Talk:History of the Constitution of the Roman Empire/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok...I'm afraid it's a fail, for this primary reason: the article does not really focus enough on the "Constitution of the Roman Empire". It is basically a history of Roman Emperors under the Principate, with notes referring to constitutional changes. A substantial amount of the information which is described here is nothing to do with the constitution. For instance: What does that have to do with the constitution?
 * The first indication of a nationalist movement appeared in Gaul (modern France) in 68,[14] but this movement ended when its leader, C. Julius Vindex, was defeated by an army under L. Verginius Rufus. Rufus was the governor of Upper Germany, and while he was declared imperator by his soldiers, he decided not to use his support to march on Rome and make himself emperor. He did not decline this opportunity because he was loyal to the emperor Nero, but rather because of his own low birth, and his belief that his low birth might make it difficult for him to accomplish anything as emperor.[14] Shortly after Rufus had been declared imperator, Ser. Sulpicius Galba, the governor of Hispania Tarraconensis, was proclaimed emperor by his troops.[14] In Rome, the emperor Nero quickly lost his supporters and committed suicide. Galba, however, did not prove to be a wise leader. He chose to punish Rufus' troops, and to antagonize the Praetorian Guard by not fulfilling promises which had been made to them.[14]

Furthermore, is there such thing as the "Constitution of the Roman Empire"? As far as I'm aware, the constitution was essentially the same as the Republican consitution, albiet modified by subsequent emperors. Crucially, the office of 'Emperor' did not even legally exist! Whilst the drastic reforms of the Dominate probably do qualify that as a new constitution, I'm not sure the Romans during the Principate would have thought they were under a seperate 'imperial' constitution. Regardless, the article needs to focus much more on the actual changes (when, what, why); the surrounding history is not important in this article.

I don't really see that this subject requires a separate article from Constitution of the Roman Empire and History of the Roman Constitution; I think all the changes that are described in this article can quite happily be described elsewhere; there is an over-proliferation of articles here. I just don't think there is a lot to talk about here that isn't already discussed elsewhere. If this article is purged of irrelevant information, there won't be a lot of it left.

Anyway, besides these general questions, there are several major problems with the article.
 * All inline citations are from a single (old) source.
 * Many important statements unreferenced
 * The article just gives up at 192 AD with the statement "No further constitutional reforms were enacted during the Principate. The only development of any significance was the continuing slide towards monarchy..."
 * Surely the slide towards monarchy was incredibly significant?
 * What about when Caracalla made all residents of the Empire Citizens?

"176, Marcus Aurelius made his son, L. Aurelius Commodus, his new co-emperor. This arrangement was revived more than a century later, when the emperor Diocletian established the Tetrarchy"
 * There are statements which are just not correct: e.g.
 * What about when Septimius Severus made his sons Co-emperors?

"The most significant constitutional development that occurred during the reign of Marcus Aurelius was the revival of the republican principle of collegiality,[24] as he made his brother, L. Aelius, his co-emperor. Marcus Aurelius ruled the western half of the empire, while his brother ruled the eastern half of the empire"
 * Lucius Verus was not Marcus Aurelius's brother. They did not rule 'eastern' and 'western' halves of the empire.

And so on. "Domitian, ultimately, was a tyrant with the character which always makes tyranny repulsive,[21] and this derived in part from his own paranoia." (This also has nothing to do with the constitution)
 * There are also several statements which are not written in an encyclopedic style. e.g.

Whilst the article is generally well written, I feel that this article needs a re-write so that it corresponds to its title. For that reason, I'm not going to put it on hold. If the article is modified as suggested, it will need a new review. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)