Talk:Roman dictator

WikiEdu assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BsKulp (article contribs).

Untitled

Out of curiosity, why is there a 120 year gap between Publius Sulpicius Galba Maximus and Lucius Cornelius Sulla on this list?--Lucky13pjn 15:40, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

After the Second Punic War, the dictatorship was outlawed in favor of the senatus consultam ultimam (a Senate act that authorized the consuls to take whatever action was needed to defend the Republic). Sulla illegally used the title for himself, and Caesar followed suit; after his assassination, Marc Antony outlawed it again, but it was still offered one more time by the Senate, to Augustus (who wisely refused it). Kuralyov 14:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the preceding comment is correct. The dictatorship was not "outlawed"; it fell into disuse because a system developed for assigning provincial commands. Sulla did not use the title illegally; he was named dictator by a Lex Valeria; however, he certainly had the office altered to suit him. The idea that Marc Antony "outlawed" the office of dictator sounds bizarre to me (exactly how did he do that?), but I have no sources for that. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

---

What exactly does a dictor have to do with horses? Is the title "master of horses" literal? Horse-tender seems a menial job for a dicator. It can't possibly be literal, can it? --Menchi 07:32, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Magister equitum sounds to my Latin more like "master of the riders, the knights or the cavalry".

The Master of the Horse was not the same person as the Dictator, it was the Dictator's assistant. And yes, the name comes from the fact that, very early on in the Republic (when Rome was still essentially a city-state), the Master of the Horse's duties included taking care of the Dictator's stables. Kuralyov 14:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not only that, but, since the Roman dictator was (at least in the old days) prohibited to command cavalry, the Master of the Horse had also this job. [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 20:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

recent additions

It should be noted that the voluminous anonymous addition is taken word for word from "A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities", John Murray, London, 1875, as found [1] here. How should that be annotated in the article? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 6 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)

Spelling quibble

User:Rich Farmbrough and User:Jayjg seem to be quibbling over the spelling of one word in this sentence:

This dictator held absolute military and civil power in the State, and was obligated to appoint as his deputy a Master of the Cavalry (Magister Equitum)

Rich changed the italicized "obligated" to "obliged", and Jayjg reverted it. In this context, the two words mean the same thing -- why is this change being summarily reverted, as if it were vandalism? (Personally I prefer 'obliged' as it is shorter and more euphonious, but if it were my article and someone made the reverse change, I wouldn't be reverting it.)

Zack 07:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Official title

The Magister Equitum article says that the official title of Dictator was Magister Populi. It contradicts this article. What's right?--Nixer 11:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Cicero

I thought Cicero had been a dictator also. In 64 BC the senate gave him "senatus consultum ultimum" for fighting against Catilina. That normally means: dictatorship. Cicero accepted it, I thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.117.192.163 (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Cicero was not a dictator. There seems to be some confusion about the phrase senatus consultum ultimum. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that what was called senatus consultum ultimum in reality was "only" a senatus consultum paenultimum. The senatus consultum "ultimum" said: "May the consuls watch out that the State may not incur any damage", implicating: "with all the means as they see fit". There was another, quite different, senatus consultum, not called ultimum but still ulterior to ultimum, which said: "May consul N. N. appoint a dictator" (the Dictator was not appointed by the senate itself). --91.34.236.41 (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

O Please

blah blah blah please dive me somethin to work with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.145.208 (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Praetor Maximus and Magister Peditum

These phrases were tagged as needing verification as titles equivalent to dictator. (I've provided verification for one, the Magister Populi.) If I'm reading Lintott's Constitution correctly (link to book online given in article), the Praetor Maximus was not the same as the dictator. I've moved that to a footnote. I can't find anything in my cursory search to indicate that the Magister Peditum was another title for a dictator; see this Google Books search for indications that the title dates to the empire in late antiquity, possibly an innovation of Constantine? I didn't pursue it. But obviously not a dictator, if it's under the emperors. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Origin of Dictator

The article focuses on the republican dictator, however, Livy in Book I of his histories refers to the King of Alba Longa appointing dictators in command of his army against Rome and its King Tullus Hostillius. I do not know if this is an actual term used by the latins at the time (a time which has at best dubious historical authenticity) or if Livy is using a current term to describe as best he understood it with a contemporary example. Perhaps ones more cognoscant than I could comment on whether this should be added to the article. Cheerio.

Question

In article it states that changes made by dictator can be rolled back after his term ended.

Does anyone have example for this instance and did Senate or assmeblies made reversal ?

Siyac 20:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Caesar?

The dates and the number of dictatorships held by Gaius Julius Caesar (9 since 46 BC) is different from what we find in List of Roman dictators (6 since 49 BC). Which is the right one? --93.32.32.123 (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Citations Needed -- August 2012

I added a citations needed template to the article because vast sections of it are lacking citations and, more importantly, embarrassingly wrong. It is as though the article were written by an apologist for Sulla's proscriptions as entirely legal. Rule by decree? Immune from prosecution? It's not even clear that dictators could put citizens to death without trial. Before hacking the article down, I think someone should add citations supporting these statements so we can at least preserve something like, "a common view of the dictator is X, but as Q shows ..." RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

History

Dear writer,

It should be mentioned that historians (how many?) often concluded that the old roman dictator showed "strength of character". By this they tried to convey their conclusion that the dictator knew his limits and stayed within. So when he reached his limits he asked to be dismissed with the reply: I have done the job as far as I could but this is the limit. If what I did is enough I don't know.

I see no reference to this.

???

145.129.136.48 (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

To the extent that individual historians comment on the character of specific Romans, that information should go in their separate biographical articles. But I don't think it's possible to generalize about dictators, since they were appointed on many occasions and for varied purposes. I'm not aware of any formula used to dismiss a dictator—indeed, I don't think any dictator was ever dismissed. A dictator could resign his office, but as far as I know, no particular speech was required of him in order to do so, and few if any are reported to have said anything resembling the above. I believe you would need to find a reliable source claiming that this was the case, and really it would need to be, or at least cite to, a Roman source. P Aculeius (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the case is probably more complicated then I outlined. Perhaps that was to simple. Regards.

145.129.136.48 (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

PS: I did met this formulation in the book: Life and Thought in the Greek and Roman World

by Max Cary, Theodore Johannes Haarhoff

145.129.136.48 (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Bias

This is not an unbiased article. It is full of buzz words and a one-sided view of the dictatorship. The idea of Sulla as a mere restorer of the Republic (when everyone knows he made something new), Caesar as a tyrant. It's all over the place with how blatant it is.

In addition to the inappropriately charged language, the article is also filled with factual errors. I just deleted a paragraph relating to Crassus. It referred to a Crassus who died in 91 BC and then talked about his role in events in 63.

This whole is a major mess in desperate need of complete rewriting. RemusBleys (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It would help if you mentioned what you describe as "buzz words" or how it's "one-sided". Views of Caesar and Sulla have been in dispute since their times, but both of the views you mention can be supported (or opposed) by mainstream scholarship. The entire article was just rewritten by Iffy—the previous version was largely mine, and probably was more in line with the opposite view, but from what I can see it's all cited to recent scholarship. Wikipedia reports what the scholarship says—if the wrong Crassus is linked, then fix the link to point to the right one, don't just delete everything that was said about him and claim that the article is horribly biased. P Aculeius (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of revert

@RemusBleys: Per edit comment. There is absolutely zero evidence, or even gossip, that the first cataline conspiracy was going to make Julius Caesar the Magister equitum. Then it doesn't even link to the right Crassus - supposedly it's supposed to link to the triumvir, but this links to a Crassus who died in 91 - well before the cataline conspiracy. Specific portions of book cited are:

Autronius supposedly plotted to seize power on the first day of the consular year by slaughtering the replacement consuls and, so Suetonius, installing Crassus as dictator with Caesar, elected curule aedile for that year, as his magister equitum; Crassus would then restore Sulla and Autronius to the consulship. The plot failed, however, and was exposed; according to Suetonius it fell through when Crassus did not appear on the day scheduled for the massacre, and Caesar thus did not give the signal, while Sallust had it that Catiline scuttled matters by appearing armed in the Forum a day early. Wilson, Dictator (2021) 304.

Footenote 3, ibid, explaining:

The accounts in Suetonius, Sallust, Livy, and Dio conflict on key points. The detail that Crassus was to seize the dictatorship is present only in Suetonius (9.1). Sallust, who did not mention Caesar here, had Cn. Piso involved in this plot, and said that the failure on January 1 led to a postponement to February 5, which would involve slaughtering not only the consuls but much of the senate, and Piso sailing with an army to seize the two Spains (Cat. 18). Suetonius, who for his part did not mention Catiline, had Piso and Caesar teaming up separately for a different plot to seize power the same year, Piso in Spain and Caesar in Rome, which was unexpectedly thwarted by Piso’s death (Iul. 9.3). Per Dio the plot involved Sulla, Autronius, Piso, and Catiline, with no mention of Crassus or Caesar (36.44.3–5). Dio, Livy, and Suetonius had Sulla party to the plot.

Consulting Suetonius, Iul. 9, the involved Crassus is with praenomen Marcus, suggesting Marcus Licinius Crassus. As to the quality discussion, I'll be silent on it and refer to the talk section above. Ifly6 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll eat my words, I didn't know Suetonius clueless that. But why include it, when it's even qualified as being false? If we are going to because we are going to repeat claims we find baseless (surely that belongs in the Wikipedia page and the Catiline Conspiracy), why not go ahead and mention that Dio thought it included Sulla? Or even mention Piso? By including some information like that, something apparently only in Suetonius - who "did not mention Catiline" you color what the event was about. RemusBleys (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know Suetonius said that, I was clueless to that*. Sorry for such a stupid typo. Can you edit Wikipedia comments? RemusBleys (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The reason it is included with mention of a conspiracy is to contextualise how the late republican dictatorship (LRD) is greatly different from the traditional dictatorship. It illustrates how the LRD is something used, described to be used, and believed to be, an instrument for forcing violent factional political change. Perhaps that intended illustration is not entirely clear. Some copyediting may be worth while. Ifly6 (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Exemplary dictators

Hi, I think that the readability of the article would be improved by including brief biographies of one or two "archetypical" dictators (e.g. Cincinnatus) to illustrate what the office actually entailed, before delving into the history and sundry details of nominations and reasons for nominations and other bureaucratic minutiae. Before "Origins" would seem to be the proper place. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)