early Romans were Latins, "Roman" as a term meant a inhabitant of Rome (i.e. not necessarily a Latin one, though almost all of them probably were), and also that from the point when the Romans expanded out of Latium it is no longer possible or appropriate to describe the Romans as all being Latins. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I've expanded a bit the article. It does not follow a chronological line, and it talks about the first centuries of Rome very briefly, so I didn't add too much on the Latins. I've tried to make the new info fit fluidly in the paragraph, but it could maybe be better. Please make any fixes that you regard necessary. I will also write a bit about the Romans on the article about the Latins. Super Ψ Dro 13:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: I think the addition was good but I separated it so that the first paragraph is now solely on foundation myths and the Latins are now discussed in the second paragraph which I think becomes clearer since the third paragraph also sort of continues on the theme of Roman expansion begun in the discussion on the Latins. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Terminology

Why does an article entitled "Roman people" begin in its opening sentence, "The Romans were a cultural group..."?

Are "Roman people" and "The Romans" the same thing? In this article, "The Romans" appears around 40 times, and "Roman people" appears around 4 times, despite being the article title. Either, this article should be titled "The Romans", or the connection should be explained between "Roman people" and "The Romans".27.32.145.157 (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The concept of "Roman people" is not very common. "Romans" is common and can mean two things:

1)the citizens of the city of Rome.

2)the citizens of the empire of Rome.

To clarify, these are two sides of the same coin, point 2 logically follows point 1. In antiquity, "citizenship" meant belonging to a specific city (you could also have more than one citizenship). So at the time of the empire of Rome, "Romans" strictly meant "citizens of Rome [the city]": inheriting or acquiring Roman citizenship meant that the capital of the empire was legally your home and you had many rights and privileges associated with this fact (some you had to exercise by going to Rome, such as voting or appealing to the Emperor; others were privileges you had throughout the empire because you, as a citizen of Rome, were part of of the city that ruled the empire). More broadly, and this is point 2, "Romans" meant "citizens of the Roman empire", who were distinguished from the various indigenous peoples in the empire for having the above rights and privileges (progressively all the indigenous natives become "Romans", so "Romans" gets constrasted with the "barbarias" who live outside of the empire or migrate in it).

In the East, the latter meaning (Romans as citizens of the Roman empire) became dominant as Constantinople and not Rome was their capital, surviving the fall of Rome itself into the hands of Odoacer and of the Ostrogoths, so the people there continued to call themselves Romaioi (Greek for Romans) until 1453.

In the city of Rome, the former meaning (Romans as inhabitants of the city of Rome) survived the fall of the empire in the West and of end of the Roman civilisation in general, as it continued to be used down to this day.

So "Roman" has always been a denomyn and/or a legal status. This article, with its title, takes a weird approach and fails to clarify this aspect.Barjimoa (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)