Talk:Interregnum

Time Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Social and political Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

Line 3 :"emphasiar" is a word that I could not find in any on-line dictionary. Is this a coined word?

67.160.192.133 (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC) bakerforrest@yahoo.com 67.160.192.133 (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Interregnum

Is there any particular reason the interregnum in Rome following the exile of Tarquinius Superbus, for which the phrase was coined? Nor are there any mentions of other periods of interregnum which occurred in the Imperial Era. Surely these are just as valid as the others provides in the list of historical periods of interregnum.--121.220.41.64 (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, there was no interregnum after the expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus; he was the last king of Rome. After Tarquinius and the kings, Rome had two elected consuls and thus the term "interregnum" is not applicable. However, the very term was invented (if Livy can be trusted) Exactly FOR the succession of the Roman kings. For example, when Romulus, the first king of Rome, died, Rome entered the first instance of an interregnum (maybe not the first interregnum by practice, but the first time which the term "interregnum" was used in recorded history). The interregnum was a time when the leading patrician families of Rome jockeyed for the rule of Rome. As such, the Senate (the council of the heads of these leading families) decided that they should share the kingly power until a new king could be elected. This person bore the title of "interrex" (and hence "interregnum"). Basically, I agree with the above comments that Rome most definitely ought to be mentioned in this article on a term that is directly derived from Roman practice, just wanted to get the history clear.24.147.190.10 (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]