User talk:Ifly6/Optimates and Populares

Review request

 * Do you have any comments or suggestions on this current article draft? Ifly6 (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll check next week-end. T8612  (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a nice first draft. Thanks a lot. Some comments:
 * It looks a bit too much like an university essay. There are too many citations in the lead (normally there shouldn't be citations there). And you "jump" a bit too fast on the conclusion that P/O weren't political parties. You should take more time to present the "traditional view", then detailing modern historiographical criticisms of this view.
 * I have attempted to rewrite the lede below. I don't know whether everything I've written is correct, but I feel this is more the way to go, by first describing what ancient sources tell, then an historiography based on the chronology, and finally modern interpretations. You have to describe Mommsen's view better (cf. Livius.org, and I think Lily Ross Taylor in Party Politics writes on Mommsen). In the translation of Mommsen's History of Rome, vol. III, chapter 2, you have a passage on Optimates and Populares that ought to be cited here.
 * I think you should also mention Münzer's Roman Aristocratic Parties (translated), and the two articles of the Realencylopadie.  T8612  (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Optimates (/ˈɒptɪməts/; Latin for "best ones", singular: optimas) and populares (/ˌpɒpjʊˈlɛəriːz, -jə-, -ˈleɪriːz/; Latin for "supporters of the people", singular popularis) were political labels used during the last century of the Roman Republic. The meaning and relevance of these terms form one of the most debated subjects of Roman historiography.


 * References to Optimates (also called Boni, "the good men") and Populares are found among the writings of Roman authors of the 1st century BC, principally Cicero, but also the historians Sallust and Livy. In their writings, the Optimates were the aristocratic and conservative majority of the Senate, exemplified by men such as Aemilius Scaurus, Sulla, or Cato the Younger. They opposed the Populares, ambitious individuals trying to reform the Roman constitution, notably through the powers of the tribunes of the plebs, who could launch plebiscites to bypass senatorial opposition. The Gracchi brothers were the most famous of these social reformers, while others such as Saturninus or Clodius Pulcher were often pictured as violent demagogues.


 * With the publication of the Römische Geschichte in 1854–1856, the German historian Theodor Mommsen set the enduring interpretation that Optimates and Populares represented political parties, which he implicitly compared to the German liberal and conservative parties of his own times. However, Mommsen's theory has been criticised by generations of historians, first by Friedrich Münzer, followed by Ronald Syme, who considered that Roman politics was marked by familial and individual ambitions, not parties. Other historians have pointed the impossibility to apply such labels on many individuals, who could pretend to be popularis or optimas as they saw fit; the careers of Drusus or Pompey are for example impossible to fit into one "party". Even Cicero was far from being clear, since he described himself as being both. As a result, following Erich Gruen, many historians do not consider the terms in their studies, judging them as mere posturing, and note that they were actually not widely used by Roman politicians. Others, such as T. P. Wiseman, while acknowledging that Mommsen's view is outdated, have nonetheless attempted to describe tactics and political platforms typical of the Populares or Optimates.

Update note
Hi there, I know it's been a while. Before Thanksgiving I took a stab at integrating your proposed lede and the stuff that I had written previously. Take a look? Ifly6 (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. I don't have much time to delve into the content, but I would definitely put "Usage by ancient Romans" first, then talk about the meaning and historiography. T8612  (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would venture that the usage by Cicero, Sallust, etc would probably go after the Meaning section, would it not? It's basically reviewing the evidence that the Meaning section makes conclusions on. Ifly6 (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It makes much more sense to me to first detail the evidence, rather than jumping to the conclusion that "Classists today generally agree that neither optimate or popularis referred to political parties" (first sentence of the text body), while you haven't told anything about optimate/popularis, nor even said that they were political parties! T8612  (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, that makes sense. I think I might be writing a bit too much for the audience of people who are 'informed' (in all the wrong ways) on the Roman republic rather than those who know nothing at all. Thanks for the suggestion. Ifly6 (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I swapped the location of the sections and gave it a short read through. Do tell me if there are any new inconsistencies that you – in reading or something like that – discover. Edit — Hmm... looking through, I get your point about the lack of clarity by starting to tear down the political partieis interpretation before even mentioning it. That said, having done the flip and a read-through, I still prefer the [Meaning, Usage] order to the alternative. Ifly6 (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would have done it very differently, but I think it's much better than the current articles, so you should replace them.
 * As an aside, don't remove mention of populares/optimates in all the articles as you did with the Gracchi, saying "populares don't exist". Wikipedia is not an academic essay: we can't ignore minority opinions. If there are good sources describing Tiberius Gracchus as popularis, then we ought to mention them (and there are many). T8612  (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @T8612: Sure. On doing the merge, how would I proceed? Moving one of the pages and turning the other into a redirect (practically blanking it)? Ifly6 (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Ifly6 (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. T8612  (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)