Talk:Roman Republic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roman Republic article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Roman Republic was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}
To-do list for Roman Republic: edit · history · watch · refresh

The factual content and organization of this article are good, but there are numerous typographical errors, which I notice especially beginning in the third paragraph of the section "Roman Expansion into Italy" (starting "Through it's colonies [sic]..."). "It's" is used repeatedly where "its" (no apostrophe) should be; "legion of legion" looks as if it should be "legion after legion"; "demonstrated" has a mistaken "r" at the beginning of it; and so on. I would make the changes myself, but have never edited a Wiki page before, and don't want to step on the authors' toes.

  • Merge parenthetical asides into the sentences that they burden
    • As I said before: english is not my mothertongue, explain this in normal english Flamarande 12:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It is normal English, and I wasn't talking to you Ashibaka tock 16:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, bad start, I apolagize, but still...I don´t understand what you mean by: "Merge parenthetical asides into the sentences that they burden". What are parenthetical asides? Flamarande 09:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Little things in parentheses at the end of each sentence (or in the middle, even). Ashibaka tock 17:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Fix up tone a little, so it resembles an encyclopedia more than a history text
  • Alternate left and right for the photos-- it just looks nicer!
    • I simply don´t agree. The images being all in the right seem simply better, and in fact in the vast majority of the articles have their images on their right side. Flamarande 12:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Featured articles don't. Ashibaka tock 16:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but in fact they do. Just look at former featured articles like Starcraft and the article about the Japanese Imperial Navy who has few images and only a single image! is on the left. Havind said this, I now agree with you and will put a few images on the left for aesthetical reasons Flamarande 15:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Fix "Government institutions" section.
  • Expand/Add the section on Culture.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 (Oct 2005 to Feb 2006)


Contents

[edit] Actual latin word

Can anyone help me? I need someone who is reading the latin originals for I need to clarefy a doubt. As the legions of Ceasar were on the brink of a rebellion (I don´t rememmber well but I think it was as they were going to march against Pompey in Greece) Ceasar said something like this: "Ok, I will dismiss you and reward you. your time of military service is really overdue." Then he famously said: "Citizens" (basicly calling them civilians) and the rebelious legions cried out: "No Ceasar, we are still your legions..." What was the exact word Ceasar used? Was it "Quirites" or something else like "Civiles"? Where schould I look, to be sure? Flamarande 18:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Quirites. Suetonius: Divus Julius 70, links to Latin text. Septentrionalis 18:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Civiles, or a variation of the form, was used to declare the soldiers as civilians. The place you can look for this is most likely the book Caesar's Legion. -- Praetor Brutus

Thanks, I wanted to be sure before including it in the article SPQR. Flamarande 12:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Res publica Romanorum

is not the official name for Roman Republic, as suggested. The nearest phrase to English Roman Republic should be Senatus populosque Romanorum. Res publica Romanorum is not ancient attested phrase, but some kind of modern latin. --Manojlo 11:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the wording "res publica" refering to the, well, republic, or commonweath, or state of Rome is as ancient as it can get. (The correct wording however would be Res Publica Romana.) Sure, it is not a state name like "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is - but you will have a hard time looking for such state names in Antiquity. (self-professed) Str1977 (smile back) 12:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

well, res publica is ancient, as you stated. But, that was not the matter od dispute. I was simply saying that Res publica Romanorum is not ancient, but modern latin. --Manojlo 15:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comprehensiveness of Octavian section

I find that the section detailing the Second Triumverate to be lacking in detail. For instance, in the Treaty of Tarentum Antonius interrupted his Eastern campaign to aid Octavian by giving 120 ships for use against Sextus Pompey in exchange for 20,000 soldiers towards his Eastern campaigns (which Antonius needed after his defeat against the Parthians). Also, it was in the Treaty of Brundisium that Octavian divorced Scribonina in favour of Livia. I will do my best to improve the section shortly.

Nudas veritas 07:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dando-Collins books

Exactly, what parts of the article are based on his books, as written in the reference section? Stephen Dando-Collins is a historical novelist, whose books contain factual errors, and often ignore established knowledge without providing proofs. For example, he says the 10th legion was formed in 61 BC, but what is the proof? And that Legio X Fretensis was the old 10th, despite the fact that most (all) accademics claim it was Legio X Gemina, and again, what is the proof?--Panairjdde 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not Stephen Dando-Collins and therefore I am unable to answer your questions, allthough I certainly agree that they should checked out. I never said that the guy is invalible (he is human after all), but a full list of his sources appear at the end of this book, so I hope he took some care before writing his book. He wrote historical novels (I personaly didn't knew that) BUT this particular book isn't a novel. I used the knowledge gained from this book mainly in the "Ceasar's Gallic War part" and I believe it is mostly right (I won't bet my soul on it however).
I have checked the book and I found the following on the page 285 (I am not going to copy everything, but rest assured that I am not manipulating the sentences):
"It has been suggested that the 10th legion carried the title "Fretensis" while serving in Judea. No classical author confirms this. The 10th legion, famous...is the most referred-to legion ... yet never once does ... Tacitus ... give the legion a title of any kind. And when Cassius Dio listed all legions...in AD 233 he made a point of giving the official titles, present and past, of every legion. Allthough the 10th Gemina, a different legion, is mentioned, no title is ascribed to the 10th. ...... For all this the 10th legion may have been known colloquially as the Fretensis. there is simply no evidence to support a suggestion that this was an official title."
I am not an expert on the single Roman legions and therefore I am unqualified to judge if Stephen Dando-Collins is right or wrong in writting that this legion was the same 10th legion of Ceasar. You might be right, perhaps Stephen really did mix up the three legions and mistook the "Gemina" for this one. Still, besides this possible mistake he gives many informations which can be added in many articles.
He writes that the 10th legion was founded as Caesar begins a campaign in Lusitania in 61 BC as soon as takes up a governership.
On a personal note: You might have asked these questions BEFORE unilateraly deleting these sources. That's the point of this talkpages. Notice that a conversation on a blog is Heresay at best, and isn't any kind of definitive proof. If you are soo interrested in this subject you should have bought this book before judging it (Alas, I also make the same mistake about the Da Vinci Code). Who knows? You might find where he made the mistake (he might even be right), but could also like the book for other reasons. Flamarande 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
May I ask what informations you took from this book and put in the article? This is the most important question.
As regards the legion history, Dando forgets the high number of coins with Fretensis countermarks, the bricks marked with LEG X FRE, as well as passes over later sources, and on the only basis of the omission of Fretensis title from Dio and Tacitus he derives that Fretensis was not an official name.
Another wikipedian also cited the origin of the legion in 61 BC, but none of you told me what proof Dando uses to claim this, and since all the other scholars support the idea that it was created in 58 BC, it would b nice to support his claims with proofs. Again, exactly what other informations from his books are put in this article?
There are no scholar reviews of Dando's works, which is quite strange if his work is really historical, don't you think?
As regards my way of editing, I do not agree with you. As you boldly introduce information without discussing it BEFORE, I am allowed to delete it BEFORE asking questions. And only if my edit creates some sort of reaction, I start a discussion.--Panairjdde 23:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and just a quotation of someone who shares my same opinion:
"Basicly, the eager user has read a new book of someone (sometimes it is not even a scholar!) and believes that the modern scholar is infalible and has understood everything corectly, this time. We have to rewrite everything, and follow the modern scholar ad ridiculum."
--Panairjdde 00:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Dando does not provide evidence, he provides sources (as almost all writers do). I wish there were photos of the ancient documents or translations he used but there aren't any in this book. You might send him a email though.
I used the knowledge gained from this book in the part which describes the career of Caesar and the following civil war between him and Pompey. I believe it is mostly right, but please feel free to check it out and correct any mistakes you find (notice however that they might be edits from another user). I also wrote in Roman Empire/reorganization that Octavian amalgated several legions, a fact hinted by the title Gemina - Twin. I did not use it anywhere else, I think. No, I did not use in the articles about the invidual legions (that would have created a nice discussion :).
A nice quote (who wrote it? :) but notice that I am not being stubborn and that I am not sticking with it ad ridiculum: "I certainly agree that they should checked out. I never said that the guy is invalible (he is human after all)" and "I am not an expert on the single Roman legions and therefore I am unqualified to judge if Stephen Dando-Collins is right or wrong in writting that this legion was the same 10th legion of Caesar. You might be right, perhaps Stephen really did mix up the three legions and mistook the "Gemina" for this one."
So basicly I agree that the issue is unclear, and should be verified. I also admit that Dando-Collins could be wrong, but that I am not qualified enough to judge. If that is being stubborn, I would like to meet a reasonable person.
Look, believe it or not I am willing to accept that the 10th Fretensis is not the same legion of Caesar (I checked the complete Roman army by Adrian Goldsworthy and he also agrees with you). However, Goldsworthy doesn't provide a founder for the 10th Fretensis, a fact which doesn't help. It seems that title "Gemina" means that two legions were almalgated into a "Gemina" legion, and Goldsworthy also doesn't provide their names. So we have three legions: the 10th Fretensis with an unclear founder, and two unknown ones (at least unknown to me) which were combined into the 10th Gemina. It is probable that one of the later two was the Caesar's 10th. But you have to at least admit that the issue is a bit unclear.
So let's consider that Dando is wrong (which indeed is a strong possibility) in claiming that the Fretensis is the Caesar 10th. As long as we are careful in avoiding his mistake we can still use other informations. Flamarande 10:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Still, the part about the founding IS indeed a bit vague. But to say that the 10th was founded in 58 BC is almost certainly wrong. In 58 BC Caesar was beginning his Gallic Wars.
Lets use Caesar's own book "Gallic Wars" (I have Penguin classics version - my stuff is in "[ ]"). He begins with 4 legions. A single legion is in Gaul. 3 are in Galia Cisalpina, near Aquilea. "Ceasar was informed that Helvetii intended to cross...leaving Titus Labenius [with a single legion]...he marched to nothern Italy, enrolled two new legions there, sent for the three which were in winter quartes near Aquileia. [and sent all five to the north]".
So now he has an army of 6 legions, 4 veteran and two new ones. Paragraph 24 of "Repulse of the Helvetii") "he formed up his four veteran legions...and posted the two recently levied in Italy on the sumit..."
Also in paragraph 40 same chapter. "If no one else would follow him , he [Caesar] would go all the same, acompanied only by the 10th legion; of its loyalty he had no doubt, and it should serve as his bodyguard." Highly unlikely if this was a new legion recruited in 58 BC, don't you agree? He appears to know this legion allready from somewhere and to trust it.
Paragraph 2 of "Collapse of the Belgic coalition" "These alarming reports induced Caesar to raise two new legions in Italy, and send them in the spring to Gaul under the command of Quintius Pedius." this is marked in the notes. In the notes at end of the book is written by Peguin scholars: "The two new legions raised in the winter of 58 BC were the 13th and 14th." So now he has 8 legions, 4 veteran and 4 new ones and we now know the number of two of newer ones.
Now counting backwards: 14th 13th recruited in the winter, then another two "not soo new" (almost certainly 12 and 11) leaving us with 4 veteran legions. Now look at the Wikipedia article, as I won't read the whole Gallic war again (Wikpedia is not a very reliable source but let's hope is good enough in this case) Battle of the Sabis: the two new legions (13 and 14) are guarding the baggage train, and we obtain the all remaing numbers: 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Which are the veteran legions? Almost certainly 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Hope you agree with me until here. Now, to be considered a veteran legion, a legions needs time and fighting experience, agreed? A legion recruited in 58 BC (the same year!) had no reasonable way to be considered of "veteran status" allready.
In short: Where and by whom were the 7, 8, 9, recruited? Hispania and probably by Pompey. Was the 10th recruited in Gallia Cisalpina in 58 BC? Highly unlikely, as Caesar refers to it as a "veteran legion" and takes care to refer the 4 recruited ones in 58 BC as "new". He also does NOT provide us with any recruitement of this legion, so it existed already. Great hint: Which legion does Caesar favour? The 10th, almost imediatly. Why not the 7, 8, or 9? Possibility: Because Caesar hadn't founded them.
So by whom and when was the 10th legion formed? Likely answer (but not absolute one, I grant you that): By Caesar himself as was a governor in Lusitania, and began his campaign against the Lusitanii. Logic and evidence dictates that cutting a deal with Pompey and Crassus he was given 4 veteran legions of Hispania, where he had been governor, came to know their valour, and also gained respect from their part, and (this part is not clearly proven) liked the 10th best, because he himself had recruited it.
It seems to me at least in this "time and birthplace" issue Dando might be right. It is strongly hinted in "Gallic wars", and sustained by logic. It is very unlikely that Pompey or anybody else founded the 10th. Still it is somewhat conjectural and wouldn' stand up in a court of law, but I hope that you at least agree with me that the 10th was a vetern legion before 58BC (in the same year it was suposedly founded). Still I might be wrong here, and I certainly never claim to be invalible. Everything is debatable and I only gave my personal opinion based upon my limited knowledge. I never claim to know the whole truth. Feel free to disagree, perhaps you can even convince me and I will change my mind (or/and learn from you POV and improve my limited knowledge). Flamarande 12:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC) PS: Check it out, and reply please.
You did a lot of work. My only note is that is based on Caesar's commentaries, which are a text well known since antiquity. I do not see why modern and ancient scholars agree with you. Just this.--Panairjdde 09:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the book while being disputed (and I concede that it speculates a lot) is certainly not the only source for any paragraph in particular (thats the reasons I read many books - trying to get the facts straight). Some info was used (I believe I checked it with other books but please, feel free to check it out) in the paragraphs about the Gallic Wars, and the civil war between Ceasar and Pompey. Flamarande 01:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Why isn't this article a Featured Article?

Why isn't this article a Featured Article? It's comprehensive, detailed, well referenced & illustrated. With a little help from the people at Wikipedia:Peer Review, this article could become a Wikipedia:Featured Article. I think such an important article as this deserves to be part of the best of Wikipedia, so I really encourage you to go for FA. I really hope some of you that have been working on this page are interested in my suggestion; if you are, you might find the brilliant article on the Byzantine Empire, or the recent FA on Manuel I Komnenos helpful as a comparison. Good luck! Bigdaddy1204 23:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

To really honest I believe that this article is as good or even better than some articles who already were featured articles. And the quality of the current article about the Byzantine empire is... dubious, to say the least.Flamarande 08:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually had a look at the article recently? HUGE improvements have been made over the last couple of months, so I recommend you take another look :D Bigdaddy1204 17:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I take a look almost every time I am here. I must point out that the article received the "allmighty status" before the huge improvements. It tends to present the Byzantine empire in a Greek POV, is a bit too full, and the images and the templates are simply badly organized. Are you denying that this (Roman republic) article largely deserves that status, and that the status itself is rather dubious? It is the same with Oscar awards: "Sin City (film)" and "V for Vendetta (film)" deserve a couple of Oscars at the very least, do you believe they will get them? Flamarande 19:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. I am just trying to help by suggesting someone takes the few smalls step that remain necessary for this article to become a FA. As for the Byzantine Empire article, I don't agree that the images are badly organized or that it suffers from POV; you'd have to give me some evidence of this. Still, arguing about that is missing the point: I think that the Roman Republic could and should be a FA, and I'd like to know if there is anything specific I could do to help. Bigdaddy1204 23:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Forget it. You put me off helping with your hostile response. And as far as I can see, no one seems interested in making this a FA anyway, since they haven't responded here in two months. If anyone is interested, leave a message on my user page and I will be happy to help in any way I can with this article. Otherwise, that's it. Disappointed. Bigdaddy1204 22:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted GA

This article did not go through the current GAN nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Although references are provided, the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. In addition, the citation of sources would almost certainly help the article in reaching FA status. --RelHistBuff 10:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Triumvirate

There is a significant caesura in this section. Events go from the 80's bc to 50's bc with no explanation as to the opening sentence of the subsequent section --josephconklin 5 December 2006

I've changed it. For some reason the section on the end of the republic, which I wrote about 2 years ago, was inexplicably moved to the article on the First Triumvirate, and simply inserted, beginning with the rebellion of Lepidus in 78-77, at the end of the article. Both articles looked far worse as a result. Haven40 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity

As regards of the deletion of the following text:

According to Francis Owen in "the Germanic People", the original inhabitants of the Italian peninsula were of "Mediterranean" complexion, but the Italici which settled Rome were of northern European origins. According to Owens the evidence available from Roman literature, historical records and statuary and personal names shows that the appearance of the Roman aristocracy differed greatly from the population in the rest of the peninsula. The records describe a very large number of well known historical personalities as blonde. In addition, 250 individuals are recorded to have had the name Flavius, which means blonde, and there are many named Rufus and Rutilius, meaning red haired and reddish haired respectively. The following Roman gods are said to have had blonde hair; Amor, Apollo, Aurora, Bacchus, Ceres, Diana, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Minerva and Venus.
Ref: Francis Owen, "The Germanic people; their Origin Expansion & Culture", 1993 Barnes & Noble Books ISBN 0880295791, page 49.

Deleted with the following motivation: li

m (Sorry but that is not conclusive. The fact that blondes got a special nickname (Flavius) only shows that they were not the norm. Never heard that the Etruscans or the Italic were of Germanic origin..)

Flamarande (talk · contribs), please brush up on Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:No original research. I provided cited information from a secondary source. Your interpretation (Original Research) of part of the evidence used by the author to reach his conclusion is of no value to Wikipedia unless you can cite a secondary source supporting your opinion (in the event such exists), in which case the two conflicting views should be included in the article so that the reader can know there is a difference of opinion amongst scholars. Your deletion of the text was completely without justification.--Sloppy diplomat 17:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The author and his work seems to a bit dated per [1]. The book seems to have beeen written in 1960 and republished in 1993. Neither the Etruscans or the Sabines (which you seem to be forgetting as ancestors of the Romans) seem to be of Germanic origins and the whole category Category:Ancient Germanic peoples doesn't includes the Italici as a Germanic tribe/people. The article Italiotes, Ancient Italic peoples, and Italic languages don't show any Germanic tribe in Italy. The whole point of the gods being blondes proves little (and many of that list aren't blondes at all), because some of their Greeks versions also were blondes and that doesn't prove "their" Germanic origin. The articles Germanic peoples and Proto-Germanic also forgets to include the Italici. Most important of all that vision isn't even mentioned at all in History of Rome.
I like to be honest, so here it goes: I read a lot of books about the Romans, and never ever heard that they were of Germanic origin. I do know that before the World Wars there was a great effort (especially amongst scholars who should have known better) in presenting the Germanic people/culture as better than all the others (especially the Anglo Saxons). One aspect of that effort was the appropiation of great peoples of the past (like presenting some Greek tribes as of Germanic origin). I believe that the book was written under a similar point of view (it that was a very popular view at that time). I know that I don't know everything about the Romans but the whole paragraph seems to be complete nonsense to me. I read a lot of books about the Romans and their republic and I never ever read anything anywhere about any Germanic origins. I always read that they were a Meditereanean people. The opinions are divided about their "forefather ppl" (the people from where they originated): the Etruscans, Sabines, or Alba Logans (or perhaps even all of them). Not a single one of them is a Germanic ppl. I think you have been misled. Flamarande 01:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, Flamarande (talk · contribs) please don’t engage in Original Research by removing sourced text.
I have provided a good reliable source. All you have provided are loose arguments, i.e. an attempt at OR. But let us nevertheless have a look at them.
Apparently the book was first published in 1960, and then republished at least once in the 90‘s. The publisher seems to think it is still valid. You seem to claim that it is therefore dated, (including its author). The authors research was based on available historical sources. I did not know that work on the ethnicity of the original Roman people had taken such great strides in the past 47 years. Have more sources been unearthed. Or is it perhaps DNA sequencing you are referring to? Sadly I see no mention of any such studies in the section in question, which mainly consists of un-sourced text of dubious validity. As to the origin of Rome there seems to be some confusion, at least in Wikipedia, see Founding of Rome where the Latins are given as founders. This just goes to show an other Wikipedia policy you should take to hart; Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. Absence of information, or inclusion of it, in Wikipedia articles and categories does not provide any type of reliability. Only citing reliable secondary sources does! Now let me clear up another misconception you seem to be labouring under. I have never claimed the source said that the Romans were a "Germanic" people. The book-chapter in question is labelled "The Neolithic Background", I.e. we are talking about northern Indo-European people who in time differentiated into German, Celtic, Roman etc. As to the Greeks, yes, some of their Gods were blonde too. The author sees this as evidence of at least limited migrations from the north into pre-historic Greece as well. As he states: "Most of the gods and heroes of the Iliad and the Odyssey were blond; Athena was blue eyed, Aphrodite was described as having golden hair, Helen had silken blond hair, light-colored eyes, a dazzling white skin. The Greek word "iris" meaning rainbow was used to describe the human eye. It would be very strange indeed if a dark-eyed people had made such a comparison." Far from refuting the intrusion of northerners into Italy, the Greek story makes it even likelier. (I checked the Iliad myself just now, golden or yellow hair seems to be a common term there). I also seem to remember a fairly recent horrible movie about Alexander the Great, where the guy was portrayed as blondish. Besides; doing a bit more OR of my own, look at the Tocharians who at the time of the founding of Rome already had migrated all the way to Xinjiang. Going down into Italy seems a lot easier. I agree with you that before World War II attempts were made to promote a world image with whites always on top. If the research of this book was based on such a world-view, then I’m sure you’d have had no trouble finding huge piles of newer history books refuting what it says about the origins of the Romans. I would say that the fact that the book was written by a Professor 15 years after the end of the Holocaust should ensure that it is solid scholarship untainted by any "Germany uber alles", or similar, pushing. Otherwise it would never have been reprinted by a reputable publisher in the 90's. You might find the text nonsense. I do not know how many works you have read, nor the quality of them. I did not find the text nonsense however, since I previously had read Suetonius book "the 12 Caesar"[2] and wondered why Nero was blonde. Some more OR, why not?
  • Augustus, the first and possibly greatest Roman Emperor: "He had clear, bright eyes, in which he liked to have it thought that there was a kind of divine power, and it greatly pleased him, whenever he looked keenly at anyone, if he let his face fall as if before the radiance of the sun; but in his old age he could not see very well with his left eye. His teeth were wide apart, small, and ill-kept; his hair was slightly curly and inclining to golden; his eyebrows met. His ears were of moderate size, and his nose projected a little at the top and then bent slightly inward. His complexion was between dark and fair. He was short of stature (although Julius Marathus, his freedman and keeper of his records, says that he was five feet and nine inches in height), but this was concealed by the fine proportion and symmetry of his figure, and was noticeable only by comparison with some taller person standing beside him."
  • Nero, somewhat less illustrious: "He was about the average height, his body marked with spots and malodorous, his hair light blond, his features regular rather than attractive, his eyes blue and somewhat weak, his neck over thick, his belly prominent, and his legs very slender."
Doesn’t seem to have been that unusual with blonde hair among the ruling classes of the republic. Now lets se you provide a source that contradicts my so called "nonsense" source! Unless you are an expert on the topic, find a reliable source to back up your opinion on the ancient Roman ethnicity, or leave the text alone. --Sloppy diplomat 00:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 200 BCE geopolitical map

madagascar, australia and new zealand are marked as "uninhabited". seems inaccurate to me... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.232.100.151 (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] New Infobox?

What do people think of the new infobox? I think that it has potential, but has several problems as it is implemented. Much of the information has been lost, or thrown in without explanation. What relevance do the leaders listed have? What relevance do the events listed have? Since when is the Republic an Empire - and what of the problems this causes with confusing it with the Roman Empire, etc? I think a lot of nuances and context of the information has been lost.

On the other hand, standardized infoboxes as a good thing. If this one can be fixed so that the presentation of the information can be at least as good as the old one, I'd say keep it - but it needs a lot of work, and it is one of those "complicated" syntax infoboxes. -- Vedexent (talk) - 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for whatever errors I've introduced into the article and facts I've lost as a result of adding the new infobox. I hope the community can work out something better from my rough work. I'll be happy with whatever you all build together.
Here are those subtleties that have been lost:
  • No ambiguity in "Last consul(s)", which was previously "Unclear, as consuls continued to be elected under the Emperors"
  • Dissolutional ambiguity: "44 to 27 BC, depending on historical interpretation of the point at which the Roman Republic was subverted into the Roman Empire - see introduction." Replaced with—and this is the reason for the multiple dates—a listing of the events discussed in the introduction as possible end dates. If you looked at the Roman Empire infobox, there's a similar overlap. The RR lasted from, in this infobox, 509 to 27 BC; the RE, in their infobox, from 44 BC to 476 AD. There has been some contention over these dates, so I wanted to be as broad as possible in the categorization scheme.
  • Roman Senate falsely called "Legislature", previously "Advisory Council".
    • Could be worked out using the infobox template's Legislature, House1, and House2 tags, although I don't know what gubernatorial aegis might cover both, being unfamiliar with the institutions of Roman government.
  • Roman assemblies, the true legislature, lost entirely.
  • I had listed GJC as the last consul, but I just tossed that out as it's supposed to correspond with the end date, and it no longer does.
Again, sorry. Geuiwogbil 21:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely no need to apologize. Like I said, standardized infoboxes are a good thing, and it is an official policy of wikipedia to be bold :)
The largest problem I see at the moment isn't the information, it is the context. Yes, you have the end dates listed, as well as the beginning and ending consul(s) - which is an improvement over the old infobox. However, I know what these lists of people and events are, because I know something of Roman History, and have read and contributed to the article. Re-read the infobox while trying to think like someone who knows nothing of Roman history, but is interested. Do the lists make any sense to you? Probably not - headers and list titles need to be added, probably along with explanatory footnotes. 'Events' and 'Leaders' are listed, but there's nothing to indicate - for example - that the Rape of Lucretia represents the start of the Republic's history, and the other events the end. Nor does it explain why these leaders are significant - they're the first, and you can tell that by digging into the article - but you can't tell that from the infobox.
No need to apologize, or to chuck out the infobox, but it does need to be expanded and explained better. - Vedexent (talk) - 21:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official language

If I have understood it correctly the Roman Empire had two official languages: Latin and Ancient Greek. Did not the earlier republic have that too after it conquered Greece?

2007-04-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.233.151.160 (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

The notion and status of official languages is recent. We simply like to use with ancient peoples. The old families of republican Rome despised Greek language and culture and fought against its growth inside Rome, this is evident in many Roman books. While Greek certainly was allready very important during later republican times it still hadn't gained its importance during Imperial times. Flamarande 21:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought Ancient Greek had high status as language in ancient Rome! At least much of the upper classes spoke it at the time of Gaius Julius Caesar. Latin also have many loanwords of Greek origin. Ancient Greece had a big cultural influence on the Romans: one author even claimed that it was the Greeks who made the Romans civilised! Of cause, there was some resistance against this cultural influence. But I think it was a minority view. About the exeistance of “official languages” in ancient civilsations we can consider the languages used by their governments “official”. Did the government of the Roman Republic use any other language than Latin?

2007-04-13 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Greek was very important in the time of the republic, no doubts about it. Something we like to ignore that the Romans were a bit (a big bit) xenophobic. The old senators, who liked to present themselves as defender of old Roman tradition and old Roman virtues, hated Greek culture. Believe it or not, they liked to present themselves as rustic, fresh, pure, and unspoilt. Many despised the Greek civilization as a weaking, corrupting, and decadent influence upon Rome. They were even proud of the fact that Rome didn't had a theatre (the first one was built by Pompey)! The newer politicians (like Caesar) on the other hand liked Greek culture; and this fact was used against them. I don't know much about the use of other languages during republican times by part of the Roman goverment. As far as I know they used predominantly Latin, but perhaps used Greek on a provincial level in the Eastern provinces. As time passed Greek slowly became the second language of the Roman empire. Flamarande 16:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Flamarande, you are generalising a little too much in this regard. Not *all* of the Roman 'aristocracy' (this term itself is open for debate) despised Greek culture throughout the mid-Republican period. While your general point is correct don't forget the respect Scipio Aemilianus had for Polybius for example (and he was about as 'aristocratic' as you can get). There seems to be a general trend though of the Roman aristocracy, once accepting Stoicism for what were deemed to be it's Roman-like virtues, being affected by the other part of this philosophy (namely the more cosmopolitan aspect of it).--NeroDrusus 16:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I never said that all Roman aristocrats despised Greek culture. I wrote that: "The old senators..." Flamarande 11:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case we can say that the Roman Empire had two official languages wile the earlier republic had only one.

2007-05-31 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

[edit] Marian Reforms

I understood that the Marian reforms changed the length of enlistment to 16 years -- not 20 as stated in the article -- and it was Augustus who changed the term to 20 years. Is this correct? 203.192.186.33 10:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"There had been no set term of service even after the Marian reforms, allthough the traditional maximum of 16 campaigns or years may have continued to apply. Legions sometimes served for the duration of a conflict, but many remained in garrison at a war's end. Augustus established the length of service in his new, permanent legions as 16 years with a further four as a veteran. Veterans remained with their legion, but were excused guard duty and fatigues and in theory only obliged to fight in defence of the legion's base or camp. However, a shortage of recruits resulted, later in Augustus' reign, in the extension of service to 20 years with an additional five as veteran. Allthough the change was at first bitterly resented, it remained standard throughout the Principate."

"The complete Roman army" by Adrian Goldsworthy, chapter "The army of the Principate", page 50 Flamarande 12:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

The map looks very odd to me. By that I mean to see it for what is I had to click on it to enlarge and see the details better. Is there a better one that can be used? Missjessica254 18:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a note

I've made a few contributions to Roman articles on Wiki so far, but I'd like to raise an issue if I may. Much of the 'scholarship' on wikipedia seems to accept the view of an aristocracy exercising what amounted to total defacto control of the assemblies via a variety of methods, intrigue, their relationship with their clientela etc... This view is not widely accepted now among historical scholarship, which has taken a bit of a step back and considered that maybe the democratic voice of the Roman people was louder than we had been led to believe. This view of an over-arching aristocracy is a view that stems of Gelzer's work on the Roman nobility in the early 20th century. It has been successfully challenged by many authors, most notably Fergus Millar. Is there any way we can weave this into the text?--NeroDrusus 16:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Republics

User:Pmanderson has finally admitted that there is an Old meaning of the term Republic at the Talk:List of republics page. But instead of including this old term, he states that the Old Meaning of Republic is "monarchy" and so he has added this to List_of_republics#Other_meanings_of_Republic

==Other meanings of Republic==

For the archaizing meanings of the word republic, as the commonwealth, or as a translation of politeia or res publica, see those articles.

These were in some respects broader than the present meaning of republic, and would include not only the republics of antiquity, as above, but, for example, the following monarchies:

Since the Oxford English Dictionary last cites this meaning from 1684, it is difficult to tell to which present states it would have been applied.

Can someone explain to me why the Roman Republic has the Newer definition and the Roman Empire has the Older meaning of republic? Can someone who is smarter than me and has a college degree explain this to me? I am having difficulty with this.

Is NOT Rome a Classical republic. And if Modern republics diminish religion why was the constitution of Rome divided between Res divina (religious law) and Res publica (secular law)? Is there not a glaring discrepancy here?WHEELER 00:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helloooooo

Is not Rome a Classical republic? And where is Res divina in this article? You mean to tell me that all the experts on the Roman Republic and there is NO mention of Res divina and the duties of Roman government officials in the religious duties of the state?

I am probably not allowed to edit articles but would some one rectify the situation here! Is not Rome a "Classical Republic" because it is Mixed. And where is Res Divina?WHEELER 21:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added a section Constitution with res divina. Can someone colloborate that? Has this been missing for awhile?WHEELER 22:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Thayer

Mr. Thayer has been kind enough to shed some light on the subject. He responds thusly:

"Although the Roman government controlled many aspects of Roman religion, and the two were part of continuum, "res divina" has rather little to do with government, and less with any notion of constitution."

Roman officials had religious duties. Cicero did religious duties for the state.WHEELER 23:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rome as a republic

Since I am a dumb yahoo from Battle Creek Michigan, who doesn't have a college degree, who called Rome between the period of 590 B.C. to 24 B.C. a republic; i.e. Roman republic. You mean to tell me that the Romans never called themselves a Republic. They called themselves SPQR. So who called this period the "Roman Republic"? Can someone explain this? If nowhere did Cicero call his own country a repubic but the "State of Rome", who called Rome a republic?WHEELER 02:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been told by User:SimonP and User:Pmanderson that Cicero never used the term "Republic" as a title for a form of government. Did the Romans ever call themselves a Republic? or just the "State of Rome", i.e "Res pubica Romanum". Something is not right here. Something is very fishy here. Who labelled Rome a republic? If Cicero never used the term as a title---Then who did? If republic just means state, and it was never a title in Latin at the time, who called Rome a republic?WHEELER 02:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's referred to in all latin literature, even well into the imperial period as 'our res publica' (our 'public thing') literally, I dont know why you are so keen to find evidence for the Romans self-identifying THEMSELVES as a republic as there was no word that conveyed the contemporary meaning of the word anyway. All it means it Government exercised by the people with the assistance of Senate (a role that grew as time went on up until the late republic), the role of the people in ancient Rome should NEVER be understated, and unfortunately, on wikipedia they seem to take Scullard's line, which has long since been disproven by Fergus Millar. Effectively, Romans Government as described by Polybius was mixed, and the whole way the 'clientela' and 'nobiles' situation has been viewed is wrong.--86.156.30.55 17:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No word on "conveying the contemporary meaning"? Why do we seek to transport Modern concepts BACK into history! I am NOT interested in "contemporary meanings" because "contemporary meanings" HAVE EXACTLY NO use in understanding and knowledge of Classical Antiquity! Their views and mentalities are FAR different from our own. You are making the Greeks and the Romans FIT modern sensibilities but this is all so wrong!

Here is links that might lead to some clarification:

The Spartan Republic

The Classical definition of republic

List of the Multiple meanings of republic with at Wikinfo List of republics

Aristotle's schema of governmental forms

And also this Revolution within the form

Understand all this and you can see we have a problem here. All the Wikipedian articles are flawed! Rome is NOT a Wikipedian Republic but a Classical republic!WHEELER 21:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. All of the links you've provided (save for the first, for which I don't have authorship info) were created or edited by you to conform to your personal perspective. Please stop fighting the same fights over and over again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Then you should read the references on those pages. I suggest Paul A. Rahe's Republics, Ancient and Modern. Should do some reading, because something isn't gelling.WHEELER 02:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I got another piece of the puzzle for you:

Machiavelli's Error. WHEELER 02:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just about had it. Has any of the Contributors here at Wikipedia in political science and in Classical Antiquity read? Because I come across stuff that blows everything away that is going on here at Wikipedia.

Two consuls instead of a king now stood each year at the head of the community; the assembly of adult males which elected them remained the same, as did the body of elders who advised them; this was the senate, composed in practice of former magistrates. Time and circustance produced various modifications in THE THREE ELEMENTS whose interplay WAS (italics in original) the Roman political system, including notably the creation of a large number of lesser magistrates; NOTHING ALTERED THE CENTRAL FACT OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT, THAT IT WAS THE COLLECTIVE RULE OF AN ARISTOCRACY, IN PRINCIPLE and to a varying extent in practice dependent on the will of a popular assembly.
Michael Crawford, The Roman Republic 2ND Edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978, 1992. pg 22-23.

I don't know but right there refutes what is said in this article about "Republic" being democracy. Do you see your WP article on Republic with ANY of this information? NOOOOO. All your articles dealing with Republic are messed up!!!WHEELER 00:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See here for discussion --Nema Fakei 02:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rome is a CLASSICAL REPUBLIC

Rome is not a republic according to the definition of Machiavelli. This article has Rome as a republic. This definition is arrived at thru Machiavelli! Paul A. Rahe has written "In the Shadow of Lucretius: The Epicurean Foundations of Machiavelli's Political Thought", in History of Political Thought, Vol. XXVIII, #1, Spring, 2007. This political journal has peer reviewed this paper. In it, Prof. Rahe writes that "Machiavelli is NOT a classical republican". If Machiavelli is NOT a classical republican---how can Rome be defined as a republic under Machiavellian terms? Rome is a classical republic! According to Crawford quoted above and Rahe's article in the History of Political Thought---Rome is NOT a republic according to Machiavelli but is a Classical republic which is defined as Mixed Government! This article is in error and I wish somebody in Roman/Classical studies changes this! This article is IN gross error!WHEELER 02:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed here. As you can see it was a very minor edit. Stating the rationale and references in the talk page is good, and I'm sure we appeciate it (at least I do). Feel free to make such changes in the future, so long as the changes can be justified, and that isn't a problem here; it doesn't take a professional scholar of Roman/Classical studies. -- Vedexent (talk) - 03:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good lord - I did this edit without reading the "tempest in a teapot" in the above section. --Vedexent (talk) - 03:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it but when you go to Classical republic and Classical republicanism they both refer to Machiavelli! So who is going to solve that? What is a Classical republic and what is Classical republicanism?WHEELER 00:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The "teapot" would have made clear that "classical republicanism" is a minority view; and it is not at all clear that this distinguishes the Republic, by its standard definition, from the rest of Roman history. The characteristic of the classical republic is, according to its scholarly proponents, substantial influence by an Assembly of the male citizens, and direct exercise of power by the society, without any state in the modern sense. Whether this is a reasonable description of the Republic may be doubted; but, if so, it is also a description of the rule of Numa and of Augustus - not, of course, Tiberius and his successors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a very energetic (overly and ludicrously so, in my opinion) debate over a label. It does not affect what the form of the Roman Republic's government was if you call it a Republic or a Kumquat.

My take is this: Does the distinction between vanilla "Republicanism" and "Classical Republicanism" exist in notable published sources? If so, use their definitions. If not, such distinction constitutes original research and should be struck. All this ranting about "we need to define what Classical Republicanism is!" is a load of dingos kidneys (to quote Douglas Adams). We need to do no such thing; Professional published academic historians need to have done so. If they have, use their terms and we can drop the issue. If they have not, the issue doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and we can drop the issue. Simple, no? Find an at least minimally respectable published source that makes the distinction, or drop the issue/strike the articles. If you can find one, include the mention of "Classical Republicanism" in the article, but also mention that the distinction is not a universally held one, which it certainly doesn't seem to be. -- Vedexent (talk) - 22:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WHEELER has found two, reliable but not notable; there are a few more, I believe, but this is one view among many in political philosophy - not in the historiography of Rome. I have no objection to including the idea somewhere; but the lead seems undue weight. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
So make a brief aside mention in the lead ("a republican form (some would claim a classical republican form) of government ..."), and a more detailed explanation in the section on government ("... a minority view make the distinction between the form of government used in the res publica and modern republics by labeling this government of this era in Roman history a Classical republic, even though most historical writings about Rome simply refer to this phase of the Roman civilization as the Republic ..."). Does that suit everyone? -- Vedexent (talk) - 22:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
But oh so sorry, "In a piece of high presbyterian cant that long was remembered, Cartwright wrote that the civil constitution ought to match the ecclesiastical, "even as the hangings to the house"...the architect had cribbed his plans from the decorator: he had built according to the classical-republican theory of mixed government." ~ Prof. Michael Mendle. Now, Prof. Mendle is using the term "classical republic" as mixed government. Is not Classical republicanism "mixed government"? Then why the adjective "Classical" in front of the term "republic"? Why is this being used instead of the plain term "republic"? Because maybe Modern republics and their definition has nothing to do with republics in Classical Antiquity? Read the evidence above from Prof Crawford. The republic Wikipedia article doesn't mention any of that! The Roman Republic is a republic because it is Mixed!WHEELER 01:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, Wikipedia is about representing the thoughts on an issue, in a representational way. If two contrary ideas exist (within serious, credible scholarship) on a topic, both need to be presented. If one idea of held to by 90% of scholars and the other only by 10%, then that needs to be reflected in the inclusion (the history and structure of developing ideas is as important as the ideas themselves in some cases; at the least current "controversies" over certain ideas need to be pointed out, if one doesn't wish to include the whole history of the evolving controversy). Wikipedia is not about shouting down people in talk pages, or trying to convince other people that your ideas are "the one true way". I'm not sure why you continue to try to do both. Your highly "energetic" comments are bordering on the edge of coherence; indeed, I'm no longer sure which side of the argument you're on (Republic v.s. Classical Republic), but it doesn't really matter because the final choice is not up to you, and it is not up to me, it is up to the historians and historical writers, and if they cannot agree then the issue is to be reported "as is" (in all its indecision) and let the reader decide. -- Vedexent (talk) - 17:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have a book that defines Republics as Mixed, in the glossary of a book written by a Political Professor yet, when I try to include that at Wikipedia's Republic it gets deleted. I post four to five references, modern Scholarly books that describe Sparta as a republic--it gets deleted. Now, if "mixed" doesn't refer to Republic should it refer to Classical republic? Yet, the hive mind here won't allow "mixed" to show up at Classical republic. Why does Classical republic mean Republic?WHEELER 00:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Writing Needs More Clarity about What Roman Republican Government Was

The key definitions in the article are too self-referential: (a red wagon is a wagon that is red). What was Roman Republicanism? Was it democratic or semi-democratic? The article should clearly define this right way. Lots of good stuff here but key concepts need to be fully defined earlier.

Also the 'Government' section is way too vaque: Roman government is described as "a complex system with several redundancies" and then nothing more is said in that section. Two abstract concepts (complexity and redundancy) left by themselves (in that section) could mean anything.

Sean7phil 19:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

First, we need to define what a "Classical republic" is. Yes, all the articles dealing with the ancient term "republic" need work. What is a Classical republic.WHEELER 13:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
No, we do not. That is expressly contrary to what Wikipedia is for. See my comment in the above section to that effect. -- Vedexent (talk) - 22:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
In modern Scholary books the word "Classical republics" is being used to differentiate them from the modern definition of republic! Why then is there an article on Wikipedia about "Classical republics"?WHEELER 01:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TOC Damage?

Who the heck altered the placement and structure of the Table of Contents from the default? Sorry - but in Firefox (@1280 screen width) the page is a mess now with the floating picture and the right justified TOC. Anyone else experiencing this? Please remember people that making it "look cool" on your browser can break the page for some people. Cross-browser conventions ensure the page is usable by everyone. -- Vedexent (talk) - 18:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There was also some customization of the extent map. Please remember that people often have selected image size in their profiles. Explicitly setting an image size in pixels over-rides this. In short, you're forcing people to look at really big, or really little, images for their browser settings, despite their settings to help avoid this.
I've reverted the sizes and layout to defaults. As boring as this may be to some, it is readable by all. -- Vedexent (talk) - 18:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
We simply have to go much further, we have to reform the whole article from top to bottom (it is currently a big f... mess). We have to create a seperate article about the history of the republic (boy is this a bitter pill to swallow) and transfer almost everything related towards it. We have to leave small and precise summaries on several subjects and good links to the main articles - "languages of the Roman republic", "Roman citzenship", "Roman laws", etc). This article tries to do this and still be about the history of the republic, and it is simply unable to do either. Everybody is trying to expand this article a bit further and now it is simply too large. Reverts are slowly increasing because of it. It is time to seriously re-consider the present form of this article. Flamarande 00:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that's been obvious for some time. Not only does the history have to be split off, but the history will probably become many levels deep. One simply cannot put the entire history in anything more than a summary with connections off to specific events and periods. The events around the struggles between Sulla and Marius, for example, split into a main article, with multiple "sub-articles" for the war against Jugurtha, the civil wars they fought, etc. Each of those potentially splitting off articles for campaigns, battles, political/social developments (e.g. the Marian Reforms), etc. We're talking about Roman History, people. Even the most cursory overviews takes multiple printed volumes. One article just ain't gonna cut it.
That said, I was just fixing the formatting problems - the article problems are another kettle of fish. -- Vedexent (talk) - 13:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A proper article "History of the Roman Republic"

Hy, it is my honest opinion that this article needs to be improved. In particular a proper article about the history of the Roman Republic has to be created and all the concerning information has to be transfered towards it. This trend is followed in the majority of the country-articles and IMHO this article suffers alot because it doesn't follow this trend. The article is way too large (largely because of the many history-paragraphs), and the history of the Roman Republic is more than worthy (and certainly "large/long" enough) to deserve a seperate article (perhaps even more than one?). This "main-article" adresses certain aspects of the republic (languages, religion, history, military, foreign relations, etc) and then provides proper links towards the main articles which are about the issues in question. The single exception seems to be History; and it is high time we correct this. I welcome proposals for the name, and I'm certainly going to need some help (We need a good example we could follow). Anyone interrested ? Flamarande 00:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the current article satisfies all the concerns expressed. At any rate, any "history of the roman republic" article would duplicate 90% of the information here and would thus be a completely unnecessary fork. Ford MF 16:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't duplicate the information, the information (about history) from this article would be transfered towards the new article. The present article is way too large (there is a optimal size, and this article is way over it) and there is plenty of information yet to be included. Flamarande 17:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Senate Error

The Roman Senate was not a 'legislature', despite the fact that the summary box at the top of the page says that it was. The legislatures were the Comitia Tributa and the Comitia Centuriata. The Roman Senate was more of an executive council, which made foreign policy, and directed domestic policy without actually legislating. I tried to change this but couldn't. How can this be changed? Also, I wrote some blog diaries on the Roman Republic (which can be found at emperorhadrian.dailykos.com). These diaries are my own work, and I am using them to fill in some gaps on this entry.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the reference to this

"Roman citizens of the time did not recognize that the Republic had ceased to exist" The Romans called there state "The Prinicipate" not the republic after Ceaser YankeeRoman(65.222.151.74 (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

At least on a formal level, the observation you quote is true. Res publica was the term used to denote the state throughout Roman history. The term 'Principate' is a modern invention. Iblardi (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the article

I am going to be making some major changes to this article. It appears to have been badly neglected.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)