Talk:History of Sicily

message: Since Sicily has been taken over by so many civilization during its rich history, I felt that a timeline could visually condense this information. I plan to do this in svg so that anyone can modify it. I would just like to know if it fit in the scope of this article, because I wouldn't want it to be speedy deleted. Cheers ! --Donvinzk (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline of Sicily history

message: ===History of Sicily (7 votes, stays until July 20, 2006)===
:Nominated June 30, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by July 20, 2006
This island has a very rich history and it deserves own article. Some info should be inserted from Sicily article. 
Support:
# Darwinek 21:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:COTW]] vote

message: :Nominated June 30, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by July 20, 2006
This island has a very rich history and it deserves own article. Some info should be inserted from Sicily article. 
Support:
# Darwinek 21:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[History of Sicily]] (7 votes, stays until [[July 20]], [[2006]])

message: As a first step, this article should be sub-divided into the significant periods (most of which choose themselves).  In scn.wiki - we have commenced with these periods - we are nowhere near finished, but it might be a good starting point here as well.  They are as follows:
#pristoria - prehistory
#èbbica greca - Greek period
#èbbica rumana - Roman period (perhaps including Siracuse's role in the Punic Wars)
#èbbica gòtica - Gothic period
#èbbica bizzantina - Byzantine period (these last two could almost be combined given that the Gothic period was quite short)
#èbbica àrabba - Arab period
#èbbica nurmanna - Norman period
#èbbica sveva - Swabian period (many historians treat the last two as one period, starting with Roger I and ending with Manfred - an argument that has merit
#èbbica aragunisa - Aragonese period (could take in the very brief Angevin rule under Charles, and obviously includes the Sicilian Vespers - but note that the Aragonese period itself is split between a significant period of independent rule whose rulers were of Aragonese descent but for all intents and purposes Sicilian, and a latter period where Sicily was ruled directly by the Aragonese)
#èbbica spagnola - Spanish period (might be some conjecture as to when this period actually starts and ends)
#èbbica borbònica - Bourbon period (Kingdom of the Two Sicilies)
#èbbica cuntimpurania - modern period (starting with the Risorgimento, although potentially these two could be combined, e.g. Bourbon period to present) 
That advantage of this set up is that some of the more significant periods are likely to become article in their own right with time - so it's good to get a handle on that upfront.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means - add them. Davodd 17:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok done, I also included a bit of an intro which was needed, the actual names of the sub-headings may still need some tinkering as the article is fleshed out.  This is still largely a copy from the main Sicily article.  Now that is it almost properly sub-divided, a greater flow needs to be developed between the various parts and periods, and a bit more detail added.  A few additional references won't go astray either, I am certainly in a position to add a few more.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Logical ordering of significant periods in Sicilian history

message: Having returned to this article for the first time in a few weeks, I note a few gaps, or at least some parts that do not flow as well as they should.  As an example of a clear ommission - the Norman period doesn't even introduce the names of Robert Guiscard and Roger I of Sicily, says little of the 30 year long conquest of the island from the ruling saracens and seems to jump straight into Roger II becomin king in 1130.  A bit more of an intro and clarification is required here, because this early period effectively determined Sicily's history and development for the next 950 years (in terms of language, religion, culture and population mix).  Also, a few additional details can probably be added here and there, especially in the century post 1815.  πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 01:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Bourbon section there is this bit: "In late 1852, Prince Emanuele Realmuto set up power in North Central Sicily. Highly educated, the prince established a political system set to bring Sicily's economy to the highest levels in all of Italy. The Prince's life however was shortened by an assassination in 1857. To this day some of his work is still present in the Italian parliament."  I have never heard of this Prince Realmuto, and it.wiki doesn't seem to have anything on him - is someone able to confirm his existence and provide a reference?  πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I found on google were copies of this section - which makes me even more suspicious.  πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reread

message: This article has very poor referencing and no footnotes. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article???

message: Should probably be added to the Norman Sicily section, it was fairly significant in its impact.  The Jade Knight 08:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Battle of Civitate opened up the whole of Southern Italy to the Normans - and one could argue that it was the first stepping stone to the Kingdom that would come some 80 years later - but at the same time, it is still 7 years before the Normans set foot on Sicily in a meaningful way - so it is arguable.  πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Civitate, 1053 

message: While the first part of the article is quite good, the modern/contemporary part is summary and extremely POV (i.e. anti-united Italy). I deleted e.g. a reference to "hundreds of thousands" of executions by the Italian army in the decade after the Unity. This is preposterous, and should be founded on some reliable source (if available, which I highly doubt).Giordaano 15:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Sicily =

message: 1)It forever sealed the fate of Sicily as a western Christian civilization.  Which at the time could have went either way.  This period and time forever changed the future of Sicily's culture and place in history.  
2)The Normans made several large & distinct contributions to art, poetry, architecture, law, governance, customs, etc.
3)This was the epoch era in Sicilian history as the Sicilian empire spread from S.Italy to Malta and Libya and areas in Greece and moder day Albania.  And had the Second largest populated Christain city outside of Constantinople.
4)They treated Arabs as inferior with higher taxes, persecution and displaced them from their lands and farms and eventually expelled every single Arab from Sicily.
5)If anything this should be grouped Norman/Hohenstaufen period!  As these two are far closer related, considering marriage arrangements would seal Sicily's fate With the Habsburgs for centuries.
Some referenced data and excerpts to further proof my point:
On March 9 1161, some barons stormed the royal palace and massacred the unarmed Muslim employees while holding King William prisoner. Rioting in Palermo's strrets, the Chrisitians broke into Muslim-owned businesses, killing the propeitors or driving them out of Palermo. In the countryside they usurped the Muslim Farmlands. The Lombard barons were behaving towards Sicilian Muslims like the Crusaders were behaving toward Muslims on the road to Jerusalem(1) found in chapter 6 titled, "Normans"
Moslems were not violently persecuted by the government but they were regarded as an inferior group, much as Christians had been under teh Arabs, and both Moslems and Jews were discriminated against in tax policy. There is evidence from place names that many moslems emigrated from Sicily and settled elsewhere in the Mediterranean area. They were replace not only by Norman or French settlers but by Italians, notablly from Liguria or Lombardy(2) found in chapter 3,High Middle Ages:Sicily under the Normans and Frederick II(1130-1250)
Slowly but surely the Normans took over the South, eliminating not only Lombard principalities and independent duchies, but also two foreign military powers the Byzantines and Arabs in Sicily:In 1071 Bari, the last Byzantine stronghold in Apulia, fell and in 1072 Palermo, the greatest cirty of Arab Sicily, was captured.
The elimination of the Byzantine and Arab power in Italy was, as it happens, definitive and therefore highly significant, ensuring that all of Italy became a part of Western Christendom(which now identify as Western Europe), speaking a Romance language derived from Latin(not Greek or Arabic) and identifyingwith Western Latin Church, rather than Islam or Greek Orthodoxy.(3)Chapter 2:The Medieval century 400-1250.
Frederick II is famous for his free thinking and his appreciation of Islamic culture: but he savagely repressed a Muslim revolt in Sicily, and deported the survivors to Apulia, where they were concentrated at Lucera and exploited for their tax revenues and services.(4)Chapter 2:The Medieval century 400-1250.
However the famed 'multiculturalism can be exaggerated. The Muslim population of Sicily waned from the late 12th century, and Greeks and Arabs mostly remained peasants(5)Part II:The revival of Europe.
1)S.Benjamin, "Sicily: 3,000 years of human history"(Liberty of Congress Cataloging-in-publication data, 2006)
2)H. Hearder, "Italy: A short history."(Cambridge University press, 1990)
3 & 4)G. Holmes, "The Oxford illustrated history of Italy"(Oxford University Press, 1997)
5)A. Jotischky & C. Hull, "The Penguin Historical Guide of the MEdieval World."(Penguin books, 2005)
***Regardless we will bring in experts to decide this dilemna...(Scipio3000~)
===Why the name "Saracen" should at least be mentioned in Arab section===
A user said,  "Saracen means Easterner and it simply refers to the Persians and Syrians in the Hellenic era." And it should not be used anymore. First off, I have never heard Persians or Syrians being called Saracens in the Ancient World.  If anything they were called the  Medes, Asiatics or more likely Barbarians which is what all outside people were called by the Greeks and Romans.  The English name for Wales originates from the Germanic word Walha, meaning "stranger" or "foreigner", and the Norse were called by others, North Men or Northerners, so why do we still call these groups by that name?  What is so wrong with this?  I haven't heard any motion for the Welsh or Normans to have there names changed...why not? 
A book on "Sicily" by Dr. Joseph F. Privitera one of america's foremost experts in Sicily, calls them Saracens throughout the book, and this was written in 2002.  It is critically important to keep with historical accuracies, this is what they were called at the time and it still needs to be mentioned...at least somewhere in the article..  Just like the early settlers called Native Americans, "Indians".  We still include that fact in history, so why is this different?  In the modern day, we may not call them that anymore, but the early settlers did, so shouldn't we at least make mention of this somewhere in the article??  
The reason we are able to enjoy history today, is because previous generations felt it was imperative to pass down historical facts completely intact and with the fullest integrity regarding historical accuracies, names, dates and events.  It is our duty to continue this trend for all future generations''
***Regardless we will seek out a group consensus and contact experts to review the material.(Scipio3000 20:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Why the Normans deserve there own section''

message: A user said,  "Saracen means Easterner and it simply refers to the Persians and Syrians in the Hellenic era." And it should not be used anymore. First off, I have never heard Persians or Syrians being called Saracens in the Ancient World.  If anything they were called the  Medes, Asiatics or more likely Barbarians which is what all outside people were called by the Greeks and Romans.  The English name for Wales originates from the Germanic word Walha, meaning "stranger" or "foreigner", and the Norse were called by others, North Men or Northerners, so why do we still call these groups by that name?  What is so wrong with this?  I haven't heard any motion for the Welsh or Normans to have there names changed...why not? 
A book on "Sicily" by Dr. Joseph F. Privitera one of america's foremost experts in Sicily, calls them Saracens throughout the book, and this was written in 2002.  It is critically important to keep with historical accuracies, this is what they were called at the time and it still needs to be mentioned...at least somewhere in the article..  Just like the early settlers called Native Americans, "Indians".  We still include that fact in history, so why is this different?  In the modern day, we may not call them that anymore, but the early settlers did, so shouldn't we at least make mention of this somewhere in the article??  
The reason we are able to enjoy history today, is because previous generations felt it was imperative to pass down historical facts completely intact and with the fullest integrity regarding historical accuracies, names, dates and events.  It is our duty to continue this trend for all future generations''
***Regardless we will seek out a group consensus and contact experts to review the material.(Scipio3000 20:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the name "Saracen" should at least be mentioned in Arab section

message: This has got a bit messy.  I don't mind the term "Arab-Norman" you will most certainly find the term used in relation to the period of the Norman kings, and the unique Siculo-norman architecture of the period.  Equally, there are many texts which treat the Norman-Swabian period as one continuation, with good cause.  Most notably, Matthew does this (I included the four references in the article, I personally own all four books).  But even if we are going to use the term "Arab-Norman", it makes little sense to show the period as being 1091-1224.  For starters, the Normans took over Palermo in 1071, in what was a 30 year war of conquest (1061 to 1091).  On top of that, we have a sub-title on the Hohenstaufen reign (the Swabian kings), and that jumps from 1224 back to 1194, when the last Norman king died.  Put simply - there are far too many inconsistencies and the chronology is all over the shop.  Given that, we either talk of an Arab-Norman period from 1061 to 1194, or we talk of a Norman-Swabian period from, say, 1071 to 1266 (when the Angevins conquered the Kingdom).  If we do the latter, there is no reason why we can't weave the Arab-Norman elements into the discussion.  All this has nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with following stacks of references that we have, most of which I own.  There should be absolutely no problem in telling it the way it is without accusing every 2nd person of being a racist.  I should also add that in the early years of the Norman kingdom there was massive migration of Lombards and other North Italians to Sicily - this is a historical fact, and there seems little sense in downplaying it.  It contributed significantly to the Sicilian language.  πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab-Norman period 1091AD-1224AD

message: The sicilian history is well known, instead of marking all the article....ask for specific citations.--Thesicilianist 00:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: One can see the controversy here. I object that information is removed, such as periods of independence and the various greater powers. It's a disservice to the reader. Srnec (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that the intro should not cut out references to others who have played a role in Sicilian history (giving the impression that only certain groups need be emphasised).  Sometimes I find it extraordinary the amount of emotion generated by this subject - Sicilian history up to the modern era is reasonable well researched and most of the key dates a very well known.  If anything, the period immediately before and after the Risorgimento is the most controversial of all.  πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 07:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controvery over lead 

message: Hello, i want to ask something about latinization of Sicily after the Norman conqest. I have red that there came many "Lombards", Campanians and other catholic population of Italy. But my question is were these "Lombards" descendants of german speaking ancient Longobards, or were they Italians and descendants of ancient italian population? Same question is about these Campanians and other Italiots, where they really italian speaking people, or just Normans? If someone knows, please tell me. Thanks!--213.151.217.133 (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Latinization

message: Read Ayelet Gilboa's work, some of which is on jstor, relating the Sikila of the Sea Peoples to the ancestors of the Phoenicians.
4.249.48.137 (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sea Peoples and Phoenicians 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Sicily. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609094555/http://archaeology.stanford.edu/MountPolizzo/handbookPDF/MPHandbook5.pdf to http://archaeology.stanford.edu/MountPolizzo/handbookPDF/MPHandbook5.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of Sicily. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021153925/http://ancientworlds.net/aw/Places/Place/805776 to http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Places/Place/805776
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102223028/http://www.historynet.com/magazines/military_history/3025271.html to http://www.historynet.com/magazines/military_history/3025271.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20080604203505/http://www.lansmuseum.a.se/runriket/taby.html to http://www.lansmuseum.a.se/runriket/taby.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050318002015/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/109.4/br_115.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historycooperative.org%2Fjournals%2Fahr%2F109.4%2Fbr_115.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: — Assignment last updated by MotoMoto1952 (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: The Phoenicians - Cunning Seafarers