Talk:Roman consul

message: Why are there two duplicate articles - Roman Consul and Consul - they should be merged! Mgoodyear (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "consul" is used very differently now. Roman consuls are magistrates with substantial military and political duties. The word "consul" used today would refer to "an official appointed by a state to live in a foreign city and protect the state's citizens and interests there". "consul", Oxford Dictionary of English. These are not the same. Ifly6 (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplication

message: To say that the expuslion of Tarquinius Superbus is "mythical" is, I think, I a bit much.  The expulsion of the Tarquinian king may or may not be a legendary account, but it hasn't definately been proven to be mythical.  I suggest "semi-legendary" as a suitable comprimise.
Corbmobile 11:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tarquinius Superbus 

message: Who would elect / vote for the consuls? In the pre-Empire era / late-Republic era, would they be elected by the Senate or by patricians / plebians directly? 
--88.96.187.237 21:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting 

message: David Shotter in his The Fall of the Roman Republic (Routledge, 2nd Ed.) says that "In the republic's 'mixed constitution' the monarchic element was represented by the magistracy (principally the consulship) [...]" (see pp. 6-7). How does one reconcile this statement with a yearly election of Consuls and the limited number of Consul reappointments ?
128.141.29.227 13:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consulship as a Monarchic Element ? 

message: This work  says the title was not abolished in 541. The successors of Justinian still declared themselves consuls January 1 each year and it was emperor Leo VI the Wise who banned the title. For example here  you can see a consular issue of a Tiberius II coin of 579 where he is depicted in a consular uniform.--Dojarca 12:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will change the table according this: . Beginning with Justinian's successor, Justin II., each emperor took the office of consul on 1 January of the year following the year of accession. The years were then counted as "post-consular" years.--Dojarca 09:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abolishment 

message: In fact the Byzantine equivalent to consul, hypatos was used long through Byzantine history and was always popular. It never fall out of use and never was unified with the emperor's office. Just the opposite, it was given to such a number of people that its prestige deraded. There were numerous hypatos'es at any ginen time in Byzantium. Several Italian duces also received the title from the Byzantine emperor. It seems that the title never was abolished.--Dojarca (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somewhat inconsistent 

message: From our discussion about these edits on Dojarca's talk page:
What is more, from your edits, as well as a gap in editing during October and November, it is pretty clear to me that you're a sockpuppet of User:Certh, or Certh was a puppet of you. Stick with making the stronger edits you make which are not related to this tendentious consul hangup of your's. Just a little background: Dojarca departs from Wikipedia on October 16 after Certh opens a mediation cabal case to discuss/complain about my changing of the same content about which you are complaining to me today. In my first edit to that page, also on October 16, I note the similarity between Certh and Dojarca. Certh then gets himself blocked on November 4th, and Dojarca returns  later that day. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your accusations show you probably have weak position in the article's dispute.--Dojarca (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My accusations show that you are about to get blocked. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am asking for third opinion as it seems you do not provide any sources in support of your version. I will not revert-war over this issue. I believe you after carefull analysis will find you're not right here. --Dojarca (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It already has. Ad nauseum. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several issues in this article. Can you comment on them separately below so we could know where we disagree and where we don't.--Dojarca (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Already have. With you. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That dispute was about quite different questions. I see nothing that can be helpful here. If you do please point exact statements.--Dojarca (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dojarca/Certh sockpuppet

message: * That after the fall of the empire in the West there was only one consul - factually wrong. After that at least 50 years were appointed consuls in the West. Any objections? Please provide if you wish.
* That Constans II was the last consul - please sources. 
* That appointment of Martell would lead to the conflict - also please sources.
* Deletion of the material about revival of the title - any objections against return of this information?--Dojarca (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay. Let's by instances. 

message: * I come to this article knowing little of the subject.  Where there are factual disputes in WP, the usual answer is that one of the editors is wrong and producing WP:OR or is relying on old sources that have been overtaken by more recent scholarship.  Occasionally, there will be two rival scholarly views, in which case the article should set them both out.  Ideally, it should explain their respective strengths, but that may be asking too much and may itslef constitute original research.  The answer to this difficulty is for the editor who has WP:RS to ensure that he cites his (or her) sources, with in-line citations.  I observe that the present statements appear to fit approximately with the list of consuls, linked at the end of the article.  This suggests to me that the list are reliable, but no sources seem to be provided, and they must be.  One answer to the problem may be to to add a further section dealing with appointments made in later periods, after the conventional enbd of an annual consulship.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC responses

message: The following statement is confused: "Under the laws of the Republic, the minimum age of election to consul for patricians was 41 years of age. (This is because only patricians were allowed to be consuls)." How is being a patrician related to age? The age requirement has a separate history pertaining to the cursus honorum and was probably affected in the Late Republic by the "reforms" of Sulla.  I moved the age reference to the section on the career track; the history of plebeian consuls is addressed elsewhere. In general, the article has a confused and often strangely non-neutral stance on long-dead political issues: "monopolized by a political elite" betrays a certain resentment. I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall that the change of law meant one consul each year had to be a plebeian, with the result that in many years, especially as the patriciate waned in the Late Republic, both consuls were plebeians. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusion about age requirements and patricii 

message: I removed this, the final sentence of the intro:
"This political office was not unique to the Roman Republic; in fact, Thucydides (c. 460 B.C. – c. 395 B.C.) narrates, in the History of the Peloponnesian War, about the Caoni, "a people who don't recognize the authority of a king, that was ruled, in accordance of a year lasting office, by Fozio and Nicarone, member of a dominant family" (book II, 80)." (The ref would be clearer with three figures: 2.80.5) 
The quote is a bit of a mistranslation (and with Italian versions for the names: Chaonians, Photios, Nicanor): rather than "were ruled by" Thuc talks of a Chaonian contingent being "lead by" i.e. on that occason: it is not framed as a constitutional overview but explains the status of the commanders. Probably a summary extracting the wanted information would be better than a quote: direct quotation should not be recast to suit its new context. Anyway I don't think it belongs in the intro. Parallel institutions from other Italian cities would be more relevant. If that was discussed the Thuc. passage could be brought in, but by itself it's a bit of a sore thumb. (Thuc. says the two men come from an "archikon genos", a ruling clan/family, which sounds rather different from the Roman situation.) 
Flounderer (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thucydides reference 

message: I find this confusing: "Holding the consulship was a great honor and the office was the major symbol of the still republican constitution." A situation can't be republican and imperial at the same time, or what is meant by "still"? JMK (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing statement

message: *Which is it?  Was consular dating abolished in 537 by Justinian or in the early 9th C. by Leo the Wise?
*Also, do we have a link to the hierarchy of Imperial court ranks discussed?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 11:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consular dating abolished in the 6th AND 9th Centuries? 

message: This article says: In 305 BC the name of the office was changed to consul. / I think, it is WRONG! Wikipedia also says: The praetorship was created in around 367–366 BC to take over part of the duties of the consuls. (on Praetor article)/ And here it says: Expulsion of the monarchy results in creation of the joint offices of consul. (Originally titled praetor and re-identified as consul with the introduction of the newly defined office of praetor in 367 BC). http://www.unrv.com/government/legal-institutional-chronology.php Böri (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praetor 

message: I think the article should be reorganised chronologically rather than functionally. Currently, it has a History section first, then the powers and responsibilities section divided by period. This should be flipped. It should be Republican role, then Imperial role, then history. What is important in the article is understanding what the consulship was. Doing this will also require some – probably major – rewrites. Ifly6 (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganisation 

message: At some point the redirect from junior consul here got its content entirely deleted. Fair enough if it overstated the case but we need something on the minor difference between the prior/senior/chief consul and the posterior/junior/second consul, even if it's just cut-and-pasting the content and sources from List of Roman consuls. — LlywelynII 04:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Consuls Prior and Posterior