Talk:Roman Syria

Splitting the article

I have added the "former country" template to describe the Roman province of Syria, which actually existed in its first form in 64-135 CE, until it became Syria Palaestina. Not much changed in geographical terms in 135 CE, but still it is not correct to describe the Syrian province as if it continuosly existed until 638 CE (Muslim conquest). Syria Palaestina has become part of the splinter Palmyrene Empire in 260-272, but was restored by Aurelius. In the 4th century it turned part of the Byzantine Empire (Diocese of the Orient) as Syria, Syria II, Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Secunda - thus, the material on Byzantine localities should be split into separate articles accordingly (i invite other editors to help me).Greyshark09 (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is properly Roman Syria; it has been wiki-named in order to make a complete "collection" of Roman provinces, not to serve the Wikipedia reader. BTW, the article gives the date 637, but the article Heraclius gives 634. Can the actual date be ascertained? --Wetman (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Map Image date

The date captioned on the map image seems wrong. It says it's from 64 BC, whereas there are many other provinces (notably Britain and Egypt, but also others) on that map which were certainly not conquered at that time. I'd guess the map is from 60AD or later. Does anyone have another map which could be used, or shall I just change the caption? - OneCatch (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Change made according to date (116) on image file.OneCatch (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No map of the province itself!

Arminden (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Roman Syria included the area also AFTER the split into 2 provinces

The art., as of now, is based on a mistaken definition. The only worthwile discussion here, imo, is whether to include into the definition both resulting smaller provinces, or just the eastern one with the capital in Damascus.

N.B.: "Roman Syria" is not the official name of any province, but a construct of the historians and archaeologists: its their writings that matter, the definition mostly used by them should decide on what we apply here as the article's topic. And that definition belongs in the 1st sentence of the lead. I suppose it should combine the definition of Syria (extent in antiquity) and the period (Roman rule). The distinction between polytheistic Roman vs Christian Byzantine Empire is another factor in the definition of the topic at hand: it sets its end date. Arminden (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Nota bene: Pompey, or the Roman Republic, didn't give the conquered Seleucid Syria the official name "Roman Syria", so why reduce the use of this term to the pre-split province? How were the later, resulting two provinces, either less Roman, or less part of Syria (which was very much understood as one historical entity by the Romans)? They were not, so the two are as much part of "Roman Syria". Therefore the scope of the "Roman Syria" enWiki article should also be extended from Pompey to the emergence of the Byzantine Empire and "Byzantine Syria".

This logical approach becomes pointless if historians and other scholars decided to use the term "Roman Syria" only for the initial province. Dumbarton Oaks, a Harvard University research institute-cum-museum, does not. Arminden (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)