Template talk:Roman Constitution

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Classical Greece and Rome This template is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome Rome This template is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome Law This template is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Politics This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics

Large parts of this outline-in-template-form need to be updated. Most especially are the totally unmaintained and largely-badly-sourced articles that relate to the history, institutions of, etc the constitution of the Roman kingdom. It is simply impossible to know enough to write good articles on those topics. I think they should all be merged into Constitution of the Roman Kingdom. The overarching articles should stay, but the articles that relate to the assemblies during the Roman empire are similar nonsense and should be interfected.

It may be worthwhile simply to outline (or take inspiration from existing scholarly outlines) the whole topic and then link rather than going, as is currently the case, from the articles-up. Ifly6 (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's terrible. "Constitution of the Roman Kingdom" may also be a bit too formal, as I doubt there was a written set of laws regulating powers. "Institutions of the Roman Kingdom" might be a bit better.

It's the same problem with the Roman military articles, eg.: Structural history of the Roman military, Campaign history of the Roman military, Political history of the Roman military, Technological history of the Roman military, and probably many others. T8612 (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an outline like this?

Make additions as desired. I've marked the ones I've worked on with a star. I would merge and delete all articles in the present template that are not here listed. This includes—

Actually going to these articles and just skimming them also shows very clear how much they are highly duplicative (WP:CFORK) and reliant on Abbott 1901. The size of the current framework also makes it largely unmaintainable. A significant simplification would be greatly worthwhile. Ifly6 (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not sure what to do with an article like Roman constitution: it covers such a broad span of time under such different political circumstances that feels meaningless. Ifly6 (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep separate the articles on the senate. It was a big institution with several evolutions. Only "Senate of the Roman Kingdom" should be merged into "Institutions of the Roman kingdom". "Roman constitution" can be kept as a list article, such as "List of changes to the Roman constitution". T8612 (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re Constitutional reforms of Julius Caesar, I was under the impression there weren't any major ones? Ifly6 (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't have the same grand design as Sulla or Augustus, but he made a number of changes (mostly for his own benefit), such as the system of suffect consuls (I think the longest lasting change), the Tribunicia potestas, his dictatorships, his presumed resurrection of the kingship, and the list of official honours he received. T8612 (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

iirc all of this is abolished in the triumviral period before being revived by Augustus: suffect consuls stop after 44, tribunicia potestas too, dictatorship is immediately abolished by a lex Antonia, etc. Is it really a "reform" if it lasted barely a year before being discarded and revived in a different manner and context almost twenty years later ? (The lex Pompeia on the provinces in 52 eg isn't called a constitutional reform even if it's the core precedent for Augustus' legates.) Ifly6 (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]