Talk:Roman Italy

Untitled
Should this page be moved to "Italia (Roman region)" or "Italia (Roman diocese)"? The title seems a bit of a misnomer, as there was never a single Roman "province" of Italia. --Abou 16:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My proposal is renaming this "Italia (Roman Empire) - the use of "province" look awkward as it was the heart of the empire and never a province officially --Korovioff 19:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And how might this article differ from Roman Italy in scope, I have to wonder? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Errors
Thank you for your contribution Neby. However there are some errors: the Augustus regiones formalize anything... moreover, these districts had no administrative function, probably in the beginning, regiones were only used to organize censuses. At the beginning, the Lex Julia granted the rights of the cives romani to all socii states that had not participated in the Social War or who were willing to cease hostilities immediately, but after the conclusion of the war, Roman citizenship was extended to all of the Italian Socii states. All italic peopels, not mostly of them... Finally. I think it is wrong to delete the most important characteristic of Italia: Italy's status as a territory distinct from the Roman provinces. It is an universally known fact...I'm surprised you did not know this. --Diegriva (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, Diegriva, I know very well that Italy wasn't a province. I'm sorry you thought otherwise. What I was at pains to correct was the erroneous suggestion that Italy was Roman territory throughout the period of the Republic. I hope you still find the lede acceptable without that. I look forward to reading Keaveney's account of the extension of citizenship in the decade after the Social War - do you recommend it? I am not quite sure what you mean by "the Augustus regiones formalize anything..." nor your dismissal of the census as if a mere counting of heads. Do you think it is utterly inappropriate to show the map of Augustus's organisation and the listing taken from Pliny, as the article does at present.? I haven't touched that part. NebY (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Italy (Ancient Rome) → Roman Italy – Assuming that the current title is not quite correct ("Ancient Rome" is also the name of the city), as well as the other redirects ("Roman province" or "Roman Empire"), I think this is the best option for three reasons: 1) It isn't an ambiguous title; 2) It maintains the standard used in Roman Britain or Roman Gaul; 3) It's actually supported by several sources (see Further reading). Enok (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - best and most natural option. Also concise. Red Slash 21:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support; the points 1 and 2 are especially persuasive.Aldux (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Relevance of reverted information
I have three questions for User Enok about these |his recent reverts:


 * why the mention of the "Lex Roscia" and the info about the abolition of province Gallia Cisalpina in 42 BC and its incorporation to the administration of Italy should be "not relevant" to the article;
 * why the sourced description of the successive enlargements of the territory of Roman Italy under Augustus after 42 BC would constitute "Italian Nationalism";
 * why he has removed references to previously unsourced informations;

Of course, other interested users are also welcome here to give their opinion. Alex2006 (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) That paragraph describes the use of the term "Italy"; all Italian provinces (not just the Cisalpine Gaul) became part of the administration of Italy only during the time of Augustus.
 * 2) The Aosta Valley did not even exist at that time; it's a clear reference to the current Italian borders. Also, it was not part of the Roman Italy (see both the maps inside the article).
 * 3) What?!
 * --Enok (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Which would be these other "Italian provinces"? 42 BC (which is not "the time of Augustus", which starts in 27 BC, but still the time of the Republic) is crucial for the integration of Cisalpine Gaul into Roman Italy, since the removal of the proconsular administration gave to the region the same status as the rest of the peninsula. The concession of the roman citizenship under Caesar with the Lex Roscia has not the same importance, since at that time there were already since a long time several roman colonies outside the peninsula, but this did not mean that they were part of Italy.
 * 2) My additions complete the information about the expansion of the definition of the territory considered Italy. Before Augustus, the borders of "Italy" were set at the southern foot of the Alps. Aosta Valley (which is a geographical definition: BTW, to remove the geographic anachronism I wrote "today`s") western and central Alps, and the eastern regions up to Istria were not part of Italy, but were (partly) annexed under Augustus. Without these addition, there is a "hole" in the narration between republican "Italy" and the later addition of the major islands.
 * 3) You removed the info about the Lex Roscia, the correction about the southern foot of the Alps, and the reference which I introduced. Now the sentence about Caesar is wrong, since the Alps were not part of the Roman state (see what I wrote above).
 * Alex2006 (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request declined
About your Third Opinion request: I'm a regular volunteer at 3O. The request made there for a third opinion has been removed because all requests for moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia, including 3O, must be thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. With only one comment by Enok, the discussion here cannot be seen to be thorough. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Historiography Issues
Despite the difficulties in titling this article, it has really good information not easliy found elswhere. I would question whether Constantine didn't found Constantinople as a new capital. Surely that was his intention in some way, even if the city did not for several decades have the full institutional trappings that Old Rome had (probably only to placate the old aristocracy on the Tiber). Certainly Constantine wanted to call the city New Rome, even if the name never became popular. Either way, the sentence on Clarii becoming Clarissimi seems garbled. The article on Constantinople itself seems pretty good on this if one reads the whole thing (the opening paragraph doesn't quite get it right, I think).

The administrative division of the Empire following the death of Theodosius I did not create two Empires, and it would be good to find a way to express that succinctly. Further, if one calls the western half "Western Roman Empire", then the eastern half should be called "Eastern Roman Empire" as "Byzantine Empire" is not really expressive politically or culturally of the "Eastern Roman Empire" in the period 395-476 CE which is the context here. "Byzantine Empire" here encourages the idea of two completely separate political entities during this time period, as well as the more fully "easternized" culture that, though already nascent, most would associate with developments, at the earliest, in the later 5th century or even the reign of Justinian. Eastern/Western Roman Empire is probably a better approach in the context of this article.

Finally, there could be more sourcing on this page.

Those who observe and care for this interesting article, please let me know your thoughts before I take on these issues.

43hellokitty21 (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge State of Rome
Propose to merge State of Rome -> Roman Italy; the articles are essentially about the same thing (Roman administrative division of Italia).GreyShark (dibra) 10:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree. State or Rome is a useful catch-all term historians use to refer to the Roman state continuity in its totality, or I should say for all of its phases collectively - i.e. Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, Roman Empire and even Roman imperial remnants (1204-1475 CE) taken together. Essentially you can use the term to refer to the entire state continuity that existed from April 753 BCE to December 1475 CE (i.e. from the founding of the city of Rome to the fall of the Principality of Theodoro), continuity that lasted unbroken for almost 2228 years. A separate article should remain for it, and that article should be expanded. 137.82.108.34 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Change the name of the article to ITALIA (which refers specifically to the administrative unit) and the problem is solved. Barjimoa (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Or probably a compromise is to change the title to Italy (Roman State). Barjimoa (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Ahem, an article that begins with the statement "State of Rome (Roman State) refers to Ancient Rome as a nation-state" (emphasis mine), is in deep trouble. Whoever wrote this has not the foggiest idea what a nation-state is, and what the Roman state was. The article mixes up a set of completely different things into a weird melange. The best solution would be to simply delete it, it offers nothing but confusion to Wikipedia readers. On the name of the present article, Italy was not the Roman state and the Roman state was not Italy. The article makes clear how the concept and definition of Italy evolved, and how it gradually came to encompass the entire peninsula, parts of which remained colonial/provincial until the Empire. So "Roman Italy" as a long-standing, descriptive term, is definitely fine. Constantine  ✍  08:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support and, as I said, the best solution for me is to have Italy (Roman State) or just ITALIA as redirect to this article. Italy was out of the provincial system and counting the provinces as Roman State isn't correct unless we force the concept of modern nation-state to the whole Roman Empire. Several historians have argued that Italy in Roman times was a pre-modern state (still not a nation-state). The same can't be said for Gaul or Palestine, they were pre-modern colonies. At least not until Late Antiquity, when "Rome" became a system of government. Barjimoa (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

New issue
Aside from the previous one on the title a new issue has emerged. Someone has changed the lead removing the information that Italy was the homeland of the Romans. Let's reach a consensus here (on both lead and title). For now I've reverted the change on the lead made without consensus and added various sources that describe Italia (the peninsula) as the homeland of the Romans who were a mix of Latin, Sabine and possibly Etruscan peoples. But I won't rechange the title, cause I'll wait for a consensus as I have been suggested.(Tho ITALIA is the best option imho) But regarding the birthplace of the Roman civilisation, there's pretty established historical evidence. Rome originated in the Italian peninsula

Barjimoa (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

"Rome originated in the Italian peninsula" True, but "homeland of the Romans" makes it sound as if everyone with Roman citizenship was from the Italian Peninsula. Which is far from true. Dimadick (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The concept of a common birthplace is more related to etnicity rather than citizenship in Roman sources like Cato's origines. So I don't read that homeland as referring to citizenship. But still, Roman citizenship also originated in the Italian pensinsula, first only for Rome and then for the rest of the Italic peoples (wheter they were in Italy or settled in provices). So it would be fine anyway. But the problem does not arise since the lead says "classical antiquity". Of course things have a development in Late antiquity but that's explained in the article. Barjimoa (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Augustan organization
Shouldn't "Regio" also be written in italics? JackkBrown (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)