Talk:Roman Libya

Untitled

This article is part of the series related to the History of Libya, a north african country.

split

An article about "Roman Libya" is like one about "Roman Germania" (instead of the articles about the actual Roman provinces in Germania, Germania Superior and Germania Inferior, viz. in the Libyan case Libya Inferior and Libya Superior), or worse, if "Libya" is not supposed to mean "Africa" but "the territory of modern Libya", the article topic is bound to generate confusion. It would be an article about "Roman Germany" which does not focus on the territory of Germania as it was understood at the time, but eclectically on the territory of the modern-day territory of Germany as it has stood since 1945. Which would be pointless. Like, say, an article about "Roman Britain" that does not discuss the territory of Roman Britannia but instead the territory of the UK of today ("Roman Northern Ireland"?) --dab (𒁳) 10:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I find illogical the split, because the article is related to the series History of Libya and deals mainly with the areas of this modern country. And it is clearly said this in the article; even that Diocletian created in Cyrenaica an Upper & Lower Libya. It would be like to split the article Roman Britain in "Roman Kent", "Roman Yorkshire", "Roman London", "Roman Cornwall", etc.....--LegaleBDA (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. There was no "Roman Libya" in the same sense there was a Roman Britain. Britain (Britannia) was a Roman province. "Libya" was not. An article "Roman Libya" is like an article "Roman Germany". So Diocletian created provinces Libya Inferior and Libya Superior. This probably explains why these pages exist (as redirects, neither of which points here). These are like Germania Inferior and Germania Superior. Note how we still don't have "Roman Germany". The Germania article corresponds to the Ancient Libya one. --dab (𒁳) 08:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am against the split, for the same reasons of user LegaleBDA. All of us understand that it is related to an 'historical list' of articles, about the History of the actual country called Libya.--Qyork (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think most of us agree that the tag for split must be erased.--Qyork (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

for some reason everyone forgets the tsunami

IT was the event that changed everything. There was no "gradual decline" there was a WHAM!!!!! then a feable recovery before the Arabs got there.04:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Re-Recommending a Split

I am wondering if this article is worth keeping as a separate article. The reasoning of Dbachmann in the above section (Split) is entirely sufficient in explaining why, and it is of note that no other modern country seems to get this treatment of getting an article dedicated spuriously to listing the various provinces into which parts of it (not even the whole!) were divided by the Romans. The reasoning provided by the dissenters appears to completely miss the primary concern --- and the lack of any other equivalent articles for other countries under Roman dominion (where is the article on Roman Germany, which lists every haphazard division by the ancient Romans of lands in the modern Federal Republic of Germany into ancient provinces for their own ends??? Oh, it doesn't exist: the term "Roman Germany" instead automatically redirects to Germania Superior, a specific province which was actually identifiable!) further betrays the validity of Dbachmann's point.

Notably, we already have articles on:

• Ancient Libya - For the ancient treatment of the term "Libya"
• Crete and Cyrenaica - for the historical province of the same name.
• Cyrenaica - for the historical province of the same name, and which currently takes the name Libya Superior.
• Marmarica - for the historical region/"province of the same name, and which currently takes the name Libya Inferior.
• Tripolitania (Roman province) - for the parts of Libya which were subsumed under the province of Tripolitania
• Ottoman Tripolitania - for the Ottoman use of the term.
• Tripolitania - For literally every use of "Tripolitania" as a provincial name.
• Roman Africa - for the various areas of Tunisia and Libya which came under the rule of various provinces in the Roman empire using the name "Africa" (Africa Vetus, Africa Nova, Africa Proconsularis, etc).

In this mess of articles, I truly ask what the point of this one existing is, except to awkwardly patch together things already detailed in these other articles or better assigned to them?

HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)