Talk:Name of Italy

Corrections

User:LukeWiller, those were my edits, I forgot to log in. I removed mistakes and clarified some things. There were two concepts of Italy: one administrative and one gegraphic. The article confuses a bit the two and misinterprets the sources (unforunately the map does too). The geographic concept (the territory called Italy) already extended as north as the Alps in the 220s (at least that's what the multiple sources that I am reading say). Also, I am not sure that that provision can be called Acta Caesaris and I cannot find a source to support it (I feel like there is some confusion there as well). Can I restore the previous version? I'm trying to figure out this whole thing cause it's quite a complicated matter, there are some things I am reading about it lately, I will inform you here of what I find. Barjimoa (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Barjimoa In my opinion you should edit the article only when everything is clear to you, and the map should be corrected graphically without removing it from the article. --LukeWiller (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC).

User:LukeWiller, I am going deeper into the topic. It's a bit of a rabbit hole but things are getting clearer. Barjimoa (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Possible OR information

Information from the article: "The term "Italy" also included Liguria up to the Varo river and Istria up to Pola. All its inhabitants were considered Italic and Roman", has no confirmation in the sources. It is based on WP:PRIMARY (Strabo, Geographica, V, 1,1) source in which it is stated: "but they prevailed until the subjugation of the Alps. and he also hired Ligistica as far as the Ovarus river and the same coast from the borders of the Tyrrhenian and Istrian regions as far as Pola... Behold, once, since the Romans gave the Italians the equal state, glorify also the Galatians in the Alps and the Venetians, I grant the same honor, and you promise all Italians and Romans, you send many letters"[1]

The same information of (Strabo, Geographica, V, 1,1) in the secondary source(T. P. Wiseman, Catullan Questions Revisited, page 91)[2] has context that the term "Italy" was extended as a result of Roman conquest, and citing primary source of Strabo: "citizenship is assign and to Gauls and Veneti, to call them all Italians and Romans". So the information from the article: "The term "Italy" also included Liguria up to the Varo river and Istria up to Pola. All its inhabitants were considered Italic and Roman" is not in context with a secondary source considering that information and context: "the term "Italy" was extended as a result of Roman conquest" is not included. Also, the second part of information from the article: "All its inhabitants were considered Italic and Roman" does not exist in the primary source (Strabo, Geographica, V, 1,1) either in secondary source(T. P. Wiseman, Catullan Questions Revisited, page 91), so in my opinion this information is WP:OR.

• Based on the above, I suggest that information from the article: "The term "Italy" also included Liguria up to the Varo river and Istria up to Pola. All its inhabitants were considered Italic and Roman"' be removed from article. Instead of the same information, I suggest entering other information but based on a secondary source (T. P. Wiseman, Catullan Questions Revisited, page 91) and in accordance with the context provided by that source, or from some other RS.

Mikola22 (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrong map

LukeWiller, Nick.mon, GaiusCristinus, Furius, Alex2006

Let me clarify why the map is very bad. It's a russian salad of at least three different things:

1)"geographic" Italy (the land of Italy as opposed to other lands such as Gaul, Iberia, Germania etc). This is what a map named "evolution of the name Italy" should be, but it is not.

2)"administrative" Italy (Italy as opposed to the provinces)

3)extension of Roman citizenship.

Let's look at the various stages here represented.

-The "Greek Italy" may represent one of the stages in the geographic evolution of the name "Italy". I don't know why this stage in particular has been picked. There were several before and after this (not the ones indicated in the map).

-The Roman Italy portrayed is the original "administrative" concept of Italy. But in Roman geographic discourse, the name "Italy" included the north as far as the Alps since at least the 3d century BC (all our sources state, for example, that Hannibal crossed the Alps into Italy).

-"Sulla's addition": i can't find sources regarding this. Maybe it's the extension of the pomerium under Sulla? So a first administrative expansion? Not additions to the name of Italy, however

-"Caesar's additions" are not additions to Italy (neither in the geographic sense nor in the administrative sense) but rather they represent the extension of Roman citizenship to Cisalpine Gaul. As already stated: geographically, Italy already included Cisalpine Gaul at that moment; while administratevely, it did not include Cisalpine Gaul until the 1st triumvirate (a few years later)

-"Augustus adds Istria". The year, 7 BC, is the one which Augustus sub-divided Italy in 10 regions for unclear purposes. Istria formed a region with Venetia. Does this mean Augustus added Istria to Italy? I can't find confirmation of it. It's possible it was part of Italy already before that.

-"Diocletian adds the islands". This is an administrative thing, as the islands were brought under the Italian diocesis.

Barjimoa (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to defend the map very much, but I will note that it matches the text of the section of the article "Evolution of the territory called "Italy" and that that section cites sources for many of the points you mention here. Are they good sources? I don't know, but any discussion we have should start with the article text and then concern itself with whether maps/infoboxen conform to that text. Furius (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Like the map, the text is the result of the confusions I illustrated. The one correct part is where it says that Rome extended the name of Italy to the Alps in the 220s BC, for several modern historiens have argued this happened in 222 BC around the time of the battle of Clastidium.Barjimoa (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I follow the point about the confusions of different concepts, although I'm not convinced (if you're suggesting this) that the article should ignore the administrative sense of the term, or the process by which people became "Italians", since Strabo considers that closely linked to the definition of Italy. But if the cited sources do not mention Sulla's additions or Augustus' or other points, it would be good to add "citation needed" tags. Furius (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree the article should mention the administrative definition of Italy (clarifying what it is), my biggest problem is primarily with the map because it presents istelf as a geographic evolution of the name Italy and confuses other things into it. Polybius and Cato the Elder say Italy start at the Alps and they are writing many generations before Caesar (the lost work of Fabius Pictor may have done the same, based on some fragments we have). Polybius for example calls the Cisalpine Gauls the "Celts of Italy". This is in the book "Institutionalization of Italy as a region" used as one of the sources here. Interestingly that seem to be the only definition of Italy they have, the administrative one maybe emerged later on, when the term "province" (which originally meant something like "sphere of competence") acquired a territorial meaning. Barjimoa (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Furius and User:LukeWiller, the correct chronology for a correct map depicting the evolution of the name "Italy" is:

-orginal extent (1000 BC?): tip of the Italian boot. Borders are the gulfs of Squillace and the gulf of Lamezia. Per Antiochius, Strabo, Dyonisus, Aristotle.

-1st expansion (5h century BC?): borders are Lao and Metapontum. (Italy=approximately the later Bruzium). Per Antiochius, Strabo, Dyionisus.

-2nd expansion (5th century BC?): Italy coincedes with the later "Regio III Lucania et Bruzium". Borders are Gulf of Taranto and Sele river. Per Strabo

-3d expansion (IV century): up to the Circeo, including Campania and some islands off Campania). Per Teophrastus (some actually believe this was the 1st original Italy, inferring it from passages in Hecateus of Miletus and date it to the 6th century BC.).

-4th expansion (c.300 BC): up to the Tiber river, including Rome. Per Kallias.

-5th expansion (c.264): appennine Italy (centre and south).

-6th expansion (225-222 BC): up to the Alps. Per Pictor, Polybius, and Cato. In all Roman sources this is geographic Italia.

This reconstruction is taken from the books "Institutionalization of Italy as a region" (Filippo Carla) and "Storia globale d'Italia" (Andrea Giardina).

The evolution of administrative Italy (as a non-province) goes like this:

-originally Italy south of Arno-Rubicon. This probably corresponds with the Italy of c.264 BC.

-42 BC: all of Italy south of the Alps

The expansion of Roman citenship in Italy goes like this

-originally: Rome, her colonies and municipi.

-88 BC: Italy south of the Po (this was more than geographic Italy and less of administrative Italy, a median "Italy" in between the two concepts of Italy)

-45 Bc: all of Italy south the Alps

Barjimoa (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This seems a good way to structure the textual part of the article (assuming that the administrative section would also mention the Late Antique developments that haven't been relevant to the discussion here). I'd support removing the map until it is updated to reflect this data. Furius (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Alex2006 (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)