Talk:Lex Hortensia

message: Also, someone has obviously hit this article with a spellchecker that can't recognize Latin, hence populus (in Italics) is represented as populous, leges as legres, etc.  I'd offer up for the phrase you found incomprehensible, "This statement made it clear that the patricians could no longer disregard legislation passed through the plebian assembly."  Of the Latin, it's been a while since I've tried to provide Latin translation for others, but it reads to the effect, "Once the patricians said they were not bound by the will of the people (plebiscite), that was made without their authority."  If my alterations please, I'll let you implement them.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.200.73 (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "This statement disregarded the eligibility of the patricians to deny the plebiscites could not be bound." One word: huh? Could anybody please rephrase this in readable English? Also please add a translation of the preciding Latin sentence, as not all Wikipedia users know enough Latin to understand it. Thanks. -- 77.7.142.251 (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: Yes. This text is crucial, but incomprehensible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.207.225 (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the text is crucial, the vast majority of this article is incomprehensible. I'll be putting it on my to-do list to rewrite it. — Ifly6 (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still Huh? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Lex Hortensia. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120831060912/http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr:80/Haiti/Cours/Ak/ to http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "this should not be viewed as the final triumph of democracy over aristocracy....  Thus, the ultimate significance of this law was that it robbed the patricians of their final weapon over the plebeians...."
This portion is confusing.  Did the law do what was intended or didn't it?  Did it empower the plebs or were they still subject to control by the Patricians?  Could someone who has more knowledge help?InformationvsInjustice (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The law did what it was intended to do, i.e. make plebiscita binding on all citizens. The section which you're referring to bears a lot of similarity to a passage in Abbott's A History and Descriptions of Roman Political Institutions, on page 53, where he writes "one must not infer that the passage of the lex Hortensia marked the final triumph of democracy over aristocracy", but here, Abbott follows this up, saying "no one but a magistrate could bring a bill before one of the popular assemblies for action ... the senate found means of maintaining its control over the magistrates, very few bills came before the popular assemblies of which the senate did not approve, and a way was generally found to secure the passage of bills which the senate favored". — Ifly6 (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion