Talk:Spania

message: Can anyone provide any cites that this province was referred to by the Byzantines as "Spania"? AFAIK, when any scholar refers to this late antique province -- which is admittedly not often, this is one of the dusty corners of Late Ancient/Early Medieval history for Anglophones -- it is as "Byzantine Spain". "Spania" is not the first word that springs to mind. -- llywrch (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thompson in his appendix to The Goths in Spain uses it. In the image at right you can see contemporary usage. Read also the previous section. Srnec (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation for name?

message: In 550, in the reign of Agila, Spain was suddenly troubled by two major revolts. The citizens of Córdoba rebelled against Gothic or Arian rule and Agila was roundly defeated, his son killed, and his treasure lost.
What "treasure" is this?
Their landing at Cartagena was violent. The native Catholic population, which included the family of Leander of Seville, was well disposed to the Visigoth Athanagild and the Byzantine government of the city was forced suppress their freedoms, an oppression which lasted decades into their occupation.
Wasn't Athanagild an ally of the Byzantines? Why would the population, which was "well disposed" to him, be a problem?
In late March 555, the supporters of Agila turned on him, assassinated him, and raised Agila as sole king of the Goths in opposition to the Byzantines, who now posed a threat to the kingdom.
This can't be right! FilipeS 21:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The treasure referred to was the royal treasure, the treasury so to speak. Athanagild was not an ally after the assassination of Agila. The inconsistency in naming has been fixed. Srnec 03:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistencies

message: For user Srnec. It appears you've been a contributor to Wikipedia long enough to know better than pushing the use of 'Roman' instead of 'East Roman' or 'Byzantine' the way you do it. Nobody disputes the fact that the East Roman Empire is a continuation of ancient Rome, that it is de facto and de jure the Rome of the Middle Ages and that the line of Byzantine Emperors is a continuation of the succession of Roman Emperors. But this is an encyclopedia and historical facts are based on commonly accepted historiographical notions. This is not a place to impose on other your own hardline vision of history. Everybody knows that the people of the Byzantine Empire called themselves 'Romans', but it doesn't change the way history was written. If 'East Roman' is unacceptable to you then go and change the article List of Byzantine emperors, merge it with Roman Emperors, cancel 'Byzantine Empire' and add its contents to 'Roman Empire'. Defend you position there, rather than pushing your agenda waging edit wars in peripheral articles.--99.231.179.102 (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is no "hardline" vision of history. The current lede is better. It makes no sense to refer to Spania as a province of the East Roman Empire. It was a province of the Roman empire, formerly of its western division, and it was partially reconquered by Justinian. This article is about the second incarnation of Roman Spain. The first sentence tips the reader off by inserting "Byzantine" in parentheses. This is an encyclopaedia and therefore a paedagogical tool. It is misleading to automatically refer to the Roman empire after a certain arbitrary date as "Eastern" or "Byzantine". I have no problem with these terms when properly and informatively used. What is wrong with saying just "Roman"? Why is "East Roman" required? I think it is being used automatically, thoughtlessly and arbitrarily as if there is a universal historical consensus about terminology that has undergone no change and never will. Srnec (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't wanna go in circles. Almost every sentence here is your personal opinion that you are trying to impose on others. There are also false statements. Spania was never a province of ancient Rome, Hispania was (two Hispanias actually). Spania was barely the size of Baetica. 'Second incarnation of Roman Spain' sounds certainly romantic, a flight of your fantasy as it was for Justinian, I'm sure. So, wright your own encyclopedia and make it a pedagogical tool for your children, you have every right to do so. I'm very sorry that this one is based on centuries of commonly accepted historiography, it certainly doesn't fit your views on the topic but it happens to be the way it is. From the standpoint of world history Ancient Rome ended with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, so did the Antiquity. It ended with the rise of feudal societies. 'Rome' in a way continued into the Middle Ages as Eastern Roman Empire, its eastern half, a Christian not a pagan state. One of the reasons why Justinian's reconquests were short-lived was exactly the fact that the peoples of the western part existed for almost 150 years outside the Empire, let alone the fact that a lot of newcomers had settled there since. As Greek language and culture began prevailing in the Empire European historiography increasingly  referred to it as Byzantine, which is of course something that eastern Romans never called themselves, but that is not the point. As I said already (and you ignored it completely, since you have no good response to that) go try changing everything about Byzantine Empire and its Emperors in Wikipedia and face the music. Wikipedia's cardinal rule is WP:NPOV, which as such is 'non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it'. You seem to be either forgetting or ignoring it.--99.231.179.102 (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't know what you're talking about. "From the standpoint of world history Ancient Rome ended with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, so did the Antiquity." Huh? "It ended with the rise of feudal societies." Those arose around 476, eh? Why would I change every instance of "Byzantine" when I don't even want to change the instance of it here? Srnec (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: History cannot be rewritten by demagoguery. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV. Next time I turn this to the administrators.--99.231.179.102 (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. Srnec (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I will. I just read your discussion page. Seems that WP:I just don't like it is your style - "My way or the highway". There are ways to deal with fanatical righteousness on Wikipedia.--99.231.179.102 (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fanatical righteousness? Please do talk to an administrator. Srnec (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, but that's what you seem to have been exhibiting. I'm OK with your compromise version.--99.231.179.102 (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad we've got a solution that works for both of us. Srnec (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Justinian I - East Roman Emperor