Disputatio:Alba Iulia
I am not so sure, if the modern town of Alba Iulia should be called Apulum. Apulum was the Roman town near to modern Alba Iulia. By calling Alba Iulia Apulum a continuity might be indicated that probably did not exist.
In later times (in Latin texts) the town is called Alba Iulia: cf. Hofmann, Johann Jacob: Lexicon Universale [.... - Leiden, 1698] vel Circaria Hungarica.
The diocese is called: Dioecesis Albensis (cf. AAS 38) sive Dioecesis Alba Iuliensis. As far as I know there neither was a „dioecesis Apulensis“ nor a „comitatus Apulensis“.
The old (Hungarian) „comitatus Albensis“ is the region around Székesfehérvár in Hungary, the district around Alba Iulia was called Comitatul Alba de Jos (in Hungarian: Alsó-Fehér vármegye, in Latin: comitatus Albensis inferior; existed more or less till 1960 in its borders, today’s Alba-district is smaller).
If I am not mistaken, Apulensis is used either used for antique matters (provincia Dacia Apulensis) or for the modern University of Alba Iulia (Acta Musei Apulensis, Acta Universitatis Apulensis, Annales Universitatis Apulensis, Universitas Apulensis).
So I’d prefer to call the modern town Alba Julia vel Alba Iulia (as attested in Hofmann), the modern district comitatus Albensis (Romania) – to distinguish it from the Hungarian disctrict and the former comitatus Albensis inferior, for the diocese, the thing seems to be clear (dioecesis Albensis sive Alba Iuliensis), the inhabitants could be called Albenses vel Apulenses.--Utilo 15:42, 24 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
The diocese now is archidioece, cf. Catholic Hierarchy: Archidioecesis Albae Iuliensis - et: DIOECESIS ALBA IULIENSIS AD GRADUM ARCHIDIOECESIS EVEHITUR--Utilo 15:49, 24 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're right. We should reserve Apulum for the Roman town. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:22, 24 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
- UV has moved the page to "Apulum" -- I'm not sure why -- there doesn't seem to be consensus. I still think (as I thought yesterday) that Alba Iulia makes a convenient and well-documented name for the modern city. Apulum was not exactly in the same location. We often make this distinction between ancient and modern cities, especially if there is not much historical/geographical continuity. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:29, 25 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
- It's exactly what I think about it.--Utilo 17:53, 25 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
- I just (assuming good faith) fixed a copy&paste "move" that an anonymous user performed in violation of Vicipaedia:Movere without checking whether the move was indeed warranted. Please do not hesitate to move the page back to where it belongs! Greetings, --UV 20:34, 25 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. I'm sure it was in good faith, anyway, but possibly without considering how encyclopedias have to deal with both ancient and modern facts. I'll revert the move for the present; discussion can continue. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:58, 25 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
- UV has moved the page to "Apulum" -- I'm not sure why -- there doesn't seem to be consensus. I still think (as I thought yesterday) that Alba Iulia makes a convenient and well-documented name for the modern city. Apulum was not exactly in the same location. We often make this distinction between ancient and modern cities, especially if there is not much historical/geographical continuity. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:29, 25 Iulii 2010 (UTC)