Talk:Conflict of the Orders

message: Whoa!  Too long.  That needs to be broken into manageable groups of text. - Boston (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm skeptical about this entire rewrite actually. There is considerable reason to doubt every point of the account, much of it discussed in Raaflaub's volume (the reference to which was deleted) but the rewrite rephrases everything as if there was scholarly consensus on every detail. We really don't want to be uncritically retelling every one of Livy's fairy tales... Stan (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most contemporary recordings of events that did happen this long ago (take Herodotus for example) also have a lack of "scholarly consensus", the question is just to what degree. As for a lack of "scholarly consensus", there seems to have been little scholarly work on this area during the past century. With the exception of a couple of books written during the past 50 years, most of the books on this subject are at least 100 years old. Some of the best books on this topic are 150 (Theodor Mommsen) or 250 (Edward Gibbon) years old. I have gone ahead and added back the qualifying section, but the lack of recent scholarly work limits the ways in which this article can be modified otherwise, outside of just deleting it. RomanHistorian (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been all kinds of recent research; in addition to the articles in Raaflaub's collection, check out Tim Cornell's The Beginnings of Rome. As I see it, 20th-century archaeological work in Rome has been devastating to the traditional story; there is just not much corroborating contemporary physical evidence being found. If anything, Rome is looking more and more like a Greek colony of Naples. Gibbon is a fun read (I've read him unabridged), but he dates from an age when they were starting to suspect that much of the ancient source material was total fabrication, but didn't yet have the scientific basis to discover just how bad it was. For instance, his opening chapters are devoted to demonstrating how the empire was more populous and prosperous than the Europe of his own time, using numbers from ancient sources, but from analysis of agricultural productivity, we know there can't possibly have been that many. So we just need to cross-check our older authorities against newer ones, be sure that we're reflecting current understanding. Stan (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraph

message: I resisted the temptation to revert the latest addition to the fact-or-legend section, but I think it's problematic, because it adds a counter-counter-view without any citation, and in fact since the the Raaflaub citation is still at the same place, it falsely attributes the vague "numerous authors" reference to Raaflaub, which is exactly the opposite of what the reference really says.  So at the very least it needs to be moved around so as not to misrepresent what our scholars are saying. Stan (talk)
You are probably correct.  I was frustrated that the article presents a radical view without any counterpoint, thereby leaving the impression that the view is somehow accepted by modern scholarship.  The suggestion that hundereds of years of history has been fabricated is not a view which is shared by the most cynical of Roman historigraphers.  I have no difficulty with you undoing the change and reworking it to make it more clear (although I would be shocked if Raaflaub doesn't cites the alternative traditional view, so maybe you can still attribute the counterpoint to the same author).--Urg writer (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition 

message: "It should therefore not be viewed as the final triumph of democracy over aristocracy.... Thus, the ultimate significance of this law was in the fact 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) 06:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion

message: needs mentioning, even if only in a legendary account section. — LlywelynII 05:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Caeso Quinctius]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Conflict of the Orders. 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/20080829134354/http://www.uah.edu/student_life/organizations/SAL/texts/misc/romancon.html to http://www.uah.edu/student_life/organizations/SAL/texts/misc/romancon.html
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) 02:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So you know how the first consul is Junius and that name is only plebeian:
Smith cites Dion Hal 5.18 and if you look there "shrug it off" is flippant but very much accurate: Dion Hal 5.18.2: . Thanks a lot DH. Ifly6 (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems in the fasti