Talk:Roman Republic

SPQR

Ok for SPQR if people want it translated as saying "The Senate and People of Rome" it needs to be Senatus Populusque Romae. Romae means "of Rome" whereas "Senatus Populusque Romano/us" is more along the lines of "The Senate and Roman People". Daggoth (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The arts section

There seems to be a bit of a problem here with chronology. This article is supposed to be on the Republic (509-27 BC), but the author mentions writers such as Juvenal and Persius, who wrote later.

Deletion of text

A fairly large chunk of the information in the introduction is repeated in the Historical Overview section. So it needs to be deleted from one of those places. ArdClose (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this??? =

Rome also saw its territory expand during this period a very important period where Aristotle was a great intellectual man, from central Italy to the entire Mediterranean world.

this is the first sentence of the third paragraph of the introduction.

what does "aristotle was a great intellectual man" have to do with this section? Aristotle was Greek. It has nothing to do with expansion of the empire (which is what the sentence is about). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.91.188 (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Style changes

I don't want to start fiddling because someone's been putting lots of work in, and it looks good. But for style, someone needs to put the pictures and drop boxes evenly left and right, so they don't crowd up the page (depending on your browser/window size) and leave big white chunks, etc.

Also, the sub-sub-sub headings should not exist. It's too much, and readers don't need it in the TOC. It's much better, for that kind of heading, not to do ==== but a semi colon ; which before the heading makes it big and bold to the same size, but won't show in the TOC. Wikidea 13:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking

CKatz, I must ask that you provide reasons for linking to Italy, Greece, France, North Africa, and Mediterranean.

The first three are to articles that almost entirely deal with modern European states. They did not exist as nation states in Roman times, and it is misleading to imply to readers (especially to those who wouldn't understand the issue) that they did. Europe, tribes, cultures, languages, administrative entities, were an entirely different matter then. Please explain how these links would clarify matters for readers who are unfamiliar with these words, rather than mislead them. What part(s), exactly, of those link-targets are relevant to this topic? Can you come up with daughter articles or section-links that do not mislead?

"North Africa" is similarly misleading: the green map there (same format, it seems) is clearly divided into post-19th-century nation states that resulted from the European colonial experiment. It is antithetical to helping our readers to understand the Roman world. Moreover, the text opens: "North Africa or Northern Africa is the northernmost region of the African continent [that is a revelation ...], linked by the Sahara to Sub-Saharan Africa. Geopolitically, the United Nations definition of Northern Africa includes seven countries or territories; Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia, and Western Sahara[1] Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Mauritania, and Libya together are sometimes referred to as the Maghreb, while Egypt is a transcontinental country by virtue of the Sinai Peninsula, which is in Asia." [that is almost entirely irrelevant and misleading. It goes on to talk of military bases ... Roman military bases? Naaah.]

You are on better ground in suggesting that "Mediterranean" be linked, however. At least there's mention of Latin and the Roman empire, towards the top of the article. Tony (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that this article should not be discussing any less than three paragraphs about the Roman Republic, but it only has one. It is mostly about the Roman Empire, this concerns me because when I looked up this page it was under "the Roman Republic government" and it shows the bare minimum of the precise topic I had wished to see. I really hope that someone can add more about my topic so that I can find my search easier and with more factual information than I have found in the past. Thank you, and please consider adding to this! -Concerned Viewer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.229.32 (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Preceded by Issue

Procededs are more important to show how big was the Roman Empire. And There was great Empires and Cultures among them like Carthaginians, Pontus', Greeks and Macedonians those countries had a important situation on Roman history. And also the had effected the roman culture as Greeks and Macedonians. we can't ignore them. Celikadam1 13:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celikadam1 (talk • contribs)

The predecessor of the STATE we call the Roman Republic was the kingdom. It conquered a multitude of other states and peoples, but to call them "predecessors" takes the issue too far. The influence of Greek culture is mentioned in the article, so we do not ignore them. Varana (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Varana on this point. Perhaps the solution is to expanded the info box with Conquered and Absorbed for each of the phases of the Rome civilization?--D. Norris (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)