Talk:Wales in the Roman era

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2021 and 6 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JoshuaHac. Peer reviewers: Kleio Artemia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Replaced the old article with this one, with less about wars and more about other stuff, hopefully more informative. Also updated the talk page banners. Notuncurious (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed article move

I suggest that this article, Roman Wales, be moved to Wales in the Roman Era. That is consistent with related articles (* in the Early MA, * in the Late MA, * in the Early Modern Era); there really never was a 'Roman Wales'. If this seems uncontroversial, I'll do it in a few days. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Time's not quite on my side I'm afraid so I'll read through at a more convenient time, but here's one suggestion. Maybe you could tweak the opening sentence into something like "Roman rule in the area corresponding roughly to modern Wales began in ...", just to make clear right away that we are referring to a geographic area rather than a political unit. Cavila (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor stuff

Definitely an improvement, and as always very nice maps :). Couple of minor things: In the lead the article states that "Roman rule is remembered as a military occupation..."- that seems a bit unclear to me - remembered by whom? Secondly, wouldn't the paragraph about Patrick fit better under the heading "Religion" than "Legacy", and finally: would it make sense to link the Pillar of Eliseg from the Magnus section (and perhaps use an image as an illustration)? Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to go through the article, Finn. Good ideas, I made the changes, it looks better. Mention more if you think of them. Thanks, too, for the kind words on the maps (the real work is in tracking down and verifying the information on them). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a pleasure reading it - this is a period&place that I didn't know much about. Couple of other things while I'm at it:

• Under the heading romanisation conserning villas it reads that they're "evolutionary result of pre-Roman family homesteads rather than the Roman-derived villas" - not sure I understand that. If these are pre-roman homesteads that have evolved into Roman-villas that surely would indicate "romanisation" (even if they weren't built by Romans). Or did I misunderstand the whole argument there?
• I remember being intrigued the first time I read about Welsh royalty claiming descent from Constantine the Great, based on a mix up with Constantine III. Might not be very relevant, but perhaps worth mentioning in the legacy part. Another intriguing figure is Ambrosius Aurelianus.
• There's a sharper image of the pilllar of Eliseg at Commons here, File:Eliseg's Pillar - geograph.org.uk - 206975.jpg, but it should probably be cropped.
• Liguistic heritage: Words like Eglwys, llyfr (liber) and ysgrif (scribo) seems to me to most likely stem from the (later) latin monastic tradition - that could apply to ffenestr as well. With the absence of early written Welsh sources we have no way of knowing when these borrowings were incorporated in Welsh, so maybe that section should be qualified.

Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Good points again. Tried to adjust text to address excellent points re villas and linguistic legacy ... have a look and mention if I didn't succeed; that's a better image of the pillar, but I'm loathe to crop someone else's esthetic/artistic effort (but might later anyway); most everything related to Arthuriana post-dates the era, I was thinking, early 5th century stories notwithstanding; also I thought inclusion of Constantine the Great was attributed to post-Roman machinations in genealogy; not sure what to do about Constantine III c. 407 (little known about him, and surely he was appropriate to southeastern Britain and not Wales, though maybe southernmost Wales might have been associated with southeastern Britain at that time) ... opinions? Also made a few mods of my own (religion to its own section, not a subsection; and a few other tweaks). More ideas welcome, whenever they come to you. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - now I understand what was meant about the villas. Regarding Constantine (any of them) that's more a parenthesis for the legacy-part I think. I find it interesting that later Welsh princes sought legitimacy through showing descent from the Romans, former occupants of Wales. I suppose this is due to that by the time these genealogies were constructed the Anglo-Saxons had long since replaced the Romans as the (main) external threat (you glorify the past when the future dries up...), and the legendary memories of Roman times would have a more positive light. I added another note regarding those Welsh-Latin words, to give credit to Maund who pointed me to them (I certainly don't speak Welsh, and only bits and pieces of Latin). Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I added 2 paragraphs on the Roman connection, which could probably stand improvement, but at least they've been started. I get the impression that the memory focuses on Maximus and the transfer of legitimacy, rather than any particular fondness for Rome, but that's a side issue either way. I'll go ahead and move the page soon, but we should continue improvements whenever they come to mind. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Cambria

If this term is of classical origin, it should probably be mentioned somewhere in this article. Is it a Roman word? (It's obviously Latin.) Srnec (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not Latin, it's Latinised. Typically for the Romans, this was derived from the name of the people already living there. The original Brythonic word though, like so many country names, just meant something on the lines of "our people" as opposed to "what did that lot of others ever do for us?" A different route, evidently not passing through "Cambria", later gave us "Cymru". Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

So it was in use in Roman times? (It's Latin, like "Italy" is English.) Srnec (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The Romans had no overall term for "Wales" any more than they (or anyone for a thousand years) had one for "England". There just wasn't a distinct area for each, or a clear boundary across the Marches. What they did generally use was based on the regions of the four major tribes: Silures, Ordovices, Demetae and Deceangli (there were other recognised, but minor, tribes too). The first really solid use of "Cambria" seems to have been by Gerald of Wales (Giraldus Cambrensis) who made it the title of his Itinerarium Cambriae. He did of course have a political motive for unifying the Welsh at this time. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that the term "Cambria" was in use in Roman times, but was restricted to the region of a tribe called the Cambri? Or are you saying that "Cambria" was not in use at all until Gerald's time? I tried to sort this out myself, but I couldn't find a source using the term prior to the Middle Ages. (In which case the article Cambria needs to be edited.) Srnec (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Linguistic Items

There are a few problems with some of the words here - caer is most likely from a Celtic root cagro- rather that Latin castra, although it has been proposed (I can't remember where) that it represents an unusual form of the Latin quadra. Also eglwys is from Greek ekklesia meaning a gathering, not from Greek kleros. Fulgentian (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Fulgentian

Lead In

"Virtually anonymous"--what does this mean/imply? Did the author mean "virtually autonomous"? 3-22-19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.126.173 (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Good question. I don't know, but the editor responsible for that edit in 2010 has not edited here for some years. A rewording and clarification might be needed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Aerial view of Dinas Dinlle Iron Age Hill Fort.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

end of roman rule

It is not quite clear to me whether Roman rule of Wales ended before the end of Roman rule in Britain, in partilarly the year 383 doesn't look to be sufficiently sourced. The source cited in the lead doesn't even contain the year 383. The sources in text body are better but imho also not witout problems. One is from 1841 which seems rather outdated and for the others it isn't quite if they actually source the years 383 or just related material to the end of roman rule.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Major find of Roman forts in Wales suggesting Wales was integrated fully into Roman Britain

Early days but [1] is fascinating and surprising. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)