Talk:Romanization (cultural)

Good Article Start
This is a good article start, but it needs sectioning, as well as sources.

--Masamax 11:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but realize that I started this article day 10. I am quite amazed that soo many are interrested in improving this article Flamarande 12:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there's too much focus on the military part, while Romanization should be more worked out culturally... --GX 26 January 2006

Hmmm, notice that without the military part there wouldn´t be any Romanization and it was done for political and military reasons, but yes, I agree with you, and when I have the energy I will include more cultural stuff. Flamarande 17:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The military seems to be the focus here. And this was the case, but the adaptation had more to do with the permanent settlements established ex post facto than local cooperative leaders being grafted to the Roman elite. That is, it took grunt soldiers to disseminate Roma nculture to the common folk. Anyway, a nice start. I will enjoy helping to shape this up with gusto! Also, Roman law did not always simply replace local law. In many cases, at least early on, if local laws and customs could not resolve a problem, the inhabitants were then free to take their problem to the Roman authorities. Im no expert, so Ill have to back that up, but it is my understanding thus far.--Cjcaesar 14:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor word change
This is a really minor thing but I see it a lot and it's quite annoying. This article mentions a "proverbial Roman" who would worship Jupiter but accept the existence of Amon. There's no proverb that mentions this, nor is there a common fable, parable, folk tale, or anything of the like. I'm changing "proverbial" to "average," and I recommend that if other users see similar uses of the word they change them as well. Zhankfor

Outdated views
This article gives an incredibly dated view of Romanization. The concept has been the subject of considerable work by the likes of Christian Goudineau, Greg Woolf and Jane Webster. I'll probably be coming back to change this in the not too distant future... Harthacanute 21:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I made this article from scratch and most of the books that I have don´t discuss alltoo much, but I hope it is better than nothing. Fell free to improve the article. Don´t forget to include your sources in the references (I might buy some of these books) Flamarande 09:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

this is only the tradition view of Romanisation which is heavily debated and critised. there are many other ideaologies surrounding the subject and here are some examples if you wish to go further with the subject:

Positive Romanisation Hybrid Romanisation Post-colonial Romanisation

in addition, to the sources above two other authors worth reading are the works Hingley and Wells Barbarian Speak. this is a subject you really need to know your suff to write about and i myself would not rank myself as one of them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.191.52 (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This article seems to be extremely biased and favors the Romans. There are different forms of Romanization, not just Romanization by conquest. In many cases it was. However, when talking about Germanic Romanization, it was often migrating Germanic tribes raiding Roman-controlled areas and adopting Latin features for themselves. Also, many places the Romans conquered kept most of their cultural identity in tact, such as the Egyptians. This article only discusses forced Romanization by conquest, which is neither fair to say nor accurate, and it should definitely be changed. Ceejus 09:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Any report summarising mainstream published material in this vein would make an addition to the article.--Wetman (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Dacia
Please see "Romance languages" and "Romanian language" articles for supportive information to include Dacia as a "most Romanized region" in this article. -- Gaston200 (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism
Could not Roman Catholicism be seen as a continuation of the Roman Empire, and as a form of Romanization? After all, it is centered in Rome, believes that a Roman Bishop is the supreme head of Christianity, and the spread of Roman Catholicism correspondes with the spread of a Latinized "Western" cultural mindset to the extinction of native views, and generally the spread of the Romance languages, all based on Latin. Poland (heavily Catholic) was writing Latin literary works into the 19th Century. The nobility of Lithuania believed that it was descended from the Romans, and that Lithuanian was a morphed Romance tougue. Excluding Ireland, the spread of Roman Catholicism corresponds fairly neatly with the spread of the Western Cultural sphere in a Romanophile form. --71.240.142.157 (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Strange sentence
"As it cannot be used to explain, Romanization should only be used as a theoretical tool with which to approach the Roman Provinces and not as an archaeologically verifiable process.[citation needed]"
 * AFAIK, this sentence doesn't make any sense, it seems just a POV, which doesn't seem accurate at all, as Romanization is visible in archaeological finds. Shouldn't this be removed? --Pedro (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)