Talk:List of Roman laws

message: Did Lex Aelia Sentia free all of the slaves?
I don't trust that, but it sounds that way on 4.
-- Toby Bartels 07:53, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it regulated slavery in various ways; the Fufia Caninia from six years earlier restricted the number of slaves one could set free, but I don't have any more details at hand about the Aelia Sentia. I tweaked 4 appropriately. Slavery was commonplace through to the end of the Empire. Stan 08:46, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: has an in-depth article on the law (written 1875, check out the mention of "modern slave-states"!). Stan 08:49, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Cool, thanks! Toby Bartels 02:42, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: This sentence could use some clarification:
"Some laws listed have been [were?] made after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, but they were [weasel alert!]  heavily influenced by [ancient?] Roman laws [the following is redundant] that were made before."
I don't know what "heavily influenced" means; the Lex Romana Visigothorum and the like seem to be meant. Influenced by in the sense of based on specific laws (perhaps as precedent), or was Visigothic jurisprudence influenced in general by Roman law? This is unclear to me, anyway. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification requested 

message: We've two now - a new link under "Roman laws" because I didn't notice the entry under "General denominations." My source was for the summary was Berger, A., Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, Philadelphia: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society; New Series, Volume 43, Part 2, 1953, p551). Reprint, The Lawbook Exchange Ltd., 2002. . Preview from googlebooks; . Seems to me this should be a single link and summary; and I know nothing of the lex curiata de imperio in Caesar's adoption of Octavian. Would someone who does know care to combine the entries in an ammended summary under one sub-heading or the other? Haploidavey (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A decade later I've merged the two since one is just a subset of the other. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Lex curiata de imperio

message: The date has been changed from 180 to 181, and a citation offered but an error of interpretation seems possible. I'm reverting this good-faith contribution. See Richard J. Evans, Marc Kleijwegt, "Did the Romans like Young Men? A Study of the Lex Villia Annalis: Causes and Effects," Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 92, (1992), p. 181: The Lex Villia annalis was proposed by M. Pinarius Rusca in 181 (see Cicero, de Orat. 2,261). It passed into law in 180 (see Livy, 40.44.1). 
If anyone thinks my reversion unreasonable, please discuss. Haploidavey (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lex Villia annalis

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Roman laws. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20120831060912/http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/ to http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: this is an awful list of un-correlated law - not complete writings, and the original text is not cited (instead, each URL leads to a "wikipedia recap" instead of the real translation)
the list is highly partial and contains mostly: laws that were repealed BEFORE Justinian  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:400:4EF0:1D17:9294:6680:E568 (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: bad article