Talk:Republic of Venice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). Add comments
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Republic of Venice is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
Republic of Venice is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Disambiguation

I think that many links to Venice can be pointed here. It'll take some man-hours... --Joy [shallot] 00:20, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] footnotes

There are no primary three footnotes. The Machiavelli reference is a secondary footnote to back up the second footnote. That there is cooraborating evidence for the case. Please understand that.WHEELER 14:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

This articles needs to be expanded in the History. It stops in 1848 and leaves a large blank spot. It doesn't cover any important events after 1848 or tell what happened when it became a self goverining state/country. 209.129.85.4 02:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If you know about this, please help us make this article better.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9th or 8th century?

Uh... It's shows that it existed in the 8th century in the first paragraph, however... in the box to the right... it says 9th...

==Heraclea====Reference to Heraclea article does not include the Heraclea in question for Venice, which I assume is an island or community in the lagoon....all Heraclea cities mentioned in the link are cities in other parts of the Mediterrean.,

[edit] Authorisation of use of material from www.veneto.org

I received this message, after my request of use of material to [www.veneto.org www.veneto.org]

“ Dear Attilio,

feel free to use the contents of Veneto.org as you wish.

Lodovico Pizzati

President

Veneto.org

 ”

I'll slowly add material from their historical section. In exchange, I promised to mantain a link to their site at the en of the article, so please leave it. Bye. --Attilios 21:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)--Attilios 21:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] split history

I split the history section off into its own article.--KrossTalk 21:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? As I found it today, there seemed to be a lot of duplicate material. In the future, I would suggest shortening the sections which you split into a new article (there's also the consideration of the history of the text, which gets lost in a simple copy/paste maneuver). Generally, the reasoning to create a new article in such a manner is because the original section has grown too big to be efficiently managable. If you had felt like being really bold, you would've simply deleted the entire history section from this article when you created the History article, leaving a link to the new article in the old section. Such a section would have been a stub, and others would've gotten around to fleshing it out as a summary of the History article, rather than a verbatim copy of the History article, as it now stands. Xaxafrad 07:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I typed too soon: after actually comparing the two articles, it turns out only the 1st paragraphs from each section were retained in this article. Xaxafrad 07:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Map

I think is better if someone able put a map of the Maximum extent of the repubblic. The map posted show just the republic at the end. At the maximum extent there was also an half Greece, Cyprus, etc.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.50.31.86 (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] wrong Borders

The map that show the repubblic at the end in 1796 is wrong. There is also a part of lombardy that was alredy lost by the repubblic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.50.31.86 (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Why "serene"?

Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Euyyn (talk • contribs) 14:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Successor State to Roman Empire?

If you follow the lineage here a decent argument could be made that Venice consitutes a legitimate successor state of the Roman Empire. You have: Roman Empire; Empire Splits; Western Empire Falls, Eastern Empire reconquers Italy, Venice forms initially as a Byzantine province, Venice breaks away from Byzantine control (but not because it is conquered by anybody); Byzantine Empire falls to Turks.....is this too much of a stretch....Can it be said that the Roman Empire didn't completely fall until 1797? ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.196.210 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a stretch as you could make the same (faulty) reasoning for any breakaway province of the Empire. BTW, the last Roman Emperor abdicated in 1806. Str1977 (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Official name

Official name was "Ducatus Venetus" (latin).--Vu Duc Thang 17:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] environmental destruction

I don't see anywhere references to the environmental destruction wreaked by Venice on the forests of the area, and their subsequent inability to build their own ships (having to import hulls from other countries), which circumstance contributed to their decline.

[edit] Is "Italian" descriptive for this time period?

I have a concern about the lead paragraph of the article. In what sense can we say that the "Republic of Venice ... was an Italian state", especially in the 12th through 14th centuries when the Republic was at its height? It seems rather presentist to say that the Republic (1100-1490) was Italian. It is probably more correct to say that it, along with other city states and peninsular territories became Italian. We would not call Attila the Hun German. What do others think? N2e (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

HI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.59.225 (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim that Venice was of Italian nationality; it says it was Italian. Italian by culture, and by geography (Italy did exist as a geographical expression at the time, to rephrase Bismark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.237.142.7 (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)