![]() | Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 22, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 31 July 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Was hooked from the first paragraph, @ Gog the Mild:. The only things that really jumped out for me (and apologies if you've already caught and corrected these) were:
Otherwise, nicely done. 47thPennVols ( talk) 22:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I've studied this particular consular election, and I've not found any source that supports:
Also, it is not true that Bibulus' watching for omens technically invalidated the year's legislation. At very least, it's POV (there's a debate about it); at worst, it's blatantly wrong (the debate seems to lean toward the latter, especially in light of the fact that the legislation was eventually approved by the senate -- who wrote this anyway?). The declaration regarding watching for omens had to be made in person in the forum, and another notice, one that declared adverse omens had been seen, needed to be made as well. On this question, see J. Linderski, "Constitutional aspects of the consular elections in 59 B.C." Historia 14 (1965) 423-442. -- rmagill 17:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I was struck (in a good way) by the LEAD. Two small questions. First is there evidence that RS have described him as an unimaginative conservative
? I didn't see this phrase used elsewhere in the article. Also can you conceive an enmity? Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
17:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The use of Tom Holland's book "Rubicon: The Triumph and Tragedy of the Roman Republic" in the article is questionable as a secondary source. Not because its a popular history, but that Holland's book does NOT cite for his own claims. Citation no. 34 being one such case. Tatum's "Patrician Tribune" could serve as a substitute for some of these claims. To be candid, I think Holland needs to be removed from this article. 2603:6080:8B0D:3E80:B178:EF9E:220C:B838 ( talk) 19:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
curule, the prose fails to call the Catilinarian conspiracy by its proper name, and this whole section is nonsense:
Bibulus was firmly in the camp of the self-described boni (good men). The boni were the traditionalist senatorial majority of the Roman Republic, politicians who believed that the role of the Senate was being usurped by the legislative people's assemblies for the benefit of a few power hungry individuals. The boni were against anyone who attempted to use these legislative assemblies to reform the state; which was a major policy of the populist Julius Caesar. Caesar nominated himself to stand for the consular elections of 59 BC, with the support of his powerful allies Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and Marcus Licinius Crassus...
The Boni, led by Cato, walked out of the Senate en masse to prevent it being heard. Caesar took the bill to the Centuriate Assembly, largely made up of ex-soldiers.The following paragraphs minimises how unpopular the First triumvirate was for their heavy-handed norms-breaking tactics in 59 BC, as is clearly shown in Gruen 1995 and also in Morstein-Marx 2021. It then gives a hugely tendentious summary of the Vettius affair, something which modern historians are very hesitant to make conclusions on, doesn't seem to understand that consular going-away speeches are in contione and not apud senatum, and inverts the timeline associated with the lex Vatinia while also not engaging with the possibility that the the consuls of 59 were assigned to defend Italy (see Morstein-Marx 2021 and Rafferty 2017). The discussion on 52 BC fails to engage with Ramsey 2016, which (I think) is the most convincing reconstruction and inverts the timeline associated with Bibulus' delay in assuming a proconsulship (he could have found one in 58). I would support delisting this as a good article. Ifly6 ( talk) 05:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 22, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 31 July 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Was hooked from the first paragraph, @ Gog the Mild:. The only things that really jumped out for me (and apologies if you've already caught and corrected these) were:
Otherwise, nicely done. 47thPennVols ( talk) 22:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I've studied this particular consular election, and I've not found any source that supports:
Also, it is not true that Bibulus' watching for omens technically invalidated the year's legislation. At very least, it's POV (there's a debate about it); at worst, it's blatantly wrong (the debate seems to lean toward the latter, especially in light of the fact that the legislation was eventually approved by the senate -- who wrote this anyway?). The declaration regarding watching for omens had to be made in person in the forum, and another notice, one that declared adverse omens had been seen, needed to be made as well. On this question, see J. Linderski, "Constitutional aspects of the consular elections in 59 B.C." Historia 14 (1965) 423-442. -- rmagill 17:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I was struck (in a good way) by the LEAD. Two small questions. First is there evidence that RS have described him as an unimaginative conservative
? I didn't see this phrase used elsewhere in the article. Also can you conceive an enmity? Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
17:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The use of Tom Holland's book "Rubicon: The Triumph and Tragedy of the Roman Republic" in the article is questionable as a secondary source. Not because its a popular history, but that Holland's book does NOT cite for his own claims. Citation no. 34 being one such case. Tatum's "Patrician Tribune" could serve as a substitute for some of these claims. To be candid, I think Holland needs to be removed from this article. 2603:6080:8B0D:3E80:B178:EF9E:220C:B838 ( talk) 19:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
curule, the prose fails to call the Catilinarian conspiracy by its proper name, and this whole section is nonsense:
Bibulus was firmly in the camp of the self-described boni (good men). The boni were the traditionalist senatorial majority of the Roman Republic, politicians who believed that the role of the Senate was being usurped by the legislative people's assemblies for the benefit of a few power hungry individuals. The boni were against anyone who attempted to use these legislative assemblies to reform the state; which was a major policy of the populist Julius Caesar. Caesar nominated himself to stand for the consular elections of 59 BC, with the support of his powerful allies Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and Marcus Licinius Crassus...
The Boni, led by Cato, walked out of the Senate en masse to prevent it being heard. Caesar took the bill to the Centuriate Assembly, largely made up of ex-soldiers.The following paragraphs minimises how unpopular the First triumvirate was for their heavy-handed norms-breaking tactics in 59 BC, as is clearly shown in Gruen 1995 and also in Morstein-Marx 2021. It then gives a hugely tendentious summary of the Vettius affair, something which modern historians are very hesitant to make conclusions on, doesn't seem to understand that consular going-away speeches are in contione and not apud senatum, and inverts the timeline associated with the lex Vatinia while also not engaging with the possibility that the the consuls of 59 were assigned to defend Italy (see Morstein-Marx 2021 and Rafferty 2017). The discussion on 52 BC fails to engage with Ramsey 2016, which (I think) is the most convincing reconstruction and inverts the timeline associated with Bibulus' delay in assuming a proconsulship (he could have found one in 58). I would support delisting this as a good article. Ifly6 ( talk) 05:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)