Talk:Sulla's first civil war
| Associated task forces: | ||
|---|---|---|
| / | ||
 | Roman and Byzantine military history task force | |
 | Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) | |
 | Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance | ||||||
| |||||||
Combining this article with the second civil war into "First Roman Civil War"
Hi all. As I was trying to improve this article, specifically the battles as I had done in the "second civil war" article, I was immediately confused. It seems that although there were different distinct periods in the war, they were not actually different wars but part of the same conflict. I propose to combine this article with the Second Civil War as it is the only correct way to go about improving this article. Note that the Spanish Wiki which covers this war in much greater detail shows this as being a single war. Further, any conflicts that occurred in 88-87 BC were part of the the ongoing Social War, not this one exactly. In fact there are no battles mentioned anywhere in the article and the first significant battle of this war took place until 83 BC, that being the Battle of Mount Tifata. I propose to name this article the "First Roman Civil War". Would be happy to get started, can work from both the English and Spanish wikipedias for best results.
Therefore,
, {{3O}} please advise. - Best, -Clark Sui (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- There is already an article in existence that I wrote a very, very long time ago, Sulla's civil wars, which covers both. dci | TALK 06:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Time for a title change
What is a "civil war?" The problem is, no matter what we say, that is an English definition. The Romans did have their own way of characterizing these periods and conflicts. They had a bellum civile, which was later in the later republic. Taking their cue from them the historians have called that later period the Roman Civil War, which is actually multiple conflicts. The end of the civil war was empire, which was specifically designed to put an end to civil war. That is what the pax augusta is, a period free from civil war. All war-like powerful men were given short-shrift by a very nasty emperor in a personal interview ending in a death sentence. Sulla is too early for that period. No matter what he did, the Romans did not call it civil War. In other words, the words civil war with regard to Roman history have already been pre-empted by Roman historians. These three titles here on Sulla's "civil wars" look mighty strange. Sulla did not conduct any civil wars. These were wars between magistrates using competing legal justifications. Partisan politics or some such words are the ones I have seen. Partisan strife. The conflicts were between the two parties, optimates and populares. They are not generally considered in the category of civil war. It follows that the Spanish editors and the English editors are adding their own concepts to it. I could never refer to these articles in good conscience because the only authorities I know on their being about "civil war" are the WP editors. I would name them more specifically, "sulla's March on Rome," or some such thing. Sulla is not a civil war figure. He is an optimate in the long conflict between populares and optimates. So, I am going to recommend what needs to be done, and the longer it goes on, the more obvious will it be that it needs to be done. Nothing personal at all. It is a good idea, in fact, but traditional history did not go in that direction, it went in some other direction. You strayed. Do you hate me? There is no sense in deleting the articles. Come up with some better names and recommend three name changes. You do it. I'm busy.Botteville (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- Update. Changed my mind. I'm eating crow on this. ipikak! Rejoice oh ye editors. Part of Appian's histories are the Roman Civil Wars. He does define what he means by that. They have to be within the same people and they have to involve dissent within the government, which is about what we think. In the American Civil War the government split in two, in the English Civil War it was king against parliament, etc. There is a third requirement, that killing (phonos) is involved. Just ordinary dissent will not do it. They have to be murdering each other out there on the House or Senate floor. Appian goes so far as to say when the civil wars began. That was with the Gracchi. Thus Sulla and Marius each trying to take over the government and trying to kill each other is Civil War. I still would not go for the title of Sulla's Civil War. Individuals don't wage civil wars by themselves! However I found Roman civil wars listing all the civil wars. It is clear to me that the editors are developing a system of nomenclature for the civil wars listed by Appian and others. Appian did not have such a system. This system of nomenclature - Sulla's Civil War, Caesar's Civil War - is original contribution, or at least seems so, unless someone can find a reference for it. That was my objection. But, my doubt is in doubt. I don't know what should be done. There are apparently at least several articles involved. I think I will wait and see how it develops. All the articles need refs. Maybe someone will turn up some refs for this system. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
"There is a third requirement, that killing (phonos) is involved."
Are you certain that he uses the term "phonos"? While it may mean "killing", it is the standard Greek term for murder. See for example The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 4 for definition and uses in the Bible. Dimadick (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)