Talk:Proconsul

Proconsul was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 4, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I believe the "History" section of this article is woefully incomplete. What about someone (more knowledgeable than myself) added a bit of discussion with systems like the ancient-Roman Consuls and Proconsuls. Was this system (or any other one that might be discussed) similar to or very different from the ancient-Chinese one? - J.R. There's an immense amount to be added, and perhaps this article should be regarded as a stub. There's also much that can be learned from the comparison of different political systems, but it does not necessarily follow that you can usefully compare a particular official post in one, with a similar post in another. The article specifies that the

refers to the end-stage of the Western Roman empire, but the earlier period needs to be discussed more. Do we have a map for the provinces of the Roman empire? A list of unfamiliar names is not very helpful. And the title needs a distinctive word. This will presumably affect other articles, and I'm new at this, and a little confusedd about the different ways for disambiguation, and I ask for some guidance. DGG 02:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC) .[reply]

The term has also been used as a disparagement towards individuals, especially ambassadors, who have attempted to influence the governments of foreign countries. In one instance, former Canadian cabinet minister Lloyd Axworthy called former United States ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci "the U.S. ambassador-turned-proconsul" in an opinion piece in the 29 April 2003 Globe and Mail newspaper. Axworthy's comments were in response to Cellucci's frequent warnings to the Canadian government on domestic policy matters (such as the decriminalization of marijuana) which were often perceived by Canadians as threats.

Shouldn't the 3rd last word in that sentence read "Americans"? ChristopherBorcsok 17:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just that I'm an idiot (NB: this may well be the case) or is the Ancient Rome section of this article exceptionally difficult to comprehend? Perhaps someone with expertise in the area could take a look at it. It seems rather disjointed and confused currently. DublinDilettante (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to this edit, the opening of the article stated that a proconsul "was a Roman consul whose imperium (the power to command an army) was extended, or a former consul who was given consular imperium." Since this highly misleading description has been in the article for a long time, so I thought I would explain why I changed it. Pro is Latin for "for," as in "on behalf of." Constitutionally, only a currently serving consul could exercise military command. If a former consul (or anyone else) commanded troops, it was, at least theoretically, on behalf of the consul and thus proconsular. Proconsuls were generally former consuls. But there are counterexamples, notably Scipio. The vital point about the proconsulship is he exercised command on behalf of someone else. To focus on the "former consul" angle misses the basis for extending this concept to semi-independent modern commanders like MacArthur. 10W40 (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Proconsul/GA2

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Llywrch (talk · contribs) 16:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have my comments about this nomination up shortly. -- llywrch (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch's comments

First off, I need to state that I usually only take on a GA review when I believe the article either is worthy of that classification, or is close enough that with some work it could be considered fairly a Good Article. I do this because contributors to Wikipedia suffer enough abuse from other editors, as well as neglect from the PTB, that negative criticism, no matter if it is offered in a constructive manner, can lead to discouraging productive & valuable editors from further contributions. So please keep that in mind as you read my following comments.

Secondly, I am not an expert in Classical History; I'm just an amateur who has read a lot & tried to keep his facts straight. So some of what I may say below may be wrong. But I have read a fair amount in Classical History -- both primary & secondary sources -- so I would say there is some validity in my impression that this article needs a lot more work & research before it truly is GA.

A first pass did show the lead of this article does summarize the topic nicely -- omitting the defects I am about to list below. However, two general defects are clear.

1. The section "Roman Republic" needs more links. For example, Publilius needs a link in order to identify him: my copy of the Oxford Classical Dictionary lists 3 individuals with that name; there are 8 known consuls with that gentilicum; & the comprehensive encyclopedia Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft lists 29. The term "Lex Sempronia" is another that needs linking, or at least a definition in the text. There were more words I noticed that should have been linked, & were I not reviewing this article for a GA I would have done so.
2. This article appears to depend too heavily on one work: Carnes Lord, Proconsuls: Delegated Political-Military Leadership from Rome to America Today. As good as that book may be, articles that rely heavily on one source tend to be unbalanced & incomplete in how they handle their subject. This imbalance shows in the sections dealing with the modern use of the word "proconsul": nowhere is it made clear that "proconsul" is not an official title in modern society, but an unofficial label applied to people in official positions who have either been granted or assumed extraordinary powers. As it is a word from Roman times it has mental associations with empires, which was a positive connotation in the late 19th & early 20th centuries, but a negative one currently. And as obvious as that last sentence was, there is no equivalent statement in this article.

   I feel this reliance on Carnes Lord effects the section "In leadership theory" severely. Lord is cited there as if he is stating objective facts, not explaining a model of leadership theory. There may be some validity in comparing leadership or management styles to the historical image of a Roman proconsul; but I would like to see what Lord's peers have to say on this matter before I make a firm decision.

Now the sections I looked at most closely were those about the historical usage, & I noticed the following omissions:

• There is almost no mention of how proconsuls were selected. While Publilius' case illustrates one means that was common during the Republic -- known as prorogation -- the other method which was used under both the Republic & the Empire was to draw lots, or sortition. Richard Talbot, The Senate of Imperial Rome (1984) devotes several pages to this (pp. 347-353), & any article that touches on Roman administration would be stronger using that work.
• According to the article in my copy of the Oxford Classical Dictionary, proconsuls were assigned 5 lictors. This is a very important fact: by using a lictor in an action (e.g., sending a message, executing a command), the proconsul was acting explicitly as an agent of the state. The directed actions of a lictor had serious consequences.
• The provinces of the Empire were not divided into "Imperial" & "Senatorial" realms, but "Imperial" & "Public" (Latin: publicae provinciae or provinciae populi Romani), according to F. Millar (Ancient World, 20 (1989), pp. 93ff). While this is somewhat of a technical & esoteric point -- I only learned of it recently -- using those phrases does make the article more accurate.
• About proconsular provinces. Senators in the imperial service followed a career path of responsibilities that has been studied very extensively over the last decades. While there is a lot of discussion over whether being assigned certain provinces was an indication whether a given senator had the "inside track" to success, there is a consensus that a senator whose cursus honorum included a public propraetorian province was not as favored as one who governed as a legate over an equivalent imperial province. Further, during the Early Empire (until the mid-3rd century) there were only two proconsular provinces: Asia & Africa. A senator who had risen thru the cursus honorum to govern a proconsular province was a very successful one. At some point in the 3rd or 4th centuries Achaea was promoted to proconsular status; the exact details escape me.

There are probably other omissions or misstatements I could list here; these are based on a couple of hours spent digging thru what books I had at hand. I'll leave it to you whether to spent a lot of intense work addressing these issues, or maybe even rewriting the article, or withdraw the nomination & possibly renominate it at a later time. If you have any questions about improving this article, feel free to contact me. -- llywrch (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I just wrote an article for Publilius so we can do the link thing. 10W40 (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was not necessary for this WP:GA. But I've gone ahead & groomed the article. -- llywrch (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I'm failing this nomination due to (1) failure to substantially address the points I raised above after almost a month of waiting, & (2) the nominator has been blocked for a week due to misbehavior related to this article. One could argue that either alone is not enough to fail a review, but the combination of both in this instance really tries the principles of

]

• The case on SPI was opened before you started reviewing. You know all along, or you just checked? I certainly improved the article in response to the review. 10W41 (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the case that a proconsul is a former consul. While initially proconsuls were almost always former consuls and propraetors former praetors, by the late republic many praetors were prorogued pro consule. For example: Year 80 has Gaius Claudius Nero pr 81 procos Asia, Gnaeus Cornelius Dolabella pr 81 procos Cilicia. Year 60 has Gaius Octavius pr 61 procos Macedonia, and Quintus Tullius Cicero pr 62 procos Asia. Ifly6 (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eg OCD⁴ sv "pro consule, pro praetore": After Sulla all governors seem to have ranked pro consule. Ifly6 (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]