Talk:Accia gens

Umbria and Ager Gallicus

no ancient source says that Pisaurum during the II sec. BC was in Umbria. T.Livius, instead, says (AB URBE CONDITA, XXXIX, 44) that Pisaurum was in the Ager Gallicus. "Pisaurum in the Ager Gallicus" is the best phrase, expecially talking about when L.Accius lived. Sabinettus (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

As I tried to explain over and over again on my talk page, the Ager Gallicus is not a separate region of Italy, but a small area divided between Umbria and Cispadane Gaul. Pisaurum is clearly shown within the borders of Umbria on our maps, and is so treated by epigraphic databases. The claim that it wasn't a city in Umbria because it was in the Ager Gallicus is nonsensical, and it does nothing to establish a different possible origin for the Accii, which seems to be the sole motive for refusing to acknowledge that Pisaurum was in Umbria. P Aculeius (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

ORIGINS OF THE GENS

Svetonius (De poet. 8) says that L.Accius parents were from Rome, so the phrase about the Umbrian origin, which has no source, should be modified. [I wrote other sources about the origin of gens  against the thesis of the "Umbrian origin" of the gens: I wish somebody could study them and agree that "Pisaurum in Umbria" and the Umbrian origin of the gens Accia are not good phrases]. Other sources against the phrase "Pisaurum in Umbria" and the Umbrian origin: -Antonella Trevisiol, fonti letterarie ed epigrafiche per la storia Romana della provincia di Pesaro e Urbino -E. Peruzzi, I Romani di Pesaro e i Sabini di Roma Firenze 1990, pp.205-218 Sabinettus (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, carrying on an argument from my talk page, this article only suggests that Umbria is one possible origin among others. It's not a thesis. Your only argument is that Pisaurum wasn't in Umbria, which is demonstrably the case. P Aculeius (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Tempus regit actum...

...so please refer to "Umbria" only when the topic regards a time in which the Augustean reform was ruling. Before that reform, the one with which the Regio Sexta comes to evidence, it's merely Ager Gallicus. You wouldn't call George Washington a native American, nor Geronimo a Yankee... :-) --g (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Umbria didn't come into existence in the time of Augustus. It had been there for centuries. There is absolutely zero evidence about the ethnicity of the Accii except from the places that early members of this gens came from, such as Pisaurum—and there is no evidence that Pisaurum was ever inhabited by Picentes, or for that matter Gauls. The entry for Pisaurum in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography begins with, "a considerable town of Umbria, situated on the coast of the Adriatic, between Fanum Fortunae and Ariminum." Current sources continue to describe Pisaurum as a town of Umbria. I will try to rewrite the section with all due consideration of what the various articles say—I hope the result will be satisfactory. P Aculeius (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Please, next time: deleting other contributes is not polite: you have just written what I had written yesterday, with my sources: but yesterday you deleting them and you were very unpolite with me. We have a lot of sources: we are italian, and we have more recent sources than yours. Thank you Sabinettus (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

P Aculeius, no, please, it just cannot be satisfactory as long as this confusion continues.

«there is no evidence that Pisaurum was ever inhabited by Picentes» - I'm very sorry to inform you that there is so much litterature on this topic, that a simple dictionary cannot be really held as a reference point in modern times. This might be a good starting point, rich as it is in bibliography from many ages. Or you might take yourself the time for a quick Google Books search.

«There is absolutely zero evidence about the ethnicity of the Accii» - I wholeheartedly agree; this is one of the reasons why they can't be classified as "Umbri". --g (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

PS: the Roman founding of Pesaro is under scrutiny, in modern times, so of course it's always good to cite classical sources, but it's perhaps better to avoid absolute conclusions without specifically referring them to their authors, currently being discussed ;-) --g (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Being Italian doesn't give you superior sources or expertise. Sabinettus was arguing with a point he clearly didn't understand, apparently with the goal of proving something that still hasn't been proved. Pisaurum was in Umbria for most of its existence—if you want to argue that Umbria didn't extend that far at the time of its founding, fine—but since its founding inhabitants weren't natives of the region, you can't argue that they were Picentes, and it makes no sense to assert that they were Sabines merely because the colonists were Roman, as there is no evidence for distinct and ancient ethnic divisions among the Roman populus during the second century BC. This argument stemmed from the assertion that Pisaurum wasn't in Umbria but in the Ager Gallicus, which is like saying that it wasn't in the Ager Gallicus because it was in Italy.

The purpose of this assertion seems to have been to prove that the Accii couldn't have been Umbrian, but in fact it doesn't prove anything about them—according to the sources cited the region was first inhabited by Umbrians, then Etruscans, then Gauls, then was referred to as the country of the Picentes, then was the site of a Roman colony that didn't consist of any of those, although all of those lived in the area. The article never asserted that the Accii were Umbrians—it only said that was one of the possibilities, because the town where they came from was in Umbria. I've tried to clarify that by giving a broader history of the town and the region surrounding it. Citing sources that repetitively mention just one ethnicity in the area and therefore assert that the Pisauri must have belonged to that ethnicity ignores the history given by the Greek and Roman writers on the topic, and is simply ahistorical. P Aculeius (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The argument touches several subjects. Everyone can see that I did not wrote in the text "PISAURUM was not in Umbria" or "Accii were not of Umbrian origin" or "Accii were of Sabin origin". But the main point, in my opinion, is your method: to delete whatever I write, asking sources. There is a template to ask sources: you have never used with me, neither here nor anywhere. However: I wrote it again, with many sources, and you deleted them again with all the sources. The more sources I gave you, the more deletes you did. I told you we are Italians because, obviously, many sources are in italian, and it's more easy for an italian to carry on research on them. So, that were the other points: 1) I wrote "Pisaurum was a roman colony founded in 184 BC in Ager gallicus, with the source of Livius" (if Livius says Ager Gallicus referring to the II century BC, we can suppose that this name is the best one for that region in that time). You deleted it writing again "Pisaurum in Umbria", without no source clearly referred to the II century BC (the century when L. Accius lived). 2) I wrote that "Accii could be from that region" (the region of Pisaurum, of course, howevever you call it). You deleted it and wrote again "of Umbrian origin", without bibliography sources who can support your hypothesis. 3) I added that Svetonius said that L. Accius' parents came from Rome, so they probably were not from Pisaurum". You simply deleted it. 4) I added a very prestigious source who says that several roman colonies people were of Sabin origin. You simply deleted it. ...The pages you created are not yours! Sabinettus (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

(conflicted) I never said I was an expert. I never am. In case I happen to be, in anything, it won't be in Wikipedia, it never was. Of course, being fluent in Italian language helps me alot in reading sources, since most of them are in this language. Since I can read what contemporary historians are working on. I'm very sorry if this could look like a sort of exclusion, I never meant that. But on the other side, I won't follow you or Sabinettus in a personalistic debate: this is not a "user vs. user" case, we are looking for facts. Whoever brings facts, I will read those facts, nothing else. I'm a Sardinian, btw, my citizenship is Italian; it's not a formal mistake to call me an Italian, but it's not gentle. Done with personalisms, I hope. Now for facts, please.

The confusion between ethnicity and administrative "citizenship" (...) must be avoided since - I repeat - the principal meaning for "Umbri" is related to their culture and language. So, Pisaurus was in Ager Gallicus, at first, then it was in Regio Sexta, which in English is more often called "Regio VI Umbria"; which would be fair enough until we remember that it was also called "Regio VI Umbria et Ager Gallicus". No one is discussing this passage, I'd say. Like no one is saying that Pesaro has a clearly original charachter. But this nominalistic prevalence of "Umbria" is misleading, that's all.

Now, could I please ask you to avoid personalisms, the both of you, and strictly stick on bare facts? Thank you in advance for your wise cooperation. (hint: don't talk about the other user, answer to his/her questions honestly, there's so much to do with facts, it's silly to waste time on "usership"...) --g (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)