Talk:History of the Mediterranean region

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

This article looks more like a stub to me in this state. Dori 00:34, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It could probably use some links to some other history articles, and maybe a brief summary. We do have a fair bit on Mediterranean history already. -- Tim Starling 00:42, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

Why isn't this just a redirect to Mediterranean? — OwenBlacker 21:21, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - merge it with Mediterranean Sea (which is where Mediterranean now redirects). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:23, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's a substub right now, but it can definitely become its own article. We could list the influence of maritime trade and/or conquest on the Mediterranean for each of the ancient civilizations, and also describe the marine republics from the Middle ages. I'd leave this standalone and work on it. --Joy [shallot] 15:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think this article is a bit long to be a substub but I still think this would look more at home in Mediterranean Sea: isn't one longer, more comprehensive article about a topic better than two shorter, less comprehensive articles about roughly the same topic? OTOH, if someone wants to write a comprehensive article here, please be my guest! -- ALoan (Talk) 16:03, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but if we patch it up just enough to leave it separate, then we can mark this one as hist-stub and have it appear in the right category, where historians might be more likely to look at it :) --Joy [shallot] 19:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is already marked as a hist-stub! -- ALoan (Talk) 10:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By me. I had also marked it as a substub because it really is a sub-stub, it's just a sentence with two lists of links. --Joy [shallot]

Yes, thanks! It was previously a geo-stub, which is why I suggested merging it: it looks a bit long to me to be a substub, and as it is already marked as a stub (geo- or hist-) it seems a bit otiose to mark as a substub too. No matter - now all it needs it some content! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:47, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is this article referring just to the history of the sea or to the history of the entire Mediterranean region? The former would do well as a sub-section of the sea article, the later could be a very substantial independent article. - SimonP 22:30, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the whole region around the sea is meant. --Joy [shallot]

Should there not be some definition of the term Mediterranean Region? It is not particularly precise term in the context of the Sea itself. A more useful term is perhaps Mediterranean Basin Peter Shearan 14:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nice, but not a single mention of e.g. Venice? Shurely shome mishtake? :) --Joy [shallot] 00:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article is definitely necessary - we aim to build an encyclopaedia, and the history of the Mediterranean is a major area of academic research. And that's partly what's missing - references to the key historians of the sea. At the very least there should be further reading references to Henri Pirenne and Fernand Braudel. If noone disagrees then I'll add them in a couple of days.--

[edit] Map at 1210

I have a very dodgy map in my textbook that says that in 1210 C.E. the Abbasid caliphate ruled much of the Levant, Egypt and North Africa, that the Byzantine empire consisted solely of Macedonia - this is ofcourse a load of rubbish, considering that the Abbassids consisted only of Baghdad and some surrounding land, whilst the main Byzantine empire consisted of Nicaea. Macedonia was either in Bulgarian hands or in the Latin crusader's hands. Could someone possibly show me a map or evidence to confirm this? A map of the mediterranean around 1200 - 1220 CE would be greatTourskin.

[edit] Map at 220 BCE

The seleucid empire covered much more land than represented on the map, including mesopotamia.--RafaelG 22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the exact borders are correct, but that map does show Mesopotamia as part of the empire. It is somewhat confusing as the map curves sharply upwards on the far right, making Mesopotamia look like it spreads directly eastward. - SimonP 23:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)