Talk:Hibernia

Drumanagh

Does anyone know when the court case on the ownership of articles found at Drumanagh is likely to be over? I think its a scandal, that its taken so long. --Dumbo1 18:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Britian generally"

The "Briatin generally" section seems quite alien to the article. The article is about Hibernia, not the Britsh Isles or Albion and Hibernia. Laurel Bush 11:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC).

I agree - I've changed the section title to "Interaction with Roman Britain", which better describes the content, but it's still an odd section --Ryano 10:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The whole article strikes me as somewhat odd, as if it is really a misplaced section of an article, a section about Ireland which should be in an article about Roman archaeology. Laurel Bush 13:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC).

The "Interaction with Roman Britain" would seem to imply that perhaps the Romans did invade. It's justification being that lack of evidence of Roman Britian. That just is not valid. There are plenty of Roman remains - what about Hadrian's Wall? the baths at Bath? and many more.

The section should be removed --ClemMcGann 15:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wrote most of this article, and someone else has created the sections. The reason for looking at the link between Britain and Ireland seems obvious to me: If there was no contact, then when the Roman's invaded Britain, the effect on Ireland would have been negligable. However if there were close links between Ireland and Britain, the Roman invasion surely would have effected Ireland. I think the article needs a rewrite, not a cull. And I also think that this article should be kept and not merged with the other, large, articles on Irish History. --Dumbo1 17:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

OK - rewrite rather than cull or a merge. and thanks for writing the article. --ClemMcGann 20:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll get round to a rewrite in the next few days. --Dumbo1 22:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Done a bit of a rewrite. Additions and comments welcome! --Dumbo1 19:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Done more of a rewrite. Its starting to read like an article. Any help and additions would be appreciated.

Invasion of Britain

The article says: Everyone accepts that Caesar 'invaded' Britain. Yet his army left few discoverable traces, stayed only a couple of years, and failed to incorporate Britain into the Roman Empire. It is only through the survival of Caesar's book, The Gallic War, that we know of the Roman invasion of Britain in 54 BC. There are certainly what have been interpreted as Roman villas all over the south of England (I've been to a few). The article seems to be saying that Rome probably didn't invade Britain or atleast might not have. Where does this assertion come from? — KayEss | talk 19:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you may have forgotten that the Romans invaded Britain twice. The first was by Julius Ceasar who invaded South England in 55 BC and 54 BC but did not incorporate Britain into the Roman Empire. About 100 years later in 43 AD, Aulus Plautius invaded Britian, eventually concluding in the formal incorporation of much of Britain into Ĉthe Roman Empire. The villas that you mention, and countless other Romano-British archaeological remains, date from after this second invasion to the withdrawal of Roman influence 370 years or so later. The archaeological remains of Caesar's campaigns in Britain are almost non existent. Our knowledge of these campaigns come from the survival of Caesar's book, The Gallic War. The point which I am trying to make in the article is that without the historical record of Ceasar's invasion of Britain, it is most likely that we would never have known it had happened. When considering Ireland, it is also possible, although not certain, that Roman forces, or Roman allied forces, invaded, and then withdrew, without incorporating Ireland into the Roman Empire, much as Ceasar did with Southern England in 55 and 54 BC. What literature remains from this period suggests that some military intervention in Ireland occured, but detail is woefully lacking. Archaeology may help, but, as in the case of Caesar's invasion of Britain, invading armies often leave little trace in the archaeological record if they don't stay around for long. --Dumbo1 12:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

"Possible" Roman Invasion of Hibernia & 'graphs rem'd from former secn on that

_ _ Dumbo1 (talk · contribs) says, at the (present) end of the preceding (and superordinate) sec'n (bold emphasis mine):

When considering Ireland, it is also possible, although not certain, that Roman forces, or Roman allied forces, invaded, and then withdrew, without incorporating Ireland into the Roman Empire...

I bolded those words bcz i believe D should have substituted for them

(but far too speculative to consider discussing based on our current evidence)

The former hdg in the accompanying article, "Invasion perhaps", is encyclopedic neither in wording nor intention. The possibility of events (Roman invasion of Hibernia) that have left no evidence is none of WPs business per se. If reputable professional historians (this implies, BTW, either foreign ones, or native ones who are taken seriously in their relevant assertions by a significant fraction of foreign colleagues) discuss, e.g., whether such an invasion is a useful hypothesis explaining some puzzle, then we can report on that scholarship. Once we can cite it.
_ _ I haven't tried to find out whether to blame D or someone else for the hdg

Invasion perhaps

or what i found at the end of the section:

Everyone accepts that Julius Caesar 'invaded' Britain. Yet his army left few discoverable traces, stayed only a couple of years, and didn't incorporate Britain into the Roman Empire. It is only through the survival of Caesar's book, The Gallic War, that we know of the Roman invasion of Britain in 54 BC. (The successful invasion and incorporation into the Roman Empire occurred 100 years later).

The few other remaining texts from that period, combined with the archaeology, suggest that interaction between Romanised Britain and Ireland occurred. But without the miraculous discovery of a lost Roman text, or some dramatic archaeological finds, the details will remain debated.

I renamed the section to indicate its encyclopedic content, namely "Tuathal", and removed both of those 'graphs from the section. I have discarded the entirety of the first of those two 'graphs, pursuant to WP:SYN.
_ _ Of the two sentences of the final removed 'graph, i am discarding the second, which is completely unencyclopedic bcz it is pure gratuitous speculation. What remains is

The few other remaining texts from that period, combined with the archaeology, suggest that interaction between Romanised Britain and Ireland occurred.

I intended to add it elsewhere, but think it adds nothing to what is said in more detail in the preceding section, now titled "Evidence of Roman influence".
_ _ In other words, i have removed completely both 'graphs from the section that do not directly concern Tuathal.
--Jerzy•t 23:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Documenting basis for my clarification of apparent intent

I found, in

Tara, the midland ritual complex, Clogher, a northern hillfort, and Cashel, in the south have produced early and late Roman material, the first two having produced no native finds of contemporary age. The place name Cashel is thought to derive from the Latin castellum. All become capitals of new kingdoms and all believe that their origins derive from Britain. If these were British settlers whether they were supported by or fleeing from Roman influence is not known.

The only sense i can make of the two odd uses of "all" is to mean "Tara, Clogher, and Cashel", so i've more explicitly asserted that, in a major rewording.
--Jerzy•t 23:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Drumanagh

I removed the 2004 addition

Access to the finds and the site has been prohibited for over 10 years due to a court case about ownership.

which is of interest to editors, but not encyclopedic in this article. If we get a Drumanagh article, include it there.
--Jerzy•t 23:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Vague re Juvenal

I found

Juvenal later wrote that Roman arms were "taken beyond the shores of Ireland."

I tagged {{vague}} bcz in English "beyond the shores of" normally means "across the ocean from", so its meaning is unclear here. If it is a literal translation, we need a reference from an authority on what Juvenal would have meant by the expression (and BTW, whether his Satires limit their use of irony sufficiently to be used as a source of factual assertions about foreign places, rather than just metaphors to express romantic concepts). If it is not a literal translation, we there are possibilities like need an authoritative assessment of whether it must mean "inland in Hibernia", or whether it could mean "even further from Rome than Hibernia", or other possibilities i may not have thought of. As it stands, it is useless, and should not be permitted to stay there very long. This is probably an overly generous disposition, and i will brutally remove it as WP:OR if we don't quickly hear a source for its meaning and relevance.
--Jerzy•t 23:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tara

"He became High King at Tara, on the Irish East Coast"

Tara is not on Ireland's east coast. It is well in-land. It is located in what is now County Meath, which does have a very small coast on the Irish Sea but to say Tara is on the coast is totally incorrect.

Ronan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.40.18 (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a Iverni tribe in Munster

With capital in Ivernis,described by Ptolemy. I always considered them being Celt-Iberian migrants. I mean they brought distinctive Iberian fighting style into Ireland-Scutarii,that one which Romans also ,possibly,borrowed from Iberians-Roman pilum and Irish darts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edelward (talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Seneca

Changed Seneca to Tacitus. It is Tacitus in the Agricola that records said passage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.77.103 (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Repetition?

This article should only be about the Latin name for Ireland, yet it discusses the early history of Ireland.Surely it would make more sense to move all the history to the Ireland article and leave the stuff about the name here? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 15:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Up to 6 Latin forms for Lord of Ireland

Can anybody sort out the 'official' Latin form (or forms) of Lord of Ireland, especially as given to Henry II by the Pope (or Popes)? It is being inconsistently used in at least 2 articles, and perhaps many more.

Results of my Google searches:

1)"Dominus Hibernae"=14800 hits-currently the most popular form, and the form used (without stated source) in the 'Kingdom of Ireland' article, but not mentioned here in the 'Hibernia' article (which also has no source for its 3 quoted forms, numbers 2,3, and 4 below). The form implies that the country is called 'Hiberna' (instead of Hibernia) in the nominative case.

2)"Dominus Hiberniae"=10600 hits-The form I expected to be correct, but it's only the second most popular on Google, even though Google implies it is correct, by searching for it before what I actually type in. It's also only the second form shown in this article.

3)"Dominus Hibernie"=5520 hits-Only the third most popular form on Google, though the one currently shown as apparent 'standard' here.

4)"Dominus Hybernie"=1600 hits-The third form shown here, and fourth most common on Google.

5)"Dominus Hyberniae"=1270 hits-The fourth most common on Google, but currently not mentioned here despite being almost as common as form 4, and the form I would expect if using a Y after the H.

6)"Dominus Hybernae"=1 hit-only one mention on Google, so presumably an error.

Our article currently states (without source): From 1172 the Lordship of Ireland gave the King of England the additional title "Dominus Hibernie" (sic, for Hiberniae; also "Dominus Hybernie"), Lord of Ireland.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to remove sections 3 and 4

These sections are out of place in this article, which is about the Latin name for Ireland. They should be removed to another article that deals with Romans in Ireland, etc., or a new article created for them.

They are:

• Ireland and its neighbours
• Evidence of Roman influence. Hohenloh ⁺ 17:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

+1 ... do it. --RA (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of Hibernia

what does hibernia mean in latin ?

something to do with Winter, but I'm no expert on Latin so I don't know the tense. --Dumbo1 22:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The same root as hibernation? Laurel Bush 12:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC).

I had a look into this and added a section. Hope it helps --Dumbo1 19:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The original meaning of the name is thought to be "land of eternal winter". This seems very odd to me as the Latin hibernus is unrelated, and Ireland's not anywhere near the polar circle. Éire has a detailed and apparently well-founded discussion of the etymology.--87.162.27.103 (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it very odd that the article as now formed makes absolutely no mention of the very well known false (?) etymology that Hibernia means "The Winter Isle". (I find it hardly incredible, contra the poster above, that peninsular Italians would associate typical rainy British Isles weather with winter, and at any rate, and the summer/winter hours differential is quite pronounced.) It ought to be included if only because this association works its way into English literature in the last few hundred years and is therefore significant. And while this is no good source, it is exemplary of the sort of information that should properly be on the Wikipedia page. 66.231.142.124 (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree, not a good source. See also the article Éire for etymology. Hohenloh ⁺ 12:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

According to an article in the Classical Studies Association of Ireland's journal, it is also possible that Hibernia originates from a Celtic word for 'fat' or 'fertile' "As a consequence, the Celts called the island Iweriu, meaning the 'fat' or 'fertile' land and this name entered the latin language as Iuverna (Hibernia)." https://www.jstor.org/stable/26246065?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3A2bb14b63bdbf0691302e8c3f1f0d3837&seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents (cite The Roman Plan to Conquer Ireland: Rethinking the Campaign by Gnaeus Julius Agricola (AD 77-83), Raoul McLaughlin, Classics Ireland, Vol. 21-22 (2014-2015), pp. 119-137.). This is news to me but perhaps also worth inclusion in the article.

Image

Italian wikipedia has a nicer image for Hibernia —appear on Google search for some reason. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernia_e_impero_romano — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.96.39 (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Name of Ireland in other languages

The following paragraph makes a number of unsupported claims: "However, unlike many Roman geographical names, the Latin Hibernia did not become the basis for the name for Ireland in any modern languages. Apart from the Celtic languages all modern languages use a local variant of the English 'Ireland.' This is presumably because direct medieval contacts between Ireland and continental Europe were at too low a level to embed use of the Hibernian root, or the Irish Éire, in local vernaculars." Apart from the fact that the idea that "medieval contacts between Ireland and continental Europe" was "low" is easily proven false, the paragraph requires citations for the first two sentences ("all modern languages"???). I'm removing it. 2604:2000:D016:A500:CD02:8DFC:C06C:E21 (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)