Talk:Servian constitution

first two paragraphs
Thank you, Davey, for moving this over after I pestered you relentlessly. I'm thinking that while the two paragraphs go together better than one could reasonably have hoped, yours should probably the first sentence immediately, and the one I contributed follow as the second. I don't want to make this edit while you're active, lest this simple switcheroo block some more intricate edit on your part. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was pleasantly surprised and encouraged by that. I'll swap them now - I got waylaid by some of the less-than-ideal primary-sourced articles that now link here. Haploidavey (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Done here for now. Haploidavey (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! [edit conflict] When I was looking for articles that should link here (reminds me: didn't you say something about section-linking to S.T.'s article?), I felt much relieved to discover that your section existed, believe me. The redirects to this article are Servian reform, Servian reforms, and Servian organization. I searched all those to see what articles might need to link here, though I didn't do a careful job (was just trying to avoid the dreaded "Orphan" hatnote). In a related matter, the long and dense article Roman censor needs to give birth to Roman census (now a redirect), especially since the census took place during the Empire at times when there may not have been censors as such. But that's a daunting undertaking: it's written with full-blown 19th-century high-falutinness, which is usually accompanied by intolerable class assumptions, while at the same time containing good information—that nonetheless has been thoroughly recontextualized by scholars a hundred years later. Meanwhile, I will probably go do something incredibly mindless and mechanical, or trivial and arcane. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the section linking... a hidden note in the "Classes" section (as was) informed us that the Structural History of the Roman military linked there. Rather than fall headlong into the pit of low-falutinness of Great Military Roman Dudes and Deeds (which even in modern interpretations sometimes reeks with the same 19th century class-based assumptions) - um, where was I? Oh yeah, I've linked it here instead. Haploidavey (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)