Talk:Senate of the Roman Republic

message: Are modern scholars sure that the purple stripe was on the right shoulder and not down the front of the tunic?  I thought there was debate over that.  Certainly the popular conception is down the front of the tunic.Binabik80 05:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style of dress 

message: In what way were the pedarii "like parliamentary backbenchers"?  It's true that neither pedarii nor backbenchers are currently out of magisterial/ministerial office, but the key fact about pedarii is that they had never held office.  And in context, the article seems to be implying that pedarii are similar to backbenchers because they had no speaking rights, which is a bizarre claim to make about backbenchers.  Furthermore, the primary purpose of a backbencher is to vote the way his party wants him to vote, while of course the pedarius, like everyone else in the political party-less Roman Senate, voted his conscience.
If no one responds in two days I'll remove the reference.Binabik80 05:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having seen no objections, I've deleted the clause.Binabik80 02:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedarii 

message: Can anyone tell me the source for the last known act(s) of the Roman Senate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjcaesar (talk • contribs) 19:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Mention 

message: How did one become a senator? By appointment? (By whom?) By election? (By which assembly?) What were the requirements for membership? Age? Wealth? Class? Presumably one had at least to be a Roman citizen (at least until the appointments made in the time of Julius Caesar). None of this seems to be mentioned under "Membership".
Under the Republic it was the first and most important duty of the censors to choose the senators.
This was called the lectio senatus, when the whole membership was listed in a strict order of seniority according to office-holding seniority and social status (patricians outranking plebeians of the same ex officio seniority). This was the order in which the presiding magistrates who summoned a meeting of the Senate were required to ask for opinions on every matter.  The first man on the list was called princeps senatus (= First Lord of the Senate).
Sulla appears to have done away with the lectio and ordained the quaestorship as the qualification for automatic entry into the Senate. But the evidence is controversial. He certainly increased the number of annual quaestors to 20, and it is also certain that the censorship itself lapsed for a decade after Sulla's dictatorship (most of its functions being taken over by the consuls of 80 and 75 BC), and that when it resumed (70-69 BC) the lectio no longer determined the speaking order;  a new custom had arisen (probably first established by Sulla in 81 or 80) according to which the senior consul chose the order of the consulars for the year.--Appietas 06:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership 

message: According to the section Membership, "A Senator's membership was for his lifetime"
But since the most Republican offices have only one-year term, how can an
office-holder remains senator after he left the office ?
--Siyac 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Member for life ? 

message: The quorum required for formal enactment of senatorial resolutions (senatus consulta) is very well known to have been 100 or more, when the Senate numbered 300 members. I don't have all the evidence with me but the key and earliest text is the Letter of the consuls (of 186 BC) to the Teurani On Bacchanales (CIL i² 581), where the formula not less than 100 (C[entum]) senators appears three times.
I'm not sure that the evidence is so clear after Sulla doubled the size of the Senate to 600, but logically the quorum should have remained the same or else been doubled to 200.
--Appietas 06:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable practices 

message: I just wanted to mention my plans for my series on the Roman constitution. There was simply too much information to put on my original page, Constitution of the Roman Republic. There is also a significant amount of information available on the constitutions of the Roman kingdom and empire. Therefore, I am going to give this series somewhat of a matrix structure. Roman Constitution will be the main page of the series. Underneath this page will be Constitution of the Roman Kingdom, Constitution of the Roman Republic and Constitution of the Roman Empire. It surprised me, but apparently there actually was a constitution during the time of the kingdom and then again during the time of the empire. 
Underneath the constitution pages, I will have pages on the Senate of the Roman Kingdom, Senate of the Roman Republic, Senate of the Roman Empire, Legislative Assemblies of the Roman Kingdom, Legislative Assemblies of the Roman Republic, Legislative Assemblies of the Roman Empire, Executive Magistrates of the Roman Kingdom, Executive Magistrates of the Roman Republic, and Executive Magistrates of the Roman Empire. 
When this is done, I will create a new page called Roman Executive Magistrates, and then populate this page, along with Roman senate and Roman assemblies. All three pages will be condensed versions of their respective sub-pages. Right now, Roman senate and Roman assemblies consist almost exclusively of facts about the republic. Neither page has many citations. They also use a discussion format, and my revisions to these pages will use more of a discussion and analysis format. I am going to be more cautious with my revisions of these pages, because I assume that people will want to restore the original versions for whatever reason.
My hope is to use a discussion and analysis format for the entire series. My overall goal will be to produce a series that doesn't just discuss the facts associated with these offices and institutions. I want the series to tie everything together, and illustrate how everything operated under the overall constitutional system. Right now, the entries on these individual topics (such as roman consul and praetor) simply list facts without providing any deeper analysis or context. It is difficult to truly understand these topics unless you know how they all worked together under the constitutional system.
Also, I am not surprised that there hasn't been more work done on Wikipedia on this topic. It seems as though there are very few books on this subject, and many of those books are quite old. This is unfortunate because this subject is actually quite relevant to modern politics. Many modern governments are designed around a similar constitutional superstructure as was the Roman government. The government strengthened the entire Roman Empire.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Update on the Roman constitution series

message: I have redone this entry, and integrated it into my series on the Roman Constitution. Before my change, 95% of this entry was about the senate of the Roman Republic. There was nothing on the senate of the Roman Kingdom, and hardly anything on the senate of the Roman Empire.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to the page

message: I removed the conscript fathers section. It was highly repetitive and lacking in context. Everything mentioned in it that was accurate is already mentioned elsewhere (under descriptions about Roman senators, since Roman senators and 'conscript fathers' are one in the same).RomanHistorian (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we are including this much Latin, we could also mention patres conscripti as a formal term, and even the ancient dispute about its precise meaning under the kings. But it would be even more useful to remind the reader how little we are sure of about the Roman kingdom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of 'conscript fathers' section

message: I read the following sentence with some surprise. "The dominant religion of the senate in the years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 was Chalcedon Christianity. This was different from both the dominant religion of the Ostrogoths (Arianism) and the official religion of the papacy and Constantinople (Nicene Christianity)." 
Could this be expanded and a reference given? If it is correct. The adjective coming from Chalcedon is of course 'Chalcedonian'. Since the Catholic Church has always so far as I know recognized the Council of Chalcedon and most fifth century Emperors did so too, with some obvious exceptions such as Anastasius, the claim is likely to be incorrect. This section of the article generally seems to fall short of professional historical standards. We know the names of quite a lot of late fifth century and early sixth century senators for example. The fourth century section would benefit from more detail on the social and economic base of the senate and could perhaps consider whether senatorial aristocrats were to be found in all provinces or simply Rome and Gaul, where there is abundant evidence. There should also be some consideration of links between the Roman Senate and other late Roman municipal councils across the empire. Despite the unique prominence of the local bishop, the Roman Senate seems to have fared much better than its smaller counterparts in (say) Anatolia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barchard (talk • contribs) 17:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RELIGION OF THE FIFTH CENTURY SENATE 

message: Perhaps this is just my curiosity. Lictors followed the magistrates who held imperium wherever they went, including the Forum, his house, temples and the baths, but... were lictors allowed to be beside the magistrates inside the meeting place of the Senate? -- Pichote (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The lictors followed the magistrates everywhere. They were not bodyguards as much as they were symbols of magisterial power. I will just add, however, that no magistrate had imperium inside the city. Any magistrate with imperium had to surrender that imperium before entering the city. Whereas the rod of the fasces (which each lictor held) represented state power (specificaly, the power of coercitio or Coercion, and thus the power to punish), the blade represented imperium (thus, the power to execute). Therefore, any magistrate without imperium at any given instant (such as a Consul while inside the city) would have their lictors remove the axes from their fasces. Since Dictators were the only magistrates who did not have to surrender their imperium while inside the city, their lictors would not remove their axes (although the dictator could break with this tradition, as I believe Cincinnatus did). RomanHistorian (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfectly explained, thanks. -- Pichote (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One question dealing with Lictors 

message: :: Self-styled Roman Historian here exhibits clearly why he's not competent to write a good article on a complex historical topic. He may well be able to fuss up a style which accords with Wiki GA guidelines, but that's something other than a reliable and accurate historical article. I'd ask others with some expertise on Roman history to get involved to help prevent his many clangers remaining in place.  I'll keep rewriting and reversing when I can spare the time.
::His distinction between truth and fact is comical, and he has no competence whatsoever to adjudicate between ancient sources which contain legendary elements and those which don't.  As he himself confesses clearly enough, his knowledge is based solely on very limited secondary sources and English translations of one small fraction of Polybius, and what looks like a hasty and still immature understanding of their contents.
::The question of the appointment of Dictators is as good a case in point as any.  His version I corrected stated quite simply that the Senate appointed Dictators. Now he seems to be reversing that a little and recognizes that the Consuls appointed the Dictators.  But asserts they didn't really but had to be authorized by the Senate.  No they didn't have to be at all. This is seriously misleading, and underlines the mentioned incompetence.  The Senate had no right of appointment or authorization, it advised the magistrates and all powers of governance actually resided in the popular Assemblies and such executive powers as were delegated to the magistracies by election.
It's certainly important to understand how influential the Senate became, and make some attempt to explain why (he doesn't and cannot, I've just begun elements of this explanation), but the argument that the Senate's "authorization" of a Consul to appoint a Dictator equates with a senatorial appointment is entirely bogus, and could be applied to any other aspect of government where the Senate's advice amounted to its de facto control.  In all cases it is important to be clear where the actual powers lay, however much influenced by de facto social and political customs, of which the Senate's increasing influence and authority was one of the most important.  Again the Senate had no right whatsoever to name the Dictator in advance, and never did. This was the Consul's right and responsibility. He may consult the Senate over this, or not. When both consuls were dead or absent from the ager Romanus and it was decided that there was a need for a Dictator, a constitutional crisis arose. Which was resolved, as always, by reference to the sovereign powers of the voting Assemblies of the (male) population.
In all cases my comments and additions are based on reading the ancient sources in combination with expert modern texts. Despite RH's ignorant statement to the contrary there are many good modern texts covering the topic. His world view is that what he doesn't know doesn't exist, and anyone attempting to correct him is an enemy. I probably should and could add further citations, but in every case I have included many more of these than RH. As it is I see my additions as an ongoing work which can always be improved upon and I'm quite content for others to get involved and do so.  But RH doesn't do this.  He reverts and removes en bloc, and restores his own worst inaccuracies and mistakes.
::I accept there are problems with my wording which could always be improved, but ditto RH does not seek to improve, but removes and restores his own verbiage in the apparent belief he is some sort of Hemingway. Which he isn't.  One of the main problems with expression is that I've tried to retain as much of the existing article as I found it as possible. This often results in poor expression or repetition which should be correct.  Yesterday I spent some time improving the opening section in this respect.  Now all removed en bloc in accordance with RH's megalomaniac method.
::A few final comments in response to issues raised by RH.
* In general the secondary sources he cites are very good ones, or at least well reviewed and written by respected authors. There is a serious problem and gap between what they say and what RH reports them as saying.
*  The "Triumvirate" is a modern term coined by extreme pro-Caesarian apologists to make the entirely private compact between the three princes look respectable and pseudo-official.  Gang of Three or more is an increasingly used modern term which recognizes the basic fact that the compact was formed to suppress the effective operation of the institutions of the free state or Republic and to divert its powers and resources to their personal and mutually allied ends.  Today the continued use of Triumvirate is a sure sign of an autodidact or Caesarian apologist.
*  Per information given RH's version has far less references than my own, and none from ancient sources of which he is entirely ignorant, yet has the arrogance and foolishness to pass sweeping comment and judgment about them because the valuable ancient sources I cite do not agree with his incomplete and erroneous understanding from secondary source readings. This is the attitude of a witch-doctor rather than an historian.
*  The listing formats I occasionally use are not messy and distracting.  They provide simplicity and clarity.  It is RH's individual mind that is messy and distracted.
*  the comments on imperium are entirely erroneous and show an ignorance of the workings of the constitution. No imperia were attached to magistrates in the election by comitia, only civic potestates.
*  The arrogance and foolishness of his quote of a single sentence and request for a reference is beyond measure, and entirely at odds with the amount of his drivel goes unreferenced because it cannot be. Read Livy books 21-45 on the reception of returning generals from their provinces.
*  The senatorial committees are attested by the most important and immediately contemporary sources we have on Roman history, the contemporary inscriptions. Also occasionally but rarely in Livy's detailed history in bks.21-45.  Only an ignorant autodidact could make this a point of objection.
*  Senators might be compelled to attend the Senate in the sense that a magistrate could abuse or coerce any citizen irregularly or illegally on the basis of their great powers.  But in the sense RH gave that the senators were somehow legally obliged to attend and were threatened with some form of due punishment when they did not is a nonsense which had to be removed.  All in all RH takes too much semi- and mis-information from the period of the overthrow of the Republic when civic traditions were suppressed and violence ruled as if the norm. He also extracts out of context in such a way as to show his analytical incompetence or dishonesty.
*  In the matter of the powers of veto over senatorial acta by the magistrates, this is a simple constitutional fact inherent in the civic potestates of the magistrates, and attested by a 1st century BC senator and nobleman writing expressly from a constitutional point of view, Marcus Varro.
RH's objections by anaylsis are embarassing.  He fails to grasp that magistrates presided over and directed the meetings of the Senate, and that everything done under their competence, including the passage of senatorial acts and resolutions could be nullified by the intercession of any other magistrate(s) with equal or greater civic powers. I cite the source, he doesn't like it, he removes and cites Lintott contra.  Lintott is a great historian so I doubt that he would slip up over this issue.  More likely RH has misunderstood Lintott according to his custom. But I guess I can't quote the ipsa verba of the source which would be inadmissible foreign language content by the wiki rules. So are we reduced to accepting any twerp who misquotes modern texts as ultimate arbiter of serious historical fact? 
One final point.  RH's reply here is too long, and he's repeated the entire tract below. This is perhaps a result of a need for grouped comment because he doesn't ever improve he simply slashes out my edits en bloc. It is also probably a deliberate tactic to prevent clear and easy to follow objection and reply, so that a minimum of members will wish to follow this dispute. Henceforth I'll endeavour to address individual matters in dispute under separate headers on this Talk page, which seems to be the practice elsewhere on wiki..Appietas (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to keep wasting time responding to your disordered attacks. Repeating what I already did is pointless. I could try to have you blocked because of your constant personal attacks in calling me "ignorant", although it isn't worth my time. I will just say this: most of what you added was uncited. Most of what was cited came from dubious websites or primary sources, and as I mentioned above, Wikipedia places secondary sources like Lintott above primary sources like Polybius. Therefore, unless you can come up with some secondary source, such as a recent historical book, to back up your factual claims, you have no case. Per Wikipedia policy, anything by Lintott takes precedence over Polybius, and if there is a conflict, Lintott wins. Likewise, anything with a Lintott citation wins against anything with no citation. If you think you are right, you will need the secondary sources to back it up. Your own interpretation of Polybius is original research, and is not permitted on Wikipedia. You seem to have a habit of posting original research on other articles. The fact that you think I am "ignorant" or "not competent" or "immature" is irrelevant unless you can come up with these types of sources to prove that I am wrong. Your own indignation, or what you think is right, means nothing as to what should be on this article. To say nothing for the semi-vandalism you have caused to numerous other Roman history articles.RomanHistorian (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: I think most of this article has been cobbled together by the "Roman Historian" twerp. The discussion of the vetoing of senatorial decrees is ignorant of Roman history and the Republican constitution, which was based fundamentally on an annually changing government of executive officers (magistrates) invested with all civic and military powers in full legal and religiously sanctioned form.  The authority of the Senate had a powerful social and political de facto basis, not legal. Its original and continuing role was as the community's supreme advisory council to the annual executive, and all its acta were always couched in language suitable to an advisory body, even when it became the de facto ruling council. It was the presiding magistrates whose powers were legally based (called potestates in the civic area, iura imperii in the military), and these powers of government included the ability to veto any senatorial decree with which they disagreed. This rarely happened because the presiding magistrate summoned and controlled meetings of the senate and directed which proposals should be voted upon in the first place (and when). However it did happen when two or more magistrates of equal rank presided (most commonly the consuls) and one of them disagreed enough with a decree to nullify it. The whole binding force of a senatorial decree passed without veto was based in the de facto situation that the current government (all the senior and most powerful annual magistrates, with all their coercive powers) agreed with it; so it better be obeyed - or else. The bogus claim that consular vetoes were not legally based ought to disqualify the author from writing articles like this one. He's evidently read something about the powers and sacrosanctity of the tribunate plebis in the forum and comitia and decided to introduce them "free form" into the Senate as well on the basis of a limited understanding.  The tribunes were not even permitted to enter the senate house until they themselves became magistrates, under the terms of the lex Atinia of c.130 B.C.
Appietas (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vetoing senatorial decrees 

message: The section on the role of the tribunes may be slightly misleading; it implies (unintentionally, I think) that there was a single tribune who was the "chief representative" of the People. I'm pretty sure the editors of this section knew otherwise, but it may not be clear to someone coming to the article with less background on the subject. And because there were multiple tribunes, they could threaten each other or be played off each other. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: Although I lack Appietas's vehemence on this subject, I too was given pause about the physical presence of a/the tribune. I see, however, that it is sourced with Lintott. I'm wondering two things, then: is there perhaps some developmental issue here (practice changing over time), or a good-faith skewing of what Lintott said? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification requested regarding Tribunes 

message: I've recently finished reading Mary Beard's popular 2015 history text SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome (which I've lent on, so do not have to hand). Beard also includes the illustration currently used in this article, Cato attacks Catalina, but dismisses it as showing a completely imaginary setting, much grander and more spacious than any of the actual venues the Senate used.
I understand that illustrations of Senate meetings are thin on the ground so a more authentic depiction might not be available, but I suggest it would be a good idea to explain the above briefly in the article text and/or illustration caption.
I actually came to this article to check on the accuracy of a minor point in Robert Harris's trilogy about Cicero, having just finished the third volume, Dictator. Harris makes several mentions of "the Senate building", and its destruction by fire at one point, as if this were a single purpose-dedicated building, but Beard (as I recalled, perhaps wrongly) says that there was no specific Senate building, and meetings were convened in whichever of several temples was most convenient.
The article seems broadly to corroborate the latter under Venue and ethical standards, but text in Senate of the Roman Empire and linked articles such as Curia Hostilia makes it plain that there was always at least one particular building (Curia) that, though originating as a temple (which technically it remained), was primarily intended as the Senate's meeting place (as opposed to being primarily a temple, or being the curia of various other bodies). I suggest that this point should be made more explicit in this article, as it is in . . . Roman Empire and Curia.  {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.26.60 (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authenticity of illustration, and existence of ''The'' Senate Building 

message: If this really is,
1) why is there no treatment of the pedarii?
2) why is there no discussion of the specific clothing that marked the senatorial class as distinct in Roman society beyond two links (one just added) from a photo?
3) why are there "sources" sitting around in the list at the bottom of the page that are entirely unused within the text of the article?
I mean, it's not a bad article but it obviously has blind spots and some things needing cleanup. — LlywelynII 09:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article?