Talk:Augustus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Name of Article: Augustus, Caesar Augustus, or Augustus Caesar

Is his name Octavianus or Octavius?fgjjjjjjjjjj AxelBoldt

Octavianus JHK

His name was Octavius before adoption, and Octavianus after, wasn't it?

He was given the name Gaius Octavius Thurinus at birth, though he quietly dropped the Thurinus. When Caesar posthumously adopted him in his will (at which time he was nineteen years old), he adopted the name Gaius Julius Caesar. We call him Octavian because Roman tradition of the period dictated that he should have taken the name Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, but he certainly never actually used that name himself, and I'm almost positive no one else ever used it during his lifetime. Binabik80 16:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

now there's a question....Imperator or just Princeps? Augustus would have claimed not to have been an Emperor, I think. JHK sadfgdsfd

he was given the title of Augustus princeps in 27 BC, then in 23 BC senate gave him the Tribunicia potestas for life and maximum imperium (some prefer the form maius imperium) for 5 years, later renewed. In 19 BC he received consularis potestas for life and in 2 BC was named Pater patriae. The word Emperor could be a later synthesis.

Knew the titles and their history, thanks. I'm just not certain that the synthesis is valid. I'd like to think we were trying to enlighten people, not dumb down the information. JHK

---

The title of "Emperor" in the modern sense was something that would have been alien to Augustus and the people of his time. The title of "Imperator", from which we get Emperor, essentially meant "commander in chief" to the Romans.

Augustus would have referred to himself as Princeps, but avoided claiming anything that smacked of kingship--the fear of which got his adoptive father killed.

The first Emperors to blatantly act as monarchs and get away with it were Aurelian and Diocletian.John

---

Isn't he much more commonly known as simply Augustus? If yes, he should be at Augustus. Jeronimo 02:26 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

The page Augustus, unfortunately, is about the title right now.

---

I think the picture is not of Augustus; but maybe Tiberius.

Not a chance. I have seen the bust in person, and it is undoubtedly Augustus. The boyish hairstyle, nose, strong chin, clear eyes set behind thin eyebrows, and the ghost of a smile on lips are all Augustan traits. Tiberius's face is usually flat, expressionless, and has a weaker chin. Also, Tiberius is often pictured with small sideburns.

---

Some things that should be mentioned about Augustus:

• He was known as a family man and actively promoted family values - playing to the famous Roman prudery on matters like adultery

• He held elections for such posts as consul, and he and his friends would make a great show of giving big parties for the masses, etc. - very much like modern dictators using the form of elections to cement a dictatorship

• He, much more than Julius, set the formal institutions and tone for what is now known as the Roman Empire, and is usually considered to be the actual prototype of Emperor's behaviour - the one others are compared to.

Where is the cognomen "Thurinus" attested? I have never seen mention of this name. Publius 05 Dec. 2003

Seventh paragraph of Suetonius bio, who cites various evidence including a "bronze statuette that I once owned". Stan 05:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It seems to me that this particular use is along the lines of Maximinus Thrax's surname Thrax ("the Thracian"), as an unofficial addition to the name rather than an integral part of it. I could be mistaken, of course; Suetonius is the first source I've seen mention it. Publius

While we're discussing names, it seems to me that the main article should be Caesar Augustus and Augustus Caesar should be the redirect; the name was always rendered in inscriptions as "IMP CAESAR DIVI F AVG", never as "IMP AVG CAESAR DIVI F" ("Augustus" was appended to his stylised name "Imperator Caesar Divi f.", which he had been using since 40 BC). It is correct to call him Caesar Augustus, but not Augustus Caesar; all of his successors as 'emperor' maintained the same order, first "Caesar", then "Augustus". Publius

I agree. Muriel Victoria 10:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think the confusion comes from whether to use "English" order or "Latin" order, both of which are rational, so it's not really a correctness issue. Google favors C-A over A-C by about 50%, but in an attempt to exclude skewing by ignorant websites, I plugged them into book titles in Amazon (on the theory that writers and editors are careful about titles), and A-C shows up in 13 titles, C-A in 7. So "most common form in English" is unclear. I'd be happy with just "Augustus" - when I see that, I think of the person first, generic title second, but the "Caesar" addition is a good way to finesse the ambiguity. Stan 15:13, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The problem is that he was never called "Augustus Caesar"; the form "Augustus Caesar" implies a title, like "King Wenceslas" or "Emperor Palpatine", which is grossly inconsistent with the historical fact that "Augustus" was a new name added to his existing name. This is like calling Scipio Africanus "Africanus Scipio" or Pompeius Magnus "Magnus Pompeius"; it may work in poetry, but it's simply not correct.

"Augustus Caesar" is a misunderstanding, and should therefore be used as a redirect to the correct form, "Caesar Augustus". "Commonest in English" doesn't really change "correct in Latin". I suggest that we switch the articles and add an editorial note to the article explaining the matter. Publius

The absolute 'correctness' of a name is often not where the title of a page goes. The wikipedia standard is that the most commonly used name in english is to be used, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Not sure which version is more common, but whichever is should be used. Maximus Rex 03:40, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yep, ironically we may end up titling an article in a way that was never used of the person in his/her lifetime, just because that is now most common. For instance, did Titus Livius's contemporaries call him Livy? I suspect not. Similarly for Virgil. Now in the case of Augustus, if we're uncertain as to the most common usage, that suggests that maybe there isn't one - for instance with "Livy" vs "Livius" you instantly "know" which one is most common, no need to look at Google or anywhere else - in which case we're free to pick the most correct version. Stan 05:48, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I note for the sake of comparison: Britannica uses "Augustus, Caesar";Encarta and Columbia use just "Augustus". But since Augustus is already a separate article, I would advocate moving to Caesar Augustus, as Britannica has essentially done, and as Augustus seems to advocate. If there is no objection, then I shall move the article. -- Emsworth 01:54, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Augustus Caesar's death

how did he die and when?

He died of natural causes as he was 77 years old, one of the longest and oldest Roman Emperors. I have also noticed that this article states that he was diefied after his death. This is not true. He was a rare breed in that he was diefied before his death, which added to his long list of power. He is one of the few to be declared a god before death. This can be found in Mary T. Boatwright's...The Romans: From Village to Empire: Oxford 2004.

"Romans: From Village to Empire", pg 351: "The divinity that the senate ratified after the death of Augustus was only one of such posthumous honors."

Augustus never presented himself a personally divine. Prior to his death, the Imperial cult was based around the numen and gens of Augustus, but never on Augustus himself until after his death and apotheosis. pookster11 11:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Additions 3/30/04

A major renovation of the Roman Empire page has been in the works for a while. As part of the renovation, I'm scooping up the excessive biographic material from the Roman Empire page and shovewling it out to the actual articles that discuss the Roman Emperors.

I think the only controversy there should be is over my amplification of Augustus's name in the first line. That said, it his name in the formal Latin style. Let me know if there are any problems :) -Ddama

Roman emperor category

I think Augustus should be included in the category of Roman emperors. Not only does the article say he is (and if the category is wrong, the article should be changed to be consistent), but the authorities agree - the first sentence of Michael Grant's The Roman Emperors says Augustus "was the first Roman princeps or emperor". Stan 16:31, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear Stan, you surely know that our smart Augustus only used titles and offices of the ancient Roman Republic. He was princeps senatus, governors of all important provinces, censor, tribune, you name it. He was not emperor, although its generally assumed as the first. Its not a big mistake, but nevertheless a mistake. If everybody wants it categorized like that, well... Muriel G 17:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying Michael Grant is mistaken then? You're braver than I am! :-) Augustus had the same titles as later people we call "emperors", so if you say he's not, and they were, you're in the awkward position of trying to pick somebody else as a first emperor, and I don't know of any authority who names a different person. Stan 17:41, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Muriel, the statement that Augustus was the first emperor is a well-established historical convention, like saying that Walpole was the first Prime Minister. Walpole himself would have rejected this view, but it has become the established convention. Also, as Stan says, if Augustus wasn't the first emperor, who was? I think all the Julio-Claudians used the same titles that Augustus had - Claudius certainly thought of himself as a republican. The historical convention is that the empire began with Augustus, and the article ought to reflect that. Adam 16:16, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Acceptance of Augustus

This is a fairly minor point, but in the article it says the people of Rome didn't want a despot. Although I can understand this, sort of (Romans always resented kings), I always read that they were tired of war and had been sufficiently purged of pro-republican elements (whether by the Second Triumvirate or by natural death) to accept a dictator like Augustus so long as he didn't overtly declare himself a king. Brutannica 03:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering why is there no mention of Jesus Christ in Ceasar Augustus's history? Also, that he "reigned" at a time when he willingly and proudly boasted of gladiators under his authority, isn't it a bit of a personal comment on the author's part here to say he ruled in peace?

Why would you mention Jesus, since Augustus died while Jesus was still a youth? This article is primarily about Augustus' own life and career, it's not a general history of Rome. Also, "Peace" in this case means absence of war; gladiators were part of the entertainment of the time, and Romans took about as much notice of a gladiator's death as we would of a stock car driver dying in a wreck out on the track. The Romans had been in one civil war after another for half a century, they were so relieved that Augustus finally brought it to an end that they didn't complain much about the loss of liberty that came with his rule. Stan 06:25, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And the fact is, while the senatorial class migt have lost priveleges, nothing really changed much for the common people - the only difference is that they voted how Augustus bribed them, not how any other candidates bribed them.Kuralyov 21:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revert because of apparent copyvio

The major edit by anonymous (68.12.208.244) is in fact a reworking of this material at UNRV (and successive pages there). In order for this not to be a copyvio, the anonymous must prove that they are the author of the UNRV material. This also calls into question the other contributions of 68.12.208.244, and I suppose someone should check. (For all its cadences, by the way, that material has its share of very bad writing and sloppy editing; if it stays, it would need to be cleaned up — and where there is bad writing, there may also be a need to check the substance of the article very carefully. [B]efore ever for be forever, in doing so doing, At the age of twelve in 51 BC, Octavian’s grandmother and Caesar’s sister, died, etc.) Bill 09:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I just received an e-mail from Chris Heaton, the author of the UNRV material, in which he says that he did not make that edit. Therefore I'm reverting the article to what it was before the massive importation of the copyrighted material. Those who have made substantial edits since then (i.e., to the UNRV material) may want to make them again.

My reply to Chris's e‑mail follows:

Bill,

Forgive my email, but I'm not sure how to correct the issue that I found on Wikipedia relating to several articles that have been recently published.

This page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_Augustus has been plagiarized almost verbatim from my own site... www.unrv.com and I noticed that you pointed it out in the discussion section of the article. I have also found other articles of similar dubious origin but first things first, I suppose.

Is there any way for me to have this plagiarized material removed?

That's simple, Chris. When you find stuff like this, you merely mark it "copyvio" and reference your own site. The reason I could not do it is that I had no way of knowing that the anonymous editor who inserted the material was not you. Neither they nor you surfaced in response to my comment, to say that you were two different people.

I've marked the Augustus article as a copyvio, and am attaching to its Talk page this e-mail. (For any others, you're on your own: you can edit Wickedpedia just like anyone else.)

Best,

Bill 20:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

More Information

I think that more information should be added to this page. Augustus is one of the most prominent figures in Roman, European, and Roman history, but there is very little information about him. The majority of the first three decades of his life, including Julius Caesar, the battles at Philippi, Mark Antony, the Second Triumvirate, Cleopatra, and the Battle of Actium are summed up in a mere four short paragraphs. Even that part of his life that we know the most about (life as "Augustus" and his reign) has little information. Also, unlike the pages of his contemporaries (ex. Mark Antony, Marcus Brutus), Augustus's page dose not contain a list of family and offspring or a chronology. As Bill Thayer pointed out in his comment, the edit made by anonymous (68.12.208.244) is a copy of the material at UNRV (see above for link), but that website does contain a great deal of information on the subject of Augustus. I would recommend to start researching Augustus there (or any website) and re-type the information as to avoid copyright laws. I ask all who hold knowledge of the traditonal "greatest Roman Emperor" to add what they know to this page.

Roman Emperor 11:46 P.M., June 6, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright Question

I recently added a good deal of information to this page and I used the information found on UNRV website to write the information. I mainly cut and pasted and tryed to re-write the information the best I could to avoid copyright problems. I would ask that someone read the page and re-type or even revert the page if neccacry. I am not trying to seal copyrighted information, just trying to added material to Augustus's page.

Roman Emperor 01:58 A.M., June 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting, even with some word changes, is plagiarism, I think. If you want to use the material as a source, but write it in your own words, that's fine. john k 03:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fire brigade? Police force?

I'm not an expert on Roman history (by a long shot), but I do recall that Crassus operated a firefighting company a generation before Caesar Augustus came to power. (Larry Gonick has a great footnote on the subject in The Cartoon History of the Universe II.) Similarly, didn't the Senate's armed guard of "lictors" act as policemen during the time of the Republic? Besides, these seem like pretty minor accomplishments when compared with establishing the Pax Romana. I'm nixing the comments in the introduction, ergo, until these quibbles get addressed. —Anville 18:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The lictors weren't police, they were merely were bodyguards to the higher-ranking magistrates. And Crassus had a private firefighting force, which he used to help only those who could pay him exorbitantly - Augustus made a government firefighter brigade that would help anyone, regardless of social class. Kuralyov 19:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism Removed

Nearly the entire content of this original article has been plagiarized verbatim from:

http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/octavian.php and numerous sub pages.

Permission for its submission here was not asked, nor was it granted and offending material has been removed.

Thank You, Chris Heaton www.unrv.com primuspilus@unrv.com

disambiguation

I fail to see why we need to link to a disambiguation page instead of just an inline disambiguation. If there were more than two articles people might reasonably expect when typing Augustus it would make sense, but as is it just turns a potentially one-step process ("Oh, I meant the honorific." *click*) into a two-step process ("Oh, this isn't what I meant." *click* "Yes, this honorific is what I want." *click*). — Laura Scudder | Talk 18:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has offered any response I am going to change it to the more logical disambiguation style. Please discuss here if you disagree. — Laura Scudder | Talk 06:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The opening sentence

Caesar Augustus (Latin:IMP·CAESAR·DIVI·F·AVGVSTVS) ¹ (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14), known earlier in his life as Gaius Octavius or Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, is considered the first Roman Emperor, though he denies the use of imperator in favor of princeps, or "first citizen." He is considered one of the most important Emperors of Rome, if not the most important.

There are so many problems with the opening sentence that I wanted to detail them here before changing it, rather than try to cram them all into an edit summary. First and foremost, of course, is the implication that Augustus is still alive, but even after we change denies to denied, it's still factually inaccurate. Augustus never "denied" the title imperator; quite the contrary, he incorporated it into his own name as his praenomen. Rather, imperator (as someone has already pointed out earlier in this talk page) didn't mean emperor as we think of it; it meant "extremely distinguished general". Nor was Augustus ever known during his early life as "Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus"; after he was adopted by Caesar he took the name "Gaius Julius Caesar"—he certainly never called himself Octavianus, and I'm not aware of anyone else who did, either. I also think the second sentence is wholly unnecessary, and the single piece of information it has can be easily incorporated into the first sentence. Binabik80 17:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right about him not using the Octavianus part but Roman tradition was a lot stronger than our concept of tradition (mos maiorum was more like an unwritten constitution). And I have heard that his political opponents refused to call him Caesar as he desired, making a point of calling him Octavianus. I feel quite sure of this point but I can't give you a reference, sorry. But scholars invariably use Octavian for that period of his life. So I think that should stay.

Also, while Caesar Augustus is the best title for the article in keeping with policy of using most common name, I think it would be better to start the first sentence with Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus cf Pompey.

As for the use of imperator, rather than place him as the first emperor/imperator vs princeps, how about we describe how his accumulation of various traditional offices (eg Princeps senatus) led to the transformation of Rome from a republic to an empire.

Personally, I'd like to see the BC/AD changed to BCE/CE but I don't think it's worth having a revert war over. Nick81 26 October 2005

Here's the thing about opening the article with his "real" name: there's so many different names to choose from, it's difficult to pin down what his real name "should" be. He was Gaius Octavius; he was Gaius Julius Caesar; some claim he was Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, while others dispute it; it appears from a quick glance at his Oxford Classical Dictionary entry that he was Imperator Julius Caesar for a while; he was Imperator Caesar Augustus (the name the Latin at the beginning of the article uses); as far as I can tell, he wasn't ever Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus, though I may have missed that somewhere. Even the OCD, which has no problem listing full names for all the other Roman emperors, doesn't list a name other than "Augustus" at the beginning of its article; I think that, given their lead, it would be best to leave the article as is, with the first sentence containing only the two names by which English speakers know him. Currently, his names are discussed at the appropriate points in his biography in the text; I would have no problem with the addition of a section dedicated to his names (probably either immediately after the introduction, or at the article's end).

The last paragraph of the "Octavian becomes Augustus" section is, I think, an attempt to show what you mention about the process of Augustus "accumulating" the office of emperor--are you happy with it? As far as the introduction goes, I'd recommend sticking with "is considered the first Roman Emperor", then expanding upon that in the article.

I too agree that changing date format isn't worth an edit war. Personally, I'd really like to change all instances of "CE" and "BCE" to "AD" and "BC" throughout Wikipedia; I think it's a really good thing that I'm not allowed to. Binabik80 23:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Family

Why do I have conduct independent searches for Octavian's family? Atia, his mother, is mentioned, but what of his sister, Octavia? Adraeus 07:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Julius Caesar as first Roman Emperor?

Why is Augustus considered the first emperor, and not Julius Caesar? Wasn't it Caesar who effectively dissolved the Republic and put himself in a position of supreme power? Didn't Augustus simply inherit this new office, i.e. the Emperorship, from Caesar? 65.100.56.163 21:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. I would agree that Caesar effectively completed the dissolution of the Republic that had been in progress at least since the careers of the Gracchi a century earlier. But once he attained supreme power, he proved incapable (at least in the time he had) of reorganising the state to create a stable system of government with himself at the top; he was really just a military dictator, in the modern sense of the term, who had overthrown the legitimate government with an old fashioned coup d'etat. In this respect, he was just another in the line of military strongmen who had preceded him—Marius, Carbo, Sulla, even to a degree Pompey.

What sets Caesar apart from his predecessors is that his victory was so complete, and the oligarchic faction so thoroughly broken by their defeat, that following his death, the Senate's credibility as a governing force was completely ended. Always before, after the strongman of the day had died, been killed or withdrawn, the pro-Senatorial faction had contained enough respected leaders that it had been able to consolidate its powers in preparation for the next challenger who would arise. But it was unable to do so after Caesar; the question was no longer one of oligarchy versus monarchy, but simply which of Caesar's two principal heirs (Octavian and Antony) the monarchy would be under.

Octavian, however, wasn't Caesar's political heir, and he certainly didn't inherit any "new office" from Caesar. He was simply Caesar's personal heir; he inherited Caesar's estate and name. This certainly catapulted him to the forefront of Roman politics at an extremely young age, but this was no different from what had happened to Gaius Marius' son (also named Gaius Marius) and Pompey, both of whom had come to prominence in their early twenties purely because of the name and clout they inherited because of their respective fathers.

Octavian had to create his political position for himself—first by allying himself with the Senate against Antony, then with Antony against the Senate, then by defeating Antony and conquering Egypt for himself, and then by building what we now think of as the office of Roman emperor. The emperorship—really a collection of a variety of different offices, rights and duties—was gradually put together by Augustus over the course of the 20s and 10s BC, and bore almost no relation to the office of dictator perpetuus that Caesar had held in the 40s BC.

Furthermore, Augustus was able to accomplish something Caesar never did—he passed his political office on to his successor, Tiberius, after his death. This is why, though it was Caesar who ended the Republic, it's Augustus whom modern scholarship considers the first Roman emperor. Binabik80 03:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks very much for your informative reply. :)

Mark Antony goes to Egypt

I believe the word "infant" (referring to Caesarion) should be removed in the section on Antony and Cleopatra (under "Rise to Power"). By the time Antony went to Egypt, Caesarion was at least 5 years old, according to each of their individual entries here on Wikipedia.

accusation of sexual favors

I don't have a problem with the new addition, but reverted it because I felt like sounded silly enough to warrant a citation in order to be taken seriously by our readers. Anyone have one? — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Suetonius, Augustus 68, 71. --Nicknack009 03:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

We want to be careful with how much Suetonius is used as a source here. Suetonius has a lot of well documented problems, and much of what he says is either no where else or contrary to other sources. When we're stuck, like with Caligula or aspects of Nero or Claudius, its perfectly acceptable to use Suetonius, keeping in mind his errors and proclivity towards being the "Inquirer" of his day. Basically put, simply because its in Suetonius does not mean it should be placed in an encyclopedia article about Augustus. pookster11 05:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Suetonius reports things that may or may not be so; and yes, there is in certain quarters a tendency to latch onto the titillating stuff (Tiberius' minnows, Caligula's horse, etc.) But he was at least a near contemporary, and can at least be trusted to report what was being said at the time. Not only is that the beginning of the later reception — to use the technical term — of the history of Augustus, but such gossip become part of the history also impacted that history as it was unfolding. In short, I'd rather include the gossip of Suetonius than the speculations of Michael Grant. Bill 12:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Suetonius is about one-hundred and fifty some years and two dynasties after the death of Augustus. He has a clear agenda throughout and is generally hostile to every single one of the Julio-Claudians, and gives all of them the quote, "Let them hate me so long as they fear me." As the emperors and dynasties get closer to the emperor of his own time, Hadrian, he generally deals with them in a better light, but is clearly hostile to the very institution of the Principate throughout. Its also clear from later sources that he had little to no impact, certainly not as much impact as Tacitus or Josephus or Plutarch. As such, I fail to see why it is vital that we include every titillating aspect of Suetonius in what is supposed to an encyclopedia article, not an overview of the historiography of Augustus. Simply because he's closer to the time period does not make him a better source; it would be like some future generation using Art Bell as their source for the past twenty years.pookster11 05:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Bill on this. Suetonius is an important early source. He wasn't contemprary with Augustus, but he does purport to have had access to contemporary sources now lost, including, for example, slanderous speeches by Mark Antony, which are historically interesting and informative. Yes, he had an agenda, as do all historians: all that means is we must read him critically, like any other source of the period. Supposed hostility to the Julio-Claudians (considering the proscriptions of the Second Triumvirate and the way he treated his daughter, I think Augustus deserves some hostility) doesn't disqualify him as a source. --Nicknack009 09:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Seem to have gotten off track a bit, so allow me to backtrack some. All I was originally saying was that we should be careful how extensively or exclusively we rely on Suetonius as a source for this article. If we want this to be a decent, encyclopedic article, then it is not necessary to integrate every gritty detail from any source that may mention Augustus. The accusations of sexual favors are an interesting historical side note, but in the end they are little more than a side note; beside his escapades against the Parthians, Antony's biggest failure was his inability to effectively counter Octavian's propoganda campaign in Rome, and this is merely an example of an accusation that went nowhere and had little affect on the overall political campaign. And I mean no personal offense or disrepect here Nicknack, but I'm wondering if you have read and analyzed Suetonius's treatment of the Julio-Claudians. As I alluded to before, most of Suetonius's writings on the Julio-Claudians are based around slanderous accusations of a hyperbolic nature with little to no eveidence that actually repeat themselves; Augustus is accused of many of the same crimes and outrages as Tiberius, who is accused of the same crimes and outrages as Gaius Caligula, and so on. So yes, in this case, the degree of hostility that Suetonius has towards the Julio-Claudians and apparently to the Principate in general, while not disqualifying him as a source, should at least cause one to think at least twice about including aspects from Suetonius that appear only in Suetonius. And just as a minor point, and I'm sure you would agree, whether or not we actually like any aspect of these historical figures should not preclude us from attempting to give an accurate account of their lives and historical significance. pookster11 11:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Suetonius is an inveterate muck-raker, I think we can both agree on that. He muck-rakes most freely when writing about subjects who can't hurt him. He's obviously going to be more diplomatic about Hadrian and anyone whose memories Hadrian's going to feel particularly protective about. But I don't think he makes stuff up, and what he reports of the propaganda war between Antony and Octavian is very informative and relevant to the individuals and their times. I agree that Antony's accusation of sexual misconduct is no more than a side-note, but it's an interesting side-note, and an article, while obviously needing to be based based primarily on substantive stuff like achievements, political significance and so on, needs interesting side-notes (so long as they're sourced). There's no rule that says an encyclopedia has to be totally po-faced. --Nicknack009 17:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So..

... How long do you guys think we should wait before moving this page to Augustus? -Silence 01:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to matter much, since redirected; but yes, the current location seems silly, and is one of the many things that make Wikipedia look bad. The justification for "Caesar Augustus" is that some segments of the population will only bump into the guy because of having read Scripture in the KJV, which so refers to him; maybe more people than the rest of us, so not exactly to sneeze at. Still, my 2¢ worth, it should be changed. Bill 13:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

So how does one go about moving an article to a page that already exists as a redirect? Is it just a matter of copying and pasting, or does that confuse the edit history? --Nicknack009 17:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

A request has to be made to an admin, who can switch the two pages around. Where and how that request is made, I have no idea. Bill 17:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't copy and paste, you need to do a Requested Move, I think. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested moves is the proper place to go, but that place has a huge backlog; I know of articles that have been waiting to be moved for over eight months now. I recommending contacting an admin directly to handle the move. Incidentally, once we've moved this page to Augustus, we might want to consider removing the disambig notice on the top of the page and instead linking to the honorific Augustus at the beginning of the article text in the same way that Mark Antony links to Antonius at the start. Disambiguation notices are genuinely only for when the two articles are so unrelated that the other article couldn't be linked to within the article's text; that's clearly not the case here, and indeed the two are very closely linked, enough that each should link to the other in the initial paragraphs, with or without the disambig. -Silence 21:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Presto change-o...I suspect this has created a large number of broken links and double redirects, however. But I'm sure you won't mind cleaning them up, right? :) Adam Bishop 21:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

:) -Silence 21:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)