October 15, 2019 at 11:30 am #36445
Quintus Vergilius CrassusDenarii: 𐆖 249.10PlebeiusSarmatia
I have always been interested in the question of why Sarmatia is named that way, and not otherwise. If we assume that regional communities have a right to exist, then why are they not given the names themselves, but someone else? I still agree when the question concerns real provinces with their historical names, but as for other places where there have never been Roman provinces?
I really wonder why my province is called that way in all near-Roman projects. Who planned it and why?
In a word, I propose to talk about this topic, especially since it is interesting and one way or another it concerns everyone and everyone, moreover, the forum is as usual neglected, and this will somehow spur activity. I saw here the pre-created groups of provinces that were already named, so this sparked my interest in this issue.
Well, Quirits, who thinks about this?October 15, 2019 at 2:01 pm #36446
Titus Flavius SeverusDenarii: 𐆖 1,163.95PatriciusSarmatia
An interesting topic for discussion, especially since it is unexpected to hear from you, my dear friend. I somehow didn’t even seriously think about it, because “Sarmatia” was so merged with us that it seems that this name always existed, and its appearance is shrouded in mystery, like the backstory of Homer’s poems.
We can say for sure that Sarmatia as a province with a link to our region appeared in Nova Roma, however, who was the author of this idea I do not know, nor do I know the motives that guided when choosing this name. When I became interested in this movement, Sarmatia already existed and it was in Nova Roma.
I agree with your words, Crassus, when you say that historical provinces should retain their historical names. As regards the names of regions where there were no Roman provinces, it is completely logical to hand over the solution of this issue to the discretion of the regional communities themselves.
I think that regarding the names of the provinces in the Roman Republic now, it is better to ask Brutus. I noticed that even logos have already been assigned to provinces, including our province. But here we are faced with another problem, namely, that the provinces were created without taking into account the real demand and interest of the citizens themselves, in other words, this is creating something “from above”, and, in theory, the provinces should be created as much as necessary, that is, by the communities themselves “bottom”. As a result, everything can come to the conclusion that we will get a bunch of “inanimate” provinces, as is happening now, when only Sarmatia shows signs of life.
In general, over time, I personally believe that the current concept of the provinces has outlived itself, it is the successor of the Nova Roma system, and this system has proved to be ineffective. In the same Nova Roma and the Roman Republic there are only two real provinces, all the rest is not a province, like a public administrative institution, but simply the name of a geographical area. If we consider the provinces from this point of view, then it is obvious that they are not needed, and it should give way to tribes, which are the division of citizens according to geographical signs, and in addition, the tribes will remove the division according to nationality, there will be no more Sarmatians, Gauls, Germans, etc. That would be more historical. If you still leave the provinces, then their concept needs to be reviewed, and some more effective concept should be used that would motivate people not just to create provinces, but to work in them together. It seems to me that this topic should be brought out in a separate discussion, and discussed before the new concept of tribes is considered.
Regarding the name of Sarmatia itself. If I abstracted from the current situation, then I would hardly have chosen the name of Sarmatia, since the Sarmatian tribes do not quite accurately convey our inner content and way of thinking. The Sarmatians are a rather warlike tribe that has left a rather meager material legacy, and besides all the Sarmatians are almost always the enemy of Rome. Sarmatia was not a province of Rome. This gives a certain freedom of choice. Given this, other names seem more logical, for example, Scythia, an ancient people, led both nomadic and settled life, wonderful craftsmen who created amazing objects, people who were not alien to the ancient tradition and culture, colorful and original people. In addition, the territory of the settlement of the Scythians covers the current territory of our province. Also interesting is the name of the Bosporus or the Bosporus Kingdom, which had close relations with Rome, in the end was a dependent state, with a strong Hellenic tradition. From the Sarmatians, in fact, we only have a name, while the mounds of the Scythians and the cities of Bospor still stand on the ground of our province and are known to many.
Given the “rebranding” of the Roman Republic, the time of changes and innovations, should the Sarmatians also break the established order and think about “rebranding”? To a new Republic with a new name? Who thinks about this?
July 7, 2020 at 2:01 am #38578
- This reply was modified 11 months, 2 weeks ago by Titus Flavius Severus.
Numerius Caelius SaturninusDenarii: 𐆖 6.80PlebeiusFlorida
I hope this is not an unwanted intrusion on an old topic; the whole map confuses me. Some provinces cross between countries, some merge random parts of other provinces while others are entire countries not to mention that most of Latin America and Africa are ignored entirely.
Especially in the New World where Florida is it’s own province whereas “Nova Hispania Citerior” covers the entirety of Mexico. Is this supposed to be based on demographics? Economics? Politics? Or did the names and borders look nice? I’d imagine it’d be a pain for the governor of Mexico to actually govern the entire province he has been given, the same for “Sarmatia” which has multiple countries within it. The names aren’t exactly bad, but it does seem as if some people wanted provinces to name rather than names for a province.July 7, 2020 at 4:58 pm #38579
Publius Iunius BrutusDenarii: 𐆖 1,231.68PatriciusPacifica
Good questions all around. For some context.
The provinces as you see them are unaltered from the time the RR was founded five years ago. They were intended to evolve over time. I still anticipate this being the case. We wanted to establish some basic framework by which to organize our citizens locally. The idea was to help citizens identify those who lived near them and to jump start local collaboration.
The boarders were designed based on a few things. One was that they were loosely based on local chapters in other organizations. The idea here was that existing structures could be co-opted. Why reinvent the wheel? The other consideration was based on how many people from various locations where following the RR on social media prior to its founding. This was a rough estimate of where we expected our citizens to reside. This is why Mexico is one province but Florida is smaller and also one province, we had many more interested people from Florida. The third factor was known transportation linkages between regions.
I hope that provides some context.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.