Talk:Proscription

Illustration and content issues
It seems odd that the article only talks about proscription in ancient Rome, except for the lead section, but is illustrated with an image unrelated to its content. Should there be an article Proscription (ancient Rome), and an article formed from the list above called something like List of proscriptions? I'd go ahead and create such a thing, but I have no verification for the preceding material. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There should definitely be some information here about modern forms of proscription. I came to this page from a Wikipedia article about a Fascist Group that was proscribed by England after the start of WWII. I'm sure this must happen with most state conflicts. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @Cynwolfe, see below. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Beginning effort to generalize article
I have added to the lede, general examples of how historians use this title term, with citations. I would recommend these longer sentences be moved into the main body as starting points for new sections, perhaps connotation-based (Proscription as religious persecution, Proscription as ethnic cleansing, etc.), otherwise based on geography or time-period. In this way, the Classics-only nature of the body of the article can begin to evolve. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * OTOH, does the subject deserve such amplification? It's graded Low Importance on all indicators. Lengthy lists of persons and organizations who are or were once proscribed adds very little to a general encyclopedia, as opposed to a scholarly monograph. I suggest cutting back severely, or even deleting, the paras on ancient Rome, which seemingly serve only to flaunt the contributor's erudition. Agreed, it then becomes a brief article, but is that always a bad thing? Chrismorey (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

82 purge
From my reading of this section, am I correct in the understanding that those who turned in and/or killed men on the "list" were later declared criminals and themselves proscibed? That's very brutal. Why would the authorities do that?Which Hazel? (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The men who profiteered from proscription lists were usually rather nasty even by Roman standards, see Pro Roscio Amerino. Also,by profiting from one set of proscriptions, they identified themselves as supporters of the authority of the time, and they'd acquired a lot of valuable and disposable property. They might be rather obvious targets for the next bunch of authorities. Brutal? In a culture where Damnatio ad bestias was normal, perhaps not especially.
 * For a very entertaining fictional account of the period (there's lots of more academic work if you want to go that way), you may want to try the series of novels Masters of Rome by Colleen McCullough.
 * I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * More particularly, those who accused or killed the supporters of one faction during a civil war were likely to become targets if and when that faction returned to power. To those who had been persecuted and exiled or imprisoned, or the families of those slain, it was entirely just to mete out the same kind of punishment to the accusers and murderers.  In terms of sheer numbers, the proscriptions during this particular period were probably the most extensive in Roman history, as each side sought to do away with their political enemies when seizing power, and each act of revenge might lead to another when the tables turned.  From this point of view, it must have been a relief when Sulla was finally able to impose order, even though the manner in which he disposed of his enemies was just as brutal; by the time he relinquished power, the proscriptions were over.  The chaos of this war left a lasting impression on the young men of the period, such as Cicero, and especially Caesar, who had been proscribed by Sulla as a relative of Marius, even though he was only a youth at the time.  When Caesar rose to power, he showed much more restraint and uncharacteristic mercy to his enemies.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)