Talk:Augustus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Augustus article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Core	This article is listed on this Project's core biographies page.
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (periods and conflicts): Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC–c. 500 AD)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of top-importance within classical antiquity.

	Augustus is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

	Religion Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Talk:Augustus/Archive 1: February 2002 - January 2005

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

WikiProject Echo has identified Augustus as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German,  Hungarian,  Icelandic or Spanish language Wikipedias.

	To-do list for Augustus:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Revert to non-vandalized version Compare differences to foreign featured articles German article (Translated by babelfish) has extensive Literature and Sources sections First section in German is about the confusion over his proper name ...followed by a more detailed treatment of the stages of Augustus' life Address reasons for failing previous FAC Was last nominated for FA in July 2005 Needs more book/print sources/references (as a historical figure) Chronology section -> EasyTimeline Websources need retrieval dates Use more inline citations ("it's difficult to tell which sources are used for what") Fill out to do list

Contents 1 short and sickly w/ platform shoes 2 Death 3 Mutina Conflict 4 Foolish move of this article back to "Caesar Augustus" 5 30 days hath September... 6 Brutus and Cassius in control? 7 How old was Augustus when he died? 8 Murderer of the Innocent without Cause, 9 Was Augustus ever Pharoah of Egypt? 10 Problem with footnote 11 BC/AD, the endless nonsense 12 Later item 13 Number of senators 14 Let's talk about "Octavianus" again 15 Archive 16 References 17 Acta est fabula, plaudite 18 "most foolish war" 19 Cultural depictions of Augustus 20 Pleb riots at thought of Octavian stepping down? 21 [BC/AD vs. BCE/CE] 22 Emperor 23 Vandalism 24 Vandalism on Augustus page 25 Date of father's death 26 Livia: Second or Third? 27 TfD nomination of Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars

[edit] short and sickly w/ platform shoes

I feel like more should be stated about his overall apearance. For a long time people had tried to gain sole control over rome. He was the first one in a long time. I think its important to contrast this with his short sickly nature. I also think it would help readers picture him better as a person. --User:Darkstrand 08:38, 23 july 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death

How did Augustus Caesar die? DRBennett

There are many theroies, most likely he died from old age and illness. As great as he was he was never very well and always caught illnesses, I think in the end it caught up with him.--Sophie-Lou 09:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mutina Conflict

I think the article needs to make mention of the short time after Caesar's assasination that Octavian went to war with Antony and came to the aid of assasin Decimus Brutus Albinus at Mutina with the consuls Hirtius and Pansa. Also does anyone know exactly why he did this? It seems odd he would help an Assasin, perhaps it had something to do with Decimus being adopted as Caesar's 2nd son and Antony's falling out with Caesar? Or maybe he simply hated Antony more or was trying to eliminate his main rival? Do any ancient sources elaborate on exactly what his motivations were here? NeoRicen 06:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You can come up with several reasons, but probably the best way to deconstruct what exactly Octavian was doing is to look at the results. Its clear that Octavian manipulated Cicero to gain political allies amoung the moderates and the Optimates; Cicero himself states as much. Octavian inherited Caesar's army and his name, giving him an edge, but by working with the Optimates (ie: his grand-uncle's assasins) Octavian gains additional political power among the people and is, in the end, able to say that he is truly a servant of the Republic, a supporter of neither Caesar's dictatorship nor the abuses of the Optimates. Perhaps those were his reasons, or perhaps he was manipulated. Either way, the end result is that Octavian ends up in command of almost all of the Senatorial legions (legions controlled by the state and in the previous civil-war loyal to the Optimates), as well as a majority of Caesar's legions as well as his own forces. Combining arms with Antony and Lepidus allows Octavian full control of all of the military forces of the Republic and allows him to march into Rome at the head of eight legions and set up the Second Triumvirate, which this time is a legal institution. Once again, in the end, this is all speculation based on what Octavian does overall, and basically put it shouldn't necesarily be included because it is an area of historical speculation on the part of us historians. In other words, we're all still debating it, and we don't and probably never will have a definitive answer short of discovering Octavian's personal journal from those times. pookster11 09:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Notice that even his personal journal may not tell: "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" (ppl have a tendency to justyfie what they did, even to themselves). Even if we analize what happened, whe cannot be 100% certain why it happened.Flamarande 12:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) PS: Triumvirate a "legal" institution according to whom? A frightened Senate who has been bleed by the same trimvirate and refilled by their friends?

Legal institution in that the power of the Triumvirs is sanctioned by the Senate for five years and these three men are charged with restructuring the Republic. In other words, legal in that it is done through legal means. Were they cajoled, threatened, berated, what have you? In the end its irrelevant. The only reason it matters at all is in the fact that while the First Triumvirate was three guys with incredible personal power working behind the scenes and manipulating circumstances, the Second Triumvirate was three guys with moderate personal power attempting to work within the legal framework of the Republic. pookster11 06:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Second Triumvirate was three guys with moderate personal power attempting to work within the legal framework of the Republic", are you kidding me? They bled and terriefied the Senate, their legions were personaly loyal to them, they ordered the execution of many roman opponents (Cicero, Sextus Pompey, etc) whitout due trial and they had "moderate" personal power? Read below and tell us if you diagree Flamarande 18:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"History is (mainly) written by the victors, studied by the losers (or intelectuals), and forgotten or ignored by the rebels and fools."

Ancient soures are not so reliable as we wish and believe. Why did he do it? Well, why do in effect ppl do anything? (cheap Rethorical question)

Well, his true own personal reasons are in fact impossible to know. What he said, could be and probably was, a "white" lie, or do you believe that he saved the republic for patriotic reasons? Nevertheless, that was his "official" reason (or so he claimed at that time).

Everybody (politicians and rulers simply more than the average person) lies to a certain personal degree (simply stating a true fact). Ancient historians "also" lie to a certain degree. Many were of the "old republican-senatorial" side, and they could be executed (and some were) for what they wrote (accordingly they were very carefull in what they wrote).

His apparent and official reason (at that time) was "in order to secure the republic, the Senate and the people of Rome" against Antony, who was officially a renegade (at that time). Don´t ever forget that "officially" Octavian did everything to save the republic. In fact Dictators always use that excuse (security) and perhaps even believe themselves at the beginning.

His "real" reasons could have been to gain the command of a army (filled by the veterans of Caesar) and in fact the two consuls died very suddenly and very conviniantly. Now this is my personal theory (I haven´t read this anywhere, but then I haven´t read every book about these events) but "perhaps" they where mudered or put in the front line and than abandoned (like that story of David and Urias? something like that). To have a army is to have power and Octavian was certainly power-hungry. Lateron Octavian used that army to:

First, negotiate with Antony and Lepidus. Second, to simply terrify and to bleed the Senate.

Answer I think its because he despised Antony, who had been holding up the time it would take for him to recieve his will and was in general being very difficult to Augusuts. I recall reading that in Cassius Dio

Cassius Dio 5 "Indeed, so far from demanding of Antony any of the money that he had previously plundered, he actually paid court to him, although he was insulted and wronged by him. For Antony did him many injuries both in word and deed, particularly when the lex curiata was proposed by which the transfer of Octavius into Caesar's family was to take place; ⁴ Antony himself pretended to be doing his best to have it passed, but through some tribunes he kept securing its postponement, in order that the young man, not being as yet Caesar's son according to law, might not meddle with the property and might be weaker in all other ways."

[edit] Foolish move of this article back to "Caesar Augustus"

Someone (who's only been editing as a logged-in user since 31 Dec 05) has blithely gone off and moved this article back to Caesar Augustus, with the arch comment that the previous move, carefully considered by quite a few of us. was "inappropriate". This needs to be moved right back to Augustus, per the previous consensus. This is among the many kinds of things that makes Wikipedia look very silly. (I'm also puzzled how this person changed the redirects etc.; surely not an admin with just 9 days of logged-in editing?) Bill 13:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not defending a move (and I certainy didn´t do it) but is "Augustus" really the "more commonly" used name? I have a few books and the authors name this person "Octavian" instead of "Caesar" which is normally used to designate "Julius Caesar". "Augustus" was a title (and Caesar also slowly changed into a title) and I believe that the majority of the latter emperors also adopted that title. Flamarande 13:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is that this man was referred to by various names (Caesar, Octavius, Octavianus are all met with in the ancient authors) — until he became emperor: from then on, he is almost universally called Augustus, which is also the usual practice of modern authors, except in careful writing when he is being referred to before that date, when in English at any rate he is usually referred to as Octavian, a custom owing much to euphony and Shakespeare; in French and Italian for example he is customarily referred to, under those conditions, as Octave and Ottavio (rather than Octavien and Ottaviano). The KJV Caesar Augustus, amusingly, is the most technically accurate appellation, which is what one would expect from the phenomenally talented, scholarly, and meticulous group of people who translated King James's Bible; yet that form is almost never used outside a Christian religious context. Bill 16:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 30 days hath September...

August reputedly has 31 days because Augustus wanted his month to match the length of Julius Caesar's July.

I remember reading that this is an urban legend, though not where. It would be nice if anyone could add information on who or what "reputes" this, and what opinions there are on this claim. 82.92.119.11 21:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not true, and derives from a medieval mistake. In short, August already had 31 days before Augustus renamed it (i.e. when it was called Sextilis. The article Julian calendar has all the info on this. TharkunColl 12:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brutus and Cassius in control?

In Rome, he found Caesar's republican assassins, Marcus Junius Brutus and Gaius Cassius,
in  control. 

Err, what? When Octavian got to Rome in May 44 Cassius and Brutus weren't even IN Rome, let alone in control of it. They fled the city after the outbreak of rioting following Julius Caesar's funeral. When Octavian arrived Antony was firmly in control of Rome, until Cicero turned the Senate against him with his Philippics. Bungeh 07:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How old was Augustus when he died?

Augustus was 75 when he died (not 77 as stated above). This can be confirmed by maths, and also Suetonius. In Chapter 100 of Augustus he states:

He expired in the same room in which his father Octavius had died, when the two Sextus's, Pompey and Apuleius, were consuls, upon the fourteenth of the calends of September [the 19th August], at the ninth hour of the day, being seventy-six years of age, wanting only thirty-five days.

In other words, he died 35 days before his 76th birthday. He was born on 23 September 63 BC, and died on 19 August AD 14. Since there was no "Year Zero" between 1 BC and AD 1, simply adding 63 and 14 to get his age will give an erroneous result, which must be reduced by 1 in order to give the correct figure. Or, put another way, we must convert all BC figures to "minus AD" figures - i.e. 1 BC becomes "0", 2 BC becomes "-1", and 63 BC becomes "-62". 62 plus 14 gives the correct figure of 76 - or, to be more precise, it tells us that his 76th birthday fell in the year that he died. He didn't reach it of course.

This common mistake (assuming the existence of a "Year Zero") affects all sorts of things, including the ages of Livia, Tiberius, and Claudius, the length of Augustus and Livia's marriage, etc. I have tried to correct as many as I can find.

It should also be noted, in passing, that 23 September 63 BC is a date on the pre-Julian Roman republican calendar. It remained the legal anniversary even after the introduction of the Julian calendar. TharkunColl 10:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Murderer of the Innocent without Cause,

Biblically speaking it can be read in Luke 2:1 that "Caesar Augustus" decreed the world should be taxed (the reason Mary and Joseph were in Bethelham) From where does he get the authority? The three children: Alexander Helios -- King of Kings of Parthia and Media, Ptolemais Philadelphus King of Syria (Luke 2:2) and Caesar Ptolemais Philopator Philometor -- KING OF KINGS. Proverbs 1

All of octavian's title he assumes to compete with Caesar(ian)(Little Caesar). Caesarian's birth is recorded on the walls of the Temple of Montu -- He was the son of Amen-Ra through Julius Caesar. We note after J. Caesar's murder octavian makes J.C. a god so that he can proclaim divi filius. He then minted coins that read Caesar Augustus Divi Filius,(Caesar, Venerable Son of god) a potrait of himself on one side, and a huge star on the other. When one reads the story in the bible these things should be kept in mind. Octavian takes the name Caesar to counter Julius' living issue after his own name -- Caesar(ian). A review of history reveals that Romans often manipulated the "will". It was through a "will" that Ptolemais Apion "decreed" Cyprus to Rome ( J.C. returned it to Cleopatra -- she minted a bronze coin with the image of her and Caesarian -- some say it is a type of "Aphrodite and Eros" -- the same iconography that is repeated as "Mother and Child".

octavian was in Judea for one reason, to reclaim the land that had been "stolen" from Rome ("donations" of Alexandria -- Coronation every knee bowed to the King of Kings). These "Theives" being 14/15 year old Alexander Helios, his twin sister Cleopatra Selene, 5/6 year old Ptolemais Philadelphus, and 17/18 year old Caesar.

He is rome's "saviour" -- the tekhen(obelisk/token) in the center of St. Peter's square that is topped with the cross -- it is dedicated to none other than the Divine Augustus. A.D.: in the year of our lord who? Does this dating refer to the birth of christ, or the birth of Imperial Rome?(the birth of christ is in the same moment as Rome proclaiming the "authority" to Tax the world). The Tekhen has been made into a sun dial -- a big clock -- Roman Times.

Mac

He gets his authority from censorial powers that were granted with his tribunician potestas. Caesarion is killed almost immediately when Augustus seizes Egypt. He is never a political threat outside of Egypt, and he's only a threat within Egypt because he is a Ptolemaic symbol. Caesar proclaimed himself a god, and Antonyhad it ratifies after his death; Augustus had little to do with Caesar's deification. Octavian takes Caesar's name beause it was Roman law; as the adopted son of Caesar, he took his adopted father's name. It is doubtful the will was manipulated by Augustus, as he was 18-19 years old and in Greece, and it was Antony who made a display of reading the will (probably assuming he was the heir). Mother/child iconography dates back to pre-history and was an explicit part of Ptolemaic syncretism. Octavian/Augustus, to my knowledge, never visited Judea. Judea itself at that time was a client kingdom under Herod the Great. The children of Cleopatra were long dead by this time, having been offed at the occupation of Egypt and the subsequent Triumph in Rome, which occurred some 30 years before. The obelisk that you reference was also part of that Triumph, and was actully placed there later by Nero as the center of his private hippodrome. As far as the "birth" of imperial Rome, as far as anyone in Rome was concerned, the Republic continued to function straight through Augustus's reign. Rome had long ago become an empire in the technical sense of the word. Anyway, all that being said did you have a point to conribute to this discussion? pookster11 07:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was Augustus ever Pharoah of Egypt?

I found this comment in the Caesarion article: "In lists of the time Octavian himself appears as a Pharaoh and the successor to Caesarion." Having read up on the interesting history of Octavian/Augustus and the Ptolemaic dynasty (said to have ended with the death of Caesarion) and the history of Greek and Roman Egypt, I see that Egypt became a province of the Roman Empire after it was conquered by Octavian/Augustus, but that the Ptolemaic system of government was left largely undisturbed, "although Romans replaced Greeks in the highest offices". If so, how correct is it to say that Augustus, and his successors as Emperors, were considered Pharoahs of Egypt? Did Egypt have a special status, with the Emperor being both Emperor of Rome and Pharoah of Egypt? Or was the institution of Pharaoh ended after Caesarion, with the listing of Augustus as a Pharoah being something to mollify the people of Egypt? Carcharoth 14:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Augustus and his successors were indeed regarded as pharaohs. Some even had there own official Egyptian names, written in cartouches (all of them may have, but not all have been found). TharkunColl 17:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I also found this comment in the history of Greek and Roman Egypt article: "The Romans, like the Ptolemies, respected and protected Egyptian religion and customs, although the cult of the Roman state and of the Emperor was gradually introduced."

Can something incorporating all this be added to this article, and those of the other Emperors of Rome that are definitely known to have been (nominally) considered Pharoahs in Egypt. Unless this is being pedantic and should be treated some other way? I don't want to do this myself, as I don't know enough of the history. Carcharoth 17:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if they were technically pharaohs, I presume none of the Emperors spent much time in Egypt, and left the province under the control of a governor to be the "bread-basket" of Rome. So I'm uncertain how to phrase all this in the relevant Roman and Egypt pages? Carcharoth 00:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Egypt had a special status as a Roman province, because it was, pretty much alone, seen as a personal possession of the Emperor. Senators were not allowed to visit it without imperial permission, and the Governor was always of sub-senatorial rank, to demonstrate the Emperor's personal control. john k 01:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have seen cartoushes for all of the emperors up to Domitian, even for Galba, Otho, and Vitellus. As was said previously, Egypt was a special case and functioned as the private domain of the Emperor. The ceremonies and responsibilities that had belonged to the pharaoh were taken up by the governor, which by the time of Rome amounted to little more than the yearly Nile ceremony. The Ptolemies had broken Egyptian religion down to a very local level; the pharaoh was no longer the national religious authority he had been under the native dynaties. As such, the Romans left everything alone and the Egyptians did their own thing, as long as Rome was fed. Could you call Augustus Pharaoh? Not really; he was never really there, the governor ruled for him in absentia, and really by the end of the Ptolemaic dynasty the entire office of pharaoh had broken down and really didn't mean anything to the Egyptians. pookster11 05:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure he was. See this statue found in Karnak (Egypt): Octavian as pharaoh after his victory over Egypt.

Octavian as pharaoh

—Eickenberg 01:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with footnote

In the first few words, there is a superscript "1", after the Latin inscription brackets and before the dates brackets. When I click on this "1", it takes me to the wrong place - namely the first footnote, which is actually further down the page at the end of the first paragraph of the "Rise to Power" section. Where should the "1" link be pointing? Or is it more of a problem than just a wrongly addressed link? Carcharoth 21:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BC/AD, the endless nonsense

Talk of "original research"!! Even for Wikipedia, the statement by anonymous that AD was only used for dating starting in the 18c is an unparalleled inanity. Since it's always to be preferred to assume the best, this doesn't mean the author of the statement is an idiot or malevolent or has an agenda, just that they're talking thru their hat, without the faintest idea of the facts in the matter. There are literally tens of thousands of examples of inscriptions, on stone and paper, dated AD; and I myself have seen many hundreds of them, and photographed several dozens. But to demolish the statement, it suffices to find a single counter-example; so pretty much at random, here's one, dated AD 1223. Bill 22:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the (typically) incompetend Mr. Bill Thayer in ensuing a facade to turn Wikipedia into a Christcentric POV mess. Circa 520 CE, Dionysius Exiguus created what is now known as the "Common Era" (or Current era), and this was impeded by Christians circa 1800 CE when they created "Christian era" and now label it as the extremely POV "AD" or "Anno Domini". How can Wikipedia, a secular organization, even fathm supporting these radical euphemisms??? 142.176.56.185 23:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC).

I rather expected this. In fact, you are a fool. "AD" is indeed POV, but in the matter of dating articles, Wikipedia has had to settle on something, and that is to leave the commonest terminology unless it is manifestly inappropriate as for the lives of rabbis. I am not Christian, and couldn't care less whether or not Wikipedia is Christocentric. But you got caught making a very foolish and instantly refutable statement: the use of "AD" antedates the 18c, and gee you don't like getting caught out: nobody does. The best way to avoid that is not to talk thru your hat. Dionysius says nothing by the way about any "common era", his term is "ab incarnatione Christi". Go back to your crayons. Bill 23:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Another example of a quite pathetic self-absorbed Christian psychopath. First of all, Thayer, you need to calm down and review the facts. Had Exiguus known that his dating in accordance with the birth of Julius Caesar in 1 CE (which was off by 45 years) would turn into a Christian facade I'm sure he would have committed suicide in anger. Your accusations that my historical facts are inaccurate and that I am a fool are typical of the angered Christian who even goes as far as to deny his faith. You know you would be doing the right thing if you reverted to my BCE/CE edits, please give up your Christian shinanigans...for the love of Jesus Christ. 142.176.56.185 23:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously a troll just trying to anger you, Bill. Ignoring his comments would be the best solution, as I would expect his sole objective is to anger you and/or anyone who knows that he's full of ****.CrazyInSane 23:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

(Much later, but this note just in case some well-intentioned soul, doing a homework assignment maybe, should get this page as a Google result and read, above, that Dionysius dated his calendar to the birth of Caesar and was 45 years off...) Neither statement is true. Dionysius did not base his calendar even indirectly on the birth date of Julius Caesar, and Dionysius' calendar is not 45 years off: something like three or four years off seems to be the figure. Be very careful what you read online. Bill 15:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Later item

An idiot appear to have vandalized the page. can someone please restore it?

[edit] Number of senators

Under "Rise to Power," it reads "The triumvirs then set in motion proscriptions in which three thousand senators and two hundred equites were deprived of their property and, for those who failed to escape, their lives, going beyond a simple purge of those allied with the assassins, and probably motivated by a need to raise money to pay their troops[4]. Is this correct, or was it three hundred senators and two mthousand equites? I'm not completely sure of the number I give, but I dont think that there were three thousand Roman senators. 68.60.9.47 01:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct the numbers are backwards, good catch. pookster11 01:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's talk about "Octavianus" again

Discussion of what names should be appearing in the introduction--and throughout the article as a whole--is scattered throughout this talkpage, but since it seems to have become an issue again, I'd thought I'd gather together here many of the copious reasons against using the "Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus" that seems to be so popular.

Chiefly, it's not his name, and it never was. When Julius Caesar adopted him, he took the name Gaius Julius Caesar, and henceforth is described as Caesar both by himself and by others. When Antony wished to refer condescendingly to him, Suetonius tells us, he referred to him as Thurinus; no mention is made of "Octavianus". I'd like to ask—and I'm genuinely curious here to discover any instances I might have missed—anyone who believes the name "Octavianus" should be included in the article to produce any instances in the ancient sources of Octavian's contemporaries describing him as "Octavianus".

It is not a valid counterargument to respond—as has occurred elsewhere on this talkpage—that the mos maiorum was so strong an influence on Roman society that Octavian must have taken the name Octavianus, even though we have no evidence that he did, because Roman tradition dictated that he did. For one thing, it's quite firmly in the territory of original research. For another, it's just plain wrong. There are plenty of instances in the Late Republic of adopted men not taking gentilical cognomina, either because they kept their original cognomen instead or because (like Octavian apparently did) they simply took their adoptive father's name and abandoned their original name completely; Quintus Lutatius Catulus Caesar, Marcus Junius Brutus (who progressively dropped more and more of his adoptive name Quintus Servilius Caepio and returned to his original name) and Varro Lucullus all leap to mind. The Oxford Classical Dictionary is quite explicit that "an adopted son took his adoptive father's full name, but could add an extra cognomen formed with the suffix -ianus from his original gentile name" (italics my own).

In conclusion, given all the names that Augustus held throughout his life—Gaius Octavius Thurinus, Gaius Octavius, Gaius Julius Caesar, Imperator Caesar Augustus—and the significance that each name change holds, it just seems really odd and capricious to me that the one "full Roman name" we would give him in his introductory is, in fact, not a name he ever used.

But a fuller understanding can only be achieved by debate! Binabik80 18:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as your charge of original research, find any scholarly source anywhere that refers to Octavian's full Roman name as anything other than "Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus" prior to 27 BC and I will send you $5. Whether its "actually" what was used or not is irrelevant, it is his name as used in secondary sources and the scholarly community. If you have a problem with it, get a PhD and write a book and maybe someone will listen to you. Till then, what you think his name may or may not have been and the reasons why is irrelevent. Prior to 27 BC, his name was Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. End of story. pookster11 22:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. His name "as used in secondary sources and the scholarly community" is Octavian, so long as we're discussing the English secondary sources, or Caesar in the Latin secondary sources (like Suetonius). The burden is therefore not on me to produce a reference giving him a Roman name other than C. Julius Caesar Octavianus, the burden is on you to find a reference that does call him C. Julius Caesar Octavianus.

I have been going back through the various sources I have to hand, and the only pattern I can see emerging is that those few modern scholars who want to avoid using the anglicised "Octavian" use instead "Octavius", but such authors also seem by and large to be writing of the period prior to 44 BC, so I don't know how much that indicates. Everett does indicate that Cicero referred to him deprecatingly as Octavianus in the initial period after Caesar's death (unfortunately Everett's biography isn't sufficiently annotated to attribute that fact), which I think bears insertion into the first paragraph of the "Rise to Power" section.

The OCD—can we agree that, in the absence of contradictory references, the OCD is representative of the English language's modern scholarly community?—seems conspicuously to avoid using any name to refer to him between his adoption by Caesar and his adoption of the praenomen Imperator, repeatedly calling him "Caesar's heir" (which, if it can be seen as supporting any particular name, seems to be choosing "Gaius Julius Caesar" over either "Octavian" or "Octavianus"), and then calls him Imperator Caesar between his adoption of that praenomen and 27 BC, though the OCD's other articles appear universally to refer to him as Octavian.

So I don't see that "prior to 27 BC, his name was Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus" really being true at all, either to the ancients or to modern English scholarship, and even a brilliant oratorical technique like trying to forestall debate by declaring "End of story" after stating your own position without substantiation isn't going to change that. Binabik80 15:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

PS In response to the specific request to "find any Roman source anywhere that refers to Octavian's full Roman name as anything other than 'Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus' prior to 27 BC"—if pointing out that the OCD explicitly calls him "Imp. Caesar" for the period from 40 BC to 27 BC doesn't already do so—I offer the following quotations from Michael Grant in The Twelve Caesars: "When this information was published after the dictator had been murdered, Octavius—or Octavian as he is generally known to us during these years of his rise to power—assumed his adoptive father's names Gaius Julius Caesar, and started the fourteen-year struggle to gain supremacy in the state." (Pg. 52, 1996 edition) And, even more explicitly: "'His name and his age': his youthful years were an enormous handicap, but his name—Gaius Julius Caesar—already a remarkable asset, became more valuable still when, in January 42, he and the two men with whom he had now become allied in the Second Triumvirate, Antony and Lepidus, pronounced the murdered Julius a god of the Roman state. Octavian's exploitation of this development was displayed upon coins which show himself on one side, described as 'Caesar son of a God', and Julius Caesar on the other, named 'the God Julius'." (Pg. 55)

I await my $5 via PayPal. Binabik80 20:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, find a source that refers to him as anything else. Octavian is there, and if you actually bother to read the sources instead of glossing a few onlin ones, Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus is used as well. I have nethr the time nor the patience to go through every single source and list them for your own personal education; in other words, readthem yourself. This is not just English works either, but French, German, and Italian sources as well. Cite me a source that has his name as something different and the $5 will be on its way; I want an actual source, not an argument. Since apparently you had some problem with this before, let me restate it again: Find a source that has his name as anything other than Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus prior to 27 BC, and you win. This is of course referring to secondary sources; primary sources will generally refe to him as Augustus throughout his life, and coinage from the triumvirate lists him as Caesar. You are probably correct that he never went by that name, however, Wikipedia is no original research, and all secondary sources accept the name. Whether we think it was or not is, once again, beside the point; the material treats this as his name. Second, I doubt that the OCD lists his name as Imp. Caesar between 40 and 27 BC, as he did not adopt Imperator as his first name until 23 BC after the second settlement. I am grateful that you took the time to look up Grant's work anyway, though that doesn't really argue your case; Grant refers to him as Octavian, and then references Suetonius "Divi Augustus" 7-8 and coinage that I referred to above where he is presented as "Caesar". You still have yet to provide a secondary source that treats his name as anything other than Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus; despite your having an argument that does make perfect sense and is for all intents and purposes likely to be true, the fact of the matter is this is how the secondary materials present his name. pookster11 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Several times in the above paragraph you act as if I have not just directly quoted a secondary source giving him the name "Gaius Julius Caesar" for this period, when of course I have: Grant quite specifically states "his name—Gaius Julius Caesar—[was] already a remarkable asset".

Secondly, if you are going to tell someone to "read them yourself", it seems rather inappropriate for you to then state that you "doubt" information cited from the English language's standard work on the ancient world without double checking it for yourself. For the record, several direct quotations from the OCD's article on Augustus (edited only to remove the OCD's cross referencing information):

"He married Scribonia as a gesture to Sex. Pompeius, and she bore his only child Iulia (in 39 he divorced her to marry Livia Drusilla); to seal the political dispositions made at Brundisium in October 40 Antony married his sister Octavia. All the politicians of the time made use of imperium, one of the only surviving constitutional principles of any potency, and Caesar's heir now took the first name Imperator."

"Over the 30s, events combined with astute responses enabled Imp. Caesar to represent himself as defender of an Italian order."

"Imp. Caesar and his close supporters of these years and afterwards (especially M. Vipsanius Agrippa, T. Statilius Taurus, and C. Maecenas) were victorious against Antony, whose pro-Egyptian policy and failure in Armenia had lost him much of his eastern support."

Binabik80 18:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: While I do not concede the point, I do think that further discussion has little likelihood of proving constructive, since neither I nor the people who disagree with me seem particularly likely to budge. As long as the information currently contained in the first paragraph of the "Rise to Power" section remains in the article, I have no objection to a mention of the name Octavianus in the article's introduction.

There might have been a misunderstanding here:
First, the later Augustus never used the name "Octavianus" himself (some sources: Appian, bella civilia 3, 2, 11; Cicero ad Atticum 14, 12, 2; Cassius Dio 45,3, 2), his full nomenclature after adoption can be seen in an enscription (CIL IX 2142) which has "Caius Iulius Caesar", no Octavianus whatsoever. I know of three ancient sources who use that name, one being Cicero (for instance: ad fam. 16, 24, 2; ad Att. 15, 12, 2) and another Cassius Dio (46, 47, 5-6). It is conspicuous that Cicero only uses the form "Octavianus" as long as he is in opposition, as soon as he joins the later Augustus' party he continues to call him "Caesar", as he does himself. Cassius Dio is mistaken because he transfers the "conventional manner" after which an adoption is done in Rome on the special case of Octavianus, which itself he does not know because he is too distant temporally. The third man denying Octavianus his chosen name "Gaius Julius Caesar" is Brutus (e.g. Cicero, ad Brutum 1, 16), obviously because he is his enemy and knows what implications taking up Caesar's name has (being the legitimate heir meant inheriting Caesar's clients).
Second, the name Octavianus does certainly exist, but it is a wholly modern construction used by scholars to differentiate between Julius Caesar the dictator and his heir (who took up that very same name) on the one hand, and between the young Octavianus, still struggling to get into power, and the later ruler Augustus on the other. While the name is in constant use in scholarly discussion of Augustus, it is not historic and should therefore not be given as the actual name of the first princeps. In German historiography one can even find the name "Oktavian" instead of the more natural "Octavian" (latin has no 'k') just to show that the name is an artificial product of modern scholarship.
Some secondary literature: Malitz, Jürgen: "O puer qui omnia nomini debes" (...) In: Gymnasium 111 (2004), pp. 381-409; p. 401; Schmitthenner, Walter: Oktavian [<- Notice the 'k'] und das Testament Cäsars. 2nd ed. München 1973, p. 70 et seqq.; Syme, Ronald: The Roman Revolution. Oxford 2002, p. 112 et seq.; ---: Imperator Caesar. A Study in Nomenclature. In: Roman Papers I (by Ronald Syme), Oxford 1979, pp. 361-377.
I hope this is convincing enough, even without me having a PhD and all. And I'm quite sure that in the works mentioned above, there are enough passages calling Octavianus something else than "Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus" prior to 27 BC to entitle anyone who has enough time to look those passages up to their $5. Mauditporc 22:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Maudiporc, you're almost right: I included all of Augustus' names in the German wikipedia-article. "Octavianus" is used (as you rightly say) by Cicero and others (like Asinius Pollio), but mainly because they were too far away from Rome to know about the unusual name policy. The only historians that use the name "Octavianus" are Cassius Dio and Tacitus, but only for reasons of historiographical accuracy (chronology etc.). All other historians do not know him by this name. Nevertheless, modern scholarship followed Dio and Tacitus in order to distinguish Caesar (father) and Caesar (son). The cognomen Octavianus is thus historical, but it was never adopted or used by Augustus or his (Caesarian) followers. Octavianus is usually put in brackets. (I was basically quoting the same literature as you did: Syme, Schmitthenner et al.) —Eickenberg 02:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

I'm preparing an archive for this talk page, per the copy and paste method. I'm making the cut-off point slightly before January 2006 in an effort to keep recent discussions continuous without having to navigate through archives. Just glancing at the comments at the top of the talk page and comparing to early historical versions, I can see untangling this will take some time; therefore I will make sweeping edits in several steps. This, however, is a basic edit.

Xaxafrad 03:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I see more references/notes to secondary or possibly third-party sources as opposed to the primary sources — perhaps in addition to adding more inline citations, the citations should refer back to sources that are agreed by concensus reliable and preferably primary? Not that I'm implying that the current references aren't reliable, but I was wondering what sources are defined credible/reliable for Roman-related articles aside from the primary sources listed in the External Links section. —Mirlen 00:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acta est fabula, plaudite

Can someone give an exact reference for Suetonius's claim about "acta est fabula"? I can't find it in the text of Suetonius's work: [1] If 97-99 is meant to be a reference to paragraphs in Suetonius and not years, it looks like the quote would be in Greek (and they shouldn't be linked to the year articles). Rusco 06:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "most foolish war"

Martin van Creveld, a very respected military historian, has called the current Iraq War "the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them".[2] I came to this page to find out the context and find basically nothing. Could somone link to the appropriate article or, if one does not exist, add the info on this campaign and why van Creveld thinks it was catastrophic? Thanks, BT 17:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

See Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. It was catastrophic because the Romans lost three whole legions plus auxiliaries, over 20,000 men. --Nicknack009 22:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The battle took place in 9 AD. It looks like either van Creveld or the newspaper repeating him got the date wrong. - BT 05:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Augustus

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If the content concerning Augustus's cultural depictions is long enough to merit its own article, then I'll all for it. Sounds like a good idea. Nice job with the Joan of Arc article by the way. —Mirlen 22:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pleb riots at thought of Octavian stepping down?

"Reportedly, the suggestion of Octavian's stepping down as consul led to rioting among the Plebeians in Rome." Who is our source for this?Ejectgoose 02:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure (you could check the history records to see who've added that information :P), but I've heard similiar information on one of the PBS documentaries on the Roman Empire as well as other sources that I can't recall to mind right now, so I don't think it's too unlikely. But it isn't just the statement you mentioned that needs a source, the whole article needs a lot more inline citations. I would suggest placing {{fact}} and perhaps somebody who knows the source for it (or knows that information is false determined by reliable sources) will add it in later. —Mirlen 22:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of rioting in 27 in the obvious sources (Velleius, Suetonius, Dio). Dio does mention rioting in 22, 21 and 19 BC because Augustus no longer took the consulship. (See Second settlement; I've added a citation at this point.) I wonder if the mention under First settlement reflects confusion with these later events. EALacey 16:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [BC/AD vs. BCE/CE]

I do not comprehend why the bc | ad, rather than bce | ce. Conversely, I do not comprehend why, if you are so insistent on Christian supremacy, then, why no mention of Jesus on the page, that I can locate anyhow. I would, certainly, advocate that each of these omissions would be altered appropriately.

Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 05:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The usual rule of thumb for articles not directly related to a religious topic is to simply be consistent throughout the article. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

you do realize that even BCE/CE is based on the birth of Christ right? 164.67.226.32 10:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it is based on a convention. The convention is based on the supposed birth of Christ. It is thus one step removed and the language (i.e. referring to a common era) is clearly more neutral. --D. Webb 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And what makes the era "common"? All of a sudden when Christ was supposedly born everyone got together and recognized our similarities? Both dating systems are based on the same "comvention", ie: dating from the assumed birth of Christ in 1 AD/CE. Calling it CE instead of AD in no way removes its connection, nor does it somehow make it more "neutral". The debate is pointless; the Western dating system divides itself into eras based around the birth of Christ. Don't like it? Gain enough power so that someone cares and then change the dating system. Till then, once again, the debate is pointless. pookster11 05:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The convention for wikipedia is generally to a) be consistent, and b) to use whatever the original author of the articles used - i.e. not to change dates. Both BC/AD and BCE/CE are acceptable on wikipedia, and arguing about why one is better is intensely counterproductive. john k 19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emperor

As far as I know Augustus never became emperor, my ancient teacher drilled this into us, so... if someone out there believes other wise can they at least give me a source please. Thankyou Niroby 21:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Your teacher is in error. Read Augustus' own word in his Res Gestae Divi Augusti : he writes of himself that he was proclaimed "imperator" 21 times in a row. "Imperator" is Latin for "Emperor." Mlouns 21:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, imperator means a general who was allowed to triumph. Later it became part of the Roman imperial titles but Augustus was carefull not to be seen as a monarch. Which doesn't mean he wasn't one but in name. He had just cloaked himself in all the old republican magistracies and their powers at the same time (tribune, consular powers, etc...) Later even that carefully tendered distinction was abolished and the names he assumed instead became associated with the imperial titles. Nonetheless Augustus is considered to be the first emperor of the principate. -- fdewaele, 12 January 2007, 19:30.

[edit] Vandalism

I suspect that there has been a bit of vandalism unless of course his legacy included the following: "On August 19, 14 AD, Augustus died, and Tiberius was named his heir. The only other possible claimant, Postumus Agrippa, had been banished by Augustus, and was put to death around the same time. Who ordered his death is unknown, but the way was clear for Tiberius to assume his stepfather's powers. and then he ran around in circles yelling "WOOOOOOO!!!" whilst touching himself in naughty places. then he was bored so he went for a swim in the magical ocean puddle. when that was over he went home to screw his daughter/wife with his 5 children watching". 130.237.175.198 15:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on Augustus page

First twon sentences in "Early Life" looks vandalised to me:

He was born in gay town (or Velletri) on September 23, 63 BC with the name Gaius Octavius 'aka his truest vato.' He was well known for bein the most hardcore nigga, ever. His father, also, came from a respectable but undistinguished family of the equestrian order and was governor of Macedonia.

21:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of father's death

The date of Gaius Octavius' death was altered from 59 to 58 BC by 64.122.46.34. I'm not sure if this was a good faith edit, but in any case I've reverted it. Prosopographia Imperii Romani and Der neue Pauly both give 59 as the date of his death. Suetonius says (Aug. 8) that he died when he son was 4 years old (i.e., between September 59 and September 58), but he also says (Aug. 4.1) that this was while returning from his province to stand for the consulship (if I understand correctly, this would place it late in the year, requiring 59). If someone has actually argued for 58, a citation should be found. EALacey 11:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Livia: Second or Third?

On the Augustus page, Livia is listed as his third wife, which makes sense with Scribonia and Clodia coming before. However, elsewhere it seems that Livia is often referred to as his second wife. Does anyone here know why there is this confusion? TK-925 21:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars

Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.