Talk:Consul

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.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Duplication

Why are there two duplicate articles - Roman Consul and Consul - they should be merged! Mgoodyear (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== Putting a list of all of the Roman Consuls at the end of this article is a Bad Idea. This list must needs be placed in its own article. I've been meaning to do this, but with lack of time (I've been caught up in a nasty fight over another website I contribute to) & my desired goal of having a complete list from 508 BC to at least AD 500 requires a lot more research than I am able to do right now, both have kept me from providing the necessary article. So I've reverted to an older article.

However, the content in the Consul list here needs preserving, so I'm leaving this article complete until I can migrate enough of the content to allow me to delete this redundant 80% -- & make a far shorter article. The problem here is not a need for more material: it's that we have a valuable contribution that needs some migration into a more wieldly format. Please bear with me while I make this happen. -- llywrch 03:01 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

Because the complete consul list would be extrememly long (Wikipedia sends up a warning whenever an article is over 32Kb), I've split the list into three parts -- Republican, Early Imperial & Late Imperial. I hope I've split the list in the right places & did not introduce too many errors in the compilation. -- llywrch 00:48 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

(Copied from my talk page:)

For everybody's info -- The best source (and most authoritative still) for who Romans are and what offices they held is the Prosopographia Imperii Romani (ed. Mommsen et al. IIRC). This should really be the final arbiter, unless there is a more recent and well-argued scholarly source. JHK 17:27 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Patricians and plebeians

Reading through Encyclopaedia Britannica's article on Ancient Rome (2003 edition), the authors question the traditional notion of the early Republic's political history as being a gradual struggle for the plebeians to attain equality with the patricians. Specifically to this article, it mentions that about 30 per cent of the consuls prior to 366BC had plebeian names.

Unfortunately the article isn't annotated so I can't tell exactly what their source is; but the most likely sources from the bibliography for the early Republic would appear to be

E. Stuart Staveley, "Forschungsbericht: The Constitution of the Roman Republic 1940-1954", Historia, 5:74-122 (1956)
E. Stuart Staveley, "The Nature and Aims of the Patriciate", Historia, 32:24-57 (1983)
Kurt A. Raaflaub (ed.), Social Struggles in Archaic Rome: New Perspectives on the Conflict of the Orders (1986)
Richard E. Mitchell, Patricians and Plebeians: The Origin of the Roman State (1990)

Anyone have any perspective on this, or know scholarship's current opinion on the traditional story of class struggle?Binabik80 02:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Try plebs and Conflict of the Orders. Mitchell's book is pretty much current, growing out of the conference proceedings mentioned at "Conflict". Tim Cornell's book on early Rome is good too, didn't get much chance to sift it into WP before it had to go back to the library, need to get it out again. Stan 13:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay then, I'm going to add a note to that effect in the article.Binabik80 15:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Modern consuls?

I came to this page (the article about Consuls) from a link in an article about someone who served in the diplomatic office of consul in modern times. I'm stunned to see that modern consuls are not even mentioned.

Most countries have appointed consuls in other countries, primarily in port cities and capitals. Their main job is to assist citizens of the appointing country with bureaucratic or commercial difficulties. Formerly, the consuls were also responsible for sending detailed reports on conditions, hence providing a kind of intelligence or news service.

In the early days, sometimes consuls had different titles: some of the 18th and 19th century U.S. Consuls were titled as "Commercial Agent" or "Agent for Commerce and Seamen" (reference to the typical duty of rescuing wayward sailors in foreign lands). The title "Commercial Agent" was used for U.S. Consuls in France at the time that "Consul" was the title of French leaders.

Very often consuls were not citizens of the countries that appointed them; indeed, especially in remote and isolated places, or in times of war or crisis, one person might serve as consul for several countries.

The U.S. has three levels of consul titles: Consul General, Consul, and Vice Consul, depending on the importance of the post. Starting in the 20th century, commonly, more than one Consul or Vice Consul might be appointed to a given city.

The Consular Service merged with the diplomatic functions of the U.S. State Department in 1924, and so most or all U.S. Consuls are career foreign service officers. Previously, there were many political appointees. There was also an odd tendency to appoint famous writers, such as Nathaniel Hawthorne (U.S. Consul in Liverpool, 1853-57) or James Fenimore Cooper (U.S. Consul in Lyon, 1826-28).

Some countries appoint "Honorary Consuls", but I don't know much about this practice.

Kestenbaum 19:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are mentioned in the disambiguation notice at the top of the article, pointing to consulate general for article on the modern diplomatic concept of the consulate. It's unfortunate that whoever inserted the link into the article from which you came didn't check to see where it leads; it would be a good idea to go back and disambiguate it for them. Binabik80 22:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read...

I read about Roman consuls in the middle ages, circa 1000.--Nixer 12:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC) ==[reply]

If there were Roman consuls in the Middle Ages, could it be that the idea and title of the consuls of the French Republic derives from contemporary models (or from the Holy Roman Empire?) rather than from ancient Rome? Shulgi (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino

Does the office of the two Captains-Regent as heads of state/government in San Marino derive from the Roman consulate? Shulgi (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Consul (representative)#Requested move 29 March 2018 which might affect this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.--Neo-Jay (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Cosol" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cosol. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 13#Cosol until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]