Template talk:Roman provinces AD 117

It says circa 120 AD; the link clealry goes to 117 AD, when Mesopotamia was a province. And I agree that those missing privnces need a page of their own, but until they get one, it's beteter to have them link to something than be empty. Kuralyov 23:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite a source for Mesopotamia as province in 120? It is not present in Roman_province#List_of_Roman_provinces_in_117_AD, nor in Image:Roman Empire Map.png--Panairjdde 07:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Look at the articles on Trajan (the emperor who conquered Mesopotamia) and Hadrian (the emperor who released it). Plus, here are some sites:

• Roman Empire at largets extent
• Rome's Desert Frontier
• Wars between the Jews and Romans
• Rome's Persian Mirage

And there are many other sources out there; these were just the first returns. Kuralyov 11:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, so it is necessary to find a source with the whole list of roman province around 117/120, and rewrite the template and the list in roman provinces. Are you going to do that? We can't keep provinces from differents periods. --Panairjdde 17:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no provinces here are out of date with each other. I don't know why whoever made that list kept Mesopotamia out, especially since the year 117 is known due to the fact that the Roman Empire reached its largets extent then, with Trajan's capture of Armenia and Mesopotamia.Kuralyov 02:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not understand well your answer. Are you saying that all the provinces in the template (with Mesopotamia) where those actually established in 120 AD? Furthermore, I noticed that in 117 AD Hadrian became emperor, and gave up Mesopotamia and Armenia, so Mesopotamia should be removed from the list - it was a Roman province for less that five years!--Panairjdde 08:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Corduene

Here is the reference for Corduene being a province of Roman Empire: Corduene; a fertile and friendly province, which acknowledged the sovereignty of Rome[1]. To verfiy that it was a Roman Province at 120 AD, check here [2]. Between 47-252 AD it was a province of Rome.Heja Helweda 04:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Corduene was not a Roman province in 120 ad. If you search in google, you will see the only links that say so are the mirrors of Wikipedia. 85.96.105.94 06:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the source for the timeline of Gordyene (Corduene) [3]. This is not a wiki mirror.Heja Helweda 22:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

and where does your source mention that Corduene was a Roman province in 120 a.d in this link? Please stop adding false information to wikipedia.

Here To the Roman Empire.................................47-252[4], I suppose 120 is between 47 and 252 :).Heja Helweda 17:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Pisidia

Is there any source for Pisidia being a Roman province about 120 AD? It's neither in Image:Roman_Empire_Map.png, which Roman province says shows the situation after 120, nor in Image:Roemischeprovinzentrajan.png. Wikipeditor 10:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Template reorganization

There are a few things wrong in this template, as it stands now. It covers the territorial extent of the Roman Empire ca. 120 pretty well, but not its actual administrative structure. It includes several provinces that did not exist in 120 AD (Trajan's Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia in particular) or that had been divided in smaller ones (Pannonia and Moesia) or not yet divided (Lycia and Pamphylia) or split off from larger ones (Armenia Inferior, Pisidia and Numidia), as well as territories under Roman rule, but not constituted as provinciae but ruled either by the military or by client kings, such as Taurica, Osrhoene and Sophene (to which one should also perhaps add the Agri Decumates). I propose eliminating the incorrect provinces, and creating a separate section for the Roman-administered, but not of "province" status, territories. Any comments? Cplakidas (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Latin

Why not use English names? I have no idea where some of these are unless I click them 84.216.44.45 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This template should show the "highwater mark"

Hy there. This template is currently being used to show the Roman empire at its territorial height. However because of the chosen date: 120 AD (or is it 117 AD? - that's really confusing) it lacks a couple of provinces. I suggest that we change the date so that we can include all the conquest of Trajan. Thanks Flamarande (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Despite the template's name, it does already portray the provinces for 117 AD. That's because in its earlier form, which was supposed to show the provinces of 120 AD, it included every region and territory controlled by the Roman Empire, but not the actual provinces (see the section Template reorganization). After no one responded, I simply changed the template to reflect the state of 117 AD, since it made more sense to have the actual territorial maximum of the RE rather than an arbitrary date. The only thing that needs to be done would be simply to change the name of the template. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved towards a better name

I moved the template towards a better name (and improved all relevant articles). Let's face it: the template is used to show the "highwater mark", therefore the name of the template itself should reflect this. Flamarande (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone objected or will object to that :) The move was long overdue, well done...Constantine ✍ 13:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the rename to be not (117) but (at its greatest extent)? Also the map isn't referenced! Aregakn (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think an accordin move to "Roman provinces (at its greatest extent)" is also required. Aregakn (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, 117 AD is generally considered to be "greatest extent", so it would be somewhat redundant. Also, while the old map was unreferenced, the new one is utterly wrong as regards provincial boundaries and in depicting Caucasian Albania, Iberia and even Media (!!!) to have been Roman provinces... The Alpic provinces are absent, the entirely fictitious province of Vindelicia appears, the Spanish and Gallic provinces are absent, in short, it is not an accurate map to use for depicting Roman provinces. These borders I have seen in maps were made in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but they do not correspond to the actual situation in any way. More importantly, the former map includes major cities, and the senatorial/imperial divisions. I also know that its creator, Andrei Nacu, went into considerable effort to get it right. I therefore revert to the previous version. Constantine ✍ 11:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the provincial bordering and gradation of those are not seen in the map. And I also agree to the Colchis, Iberia and Albania comment, though those were client or vassal states of the Roman province of Armenia Major at that time and the Armenian Major king still bore the crown of the Emperor (passed by the Parthian). So in one way or an other they were dependent on Rome. But anyway, your comments are correct in this regard. Media was not included as a province, but colored. You can see, that on Mesopotamia, Media etc, it is mentioned to belong to the Parthian Empire. Anyway, I do see that the 117 map is better for this, although the personal knowledge of the creator does not assure, that the unreferenced work can be used and that it is correct. If you could contact Andrei to join the discussion on his page about it, we'd be graetful. He has been absent for quite a long time.

As for the name 117 AD, I don't think that the readers will remember or understand it in the sense "at its greatest extent". Many might just say "why would I be interested in the provinces of Rome only in 117 AD?" and we'd just lose readers. I still consider that about the "extent" would be a better phrase to use to attract more attention from the readers. Aregakn (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to change the navbox title, no problem. But the navbox itself does not have to be moved to a new name, that's what I am saying. For the map, unfortunately Andrei is apparently retired. However the map is accurate as far as I can tell, even if it is unreferenced (except for Moesia Inferior extending across the Danube, which I am not sure about). There are several older maps in the internet on Roman provinces (W. Shepherd's is probably the best among them). I also have the province maps from the Westermann Atlas zur Weltgeschichte, which is one of the best such books in the world, and they pretty much agree. Constantine ✍ 11:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

1) I am sorry, but I cannot agree on any unreferenced (at all) content on an Encyclopedia. This map violates such a basic rule as WP:V (leave alone possibly OR and SYNTH) so it can in no way be used.

2) I do not agree that the map is accurate; it has at least several wrong borders and naming on wrong territories. Look at Iberia and the borders of Armenia M. as a least.

3) I didn't see that region in the map you suggested

4) I do not see why the naming of the navbox if fine but the move wouldn't seem appropriate. Can you explain? Aregakn (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we both agree with 1), but given copyright constraints, we have to make use of what we have freely available in WP or Commons. Consequently, replacing the current map, even if it is unreferenced and contains some mistakes, with another that is far more inaccurate, is not really a solution. If you can find or create a suitably licensed, verifiable map, then OK. I've intended to make such a map myself, along the lines of my 400 AD map, but haven't found the time for it. Perhaps the best solution would be to ask for help in the map workshop. For 3), which region are you talking about? About 4), I did not say it was inappropriate, merely unnecessary. No problem if you move it, it's just not required for the template to include the "maximum extent" thing. Constantine ✍ 13:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you have not noticed that the map I offered was referenced to an academic source. Can you please check once more? There were changes made to the map to clear it up from small writings as several editors pointed our, that it was not easy to read. So given this, the argument of copyright constraints isn't applicable. It'd be fine to me to use the scanned map too as it is downloaded to Wiki as well.

One more thing, yes, we have to make use of what we have freely in WP, but the created images are required to be referenced in either way.

The (3) was about the region I pointed out I saw inaccuracies in with the current map.

Of course the move isn't a need, but I thought it was correct to have the naming as in the title. I did not see the need of 117 AD in the name. It is also possible to have it without any date or details at the end "Roman Provinces". There's only a template "Late Roman provinces". Well, anyways. I'll change the title only for now. Aregakn (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The map you offered is unsuitable, plain and simple. For one, it shows geographical regions rather than provinces, which at the current resolution can hardly even be discerned. Even then it does a poor job of it: Vindelicia was never a province, Dacia looks more like Greater Romania than the actual extent of the Roman province, there are several errors regarding provincial boundaries (Crete and Cyrenaica should be joined, so should Lycia and Pamphylia, the borders of the Illyricum and Macedonia are wrong, etc). Even more importantly, the map is labeled "greatest extent in the 3rd century", and then goes on to include all of Armenia and Mesopotamia, provinces existing only in 115-117! The map may come from an atlas (the "academic source" part I can't really find, there is no indication that the map was made by a university or even a professional historian), but it should be rejected out of hand for the purposes of this template. It would be useful in showing the major geographical regions of the Mediterranean world in the first centuries AD, but not for the Roman provinces.

"the created images are required to be referenced in either way" no, unfortunately they are not required to, and most of them are not. This is a requirement for Featured Articles, but not for the maps or other images used anywhere else. For the name, the problem is that 117 AD is one of the "greatest extent" points, even if the most popular. AFAIK, at least another "maximum extent" point has been proposed by several authors for ca. 210, when Osroene and Mesopotamia were taken by the Severans, and held for far longer than the ephemeral conquests of Trajan in the East. The date also needs to be mentioned, as not everyone is as familiar with Roman history to make the connection. Constantine ✍ 13:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Good to have noted issues but I cannot comment the published source, and I don't think editors can, if there are no other RSs supporting the other being defective. But it is certain the map is used by universities (linked to it), even if (don't know) not published by one.

Maybe I cannot convince you that images have to be referenced, but I am sure the "Image captions are subject to this (OR) policy no less than statements in the body of the article" in WP:OI. Please read it.

Agreed on your title change. Aregakn (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, to put it simply, if we have two maps, both with some errors, and the one is from a wrong time period and shows not the provinces but the geographical regions, then logic dictates we use the other, which was created for the very specific purpose of illustrating the Roman provinces in the year in question. If there are any errors, these can be corrected, even by us. So let's compile a list of errata and either ask Andrei to fix them or fix them ourselves. Constantine ✍ 16:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is why, when you said you know Andrei yourself, I asked if there was a way to invite him to this discussion. Of course the correction of his map would be a better idea a priori. But my only "problem" with it is, that I don't know the sources he used for its creation and so I cannot reference it in one way or another and it will still be not varifiable. Aregakn (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I know Andrei as a user, having provided him with corrections in the past and having observed the effort he put into his maps. I don't know him personally (unfortunately). As for referencing, as I said, we don't really need to know what sources Andrei used. I have several maps, quite authoritative ones, which largely agree with Andrei's map. Bear in mind, this map is supposed to be a generic overview for the uninitiated, i.e. it doesn't go down to the level of showing us in which side of the provincial boundary village X or lake Y was. With this proviso, the present map works quite well IMO. If you find any specific error, I can easily edit it myself. Constantine ✍ 11:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have read the regulation of WP:OR I presented here (WP:OI and considered the WP:V, I don't think you can say we don't need referencing. it is a must for WP.

'd like to see those maps pls. Can you send them to my e-mail please?

I didn't want lakes and valleys and the map I presented was not about lakes and villages. I talked of some provincial borders being wrong and names being wrongly put in some places.

If you download this map and reference them to those sources you have as well as make the necessary changes, I think we can use it.

As for Andrei, he really did a lot of work! Aregakn (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)