Disputatio:Index provinciarum Romanarum Imperii

Initium paginae

Nomina, annos, successiones provinciarum sumpsi e Vicipaedia Theodisca (de:Liste der römischen Provinzen bis Diokletian); minora addidi ex aliis Vicipaediis. Etiam usus sum mappa 1 e libro A. H. M. Jones, Later Roman Empire.

Si paginam non habebamus de provincia, creavi stipulam. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:55, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Dilemma in eastern Bulgaria

I don't know whether Dacia Mediterranea and Dacia Ripensis belong in this list or not. Other Wikipedias are not very helpful. Some say that these provinces came into existence (by splitting Dacia Aureliana) a very short time after its creation in 270/271. (Incidentally, the name is a nostalgic reminiscence of the real Dacia, which was wholly abandoned by Rome in 271.) It seems clear, however, that Dacia Aureliana (usually called simply Dacia) was a single province under the Diocletianic reorganization in 296/298; and it definitely split into the two halves (Dacia Mediterranea and Dacia Ripensis) under Theodosius in 395.

So are the supposed Dacia Mediterranea and Dacia Ripensis of the late 3rd century (which I got out of the German list of provinces) ghosts? Was it not "a very short time" but in fact "more than a century" after the creation of Dacia Aureliana (in 270/271) that the province was split into these two halves (in 395)? Can anyone help? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:54, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

For the present, right or wrong, I am taking it that these two names (Dacia Mediterranea and Dacia Ripensis) are post-Diocletianic. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:34, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

I think I've got an answer. In the same way that the later divissions talk about a Noricum Ripensis (on the ripa of the danube) and a Noricum Mediterraneum (not on the mediterranean, but at least not by the danube) out of Noricum, most probably it hapens the same with these Daciae. And if in the fifth century Alaric is requesting to govern as a foedus both Norica, I guess that the same must have happened with Dacia, that the divission was kept--Xaverius 08:02, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, the division may have been remembered from the late 3rd century and reinstated in the late 4th. However, in administrative history, that doesn't often happen. Once you've done away with a boundary (especially a very newly-established one) you don't usually bring back the same boundary 100 years later. So let's wait to see if anyone has real evidence that these two provinces existed at any time in the 3rd century. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:34, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)