Talk:Servius Tullius

Property qualifications

The article notes the property qualifications in units of "sesterces". However, Livy reports these same number in units of "asses" (1 sesterce = 2.5 asses). Is this an error or is there another source giving these numbers in terms of sesterci? Walrasiad (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've recently done a (very) little research into the census for Roman Empire#Census rank. I always find this topic confusing, especially when it comes to equestrians, but all the sources I used at the time expressed the property qualifications in terms of sesterces (sestertii), the most common unit of accounting, at least until the currency debasements of the 3rd century. Equestrian pay grades in the later Empire were also expressed by sesterces. However, my reading was undertaken with a sole focus on the Empire, not the early Republic. So perhaps my reply should be taken only as "hi, do go on, you aren't talking in an empty room." Cynwolfe (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, in more than the thorny matter of equivalence. Seems impossible to say how Livy arrived at these property qualification figures in cash terms. Perhaps their rendering in as rather than sesterces is no more than persuasive archaism. Seems possible, when Servius is credited with the invention of Rome's first "true" coinage, well over a century before a true Roman coinage was introduced (see Aes signatum). Haploidavey (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC) It also seems possible that I've missed the entire point of Walrasiad's query - which might be that where Livy's text plainly says uses a certain number of as/aes, our text uses the same number of sesterces. Which of course would be a considerable error.

The latter. Livy Book 1, Ch. 43 reports these exact same numbers, but reckoned in units of asses rather than sesterci, e.g. it is translated by Baker as "asses". However, Loeb ed. speculates it is probably not the original Roman as, but rather later debased asses of Livy's time. I was just wondering if there was some other source other than Livy for these calculations, that had arrived at the same numbers in terms of sesterci units, or whether this was our typo. Walrasiad (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

N.B. - Livy doesn't mention the property qualifications of Equites or Senators, so it may very well be that their 400k and 800k numbers are indeed in sesterci units. But the numbers for the pedites (100k, 75k, etc.) are definitely in asses. If the Equites/Senators numbers are indeed correct in sesterci, then if converted to asses, an Equites would be 1 million asses (400k x 2.5), and so ten times (rather than four times) the qualification of a first class legionary, and Senators (= 2 million) would be twenty times richer, much more unequal. Walrasiad (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Bit of a nightmare all round. We need an up-to-date, fully edited and annotated version of Livy, plus modern scholarly opinion on these matters. Haploidavey (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Another quibble: text states that Alba Longans were settled on the Aventine hill and Etruscans on the Coelian hill. Once again, this seemingly contradicts Livy, who asserts the Alba Longans were settled on the Coelian by Tullus Hostilius and that the Aventine was settled by other Latins (specifically of Politorium) by Ancus. Can the source be clarified? Walrasiad (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the section on religious foundation? I've not looked at or worked on this article for some time... and have shied away from those sections where confusion reigns. Several of those, and we can expect contradictions in the ancient sources. The article's a mess, really. And we've too much reliance on primary-ish sources, and not enough secondary scholarship. En passant, there's a tenuous Aventine connection to Alba Longa, an obscure-ish tradition that the hill was named after one of its (Alba Longa's) early kings, one Aventinus; but to me, that seems no more relevant to this article than who settled on what hill, and when. The Caelian only comes into the story in connection to the problematic Vibenas and Claudius' Etruscan Macstarna - and all that's dealt with further on in the article, cited to secondary scholarship and ancient sources. So all in all, rather than further muddy the murky waters, the better course might be to strip the irrelevances from the religion section. Which I shall do forthwith. Haploidavey (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I can live with that. I was curious about the source of the statement in the Regiones section where it states the Luceres/Etruscans were on the Coelian. Livy doesn't ever clarify where the Luceres/Etruscans were. His only mention of the Coelian (Livy, I.30, Baker, Loeb) is to suggest that the Alba Longans were settled there, while later Latins were settled on the Aventine (see Livy I.33, Baker, Loeb). If the Coelian = Etruscan identification is from other sources, fine. But I just wanted to be clear that such a statement is not found in Livy. Walrasiad (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your exceptional care in this - I hadn't even noticed the Regiones section. Again, selective deletion seems the preferable option for now. Haploidavey (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Death date

The page was originally categorised in 535 BC deaths. John K (talk · contribs) changed it to 534, back in 2005, without adding a citation. The text has been changed back to 535, so I'm changing the category back to 535. – Fayenatic London 16:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Servius Tullius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060219195647/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-dgra/0882.html to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-dgra/0882.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I think there’s a mistake in dates

It starts out by saying he reigned from 578 to 535 BC. Then it changes to him being assassinated in 579 Where I think that date was supposed to say 535. 104.224.117.27 (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You might have misread the context. His predecessor died in 579, and that's the only mention of that year in the article. Unless I'm missing something....? Haploidavey (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)