Talk:Spania

Name

What was the name of this Byzantine province in Latin? FilipeS 20:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Spania was the Latin term. The Romans would have called it (the whole peninsula) Hispania, but by the late sixth century, the normal usage had degenerated to simply Spania (for the whole peninsula, see Fredegar). It was the official term used by the Byzantines for the province, however, as seen in the title of its governors: magister militum Spaniae. The language of the province was Latin from top to bottom. Srnec 04:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Was there a Greek version of the name, given that the Byzantines spoke Greek? The Ogre 12:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering whether Spania might be the Greek name, or a loanword from Greek. Did they never write Hispania? FilipeS 20:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In Greek, it was (and still is) "Ἱσπανία", pronounced at that time "[H]Ispanía". "Spania" is vulgarized Latin, and would be, as noted, the term actually used both in the province itself and the imperial chancery, since for the duration of the province's existence, the official administrative language of the Empire was Latin. Cplakidas 20:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean in the West? Surely not in the East, by the 6th century!

Anyway, I'm surprised that they would use popular Latin so early into the Middle Ages. Most of the time, early medieval writers would try to emulate classical Latin. See Medieval Latin. FilipeS 20:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Greek wasn't the official language of the Eastern Empire until the 7th century. And vulgar Latin is not really related to medieval Latin at all - you're right, medieval writers would try to emulate classical Latin, but not really this early, when they didn't yet distinguish between the classical and popular forms (they weren't speaking Latin but they didn't know it yet!). And the spoken language (which evolved into the Romance languages) was always different, even in the classical period. Adam Bishop 01:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have often heard that claim that the spoken language of the Romans was radically different from the written language from the start, but never seen any convincing evidence. In any case, this is beside the point.

You say that Greek only became the official language of the Empire in the 7th century. However, already in the 6th century Justinian (who was by birth a Latin speaker) used Greek in some of his legislation, did he not? As far as I know, the move towards Greek in official documents in the East started already in the 5th century.

I guess what I'm asking is whether this form Spania is consistently attested in Latin documents throughout this period, or whether it shows up mostly in Greek translations. FilipeS 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The Latin Wiki basically explains it. The official usage was Latin, but Byzantine Latin of the 6th century used Spania, not Hispania. I am not yet aware of this term in Greek. Srnec 04:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely the Latin term "Spaniae" was a plural and meant "The Spains." Earlier, the Gallic provinces had been lumped together under the term Galliae (The Gauls). On the face of it this would imply a number of provinces within Spain. Urselius (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Provincia Spaniae means "Province of Spain". It's a genitive singular, not a nominative plural. At least, I'm pretty sure it is. Srnec (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that the form of the name implied a plural provincial structure. The earlier diocese structure used the form -ae when there were a number of subordinate provinces - Galliae had 8 provinces, Britanniae had 4 and Hispaniae had 5. Even earlier, when it was a single province, Britain was called Britannia. Using this as a paradigm, if there was a single province in Byzantine Spain I would have thought the form 'Hispania' or 'Spania,' not 'Spaniae', would have been used. Urselius (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

But where is "Spaniae" used except in the phrase "Provincia Spaniae", where it is a genitive, is it not? As far as I know, "Spania" is the name of the province in Latin. Srnec (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Citation for name?

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)

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)

Inconsistencies

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)

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)

Justinian I - East Roman Emperor

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Go ahead. Srnec (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

Fanatical righteousness? Please do talk to an administrator. Srnec (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

I'm glad we've got a solution that works for both of us. Srnec (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)