Talk:Executive magistrates of the Roman Republic/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This article was written ten years ago, and has significant problems which makes it under GA standards.

The main problem is that the Roman Republican constitution was ever evolving, a bit like the British constitution. Therefore, constitutional changes should be detailed to show what was the situation at any given time. This article fails on this point; the first date mentioned is only in the very last paragraph. Most of the magistracies detailed in the article did not exist at the beginning of the Republic (praetor, censor, etc.), but we don't know when or how they were created. Thus, this article principally deals with the magistrates of the Roman Republic during its last century of existence. There is no mention of important constitutional laws, such as the Lex Villia Annalis, the Lex Ovinia, Lex Genucia, or the Lex Licinia Sextia.

Sources: The article uses outdated sources like Abbott (1901), or written by Robert Byrd, a politician. References to Cicero should be in a book/paragraph format, not by using page number to a modern edition. Lily Ross Taylor is a great source, but although she is mentioned in the sources section, there is not citation related to her works. Among the missing sources, there are: Robert Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic; Francis Ryan, Rank and Participation in the Roman Senate; Corey Brennan, The Praetorship; the three volumes of the Cambridge Ancient History on the Roman Republic, and many others.

Title: "Executive" magistrates is an anachronism, there was no separation of powers during the Roman Republic. Title should be "Magistrates of the Roman Republic"

I will delist the article after a week, unless someone wants to rewrite the article. T8612 (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Other points: Plebians= commoners, Patricians= aristocrats is incorrect, since there were many Plebian aristocrats. Maior potestas is never translated as 'Major powers' (it means 'Greater power', but it's usually left untranslated). The censor did not 'hold little real power'. The link to 'coercion' does not take us anywhere helpful. The imperium / potestas distinction is not explained or even referred to. Collega means 'colleague', not 'collegiality'. Habeas corpus is not a Roman Republican principle. The references to the situation outside Rome and to provincia are unclear. Very little is said about what magistrates did outside of the city of Rome. Consuls' term did not originally run from Jan-Dec (the fact that the term applies to the other magistrates is not mentioned). 'Ordinary magistrates' the term is not explained. consulare is neuter, an ex-consul was generally male and therefore consularis. The ten year limit on re-election as consul clearly didn't exist by the Late Republic, it is debatable whether it was ever a rule. The article ought togive the (changing) number of praetors. The centuriate assembly was not 'the assembly of the soldiers'. The discussion of the censor is confused, presenting the office as simultaneously powerless and 'easily abused'. A random reference to the sacrosanctity of tribunes is incorporated into the paragraph on censors. The cursus honorum is not referenced at all until we get to aediles; it should really appear in the section on 'ranks'. The Latin for 'plebian magistrate' is magistratus plebeius not magistratus plebeii which is plural. Tribunes were not "the only true representatives of the people" - by definition they only represented a sub-set of the people. "Our own habeas corpus" is POV. Magister populi is better translated 'chief of the people' or similar. The pomerium is only mentioned for the first time in the discussion of the dictator. The article leaves it entirely unclear what an 'ordinary dictator' was and gives the incorrect impression that there were no dictators after 202 BC. The inclusion of the Byzantine Senate in the "See Also" selection is bizarre. The "Further Reading" includes several irrelevant or obsolete items, like Cameron 1993, Ihne 1853, Millar 1977, Polybius 1823, Tighe 1886. Von Fritz on the 'mixed constitution' could theoretically be relevant, but the article hasn't made any reference to the term. None of the minor magistrates are mentioned at all. I'm sure there's more; this is not my area of speciality. Furius (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delisted. T8612 (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]