Talk:Municipium
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
The magistrates...[edit]
It seems to me that the discussion of municipal magistrates here is either too simple or else not simple enough. A variety of high magistracies seem to have existed in early municipia. A uniform system of quattuorviri was introduced in 89 BC, and only later (I believe) developed into what are here called "duoviri" (more properly duoviri juri dicundo) and "aediles" (duoviri aedilicia potestate). If it is felt that a detailed discussion of these magistracies would be out of place here, then perhaps the "duoviri" and "aediles" should be replaced with "principal magistrates"; as it stands the text seems to me inaccurate.
Mjhrynick (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Accuracy and the class baloney[edit]
Of course the article as of right now is a stub. I just started work on it. The article does not say many important things and what it does say is not too accurate. In response to the "it is felt" concept, apparently no one but me at the moment is doing any feeling on the topic at all. WP is a do-it-yourself organization within the policy guidelnes so your "it is felt" is just as important as anyone else's "it is felt." Don't get put off by administrative god-playing on WP. As ex-aditors they have a problem distinguishing between editing and administering. One problem about the topic, of course, is the telescoping of time. The article spends all its time on early republican distinctions and then does not get that right. I see an enclosed note that this is supposed to be British English. Well this snobbery is typical of the whole cast of British class society in the 19th century. The British had to have their class distinctions, so naturally they attributed their own frame of mind to the Romans. I'm not saying the Romans had no classes but in distinguishing the colony from the municipality class was farthest from their minds. It isn't like Pitcairn island, where the first concern of the British mutineers was to make sure there was a civic difference between English and natives. In Roman legal theory, a city-state being incorporated into Rome was locally autonomous. That means it kept its local constitution and citizenship. If there were colonists from Rome present they were given the option of keeping their own city's rights and obligations. Sometimes the non-Romans were given the option. Some locals liked the Roman deal better than the local deal. They complained loud and long agitating for a new deal. These complaints were not like those of the helots against Sparta. The Italians were NOT a different class nor were they being oppressed as a lower class. Rome's classes, the patricians and plebeians, had nothing at all to do with ethnic origin. Some of the best families were not even Italic, they were Etruscan. Compare British colonization of Kenya or Dutch colonization of South Africa. In those latter cases the colonists established a legal class with them riding on the top of the coach. Getting tossed off the top was a major event for them. This is not Roman. Many locals went to Rome to become famous, useful, loved and appreciated by Romans there even though they were still tagged as locals. The Roman dominion, republican or imperial, was chiefly concerned with bringing about peace and stability, not class differences. The integrated communities were proud to be Roman. So, I'm removing this class baloney reflective of British snobbery, and also expanding the timeline. Eventuslly.Dave (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
De Situ Britanniae[edit]
WTF is De Situ Britanniae doing here? A 18th century forgery can hardly add any useful information to this article. It just obfuscates the subject which is hazy enough as it is. I am planning to clean it up and add some references to actual municipia and municipal laws but I first want to know what others think. Kleuske (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)