Talk:Numidia

Claim

(note that this claim is not widely accepted among archeologists) i know that every who say anything about the berber is claiming . but do it in the article .okke ?.Aziri 14:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

After Pompey was defeated by Caesar, he committed suicide (46 BCE) in Numidia, and it became briefly the province of Africa Nova until Augustus restored Juba II (son of Juba I) after the Battle of Actium. To whom does "he committed suicide" refer? Certainly not Pompey, who was murdered on the orders of Ptolemy XIII. The native prince who was ruling the Numidia at the time of Pompey's death? Needs clarification. -- cwp

It was Juba I (a former supporter of Pompey) who killed himself in 46 BC, while Pompey was killed and defeated a couple of years earlier in Egypt.

contradiction?

Currently, the article says this:

"The Numidians were conceived of as two great tribal groups: the Massyli in eastern Numidia, and the Massaesyli in the west. At the time of the Second Punic War the eastern tribes took the side of the Romans, whereas the Massaesyli supported the Carthaginians. At the end of the war the victorious Romans gave all of Numidia to Massinissa (died 148 BC) of the Massaesyli, whose territory extended from Mauretania to the boundary of the Carthaginian territory, and also southeast as far as Cyrenaica, so that Numidia entirely surrounded Carthage (Appian, Punica, 106) except towards the sea."

This is what I got from the above quotes:

Eastern tribes=Massyli=Roman supporters=victors
Western tribes=Massaesyli=Carthaginian supporters=losers

So how does it make any sense that the Romans gave the Massaesyli Numidia when the Romans won, if the Massaesyli were the supporters of the enemy who lost? This needs clarification or correction. Drenched 04:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

the romans didn't give anything, the annexed territories are rightful claims of Massylia that were taken over by Massinissa after the Battle of Zama against Hannibal. the romans were happy to reduce the territory controlled by carthage and did not protest a Numidian expansion in that direction Libernius (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Danju87)

Why does Numidium redirect here?

Anyone? The two are unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelphi (talk • contribs) 14:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Numidium was a delieted page and some fool tought they are the same thing.86.45.75.180 (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Numidia modern days ?

how comes that Numidia in our modernday is Algeria and not Tunisia or Morocco? considering the number of Numidian decendant in all the three countries ( Algeria 70% of citizen are berber) = 25mio (Morocco 80% of citizen are berber) = 15mio and ( tunisia 20% are berber ) = 2 mio,

imho the article should use "north africa" instead of stating one country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.227.34.190 (talk) 12:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• All this is Original Research. Thanks to read WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS. --Omar-toons (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello,
    Since you didn't add any source, I reverted your edit (again).
    Also, the map you added seems to be OR (hand made, sourced on its commons description by a forum thread), that's why I reverted it to the previous one.
    Thanks for understanding.
    --Omar-toons (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

rouk nik yemmek 45.64.240.186 (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

its algeria because the capital of numidia is Cirta, the tribe that created Numidia is Massyli tribe in Aures known today as Chaoui people.

The Morroccans are a different tribe called Mauri by the romans, they did not contribute to the establishment of numidia.

Tunisians are generally considered carthagenians at the time Libernius (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Danju87)

intro paragraph has a made up word in it.

"Numidia diriged by Syphax" this "diriged" is not a word, i suspect the author meant divided, but i'm not sure. please get this fixed asap, looks pretty silly 188.220.151.59 (talk) user teknotiss, couldn't be bothered to sign in

Your Correct He ment Divided. go ahead and make the change to that word. you have a eagle i and spoted a notable diffrence. 76.244.145.11 (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Numedia

couple of typos showing in search for articles misspelling as Numedia... In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

War With Rome Citation Needed

I haven't figured out how to edit the citation needed but have the citation for the last sentence in the War With Rome section. Livy's Periochae 66-70, in Book 67.4 "During the triumph of Gaius Marius, Jugurtha walked in front of the chariot with his two sons, and was killed in the jail."

Here's the link: http://www.livius.org/li-ln/livy/periochae/periochae066.html

Sallust doesn't actually come out and say in his history of the War with Jugurtha that Jugurtha was killed, just that he was captured. John C. Rolfe, the translator of the Loeb edition includes footnote 161, at the end saying, "Jugurtha was taken to Rome, where, after being led with his two sons before Marius's chariot in the triumphal procession, he was starved to death, or, according to some, strangled, in the Tullianum." Sadly he does not include a source for the starvation.

In the version is available here: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Sallust/home.html

So if anyone reads this, if I can figure out how to change it I will, but I believe Livy's account should satisfy the citation needed. Jwt708 (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Etymology

As I mentionned in the text the famous historian specialized in berber history favors a native origin of the name, here is the paragraph in french, and I won't translate it because it is not a problem of evidence, there is just an idiot who is removing my edits:

Les Numides ont, en outre, été victimes d'un calembour, forme d'explication philologique très prisée des Anciens : alors que leur nom est certainement d'origine africaine comme le prouvent la persistance à l'époque romaine de tribus portant encore ce nom 2 et l'existence, dans la Mauritanie actuelle, de la population des Nemadi, les auteurs grecs confondirent l'ethnique africain et leur adjectif υομαδες. De cette fausse étymologie naquit l'affirmation légendaire qui devient un véritable cliché littéraire, que les Numides n'étaient que des Nomades, populations errantes sans agriculture, ni villes, ni lois.

for the idiot Kintetsubuffalo , who is removing all my edits, I've already asked for a moderator. Stylequick (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Juba II as King of Numidia

the Louvre.

Amyntas in 26, Cilicia was given to King Tarcondimotus. When Augustus added Juba II’s kingdom of Numidia to the province of Africa in 25, he gave Juba Mauretania (Morocco) to rule instead. In Armenia, on the Aspects of Roman History 82BC-AD14: A Source-based Approach By Mark Everson Davies, Hilary Swain [1]

Encyclopedia of African History 3-Volume Set - Page 251 Kevin Shillington - 2013 - ?Preview - ?More editions Mauritania then, too, became involved in the civil wars of Rome, and the kingdom was annexed to Rome by Caesar Octavian in 33BCE and then reformulated as a client-kingdom in 25BCE with Juba II of Numidia as king. Juba, son of an ... [2]

[3] education in Italy. Octavian, the future emperor Augustus, befriended Juba when he was a young man and in 29 ».c. made him ruler of his father's former kingdom of Numidia, which had become a Roman province after the death of Juba I in 46

[4]

Herods Contemporaries In Britain And The West J Creighton - Herod and Augustus, 2008 - booksandjournals.brillonline.com … BCE the king of Mauretania died and for a few years this part of Africa was ruled directly by Rome, however in 25 BCE Augustus installed Juba II there as king, where he … Iconographically the coinage marks a radical shift between Juba I in Numidia and Juba II in Mauretania …

[5] New Masters for Africa S Raven - Rome in Africa, 2012 - taylorfrancis.com … True, King Bocchus of Mauretania was rewarded for his support in the Thapsus campaign by being given the western part of Numidia; but after his death in 33 BC his kingdom was ruled directly by the Romans, and then handed over in 25 BC to Juba II, the romanized …

[6] The Roman Maghreb K Amine, M Carlson - The Theatres of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, 2012 - Springer … 10 The Pre-Colonial Maghreb citizen, highly cultivated in the arts and natural history. The Emperor Augustus restored Juba II as king of Numidia between 29 BCE and 27 BCE and married him off to Cleopatra Selene, daughter of Cleopatra and Mark Anthony … Related articles

[7]

… of the largest cities of Roman North Africa. It also had a long and distinguished history, starting as a Punic colony; becoming a royal Numidian capital, perhaps from … TW Potter - cambridge.org … long and distinguished history, starting as a Punic colony; becoming a royal Numidian capital, perhaps from the second century BC, and most notably under the client king, Juba II (25 BC … is a fine theatre, built in Juba's reign; an unusual amphitheatre, perhaps Augustan in origin …

Doug Weller talk 13:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Section: "The Kingdom of Massinissa and the Third Punic War"

The section "The Kingdom of Massinissa and the Third Punic War" could use a rewrite. Within the single paragraph, several names are inconsistently spelled across sentences. Acwilson9 (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Emblem of Algeria.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Navy and Trade

Can someone clarify/explain what this first paragraph is trying to say? I've read it three times I still can't figure out what it's trying to say. 24.56.228.140 (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Languages of Numidia

Recently my edits featuring several different sources have been reverted. While i do not agree with removing edits which add 5 sources to the article simply because you liked the old version better, the edits were mainly changes done to the infobox, which don't give too much context. Throughout it's existence Numidia had 3 main languages, which were Libyco-Berber (Numidian), Punic, and Latin, alongside smaller and less used languages such as Greek. During it's first few decades of existence Punic alongside Numidian dominated the kingdom. Surviving governmental and official inscriptions survive in both Numidian and Punic such as those found in Dougga, or various surviving steles.[8][9] Funerary inscriptions were nearly always done in Numidian. Coins were minted with Punic inscriptions on it.[10] Inscriptions and votives made for dignitaries and nobles were mostly in Numidian.[11] According to contemporary Roman sources, Numidians and Massinissa himself used Punic as a "diplomatic language", likely as it was one of the most influential languages in the Mediterranean.

However, by the late era of Numidia, Punic somewhat fell into disuse. Coins were no longer minted in Punic, instead Latin was used (however in some cases both were used)[12] and even the diplomatic language seems to have changed to Latin.[13] Greek became more and more influential with intermarriage and heavy influence from Ptolemaic Egypt. Juba II did not use Punic at all, and wrote all of his works in Greek, with one exception, "On Arabia" which seems to have been written in Latin.

Numidia did not have a singular truly "official" language in it's existence. The changes i want to implement are pretty simple, mainly using "Common languages" instead of continually changing the "Official languages" part, and possibly adding a new section to the article, with more sources to explain the status of the various languages used in Numidia throughout it's existence.

Whatever748 (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

That’s your own scholarship, the point is do you have a reliable source saying any of our mentioned language being “the official language of numidia” ?

there are abundant reliable sources saying that “punic was the official language of numidia”, you can’t challenge reliable sources by your own researches, you just mention a reliable source that says that. If you have a reliable source saying directly “latin was the official language of numidia” then you can add it, otherwise you can’t claim that a language was an official language by your own research because you found some latin minted coins.

here is another example of a source other than those included in the article stating directly that punic was the official language of kingdom of NumidiaThe Punic Mediterranean, p. 182, Cambridge University Press: “the fact that Punic was the official language of the Numidian kingdom from the reign of Massinissa on, used both for official inscriptions and for the legends on Numidian coins in Punic or neo-Punic script”

if you have a source saying directly “latin was/became official language in the kingdom of numidia” then you can add latin, otherwise you can’t.

Chafique (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

"That’s your own scholarship"

What does that even mean? What are you even talking about? None of the sources i cited are self-published, or unreliable in any way?

"there are abundant reliable sources saying that “punic was the official language of numidia”"

I never denied that, especially in the early phases of the Kingdom, Punic was the language of trade, diplomacy and coin minting. You are attacking a strawman here.

"used both for official inscriptions and for the legends on Numidian coins in Punic or neo-Punic script"

That is exactly what i said in the original reply? Did you even read it? Can you stop attacking a strawman, and stop being dishonest?

"latin was/became official language in the kingdom of numidia” then you can add latin, otherwise you can’t."

I have cited souch sources, yes, and you removed them, over, and over again.[14]

There has never been a singular official language of Numidia, and if you would like to prove otherise, you would need to provide a contemporary source which says that. Like an official Numidian document, or even just a contemporary Roman account, which states the Punic was the sole official language of Numidia. In the sources you cited, these scholars base Punic's official status on the fact that coins were minted in Punic during the early era of the Kingdom (not to mention the fact that Punic was phased out completely by the later era of Numidia), which is cool, but that is not a justification for you removing well cited information. There exists surviving official Numidian royal inscriptions written in Punic, Latin and Libyco-Berber.[15] As i said, i will go ahead, and edit in a well sourced section to talk about the various languages used inside of Numidia. You can go ahead and scour over the sources i cited in there if need be. Whatever748 (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

To the IP: 1) what exactly does it say on that source that you added? 2) Since all the RS about Numidia don't mention Morocco, why do you think do so is a good idea? 3) Also, why did you remove Libya? M.Bitton (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It shows a map where eastern Morocco, Northern Algeria and Southern Tunisia is Numidia. The claim that Numidia equals to Modern day Algeria is anschronistic and politically loaded, not historically accurate.

I did not remove Libya btw. At least not on porpoise.

What do you mean with RS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3037:400:39F4:58B5:613:950C:49F9 (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That's your interpretation and therefore original research. Your claim of anachronism is baseless. RS means reliable sources. M.Bitton (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That’s not my interpretation. Look at the map. It shows eastern Morocco.

You did not provide any Sources at all. So how is that better that my Scientific source? 2A02:3037:400:39F4:58B5:613:950C:49F9 (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Interpretation of a map is WP:OR. All the sources about Numidia don't mention Morocco for a reason (it wasn't part of it). M.Bitton (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Name one Source Mosti95 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's one just for you. M.Bitton (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Algeria is not a Region.

It does not make Sense to say, that Numidia is part of the history of Algeria.

It is part of the history of North Africa (Which is modern day Algeria part of). Mosti95 (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Im referring to this sentence:

. It was one of the first major states in the history of Algeria and the Berbers.

it does not even have a source and is there fore Original Research. It should be removed. Mosti95 (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This is strange, because original research didn't concern you when you changed to suit your pov. Anyway, what part of that sentence are you disputing? Was there a major state in present-day Algeria before Numidia? Did the Berbers create a major state before Numidia? M.Bitton (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no source. This sentence is original research and should get deleted. Also Algeria is not a region. If you really wanna keep it, change Algeria to North Africa. 2A02:3033:20A:8713:7879:6FD0:279:4C (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Numidia: ancient country to the west of the territories of Carthage, more or less modern Algeria. utter nonsense!

If you keep refusing to answer the questions, I will rightly assume that you have nothing else to say. M.Bitton (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

You didn’t react to anything I said.

algeria is a Modern Day Country, not A Region. It should be changed to North Africa.

its weird that you accuse me of refusing answering while you dodge the answers while I actually answer and add content.

Remove the sentence since it is Original Research. Don’t Ego trip. 2A02:3033:20A:8713:7879:6FD0:279:4C (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

algeria is a Modern Day Country, not A Region So what? Numidia is part of the history of the modern country. In other words, your statement is 100% BS. M.Bitton (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Numidia is located in the west of Tunisia , but when France created Algeria, they were trying to build an history by stollen h and manipulation of Numidia history

Go read Salluste and all facts ... all Numidian capitals was in the Tunisia west parts .... nik om vos boss de DRS 45.64.240.186 (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Removed table of numidian kings

User:M.Bitton can you explain why you removed the table of numidian kings ? also please site the contradictions in the page that you encountered ? Numidea (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I already have (compare what you added to the List of kings of Numidia). Also, even if sourced, that table is not an improvement. M.Bitton (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

explain how it is not an improvement, and which contradictions you encountered please ? Numidea (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

A huge irrelevant table in the middle of article is clearly not an improvement. Once you find a source that describes "Atlas" as q king of Numidia, then you can add him to List of kings of Numidia (no need for a table). M.Bitton (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the source I included with Atlas being the ruler of North africa ?

if your contention is just atlas why did you remove the whole table instead of just atlas ? Numidea (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Numidia is not synonymous with North Africa. I won't repeat what I said about the huge and irrelevant table. M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

You did not answer my question concerning reading my source. Numidia is the region between Libya and Eastern Morocco, its more the 3/4 the area of all berber north africa, atlas ruled the Libyans and in Mythology he is considered the first king of all the berber people.

Would you like to have the table at the bottom of the page ? Numidea (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I did answer your question and see no reason to keep repeating myself. You're welcome to seek consensus for the inclusion of a table that serves no purpose other than hinder the readability of the article. M.Bitton (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

you did not answer my question about reading my source on Atlas and whether or not you agree to put the table somewhere else to help with readability, please do so that we can resolve this problem and help contribute to the article. Numidea (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I did and I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not an established user yet so I cannot request a 3rd opinion yet, I will revert change to the table of numidian kings, I have read your page and you seem to have a relevant rank, please request a 3rd opinion on whether or not to remove the table Numidea (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to be established to request a 3rd opinion or, better still, wait until someone else weighs in (as it will most likely be someone who's familiar with the subject). M.Bitton (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Numidea. This user provided reliable sources and the table does add weight to the article. 2600:100F:B1BC:91BF:0:1B:8473:4E01 (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

pinging the last few users who edited the article (excluding a sock and two admins). @SupremeHusky, Nourerrahmane, and Skitash: could you please weigh in on this as all attempts at making the user Numidea understand that what they are adding to the article is not an improvement have been sidelined (they are edit warring on this as well as the List of kings of Numidia article). Apart from being huge and useless, the table also contains mythical kings such as Atlas that they are presenting as factual kings of the Numidian Kingdom. M.Bitton (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you. The table is utterly useless. Besides the fact that the gigantic table adds clutter to the rest of the article and obscures vital content, it also includes kings who were either mythological characters or tribal chiefs, who had some sort of authority over Numidian tribes such as Massylii. This content falls outside the intended scope of the article, which aims to focus on the period of the kingdom's unification from 202 BC to 25 BC. Skitash (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

any reason you skipped a few there, you calling your buddies for help ? u skipped the following users :

User:Nd5eu2ur8b

User:Eievie

Special:Contributions/105.108.82.243 Numidea (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what I'm being called for. The only edit I ever made on this page was a single formatting fix. Eievie (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I made a table illustrating Numidian kings before unification of numidia to highlight early history of numidia before massinissa, these guys keep deleting it. would you prefer if its kept there or removed ? Numidea (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Creating a table is not a good reason to impose it through an edit war. Please stop and pay attention to what the others are saying. M.Bitton (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton you called your friend @Skitash to defend you on here and you sabotage page after page creating unnecessary edit wars. the table representing numidian kings organizes the page and makes it more readable. go have edit wars somewhere else. Numidea (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. M.Bitton (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• WP:CTW read and let people contribute to wikipedia pages.

Numidea (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Support: Table is big and takes too much space and the content is a mix of non adequate pictures, personalities who were not sovereigns over the unified kingdom of Numidia (real or mythical), and the correct remaining information has its own article. So this doesn’t add useful material to the article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Skitash and Nourerrahmane: thank you for your input. Unfortunately, the editor is now adding it to the Numidians article. M.Bitton (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)