Talk:Proconsul

message: I believe the "History" section of this article is woefully incomplete.  What about someone (more knowledgeable than myself) added a bit of discussion with systems like the ancient-Roman Consuls and Proconsuls.  Was this system (or any other one that might be discussed) similar to or very different from the ancient-Chinese one?   - J.R.
There's an immense amount to be added, and perhaps this article should be regarded as a stub. There's also much that can be learned from the comparison of different political systems, but it does not necessarily follow that you can usefully compare a particular official post in one, with a similar post in another.
The article specifies that the  notitia dignitatum  refers to the end-stage of the Western Roman empire, but the earlier period needs to be discussed more. Do we have a map for the provinces of the Roman empire? A list of unfamiliar names is not very helpful. 
And the title needs a distinctive word. This will presumably affect other articles, and I'm new at this, and a little confusedd about the different ways for disambiguation, and I ask for some guidance. DGG 02:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: The term has also been used as a disparagement towards individuals, especially ambassadors, who have attempted to influence the governments of foreign countries. In one instance, former Canadian cabinet minister Lloyd Axworthy called former United States ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci "the U.S. ambassador-turned-proconsul" in an opinion piece in the 29 April 2003 Globe and Mail newspaper. Axworthy's comments were in response to Cellucci's frequent warnings to the Canadian government on domestic policy matters (such as the decriminalization of marijuana) which were often perceived by Canadians as threats.
Shouldn't the 3rd last word in that sentence read "Americans"?
ChristopherBorcsok 17:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo? 

message: Is it just that I'm an idiot (NB: this may well be the case) or is the Ancient Rome section of this article exceptionally difficult to comprehend? Perhaps someone with expertise in the area could take a look at it. It seems rather disjointed and confused currently. DublinDilettante (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarity

message: Prior to this edit, the opening of the article stated that a proconsul "was a Roman consul whose imperium (the power to command an army) was extended, or a former consul who was given consular imperium." Since this highly misleading description has been in the article for a long time, so I thought I would explain why I changed it. Pro is Latin for "for," as in "on behalf of." Constitutionally, only a currently serving consul could exercise military command. If a former consul (or anyone else) commanded troops, it was, at least theoretically, on behalf of the consul and thus proconsular. Proconsuls were generally former consuls. But there are counterexamples, notably Scipio. The vital point about the proconsulship is he exercised command on behalf of someone else. To focus on the "former consul" angle misses the basis for extending this concept to semi-independent modern commanders like MacArthur.  10W40 (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening

message: It isn't the case that a proconsul is a former consul. While initially proconsuls were almost always former consuls and propraetors former praetors, by the late republic many praetors were prorogued pro consule. For example: Year 80 has Gaius Claudius Nero pr 81 procos Asia, Gnaeus Cornelius Dolabella pr 81 procos Cilicia. Year 60 has Gaius Octavius pr 61 procos Macedonia, and Quintus Tullius Cicero pr 62 procos Asia. Ifly6 (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Eg OCD4 sv "pro consule, pro praetore": . Ifly6 (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proconsuls and consuls