Talk:Classical republic

Venice

Venice was headed by an elective monarch; see doge. This makes the definition of republic as any state that was not headed by a monarch difficult here. Can it be recast with republic/res publica/politeia defined as principal sense of the last; "way a polis works; Constitution"? Septentrionalis 02:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete page

This page is redundant. There is mixed government and this page. They both mean the same thing. Why are there two seperate pages? I don't understand.

I am thinking of deleting this and making this a redirect page. does anybody have any feedback?WHEELER 02:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because you seem to be the only person in the world that holds this view. - SimonP 12:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"In a piece of high presbyterian cant that long was remembered, Cartwright wrote that the civil constitution ought to match the ecclesiastical, "even as the hangings to the house"...the architect had cribbed his plans from the decorator: he had built according to the classical-republican theory of mixed government." PROFESSOR MICHAEL MENDLE, Dangerous Positions; Mixed Government, the Estates of the Realm, and the Making of the "Answer to the xix propositions", University of Alabama Press, 1985.,pg 67

PLEASE STOP LYING SIMONP. Here is Prof. Michael Mendle who states that the "classical republican theory IS mixed government.!!WHEELER 13:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How many times must I post this stuff:

• Republic—A form of government by the people that includes the rule of law, a mixed constitution, and the cultivation of an active and public-spirited citizenry. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, editors: Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, 2nd ed, HarperCollins College Publishers, l995. pg 267.
• Mixed constitution (or government)—The republican policy of combining or balancing rule by one, by the few, and by the many in a single government, with the aim of preventing the concentration of power in any person or social group. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 265.
• "A mixed government, a virtous citizenry, the rule of law,--these were the republican ideals of Machiavelli's Discourses. If much of this sounds familiar, it is because this vision inspired the Atlantic Republican tradition--a way of thinking about politics that spread from Italy to Great Britain in the seventeenth century, and from there to Britain's American colonies in the eighteenth." Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 33.
• Classical republicanism emphasized civic duty and social cohesion. Founders and the Classics, Carl J. Richard, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994. pg 3.
• Sir Thomas Smyth in his treatise on English government of his time defined all commonwealths (republics) as mixed. De Republica Anglorum, 1583. ch. 6

SO NO I am NOT the only one promoting this! So please stop lying SimonP.WHEELER 13:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This page needs to melded into Mixed government or mixed government melded into this page.WHEELER 13:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No one disagrees that a mixed government can be an element of a republican government, but that does not mean they are the same thing. - SimonP 14:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That is why it is called "Classical Republic". The definition of Classical republic, Let Professor Mendle say it: "In a piece of high presbyterian cant that long was remembered, Cartwright wrote that the civil constitution ought to match the ecclesiastical, "even as the hangings to the house"...the architect had cribbed his plans from the decorator: he had built according to the classical-republican theory of mixed government."

What you have written is that a Classical republic is a modern republic. Then why the different names for the same thing.WHEELER 00:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Three Elements of the Roman Republic

I have just about had it. Has any of the Contributors here at Wikipedia in political science and in Classical Antiquity read? Because I come across stuff that blows everything away that is going on here at Wikipedia.

Two consuls instead of a king now stood each year at the head of the community; the assembly of adult males which elected them remained the same, as did the body of elders who advised them; this was the senate, composed in practice of former magistrates. Time and circustance produced various modifications in THE THREE ELEMENTS whose interplay WAS (italics in original) the Roman political system, including notably the creation of a large number of lesser magistrates; NOTHING ALTERED THE CENTRAL FACT OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT, THAT IT WAS THE COLLECTIVE RULE OF AN ARISTOCRACY, IN PRINCIPLE and to a varying extent in practice dependent on the will of a popular assembly.

Michael Crawford, The Roman Republic 2ND Edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978, 1992. pg 22-23.

I don't know but right there refutes what is said in this article about "Republic" being democracy. Do you see your WP article on Republic with ANY of this information? NOOOOO. All your articles dealing with Republic are messed up!!!WHEELER 01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mixed government needs to be moved here!!! That is what a classical republic is! WHEELER 01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I will wait two days for responses. Are there any disagreements? Either this page is moved to Mixed government or mixed government gets moved here. Which is it people?WHEELER 01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Try using the correct templates: See WP:MERGE for the process. And yes, before you ask, it'll be controversial. --Nema Fakei 01:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a scholarly work that says that Classical republican theory is mixed government:

"In a piece of high presbyterian cant that long was remembered, Cartwright wrote that the civil constitution ought to match the ecclesiastical, "even as the hangings to the house"...the architect had cribbed his plans from the decorator: he had built according to the classical-republican theory of mixed government." ~ Prof. Michael Mendle Dangerous Positions, pg 67.

Mixed government is a republic. Polybius and Cicero defined it as such. Paul A. Rahe, in his Republics, Ancient and Modern defines Sparta as a Republic and says it had Mixed government. Sparta is a Classical republic.

These two pages "Mixed government" and "Classical republic" need to be condensed.WHEELER 21:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

Conditional merge I would agree that this article tells us nothing that other articles do not. If article information from here is useful in adding to mixed government, then add it. However, I would say that it's making quite a strong endorsement of one POV which may not be universal for classical republic to redirect to mixed government, so I would prefer the redirect to go to classical republicanism, which seems the more natural location. --Nema Fakei 21:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I also feel that this article is not very useful, but we have to be careful about where it is merged. A merge to mixed government is a bad idea. Mixed government is one of the features that is associated with many classical republics, but it is hardly the only feature and not all entities deemed classical republics could be considered mixed. The two terms are thus far from synonymous. We also need to be careful about the distinction between classical republics and the ideology of classical republicanism. Classical republics are simply those states of the classical period that modern scholars sometimes call republics. Classical republicanism, despite its name, is an ideology that was created in the Renaissance. It was inspired by how Renaissance scholars believed classical states functioned, but actually has very little to do with the Roman Republic and other classical states that we today call republics. - SimonP 01:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what is posted at Classical republicanism

"That classical republicanism actually refers to a philosophy developed primarily in the early modern period is acknowledged by many scholars to be confusing; hence some now use the term early modern republicanism to cover this branch of political thought."

My response is that Classical republics are actual historical realities. Not "theories" created in the early modern age.

This is what is posted at Classical republicanism]]

"Classical republicanism is also known as civic humanism, a term first employed by the German scholar of late medieval and early modern Italian history, Hans Baron

This has nothing to do with the Doric city-states of Crete, Sparta, Carthage, Solonic Athens, or Rome. The ancients didn't practice "civic humanism". This is not mentioned in Aristotle, Polybius, Plato, Plutarch or Cicero.

What is an ancient Republic? If the Romans who also learned Greek and the intellectuals of Rome spoke Greek and their teachers were Greek,--They translated the term politeia to res publica. Politeia and republic are synonymous in the Ancient world.

This article should only concern itself with the City-states of Classical Antiquity. The Wikipedian article Classical republicanism does not cover or concern itself with the city states of Classical Antiquity. It doesn't quote from Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Polybius, Plutarch, none.

Mixed government has a proper title; it is called now a Classical republic. "Classical republic" is a title; a title for a form of government; to wit: De republica Anglorum written by Sir Thomas Smyth. How does he use the word?

Niccolo Machiavelli called Sparta a republic and it was mixed. Mixed=republic. If politeia is mixed government then a republic is mixed government. A classical republic is mixed government.

I don't agree with your suggestion. The ancients didn't practice civic humanism. Cicero said that the Mother of republicanism is FEAR.

"When however, instead, a group of men seize the state by exploiting their wealth or noble birth or some other resource, that is a political upheaval, though they call themselves conservatives. If, on the other hand, the people gain the supremacy, and the whole government is conducted according to their wishes, a state of affairs has arisen which is hailed as liberty, but is, in fact, chaos. But when there is a situation of mutual fear, with one person or one class fearing another, then because nobody has sufficient confidence in his own strength a kind of bargain is struck between the ordinary people and the men who are powerful." The result, in that case, is the mixed constitution which Scipio recommends. (It is footnoted as monarchy, oligarchy and democracy.) Which means that weakness, not nature or good intention, is the mother of justice." Cicero, On Government, On the State, trans. by Michael Grant 23-4, pg 180.

This doesn't square with Classical republicanism and its "civic humanism".

The merge is to make mixed government a redirect to Classical republics.WHEELER 01:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm, looking again at the evidence you present, and the suggestion you are making, I retract my previous statement. Oppose Merge on the grounds that it makes an implicit POV claim. --Nema Fakei 02:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And your stand is also POV. Your POV is in all these articles relating to republic! British republicanism. When Prof. Greenidge writes this: "History has shown that such forms of government (speaking about mixed government) are suited to a commonsense non-idealistic people: the Phoenicians of Carthage, the Dorians of Greece, Romans, and Englishmen have all developed this type of polity" (pg 76); "Besides acknowledged difficulty of the creation of such a system,...so amply illustrated by the history of Sparta, Rome, and England" in A Handbook of Greek Constitutional History. What is he saying? Now, I posted a verifiable fact. It isn't POV.WHEELER 02:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:SimonP wrote this: "Mixed government is one of the features that is associated with many classical republics, but it is hardly the only feature and not all entities deemed classical republics could be considered mixed." Please post verifiable facts that back up this statement. What is the definition of a "politiea" that relates to a form of government that Aristotle said? As far as I can tell there is ONLY ONE parameter. Sir Thomas Symth when he wrote De republica Anglorum had ONLY ONE parameter. What Classical republics weren't mixed?WHEELER 02:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Republic—A form of government by the people that includes the rule of law, a mixed constitution, and the cultivation of an active and public-spirited citizenry. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, editors: Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, 2nd ed, HarperCollins College Publishers, l995. pg 267.

Mixed constitution (or government)—The republican policy of combining or balancing rule by one, by the few, and by the many in a single government, with the aim of preventing the concentration of power in any person or social group. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 265.

The above is not POV, I pulled it from a College textbook.WHEELER 02:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has Sparta as a Classical republic. Why is Sparta a Classical republic? It is because according to Wikipedia it "...is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on popular consent and whose governance is based on popular representation and control."? Is this why Sparta is a Classical republic? I mean this page says that Sparta is a Classical republic. Why is she?WHEELER 02:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparta is listed as a republic on this page because it is a classical state that modern scholars sometimes call a republic. That it is also a often considered to have a mixed government is part of the reason it is called a republic, but not the only one. You can be called a republic without having a mixed government. Take the example of Athens, a state that had various forms of government, but none of them mixed. Despite this it is not uncommon to see it also called a republic. For instance there is a book at my library by UC Berkley professor Raphael Sealey titled The Athenian Republic. Machiavelli also refers to Athens as a republic. - SimonP 11:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I must agree here; Polybius knew many poleis, each with a politeia, and regarded Rome as exceptional among them, because it had a mixed government. Also, this article is the place, finally, to explain Rahe's theory, citing it to him; mixed government is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Athens was a Politeia under Solon. Then, Athens stopped being a politeia under Psistratus and his tryanny of course. Then, Cleisthenes restored much of the Solonic constitution. Prof. Kagan calls this "limited democracy" because it is a Politeia still.

In so saying, you disagree with Aristotle, Ath. Pol. $41:

These events then came about in the following periods; but at the date mentioned the people having become sovereign over affairs established the now existing politeia, in the archonship of Pythodorus, when the People's having accomplished its return by its own efforts made it appear just for it to assume the government. In the list of reforms this was the eleventh in number. There first occurred the organization of the original [politeia] after the settlement at Athens of Ion and his companions, for it was then that the people were first divided into the four Tribes and appointed the Tribal Kings. The second, and the first subsequent one that involved the arrangement of the politeia, was the reform that took place in the time of Theseus, which was a slight divergence from the royal [politeia]. After that one came the reform in the time of Draco, in which a code of laws was first published. Third was the one that followed the civil disturbance in the time of Solon, from which democracy took its beginning. Fourth was the tyranny in the time of Peisistratus. Fifth the constitution of Cleisthenes, following the deposition of the tyrants, which was more democratic than the constitution of Solon. Sixth the reform after the Persian War, under the superintendence of the Council of Areopagus. Seventh followed the reform outlined by Aristeides but completed by Ephialtes when he put down the Areopagite Council, during which it came about because of the demagogues that the state made many mistakes, because of the empire of the sea.2 Eighth was the establishment of the Four Hundred, and after that, ninth, democracy again. Tenth was the tyranny of the Thirty and that of the Ten. Eleventh was the constitution established after the return from Phyle and from Peiraeus, from which date the constitution has continued down to its present form, constantly taking on additions to the power of the multitude. For the people has made itself master of everything, and administers everything by decrees and by jury courts in which the people is the ruling power, for even the cases tried by the Council have come to the people. And they seem to act rightly in doing this, for a few are more easily corrupted by gain and by influence than the many.

The rule of the people after 404 is a politeia, and one which acts rightly. Note also that Solon's constitution is a democracy, overthrown by Pisistratus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• "These reforms made the constitution much more democratic than that of Solon; for it had come about that the tyranny had obliterated the laws of Solon by disuse, and Cleisthenes aiming at the multitude had instituted other new ones, including the enactment of the law about ostracism." Loeb pg 67; xxii 1.
• "At this date, therefore, the state had advanced to this point, growing by slow stages with the growth of democracy;..." Loeb pg 71; xxii, 1.
• "But as the population increased, Ephialtes...having become the head of the People and having the reputation of being incorruptable and just in reagard to the constitution, attacked the Council. First he made away with many of the Areopagites by bringing legal proceedings against them...he stripped the Council of all its added powers which made it the safeguard of the constitution..." Loeb pg 75; xxv 1-2.
• "In this way the Council of the Areopagites was deprived of the superintendence of affairs. After this there came about an increased relaxation of the constitution, due to the eagerness of those who were the leaders of the People." Loeb pg 77; xxvi 1.

Now, the Council of the Aeropagus was disbanded THUS creating the Athenian democracy! How do you work the Kyklos if you don't understand how governments change, into another form? If a Republic is just a democracy, then there is NO such thing as a kyklos. A democracy is not a politeia! A democracy has a dominant factor and a politeia does not have a dominant factor. No one has ever taken into account the destruction of the upper house. The destruction of the upper house changes the form of government. There is a demarcation. All those city-states can be called politeias (republics) that had mixed government or no dominant factor. Once there is a dominant factor, a politeia stops.WHEELER 22:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A democracy can very much be a politeia, which can be translated simply as 'constitution' or 'form of government.' Aristotle in the Constitution of the Athenians, for instance, calls all forms of government from despotism to democracy politeia. - SimonP 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

WHEELER, a minor note on the side: "Once there is a dominant factor, a politeia stops", I think you're confusing a specific usage of a word in a particular context with the lexeme itself. Once there is a dominant factor, as you put it, a society ceases to accord with Plato's ideal politeia. However, the word politeia was in existence before Plato, and the basic sense remains. --Nema Fakei 14:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If I added on the mixed government page that another word for mixed government is a classical republic, would that be deleted?WHEELER 22:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because as has been repeatedly said, the two terms are not synonymous. - SimonP 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Then go ahead and delete the "merge notices" then. I have spent my wad. And it seems it is going nowhere. I am in the minority and making no headway. No one else has responded. I am not fooled. I know exactly what is going on. Modern republicans, British republicans, Democrats and Socialists and the Academics with those sympathies have a campaign where they will deny the title of Republic to mixed government. They won't allow it. I have noticed that in a great many academic books on this subject they never use the term republic because they are hell bent on denying that meaning of republic. It is a guiding principle. They always use the term Mixed government as if it was the proper title; there is a conscious program in academia to deny, obfuscate and to slant in this regard. Because to do the opposite, confirm that republic also means "mixed government", is then to undermine modern republicanism and really puts out that people who live this ideology have all been living a lie all these years. Logic is a powerful force that can't be denied. Yes, Paramenides principle of non-contradiction is pretty powerfull.WHEELER 01:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if the word "republic" does not appear on "mixed government" page or the term Classical republics defined as "mixed government", and you won't allow it Contrary to Wikipedia policy--I have no business here. This is controlled.WHEELER 01:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Machiavelli is NOT a Classical republican". Rahe, Paul A., "In the Shadow of Lucretius: The Epicurean Foundations of Machiavelli's Political Thought", History of Political Thought, Vol. XXVIII, #1, Spring, 2007.

It is very very wrong to have Machiavelli in this article about Classical republics. Machiavelli has nothing to do with Classical republics!WHEELER 01:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

TELL THE WIKITRUTH

The article states this:

"A classical republic, according to certain modern political theorists, is a state of Classical Antiquity that is considered to have a republican form of government, a state where sovereignty rested with the people rather than a ruler or monarch. These include states like Sparta, Athens, and the Roman Republic. The Romans used the term res publica to describe their state, but the most common sense of that term is closer to body politic or commonwealth. The phrase was coined, it seems, to distinguish the post-Tarquin political system with the previous monarchy, the res privata."

"The idea of republicanism was a creation of the Renaissance. The Renaissance scholars, most prominent among them being Niccolò Machiavelli, looked back on the ancient period with great interest and reverence."

The Spring edition of the journal History of Political Thought, has just published an article by Paul A. Rahe, that says, "Machiavelli is NOT a classical republican"! Yet this article states that "republicanism" had its start with Niccolo Machiavelli. Classical republics are republics according to the definitions of Niccolo Machiavelli!

Here is another scholar:
"In a piece of high presbyterian cant that long was remembered, Cartwright wrote that the civil constitution ought to match the ecclesiastical, "even as the hangings to the house"...the architect had cribbed his plans from the decorator: he had built according to the classical-republican theory of mixed government." ~ Prof. Michael Mendle

Republic—A form of government by the people that includes the rule of law, a mixed constitution, and the cultivation of an active and public-spirited citizenry. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, editors: Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, 2nd ed, HarperCollins College Publishers, l995. pg 267. Mixed constitution (or government)—The republican policy of combining or balancing rule by one, by the few, and by the many in a single government, with the aim of preventing the concentration of power in any person or social group. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 265. "A mixed government, a virtous citizenry, the rule of law,--these were the republican ideals of Machiavelli's Discourses. If much of this sounds familiar, it is because this vision inspired the Atlantic Republican tradition--a way of thinking about politics that spread from Italy to Great Britain in the seventeenth century, and from there to Britain's American colonies in the eighteenth." Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 33. Classical republicanism emphasized civic duty and social cohesion. Founders and the Classics, Carl J. Richard, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994. pg 3. Sir Thomas Smyth in his treatise on English government of his time defined all commonwealths (republics) as mixed. De Republica Anglorum, 1583. ch. 6.

Mixed government IS the definition of classical republics. But this article states that the definition of classical republics is The Machiavellian. If Machiavelli is NOT a classical republican, why is he in the Classical republican article? Why are not MY academic sources allowed?WHEELER 01:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

republic isn't a form of government, while there may be different forms of government, including mixed government. republic is a form of political community which may establish different forms of government --77.113.22.70 (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

classical republicanism

article on classical republic is redundant to classical republicanism should be rather merged there. keep mixed government as is --77.113.22.70 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

moreover republic isn't a form of government, while there may be different forms of government including mixed government. republic is form of political community--77.113.22.70 (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Worth considering merging with Republic again?

I've been looking at the present versions of this article and Republic and I think that if we can get a sensible approach it should be possible to cover everything in this article in that article? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there is nothing currently here that is not better covered in the republic article. Until someone feels like writing a lot more about the republics of the classical period, I think this page should be redirected to Republic#Classical_republics. - SimonP (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So before taking any actions, who argued against merging/deleting in previous discussions, and why? I see your name in those discussions above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The previous discussion was over Wheeler's desire to merge this page with mixed government, and I and a couple others opposed that merge. It's the same debate that's been happening at talk:republic. I have no problem merging this into republic though. It can be unmerged if there is enough extra content added on the subject, but for now we don't have enough to justify a stand alone article. - SimonP (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. My proposal: I'd say basically we should look at this article to see if there is anything worth keeping, then make sure it is mentioned in some article somewhere, and then delete this article and redirect it to Classical republicanism? So is there anything in this article not already found somewhere else?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)