Talk:Roman Empire

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

More places[edit]

I don't have the time right now, but there are a large number of other places to cover, including Caesarea in Israel, various places in North Africa, Brindisi, and of course numerous ruins in Rome, especially the Forum. There's also an amphitheatre in Spoleto, Gallo-Roman ruins in Cimiez, the older, hillier part of Nice - just to name a few.

But we also have too consider whether to include attractions like the Museo Archeologico in Naples, which is not itself an ancient Roman building but has the biggest and best assemblage of relics from all the neighboring Roman towns that were buried under volcanic ash in the same eruption that annihilated the people of Pompeii and Herculaneum (those two towns are of course very well represented among the relics, but there are also great pieces from other towns). Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Museums with extensive collections should be included, as well as Roman arcaeological sites in Africa and the Middle East. /Yvwv (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which museums offer reenactment or living history? I have been to Cambodonum (Kempten) way back when and think they also offer stuff like Roman food at least to special occasions, but I am not even close to sure. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be nice Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autun[edit]

I have to leave for a rehearsal, but Autun should be mentioned. It was called Augustinium in Roman times and has Roman walls and one or more guard towers in good condition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of listings[edit]

There are a lot of listings, and I would think more are coming. Should we divide the listings by country? I think so; what about you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about it; maybe it would be more elegant to divide them by Imperial provinces? It's a suggestion. Ibaman (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a sweet idea, providing we can include a map showing those provinces clearly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's work on it. Meanwhile, I started dividing them by modern country, so it will not show so disorganized. Ibaman (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like the divison by province. Were their borders more or less stable during the "golden era" of the empire? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We could use the "greatest extension" division that was achieved under emperor Trajan:
The Roman Empire at its greatest extent, under Trajan (117); imperial provinces are shaded green, senatorial provinces are shaded pink, and client states are shaded gray

[unindent] What are the differences between imperial and senatorial provinces, and do we want to go into that in the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as long as we're using modern countries, in what order should they be? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know. I'm trying to mantain a pattern of geographical and historical coherence. Italy should come first. Ibaman (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on Italy being first. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Italy first and then the rest of the countries 1. clockwise (from 12 o'clock) starting with Austria, Slovenia etc. or 2. from west to east (because you read text from left to right)? Just some suggestions. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Guide[edit]

I'm changing this article's status to Usable, because there is already clearly enough information for someone to be able to use it. I feel like this article is coming along very nicely.

What else is needed? I'd like to see this eventually be featured as an FTT. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FTT would be nice, although I can already see the debate happening on whether we should feature something that is neither a destination, nor a travel topic applying to every destination. But that is a question for another time... Another nice thing to add would be some specific things to do or eat. I dimly recall that even the rather small university of Erlangen had some Roman themed things in their archaeology department during one special event. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Things to do: Gladiatorial combat? haha, but seriously, what would we put there? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More information in the history section would be desired, and more information about attractions in Rome. /Yvwv (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are events similar to "medieval" markets, only with a Roman theme. You can probably bath Roman style in some places (Bath maybe?) And there is probably a lot of Roman style drinking and eating going on. And just trying on a toga (a rather cumbersome garment, or so I've heard) is a thing to "do" is it not? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal for the Do section : The German Limes Road. When I find some time I will expand on the article, but feel free to start without me :-) . --Traveler100 (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph in Undestand could perhaps be more explicit about what kinds of Roman structures/ruins you still can see today; temples, aqueducts, amphitheatres etc. Some (5-10?) really big and famous Roman events (sure there are some?) could go in Do, together with Roman style eating and drinking as Hobbit mentioned. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I was in Budapest, I went to the baths at the Hotel Gellert in Buda. They have neo-Roman mosaics, but though I remember they had a few different levels of warmth much like Roman baths did, I'm not sure they aren't more in the nature of what are considered Turkish baths today. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roman revival[edit]

Did Napoleon see himself as some kind of continuation or revival of Rome? If so, let's clarify that. If not, the fact that he had himself crowned as Emperor doesn't seem so relevant to this article and should be encapsulated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of just one person who saw himself as a new Roman emperor, but he was Italian, bald, and functioned about 130 years later than Napoleon. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to w:First French Empire: "After this, in four campaigns, the Emperor transformed his "Carolingian" feudal and federal empire into one modelled on the Roman Empire. " Though Napoleon was still "Emperor of the French People". ϒpsilon (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the Holy Roman Empire. My readings suggest that Charlemagne wasn't immediately enthusiastic about the Papal blessing, but he did embrace it, and the founding of a neo-Roman Empire that ended up conquering much of Europe was definitely an important milestone in the history of Western and Central Europe, feudalism and the Middle Ages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to read those historical sources cum grano salis always. After all, there is (afaik) only one source describing the events of Christmas day 800 in any detail and there the events are described in a way that suggests Karl did not know or approve of the pope's plans to crown him emperor. However, the source in question is rather sympathetic to him and may have been trying to tell the medieval audience something other than the immediate facts. Still, being crowned emperor when there already was one (in Constantinople) created a major diplomatic kerfuffle for scant tangible benefit... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etruscan sites[edit]

The Etruscans' existence and civilization preceded ancient Rome, and they were major rivals of Rome until they were conquered. But in this article, we're listing Etruscan sites. I think that's an error, partly because there were so many Etruscan sites that we could have an entire article about them alone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Etruscan sites may be plentiful by sheer number, but they don't have same draw and number of travelers visiting just because of them... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Have a look through this list of Etruscan cities. Do people visit Arezzo just because it's in Etruria? Perhaps not, but its Archeological Museum is great and has wonderful Etruscan relics. Besides, whoever is ignoring Etruscan sites and art is making a big mistake. Their art is wonderful, and quite distinct from Roman art. For one thing, they had much more equality between the sexes, as you can see from scenes of couples talking with their hands over dinner in Etruscan stelae. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Travel Topic candidate?[edit]

This article has developed beyond expectations. Can it be a Featured Travel Topic? Are there any objective criteria? /Yvwv (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • it's not very finished yet. As I see, the Eat and Drink sections merit some development; the reenactments, carnivals and historic festivals should feature in Do (I've been incorporating the ones I know about in their respective sites' entries, but lack the inspiration to write them separately in Do as they deserve); and I have to confess my own dilemma about adding sites such as Baalbek and Palmyra. I reluct very much about reccomending these as travel destinations right now, yet this article feels very incomplete without them. Ibaman (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of adding Palmyra. It should but added for completeness but not as see listing but as listing | type=red. I have used this in itineraries to make points of danger or caution needed. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikivoyage:Destination_of_the_month_candidates#Nominate. In short: it needs to have Guide status, and for that the article should cover all travel-relevant aspects of the Roman Empire. As of now the list of destinations is certainly comprehensive, but there could probably be more general information at the beginning and end of the article (as Ibaman just mentioned). ϒpsilon (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Baalbek is in Lebanon and hasn't been razed to the ground, so it should certainly be added. Palmyra is not only not visitable right now except for people who have joined IS, but there is likely nothing left to see. So it should be mentioned but with no listing, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I liked Travel100's idea of a "red listing" for Palmyra, although I don't know any precedents for this at Wikivoyage. Without Palmyra in one way or another, it feels incomplete to me, too (I myself was about to add it a couple times before realizing that it might be left out on purpose). Vidimian (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Sorry, it seems I had not seen this discussion here when I changed the listing type for Palmyra. My bad. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close to 250 listings[edit]

Don't get me wrong, it is amazing how much progress we've made on this article and we should of course list all places of interest... But don't we risk confusing people to no end with almost 250 (247 last time I checked) individually listed items? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to clearly indicate which sites are most interesting for fans of Roman relics to visit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have an idea: How about having listings for x-number of "Main sites" and then another section for "Subsidiary sights"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea. But is there a good way to separate the former from the latter without edit wars or pointless discussions? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably worth a discussion. What number of "Main sites" should there be? We should come up with that number in total and then divide them up by country. Or alternatively, we should come up with the names and then create the section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't think the number of listings is necessarily a problem, but in cases where there are more than a dozen listings for a particular country I agree with Ikan Kekek that some sort of sub-division would be helpful. If "Main sites" is too subjective, perhaps divisions like "Archaeological sites", "Modern cities", "Landmarks", etc could be used. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient theatre website[edit]

Found this website. [1] Can it go anywhere in the Roman Empire article? /Yvwv (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roman shipwreck off Canada?[edit]

Roman Sword discovered off Oak Island radically suggests Ancient Mariners visited New World 1,000 years before Columbus Pashley (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not explain why they think it is a Roman ship, could Viking or even later. Sword could have been brought to the area later. There are a lot of the legends and theories about finds on the island, one that the holy grail is there! An interesting and fascinating idea though, would really like to see more detail on proof on it. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listing numbers capped at 99[edit]

Apparently listings cannot reach numbers higher than 99, which is unfortunate for an article like this. Is there something that could be done about this and if so, what? Also should we try to implement our policy regarding long lists here? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a problem with original mapping code. Add it to the list of issues Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Bugs and comments about the new maps --Traveler100 (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please raise it at the appropriate place? I am a bit overwhelmed by the structure of this whole thread... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would be good to have your feedback at Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Other maps issues, third main bullet point. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 99s again[edit]

So apparently the "counter" parameter can be used to reset the numbers to avoid the 99s. Does this have to be done by hand? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recently[edit]

I realise that this article was written in 2015 so these events are still relatively recent, but the reader doesn't know what "recent" means in a project that has been underway since 2006. Also, we hope that Wikivoyage will be around for another twelve years: in 2030, will these events still be considered "recent"? A lot of Wikivoyage articles remain untouched for a long time, so we can't assume that this will be updated. Ground Zero (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly[edit]

I don't think we need to tell readers that it sad that the so-called Islamic State destroyed the ruins. They smart enough to draw their own conclusions. Let's retire Captain Obvious. Ground Zero (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's obvious that the damage is sad, but in my opinion the word helps the sentences flow better. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a reader, I find it a bit condescending to be told what to think about something so obvious -- that's why I took it out. I don't find that condescension helps sentences flow better. I don't think it is needed or useful here. Ground Zero (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm surprised you reacted that way. I think it's normal, in a context like this, to use words like "sadly" and "unfortunately" to preface sentences that are obviously sad, as a way of preparing the reader for the fact that some sad information is about to come. As a reader, I don't find this condescending, but rather helpful in allowing me to follow what the writer is saying more easily. (In contrast, the word "sadly" doesn't seem as helpful to me in the description of Gaziantep, and I wouldn't object to removing it there.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate being prepared for news like my dog has died, but as an adult I don't need that kind of warning for news about ruins. You woukd Want really see that in other guides, magazines, newspapers. As you say, it is obvious, and we are writing for adults here. Ground Zero (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You do see this in other guides. For example, the word "sadly" is used many times in Lonely Planet Africa, in sentences like "Sadly, Etu died in 2014..." and "Sadly, the Festival in the Desert, usually held in January and organised by Tuareg musicians, became another victim of the crisis." I still think that in the sentence we're discussing here, the word is helpful in signaling that sad information is about to come and helping the reader follow what the author is saying more easily. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Granger on this, and actually think the raising of this discussion over such a minor quibble is disappointingly petty. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We were just having a discussion about writing style, as is common in collaborative projects. Atttacking me personally isn't necessary. Ground Zero (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attacking you, personally or otherwise. I am expressing my opinion that raising this minor reversion (in the context of the bulk of your edit, which hasn't been changed) as a discussion rather than letting it go, even after someone explains to you in three different ways why they'd rather the wording stayed there, comes across as petty. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've also explained three different ways why that sort of wording doesn't belong in Wikivoyage. Each of us is entitled to their opinions. You've called me petty twice now. Saying that it isn't a personal attack doesn't make it not one. I let the matter if "sadly" drop after a second person (you) weighed in. Let's stick to discussing edits instead of name-calling -- we're all here to make Wikivoyage better, even if we disagree onnhow to do that. Ground Zero (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that I am not calling you petty. I think you can criticise an action without criticising the person, and that's what I tried to do, as it turns out now in a pretty clumsy way.

Having said that, I could have worded what I wanted to say better than I did in a way that didn't offend you, so I apologise for not being more careful with my choice of words. I have nothing but respect for you as a Wikivoyager. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TT. The feeling is mutual. Ground Zero (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the others that in an article about Roman ruins, stating that their wanton destruction is sad is pertinent and because it's only one word, not something to delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BC and AD[edit]

I have to say I don't understand this edit summary. What do BC and AD (as opposed to BCE and CE) have to do with the Roman Empire (other than the fact that Jesus lived there)? I don't care much which abbreviations are used, but I don't see the reason for the change. Pinging User:Ikan Kekek. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What they have to do with the Roman Empire is that A.D. stands for Anno Domini and B.C. is the English version of a.C.n. - Ante Christum Natum, both Latin expressions used in Rome and in Church Latin, though to be fair, A.D. was invented after the fall of the Roman Empire per se - in the early 6th century A.D. in fact. But that said, I think CE and BCE should be used in any article that's not specifically about Rome or Christianity, but I think we should use AD and BC here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see—the point is that anno domini is a Latin phrase and Latin was the language of the Romans. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. And CE actually refers to the same timeline, so why not use the nomenclature developed in Rome in this article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of Greek relics in Southern Italy[edit]

That doesn't seem like a Roman topic. What do you all think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Empire&oldid=4343475"