Talk:Classical republic

message: Venice was headed by an elective monarch; see doge. This makes the definition of republic as any state that was not headed by a monarch difficult here. Can it be recast with republic/res publica/politeia defined as principal sense of the last; "way a polis works; Constitution"? Septentrionalis 02:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venice 

message: I have just about had it. Has any of the Contributors here at Wikipedia in political science and in Classical Antiquity read?  Because I come across stuff that blows everything away that is going on here at Wikipedia.
::Two consuls instead of a king now stood each year at the head of the community; the assembly of adult males which elected them remained the same, as did the body of elders who advised them; this was the senate, composed in practice of former magistrates. Time and circustance produced various modifications in THE THREE ELEMENTS whose interplay WAS (italics in original) the Roman political system, including notably the creation of a large number of lesser magistrates; NOTHING ALTERED THE CENTRAL FACT OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT, THAT IT WAS THE COLLECTIVE RULE OF AN ARISTOCRACY, IN PRINCIPLE  and to a varying extent in practice dependent on the will of a popular assembly.
:::Michael Crawford, The Roman Republic 2ND Edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978, 1992. pg 22-23.
I don't know but right there refutes what is said in this article about "Republic" being democracy.  Do you see your WP article on Republic with ANY of this information?  NOOOOO.  All your articles dealing with Republic are messed up!!!WHEELER 01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try using the correct templates: See WP:MERGE for the process. And yes, before you ask, it'll be controversial. --Nema Fakei 01:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "In a piece of high presbyterian cant that long was remembered, Cartwright wrote that the civil constitution ought to match the ecclesiastical, "even as the hangings to the house"...the architect had cribbed his plans from the decorator: he had built according to the classical-republican theory of mixed government." ~ Prof. Michael Mendle Dangerous Positions,  pg 67.
Mixed government is a republic.  Polybius and Cicero defined it as such. Paul A. Rahe, in his Republics, Ancient and Modern defines Sparta as a Republic and says it had Mixed government.  Sparta is a Classical republic.
These two pages "Mixed government" and "Classical republic" need to be condensed.WHEELER 21:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Three Elements of the Roman Republic

message: The article states this: 
:"A classical republic, according to certain modern political theorists, is a state of Classical Antiquity that is considered to have a republican form of government, a state where sovereignty rested with the people rather than a ruler or monarch. These include states like Sparta, Athens, and the Roman Republic. The Romans used the term res publica to describe their state, but the most common sense of that term is closer to body politic or commonwealth. The phrase was coined, it seems, to distinguish the post-Tarquin political system with the previous monarchy, the res privata."
:"The idea of republicanism was a creation of the Renaissance. The Renaissance scholars, most prominent among them being Niccolò Machiavelli, looked back on the ancient period with great interest and reverence."
The Spring edition of the journal History of Political Thought, has just published an article by Paul A. Rahe, that says, "Machiavelli is NOT a classical republican"! Yet this article states that "republicanism" had its start with Niccolo Machiavelli.  Classical republics are republics according to the definitions of Niccolo Machiavelli!
Here is another scholar: 
"In a piece of high presbyterian cant that long was remembered, Cartwright wrote that the civil constitution ought to match the ecclesiastical, "even as the hangings to the house"...the architect had cribbed his plans from the decorator: he had built according to the classical-republican theory of mixed government." ~ Prof. Michael Mendle 
Republic—A form of government by the people that includes the rule of law, a mixed constitution, and the cultivation of an active and public-spirited citizenry. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, editors: Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, 2nd ed, HarperCollins College Publishers, l995. pg 267. 
Mixed constitution (or government)—The republican policy of combining or balancing rule by one, by the few, and by the many in a single government, with the aim of preventing the concentration of power in any person or social group. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 265. 
"A mixed government, a virtous citizenry, the rule of law,--these were the republican ideals of Machiavelli's Discourses. If much of this sounds familiar, it is because this vision inspired the Atlantic Republican tradition--a way of thinking about politics that spread from Italy to Great Britain in the seventeenth century, and from there to Britain's American colonies in the eighteenth." Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 33. 
Classical republicanism emphasized civic duty and social cohesion. Founders and the Classics, Carl J. Richard, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994. pg 3. 
Sir Thomas Smyth in his treatise on English government of his time defined all commonwealths (republics) as mixed. De Republica Anglorum, 1583. ch. 6. 
Mixed government IS the definition of classical republics. But this article states that the definition of classical republics is  The Machiavellian. If Machiavelli is NOT a classical republican, why is he in the Classical republican article?  Why are not MY academic sources allowed?WHEELER 01:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TELL THE WIKITRUTH

message: article on classical republic is redundant to classical republicanism should be rather merged there. keep mixed government as is --77.113.22.70 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  classical republicanism 

message: I've been looking at the present versions of this article and Republic and I think that if we can get a sensible approach it should be possible to cover everything in this article in that article? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, there is nothing currently here that is not better covered in the republic article. Until someone feels like writing a lot more about the republics of the classical period, I think this page should be redirected to Republic#Classical_republics. - SimonP (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So before taking any actions, who argued against merging/deleting in previous discussions, and why? I see your name in those discussions above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous discussion was over Wheeler's desire to merge this page with mixed government, and I and a couple others opposed that merge. It's the same debate that's been happening at talk:republic. I have no problem merging this into republic though. It can be unmerged if there is enough extra content added on the subject, but for now we don't have enough to justify a stand alone article. - SimonP (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. My proposal: I'd say basically we should look at this article to see if there is anything worth keeping, then make sure it is mentioned in some article somewhere, and then delete this article and redirect it to Classical republicanism? So is there anything in this article not already found somewhere else?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worth considering merging with [[Republic]] again?