Talk:Roman Republic/Archive 3

First sentence
On 21:44, 27 April 2023, User:Ifly6 reverted my edit of the first sentence. The user attached the edit summary, "the romans didn't conceive of a Westphalian state with successors; it was not a representative democracy". I searched online and National Geographic actually states, "the period in which the city-state of Rome existed as a republican government (from 509 B.C.E. to 27 B.C.E.), one of the earliest examples of representative democracy in the world." Thoughts? Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Edit. This heading was originally titled The Roman Republic as a representative democracy. I responded to it in those terms below.
 * I define a "representative democracy" as a system where the people elect, with free mandate, representatives who are able to exercise sovereign power on their behalf. The idea that the republic is a representative democracy is just a pure anachronism. The fundamental issue here is that the republic by structure vitiates any claim to being a representative democracy; all legislation must be put before the comitia, ie popular ratification by a majority of the people (organised into hugely unrepresentative voting blocks). Nor was the political culture of the republic amenable to this kind of popular participation; it was largely elite led. Even when responding to popular demands, it was sections of the elite doing so. In my view it is the consensus that the republic was not a representative democracy:


 * "It should be stressed that the res publica was a direct democ­racy, not a representative one".
 * "The Roman Republic cannot be considered a republic in the modern sense of the word (that is, a representative democracy)... the Roman Republic would in modern terms be more properly called an elective oligarchy".
 * "The differences between modern representative democracies and republican Rome are too obvious to need much elaboration". "The voice of the plebs was muted by the fact that it had no representatives, elected on a political platform and obliged to serve their constituency".
 * "But the spirit of the political system is revealed by the fact that the vast majority could not participate at all, and that those empowered to make decisions never gave so much as a thought to discovering a remedy by means of a representative system: no one in Rome was interested in creating fairness of participatory opportunity for ordinary citizens who lived outside of Rome".
 * "Does this allow us to classify the republican regime as democratic? Can one assess the role that elections played in ancient Rome by modern standards? It seems not. Rome was neither a direct nor an indirect democracy, and had no such pretensions. It had no elected legislative assembly composed of the people's representatives, and no ideological political parties that competed for power".
 * "This was the case simply because neither Athens nor Rome developed the kinds of representative political institutions familiar in modern times".
 * "As we have seen, since the former had no well-developed political institutions for representative government, the citizen's ability to influence imperial administration in both classical Athens and republican Rome was related directly to his spatial proximity to the imperial metropole".


 * Even if you think that the inherently directly democratic structure of republican legislative process is irrelevant, the extent of the representation given by the magistrates – basically no representation in a modern sense – acting in the comitia also vitiates any claim to representative democracy.


 * "It is often said that Roman magistrates, though elected by the People, were not conceived of as "people's representatives" and, once elected, were under no obligation to follow the People's wishes". Yakobson then follows by discussing how magistrates exercised their powers by courting popularity rather than following mandates.
 * "The senior annual magistrates were not party leaders or 'representatives of the people' (see below) in the modern sense".
 * "Although Roman magistrates were elected by the people, there is little resemblance between their status and that of modern elected executive offices or members of legislative assemblies. Rome's elected magistrates had no real statutory responsibility toward their voters and... they did not have to answer to the people for their deeds".
 * "In formal terms, however, tribunes were not defined as 'representatives' any more than other Roman magistrates were... since tribunes and other magistrates were not appointed on the basis of particular programmes or promises for which they could later be held accountable, there was in effect no political choice and very little opportunity for voicing popular concerns at elections".


 * The last way to defend it is if you pretend that the plebs contionalis are representative for the whole. They are not. "Roman assemblies, however, were not representative bodies of the kind found in modern states". "Everyone in fact knew that the audiences of mass public meetings were not actually identical with, or even properly representative, of the Roman People". "Although it is not easy to give a precise definition of the term 'actively political people', it clearly was highly restricted, and far from representative of the whole populus Romanus". "The right of decision was conferred upon a limited, well monitored and unrepresentative group of the people... that was relatively reliable and controllable". Ifly6 (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I really don't want to get into a big long discussion about "reliable sources" but it is my view that an article for fifth graders is inherently unreliable and that, even if it were a reliable source, the weight of the much more reliable sources override it. Ifly6 (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I propose as first sentence The Roman Republic (Res publica Romana ; c. 509 BC 27 BC) was a country primarily located in Europe, predecessor of the Roman Empire. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This runs into the problem of the ancient state system. We are very used to Westphalian states, where there are states with clear borders that exercise sovereignty usually over a nation. The Roman republic had no clearly delineated borders. This is clearest the provinces of the two Spains, where the outer border of the province was very wishy-washy: a proconsul went where he pleased except that there was supposed to be a line dividing Citerior and Ulterior. The notion of sovereignty did not exist. The republic contained – though that's assuming the latter answer to the question of whether the "borders" of the republic were its ager or its provinces – many nations or peoples. A more accurate description would be that the republic was itself an empire, but that becomes difficult inasmuch as you seem to want to use empire to describe an autocratic political system.


 * The republic was not strictly speaking a predecessor; it transformed. This is already clear in older works discussing the "Transformation of the republic", a chapter title in Rosenstein & Morstein-Marx Companion to the Roman republic (2006). More recent research, eg Osgood et al Alternative Augustan age (2019), has focused on the continuities between republic and principate in terms of Augustus at least. I am not entirely convinced but I am certainly convinced of the idea that Romans at the time believed the ancestral republic inviolate. See eg Gowing Empire and memory (2005). Long into the imperial period Romans would describe the state with the name res publica. This is why the current incipit discusses a form of government and era of the classical Roman civilization. Ifly6 (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the current first sentence is not accurate because the Roman Republic as portrayed in this article in my opinion is not just a form of government and an era but rather mainly a political entity with a republican form of government. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Purely in the interests of making consensus demonstrable, I would like to put on record that I fully agree with User:Ifly6 in all respects here: this is one of the most thorough, reasonable and well-evidenced arguments I have seen in a talk page discussion. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that Ifly6 has make a good case and I don't contradict them regarding representative democracy and Westphalian state. I pointed out other issues which my proposal may address. But even with shaky and undefined borders, the Roman Republic was a country differentiated from the Roman Empire in that it was not headed by an emperor. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I no longer understand your objection to the current incipit then. It reads The Roman Republic... was a form of government of Rome and the era of the classical Roman civilization when it was run through public representation of the Roman people. You want to make it clear it was not headed by an emperor, which is what is discussed in the next sentence and also implied by the direct description that the Roman people rather than emperor were those in charge. The only two meaningful changes you're proposing is (1) to frame republican political practice not in its own terms but rather in opposition to autocracy, which seems to bury the point, and (2) to call it a country, which is an anachronism. Ifly6 (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the current first sentence is not accurate because the Roman Republic as portrayed in this article in my opinion is not just a form of government and an era but rather mainly a political entity.
 * "(1) to frame republican political practice not in its own terms but rather in opposition to autocracy, which seems to bury the point"
 * My proposal (The Roman Republic (Latin: Res publica Romana [ˈreːs ˈpuːblika roːˈmaːna]; c. 509 BC – 27 BC) was a country primarily located in Europe, predecessor of the Roman Empire") didn't state autocracy or republican practice, it simply included the terms Roman Republic and Roman Empire. This article is about the entity that existed till the year 27 BC. It is evident then that it is the predecessor of the Roman Empire, which existed from that year onwards. I only pointed out in my other reply that the republic was not headed by an emperor.
 * "(2) to call it a country, which is an anachronism."
 * Here is another proposal, The Roman Republic (Latin: Res publica Romana [ˈreːs ˈpuːblika roːˈmaːna]; c. 509 BC – 27 BC) was a cultural and political power primarily located in Europe, predecessor of the Roman Empire." Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The current first sentence - not particularly elegantly, in my view, tries to capture that 'Roman Republic' means two things:
 * 1. The Republican system of government under which Rome was run.
 * 2. The era of Rome's history under which it was run by that system.
 * I think you've made a sensible observation that 'Roman Republic' also means:
 * 3. The Roman political, diplomatic and military entity - 'state' - that operated that form of government during that period.
 * I'd suggest that any 'solution' to this problem which removes 1. and 2. is a step backwards; the right way forwards would be to ensure that all three are covered. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern and share the opinion that the first sentence should contain necessary info. I propose making a balance in the first sentence between adding crucial information and reasonable conciseness.
 * The general advice for writing is to use short sentences. According to the Harvard Library Writing Guide, "Ideal sentence length is around 15 to 20 words."
 * Although we are not bound to that guide, we can infer from MOS:INTRO, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions". "Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it ."
 * After this, we can go to a more specific guideline, MOS:FIRST. It states, "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."
 * Best regards, Thinker78  (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  The sentence isn't elegant and I fear it's misleading to describe the election of magistrates as representation, as if the Roman people elected representatives to a legislative or deliberative assembly like a modern-day US Congress or UK Parliament, or even as if the magistrates were elected to represent separate constituencies (wards, tribes, guilds, whatever).
 * Still, the big problem is that much of the article is about Rome during the republic. "Rome in the Republic" would be a better fit (cf the titles of works cited below, or Beard & Crawford's textbook "Rome in the Late Republic") and might help avert the urge some have to link Roman Republic as a location eg in infoboxes, for birthplace and place of death.
 * This would still be a little misleading, in that the res publica didn't end as sharply as our article suggests, but it is conventional, unlike "Rome between Kingdom and Principate". NebY (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "The sentence isn't elegant"
 * Sorry, which sentence? My last proposal, the current first sentence in the article, both, or other?
 * "I fear it's misleading to describe the election of magistrates as representation"
 * Said description is based on reliable sources. Check the first reply to the thread.
 * "the big problem is that much of the article is about Rome during the republic. "Rome in the Republic" would be a better fit"
 * There are some discussions about the Republic in the archives. See for example Talk:Roman Republic/Archive 2.
 * Regards,
 * Thinker78 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was responding to UndercoverClassicist's discussion of the current first sentence. The description of the election of magistrates as representation is, as Ifly6 points out, not well-founded and can only be supported by a definition of "representation" which will be unfamiliar to the casual reader and thus misleading. The archived discussion you've found doesn't seem to relate to my comment that you quoted or the paragraph you took that from so I'll put that slightly differently: the subject of our article is "Rome during the Republic", not the "Roman Republic", and retitling the article to "Rome in the Republic" might make it clearer to everyone, yourself included, that our subject is Rome in a certain period, not a hypothetical country or state which came into being with the expulsion of Tarquin and ended with the naming of Augustus. NebY (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how the linked discussion "Rome as a republic" is not relevant in your opinion. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that my reply supports your claim that the magistrates represent the people. In fact, it directly contradicts that point: the extent of the representation given by the magistrates – basically no representation in a modern sense – acting in the comitia also vitiates any claim to representative democracy. Rome during the republic is (perhaps) a democracy according to some scholars (this is the contentious "Roman democracy" thesis) and is definitely not a representative democracy (even according to the scholars pushing "Roman democracy" such as Fergus Millar). If you are instead referring to the claim that National Geographic web page for fifth graders... I would not base any claims to factual accuracy on it. Ifly6 (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't intend my reply to look like your post backed the idea of representation, I didn't express it well. I was thinking that it was simply relevant.
 * Apparently, you dismiss the idea of Rome in the Republic being a representative system. But you support the idea that it may have been a democracy. If so, what kind of democracy? Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I myself don't support the view that Rome was a democracy. I would cleave more toward the old "orthodoxy", buttressed by Mouritsen and others, that much of the politics of the republic were consensus ritual; Mackay, I think, puts it right when he calls it "an elective oligarchy". The sources have moved more towards a middle ground in recent years but that is still not a "modern" democracy. What sort of democracy? Millar covers this in Crowd in Rome; in fact, my first quote is lifted from the chapter so entitled. I don't think anyone would dispute very low levels of participation and the extent to which results reflected the aristocracy rather than the "common voter". Ifly6 (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again in the interests of making consensus visible, User:Ifly6 is setting out the overwhelming consensus of high-quality reliable sources. That is what needs to drive what the article presents as true. There's certainly a place in the body of the article for the debate - and the history of the debate - as to how far Rome was representative or a democracy, but it would break our own rules and policies to call it such in the lead, let alone the opening sentence. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @NebY@Ifly6, @UndercoverClassicist I think the solution may be simple. Before we delve in a possible name change of the page, meanwhile instead of calling it the Roman Republic in the first sentence, let's call it the Roman republic. This would reflect that it was not the official name of the entity but it is more a reflection that it lacked a monarchy. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to this, but that's entirely for subjective reasons. I don't like the practice of certain publishing houses and authors to capitalise every single Noun that They can see. Writing that Gaius Julius Caesar was elected Pontifex Maximus by the Comitia Tributa in the shadow of the Capitoline Hill and the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in the Roman Forum and later Consul by the Comitia Centuriata on the Campus Martius is just so out of line with modern typesetting; the last time anyone wrote like that was in the early 20th century. I think I would support but I also think that many would not. Ifly6 (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would not support it. Though Universal Capitalisation is now an Antiquated Style, this Republic is generally treated as a proper noun and capitalised as such in running text, not just in book titles, by many comparatively modern authors. You quoted Mackay in 2009, I mentioned Beard and Crawford and a capricious bookshelf adds Beard, North & Price; Bell & Ramsby; Cornell; Haynes; Joshel; Southon; Zuiderhoek. Even that National Geographic piece begins "The Roman Republic describes the period in which the city-state of Rome existed as a ...." NebY (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that most people still capitalise "republic" in Roman "republic"; I just don't like it. I'm also not going to try to go about like an asshole forcing lower-case "republic" on other people. Ifly6 (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I know, I know. :) Just didn't want anyone rushing in to make changes thinking they'd been agreed. NebY (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The arts section
There seems to be a bit of a problem here with chronology. This article is supposed to be on the Republic (509-27 BC), but the author mentions writers such as Juvenal and Persius, who wrote later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.43.207 (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Length
At over 18k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)