Talk:Roman people/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 05:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: As of today, you have 7 days to address, implement, and/or engage with the comments below. Gug01 (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: This article is really good, and almost all the points in the review have been addressed! Other than maybe a few minor points, the only thing that's left is for me to give a prose review of the "Later history" section, which I'll do as soon as I can (lots of schoolwork). Gug01 (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gug01: Many thanks. I'll see about going through the few remaining points soon. I am sorry for being so slow with working through this, it's a daunting article to handle due to its size and the extra research + rewrites that have been needed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't be sorry - I'll admit my edits were a bit demanding, and I thank you for your collaboration! Gug01 (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

They were as demanding as they needed to be :) In any case, I'm grateful for the review, just looking through this article is not a small undertaking. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Rubric

I won't comment too much on the rubric; while many of these would've been "no" at the start, the article has made great improvements during the review.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Some edit warring in the past, but no undos after August 1, 2021. As more than a 30 days' period has passed from any meaning controversy / contention in editing whatsoever, it's safe to say the article is stable. [This is included in table as this wasn't discussed in the body of the review.]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Copyright checks are clean.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Great work on the mammoth task of summarizing Roman identity!

Hello, @Ichthyovenator:! I'm Gug01, and I'll be reviewing your Good Article nomination. If possible, I ask you to work towards completing this review as efficiently as possible. The article is long and dealing on a complex subject matter, school for me starts in only a few days, and I'd like the review to be prompt without sacrificing any quality or detail whatsoever. The topic of the Roman people is one that's fascinating for me and dear to my heart. Let's begin! Gug01 (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gug01: Hello! Thank you for taking the time to review this article! It's nice to see that it's a subject that's interesting to you, I started working on this myself because I could not find much of the information here anywhere else that was easily accessible. I'll try to get through your comments as quickly as I can, but given that my university studies have kicked off again and you've been very thorough (which of course is a good thing), it might take some time, hopefully that's fine with you. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: That's no problem! We'll figure it out! Good luck on your university studies; what are you studying? Gug01 (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gug01: Great to hear! If you at any point feel like progress is going too slowly, let me know. I'm studying computer science so researching and writing about history is a nice sort of escapism :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: And a very productive sort of escapism at that! :) Gug01 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

"came to rule large parts of Europe, the Near East and North Africa through conquests made during the Roman Republic and the later Roman Empire" - It's my impression that the Roman people / culture / entity came to rule over all of North Africa and the Near East at their height. Consider rewording to "came to rule the Near East, North Africa, and large parts of Europe" Gug01 (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, reworded to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"Originally only referring to the Italic citizens of Rome itself" - is there evidence to suggest that a citizen of Rome in the early days who happened to be non-Italic (surely these were very few in number) would be excluded from the term "Roman people"? Gug01 (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, and I don't think there is much source material available for this. IIRC this was one of the changes made by Italian nationalist(s?) during the past edit-warring, which seems to have died down. I'd personally prefer "originally only referring to the citizens of Rome itself". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"civilisation" - written in non-American English. I'll take note not to make unintentional "corrections" (heavy quote-unquote here) to American English.

I tried to write this in British English but given that I'm neither British nor American, there is probably a lot of mixing

"sharing common customs, values, morals and ways of life" - I'd suggest an Oxford comma between the phrases "morals" and "and ways of life"

Added a comma. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"As the result of the creation of colonies throughout the empire and citizenship grants, the number of Romans rapidly increased" - consider rewording to something like "Citizenship grants, demographic growth, and settler and military colonies rapidly increased the number of Romans." Gug01 (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Reworded to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, this sentence seems to be equating the number of Roman citizens increasing with the number of Romans increasing. Shouldn't changes in identification (when people began identifying as Roman) be an equally important, if not more important, factor? Gug01 (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, self-identity is IMO far more important than citizenship, but a lot of the portions discussing antiquity talk about citizenship because I did not find much source material in regards to personal identity. I see that you get to this more further down so I'll wait with changing anything around here until I get to your further comments on this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, sounds fair! Gug01 (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

For now I've changed "Romans" here to "Roman citizens". Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I like that the animated map includes the entire run-through of the Roman state until 1461 - the proper timeline, in my opinion :) Could you explain how the map deals with client states (particularly in Crimea and Arabia)? Just from my naked eyes, it seems a bit inconsistent, but that could be my faulty memory. Gug01 (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)~

I also find this to be the proper timeline. In most articles people would probably oppose this map going that far since a lot of editors want to keep "Rome" and "Byzantium" separate, but I think it's suitable here either case since the continuity of Roman identity in the East is discussed at length in this article. I didn't make the map but yes, it's possible that it's inconsistent, for instance the Bosporan Kingdom is depicted as part of the empire but the Ghassanids do not appear to make an appereance. There is another version of the animated map (here), I think the color choices are not as good but perhaps the borders are better (client states appear to be completely excluded). Another option would be to make a completely new animated map but that'll be time consuming. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The current version of the map you chose is, in my opinion, far better than alternate map you linked. It chooses far better time increments to depict and has a better timespan. Also, given that Rome held more tight control over Crimea than the Ghassanids, there's some logic to be had about Crimea's inclusion and Arabia's exclusion. You might want to animate a better, sourced map by hand if/when you eventually nominate this for Featured Article, but for Good Article it's not necessary. Gug01 (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

"It is for the most part not clear to what extent the majority of Roman citizens in antiquity regarded themselves as being Roman. Most likely, local identities were prominent throughout the Roman Empire due to its vast geographical extent, but Roman identity provided a larger sense of common identity and became important when distinguishing from non-Romans, such as barbarian settlers and invaders." I strongly agree with this sentiment. Still, I feel it needs a cite in the lead, as while this is likely the historical consensus it's likely to be highly contested in many circles. Since it's an important idea, the source material should be readily available. Don't be afraid to have a string of references at the end of the idea, by the way. Gug01 (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I've added the two relevant citations from the article body to this part in the lead. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"Roman identity survived in the west" - I've seen "west" both capitalized and not in this context. If you're going to keep it all lower case, please make sure it's consistent throughout the article. Thanks!

It looks to me that "west" and "east" are already consistently lower case through the article (though I could be wrong), unless referring to political entities (Western/Eastern Roman Empire) or Western Europe (where it should be capitalized). Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Y

"also called the Byzantine Empire by modern historians" - I don't think it's just modern historians who call the ERE the Byzantine Empire; if anything, in recent years academia seems to be leaning less in favor of the term "Byzantine Empire" than popular culture is. I know the "Byzantine Empire" as a term was created by "modern" (Renaissance) historians, but the term "modern historians" here conjures images of historians in 2021. Consider eliminating "by modern historians" Gug01 (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. I removed "by modern historians". Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"of reconquering and keeping control of the west and suppression from the new barbarian kingdoms" - perhaps replace "barbarian" with "Germanic", as "barbarian" historiographically is both derogatory and fluid / non-specific? Or is "barbarian kingdom" a term newly resurgent in the modern historiography? Gug01 (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge, "barbarian kingdoms" still remains the most common term for the post-Roman western kingdoms, but in this context I think replacing "barbarian" with "germanic" is fine to be more specific. Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"in the end" -> "eventually", I suggest

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"In the alps" -> capitalize "Alps"~

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"Among the Balkan Romance peoples, though their descent is in most cases unclear, ethnonyms also evoke Roman identity," - the "among" and "though" clauses are awkward. Find a way to reword / split the sentence. Gug01 (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've reworded and split the sentence, let me know what you think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: It's an excellent rewording! Gug01 (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

"deriving from the Germanic walhaz (which was used to refer to the Romans; adopted in the form 'Vlach' as the only self-designation of the Megleno-Romanians)." - this most definitely needs a lead cite, as I've seen alternate etymologies for Vlach that claims it comes from "wallach," the word for "foreigner", or alternatively that "Vlach" either came from or came to mean the word "shepherd". Gug01 (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware of any alternate etymologies when I wrote this; added a lead cite. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Y Gug01 (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

One major point of difficulty I see is in how exactly you're defining Roman identity. The article seems to identify Roman identity with Roman citizenship, but this is imperfect, as one can feel and/or act "Roman" without becoming a citizen. (For example, the Balkan Romance peoples who strongly identify with the Empire far after its demise, and thus aren't Roman citizens.) Self-identification, citizenship, and other factors in Roman identity need to be juggled, and I'd like to hear how exactly you're defining "Roman identity", and what proportional importance each factor in this definition. Gug01 (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The lead simplifies the current historical consensus on Roman identity. For example, see statement: "Throughout the majority of Roman history, the Romans did not see Romanness as something based on shared language or inherited ethnicity,[6][7][8][9]" While I can't access all sources, I've skimmed the University of Michigan PhD dissertation cite, and it doesn't seem to support this statement. The source sustains "that 'nationality' can be created by a belief in the existence in a group identity not solely defined by geography, language, or ethnicity - is critically important to understanding developments between the fourth and first centuries BCE in the ways Romans and non-Romans understood what it meant to be 'Roman.'" [emphasis mine] The key word, here, is "solely", which suggests that geography, language, and ethnicity had a role, maybe even a major one, in Roman identity, but weren't the only defining factors. That's a lot different than the Wikipedia article's wording quoted above. The abstract states: "Following the Social War, therefore, there were three distinct ways of understanding Roman citizenship: hereditary Romans understood Romanness to be a combination of ancestry and social and political participation; new men understood it to consist entirely of behavior that conformed to Roman traditions of virtue and service to the state; and the new, Italian, Romans saw it as a legal status to be acknowledged and enhanced by certain public behaviors," which is a lot more nuanced than "language and inheritance weren't considered at all." This is a level of nuance - different groups perceiving Roman identity differently, with some mix in salience between shared citizenship, values, and customs as well as language, ethnicity, and bloodlines - that, if corroborated by your other sources, I would like to be reflected in this article section. Perhaps reword to something like "shared language and inherited ethnicity were secondary to Roman citizenship" - assuming the sources actually support even that. Gug01 (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there is an issue in that the definition of Roman identity feels inconsistent in the article. In my opinion, personal identity is the deciding factor of inclusion/exclusion into any cultural group. A "Roman" in 8th-century Ravenna and a "Italian" living in the same city a hundred years later were not very different genetically or linguistically. The reason why Romans are often equated to Roman citizens in the sections on antiquity, as I alluded to previously, is that there is little concrete evidence in regards to self-identification. The relevant theories are mentioned, but there is little to go on and I could not find many sources going into much detail. The majority of people granted citizenship by Caracalla's decree probably did not begin to regard themselves as "Romans" overnight, but the majority of people may have seen themselves as such by the 4th century or so, which would have been impossible without the extensions of citizenship. Citizenship and identity thus seem to be linked to me, but they are not the same thing, no. I'm not sure how to resolve this well.

I totally agree with what you've written. I wonder if in the body of the article you could explain the impact of Caracalla's citizenship grant as an act that eventually led to an expansion of the Roman people, even though most recipients of citizenship didn't come to regard themselves as "Romans" overnight. That explanation might hint at the self-identification - citizenship difference. Other than explanations like that here and there, I'm not sure how to resolve the problem. For the purposes of becoming a Good Article, I'm fine if we do our best on this, even if we don't manage to eliminate the problem entirely. Gug01 (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I will try to search around for sources to see if any historians have properly commented on this connection, otherwise I'll add just a brief comment. Yeah, I'm fine with working to minimize the problem as much as possible. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I've expanded on Caracalla's grant and its effects on the populace in the text, let me know what you think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I love your expansion in the "Classical Antiquity" section. Gug01 (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, great to hear :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

In regards to the "throughout the majority of Roman history, the Romans did not see Romanness as something based on shared language or inherited ethnicity" statement, in the original version of this article before the edit wars, this was sourced only to Woolf (2000). The other sources added were meant to support the statement further, since attempts were previously made to remove it entirely in order to emphasize ethnicity and blood descent, they do not support the statement in its entirity. I can see how more nuance could be added, but I will try to find an accessible version of Woolf (2000) to see what it actually says and I will see if I can re-read the relevant and cited portions of the other sources. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've been unable to track down a version of Woolf (2000). I've tried to rephrase this part of the lede to be more nuanced, let me know what you think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I like the rephrasing of the lead. Gug01 (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Nice. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Romanness

"The term 'Roman' is today used interchangeably to describe a historical timespan, a material culture, a geographical location and a personal identity." - For clarity's sake, I suggest you use the Oxford comma. If you opt against this, please ensure that the comma style is consistent throughout the article. Gug01 (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Added the comma. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

"Unlike many other ancient peoples, such as the Greeks or Gauls, the Romans did not see their common identity as one necessarily based on shared language or inherited ethnicity." - The word "necessarily" is an improvement on nuance vs the lead. Still, please see the long comment at the end of the "Lead" section, and try to implement into "Romanness" section. Gug01 (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've implemented something similar to the lead here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

"The key to 'Romanness' in the minds of some famous Roman orators, such as Cicero, was keeping with Roman tradition and serving the Roman state.[14]" - It's probably relevant to mention Cicero as a new man / novus homo, which encouraged him to promote a "Romanness" emphasizing public service (which he did) and not "pristine" (heavy quote-unquote here) inheritance/bloodlines, which Cicero didn't have. Gug01 (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Added this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

"This is not to say that the importance of blood kinship was wholly dismissed. Orators such as Cicero frequently appealed to their noble contemporaries to live up to the 'greatness of their forefathers'.[14]" - Important addition to the section! Gug01 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

👍👍 Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

"Neither author, however, suggested that the naturalisation of new citizens should stop, nor did their concerns of blood purity match modern ideas of race or ethnicity, and had little to do with features such as skin colour or physical appearance.[17]" - Out of curiosity, given their concerns of blood purity, what were they suggesting? That might not go in the "Romanness" section, but should be included somewhere as Romanness' negotiations' "darker side." Gug01 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

They were suggesting that manumission (freeing slaves) and grants of citizenship should be less frequent, not stopped altogether, and praised Augustus for having done both less frequently than the leading figures of their time. I've added this here, but if you think it fits better in some other form or somewhere else let me know. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I really like the way you've included it in the "Romanness" section; don't change a thing here! More detail on this segment of Roman thought (opposition to citizenship grants) should also be incorporated into the "Classical Antiquity" section imo. Gug01 (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"integrated into the Roman world, i. e." -> reduce the 2 spaces between "i." and "e." into 0 Gug01 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

"but slavery in Ancient Rome did not have an ethnic element, with slaves being part of various different ethnic groups.[20]" - They certainly didn't have a racial element. Given that most/many slaves were POWs, ethnicities along the border of Roman expansion were disproportionately represented (unless the sources refute this). Gug01 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You are of course correct, the meaning here is that the Romans did not enslave people because they viewed them as ethnically inferior in the same way as Europeans and others did over the course of the modern period. Perhaps this could be rephrased. I don't think changing "ethnic" to "racial" works since the modern concept of races at least to me does not appear to have been much of a thing in the ancient world. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Gug01 (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Tried to explain this better in the text. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you've succeeded! Gug01 (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"In the eyes of many Romans, the Jews were the most disliked group of foreigners, though they were never considered to be barbarians. Roman antisemitism, which led to several persecutions and massacres, was not rooted in racial prejudice, but rather in that the Jews uniquely among conquered peoples refused to integrate into the Roman world; they were totally opposed to Roman customs and evoked suspicion with their exclusivist religious practices.[25]" - Obviously the Roman state & many Romans disliked and brutalized Jews, and the Roman state & many Romans disliked and brutalized many other peripheral ethnic groups as well; the words "the most" creates a higher burden of proof, so I'd like even stronger sourcing. Rubel 2020 is very recent and probably not so established. Adding a second and maybe even third scholarly cite corroborating this point would help. Gug01 (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've removed "most" for now from here since I think it's unnecessary, will look for more sources to cite here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It's great that you've removed the word "most"; it's much better the way you've rewritten it. A few comments: "A particularly disliked group of foreigners were the Jews, though they were never considered to be barbarians. Roman antisemitism, which led to several persecutions and massacres, was not rooted in racial prejudice, but rather in that the Jews uniquely among conquered peoples refused to integrate into the Roman world; they were totally opposed to Roman customs and evoked suspicion with their exclusivist religious practices.[29]" - (1) is the "Jews were never considered to be barbarians" information from the cite - how could they be considered foreigners and not barbarians? It also is odd to call Jews "foreigners" as they lived in the empire for hundreds of years, even though that's how the Romans conceived of them. (2) For better tone, perhaps consider rewording to something like: "Roman antisemitism, which led to several persecutions and massacres of Jews, came from the perception that the Jews uniquely among conquered peoples refused to integrate into Roman identity; they were opposed to Roman religious customs and evoked suspicion with their exclusivist religious practices.[29]" I've italicized "the perception that" and "religious" because I'm not sure if the evidence warrants these additions; if Jews genuinely were unique in not integrating into Roman culture, then feel free to not include "the perception that". Also feel free to exclude "religious" if that underplays the scope of Jewish resistance to Roman customs. Gug01 (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Specifically on your emphasis of antisemitism not being rooted in racial prejudice; I've noticed that (in a history paper / thesis-like fashion) the article sometimes emphasizes common themes that don't always have to be emphasized so explicitly, and this is one example. What you're saying is true in that Roman antisemitism was based on cultural factors which then became strongly associated with ethnicity/race; however, merely explaining the reason for Roman antisemitism comes across as more neutral and relays information equally effectively. Looking for other emphases like these and rewording them will help on the tone issue. Gug01 (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I should have time on Thursday to hopefully go through a lot of stuff here and hopefully make quite some progress, but for now just a quick comment: yes, the main point here was to emphasize that the Romans did not persecute the Jews because they viewed themselves as "racially superior" or something like that, which I felt was important since the persecution of the Jews by the Romans is so well-known today. "Jews were never considered to be barbarians" is from the source, yes, but I will see if I can track down more sources that support that. Not all "non-Romans" were considered Barbarians - Greeks for instance were not seen as barbarians to my knowledge, even before they were conquered and then granted citizenship. Given that the Roman emperors often considered the Parthian and then Sasanian shahanshahs their equals I'm also not sure whether the Iranians were considered barbarians. Jews in particular do seem to have resisted Romanization; notably the belief in a monothesistic god was not reconcilable with the Roman religion, or the often "divine" status of the Roman emperor, in the same way that Hellenic or Egyptian paganism (for instance) were. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I've reworked and expanded this part. I replaced "foreigners" with "non-Romans" which feels less odd. I added a few more sources; Roman attitudes on Jews were, perhaps unsurprisingly, more complicated and variable than I initially made them out to be. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I like your reworking. Jews fell in bizarre and complex middle ground between "Greeks" and "barbarians" which you've expressed really well; that makes any way of discussing the topic stick out a little bit in the article, but I think it works as well as it could. Great work! Gug01 (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah; I agree that it sticks out a bit but it also felt weird to talk about Rome's inclusivity of foreign ethnicities and not bring up the most famous example of Roman oppression of non-Romans. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed! Gug01 (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Antiquity

Classical Antiquity

The first paragraph seems to recap the legends of Rome's founding and, except for the last sentence, doesn't directly treat with Roman identity. Rome's founding is of course very important to Roman identity; make this section more concise and more explicitly emphasize its implications for Romanness. Gug01 (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Tried to make this more concise using notes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Great work! Gug01 (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Except for the last paragraph, this whole section strays too much into merely recapping Rome's history (many articles already do this), whereas this article should center around Roman identity and the Roman people, not the state. Gug01 (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I have significantly cut down on the second paragraph, which I feel was the the main paragraph pushing Roman history rather than the history of Roman identity. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I like it. Gug01 (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Nice. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

"Caracalla's grant contributed to a vast increase in the number of people with the nomen (name indicating familial association) Aurelius.[44][c] " - I absolutely love footnote [c]. Great attention to detail, @Ichthyovenator:!

Feels like the increase in people named Aurelius would have been pretty confusing otherwise :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Also love the image depicting Trajan as pharaoh - it speaks volumes. Gug01 (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I also wrote most of what's currently at Roman pharaoh so it was nice to be able to squeeze in something on that subject, which I find fascinating. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a pretty cool article! Do you think it makes more sense to hyperlink the word "pharaoh" in the caption to Roman pharaoh rather than simply pharaoh? It's your call. Gug01 (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I've replaced the link, makes sense as the content at Roman pharaoh will be more helpful to understanding what's going on with the image further than the regular pharaoh article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Late Antiquity

"In the writings of the 4th-century Greek-speaking Roman soldier and author Ammianus Marcellinus, Rome is described almost like a foreign city, with disparaging comments on its corruption and impurity.[50]" - The anecdote of Ammianus, in my mind, isn't enough to prove "Rome is like a foreign city" to the rest of the Empire. Keep this sentence, and add an additional scholarly cite after the "Late Antiquity" section's first sentence. Gug01 (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've added a cited sentence on how Rome lost status partly owing to emperors beginning to reign from elsewhere (Tetrarchy and then Constantinople & Ravenna), is that sufficient or should I search for and add more? Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine. Gug01 (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

"In whatever case, the Roman military increasingly came to embody 'barbarian' aspects that in previous times had been considered antithetical to the Roman ideal.[56]" - Barbarian aspects in terms of culture/values or ethnicity? More specificity is needed. Gug01 (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Added and expanded. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

"Though their bariarian nature is repeatedly emphasised" - bariarian -> "barbarian"

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Shorten the third paragraph on Pacatus & the Goths, as right now it's a bit long and detracts from the article's main thread. Gug01 (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"The ideas of Symmachus were not popular among the Christians." - not surprising lol

Hehe. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

"As Rome lost, or ceded control of," -> change Rome to Roman Empire / state Gug01 (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

"As such, roman identity remained political, rather than ethnical, and" -> "As such, Roman identity remained political, rather than ethnic" (spelling errors)

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

"The fall of the Western Roman Empire coincided with the first time the Romans actively excluded an influential foreign group within the empire, the barbarian and barbarian-descended generals of the 5th century, from Roman identity and access to the Roman imperial throne.[67]" - interesting observation! Gug01 (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I found this to be very interesting! One wonders if things would have gone differently if the Germanic kings and figures like Ricimer or Odoacer had considered themselves, and been considered by others, as Romans. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This article section reads more like a history paper, citing secondary sources and primary anecdotes to build an argument, rather than an encyclopedic source summarizing the topic of Roman people & identity dispassionately. Gug01 (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware, this is because the sources I used are history papers and do the same and for most cases primary anecdotes is all there is. I also think most of the anecdotes are quite interesting, but if you have suggestions as to how to make this more encyclopedic I'm all ears. For a lot of anecdotes and specific sources in the "later history" section I used footnotes for specific examples so perhaps something like that could be used here as well? Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I really do like your use of footnotes in the "later history" section, and it'll likely work well if you implement it earlier as well. I agree with you that many of the anecdotes are interesting and illustrative, provided that they're kept concise. One thing that might help to remember this is an article on Roman identity and people, and so we have to be careful not to stray away into the rich fields of Roman imperial history. Another way to improve the tone is to notice themes (theses, almost) that you're repeatedly emphasizing; see my comment on the Jewish section. I've realized I left the original comment in the thread without providing concrete steps forward; thanks for prompting me to provide suggestions for improvement! Gug01 (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I've separated two of the anecdotes into footnotes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Later history

"Few empires in history impacted their subjects to the same extent as the Roman Empire. Through imperial expansion, Romanness spread out over a wide stretch of territories that had never before shared a common identity and designation, and never would again. The personal identities of the population under Roman rule was affected to a considerable extent and Roman identity lasted throughout the lands of the empire until long after the empire itself had faded away.[68]" - Again, this feels like a thesis and like introductions I've written for scholarly historical papers. The tone is a bit off for an encyclopedic entry. Gug01 (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, do you recommend rewriting/rephrasing or removing entirely? Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It encapsulates some important ideas, maybe try rewriting or alternatively incorporating these ideas (which you already do) into the rest of the section? Gug01 (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Tried rewriting it to be more encyclopedic in tone, but now it's also quite short. Let me know what you think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Drier, but more encyclopedic. It's a bit on the short side, but I don't think that's much of a problem. Gug01 (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, "throughout the lands of the empire until long after" -> "throughout the lands of the empire long after" Gug01 (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Both the "Western Europe" and "Eastern Mediterranean" sections cover a breathtakingly large section of time. Indeed, the Eastern Mediterranean of the 5th century was much more similar to 5th century Western Europe than to the 19th century Eastern Mediterranean. Consider subdividing these sections. Gug01 (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

These sections were originally subdivided (see here), do you think those subdivisions are good (then I can bring them back) or should the divisions happen in some other way? Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed some pros and cons about the original subdivisions, but before I'm comment, I'm curious what was the original reason why the subdivisions were changed in the first place. Also, the current version of the article (just in terms of prose) is noticeably better even than in the August 2021 permalink - good work! Gug01 (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I originally removed the subdivisions because I was working on shortening the sections on later history and expanding the sections on antiquity since I imagined that most readers would be interested in the Roman people of Ancient Rome. The subdivisions were then removed because the earlier sections did not have them. I now realize that this sounds a bit flimsy so I'm open to subdividing again if you have any ideas on how that is best done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Expanding on the evolution of Roman identity in North Africa will ensure that the reader doesn't miss these multiple centuries of history in a region with pivotal implications. Gug01 (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've added a short section on North Africa; Roman identity appears to have disappeared more swiftly there than elsewhere, but there were interesting things to touch on. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I like the way you discussed it. Gug01 (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The section needs work on encyclopedic tone and concision, paralleling my earlier comments, so I'm not going to review it point-by-point for now. Gug01 (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Will wait with working on this until you've gone through it point-by-point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok! Gug01 (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Point-by-Point

Western Europe

@Ichthyovenator: I'm back and reviewing this section point-by-point! I hope school has been treating you OK; I've been quite busy the whole month of October but I finished a couple of major projects and am a bit more available now. Gug01 (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gug01: Glad to have you back! There's a lot to get through here but I'll try to be quicker with it this time around. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"a situation distinct, yet clearly evolved, from the society of late antiquity" - word choice; "evolved" unduly implies progress rather than simple change / origination. Either change the word choice or remove entirely; not sure this is necessary.

Removed this part, I agree that it is not necessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact, it's unclear what rulers' naming customs has to do with the Roman people directly. I get you're trying to use this as evidence to prove that Roman legitimacy and thus identity persisted in the West; still, the way it's written, especially as the first paragraph, it seems tangential. You can cut down most of the paragraph's details (there should be a separate article on naming conventions) and move the rest as supporting evidence. Gug01 (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the talk on Barbarian titles and naming customs entirely. I'll be saving this and other information that is interesting, but not strictly relevant to Roman identity, at User:Ichthyovenator/Roman people so that it might be incorporated elsewhere later. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"rarely used any ethnic qualifiers" -> "rarely used ethnic qualifiers"

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The second paragraph is also much too long. Once again, it's unclear how the nitty-gritty of consular titles and ERE vassal politics relate to Roman identity; remember, this is an article about the Roman people and Roman identity first and foremost, not a summary of post-Odoacer state politics. I would suggest cutting details from the paragraph by at least one-third.

"Had they gone to war with each other, which appeared likely several times, it is not impossible that one of the two would have re-established the Western Roman Empire under their own rule." - this is really interesting information and I hope it's found in Theodoric's and Clovis' Wikipedia pages; if there's enough evidence and content, maybe even an entire article on "diplomatic tensions / potential war between Theodoric and Clovis" should be opened; I'm confused what place it has in an article on Roman identity. It feels like - and this is 100% something I've also done before - got carried away with general Roman history, which makes sense, as it's fascinating, but doesn't serve this part of the article best. Gug01 (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I will work on cutting this down since I agree that naming customs are excessively discussed, but the threat of a Clovis vs. Theodoric showdown is relevant since this threat leads to the eastern empire beginning to assert itself as the only properly Roman state. Among other factors, the assertion of this ideology through Justinian's wars then leads to the gradual disappearance of Roman identity in the west. Ichthyovenator (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. As of now the article can make that thread much clearer. Gug01 (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

(response to both this point and the previous point) I've significantly reduced and combined the first two paragraphs - though it is geopolitics and not identity stuff, they now only contain what I believe to be crucial political developments that greatly affected Roman identity going forward. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Culturally and legally, Romans remained prominent in the west for centuries. Roman law continued to be used in Western Europe throughout the early Middle Ages.[96] For a time, Roman identity still provided a sense of unity throughout the Mediterranean." - combine these sentences, they sound choppy. Overall, this third paragraph is the kind of stuff I'd expect in a Roman people article over the content of the first two paragraphs. Gug01 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Combined and restructured. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Throughout the rule of Odoacer and then the Ostrogoths, the Roman Senate continued to function, and even dominated the politics of Rome" -> "Italy's Ostrogothic Kingdom preserved the Roman Senate, which often dominated politics in Rome, illustrating [EXPLAIN HOW THIS DEMONSTRATES THE CONSERVATION OF ROMAN INSTITUTIONS AND THUS CONTINUED SALIENCE OF ROMAN IDENTITY] ..."; concision. There are a lot of cases throughout the section where you can pinch words for readability. Gug01 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Reworked this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, I've generally noticed an overuse of the word "even" in this section, so please go through the section and eliminate unnecessary uses of the word. Gug01 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Removed some "even"s. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

In the third paragraph, you have a lot of extra anecdotal detail - the kind proper for a history paper but not so much an encyclopedia entry - like "A 731 law by the Lombard king Liutprand specifies that if a "Roman" married a Lombard wife, that wife and all children of the couple would become Roman and the wife's relatives would no longer have the right to sue her, perhaps an idea which seemed attractive to Lombard women who wanted to escape the control of their relatives." which I'd eliminate as tangential to Roman identity. Also, the article never explicitly states that Roman identity was held in high regard and Roman people occupied high social status, even though a lot of your evidence trends towards this direction; the paragraph is an example of too much granular evidence and not enough encyclopedic analysis. Gug01 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to cut down on the unnecessary details. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"A key development was the so-called "Justinianic ideological offensive", which involved a re-writing of 5th century history to portray the west as lost to barbarian invasions, rather than attempting to further integrate the barbarian rulers into the Roman framework" - this sentence becomes redundant with the third paragraph. Eliminate, and add a brief explanation of the Justinianic ideological offensive in the third paragraph, so you have to mention it only one time.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"but the ideology had also been asserted" - vague, rewrite

Rewrote and explained in more detail. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Roman identity in those regions experienced a dramatic decline" - "Roman identity in those regions declined dramatically"; concision is important and I again strongly encourage you to go through this section and pinch words like this wherever you can & I miss it Gug01 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Although the senate achieved a certain legacy in the west,[n] the end of the institution removed a group that had always set the standard of what Romanness was supposed to mean.[100] As a result of Justinian's wars, the Roman elite in Italy and elsewhere were also split between those who enjoyed barbarian rule and those who supported the emperor and later withdrew to regions governed by the empire, with Roman identity ceasing to provide a sense of social cohesion." - footnote n is great, and this information is critical and relevant for the article! Great work! Gug01 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it's interesting that in his attempt to restore the Roman Empire as it had been, Justinian essentially ended up destroying the afterglow of the old Roman world. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"The disappearance of Roman identity was accelerated by the political division into multiple kingdoms leading to the gradual fragmentation and splitting of Latin into what would develop into the modern Romance languages. The unifying Roman identity was replaced by local identities based on the region one was from.[101] Though many of the features of Romanness continued, such as language (though increasingly fragmenting), law, culture and literacy of Latin, their connectivity faded away.[17] Where Romans had once accounted for the majority of the population, such as in Gaul and Spain, they quietly faded away as their descendants adopted other names and identities.[101]" - these sentences are fragmented, confusing-to-read, and seem to all be trying towards the same idea. Rewrite, combine, and condense!

I see what you mean; I've tried to rework this part. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"By the year 800, when the Frankish king Charlemagne was crowned as Roman emperor in Rome, the first time an emperor had been crowned in the city since antiquity, Roman identity was largely gone in Western Europe and the Romans that remained had a low social status." - "By Charlemagne's coronation in 800, Roman identity largely disappeared in Western Europe and fell to low social status."

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Charlemagne actively hoped to suppress Roman identity to avoid the possibility that the Romans could proclaim a Roman emperor in the same way as the Franks could proclaim a king of the Franks" - is it historically accurate to replace Charlemagne with the Frankish state? Gug01 (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It is possible to argue that Charlemagne was the Frankish state, but yes, since this presumably also continued under his successors and he would have been unable to do anything without other officials onboard. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"the term 'Roman' became more and more associated by authors and intellectuals in Western Europe with the population of the city itself" - "Western European authors and intellectuals increasingly associated Romanness with the city itself" (passive -> active voice) Gug01 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Done the change. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"meaning that the political implications were still somewhat important" - political implications of what? This sentence needs to be tightened up and clarified. Gug01 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Reworked this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"accompanied, supported and legitimised" - add an Oxford comma

"constitutional identity" - a constitutional identity? What does that mean; "Constitution" as in the US Constitution? Gug01 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Reworked this - the point here is that the popes could use the fact that they were backed by the city's population as something that increased the legitimacy of their sovereignty as temporal rulers. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"The population of Rome and most of the rest of Western Europe saw Charlemagne and his successors, and not the Byzantines, as true Roman emperors" - you're framing this with a focus on regal politics rather than Roman identity (i.e. Western Europe associated Roman identity more strongly with Charlemagne and his successors over the Byzantines). Make sure to retain that focus on Roman identity & the people. Gug01 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"the Byzantines were typically seen as Greeks rather than Romans and were deemed to have abandoned Rome and Roman culture; not surviving intact but rather fleeing from their responsibilities" - "the Byzantines were typically seen as Greeks who had abandoned Rome and Roman identity" (concision edit)

"Were typically seen" by who? The peasants, the church, the political elite, or the intellectual elite? Or some combination of the above? Gug01 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"The prevalent view was that there used to be an empire, but that it had now transferred itself to the east and ceased to be properly Roman." delete Gug01 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Charlemagne's empire and the later Holy Roman Empire were not seen as Roman either per se, but the support of the Papacy and the Romans in Rome itself was seen as making the rulers of that empire into Roman emperors." - this contradiction can be further explained. How come the Romans saw Charlemagne as a legitimate Roman emperor yet not a Roman? Gug01 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've reworked this in the text but they were seen as Roman emperors in the sense of governing the Roman Empire, not in the sense of being emperors who were Romans. George I of Great Britain was German (not British) but could still be the King of the United Kingdom. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Despite this support, the Romans held a considerably dislike for the Franks, whom they equated with their most ancient enemies, often referring to them as the 'Gauls'. The Franks were considered aggressive, insolent and vain, and often a threat since Frankish armies coming to Rome was not an uncommon event." - collapse into one sentence, and remember to use Oxford commas! Gug01 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"In some cases, Frankish nobles are noted to have used the antiquated Frankish language when they did not want the Romans to understand them." - seems haphazard, perhaps delete

(response to the seven or so points above) I've reworked the entire last paragraph, these comments should be addressed and it should flow better now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Part of the bad reputation of the Romans probably resulted from sometimes trying to take an independent position towards the popes or the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, rulers seen as having universal power, and thus being considered intruders in affairs and questions that exceeded their competence" - important to include in this article! Wordsmith a little for concision, though. Gug01 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Reworked a bit, should flow better now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for some of these observations being a bit out of order, as I reread the section multiple times. I hope I've used enough direct quotations to make it clear what I'm referring to; if anything's unclear let me know.

No worries, everything is perfectly clear :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Consular diptych of Rufius Gennadius Probus Orestes," - this image and its caption are so powerful and great inclusions to the article!

Rufius Gennadius Probus Orestes was also the penultimate consul to ever be appointed by the original Roman Senate (only followed by Decius Paulinus) but that felt excessive to mention. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Personifications of (from left to right) the Slavic, German, Gallic (French) and Roman peoples, depicted as bringing gifts to Holy Roman Emperor Otto III" - I'd move this image a bit lower so that its bottom lines up with the last sentence of the section, which discusses how the Romans were seen as meddling in the affairs of universal rulers in a fashion above their competence Gug01 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It almost lines up now, not sure if I can get it to line up better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

As an overall point, this section needs a lot of work on concision/prose/wording. It also needs work on topicality - this is an article of Roman identity, not a summary of 6th-century politics! In that sense, the section is too broad. The section is also too narrow in the sense that Roman identity in Iberia and Britain are entirely missing. Gug01 (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've worked to rework what was here - let me know what you think. Iberia is mentioned here and there but I'll see if I can find more to add and if I can find anything on personal identity in post-Roman Britain. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Added a new sentence each on Iberia and Britain. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Presumably Roman identity was relatively potent in Iberia since there was a Roman general there in the 7th century powerful enough to attempt independence (Flavius Paulus - I wonder if some of the stuff in his article could be incorporated here). Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Since subdivisions work really well in the ERE section, perhaps consider subdividing into an "early Italy & Gaul" section, "late Italy & Gaul" section, and "Rome proper" section? I'm open to suggestions on this, of course. Gug01 (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I found it difficult to subdivide the section geographically and temporally since information is not really presented in a strict chronological or geographical order - I've divided it into "Early endurance of Roman identity", "Disappearances of Roman identity" and "Reversion to Rome proper" sections, let me know what you think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It would also improve the scope of the article for Roman identity in Spain, Britain, and the Balkans to be mentioned / briefly discussed, as these three regions were important components of Roman history and later world history too. A lot of Wikipedia articles could exist on Romano-Britain society after Rome's retreat; if that's the case, then a simple one-paragraph summary of what happened to the Roman people there and a section link to some other relevant articles would suffice. The same might also be true for Spain and the Balkans, though probably to a lesser extent. Gug01 (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

After your revisions, I reread the Western Europe section. It's so much better, and the section division works really well. Continuity and changes in Roman identity in Hispania is also much more clear in the new version. I fixed a few typos. One sentence still remains that doesn't quite fit into the flow and is a bit confusing:

"The Frankish state actively hoped to suppress Roman identity to avoid the possibility that the Romans could proclaim a Roman emperor in the same way the Franks could proclaim a king of the Franks.[104]" - in the context of the article, setting aside the explanations you've given me here as ordinary readers won't read the full extent of this page, this is still confusing given the Romans already have an emperor in the east, and feels like a tangent from the rest of the prose.

Other than that, this section is so great, and I'm really happy with how it turned out! Great work! Gug01 (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I've tried to rewrite the sentence so let me know what you think. If this isn't an improvement the sentence could be removed entirely. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

North Africa

"Unlike the other Germanic kingdoms that rose up in the former territory of the Western Roman Empire, the Vandal Kingdom in North Africa did not maintain any pretense of loyalty to the remaining empire in the east" - concision, especially with "remaining empire in the east" and "the other Germanic kingdoms that rose up in the former territory of the Western Roman Empire." Both phrases can be shortened. Gug01 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Shortened. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"adherance" -> "adherence" (spelling)

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Footnote r is hilarious! Great research!

Sometimes not being Roman could be an advantage :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"Throughout the early Middle Ages, the Germanic ruling classes of the new kingdoms in the west culturally and ethnically merged with the Romano-African populations they governed. Through many Romano-Africans adapting themselves to Vandalic identity, there were few cultural differences between a "Vandal" and a "Roman" in North Africa by the time of the kingdom's fall during the reconquest of Africa by the eastern empire," - you can shorten this, focusing especially on trimming long background phrases that merely orient the reader and don't actually discuss Roman identity. The flow of your paragraphs, with sentences connected, should also be worked to reduce reliance on these phrases.

For example, shorten "Germanic ruling classes of the new kingdoms in the west" to "the Vandal ruling class" since you're talking about Africa here, not Africa and Western Europe. That change alone saves quite a few words and makes the sentence quite more readable. Gug01 (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Also mitigate redundancy. The ideas of "culturally and ethnically merged" and "Romano-Africans adapting themselves" can probably be merged into a single sentence discussing cultural fusion (which seems to be what you're describing - the idea that the Vandal elite and Roman people grew towards a more similar, hybrid, middle-ground fusion of identity)

"invidiuals" - "individuals" (spelling)

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact, you should move the sentences about Romans and Vandals becoming more similar towards the section's end, as it breaks chronological flow and confuses the reader. Start by talking about how the Vandals didn't keep loyalty to Rome, then talk about how they gained legitimacy through Rome and Carthage, then talk about the profound effect on the formerly Roman populace (which segues nicely into Justinian's invasion) and merge this with the concept of Roman and Vandal identities fusing (eliminating redundancy).

How come the Vandals both appealed to Roman legitimacy and saw Roman identity as politically loaded? Perhaps the two processes occurred at different times under different rulers? Could you explain?

The contents of footnote S are really important. Bring them into this section's main prose!

Overall, this is a pretty good section, and a few sentence reorderings and some concision will make it excellent! Gug01 (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

(reponse to all above without responses of their own): I've reworked this section per your comments, let me know what you think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Once again, this is a great reworking!

These two sentences are a bit choppy: "By the time the kingdom fell, there were next to no cultural differences between a North African "Roman" (or "Libyan") and a "Vandal".[117] The only real differences that would have been obvious were that the Vandals adhered to Arian Christianity and were permitted to serve in the army.[118]"

Other than that, everything's great!! Gug01 (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I've combined the two sentences into a single and shorter sentence. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Eastern Mediterranean

"dEUS AdIUTA ROMANIS" - was the capitalization this inconsistent on the original coin? Gug01 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is the way it is written on the coins. Here are two clearer examples for reference: 1, 2. It's not strictly necessary to write it out in the same way in the caption so it could be changed to Deus adiuta Romanis if you think that's better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Image 2 it appears the "m" in "Romanis" also isn't capitalized. I think it's best to change to Deus adiuta Romanis as it's not an eyesore, can't be perceived as mistaken, and the coin's capitalization doesn't convey any real information to the reader (after all, this isn't a numismatics article). Gug01 (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"In the eastern Mediterranean, the Eastern Roman Empire, frequently referred to as the Byzantine Empire by modern historians, survived the 5th century more or less intact. As they remained inhabitants of the Roman Empire, the predominant identity in the east remained "Roman" (Rhōmaîoi)." -> "Eastern Mediterranean populations, which remained under Eastern Roman or Byzantine control after the 5th century, retained "Roman" as their predominant identity." (concision and grammatical clarity)

Is it appropriate to label "Romans" with the Hellenistic "Rhōmaîoi" term as early as the 6th century AD, when much of the East (especially Balkan regions) remained Latin-speaking?

I answered my own question from later in the article; "The late 7th century was the first time (in the writings of St. Anastasios the Persian) that Greek, rather than Latin, was referred to as the rhomaisti (Roman way of speaking)." - in other words, it's not necessarily appropriate to include Rhomaioi this early chronologically in the section.

Made the suggested change and removed this early mention of Rhōmaîoi. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"The Byzantine Empire was throughout its history frequently seen as "Greek", and its inhabitants as "Greeks", by Western Europeans.[130] One of the earliest references to the easterners as "Greeks" comes from Bishop Avitus of Vienne who wrote, in the context of the Frankish king Clovis I's baptism; "Let Greece, to be sure, rejoice in having an orthodox ruler, but she is no longer the only one to deserve such a great gift".[131]" - condense these two sentences and focus more on the ERE's identification as Roman above Greek/Hellene.

Done, I think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

In general, you can condense this section by eliminating a lot of primary evidence that would be great for a history paper but not needed for an encyclopedic entry. See "Western Europe" section for more examples of this.

"the terms "Greeks" and "Hellenes" were seen as offensive," - fascinating!

Indeed! One wonders what the old emperors would think if they knew that their lands were today divided between Turkey and Greece. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"In the 6th-century letters of the Frankish king Childebert II to Emperor Maurice, the emperor is referred to as princeps Romanae reipublicae.[15] " - not sure this sentence is necessary, you can allude to "western writers and rulers" in the previous sentence

Yeah, it's not necessary. Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Significantly condense the second half of the third paragraph (I'd say by around a half). I'd also overhaul the flow to keep the ideas that western writers recognized the ERE as a Roman state and its citizens as Romans, which are naturally linked, together; eliminate the anecdotal evidence in between. Gug01 (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Condensed and combined with the previous paragraph. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

In the fourth paragraph, the concepts of "people by constitution" and "gens" appear to be narrative lenses specific to the arguments of a few academic historians. The terms need more explanation; to do so, when writing, describe the concepts behind the terms first, and then attach the terms (this will hopefully help keep focus on the substance of Roman identity rather than defining academic narrative lenses).

I believe this is better handled now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

" who believed they shared a common origin, followed Orthodox Christianity and spoke the same Greek language" - ordering of clauses is a bit problematic; as written the sentence implies they merely believed they followed Orthodox Christianity (which may or may not be true; in contrast to the real world where the vast majority of the ERE was Eastern Orthodox).

Fixed ordering. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest subdividing the "Eastern Mediterranean" section into two clear subsections, one pre and one post Arab conquests. This is because the narrative naturally has a pretty clear dividing line - the end of the third paragraph. Gug01 (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"The capture of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204 shattered the Byzantine view of unbroken continuity from Rome to Constantinople." - as written it sounds like you're saying that the Fourth Crusade forced a historiographical reckoning, rather than literally ending Roman continuity by inserting a Latin Empire, Frankish-dominated interregnum. Rewrite and also briefly mention the capture of Constantinople "by non-Roman Franks" or something like that

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Shorten & condense sentences in the third-to-last paragraph as it gets hard to read.

Attempted to rework and restructure it a bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

From footnote T: "Some Byzantine authors went as far as to return to using 'Hellenic' and 'Greek' solely as terms for the ancient pagan Greeks." - add this in the main prose; it's important enough not to be relegated to the footnote section

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"One such narrative was the myth that the last emperor, Constantine XI Palaiologos would one day return from the dead to reconquer the city." - Were such narratives and pride in the former Byzantine Empire concentrated among the elite / upper middle classes, or did they penetrate deep into the peasant population as well? Worthwhile to add. Gug01 (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Added that it endured in Greek folklore (presumably much of the population being aware) for a very long time. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The last paragraph

delete " or "resurrected""

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

As a broader problem, it's unclear how the evidence actually ties into Roman identity, in particular the Greek chroniclers' reaction to the Russo-Turkish War's failure to live up to expectations, as wanting to restore the Roman Empire doesn't necessarily mean they identified as Roman. Rely less on direct quotes from anecdotal evidence pieces; you can paraphrase and/or cut a lot of this stuff and increase the article's readability without hindering quality.

I've relegated the more interesting anecdotes to a footnote and reworked this a bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Create a "post-ERE" subsection and place the last two paragraphs under it. Gug01 (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)~

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

There is room for improvement in the ERE section's pictures. "Scenes of marriage and family life in Constantinople" and "Emperor John I Tzimiskes (r. 969–976) celebrates a triumph after defeating Bulgaria" would be great for an article discussing the political/cultural/general history of this time period, but not so much for discussing the Roman people & identity. Perhaps eliminate these pictures and replace with even 1 picture that is much more relevant to the topic at hand. Gug01 (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Difficult to find a better image, but added one that at least shows very late insistence on being Roman. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The section reads so well now! I did a few minor copy edits; no other comments. Gug01 (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Modern identity

"The self-identity as Roman among the Greeks only began to lose ground by the time of the Greek War of Indepence, when multiple factors saw the name 'Hellene' rise to replace it." -> "Roman self-identification among Greeks only began losing ground with the Greek War of Independence, ..." Gug01 (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Focus a little more on the link between the terminological change to "'Hellene'" and Greece's pivot to identifying with ancient Greece over the ERE. Gug01 (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding more sources for this; is there anything in particular you feel is missing that I could search around for specifically? Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've added more. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"Roman identity showcased considerable tenacity." - changed "showcased" to "showed" Gug01 (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

"though these names have lost strength and Istro-Romanians often prefer other ones, most usually that of their native villages.[141]" -> "... and Istro-Romanians often identify with their native villages instead" Gug01 (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

See also

Perhaps add Roman Empire and Rise of Christianity? Gug01 (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Roman Empire is already linked in the article so IIRC should then not be in the "see also" section. I've added a link to Rise of Christianity at the section of Late Antiquity. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Round 2: Later History

I've made this new section just so the feedback is less cluttered and I can better follow what gets addressed. Gug01 (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

And I realized I haven't used this section at all lol! Still, just wanted to let you know, @Ichthyovenator:, that I've finished reviewing everything. We really only have to work on the "later history" section as everything else is great. The "later history" section, though, to be honest, doesn't currently meet the high standard of quality you've set in the rest of the article - but we can work to fix that! Gug01 (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Great! Yes, the section is a bit of a mess :) Hopefully we can a reach a state in which it flows better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I added a few comments to the Later History sections. Overall, it reads so much better; I like what you did with both prose and images! There are literally two revisions left for you to make, which are both minor; I promise I have nothing else. After that, I ask you generally read over the article and make any minor copy edits (ex. spelling) I might've missed. We've done a great job, and to be honest I think you should at least consider pushing for FA-status with this article! Gug01 (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gug01: I've responded to both comments above and tried to revise accordingly. I'd also like to thank you for the mammoth task of reviewing this article (the length of this page is approaching that of the article itself!) - the substantial improvements over the last two months are your doing. FA is definitely a possibility in the future, I don't think there are more extensive summarizations of the long history of Roman identity than this one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Everything is great! You flatter me, but this article - both its initial state and improved state - is really all thanks to your diligent research and writing! And it is now a Good Article! Gug01 (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Extra Citations

If, for whatever reason, you feel you need more scholarly books on the topic of Rome (not implying that's the case), I suggest you take a look at David Potter's Ancient Rome: A New History and Peter Brown's The World of Antiquity. If not, I suggest you still read these books just for leisure; they're academic, and also well-written and well-thought-out. Gug01 (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll definitely check these out in the future. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)