Did the Roman Commonwealth become outdated and politically/structurally irrelevant?

I take your point, but in my defense let me say this, the way in which historians gain suture is by researching, publishing, and than allowing others in the community to review there work, thus peer reviewed, the historians I am referring to Pirenne Gibbon especially wrote what is considered, by a slid 99% of the historical community, the foundational works for not just Roman history, but the modern study of history all together. When it comes to this reticular subject all the writings of these authors, who have been dead for some time, have been checked and rechecked, what Conrad is saying is that we can ignore them because of this one other author that he found, this would be like toughing out Einstein’s Special theory of relativity because 50 year ago one professor at the University of Montana wrote one book disagreeing with it

As an expert on Greek and Roman history, I present concrete data so as to dispel confusion on the term "politeia" and the meaning of the term "commonwealth" which is the more accurate term:

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2005/2005-09-73.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=dub...esult&resnum=1

http://books.google.com/books?id=qz6...sult&resnum=10

http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Res_publica

http://annourbis.com/Livy/Livius-1/1...monwealth.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski

As an expert on Greek and Roman history, I present concrete data so as to dispel confusion on the term "politeia" and the meaning of the term "commonwealth" which is the more accurate term:

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2005/2005-09-73.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=dub...esult&resnum=1

http://books.google.com/books?id=qz6...sult&resnum=10

http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Res_publica

http://annourbis.com/Livy/Livius-1/1...monwealth.html

---

OK clearly we need to have a brief discussion about sources, first I presented definitions form the Encyclopedia Britannica respected for it's accuracy and published by the university of Chicago, Conrad from 'the internet encyclopedia' virtually unknown and published by who knows who, when it comes to texts I refer to the foundational authors of this subject, and he a website with an add for envoy, I make one mind numbingly simple request, an article from a major peer reviewed journal expecting something form jstor and instead I find a 'review' from a small liberal arts collage in Pennsylvania, it is clear that I am not getting though to this guy, and that he has not been formally trained as a historian, this is not me saying that you are not smart Conrad, simply that it is clear you have not been though a history program at a University, so I give up this argument with Conrad, and simply ask others to consider the sources.

Yes, you are correct. College writers that specialize in Greek history, language and culture are invalid whilst you being a beginner know more information? Overbearing information is false with book usage of the particular term to your "knowledge" but you have provided no evidence to the contrary. You bend historical fact to suit your own needs.

Good luck, I still have hope for you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski

Yes, you are correct. College writers that specialize in Greek history, language and culture are invalid whilst you being a beginner know more information? Overbearing information is false with book usage of the particular term to your "knowledge" but you have provided no evidence to the contrary. You bend historical fact to your suit your own needs.

Good luck, I still have hope for you!

---

I’m not going to get back into this with you, but I will say again, one article from a major peer-reviewed journal and I will concede the point, that is all you have to provide, something that, if things are as you say, should not be difficult.

You guys are still on about this commonwealth thing?

I mean, you are both arguing your sides for two entirely different definitions of the word, from two entirely different periods of time, and there is certainly evidince to indicate you are each right to a degree.

Also, if this is going to take a spin back to the intelligence issue, I'm going to quote Socrates.

"If I know anything, it is that I know nothing."

Surely you, great minds that you each are, can understand the gist of what I'm saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demonhero

You guys are still on about this commonwealth thing?

I mean, you are both arguing your sides for two entirely different definitions of the word, from two entirely different periods of time, and there is certainly evidince to indicate you are each right to a degree.

Also, if this is going to take a spin back to the intelligence issue, I'm going to quote Socrates.

"If I know anything, it is that I know nothing."

Surely you, great minds that you each are, can understand the gist of what I'm saying?

---

I think you have it the core of our debate, there is only one definition of the word Commonwealth, I think we both agree on that, and there is a tremendous difference between Republic and Commonwealth, I think we would both agree on that as well, what is at issue is weather Rome was a Republic or a Commonwealth, a matter the has to be established before a discussion on weather the system was outdated can begin

I have provided concrete proof on the matter whilst you have not provided such information as all you state is for more proof to be provided.

I hope Theodore Mommsen is good enough for you:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/libr...msen_1_4_2.htm

An abstract/details by the Cambridge Journals on R.W Moore's The Roman Commonwealth

http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ne&aid=2610888

Wikipedia

The English noun commonwealth dates from the fifteenth century. The original phrase "common-wealth" or "the common weal" comes from the old meaning of "wealth," which is "well-being." The term literally meant "common well-being." Thus commonwealth originally meant a state or nation-state governed for the common good as opposed to an authoritarian state governed for the benefit of a given class of owners. Commonwealth derives from the Latin term res publica, a broad concept which is also sometimes translated as "public affairs" or "the state" in certain contexts. Res publica is also the term from which the English word republic arises.

A republic is a state or country that is not led by a monarch,[1][2] in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have an impact on its government.[4][5] The word 'republic' is derived from the Latin phrase res publica which can be translated as "public affairs".

Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. The most common definition of a republic is a state without a monarch,[6] In republics such as the US and France the executive is legitimated both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. In the United States Founding Fathers like James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy[7], and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as "republicans".[8] In modern political science, republicanism refers to a specific ideology that is based on civic virtue and is considered distinct from ideologies such as liberalism.[9]

Most often a republic is a sovereign country, but there are also subnational entities that are referred to as republics. For instance the Soviet Union was composed of distinct Soviet So******t Republics. Article IV of the Constitution of the United States "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government."[10]

Niccolò Machiavelli described the governance and foundation of the ideal republic in his work Discourses on Livy. These writings, as well as those of his contemporaries such as Leonardo Bruni, are the foundation of the ideology political scientists call republicanism.[11][12]

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...#ref=ref248864

Rome » The republic

But, as it turned out, the city-state had barely begun to display its full political potential. To the west, two non-Greek cities, Carthage and Rome, began to struggle for mastery, and after the defeat of the Carthaginian general Hannibal at Zama (202 bc), Rome emerged as the strongest state in the Mediterranean. (See ancient Rome.)

The Greeks did not know how to classify Rome. The Greek historian Polybius, who chronicled Rome’s rise, suggested that its constitution was such a success because it was a judicious blend of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. The Romans, a conservative, practical people, showed what they thought of such abstractions by speaking only of an unanalyzed “public thing”—res publica—and thus gave a new word, republic, to politics. With this focus the patriotism of the city-state reached its greatest intensity. The Romans were deeply attached to their traditions, all of which taught the same lesson. For example, the legendary hero Gaius Mucius Scaevola gave his right hand to the flames to prove that there was nothing a Roman would not endure for his city, which therefore would never be defeated. That passionate devotion to Rome’s survival was tested again and again in war. All the tales of early Rome turn on battle. With dour persistence the peasants who had gathered on the seven hills beside the river Tiber resisted every invader, fought back after every defeat, learned from all their mistakes, and even, however reluctantly and belatedly, modified their political institutions to meet the new needs of the times as they arose.

The ruins of the Roman Forum, Rome, Italy. [Credits : Stephen Studd—Stone/Getty Images]Polybius was right: power in Rome was indeed shared among the people, the aristocracy (embodied in the Senate), and the consuls—the executive officers of the republic who had replaced the kings. The claims of the many and the few were fought out at election time, when the world’s first clearly identifiable political parties appeared. Until the republic’s decline, the results of elections were universally respected, and the triumphant alliance of the few and the many against the world was proclaimed in the letters blazoned on the city’s buildings and battle standards: “SPQR,” for Senatus populusque Romanus (“The Senate and the people of Rome”).

Like Athenian democracy, this system worked well for a long time, and if the chief Athenian legacy was the proof that politics could be understood and debated logically and that under the right conditions democracy could work, Rome proved that the political process of competition for office and the public discussion of policy were valuable things in themselves.

Nevertheless, the Roman Republic had been forged in a grim world. Wars, always supposedly in self-defense, had gradually extended Rome’s power over Italy. It is not surprising that what impressed the world most about the city was its military strength rather than its political institutions, even though the two were intimately related. As the weakness of Rome’s neighbours became apparent, the Romans began to believe in their mission to rule, “to spare the conquered and war down the proud,” as their greatest poet, Virgil, put it. Military strength, in short, led to military adventurism. By the 1st century bc, Rome, having become a naval power as well as a military one, had conquered the whole Mediterranean basin and much of its hinterland. The strains of empire building made themselves felt. The Roman armies, no longer composed of citizens temporarily absent from the plow or the workshop but of lifetime professionals, were now loyal to their generals rather than to the state; and those generals brought on civil war as they competed to turn their foreign conquests into power at home. The population of Rome swelled, but economic growth could not keep pace, so many citizens became paupers dependent on a public dole. The aristocrats appointed to govern the provinces saw their postings chiefly as opportunities to get rich quickly by pillaging their unfortunate subjects. The republic could not solve those and other problems and was in the end superseded by the monarchy of Augustus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski

I have provided concrete proof on the matter whilst you have not provided such information as all you state is for more proof to be provided.

I hope Theodore Mommsen is good enough for you:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/libr...msen_1_4_2.htm

An abstract/details by the Cambridge Journals on R.W Moore's The Roman Commonwealth

http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ne&aid=2610888

---

Well I think you may have pasted the wrong link for the Cambridge Journal as it did not take me to anything titled the Roman Commonwealth, and no, a 19th Literary Classiest is simply not an historical source.