Talk:Roman Republic

Preceded by La Tene culture - disputed

Why is this disputed? Ario1234 (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The extended list lacks citations and support in the article, and is largely meaningless. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

From the article:

"Rome defeated Carthage at the Battle of Zama in 202 BC, becoming the dominant power of the ancient Mediterranean world. It then embarked on a long series of difficult conquests, defeating Philip V and Perseus of Macedon, Antiochus III of the Seleucid Empire, the Lusitanian Viriathus, the Numidian Jugurtha, the Pontic king Mithridates VI, Vercingetorix of the Arverni tribe of Gaul, and the Egyptian queen Cleopatra. ...

Caesar sought cause to invade Gaul (modern France and Belgium), which would give him the dramatic military success he sought. When two local tribes began to migrate on a route that would take them near (not into) the Roman province of Transalpine Gaul, Caesar had the barely sufficient excuse he needed for his Gallic Wars, fought between 58 and 49.

Caesar defeated large armies at major battles 58 and 57. In 55 and 54 he made two expeditions into Britain, the first Roman to do so. Caesar then defeated a union of Gauls at the Battle of Alesia, completing the Roman conquest of Transalpine Gaul. By 50, all of Gaul lay in Roman hands." Ario1234 (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That section you quoted notably mentions the La Tene culture not at all. Ifly6 (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's highly dubious (bordering on meaningless) to say that a state succeeded an archaeological culture: those two things function as explanatory/analytical tools on very different planes. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with this. Ifly6 (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a whole other conversation that the question about "what happened to Celtic material culture when the Romans arrived?" has become extremely complicated in the last twenty years or so, but the answer definitely isn't simply "it got replaced by Roman material culture". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"I think it's highly dubious (bordering on meaningless) to say that a state succeeded an archaeological culture: those two things function as explanatory/analytical tools on very different planes"

So Dynastic Egypt wasn't preceded by the Naqada culture? Ario1234 (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"That section you quoted notably mentions the La Tene culture not at all."

There were multiple 'states' in Gaul prior to the Roman conquest, but listing them all would be excessive. Maybe 'Pre-Roman Gaul' would be better than 'La Tene culture'. Ario1234 (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The Roman Republic is a period in Rome's history during which Rome had a form of "republican" government and gained power over many peoples and places. That doesn't make those peoples or their power structures predecessors of the Roman Republic; it was preceded by the monarchy described in our Roman Kingdom article. NebY (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but in those places that were conquered by the Roman Republic, their states or cultures were succeeded by the Roman Republic. Ario1234 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

When they were conquered by Rome they became Roman provinces. They were not part of Rome and they were not predecessors of the period in Rome's history during which it was a republic. NebY (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

To expand a little on what I meant, cultures and states are different things. To use an analogy, it's a bit like saying that the Roman people were succeeded by the Christian religion: a "culture" has quite a specific and technical meaning in archaeology and isn't a political unit, a racial group or really anything that anyone living at the time would probably have ascribed any meaning to. Moreover, since the concept of statehood didn't really exist in the way that we understand it today (certainly outside quite small parts of the Mediterranean coastline, Rome itself being one of them), the whole model of charting the "states" which pre-existed and were replaced by the Roman Republic is pretty incoherent. The best way to rescue the preceded/succeeded model would be to use the Roman Kingdom and the Roman Empire. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Was the Egyptian state preceded by the Naqada culture? Ario1234 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"When they were conquered by Rome they became Roman provinces."

Yes they were provinces of the state known as the Roman Republic, hence the states or cultures that were conquered by the Roman Republic were succeeded by the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic was preceded by other states and cultures in those areas which it conquered. Ario1234 (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

No, the Roman Republic was a period. If there was a "state", it was Rome.

What's more, even if it was meaningful and factually accurate to say that La Tene culture preceded Rome or the Roman Republic, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE would still not be satisfied. The purpose of an infobox is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Not only does La Tene culture not figure in the article at all, but "La Tene culture preceded the Roman Republic", even if meaningful and accurate, would not be a key fact about the Roman Republic. NebY (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The Roman conquest of Gaul and other areas is a key fact, and should be reflected in the 'preceded by' section. Ario1234 (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That Rome defeated Gaul is not communicated at a glance or in any way clearly by listing La Tene culture as a predecessor of the Roman Republic, and even less so by listing Gaul as a predecessor, a patent absurdity that would only serve to baffle and delay the reader. NebY (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Ario1234, views here seem to be pretty strongly against your position. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This thread was about why you thought the inclusion of the La Tene culture in the 'preceded by' section was disputed. I changed it to Gaul. Why are you disputing that. Ario1234 (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

As above: "The extended list lacks citations and support in the article, and is largely meaningless". Simply "Roman Kingdom" is the appropriate entry. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"The extended list lacks citations and support in the article, and is largely meaningless"

It doesn't lack citations or support in the article. The Roman Republic conquered all of the places in the list. So in all those areas the Roman Republic was preceded by other states or cultures.

It's not meaningless, because it's about what actually happened historically. As such it is very useful for people who want to know about history and follow the sequence of events, states, cultures etc.

In contrast, saying that the only thing which preceded the Roman Republic was the Roman Kingdom is extremely uninformative and misleading, given that the Roman Republic ruled vast areas that were previously ruled or dominated by other states and cultures, and not by the Roman Kingdom. Leaving out those other states and cultures creates a confusing break or disconnection in the historical narrative which serves no constructive purpose (other than maybe to save space), and only leaves readers less informed than they could otherwise have been. Ario1234 (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

If you truly believe that including only the Roman Kingdom would be misleading, I would sooner support excluding the parameter entirely. The present list is more misleading because it equates conquered regions/cultures with predecessor states, and leaves out any nuances about what actually happened historically. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It does seem that this parameter might be beyond saving: that using it requires us to shove the narrative into its confines so aggressively and distortingly that we're better off leaving it out. "Whereof we cannot speak...", after all. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Lede section lacks inline citations

Greetings Wikipedians! The lede contains no citations to reliable sources. In my opinion that should be corrected, given the length and level of detail in the lede Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead sections are generally not required to include citations, per WP:LEADCITE. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I would venture that the OP above is aware of this, but believes that the level of detail and length therein would justify having citations regardless. Ifly6 (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be an issue if (and only if) the lead contained material which either a) was a direct or near quotation from a source, b) was so controversial that it needs to be cited immediately, or c) didn't also appear later in the article with a citation. Otherwise, as Nikki points out, WP:LEADCITE says we shouldn't cite it in the lead, regardless of how long or detailed that lead is (incidentally, I don't think the lead is anything unusual in that regard, given the length of the article itself). Has anybody identified anything which falls into one of those categories? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I concur with all of the above; leads are not normally required to be cited except in certain situations noted above, and there's nothing here that meets that requirement. The information in the lead is, I believe, all cited in the body, which is sufficient. --Jayron32 15:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

July removals

@PericlesofAthens and T8612: Per

the amount of damage that this one editor inflicted back in July is monumental, ripping away vital context and without any warning, talk page discussion, or even edit summary just erasing and deleting tons of work, effort, and research into scholarly sources, wiping away cited material without any consensus, a truly shameful thing to happen, and quite frankly alarming how it has gone unopposed for so many months. An argument should be made for an immediate lock.

Can we start a discussion on these deletions and some examples on them? I can't say I reviewed them at the time. Not to assign blame – WP:AGF – who is this one editor and what are the content removals you are objecting to? Ifly6 (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they were made in bad faith, but this editor didn't understand how Wikipedia works. It seems that any sentence that did not end with a reference was removed, as well as those with a "citation needed". T8612 (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to be generous and also assume these edits were not made in bad faith, we don't necessarily need to discuss the intentions of the editor, but we should sure discuss the alarming amount of material excised from the article, some of it clearly attached to cited scholarly sources (so that wasn't even enough to save it). Most of the content I restored were images as well as image caption descriptions removed with zero justification or even an edit summary explaining what was going on. Providing profoundly terse one-word edit summaries while removing 3,000 KB of text at a time including cited sources is not how anyone should behave or conduct themselves here on this site. The editor in question did some good work in systematically transforming the citation style of the article, but the very intentional bulldozing of other peoples' hard work was totally unwarranted. This is especially the case for the removal of descriptions that muddled the context and ruined the purpose of image placements in several sub-sections. We should be making things easier for general readers to understand, and this quite clearly achieved the opposite effect. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Without diffs or an identification, I have to guess that you mean edits carried out after this article and Roman Empire were tagged as too long. If so, the discussion at Talk:Roman Empire/Archive 11#Length may be relevant. That was followed by much copy-editing of Roman Empire which, at least in part and rather to my surprise, skillfully and beneficially trimmed some longwindedness. I don't know if the edits here were similar; it may also be that to some extent they removed material which was and still is also in linked main articles and may even have been copied here from them, and that all that work, effort and research into scholarly sources remains in those articles. NebY (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yea the length basis was the main one as to why I didn't review any of the deletions: the article was too long and has been known to be too long. While I appreciate – especially after writing piles of articles on obscure topics or figures like Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer, Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio, and the Marian reforms – that the detail that we could go into is near limitless, an article such as this really must be a WP:SUMMARY. Ifly6 (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Who is the mysterious editor at hand? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Map in infobox

I just replaced the first map on the right with the second map on the right, which I created earlier today. Some comments.

• No idea on source for the territory in the top one. Bottom is sourced from a trace of a 1906 map called Hammond's 8 x 11 Map of Roman Dominions 44 BC. A copy of the Hammond map can be found here.
  • I am aware there are some differences between the top and bottom maps.
  • There are also some minor differences between the trace and the Hammond map.
  • If you can point out errors in the bottom map I'd be happy to fix them if they're specific enough to implement
• The map tiles I used are from the Consortium of Ancient World Mappers and include terrain, some water features, and exclude stuff like modern borders and urban areas
• I plotted using ESRI:102031 (Europe Equidistant Conic) which should render this region of the globe in a slightly more naturalistic fashion.
• I think the bottom map looks nicer.

I think this should be an uncontroversial improvement. Ifly6 (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"Sullan Republic"

@Remsense, could you elaborate on your reversion of my edit earlier? For others who are reading this, I edited the 'Sullan Republic' section earlier today to read the following:

Cn. Pompey Magnus served the Sullan regime during a short conflict triggered by the republic's own consul, M. Aemilius Lepidus, in 77 BC. Afterwards Pompey commanded troops against the remaining anti-Sullan forces in Spain, which were being led by the proscribed general Q. Sertorius. Pompey successfully brought the hard-fought Sertorian War to a close in 72 BC. While Pompey was in Spain, the Republic faced agitation both foreign and domestic. The main domestic political struggle was the restoration of tribunician powers stripped during Sulla's dictatorship. After rumours of a pact between Sertorius's ostensible republic-in-exile, Mithridates, and various Mediterranean pirate groups...

Whereas Remsense reverted it to the current form, which reads as follows:

Cn. Pompey Magnus served the Sullan regime during a short conflict triggered by the republic's own consul, M. Aemilius Lepidus, in 77 BC and afterwards led troops successfully against the remaining anti-Sullan forces in the Sertorian War; he brought the war successfully to a close in 72 BC. While Pompey was in Spain, the Republic faced agitation both foreign and domestic. The main domestic political struggle was the restoration of tribunician powers stripped during Sulla's dictatorship. After rumours of a pact between Sertorius's ostensible republic-in-exile, Mithridates, and various Mediterranean pirate groups...

I can basically list the reasons for my edit as the following. First, the article as is does not introduce who Sertorius was prior to mentioning his "ostensible republic-in-exile" which may be jarring. Why not just make it clear in the first place, for a general reader? Secondly, the leaders of other revolts -- Spartacus, Eunus, even Cleon, a supremely minor figure in Roman history, are present and linked in the article. Does Sertorius, who led a revolt twice as long as Spartacus, really not warrant specific mention? It seems other rebels are accorded at least a sentence and name. On a related note, why is Spartacus not linked?

I do believe my earlier edit can be revised to flow better (removing "hard-fought", or perhaps combining it in a single sentence), but simply reverting and saying "better before" does not really justify it, so I would appreciate further clarification and addressing of my points. I would also like to hear the opinions of others here too, if any have the time. Best wishes! Harren the Red (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)