Talk:Roman Republic/Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Peer Review, this article could become a 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)

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)

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)

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..)

, please brush up on Wikipedia policy. 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 . 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, 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" 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)

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).

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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==
 * 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.
 * Sparta
 * the Roman Empire
 * Elizabethan England
 * the Ancien Régime in France

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


 * Please use sources - Using your own work is original research, something that is frowned at here on Wikipedia. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 00:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That was actually under the old, pre-GA version. Those are no longer here. RomanHistorian (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is the reference to this
"Roman citizens of the time did not recognize that the Republic had ceased to exist" The Romans called their state "The Prinicipate" not the republic after Caesar 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)

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)

"Culture of the Roman Republic" section
''There was a very large amount of commerce between the provinces since its transportation technology was very efficient. The average costs of transport and the technology were comparable with 18th century Europe. Landlords generally resided in cities and their estates were left in the care of farm managers. The plight of rural slaves was generally worse than their counterparts working in urban aristocratic households. To stimulate a higher labor productivity most landlords freed a large numbers of slaves and many received wages. Some''

The "some" at the end of this paragraph seems to be misplaced, as if a sentence has been cut off. Now I wonder, is this a mistake from somebody or has a vandal deleted the end of the sentence? J-C V (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Brace imbalance
Brace imbalance, as shown by the two extra braces floating over the top of the infobox, is a problem in the underlying template and therefore shows on all the article using the template rather than just this one. Tom (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation
Is there any standard rules for the capitalisation of Senate? There also seems to be confusion for various titles like tribune, aedile, consul, emperor. Mdw0 (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman republic did not have Lycia
According to the map, the Roman Republic had lycia, the southwestern tip of turkey that is next to Rhodes. The Romans didnt have that part of Turkey until after the reformations of the republic which made them an empire. dejv (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite true, if only someone could find a better map... Flamarande (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Link to the Italian Version
The link to the Italian version of this page is incorrect and leads to the wrong page. It should lead to http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repubblica_Romana_(509_a.C._-_27_a.C) 24.255.25.146 (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, I have just noticed that there are two different links to the Italian version of this article. The first one is not in alphabetical order and appears at the top of the language list. This first link is wrong, redundant and inaccurate. 24.255.25.146 (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone already sorted this. Thehalfone (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Consuls
The article mention conjointed power, but didnt they swap month-to-month as head consul? Or was that later? Mdw0 (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They had conjoined power and did swap month to month. It was one of the limitations on the power, although the inferior consul still had the power to veto the superior consul. I guess I don't see a contradiction here, since the flipping of power did not favor one consul over the other. This mattered more in the later republic, however. In the early republic, one (or both) consuls would be commanding (usually separate) armies on the battle field. By the later republic there were too many provinces for consuls and praetors to adequately command, so the consuls stayed in the city to administer government and a larger number of proconsuls and propraetors were appointed to command the provinces.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect dates for Caesar's transition?
I'm not an expert, but the transition paragraph states that Caesar "passed a law which allowed him to appoint all magistrates in 43 BC, and all consuls and tribunes in 42 BC." The very next paragraph confirms his murder in 44 BC, apparently two years before he passed a law allowing him to appoint magistrates. Even for Caesar it is difficult to pass legislation while dead. -Gavin (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Education and language Editing Error
Someone has edited the first paragraph of this sentence to introduce a sentence fragment after FN 89: "Following various military conquests in the Greek East, Romans adapted a number of Greek educational precepts to their own fledgling system.[89] physical training to prepare the boys to grow as Roman citizens and for eventual recruitment into the army."

This is not my field of expertise so I will not presume to know what the implied subject and predicate should have been, but an expert should correct it. -Gavin (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The critisism of the "populare party"
...in Section 2.4 sounds like it comes directly from a political opponent: "The populare record was not one to be proud of." Especially non neutral is the critisism "They reelected Marius consul several times without observing the customary ten year interval between offices." - a quick check at Sulla has him listed as consul in both 88 and 80. Could someone who knows more about this stuff than I rephrase this please. Thanks, and regards. Thehalfone (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sulla was relected early too. Marius's reelection was the first dramatic breach of this protocol, Sulla's was reverential by comparison. Mdw0 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition, the "populares and optimates" section is not written in a very encyclopedic fashion. For example:


 * It was both Jurgurtha's open purse, as well as the venality and incapacity of the Roman senate, which brought disgrace to the Roman name and defeat to the Roman arms.


 * Perhaps someone could rectify the phrasing in this section a bit? Xinophiliac (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I assure you I am neither a political opponent of Marius nor a partisan of Sulla. Marius was the first to so obviously break the precedent. Sulla's dictatorship began largely as an attempt to put down the populare rabble rousers of Marius and Cinna. Sulla's consulship in 80 BC also came at the end of his dictatorship and thus can be seen as an extension of the dictatorship via another office. RomanHistorian (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I took a whack at making this section more neutral. I have some questions about the content:  What 'violence' did Sulla witness?  Just his own?  It sounds like a reference to events that aren't included.  Hmm...maybe that's it.  Niten (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, second question: Is it correct to talk about the populare and optimate parties?  The populare page itself seems to suggest that they weren't so much political parties as classes of people.  Maybe it'd be more correct to simply talk about 'the people' and 'the aristocracy'? Niten (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article populare is quite clear upon this matter: "Populares ("favoring the people", singular popularis) were aristocratic leaders in the late Roman Republic who relied on the people's assemblies and tribunate to acquire political power. They are regarded in modern scholarship as in opposition to the optimates, who are identified with the conservative interests of a senatorial elite. The populares themselves, however, were also of senatorial rank and might be patricians or noble plebeians."


 * Such a party is not a class of people (and certainly not composed by the common ppl). Flamarande (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional Info box
Linking articles on the subject of the fall of the Republic--Amadscientist (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Verginia
Where could I get a list of Wikipedia people (experts) that are knowledgeable on Ancient Rome. I would like to get some input to the "apocryphal" question at Talk:Verginia? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hoplite armies
The section on the Republican army erroneously suggested that the manipular legion was in use from the founding of the Republic in 509 BC. This is not true; the maniple wasn't used until the fourth century BC. Prior to that, the Romans used hoplite tactics like the Greeks and Etruscans. I've added a couple of paragraphs on hoplite warfare as used by the Romans. 84.66.28.128 (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Year conflicts in The Period of Transition (49-29 BC)
This section states that Julius Caesar passed laws in 43 and 42 BC to allow him to appoint all magistrates, consuls and tribunes while he was away from Rome. However, he was murdered in 44 BC, so these years must be wrong. 64.7.137.134 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not exactly


 * The sentence is: "Since his absence from Rome would limit his ability to install his own consuls, he passed a law which allowed him to appoint all magistrates in 43 BC, and all consuls and tribunes in 42 BC."


 * It means that Caesar passed a law which allowed him to appoint government officials in advance.


 * I checked one of my books, Rubicon ISBN 0-385-50313-X by Tom Holland, and I found the following about Aulus Hirtius and Vibus Pansa on page 343. The text describes the political landscape after Caesar's assassination. Quoting: "Both were prominent Caesarian officers and had been appointed by the dictator as consuls-designate for the succeeding year, 43 BC. Of course, to Cicero, the fact that magistracies had been allocated in advance, without any reference to the electorate, was an outrage, ..." Flamarande (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Egypt
According to most sources, Rome conquered Egypt in 30 BC and Caesar Augustus declared himself emperor in 27 BC. Doesn't that mean Egypt should be included on the map?75.106.96.58 (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

SPQR
Ok for SPQR if people want it translated as saying "The Senate and People of Rome" it needs to be Senatus Populusque Romae. Romae means "of Rome" whereas "Senatus Populusque Romano/us" is more along the lines of "The Senate and Roman People". Daggoth (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of text
A fairly large chunk of the information in the introduction is repeated in the Historical Overview section. So it needs to be deleted from one of those places. ArdClose (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this??? =
Rome also saw its territory expand during this period a very important period where Aristotle was a great intellectual man, from central Italy to the entire Mediterranean world.
 * this is the first sentence of the third paragraph of the introduction.
 * what does "aristotle was a great intellectual man" have to do with this section? Aristotle was Greek. It has nothing to do with expansion of the empire (which is what the sentence is about). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.91.188 (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Style changes
I don't want to start fiddling because someone's been putting lots of work in, and it looks good. But for style, someone needs to put the pictures and drop boxes evenly left and right, so they don't crowd up the page (depending on your browser/window size) and leave big white chunks, etc.

Also, the sub-sub-sub headings should not exist. It's too much, and readers don't need it in the TOC. It's much better, for that kind of heading, not to do ==== but a semi colon ; which before the heading makes it big and bold to the same size, but won't show in the TOC.  Wik idea  13:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking
CKatz, I must ask that you provide reasons for linking to Italy, Greece, France, North Africa, and Mediterranean.

The first three are to articles that almost entirely deal with modern European states. They did not exist as nation states in Roman times, and it is misleading to imply to readers (especially to those who wouldn't understand the issue) that they did. Europe, tribes, cultures, languages, administrative entities, were an entirely different matter then. Please explain how these links would clarify matters for readers who are unfamiliar with these words, rather than mislead them. What part(s), exactly, of those link-targets are relevant to this topic? Can you come up with daughter articles or section-links that do not mislead?

"North Africa" is similarly misleading: the green map there (same format, it seems) is clearly divided into post-19th-century nation states that resulted from the European colonial experiment. It is antithetical to helping our readers to understand the Roman world. Moreover, the text opens: "North Africa or Northern Africa is the northernmost region  of the African  continent [that is a revelation ...], linked by the Sahara to Sub-Saharan Africa. Geopolitically, the United Nations definition  of Northern Africa includes seven countries or territories; Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia, and Western Sahara[1]  Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Mauritania, and Libya together are sometimes referred to as the Maghreb, while Egypt is a transcontinental country by virtue of the Sinai Peninsula, which is in Asia." [that is almost entirely irrelevant and misleading. It goes on to talk of military bases ... Roman military bases? Naaah.]

You are on better ground in suggesting that "Mediterranean" be linked, however. At least there's mention of Latin and the Roman empire, towards the top of the article. Tony  (talk)  09:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that this article should not be discussing any less than three paragraphs about the Roman Republic, but it only has one. It is mostly about the Roman Empire, this concerns me because when I looked up this page it was under "the Roman Republic government" and it shows the bare minimum of the precise topic I had wished to see. I really hope that someone can add more about my topic so that I can find my search easier and with more factual information than I have found in the past. Thank you, and please consider adding to this! -Concerned Viewer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.229.32 (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Preceded by Issue
Procededs are more important to show how big was the Roman Empire. And There was great Empires and Cultures among them like Carthaginians, Pontus', Greeks and Macedonians those countries had a important situation on Roman history. And also the had effected the roman culture as Greeks and Macedonians. we can't ignore them. Celikadam1 13:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celikadam1 (talk • contribs)
 * The predecessor of the STATE we call the Roman Republic was the kingdom. It conquered a multitude of other states and peoples, but to call them "predecessors" takes the issue too far. The influence of Greek culture is mentioned in the article, so we do not ignore them. Varana (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Varana on this point. Perhaps the solution is to expanded the info box with Conquered and Absorbed for each of the phases of the Rome civilization?--D. Norris (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Figures of the Republic
I'm not seeing the purpose of the section called "Figures of the Republic." It adds unnecessary length to a necessarily long article. If they're notable enough to appear on such a list, they will be mentioned in their respective sections. If a list of Romans of the Republic is needed, it should be a separate list article because of its potential size.

Besides these considerations, the list here is flat-out wrong at points. Scipio Aemilianus is not a figure of the Early Republic by any stretch of the imagination; he died in 129 BC, which places much of his career in the Late Republic (delimited in this article as extending from 147 to 30 BC). The Early Republic is said to have ended with the Pyrrhic War in 275 BC. The Punic Wars took place in the Middle Republic, which has its own section in the article but none in the "Figures" section. In addition to "Figures," wars are listed. The purpose and structure of the section is hard to discern.

To make matters worse, if one creates a link Roman Republic, it takes you to this list, not to the relevant section.

For these reasons, I think the section should be deleted. If a list is desired, an article called something like List of Romans during the Republic could be linked in the "See also" section. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds fair enough, but you'd want your list to be named in such a way that its limited to notable or important people, not everyone. Maybe 'Figureheads of the Roman Republic?' Mdw0 (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I myself wouldn't want such a list article, for the precise reason that there's no good principle of inclusion and I don't see what purpose it would serve. To me this is what categories are for. "Figurehead" is the wrong word, since it means "a leader in name only." I think the section here should simply be deleted as inaccurate and redundant. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If there are no arguments for keeping the section, I'm going to delete it. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Economy
I guess not all civilizations need an economy. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly no more than is in the Roman economy article. Mdw0 (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion or non-discussion on Talk:republic
There is new information on the Talk:republic page that challenges the accuracy and efficacy and truth of the Wikipedia entry. Need to stir interest and more comment on the page.WHEELER (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Iron age
Slightly frustrating ...

Roman Republic Iron Age
 * An Iron Age and Roman Republican settlement on Botromagno, Gravina di Puglia: excavations of 1965-1974, Volume 1
 * Weapon: a visual history of arms and armor By DK Publishing, Inc Page 48
 * Cambridge illustrated history of the Roman world By Greg Woolf Page 28
 * Pathways to Power: New Perspectives on the Emergence of Social Inequality By T. Douglas Price Page 235

Please restore the historic Iron Age link. Thanks ...--J. D. Redding 23:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's some more ...
 * Collective action in the formation of pre-modern states By Richard E. Blanton, Lane Fargher Page 98
 * Modern history By Peter Fredet page 82
 * History of the Roman republic By Jules Michelet page 164
 * Encyclopedia of Roman Empire By MobileReference (aka., "signalling the end of the Iron Age" = late Iron Age)

And this is just a quick perusal of the topic. --J. D. Redding 23:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Rome and the Iron age
Hello, and thank you for your responses, which I caught en route to bed. Sorry you're frustrated but the sheer vagueness of the term is problematic; that said, you've identified something well worth discussion. I won't be editing again until Monday but will reply at the first opportunity. Best. Haploidavey (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What? So just wait till monday? Not good. And there is not vagueness to the term. --J. D. Redding 00:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The dates of the term seem to depend upon the geography and culture in question. Quoting the article Iron Age: "The term "Iron Age" has low real chronological value, for there is not a universal synchronous sequence of the three epochs in all quarters of the world. The dates and context vary depending on the geographical region." (IMHO: vague)


 * The article also states that in Europe it lasted from 1200 BC until AD 400. That would technically exclude the Roman Empire which lasted until AD 476. Flamarande (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I fully understand that, I put what you quoted in that article (IIRC) ... --J. D. Redding 16:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (ps., the 1200 BC until AD 400 range is for the prehistoric period, not the historic period of the overall age ...)


 * The cultural characteristics usually meant when using the term "Iron Age" are not found in Republican and Imperial Rome; I've never seen the term used except in connection with Archaic or Regal Rome (as in the Cambridge Ancient History here, particularly p. 64), though perhaps the Early Republic could be included, as of course there is no magic chronological dividing line where people go to sleep one night in the Iron Age and wake up the next day not. "Iron Age" is even problematic in reference to Gaul in the 1st century BC. One does hear "Late Iron Age" (LIA) used for Britain in the 1st centuries BC and AD. The quote Flamarande gives about "no universal synchronous sequence" is to the point: "The dates and context vary depending on the geographical region." The Roman Republic is part of the historical era we refer to as Classical antiquity, not the Iron Age. A European culture is generally not described as "Iron Age" once it transitions out of protohistoricity. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I responded before I saw J.D. Redding's list of sources. I believe in some cases JDR may be confusing continuity of sites with cultural continuity; the fact that Rome existed in the Iron Age doesn't place the Republic in the Iron Age. So I just reiterate that "Iron Age" is only applicable to Rome possibly into the beginning of the Republic (see CAH p. 64 above); but what we mean when we say "Roman Republic" is mostly the Middle and Late Republic, which is a Classical culture. Scipio, Sulla, and Cicero didn't live in the Iron Age. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no confusion. You are stating that they were not in the Iron Age period. And, it's certian that they didn't exist in the Middle Ages. So are they in a period out of time?
 * Classical antiquity (the late period of ancient history) is the _historic_ Iron age. Not the prehistoric Iron age.
 * --J. D. Redding 16:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The consensus of experienced editors who contribute regularly to this article and to articles on ancient Rome in general is that "Iron Age" doesn't go here, or not in the first sentence. If you think we are in error, I suggest that you bring the question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, where you'll find a number of experienced editors familiar with the scholarship on this topic, or to other projects listed at the top of this page. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you answer these simple questions ....
 * They (G&R) are not in the Middle Ages?
 * Is Classical antiquity in the late period of ancient history?
 * Is the historic Iron age not the prehistoric Iron age?
 * Are they (G&R) in the Iron Age period?


 * ... as to the your edit summary of the last comment, don't put "Iron Age" back in the article before bringing the question to the G&R project; Editors should not have to, if the items are verifiable and cited [let alone, common sense [and please don't WP:common sense, it's old]) ..
 * --J. D. Redding 23:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Common sense seems to have left the building, if "ancient history" = "Iron Age culture," so I'll post the notice to the G&R page myself. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

citation requested
Since the article itself doesn't support the following statement, it needs a citation even in the intro:

Towards the end of the period a selection of Roman leaders came to dominate the political arena to such an extent that they exceeded the traditional Republican limitations of office as a matter of course.

Not a big deal, perhaps. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten that section (and a couple more) in the intro. I've not really looked at the article in detail until recently. It seems heftily weighted towards power-politics and constitutional history. And military campaigns, of course. The sections on culture are brief, sketchy and in some cases, quite seriously incomplete. I'll attend to a couple of those. Haploidavey (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to keep the emphasis on conventional history of this kind, since that's what distinguishes the Republic from the Empire. There's also Ancient Rome and Culture of Ancient Rome to emphasize aspects that are more continuous. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll be careful of this. Haploidavey (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

this.s an important things so if u need any help getting started with editing see the new page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.75.64.5 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Etruscan icon in infobox
Given the number of extant Etruscan bronzes, a drawing of the Liver of Piacenza seems a pretty sucky way to represent Etruscan civilization. I've stuck in the head of the Chimera of Arezzo ('scuse the typo in my edit summary), but there's also a fine full-body shot available (at left). If someone with access to Photoshop wanted to drop the background, the chimera would make a nice graphics counterpart to the she-wolf. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * At Talk:Roman Empire, we are discussing the possible use of coins as official state imagery. Here is one from Etruria; note the similarity of the head to the Chimera of Arezzo. It would be nice to see something more attractive and visually compelling to represent the Republic here as well. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can remove the background in a few of them later today or tomorrow, depending on time. — Sowlos (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. Some computer issues came up, which I just resolved. Sa long as no impending storm robs me of power or connectivity, you have the images tomorrow. — Sowlos (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hope you stay safe and sound! Cynwolfe (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Chimera d'arezzo-full side on black.pngs. So far, so good. The power has been mostly cooperative. — Sowlos (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Egypt and Germany
Duh—Egypt wasn't a province of the Roman Republic. See Battle of Actium. See Augustus's creation of Egypt as an imperial province. See Egypt (Roman province). Propping up the Ptolemaic dynasty isn't the same thing as annexing Egypt. The Germaniae were organized as provinces under Augustus. Julius Caesar crossed the Rhine, but made no pretense of having brought Germania under Roman rule—he did pretend to have conquered Britannia, which we rightly don't list. Caesar's Gallic conquests count because governors are assigned to Transalpina before his assassination, even though it was a fairly vague provincia until the Augustan organization. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Like ... duh. davidiad.:τ 20:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * D-duh, d-duh. I should've explained that I had deleted Egypt and Germany from the modern countries section of the infobox. Although I'm not philosophically opposed to infoboxes, I find the planting of little modern flags in the "former country" infobox of somewhat dubious value. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Dining needs improved sourcing
The section on dining/eating is lacking in sourcing at the moment. The first paragraph is supported only by a direct quote from Horace, a Roman primary source. This is not appropriate in an historical overview of culture.

The rest refers to "Phillips", a work not included in the bibliography. Without any specification, it's impossible to verify.

Peter Isotalo 14:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The Marble head
looks like a selfie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.9.35 (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

What do Roman Republican governors of Gallia have to do with the Gallic invasion of Italia?
This invasion occured centuries before the Romans created a province in Gallia Transalpina. 96.231.17.143 (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand your question. A provincia was at first an assignment or mission within which a commander or magistrate was authorized to act, not a territory in our sense of the word "province". A proconsul might receive as his assignment the provincia of conducting a war in Gallic territories of northern Italy. Gallia included Cisalpine Gaul. If you mean specifically the article Roman Republican governors of Gaul, then you should read the article to see what its relevance is. But the introduction might answer your question. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Education and Language
I noticed that the Education and Language section somewhat meanders off topic. At one point it begins talking about how Vulgar Latin gradually transformed into the Romance languages, and then tacks on an explanation on the origin of English. While all of this is interesting, I'm not sure if it fits within the scope of the article. Didn't the romance languages not come along until after the fall of the empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.65.68.161 (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Plebeian Council vs Plebeian tribunal
I see references to these two things that look suspiciously like they're talking about the same body. Can someone clarify this please? Fresheneesz (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure where you're reading "Plebeian Tribunal" in this article; there's "Tribunate", of course (many times over), meaning the appointment or office of "Tribune" as elected representative of the Plebeian Council. Haploidavey (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, can you provide a link? There's no such thing as the plebeian tribunal. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Source on the Twelve Tables?
I'm not sure the source for citation 206 is valid. The site it links to, Crystalinks, lists itself as the personal blog of a psychic, and provides no sources for their quotes of the Twelve Tables.

Could we perhaps link instead to the sources listed on the Twelve tables wikipedia page? New Wikipedian here so i'm unsure of the protocol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natswash (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Section on the republic's founding?
I propose there should be one. Comments? Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InformationvsInjustice (talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roman Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160829073455/http://www.academia.edu/6336885/The_Early_Roman_Republic to http://www.academia.edu/6336885/The_Early_Roman_Republic

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC) The IPA does not seem to reflect the use of inflected languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RCNesland (talk • contribs) 11:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

GAR request
This article has been tagged with a GAR request template. Lots of citation needed tags, plus a few other places that will need citations. Needs to be fixed to stay a Good Article. AIRcorn (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I've been rewiting and citing some sections, removing some poor sources, and trying to sort out some topical tangles and anachronisms. It's all a bit of a mess, tbh. For starters (and in no particular order of importance) I'm not sure why it starts with military History - as if that's the definitive activity in Republican Rome. There are sections on constitutional history, and on Legislatures, but none on Law. Difficult topic overall, but sortable with decent sourcing and reorganisation, surely. Haploidavey (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Some sections rely heavily on Abbott (1901); rather an antiquated source for a GA. We need more up-to-date sources, and more modern scholarly perspectives. Haploidavey (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that the titles are not good. Currently we have: 1. Military History, 2. Political History, 3. Military, 4. Politics, 5. Culture.


 * I already changed 4. (to "Constitutional system"), but I think 1. and 2. should be somewhat merged and renamed "Timeline" or something similar, but it means rewriting almost everything. Then, there should be a separate section named "Society" (or perhaps "social system") which would gather some elements of 2. (patricians and plebeians) as well as the paragraph "Social structure", currently in 5.. It should also expand on the Roman citizenship, as well as the lesser status (Latini, Socii, etc. and slaves).


 * The article does not mention Roman colonies (except those in Latium), but I don't know where to place this at the moment, possibly in a new section on the economy (which would deal with trade, currency, the Ager Publicus, etc.)?T8612 (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Rewriting everything within a more rational arrangement seems to me the best option, T8612. The most glaring shortfall, as I can see it, is that the article doesn't address its own raison d'etre; it doesn't describe or explain the transition from Kingdom to Republic; it just provides a rather disconnected sequence of sub-topical chunks, with no analysis of possible reasons or motives for the change(s), nor of the Republic's distinctive characteristics - that's certainly what I'd be looking for as a reader. I see this was suggested in 2016, by InformationvsInjustice. I'd want to begin at the beginning, and learn about the distinctively Republican features of Roman Republican society - its people, in other words - not with a currently quite overdetailed series of campaigns and conquests. Complex material needn't be so complicated. Anyway, I think I basically agree with everything you've said above. In fact, yes to all your suggestions. Merging or unloading some material from currently separate sections into single thematic/topical sections would make rewriting much easier, and be less taxing to read. If this article's going to keep its GA status, bold editing's the way. PS: as it's getting late here, I'm packing in for now. I'll post here tomorrow with some more concrete suggestions; meanwhile, what you say about colonies and the ager publicus suggests to me a section on territorial expansion (or state-sponsored land-grabbing); I suppose that could be dealt with as an aspect of a basically agricultural economy, but I'm not entirely sure. Haploidavey (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * About the Ager Publicus, I was thinking of describing the transition from a society based on small farmers/soldiers, to large latifundia with slaves (thus explaining social tensions at the end, and the Gracci's reforms). The colonies would fit in a section describing the Romanisation of Latium, Italy, and the Mediterranean (or simply in the culture section?).  Problem is the article on the subject is not detailed, but it's also the case for several other sections on this page.T8612 (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I've moved the sections on the Military; many duplications there, and some essay-like, textbook style generalisations, mostly unsourced. But the moving seems to have helped. It's a rather overwhelming amount of material, isn't is? And so very many linked articles to be improved. The Gracchi and other would-be reformers are hugely important: I've added a smidgin on them to the lead. Some of the material relating to this would, I think, be relevant to several sections, including society and economy, and anything pertaining to the expansion of territories (growth of empire - or, if you prefer, Romanisation of adjacent territories) - and even religion's relevant, because one of the Gracchi (Tiberius, I think) was described as homo sacer "under the laws of Ceres", to justify his murder. I don't think we moderns can have much grasp of just what that meant to a Roman. Just an afterthought regarding linked articles: nothing wrong with expanding here, and whittling down later, with the content from this article transferred to the so-called main article. Haploidavey (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * At this point, all references to Abbott should be removed; it has led previous user(s) to write things like this: "In effect, the plebeians were satisfied with the possession of power, but did not care to use it. The senate was supreme during this era because the era was dominated by questions of foreign and military policy. This was the most militarily active era of the Roman Republic."


 * Sourcing has to be overhauled as well, many references are like "Cicero, 239", or "Polybius, 132" and therefore useless. I don't have much time to do that now though, perhaps in the week end.T8612 (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * An extraordinary coincidence! I was reading what you've quoted no more than a few minutes ago, and earmarked it for destruction. Abbott must go. I'll have a look through Cornell's The beginnings of Rome (He's pretty good. And I've a paper copy; shame he only takes things up to 264 BC). Haploidavey (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Haploidavey I feel you are going in too much detail in this section, which is intended to be a basic timeline of the Republic. The descriptions of Roman society (slavery, pater familias, etc), or the plebeian aediles, and the senatus consulta should go in the appropriate sections below. I think the only magistracies that require a description here are the consuls, tribunes of the plebs, and the dictator. The "Constitutional system" section will describe each step of the cursus honorum in lengths.


 * I think the current article on Macedonia is about right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)


 * It is basically organised in three big sections: 1) History 2) Institutions 3) Society and culture. However, I think we can make a separate section on the Roman army here (as there is a lot to say).


 * The priority should therefore be moving the "military history" section into "History" (currently "Politics and society"). It seems impossible to separate politics from military during the Republic (for instance, the first secession of the plebs happened during the war against the Volsci). The sub-section "Patrician era" roughly matches the dates of "Early Italian campaigns (458–396 BC)" and "Celtic invasion of Italy (390–387 BC)". That would be a good start (we would have a first sub-section on the conquest of Latium [currently "Patrician era"], a second on the conquest of Italy -- ending with the Pyrrhic war, then a third on the Punic wars etc.).  The title "Conflict of the Orders (367–287 BC)" is not good (the "conflict" started in 494). The two Decemvirates should also be mentioned in the Patrician era.T8612 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I've re-read through the latest version, and (assuming you're talking about the "society" section (marriages and whatnot) currently under the Politics and society heading. Yes, that should be moved back - I got rather carried away. The detail's both excessive and misplaced. I agree that it's at least ill-advised to separate politics from military actions and their fall-out, but I'd say the same for social constructs such as class, and the vexed questions surrounding plebeian and patrician identity, and their conflicts.


 * I've been reading up on the Decemvirates, which obviously should be covered; I've had nothing to do (as yet) with the dating in section headers - frankly, I find them odd, and a bit baffling. I've assumed they represent some kind of scholarly consensus but some seem debatable at least, or as you've pointed out, plain wrong. I'm spending most of tomorrow reading; I'd be happy to take a look at whatever bold reorganisation/structure you think best. Until the structure is sorted out on the article page, it's going to be hard to read; but even harder to write. Haploidavey (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * T8612, I've moved the paras on marriage back to Culture - which should probably be "Society and culture"; what remains top of main article is still overdetailed, and if you don't beat me to it, I'll carry on cutting back tomorrow. Haploidavey (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I was just about to delist this (see )), but then noticed this discussion. It has been a month and the citation tags are still present. In a couple of weeks I am going to be too busy to edit here much so would like to tidy up my old loose ends. I am still looking at delisting given the current state, but since others are editing will give you a chance to reply. Being delisted is not a big deal and editors are welcome to renominate it when they think it is ready. AIRcorn (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't feel bad about this. The article is not "good" right now and it may take a while to improve it.T8612 (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed it will. Delisting is probably a benefit. Haploidavey (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. Article is delisted. AIRcorn (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

- First, titles "Patrician era (509–367 BC)", "Conflict of the Orders (494–287 BC)", and "Early Republic (458–274 BC) overlap". I think it would be better to use a title reflecting the status of Rome as a small city struggling against its neighbours in Latium, like "Rome in Latium". There would be subsections on social conflicts (the wars against the Etruscans and Latins, patricians and plebeians, the Decemvirs (currently not explained), and the Gallic invasion).
 * I intend to rename the titles of section one "history" to allow its merger with the "military history" section. Could anyone help with coining good titles?

- The second subsection would deal with the period of the Italian conquest (from 380 to 270), so perhaps "the conquest of Italy", or "expansion in Italy" (there is already an article with this name). Subsections would deal with the Samnite Wars, political equality between plebeians and patricians, and the Pyrrhic War.

- Thirdly, I'm thinking of a section on the conquest outside Italy from the first Punic War to the Third (so 264-146), including the conquest of Greece and Spain.

- The fourth would be on "social troubles and civil wars", starting with the Gracchi, Populares and Optimates (not the current section), the servile wars, the Jugurthine war, Marius, the Social War, the Civil War between Sulla and the Marianists, the revolts of Sertorius and Spartacus, Mithridates, and the Conspiracy of Catiline.

- The fifth and final sections would be on the two triumvirates and the civil war between Octavian and Antony (no need to expand I think). What do you think? Haploidavey T8612 (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, T8612, that could work very well. The current structure is overloaded with sub-sections, repetitions and vain attempts to avoid repetitions. I see no advantages at all (in fact many disadvantages) in detatching military history from its historical origins and the growth of empire. I've not really tried to read through the Military History sections - to be honest and blunt, I've merely glanced at them, and find them unreadable, and rather meaningless. If rewritten, they might serve as entries in a List of wars in the Roman Republic; perhaps that would be useful. We still have some rather doubtful sources; including the main source for the section on populares and optimates, which strikes me as not at all NPOV.


 * On the matter of section titles, I've no concrete suggestions as yet;, other than "keep it simple" and "keep it chronological". And of course, as this is the core article of a major core topic, "think of the ordinary reader" - a redundant suggestion in your case, but perhaps not to all interested third parties. Haploidavey (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, if the social issues pertaining to small-holdings and the growth of latifundia can be dealt with in the main history section, as you suggest, I'd be able to unload some explanatory background material from the currently overburdened "Farming" sub-section, and replace it with material on the farming economy and trade. Haploidavey (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not there yet... I just merged the titles. T8612 (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * please take a look at my proposed changes in progress. I meant to do more, but work has been occupying my time.  I recommend we limit the campaign subsections to the Punic wars, the servile wars, and the civil wars at the end.  These are the headlines to a typical visitor.  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem I see is that you have only used the former "Military history" timeline, which I have now merged with what was called "political history". Separating politics and military campaigns forced previous editors to awkwardly repeat some descriptions; you can still see an example of that with the first two paragraphs of "Caesar's civil war and dictatorship" (initially these paragraphs were kept separate in each timeline, I haven't cleaned this subsection yet). I think a good example of what we should aim for is the featured article on the Macedonian Kingdom, which has only one timeline and detailed sections on culture, institutions, etc. Perhaps we could avoid using too many subsections (====titles====) like in this article, but I do think that all the military campaigns of the Republic should be covered (currently there is nothing on the Social War, or Sertorius). Certainly, the Punic Wars and the Triumvirates would be detailed in greater lengths than smaller wars. Can you comment on the current arrangement?
 * You should add your corrections to the "military" section though.T8612 (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I see the wisdom in combining the military/politics sections into "history", however, the current section needs significant trimming. There are 6 sections and 24 subsections, some of which consist of a single para.  Also, Hannibal and Spartacus--two of the most significant names of the era--need their own subsection, or at least to be mentioned in a header.  They are figures that visitors will be coming to learn about. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've a bit reduced the number of subsections (now we have 19 of these, it may be difficult to go further, unless we merge the two Punic wars and the two subsections on the conquest of the Greek East). Those with little text should in fact be expanded as they deal with important events of the Republic. I think it is for now impossible to make subsections on just Hannibal or Spartacus. Hannibal would be developed in "Second Punic War", but this war was not just about him. Currently Spartacus is only mentioned once, but creating a section on him would force us to split "Pompey's dominance" into several subsections, something I've been trying to avoid. I agree that they should be mentioned in the header though (I'm thinking of something saying that Rome managed to defeat its most formidable enemies despite catastrophic losses against them; we could also include Brennus and Mithridates to the list). T8612 (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: Re-write
Like a lot of articles on the Roman state, this one could use a good overhaul. Even if only the intro were redone, that would be a great help. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the entire intro section lists not a single source at all. It sounds plausible and well-informed -- was it written by an expert in the field? We need some manner of attribution for the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.195.104 (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Citations in the introduction are not mandatory (cf. MOS:LEADCITE), especially on non-controversial topics. Normally, the sources are in the text body. Please note that the article is being re-written (slowly, I agree). T8612  (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

New map is wildly inaccurate


This map should be removed immediately and replaced with something more accurate, because "Rome and allies by 218" leaves out the obvious, doesn't it? It includes Republican and allied territories in Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, even in Slovenia, Croatia, Albania, etc., but then fails to include its allies and clients in the clearly-labelled Greek city-state of Massilia in southern Gaul (modern Marseille, France)? What about Spain as well? The whole Second Punic War was predicated on Carthage breaking the peace by attacking Rome's Iberian allies in the Siege of Saguntum that lasted into December 219 BC, but Rome had more allies in northeastern Iberia. Scipio Africanus invaded Carthaginian Iberia and fought the Carthaginians near what is now Seville at the Battle of Ilipa, but this was an offensive with a mind to defend Rome's preexisting Iberian allied states. When Hannibal crossed the Alps, he did so by trotting through Roman allied territory in northeastern Iberia and southern Gaul, bypassing the Roman garrison at Massilia. If this map were accurate at all then large swaths of northeastern Iberia and southern Gaul should be solidly blue like Italy. Massilia was an allied city-state in Gaul that enjoyed autonomy from direct Roman control, just like Capua in Campania, Italy (before being subjugated for defecting to Hannibal). Pericles of Athens Talk 15:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right; it also fails to mention the alliance with the Aetolian League. I replaced it with this one, which isn't perfect either, but shows the main campaign routes:


 * I have almost finshed writing the text for the Second PW, it will be easier to think about pictures after. T8612  (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * excellent work! That replacement is worthy enough for now. Pericles of Athens  Talk 16:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Subsection "Roman Imperialism" moved to full article on the subject
I moved the subsection to what is currently Rise of Rome, and will become an article on Roman Imperialism. The text is kept here for authorship: The exact causes and motivations for Rome's military conflicts and expansions during the republic are subject to wide debate. While they can be seen as motivated by outright aggression and imperialism, historians typically take a much more nuanced view. They argue that Rome's expansion was driven by short-term defensive and inter-state factors (that is, relations with city-states and kingdoms outside Rome's hegemony), and the new contingencies that these decisions created. In its early history, as Rome successfully defended itself against foreign threats in central and then northern Italy, neighbouring city-states sought the protection a Roman alliance would bring. As such, early republican Rome was not an "empire" or "state" in the modern sense, but an alliance of independent city-states (similar to the Greek hegemonies of the same period) with varying degrees of genuine independence (which itself changed over time) engaged in an alliance of mutual self-protection, but led by Rome. With some important exceptions, successful wars in early republican Rome generally led not to annexation or military occupation, but to the restoration of the way things were. But the defeated city would be weakened (sometimes with outright land concessions) and thus less able to resist Romanizing influences, such as Roman settlers seeking land or trade with the growing Roman confederacy. It was also less able to defend itself against its non-Roman enemies, which made attack by these enemies more likely. It was, therefore, more likely to seek an alliance of protection with Rome.

This growing coalition expanded the potential enemies that Rome might face, and moved Rome closer to confrontation with major powers. The result was more alliance-seeking, on the part of both the Roman confederacy and city-states seeking membership (and protection) within that confederacy. While there were exceptions to this (such as military rule of Sicily after the First Punic War), it was not until after the Second Punic War that these alliances started to harden into something more like an empire, at least in certain locations. This shift mainly took place in parts of the west, such as the southern Italian towns that sided with Hannibal.

In contrast, Roman expansion into Hispania and Gaul occurred as a mix of alliance-seeking and military occupation. In the 2nd century, Roman involvement in the Greek east remained a matter of alliance-seeking, but this time in the face of major powers that could rival Rome. According to Polybius, who sought to trace how Rome came to dominate the Greek east in less than a century, this was mainly a matter of several Greek city-states seeking Roman protection against the Macedonian kingdom and Seleucid Empire in the face of destabilisation created by the weakening of Ptolemaic Egypt. In contrast to the west, the Greek east had been dominated by major empires for centuries, and Roman influence and alliance-seeking led to wars with these empires that further weakened them and therefore created an unstable power vacuum that only Rome could fill. This had some important similarities to (and important differences from) the events in Italy centuries earlier, but this time on a global scale.

Some historians see the growing Roman influence over the east, as with the west, as not a matter of intentional empire-building, but constant crisis management narrowly focused on short-term goals within a highly unstable, unpredictable, and inter-dependent network of alliances and dependencies. T8612 (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it's a sensible move since that's an incredible amount of detail for an article that just needs to provide us with the basics. However, you can't just do that and then not provide a suitable main or further info link to "Rise of Rome" where you just shifted all of that material. I have since added a couple links to Rise of Rome as further info links for now, although it should probably be linked somewhere in the main prose body of text as well. I think I might do that here shortly. Pericles of Athens  Talk 15:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Map of the Roman provinces may be slightly in correct
The map shows Cyprus as a province in 44 BC. Wasn't it however given to Cleopatra and Egypt after siege of Alexandria and not recaptured until later? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juhouse Wolfryx (talk • contribs) 16:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

510/509 BC?
Shouldn't the lead (and the infobox) state that there exists some ambiguity whether the Republic was founded in 510 or 509? I suppose the traditional dating being mentioned is the Varronian chronology? ThePhrygianCap (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it should be changed to reflect that modern historians aren't at all confident of the traditional narrative for early Rome, including the dates. Quibbling over the form and precision of the dates is trivial. A critical rewrite by someone who has read Beard and other modern historians is badly needed on this and many other points. 75.130.155.136 (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Historicity?
The article on the Conflict of the Orders includes an excellent section on Historicity, noting that modern historians think the entire narrative of plebs gradually acquiring political rights is a fictional narrative developed in the later Republic, essentially propaganda fitting the political situation of the later republic. This article on the Roman Republic accepts the ancient writers as if they were objective and reliable historical sources, rather than heavily biased and censored writers centuries after the events they described. Critical appraisal of sources in light of archaeological evidence, archival analysis and other data is essential in any good article on ancient history. This section should be revised to explain what ancient sources say happened without treating it as historical and noting the objections of the consensus of modern historians. 75.130.155.136 (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Historicity section in Conflict of the Orders is not good at all as there are only two incomplete citations. The section you criticise here has citations from reliable historians. You will always find hypercritical historians that go against the consensus, but the consensus remain in favour of considering that the events of the Conflict of the Orders are historical, albeit with considerable anachronisms from later writers, which have often been noted. T8612  (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Information disputed by another Wiki article
It's not good to see Wiki presenting two 'facts' that re in conflict

Under the section ‘’Rise of Marius’’

There’s a photo of a bust with a caption reading Bust of Gaius Marius, instigator of the Marian reforms But in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Cornelius_Scipio_Asiaticus

It’s shown to be a bust of Scipio Asiaticus Montalban (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Section 1.2 subsection Early Campaigns: did Clusium's lose in their war with Rome
Lines 2 & 3 state that Clusium's invasion failed, but Tacitus said they occupied Rome, and Pliny the Elder says Rome was forbidden from using iron outside of agriculture. Since Livy agrees with Clusium's failure, I think the section should be changed to say disputed Draft:

Early campaigns
According to Rome's traditional histories, Tarquin made several attempts to retake the throne, including the Tarquinian conspiracy, which involved Brutus' own sons, the failed war with Veii and Tarquinii and finally the war between Rome and Clusium, which also failed. [the blue 'disputed' in brackets would go here if I knew how to make it]

Sorry if I broke some rule or guideline, didn't have time to read the talk page guidelines. Please tell me how to make the disputed in brackets

Suprereka (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As I recall, the tradition is divided. This is noted both in Forsythe, Critical history (2005), and Cornell, supra. The sentence would have to be substantially recast. The template you're looking for is  but there are two issues.
 * It isn't actually that dubious: the core claim that Tarquin wasn't restored is true (as much as anything can be true when discussing Rome's late 6th century BC).
 * This is not the way to signal that there are two sides to this story. It is a way to signal that the article is "wrong".


 * I would support recasting the sentence to express less certainty over the monarchy's overthrow and its aftermath. My recent rewrites to Overthrow of the Roman monarchy might be a useful starting point. (Though at the same time, I would want to keep the paragraph brief.) Ifly6 (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Redirection
We need a redirection to the Roman Republic created by Napoleon Bonaparte after the First Coalition War. 216.181.232.154 (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * We do already have a hatnote "For other uses, see Roman Republic (disambiguation)." which takes readers to a list of four more articles including Roman Republic (18th century). We wouldn't want to itemise each one here - see WP:1HAT. NebY (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)