Talk:Roman Republic/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Motto

I believe the correct translation of Senatus Populusque Romanus is Roman Senate & People, not Senate and People of Rome (which would be Senatus Populusque Romae). Homagetocatalonia 01:06 30 09 2005 (UTC)

Both tranlations are given on the link, but I guess "Senate and People of Rome" sounds "better". I personnaly prefer: "Sono Pazzi Questi Romani" Flamarande

Check the article on SPQR for more on this -- it can actually stand for different things, causing slight difficulty in translation. 128.36.72.41 16:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)motorneuron

I know, I reformed that article to explain the problems of the diffrent translations - nobody is really sure of the latin phrase and it appears to have changed with the passing of time. Divergent version were used at the beginning of the republic at the end of it and during the Empire. Still I don´t know latin nor italian (the translations are based upon diffrent books or were allready there). Flamarande 17:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As it is SPQR, all upper case, shouldn't the motto be Senatus Populus Que Romanus? Or is it something to do with the intricacies of Latin that may render this query totally pointless, and that would make me appear an uneducated fool?  :) SK999111

Latin didn't have a distinction between upper and lower case letters like we do, and -que is used as a suffix to the last noun in a list. [1] Abbreviations are sometimes odd like that - DNA stands for Deoxyribonucleic Acid. --Nicknack009 22:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Julius Caesar and money reforms?

Just wondering if anyone can find anything on Julius Caesar and giving the power to coin money to the Roman empire?

This is from http://reactor-core.org/money-changers.html#chapter13 (section 3)

"In 48 BC, Julius Caesar took back from the Money Changers the power to coin money and then minted coins for the benefit of all. With this new, plentiful supply of money, he built great public works. By making money plentiful, Caesar won the love of the common people. But the Money Changers hated him. Some believe this was an important factor in Caesar's assassination.

One thing is for sure: with the death of Caesar came the demise of plentiful money in Rome. Taxes increased, as did corruption.

Eventually the Roman money supply was reduced by 90 per cent."

Hmmm, I read the rest of the page and it seems to me that it is the ravings of another madman of the type: "the very evil U.S. federal goverment is going to destroy the sacred american liberty and values through a massive conspiracy and manipulation of the money reserves" Just read the comments about Jesus and americans, they are soo funny.
Having said that I concede that: Monetary issues are vital to any goverment who wants to survive, but as far as we (historians) know, Cesar was murdered for political reasons. Remember always that most of our our (ancient) sources are suspect. Many of them wrote down history defending the republican system (or not) and could be excecuted for what they wrote. Flamarande 20:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a "Roman" portal?

Hi folks, I'm contemplating the possibility of creating a portal for Ancient Rome, to replace Roman, which is a disambiguation page and has nearly 400 links pointing to it from articles (not counting the ones from Talk or Wikipedia pages).

If I was to go ahead with this, I would need help from other people on the content, as I don't know too much about the subject matter - my motivation for doing this is because it seems to be needed, and I believe I can figure out the technical aspects of making it happen.

Some possible issues:

  1. It needs a suitable name. I'm thinking "Ancient Rome", but there may be other options. My intention would be to redirect Romans to the portal so that every vague reference and accidental linkage to "the Romans" would end up in a suitable place.
  2. I think it would be appropriate to include Byzantium, and maybe Ancient Greece if it doesn't already have a "home".
  3. Other uses of the word Roman currently listed on Roman would probably be moved to Roman (disambiguation), which is currently a redirect.
  4. I would not like to become the sole maintainer. I would be willing to continue doing technical stuff, but selection of featured articles and suchlike should be done by somebody who can tell whether or not the content is accurate.

For examples of existing portals, see Portal:Egyptology, Portal:Star Trek, and many more are listed at Category:Portals.

I am interested in opinions on this idea, and I invite discussion on the topic at my test page User:LesleyW/RomePortal. Please feel free to copy this notice to other places where it might be noticed by knowledgeable people. I will be away for the next few days, and will pick up discussions early next week at the latest.

--LesleyW 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how I managed to get this notice pasted in three times. It's probably a browser issue at my end. --LesleyW 20:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Causes of the Collapse

For a factual article, the 'causes of the collapse' article is too wordy. Possibly copied directly from a student's essay? Also, "Gracchi" should probably be replaced by either "Gracchus" or "Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus". Gracchi was the family name, and using "Gracchus" or the full name will allow for a link to another Wikipedia article.

Make it so, if it deserves to be here it will survive. As for the causes, I kind of agree with you, perhaps someone will improve them.Flamarande 00:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Gracchi is correct as plural - as the events around the Gracchi are not simply about Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, but also about Gaius Sempronius Gracchus. There were two Gracchi bothers - Both "reformers", both who ended up murdered in a similar manner.
Beowulf314159 21:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Image removal

The image was removed as it was a copyright violation; it was an image which had been tagged as having no source information for more than seven days, and as such was (before being deleted) a candidate for speedy deletion. This was explained (briefly) in the edit summary. Cheers --Pak21 18:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Important figures

Should the conspirators to Caesar's assassination, such as Brutus and Cassius be listed under late Republic? After all, their actions helped bring Octavian to power and effectively end the Republic. Tim 01:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Do it! Be bold! Perhaps at the side of Gaius Julius Ceasar, like the line about the Punic Wars Flamarande 16:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Government institutions

I think this section needs to be looked at. It's accurate, but only for a brief slice of history. Populares and Optimates didn't exist until things started to go downhill with a tug-of-war between the Senate and the Plebian assembly. It's not wrong it's just overly focused time-wise. Sadly, I don't know enough about the historical changes over time in the Roman government to take a crack at it. - Beowulf314159 22:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't sound encyclopaedic + debate

I wonder if anybody else feels it, but the article, though extremely readable, falls just short of appearing very encyclopaedic. It ends up narrating rather than informing. I believe that checking every sentence, especially in the later part (the causes, perhaps), for information content might help. Saksham 06:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


I think large parts of it read that way, yes, and that large parts of it can be tightened and streamlined. Many people who are very capable and talented writers don't quite make the 'gear change' out of writing papers and journal articles, and don't realize the structure of encyclopedia entries is a little different: a little more 'spare' and 'harsh'. However, that said, I think that articles evolve, and an important "first step" is to get the information into the article any way possible. It can be cleaned up later. Iif you know what you don't like, and what you think should be corrected, jump on in! :) That's the beauty of Wikipedia. - Beowulf314159 12:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


To some extent, the modern "encyclopedic" style, as seen in print encyclopedias, is forced by space considerations; the 1911 EB had no problem with lengthy narratives. That said, this is more of a "top-level" article, and an important function of the narrative is to "name-drop", that is, to provide links to specific subtopics that are covered in more depth. The artfulness comes in supplying all the links while making it all sensible to the reader who keeps reading here. One thing that jumps out at me while scrolling up and down is that the history part has become very long, and it's probably time to promote it into its own article History of the Roman Republic or some such; as with other country articles, the history section should only be about the same size as demographics, economy, culture, etc sections. Stan 14:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Objection. To write a article about the Roman Republic is forcebly to write mainly about its history (this is a simple fact, read any book about a ancient country or civilization, the vastly larger part will about its history). If you want to include a equal part about the culture, I can only ask all of you: "What´s the point of all the article(s) in the "Category:Ancient Rome" ?" Are you telling us that all (country) articles (like Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, Roman Empire, Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire are forced to include equal parts of demographics, economy, culture, etc sections? Doesn´t anyone think that this might be a bit (a big bit) of a over-kill?
It is simply simpler and more logical to write a small sumary about these topics (all of them except history) and provide a main link to a single "specialized" article like: Culture of ancient Rome and Roman religion which can better explain the gradual changes in religion, etc for all of these country/articles (notice that we are speaking of the same culture which simply changed with the passing of centuries) (following the book example this also is how it is done "outside of wikipedia")? Let´s kill many rabitts with half a dozen stones.
Let´s not repeat the same data in various articles. Let´s not follow the "messy" example of the enormous article of Portugal (which is very slowly improving) where the summary/paragraphs in the main article are larger and simply better that the specialized/articles (it´s a clumsy and ugly giant, in my personal opinion deserving a major overhaul "to the bone").
I can als only ask you to give me a article whose style we could analyze and perhaps use as a standart or example in order to improve this article. I also have to point out that the "paragraph of the causes" is the part who somehow remains largely "unchangeable" and in fact is the least improved of all. Flamarande 20:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


I'm not opposing having a single culture article for all periods, just pointing out that the lengthy narrative history is a lot to maneuver around when somebody is looking for quickie answers to questions like "was there a constitution", "how could they have dictators in a republic", "how did the republic end", etc. Long narrative articles can be reader-unfriendly in that it's hard to jump into the middle, get the question answered, and get out. But there are times when you want something lengthier to read, and it's very much a WP tradition for "History of X" to be long narrative, possibly over multiple articles (History of the United States includes 11(!) sub-articles). In any case, I'm not saying it has to be re-organized, just mentioned what I noticed while reviewing. Stan 04:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


I think that all elements that are covered in the page are equally important: Culture, people, art, religion, and History. However, I think that small summaries of all topics including periods of history, are called for. I think going for a logical outline of summary pargraphs is the only way to keep such a topic managable. This is not to say that any information should be lost - it should just be migrated to the appropriate more specialized page. For example - the Punic Wars are crucial to the understanding of the Roman Republic. They cannot be left out. But a full detailed history them should probably not be included. A description of events leading up, a description of the wars themselves, and a description of the aftermath: 3-4 paragraphs. The rest of the information must still be retained in the Wikipedia, but migrated to the page specifically on the Punic wars. A broad understanding, but not a deep one (yet with lots of opportunity for the reader to drop in deeper into areas that sound interesting) is what a topic level article should be. In the same manner, should all topics be treated. - Beowulf314159 23:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


So, are you all more or less satisfied with the current organization (with some improvements), or not? I have to point out that the "history part" recounts in a good manner more than 300 years ! of history and provides many links to many fine articles. Let me clariefy my POV: I am not against summary/paragraphs of other topics like culture, religion, art, etc.
What I am afraid of is that either you are going to:
A)"slash" the historical content of the article (which I believe is a good summary, as "thin" as possible it can be)
or/and B) expand all the other subjects to a equal length as the history part and we will end up with the "Nightmare-article" of Portugal (shudder).
Give me a article which I can analyze, please. Flamarande 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I saw the article History of the United States and I think that it is very good, indeed. Instead of making a "mamoth" article (like Portugal) about american history, it elegantly divides it in several periods. [Just kidding with all Americans: I have to ask how "mere 200 years" deserve such many articles (being a arrogant European :) ]. If anyone wants to make a article following that logic about the history of the roman civilization (including Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, Roman Empire, Western Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire), by all means, please do so. Flamarande 17:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


When I originally said that the article, in parts, doesn't sound encyclopaedic, I simply meant the information content vs. narrative elements. For example, the last line of the History section reads "The legions of Rome physically dismantled the Republic, but it was the Senate that set up a world where such a thing could happen as the citizens looked on and cheered." which, to me at least, doesn't sound as if coming from an encyclopaedic. Although, again, that is not to say that it does not make the article eminently readable. I could change this last line, but my point is that the tone of the article is like that throughout. It's a mammoth task even if one realises what exactly one wants. The solution I propose is that the article be trimmed, especially the history section, and subheadings contain a summary while pointing to a main article on the subject. While this keeps intact this article's worth as a "top-level" article, it makes editing and tuning much easier. Another problem I have was that most of this article deals with the events which occured at the end, in fact caused the end of the Republic. Do these not belong to a separate article? Of course, there is the problem of repetition. A promiment part of this article has the same information as Julius Caeser, and a link to that article could streeamline this one quite a bit. (In fact, the part that completely belongs here is perhaps the causes, shown by their lack of blue links). But I am no historian, and all I know about the Roman Republic comes from this article only :) But I would like to work on the tone of this one, in case we decide to re-organise this one. Saksham 19:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Let´s try to reach a common consensus here. I am only a "amateur historian" who likes to read a lot (and in fact have a few books about the subject) but I have to tell you that the two paragraphs about the causes ("beginning of the end" and "causes of the subversion of the republic into the empire") are in fact the more suspect (and least improved) of all. Real professional historians don´t agree amongst themselves about the real causes of the subversion of the republic into the empire. It seems to me that many of you are finding problems with the last paragraph: causes of the subversion of the republic into the empire. Well, if you don´t like it, then simply improve (change) it. As for the events that made the end of the republic they are essential (in my opinion) in order to understand how it really worked and why it finnaly ended. We can write a article about how was the republic supposed to work and what was the correct procedure but it is far more interresting to write how in reality it really happened and ultimately it ended. The same is for Ceasar: I don´t think a good article about the Roman Republic should ignore the career of the man who finnaly ended it. Give us a article as a example we can analyze and use as a standart. Flamarande 14:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent improvements + Octavia

I am kind of overwhelmed by the attention and most importantly the good quality of the improvements this article has recieved in more recent times (for alltoo long I was "kind off" the sole "Keeper" of this article). I think that this article is (more) quickly getting better and better (and to be really honest I don´t know why this article is not getting oficial "featured article" proposals. Jesus Christ, some (few) featured articles were simply worse than this article). I can only critize (constructably) that ppl are seing some basic flaws in this article but give all-too vague proposals of improvements. Give us examples (other articles) to follow, don´t be afraid of saying: "this paragraph reads like communist propaganda", etc (I just hate political correctness) and more importantly: "Use this talk page" and be a bit more specific if you disagree with any part of this article.

Meanwhile (repeating a ancient chalenge of mine): I hereby challenge all regular "Romans" to improve this article, by adding all relevant information about the marriage between Antony and Octavia (sister of Octavian). I could do it, but I have other articles to improve (besides I like to challenge ppl). Flamarande 16:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

New Viewpoints

Wikipedia is not a place to discuss, discourse, or lay out every possible explanation and interpretation of events. The style of Wikipedia is to lay out the framework of the facts, present the significant ideas of the scholars of the subjects and reference the works in which those scholars give their interpretation. We are not supposed to interject our own views and reinterpretations into the article.

This doesn't mean we can't have our own ideas - just that Wikipedia isn't a place to publish our own writings and theories. There are other forums for that. This goes in the opposite direction of papers and essays - we are discouraged from presenting our own viewpoints here. Beowulf314159 02:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Wait a second here, please. Every article about history includes political developments which are explained (interpreted) with the hindsight of the ages. George Orwell is a political scolar (and considered one of the best) who interprets political struggles (all of them throughout history, in this particular case the fight between the optimates and the populares) in his literary work "1984". I included him with the following:
"One can also see this as a plain old power-struggle and interpret it in a more cynical and orwellian perspective: in all revolutions (power-struggle) the High (Optimates) are overthrown by the Middle (Populares) in name of the Low (the common People). In the final end, the Middle then became the new High. For the Low all revolutions usually mean a change of masters."
This is not my particular view or reinterpretation, it is the view and interpretation of George Orwell. In fact the stuff after the double-point ( : ) are his words, mine are in parentheses ( ) .But yes you are right, I exagerated in including the parentheses (I wanted to simplify the argument for other readers). I will (next time, not today I have go to work) include the proper paragraph of "1984". I also wish that you include your own sources and references for the sake of fairness (somebody (a journalist) might want to check them) as you are contributing to a larger extent. Flamarande 14:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


It is neither. It is your application of the ideas of Orwell to the Roman situation. Orwell never wrote specifically about Rome, as far as I know. This makes it your interpretation of Roman events, through your interpretation of Orwell's writing.
Unless you can point to a published book or paper which draws the simularities between Orwellian philosophy and Rome, it's a similarity that you are drawing.
In either case, it's needless discourse in an article that is already too long. But in the interests of fairness, I'll strike the entire paragraph.
As for my references, I'm largely using the Wikipedia articles that I'm linking to, paraphrasing and summarizing those. - Beowulf314159 16:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


I never disguesed that I was aplying the ideas of Orwell to the struggle between the populares and optimates. I used parantheses and wrote it explicitly: "One can also see this as a plain old power-struggle and interpret it in a more cynical and orwellian perspective".
Let´s put out in the open: Orwell never wrote about the Roman Republic. Orwell wrote a book "1984" which has a paragraph which deals with revolutions. Revolutions are basicly power-struggles (fights about political power). Orwell is a undisputed scolar in the subject: Revolutions. I think that phrase can be used to give a valuable perspective about the political power-struggle between the Populares and the Optimates.
You appear to disagree, mainly because it disagrees with the official Wikipedia policy (see above). Well, I can only say that laws (or policies, call them what you want) are largely moral guidelines which in some cases have to be bended and are in fact bended everywhere. For everybody: Don´t use this as a excuse to ignore completely the oficial policies. I am in favour of Law and Order but I simply don´t follow blindly all the rules everytime.
Are you telling us that we can not include Orwell, and for example Machiavelly and Sun Tzu in this article about the roman republic (or in a another article) unless it is written in a published book and paper? If so, we cannot include Sun Tzu in any article about warfare, military campaign and battle unless it is written somewhwere. JC, we cannot include philosophers anywhere.
As for your references, they could be worse :) and are certainly better than some, but they are a bit suspect. To read about a subject in various articles in wikipedia and then use that knowledge to write about the subject in another article is not the best and correct way, isn´t it so ? Flamarande 15:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Punic War Suggestion

I notice that the section in this article on the Punic Wars contains more information than the stand alone article on the wars themselves. Should not the information here be mirrored there? It seems to me that a summary here, and more detailed information there is how articles are usually set up. Perhaps the information should be moved, rather than mirrored? - Vedexent 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The article about the the Punic wars, is in fact, shorter than the summary here in the Roman Republic article, but there are three links there First Punic War, Second Punic War, Third Punic War which lead to three extensive articles about the Punic Wars. I would leave the article Punic Wars as it is, for if you expand it, you are simply competing with the other three articles and all four articles would repeat the same information. Flamarande 13:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The worth of ancient sources and modern books

Let´s try to reach a common consensus here. I am only a "amateur historian" who likes to read a lot (and in fact have a few books about the subject) but I have to tell you that the two paragraphs about the causes are in fact the more suspect (and least improved) of all. Real professional historians don´t agree amongst themselves about the real causes of the subversion of the republic into the empire. Let me try to explain you why:

First we are simply limited by our ancient sources/historians. There are not that many of them, and the material (writting) that we have today is not that extensive. Then, with all due respect to Suetonius etc many of our ancient sources simply did not follow NPOV policies, to say it mildly.

Many of them were roman patriots who in many cases degraded the enemy (let me give you two good examples: Hannibal, the cruel carthaginian and Cleopatra the vile seducer of virtous romans) and improved their own side (like Scipio Africanus, the paladin of antiquity and Octavian the bringer of peace and saviour of the Republic).

Ancient historians were, most of the time, not present to the events that they wrote about. They would ask questions to real witnesses who would answer them as best as they could (Ask a thousand witnesses about a single event and you will get a few hundered slightly diffrent accounts). Ask a roman general about a certain battle and he will tell you about tactics and units. Ask a soldier and he will tell you about smell, fear and blood. Nevertheless, they are talking about the same battle.

Ancient historians could suffer repurcussions for what they wrote. In the more extreme cases they could be executed for what they wrote, but let´s not go that far: Let´s imagine a roman historian who would write a truthfull account about a battle in which the Roman troops behaved miserably (by cowardice, treachary, incompetence or cruelty). Would the historian be praised for his genuine account? Or (far more likely) would he be insulted by the familiars of the fallen, accused of treachary by the fanatics and despised by the crowd (despite the fact that he was only writting the truth)? Far more likely he would exagerate the numbers of the enemy and praise the heroic struggle of the romans who were overwhelmed by the numbers. His book would certainly sell better.

Then modern historians gather all these accounts and interpret them as best as they can. Some of them are cautious and try to be reasonable, while others simply repeat the POV and accept blindly what the ancient romans wrote (I have a book written by a german historian who writtes about Cleopatra: "a worthless woman". The book was written in 1913 but notice my point). Notice also, that historians suffer the same problems as their ancient counterparts: patriotism, limited sources, and social repurcussions. Let me again give two examples: Richard Lionheart the hero of modern England, the glorious crusader who simply abandoned his country. In contrast John Lackland the "evil brother" the devious and treacharous dog who maintained law and order while his brother was fighting thousands of mile away (not that John was a angel, far from it: he was a ruler and a politician :), but at least he was there at his post instead of playing hero like Richard).

Im not telling you that modern historians are as bad as ancient ones, I personnaly think that they are better than ever before and are getting better all the time. But still, take everthing with a grain of salt and be reasonable, and most importantly read about the other side. Don´t blind yourself with: HE (insert historian or source) wrote it this way, therefore it is the absolute truth.

Let´s face it: "History is written by victors and by loosers, interpreted and sometimes rewritten by intelectuals and fools, manipulated and used by politicians, and simply ignored by rebels and the masses, who always make the same mistakes." Flamarande 14:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem paragraph

Some anonymous user added the following paragraph

The Second Punic War has been called the "most significant war in history." It lasted so long and involved so much effort, that the Republic never recovered. Before this war, the Roman Army was composed of yeoman farmers, who would return to their farms after every war was over. The Second Public War resulted in the formation of a professional army of career soliders. The long war warped the Roman concept of liberty and the virtue of the Republic. After the war was over, the result was a progressive deterioration into militarism and authoritarianism.

I've moved it here because I think it has several severe problems and mistakes, but I'd like to get people's input before just erasing it.

  • The "most significant war in history." sounds like a quote. Who is this quote from? Can a book or reference be provided? Who is calling it "most significant war in history"?
  • "The Repbulic never recovered" - in what ways? By what histories and authors (or even archaeological evidence) is this claim being made"?
  • I believe the description of the changes of the Legions is blatantly wrong. What is being described is the Marian reforms, which wouldn't occur until 107 BC - nearly a century later.
  • "The long war warped ... militarism and authoritarianism." - again, evidence, citation, or even just tell us which authors are stating this.

This paragraph reads like it were the introduction paragraph of a much longer essay/thesis, with many conclusions and claims and no evidence. The evidence which should follow, doesn't seem to be included. - Vedexent 13:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


I can only advise you to erase it. It is simply wrong (see below). The paragraph foolishly repeats the old idea that professional armies are mercenaries and mercenaries are honourless dogs who sell themselves for the highest bidder, being the perfect tool for dictators. Ok, perhaps I am exagerating with my interpretation of their idea, and then perhaps I am not.
"the most significant war in history" high words indeed. I have some books about the subject, read many more and I never read such a high categorisation of the punic war. I guess it all depends of your own point of view (it always does). Ask a Roman of that time and he will say that it is true. Ask a modern muslim and he might tell you the crusades were it. Ask a german and he will mention WW2, etc. Let me be a little more abstract: The most important conflict for you will be that one which in your personnal opinion had the greatest impact on yourself and your country, culture, religion, etc.
Now, the most significant war in history will necessarly be the conflict who in hindsight had the greatest impact upon world culture (a nice vague word, by which in this particular case I mean everything: Religion, Morality, laws, politics, military, tecnology etc) and in my personal opinion we have two main candidates:
First, we have the battle of the Battle of Milvian Bridge, the victory of Constantine the Great and why? Resumedly, because of: In hoc signo vinces = by this sign you shall win/conquer. After this battle Constantine legalized and contributed decisevly to the conversion of the Roman Empire to the christian faith. Even with the fall of the Roman Empire the christian faith survived and prospered. The christian faith in turn influenced to a enormous extent western civilation (Is anyone going to deny that?). Western civilization invaded, dominated, colonized and influenced culturally the entire world with the Age of Discovery until today. I am not going to tell you that it was or is good or bad, that depends again from your own POV, but is anyone going to deny the importance of the christian faith upon world culture? Even if you don´t believe in his "divine nature" (like myself) or even dislike him, Jesus of Nazareth and his teachings had and have to this date the greatest cultural impact upon this world, thanks to Constantine. Simply stating a fact.
The second canditate is undoubtbly (in my opinion) World War II. The simple tecnological impact of this relativly recent war is enormous through massproduction, planes, veicules, medicine, communications, etc (Man, they even invented and used the atomic bomb during this war) and the conflict had also a enourmous impact in morals and politics: the Nuremberg trials, ONU, The Cold War after it, the rise of the USA, the retreat of the old British Empire to the UK , Decolonization, the Holocaust and the birth of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the ocupation and "re-education" (couldn´t find a better word) of Germany and Japan, the victory of Mao-Tse Tung in China.
Would all this things still happen if there were not a WWII? Probably yes, but they were certainly hugely influenced and shaped by it. Notice that in real history the IF question is not soo important, is more important that IT DID and HOW and WHY did it happen.
Notice that all the main players in today´s political arena were hugely changed by WWII (USA, Germany, Japan, China, UK, Russia, France, Israel, Canada, India, Korea (both of them), the list goes on and on). I am not telling anyone that all these country are important because of WWII or that everything happened only because of that war, most of these countries were allready quite important before WWII. But all of them (in fact the entire world to a varied extent) were hugely affected by WWII. Think of anything and try to find out if it wasn´t affected, improved or even created during WWII.
Oh my God (simple expression), I just noticed that the two most important persons in human history are Jesus and Adolf Hitler.
But hey, everything is debatable and I only gave my personal opinion. I don´t claim to know the whole truth. Feel free to disagree (rationaly, please) perhaps you can even convince me and I will change my mind (or/and learn from you POV and improve my limited knowledge). Flamarande 21:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Punic war division

This article is not a history book.

This article is not a story, or a narrative.

This article is a reference work — which means that functionally, one has to be able to find specific information, quickly. It also needs narrative flow and completeness for those that do read the article from top to bottom, but it also needs structure for those that are "fast scanning" for particular facts.

The fact that earlier I had to have pointed out to me that all three Punic Wars were being referenced should be a clue that it is not obvious on casual scanning of the article that this is so. Thus, the breaking up into sections, and the links to the main articles.

This is a functional choice not just a personal stylistic one. You have to cater to all types of readers, not just your own. - Vedexent 18:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

still calling it vandalism is a bit over-kill. Agathoclea 18:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of information is usually considered so, no? Ripping out information - organizational or content - without discussion, by anonymous users none-the-less, doesn't fall overly far from that particular tree added - unmentioned deletion in editing notes as well. - Vedexent 18:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

First, I have to accept the guilt: I don´t know why, but sometimes I loog in (enter the password) and I edit something. As I prooceed to save the change, IT (blame the net?, wiki?, my comp?, I don´t know why or who) tells me that I haven´t looged in allready, despite the fact that I have. Thats why my username is not there.
Now, you think that all the tree punic wars deserve their own paragraphs? I can live with that, but I think that this article has to sumarise (i. e. shorten) the history of the Roman Republic. This article should present a good summary and provide links to more specialized articles and not descibe them in a too overly detailed manner, for if we do that, we are in fact competing with the other specialized articles and repeating the same data. Personaly, I think that if we give all the three Punic Wars their own paragraphs, we risk giving all the wars their own paragraphs, like the four macedonian wars, jurguthine war, all the wars with Mithrades, etc.
As for vandalism, I resent that acusation, I NEVER vandalized any article in Wikipedia. I don´t write everything down in my summaries and in fact nobody does that. Remember always: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. I am not mad at you, and I certainly apriciate the fact that you used the talk page to present your case. I would much obliged for a reply, Thanks. Flamarande 16:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I apologize for the classification of it as "vandalism".
Secondly, again, the concept of "competing" with other articles doesn't make sense to me. We're not. We're not duplicating the level of detail in those articles, for one, and secondly i don't see how articles who often won't even share readership (can, but won't always) are in "compitition".
Thirdly, I am not splitting the wars up into seperate articles. They already are in seperate paragraphs. All I did was put headers on the paragraphs that were already there, and easily locatably links to the specialized articles that you agree should hold the majority of details. I also reorganized the information that was there so that the sections were self-sustaining, as they were now seperate sections, but most of the changes are reorganizing of information already there, not block of new information. In many cases it does look longer, because existing text is split up into more paragraphs, but in many cases there's not that much new text.
Fourthly, yes - individual theaters of conflict, and wars should be broken into sub-sections. Again, this doesn't mean more information, but it does mean finer grained organization of information already there. For a reference work, if I want to find the blurb on the 4th Macedonian war, and that's all I'm interested in, I should be able to find it in the table of contents, click on it, read the 2-5 paragraphs that are there, and click on the Main article or For futher information article link that's there.
The reader that wants to read the entire narrative should be able to, and we shouldn't lose track of that. The reader that wants to find a specific section, or fact, should also be able to, and not be forced to read the entire article to find it.
My philosophy of reference material, at least - Vedexent 20:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Second Punic war theaters

The article list Sicily as one the three theaters of conflict, however it doesn't mention any conflict in Sicily, nor does the article Second Punic War.

Can anyone supply details as to what conflicts occured in Sicily?

Is this a typo or error? The reason I think this might be the case is because the article doesn't mention Africa as a theater of conflict, which it clearly was. Did the original author mean Africa and not Sicily?

Does anyone have any ideas or information?

Vedexent 20:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I am the original author of the Sicily entry, and it is a true one (It is also my fault that Africa is not mentioned there, it became a "hotzone" only at final stage of the war). There was fighting in Sicily during the Second Punic. When do you supose that Syracuse was conquered by Rome and Archimedes died (notice the mention of the 2 war in the archimedes article)?
As for why the article Second Punic War does not mention this is beyond me (lack of knowledge would be my bet). Just one of the little things why professional scolars don´t like Wiki and don´t accept it as a serious source. My main source (but not only one) of the Sicilian war theater is "Hannibal" by G.P. Baker ISBN 0-8154-1005-0 Flamarande 16:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... ok. I was wondering, because Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica were under Roman control at the end of the first Punic war (or shortly after the end, during the mercenary revolt). It would make sense that the Carthaginians would try and take it back as part of the 2nd Punic war, I just didn't see any specific examples of this. Do you think you might add a paragraph about the Sicilian conflicts, since it's mentioned in the theaters paragraph? I don't have anything here that specifically mentions the Sicilian aspects of the war, althouh I do remember the death of Archimedes, now that you mention it. - Vedexent 17:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be worth adding that information to the Second Punic War article as well. - Vedexent 17:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Aha! Got it :) "Murder of Hieronymous; Syracuse switches allegiance from Rome to Carthage. M. Claudius Marcellus sent to Sicily. Assault of Syracuse fails and Marcellus begins Siege of Syracuse (214-212)". At least I know what happened - but that's all I have right now, so I'll leave adding that information to you. - Vedexent 17:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, you have to read my statement above. I think that you are including too much stuff (sorry, but it is my personal opinion). Sicily was under roman control at the end of the 1 Punic war but the whole of the island had not been conquered, there was at least the city-state of Syracuse who at certain point was considering allying itself with Carthage. Flamarande 17:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "too much information" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Instead, articles get 'split off' from it. I'm not really adding that much information - some I agree, mostly external links like the Latin Wars - most of my edits are reorganization of the material that is already there: splitting points into paragraphs, reorganizing the structure, splitting run on sections that are really discussing two-or-three seperate (but related) things into sub-sections, and the like.
One thing I am doing that is expanding the text is explicitly stating the implications that are implied as if the reader is expected to know them, such as in the section on the second Punic war, as well as adding things that do have a direct affect on what is being discussed. For example, the first Macedonian war being concurrent with the Second Punic war. That's not a trivial addition, or a side-note. Adding the amusing anecdote about how Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Asina got his name is trivial and shouldn't be done, I agree - but we're talking about the distribution of military forces!
Additionally, the section on the third punic was was misleading. It sounded like Carthage suddenly raised an army, started acting belligerent, and Rome put down another "rising threat". This couldn't be further from the truth, does the Carthaginians a grave disservice, and totally changes the nature of the appearance of the war.
I agree that the article is long. That can't be denied. However, I think the edits I'm putting in are not rambling paragraphs. I'm striving to put in, or edit down to, dense, information heavy paragraphs, because even if you restrict yourself to an outline form, with only the relevant facts, you're discussing complex historical events. Even an overview of the History of the Roman Republic cannot be put in a one page document. Even an outline of only the salient points would run many pages.
Perhaps the article does need to be further divided, and I do know that some of the paranthetical asides can be taken out entirely (do we really need to know that Hannibal sent his brother to Carthage? Isn't it enough to know he didn't get reinforcements despite pleas?). - Vedexent 18:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Chill out dude, don´t take the fact that I disagree with some of your edits in such a personal manner. I am not of those types who thinks that he is always right, and in fact I think that the majority of your edits are good and your clarification of the situton before the third war is very good. What I am afraid off is that the descriptions ãnd the information of the paragraphs are simply getting too big. We have to present a good but also thin summary of the history and provide links to the proper articles. If we don´t do that we will simply repeat the data in those articles and will de facto be competing with them. Flamarande 19:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I suspect we're both misreading? I wasn't taking your comments personally at all, actually. I was simply stating why I think the edits are important as they stand.
I'm confused by your idea of "competing with other articles". It's not a competition. Quite often there's not even an overlap in readership.
My view is that articles should be complete in and of themselves, and not rely on the reading of other articles for anything other than more detail. If there is duplication of information, that is a good thing, even by the official policies of Wikipedia.
Yes, there should be limits on how much detail is put in a topic, or you end up with all of Wikipedia in every article. But I think that the simplification should be in detail, not in form.
For example - take the Gracchi. They can be mentioned in only the sketchiest detail, and in doing so, their importance is lost. There were these brothers, they tried to pass land reforms, they caused strife, they were killed, the end. Interesting, sort of, but it misses the point. What is important about he Gracchi, in my humble opinion, is not the anecdotes, but what the causes and effects of the Gracchi's actions had: The Gracchi indidents illustrated that Roman government ran at least as much on tradition as it did law, broke the monopoly of the Sentate on political power, and introduced violence as a political tool in Rome. Without that acknowledgement, they are just an interesting side note story. With those details included, the Gracchi become a central turning point in the subversion of the Republic. To gloss over that is to short-change the reader.
I guess I'm stressing a functionalist view of history in my edits, rather than an anecdotally based one - and to sketch out the whole flow and function of events takes a whole lot more detail, althugh I completely agree that the detail has to be presented concisely. - Vedexent 20:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I am glad that you in fact are not taking critiscism in a personal manner (mea culpa). Perhaps I am exagerating with the importance of article size. I am gratefull by the good quality of your edits (I remember a time not too long ago when I myself had the energy to make 20 edits a day :) ). But I sometimes feel that we have to walk a very thin line here, read carefully: Doesn't sound encyclopaedic + debate (above).
Notice the part about:"the history part has become very long, and it's probably time to promote it into its own article History of the Roman Republic or some such; as with other country articles, the history section should only be about the same size as demographics, economy, culture, etc sections."
I am simply afraid that if you or/and me or anyone expand the history part too much it will be slashed (As I also wrote down there). Flamarande 21:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
So, how long are you saying you think the entire history of the Roman Republic should be in this article? It seems odd to expect 700 years of complex international politics to fit into a couple of pages. Can you put European history from 1300 to present day in such a space? How much space are we talking here? - Vedexent 22:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not defending that POV (read it above: I actualy defended your POV) I am just telling you that we should not expand it too much or somebody else will say: "It is too big, we have to slash it."
As for my personal opinion about the size: the present size appears to be acceptable, we should expand it to make it as big as we can possibly get away with it, and as thin as we can, without losing anything in quality. I am at your (historian) side. Flamarande 22:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Military History Infoboxes?

As some may have noticed, I've replaced the {{main}} templates for the Macedonian Wars with the standard infoboxes from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history project for the wars. They also list links to the individual battles of the conflicts. I havn't run amok and tucked these infoboxes into all the conflicts because I wanted to get people's response to them first. What do you think? Are these useful additions, or just clutter? - Vedexent 14:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Roman legends

Since I have received two complaints about something I took pains not to do, I reply here:

A single article on this scale should not include every individual story in Livy in detail. This article is supposed to be shorter even than the Epitome.

More seriously, it should go out of its way to avoid the non-consensus impression that they are history; or, in some cases, were even devised before the very end of the Republic.

I have not blanked the Roman legends; I moved them to a section of their own, where they can be developed ad libitim. I would add Horatius; the 300 Fabii (with a note that it is taken from Herodotus), Tarquin's advice (ditto) and the Dioscurii at Trasimene. Septentrionalis 01:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

As one of the complainers - I'm not so much concerned about the removal of the legends themselves - as the removal of the "section" or "function" the legend has in the overall article. My complaint was about the founding of the city. If that "function" in the article is best served by a synopisis of the archeology (for example) that's fine - but I think it's important to have a brief synopis of the history leading up to the republic (founding -> monarchy -> republic) and then the article being a little more detailed about the history of the repulbic itself.
I'm trying to see the article from the perspective of someone who is intelligent, but totally ignorant of the topic. You can't start someone like that "in the middle", or at least it's harder for them if you do. Better to "ease them into it" a bit by giving them a "recap" of events leading up. HOW that is done is secondary, in my opinion. - Vedexent 01:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
One of the disadvantages of so long an article is that it can be hard to edit on some computers, including the one I am using at the moment. Why not say that: Rome was settled by Latin-speakers. The date of this is disputable, but probably later than the traditional date of 753 BC. The traditional history continues with seven kings... and so on as present text. Septentrionalis 01:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
That would be way too short. For that, there is the Simple English Wikipedia.Flamarande 01:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
It's all we really know...Septentrionalis 03:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok , perhaps I overreacted, It seemed to me you were going to erase the ancient legends completely. But fact is that the ancient legends were very important to the ancient Romans. They believed (as far as I know) them to be mostly true (like the date of the founding) and they trusted and followed the lessons of their ancient forefathers.
Perhaps we should mix the ancient legends of the fundation of Rome with modern archeolical research in this article. Something like this: Fundation of Rome, followed by the ancient mythological story and below it the evidence of modern research who confirms or denies but certainly explains the history. Flamarande 01:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Or a subarticle Traditional early history of Rome, putting in as much of AUC I-X as we care to type, with a disclaimer in the head, and a paragraph summary here. Septentrionalis 01:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually - I think Flamarande will probably dislike this idea, but the length of the article can be dealt with in other ways. Really, there are only a half-dozen major phases of republican history (establishment of the republic, expansion into Italy, the Punic wars, the wars in the east, etc. etc.). Such sections could be summarized into a few paragraphs, and the detailed treatment here be migrated to History of the Roman Republic. Don't remove detail, migrate it. addded Sections 4.1 - 4.11. Each could become 1-2 paragraphs.

I don't think this will end up making the article smaller - but I think it makes space for the areas that are not yet developed (like the culture of the Republic) to expand without making the article 300k. - Vedexent 01:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also heard the early history of Rome referred to as "Myth-History" - Vedexent 01:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Problem is that in ancient times mythology was accepted as true, to simple write a article who does not mention this (ancient) view is describing the ancient civilizations in a sterile view. They belived in it, they felt that they were the sons of Mars. It is the same with religion. How is anyone going to write about the jewish religion and then write that Abraham and Moises are mostly (and likely) mythological figures (hey, its true)? It wouldn´t be a good article about that religion at all. Flamarande 01:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC) As for the current size 83k is not that big.
I strongly disagree; please read the manual of style. Article sizes over 32K should be avoided; some computers simply cannot read them, many cannot edit them. Even if this were fixed, and that will take years, the articles are too long to take in or to find things in. Septentrionalis 03:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

About the overall approach to editing: Look at the section on the monarchy as it was when I first saw it; link. The structure is:

  • The tradition says X
  • There are strong reasons to believe that X didn't happen
    • Reasons.

This is no-one's fault; any effort to retell Livy and still make statements which are in accord with the modern historical consensus in the same place will have to say this sort of thing again and again and again, probably as late as the Samnite Wars. Now if you are agreed that this is what you want to do, fine. I will yield to consensus; and go edit other articles until there is a new consensus. I don't think it will make a good article; I'm sure it won't make an article intelligible to an intelligent reader who knows nothing about Rome.Septentrionalis 03:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

While I wait for a reply for this, let me try a reworking more like Tacitus than Livy. Septentrionalis 03:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
What you've outlined is how I'd try and understand myself - but I take your point about it not being as intelligible to new readers.
I think what is at odds here is "History as objective flow of cause and effect" v.s. "History as the subjective story of a people". The legends and "myth-history" have little impact on the first, and they are absolutly crucial to the second.
There are really two histories for many things, and both are important, depending on your perspective.
Is it better to write two differnt "streams" of articles? Is it better to break an article into two sections (Classical tradtion v.s. Modern scholarship?). - Vedexent 03:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Probably. We have extensive articles on other forms of fiction. ;-> Septentrionalis 03:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've included a bit of "tradition, but..." in these samples, especially on the foundation. I am still not convinced that an article on the Republic needs anything on that subject. I have been a little vague on the actual settlement, but more precision would take more time and research than I can spend at the moment. What do both of you think? Septentrionalis 03:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I like that approach. It raises the issues, conveys the broad outlines of the topics, and for an introductory article on the history of the republic they are succinctly short. I think for completeness, such introductions should be the links into seperate sub-articles going into "more precision": {{main|X}} articles which expand on X. - Vedexent 04:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Consular Fasti

Another "suspected alteration" of the Fasti was powerful families "padding" the fasti by placing fictional consuls of their own family in the past to support their "present" political ambitions. This would tend to push the "founding date" back as well, would it not? - Vedexent 13:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And it may be responsible for the six consuls in one year: some historian saying: "Yes, Senators, your ancestors were all first." Septentrionalis 01:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Self-sufficient sections

With regards to "The Monarchy" section tug-of-war edit. This issues comes back to something else I fought for earlier.

Encyclopedia articles have to be partly narrative - in that they have to have a "flow" to keep the interested reader reading the entire article - but sections also have to be at least semi-independent. This means that they have to be as complete as possible without the reader needing to read other sections for it to make sense, as the phrase "This revolution" does.

People don't just read articles top to bottom; they skim the TOC, find the particular "facet" they are looking for, click it, jump to the section, read it, and maybe dive deeper by clicking one of the inline links (or one of the links pointed out by a {{main}} or {{see}} template).

If I "drop in" on the Monarchy section, read it cold, my first respose is "what revolution are you talking about?" (well, I know better, but I'm trying to think as such a reader). Such a reader then has to go hunting and scanning, which is bad: leaving tantilizing clues to tempt a reader to go read elsewhere is one thing; making them hunt around to make sense of what they just read, because you didn't anticipate the kind of reader they are, is another - Vedexent 13:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for dropping out but I had to go bed. I need 4 hours at least or else I will fall asleep at work.
I reached a conclusion and have come up with a idea. We are debatting if the ancient legends and the more scientific modern archeologyical evidence should be included inside the article, right? On the one hand the article appears to be too big, on the other the myths are important to understand the ancient Romans. A article about Rome who does not mention the ancient myths is a cripple (my personal opinion) but why don´t we simply transfer the data about the founding to its more correct article namely Roman Kingdom? Last time I checked it was too small anyway and the appropiate legends should rightly be there. After all, the ancient legends are about the founding of the Kingdom of Rome and not about the Roman Republic. Leave just a summary and a main link inside of it.
Well thats only a proposal and I think it deserves your attention

Actually - I was referring to this section. As far as moving the origin myths into the Roman Kingdom article, I think that is a good idea, but I still think that a mention of the founding and the monarchy period is important - even if it's only 1-2 paragraphs each. - Vedexent 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer a separate article rather than Roman Kingdom; much clearly legendary material deals with the early republic, and the Alba Longa cycle doesn't happen at Eome at all. Roman legends is the best name I can think of, but I'm sure there's a better one. (Not mythology, I think; Gods are rare and heroes even rarer.)Septentrionalis 01:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

They are tough to categorize. They're not exactly legends, they're not exactly mythology, and they're not exactly history. How about Roman Mythic History? - Vedexent 02:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Or Roman traditional history. Use lower case ; see WP:MOS. Septentrionalis 02:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

6 of one, half dozen of the other. Capitalization according to convention, of course :) I think mythic has more flair, but I'm not sure how much of a role flair should have in the choice ;) In any case, moving them to such an article and adding a

Further information: <insert article name here>

at the appropriate point in this article is the best solution. - Vedexent 03:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Btw, please note the problem with cross-reference by template; somebody's always messing with them. Septentrionalis 19:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.