This is an archive of past discussions about Augustus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article needs some different photos. Most of the pictures here represent the "prima porta" Augustus. Also, the "20th century" depiction should be removed entirely. It's absurd. Datus (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Death
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
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-Lou09:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Even if I was to humor myself with your 'theory', the 'evidence' you are providing is purely original research, which Wikipedia does not allow. Unless there is some well-known controversial scholarly debate going on about Augustus' death date which you can provide full citations for from peer-reviewed material in books and scholarly journal articles, then your 'evidence' of Augustus dying in 10 CE has about as much weight as a molecule, if not an electron.--Pericles of AthensTalk05:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- - -
Thanks for your valuable feedback, Pericles!
As I understand Wikipedia's definition of "No original research," what I am presenting above is not that, or else please show me how even one of following references is not a reliable and previously published source?:
1. Can you show me that my reference to modern astronomy at NASA's website is not a previously published reliable source?
2. Can you show me that my quotes from the writings of Phlegon, as referenced by Origen and in Solar Eclipse Newsletter, Vol. 8:11, Nov 2003, is not a previously published reliable source?
5. Can you show me that my own article on the web and outside of Wikipedia is not a previously published source? My article is published for any and all to see on the web, is it not? - If I have ever so many scholarly titles tied to the end of my name, how much is that worth in the face of such simple truths as most any child should be able to see and understand for him self? Thus, the strength or weakness of this item #5 does not stand or fall upon any honorary titles given by men, but simply on the facts of the matter itself as also observed and published before by others outside of Wikipedia, does it not?
Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources...
...Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
So tell me, Tree of Life Time, does the NASA program specifically state that Augustus died in 10 CE? I doubt it, NASA isn't into history unless it's a history about their organization. No, you simply used a NASA site and knowledge of solar eclipses to verify your own conclusion about ancient primary source documents. Sorry pal, you are not a historian with a Ph.D. Your website, TreeofLifeTime, at http://treeoflife.lan.io/, is a subscription site where you can apparently:
Discover Firsthand How the Scripture's Own Calendar Just May Be Your Key to the Time of God's Kingdom!
This is obviously not a peer-reviewed secondary source from a book or journal.
You state this:
If I have ever so many scholarly titles tied to the end of my name, how much is that worth in the face of such simple truths as most any child should be able to see and understand for him self?
Guess what dude? You're in the wrong place. What you're doing goes completely against Wikipedia policy which I've stated above, and even if your 'theory' was correct, then scholars would have unanimously agreed upon a fixed death date. The worst thing is, you can't even name one scholar who supports your 'theory', which lends it no credibility and no place on Wikipedia. It's not even a minority position within the scholarly community, hence it doesn't even merit discussion in this article. I have personally never heard or read of this 'theory' anywhere until you presented it. That speaks volumes, "does it not"?--Pericles of AthensTalk13:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- - -
Thanks again, Pericles!
Your feedback and your considerations are most valuable to me!
Now, even if I were to be a Ph.D. I am not going to claim it in this forum...
Dear Pericles, why are you even making statements without first making certain you have a firm foundation for such statements of yours? That is, you are saying:
“Sorry pal, you are not a historian with a Ph.D.”
"You're in the wrong place...
"What you're doing goes completely against Wikipedia policy which I've stated above..."
- I know firsthand who and what I am, you don’t and cannot know that firsthand because you are not me.
- What makes you such an authority as to make such statements of authority? - Even in the face of the obvious meaning of the words within your quotes, which words to me do not at all support your thesis?
Using such obviously unsupported presumptions of yours make it appear to me as though you are attempting to support a thesis of yours to the effect that only a certain category of self appointed peers (i.e. limiting their appointments to such as are one of them) are allowed to make entries into Wikipedia, whether such entries be correct or not, i.e. such certain peers as do the reviewing of “peer review[ed…]” books and journals. But isn’t such a thesis a direct attack against the stated purpose of Wikipedia? Let me quote these words from the Wikipedia left column link entitled “About Wikipedia:”
“Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles. Most of the articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard...”
When I am making a claim, e.g. “Augustus died in 10 CE! Not in 14 AD.,” my intent is to share with others in the Wikipedia community what I am seeing firsthand. The references I am looking at are the only things I can see firsthand for myself. I am not NASA, Phlegon, Josephus or Suetonius and I cannot see firsthand exactly that which they were seeing firsthand and which they wrote about. I doubt that any of those four observed firsthand the real events behind each of their words as quoted by myself, yet they were or are close to the source and are highly relied upon for that which may be considered their specialty, are they not?
2. Secondly, I find no reason to distrust Phlegon’s words...
“'In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (AD 32-33), and eclipse of the Sun took place greater than any previously known, and night came on at the sixth hour of the day, so that stars actually appeared in the sky…”
while also carefully noting that “(AD 32-33)” is an obvious late editorial interpretation subject to peer review by myself and any other who care enough to look firsthand at the best available evidence, or do you find reason to distrust these words of Phlegon?
3. Thirdly, I find no reason to distrust Josephus’ original words as quoted when dating the event marking the beginning of Augustus’ reign as a sole ruler upon the throne, do you?
4. Fourthly, I find no reason to distrust Suetonius’ reckoning of Augustus’ 44 years as a sole ruler before his death, do you?
It is true that for myself I must make my own interpretation of each of these four references in order to make sense of them. For instance, I must do my best to correctly understand the English, Greek, Hebrew and Latin words used by each of those references. To the extent that I depend upon someone else’s translation of any of those languages into a language more familiar to me I make myself subject to the errors and presumptions controlling the point of view of such translators. If one of the best available linguistic scholars provide me with his best available translation such a translation is still very likely to be in error re particulars of time if said scholar is not also a top notch scholar in the chronology of that particular time period, which would be a rare coincidence indeed. Thus I cannot reasonably rely on any “secondary source from a book or journal” whether “peer-reviewed” or not, though such secondary sources may always be helpful to me in pointing the way towards valuable sources from which I must pick and choose to the best of my ability while yet staying focused upon the real time events.
So far as I know you are correct in questioning that: “The NASA program specifically state that Augustus died in 10 CE.” If they did, it would be outside of their specialty and it would not be a reliable statement without more. However NASA is publishing some very revealing web pages showing in effect the lack of exact and reliable correlations between historical records of celestial observations as dated by conventional chronology on the one hand and on the other hand astronomically ascertained celestial events. This lack of correlation covers about 1000 years both in re to historical solar eclipses and historical lunar eclipses. Said lack of correlations may not be immediately obvious to the uninitiated, but is easily perceived once carefully compared to this publication of mine which shows some 20 perfectly fitting such correlations within little more than one century alone, i.e. from 49 BCE to 77 CE.
To me this lack of correlations between the extant written records and astronomical facts within the realm of conventional scholarship and historicity is in effect very much the same as that which you are calling for by your words above: “…some well-known controversial scholarly debate going on about Augustus' death date,” or don’t you perceive that? I have no doubt but that anyone seriously looking for it will find aplenty such “full citations… from peer-reviewed material in books and scholarly journal articles” as does in fact support the above referenced lack of correlations as evidenced by the NASA web pages, or don’t you see that?
So, you see, I find no need for claiming, whether or not that is what I am, that I am...
“a historian with a Ph.D.”
I have no desire for taking on the burden of being someone else’s authority or for making the rest of the world population my disciples, my blind followers, or my subject slaves.
What I do desire is to be the best I can in being an example for taking responsibility for my own perception of reality. If I can, by my example and in my communication, help even one man to see for himself firsthand the essence and truth of that reality which I am seeing and if such a one finds lasting value in such firsthand observations of his own, then I find reason for having a sense of accomplishment. In fact, even if that one is no one besides myself, even that is enough for me to be satisfied and to praise my ultimate sources forever.
As to your statement that I...
“simply used a NASA site and knowledge of solar eclipses to verify [my] own conclusion about ancient primary source documents”
I quite agree with you, because I find it valuable to be able to confirm and verify one of my most reliable sources with another reliable source and if the two do not agree, then I must pursue my studies of the basics until I know and recognize exactly why the two are apparently in disagreement. If not, chances are that I’d choose the most incorrect of the two and it would not take long until nothing could possibly fit accurately into the picture any more… - And then I'd be likely to transfer the blame unto someone else far away... even blaming my sources!
Perhaps there is more in your statement that may be worthy of comment, but for now I believe this may be “ ‘nough said…” May the pursuit of truth be our guiding star forever!
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
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? NeoRicen06:06, 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. pookster1109:19, 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.Flamarande12:51, 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. pookster1106:30, 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 Flamarande18:16, 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."
The question of NeoRicen, above, is why Octiavius came to the support of Decimus Brutus Albinus, not why he warred against Antony. NeoRicen's confusion is that Decimus Brutus Albinus was not the assassin Marcus Junius Brutus. Branko02:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Foolish move of this article back to "Caesar Augustus"
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
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?) Bill13:01, 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. Flamarande13:22, 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. Bill16:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, his official name became "Imperator Caesar Augustus" (with "Imperator" as preanomen), but he preferred to be addressed in person as "Caesar" to stress the familial relation with Julius Caesar. But historians refer to him as Augustus, never Caesar Augustus. Branko02:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
On a related topic, I do think that the name over the main image should read "Caesar Augustus" or simply "Augustus," but certainly not "Augustus Caesar", anyone object? Scrutchfield (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
30 days hath September...
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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. 82.92.119.1121:48, 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. TharkunColl12:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Brutus and Cassius in control?
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. Bungeh07:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
How old was Augustus when he died?
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. TharkunColl10:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Murderer of the Innocent without Cause,
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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? pookster1107:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Was Augustus ever Pharoah of Egypt?
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
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? Carcharoth14:28, 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). TharkunColl17:11, 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. Carcharoth17:34, 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? Carcharoth00:19, 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 k01:43, 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. pookster1105:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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? Carcharoth21:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
BC/AD, the endless nonsense
Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
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. Bill22:45, 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??? 142.176.56.18523:00, 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. Bill23:09, 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. 142.176.56.18523:21, 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 ****.CrazyInSane23:33, 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. Bill15:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Later item
An idiot appear to have vandalized the page. can someone please restore it?
Number of senators
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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. 68.60.9.4701:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
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.
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. pookster1122:02, 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. Binabik8015:24, 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)
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. pookster1119:59, 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."
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. Mauditporc22:38, 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.) —Eickenberg02:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Archive
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. —Mirlen00:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Acta est fabula, plaudite
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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). Rusco06:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
"most foolish war"
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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, BT17:06, 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. - BT05:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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, Durova17:20, 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. —Mirlen22:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Pleb riots at thought of Octavian stepping down?
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
"Reportedly, the suggestion of Octavian's stepping down as consul led to rioting among the Plebeians in Rome." Who is our source for this?Ejectgoose02:42, 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. —Mirlen22:54, 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. EALacey16:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[BC/AD vs. BCE/CE]
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion
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.
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)
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. Webb18:21, 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. pookster1105:05, 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 k19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
LUKE 2:1 Jesus was born in Bethlehem BECAUSE octavian declared his tax! BC/AD and BCE/ACE all are equivalent in roman context. THe Bible is called the Vulgare in Latin the word means "common", so to call this the "Common era" is to more forcefully assert that (Roman)Christian ideology. From my perspective, the "ad" more aptly refers to octavian and not Jesus Christ. If octavian can declare a tax of the world, and receive this tribute, and is desrcibed as the supreme justice..then who is it that is Lord? Paul sought to make his plea to "augustus" for supreme judgement, joseph went to Bethlehm with his pregnant wife to be Taxed, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God the things of GOd " is one line that is repeated in almost all of the gospels (repitition demonstrates conceptual re-inforcement) -- Jah said the serpent was more subtle than any other beast of the field. M.James —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.52.16.198 (talk) 11:52, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest to you that there is no "common" era. After all, the Jews still seem to be keeping their counting system (year 5000 and something), the Muslims still keep theirs (1400 ish, I think), and until the 20th Century, the Japanese had theirs. I am sure there are many other examples. Even in the "Christian" calender, it is suprising recently that we have lined them all up. Different countries switched to the Gregorian calender at different times. I think Russia was the last big nation to line up.
Surely the predominance of the AD/BC system is due to the successful colonialism of European (and, at the time, Christian) nations, with other calender systems being followed by less succesful nations. This renaming to BCE/CE is surely just a modern attempt to borrow Christian heritage, and "de-Christ" it. I know a number of Muslims who, should Islam become the world's dominant religion, would move everything to the Muslim calender, as they see that as the "correct" one, and only ust the ad/bc calender to facilitate life in non-muslim countries.
Also, I think that the above contributor seems to be confusing temporal and spiritual Lords. Also between temporal and spirtual justice. A man with an axe can deliver temporal justice (ask Henry VIII !), and similarly, the Roman Emperor can deliver temporal justice, but it is no more than that. Many, although not all, Christians believe that life on earth is not a fulfilment of heaven. So a man can declare himself a god, and try to tax the world, but that does not mean he is a god, or that he is some sort of Lord in other than the temporal sense. Maybe the above author has confused the translation of Christ with that of Lord. Perhaps if he studied biblical translations a little better, he would understand the difference.
Furthermore, Christ's reference to render unto Ceaser what is his must be taken in the context of Christ's teachings about God providing for us (therefore the need for large amounts of money is unnecessary), and his views on the moneylenders in the temple. Also, as Chrst knew his bible pretty well, he is making a reference to Job chapter 1 – The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away – so he is saying to his followers that they should not be too attached to temporal (and, by definition, tempoary) things, such as money.
Paul also reminds us that the love of money was the root of all evil (1Timothy 6:10).Mariya Oktyabrskaya08:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Emperor
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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 Niroby21:40, 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." Mlouns21:48, 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.
Vandalism
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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". 130.237.175.19815:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
Date of father's death
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. EALacey11:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Livia: Second or Third?
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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-92521:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Officially Ausgutus was thice married:
a political marriage with the daughter of Fulvia and Publius Clodius, the stepdaughter of Mark Antony, but he divorced her and returned her "untouched" (still a virgin)
a political marriage with the niece of Sextus Pompey, Scribonia, with whom he had Julia
marriage with Livia, who divorced her husband for it.
Recurring misconception: how to translate Divi filius
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
The term divus was used synonymously to deus by the Romans: it is to be translated as "god", not as "deified" or "divinized" or "divine"
divus only became an adjective in later times, after Rome was christianized, and it didn't mean "deified" or "divinized" but "divine" (so there's a big difference even in the later meaning)
so Divus Iulius doesn't mean the "the deified Julius" or "the deified Caesar", but is the name of the god himself: therefore it must not to be translated
in later times the term divus simply meant a mortal ruler elevated to the status of a god, i.e. an inferior variant of deus: this is the interpretation by Servius
however, in Caesar Augustus' times the term divus meant the exact opposite (early theopolitical interpretation by Varro), namely the eternal elite gods, a subcategory of deus, but not an inferior variant; in many cases the Divi were superior to the old gods; Divus Iulius was equal to Jupiter, in everyday liturgy and ritual the Divus Iulius was even superior, as the responsibilities and powers of the flamen Divi Iulii show (high priest of Divus Iulius, the most important of the early imperial flamines maiores)
in Augustan times the emperor was (after his death) not a man who had been divinized; on the contrary: he was a true god, and like all gods he was eternal, of course also in retrospect: that means that he had always been a god and would remain a god for all eternity (which is quite logical for a god!); his mortal past was ordered forgotten; Augustus declared a partial damnatio memoriae on Caesar concerning those writings that were not worthy of a Caesar and of a god
the term Divi filius is therefore to be translated as "Son of God"
with capital letters, because it was also a title, adopted by many later emperors who were sons of a divus
the distinction was often made by calling them by a longer title/name, e.g. Titus as Divi Vespasiani filius, because Divi filius was reserved for Augustus, the son of the first Divus
it is absolutely incorrect to translate the term Divi filius with an article, e.g. as "Son of the god", "Son of a god", "the son of God", "the son of a god" or "the son of the god"; here a specific god is meant, namely the Divus Iulius, which is why Augustus was also (but seldomly) called (e.g. on coins) Divi Iulii filius
in Augustan times there was only one Divus, so no distinction needed to be made to other Divi or sons of Divi
this is proven by the Greek translation of Divi filius as θεοῦ ὑιός, which is an anarthrous term (i.e. without any article)
this term (correctly translated as "Son of God") also made it into the Gospels, e.g. θεοῦ ὑιός (Mt 4:33, 27:43 und 27:54) or ὑιός θεοῦ (Mk 15:39 and Lk 1:35) etc.; the dependency of the Gospel text on the terminology of the imperial cult has been verified by many, also in three articles of the Vatican pontifical journal Biblica: Kim (1998), Johnson (2000) and Mowery (2002) (just to name some of the latest publications), or Deissmann (1922), one of the earlier scholars
First, a divus is a mortal who has been deified, a deus is a god; this rule goes all the way back to Romulus. They are not synonyms. The closest translation to "Divus Iulius" would be "Divine Julius" or "Julius Divinity". Once again, these are not Christian reinterpretations (why would Christians be deifying kings?) or later interpretations by Romans. You are confusing Roman iconography with Roman theology; the presentation of Augustus and/or Caesar as Jupiter does not make them either greater than or equal to Jupiter. Please read Paul Zanker's various works on the topic for clarification. After death the emperor could be nothing but a man deified; the Romans were not stupid, they knew the emperor was purely human and died and was not a living god. Please cite where you are getting Augustus' passage of a damnatio against Caesar. "Divi Filius" still does not mean "son of god"; look at any secondary source on Roman history that is written by an actual professor and peer reviewed and it will translate "Divus" anything and "Divine" or "Deified". Please also understand that Greek and Latin are two different languages; just because the Greeks called Augustus "Sebastos" does not mean that "Sebastos" is the direct cognate of "Augustus", and so on. Please in the future save long rants for topics you know something about. pookster1110:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually I know a lot more about this matter than you do, because you make several hair-raising mistakes; as a matter of fact, every argument you present is more or less false:
that divus is a "mortal who has been deified" and that an emperor could after his death be "nothing but a man deified" is the late interpretation by Servius, which flipped around the original interpretation by Varro (please read Ittai Gradel's book "Emperor Worship and Roman Religion"); but even in Servius' times, deification meant "becoming a god", a real god, although they weren't seen as important as the first divi; (some later exceptions of course, e.g. Constantinus I., as a large exhibition in Treves currently shows)
long before Augustus and Caesar, divus was sometimes used in conjunction with the spirits of the deceased ancestors, the di parentes and the di manes who were sometimes rendered as divi, e.g. the Diva Angerona, the Diva Rumina etc., accordingly the Romans themselves (even after the creation of the imperial cult) used and continued to use deus and divus interchangeably, e.g. in Latin poetry; and as seen above: dius, but also diuus (= divus), dieus (the old name of Jupiter) and deivus (= deiuus) all mean nothing but "god". A good, but not necessarily complete collection of the Republican and old Roman distinctions before the imperial cult is in Livius 8.9: there divi refer to "all gods" as a general term, not as "somehow divine entities" or "deified humans".
Romulus wasn't "deified"; read the legend on his ascension/apotheosis; in addition he did not carry the term divus in his god name; and he was identified as Quirinus only later; in any case he was also a divus (cp. Livius; see above) = a deus; of course the connection between Romulus/Quirinus and Caesar, whose statue stood in (or by?) the Quirinus-temple is of importance, but not in the decision on Caesars god name; the title/name Augustus also directly relates to Romulus, e.g. to the factor of progeny which was connected to the gods; so Augustus also connects to Quirinus; but it's nonsense to say that the imperial cult had its blueprint in the identification of Romulus as Quirinus; the predecessors were the Greek forms of the apotheosis and (in Rome) the deification of Marius Gratidianus
so both terms divus and deus (and others) meant nothing but "god", even in Servius times; it's completely irrelevant what we today think; it's important what the Romans thought; the only thing that changed over the centuries was the interpretation: from eternal elite god to a deified human; of course the Romans knew very well that Caesar and Augustus had been human, but it doesn't change the fact that they became full-fledged gods and that their biography was retrofitted as the life of a god, ergo the title of Suetonius' biography: Divus Iulius and not Iulius Caesar; you seem to be completely ignorant of Roman religiousness
So divus is to be translated as "god", and only "god"; the question how to translate Divus Iulius is however irrelevant, because it was his true god name, which is not to be translated; we don't translate Iuppiter either (as "Godfather"), because Iuppiter is the name of this god; but just to clear the matter up: if it were allowed to translate Divus Iulius, it would have to be "God Julius", not the "divine Julius"; that's simply bad knowledge of Latin and ignorance of the development of the word's meaning in history (divus as an adjective that means "divine" is late and uncommon)
there are very well Christian reinterpretations; the first one was done by Servius, surely under the influence of these new religious (= monotheistic) currents, although he was paganus; today it's done by scholars, many of whom are just little dimwitted worker bees and don't know any better, and would-be-scholars like you who can't grab the idea that a man of Antiquity can actually also be a true god; this is by many contemporary people (un)consciously reserved for the Christ; and iconography has nothing to do with this specific issue
although the new god was viewed with some suspicion (cf. Ittai Gradel, violent death & the Magna-Mater-connection), the Divus Iulius was in everyday religious practices superior to Jupiter, simply because his flamen was the most powerful (cp. Weinstock, Alföldi's review of Weinstock and others); again: you don't seem to have any clue, in this case that religion and politics were one and the same
for someone who chats people up for their putative unlearnedness, you don't seem to know a lot yourself, if you want to write about Augustus and Caesar: Augustus' partial damnatio memoriae on Caesar's writings is in Suetonius, Divus Iulius 56.7: "We also have mention of certain writings of his boyhood and early youth, such as the "Praises of Hercules," a tragedy "Oedipus," and a "Collection of Apophthegms"; but Augustus forbade the publication of all these minor works in a very brief and frank letter sent to Pompeius Macer, whom he had selected to set his libraries in order."
your argument on Greek and Latin and Sebastos and Augustus is also incorrect, because the most prominent language spoken and written in the East, especially in religion, scripture, inscriptions, was Greek; Sebastos was not only the direct cognate and translation of Augustus (cp. e.g. Strabo plus related words, e.g. ΣΈΒΩ completely paralleling the Roman meanings), it was in the Eastern empire the only true name of Augustus. But this is not what I meant anyway: what I wanted to show is that the Greeks used the anarthrous term, rendering it (in Greek) as "Son of God", without any articles, although they could have done so. But it's quite logical if you align it to the original Roman interpretation of the Divus Iulius; he was not "a god" but "god", namely the only Roman imperial god of the time.
So I'll change the article again and I advise you to not change it back, because otherwise I would have to report this as vandalism. Or maybe you do find more arguments. Get your facts straight and come back after you've started learning. —Eickenberg02:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Once point I'd like to make in this debate as a native English speaker, which I believe you're not. In English, "God", capitalised and with no article, specifically means the only deity of a monotheistic religion – the only god that religion believes in. Augustus' title of divi filius must be considered as part of Rome's polytheistic religion. He was the son of a specific god, but not of "God" as that word is understood in English, so translating divi filius as "Son of God" is misleading to the general reader. Latin had no articles, but it is quite normal when translating into English to supply one to aid understanding. A better translation would therefore be "Son of the God" to show that a specific deity is meant, but to avoid giving the impression of monotheism.
Finally, this is a content dispute over a matter of interpretation, so throwing around accusations of vandalism, especially when you admit that not all scholars agree with you ("many of whom are just little dimwitted worker bees and don't know any better"), is quite wrong and unnecessary. Drop the attitude and maybe we can get somewhere. --Nicknack00913:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
A few remarks, first on the attitude: I was just defending myself against pookster's unfounded accusations and his aggressive tone. As an Iraq vet he should know that an aggressive occupation of "topoi" will result in equally aggressive counter-measures. Then to your arguments:
I know very well that the monotheistic god of any religion is capitalized in English, and I'm aware of the possible confusion. But this is (at least in Christian countries) the Christian god that is meant by "God", whoever He is. But we're not allowed to apply modern rules and views on ancient events and practices. And when looking at Rome in this context, we have to look at the imperial cult, not the "old Roman religion" that many scholars see on a steady decline after the advent of the imperial divi (which can however be debated; I myself am not exactly sure if this is true). In any case, the imperial cult was a religion with strong monotheistic tendencies. One ruler, one god: on the surface we see a strict senatorial rule of apotheosis after death, and a tendency of the emperor to suppress any direct worship during his lifetime. But this was different outside the city of Rome: evidence is abundant that this supposed "rule" was (already during Caesar's lifetime) contradicted by the worship of the living emperor. This is one of the reasons, why the "dead emperor" became less and less important over the course of the centuries, because in the common religion of the people (including the priests), the living emperor was the primary target in their spiritual lives, although this was never officially sanctioned in urban Rome. So in essence, religious reality in imperial Rome meant the rulership of the emperor as God (with a capital "G").
The general problem is the fact we always want to translate everything for better clarity. But by doing that we're often obscuring the historical reality. In this case, divi in the term Divi filius at first means — as you rightly point out — a specific deity, namely the one called Divus Iulius, which was the highest god of the Roman empire at the time. Without looking further, one could follow your proposal and translate it as Son of the God. But lots of evidence speaks against this translation: the main evidence is of course the fact that the Greeks did not use an article, which means that this specific god was in imperial Rome with all its theopolitical propaganda simply "God", from Spain to Parthia, from Egypt to Scotland. (A sidenote: the Greeks neither used words like heros or hemitheos to translate divus, but simply used their primary Greek word for "god" — and specifically meaning also "God". On the terminology in Plutarch's writings see Ittai Gradel's book.) The circumstantial evidence that can be found in many books on the subject (e.g. Divus Julius by Stefan Weinstock, with most of it being supported in Alföldi's and North's reviews) is the following:
Not Augustus, but Caesar was the principle founder of the Pax Romana. He was unable to bring it to conclusion, which allowed his heir Augustus to finish what was left. This was then specified as the Pax Augusta, but the first imperial pater patriae, the founder of the new Rome, who is called in religious terms creator, pantokrator etc., was the first divus, the Divus Iulius. The ancient sources and iconography as well as modern secondary literature leave no doubt that Caesar was viewed as the "Creator of the universe". Of course we have to keep in mind that — like in every religion — the "universe" always only means the world that was known to the people in that time… and it meant the empire, the new saeculum, Roma resurgens… in one term: "God's empire on Earth". Caesar (and later Augustus) were the new Romulus (parens patriae, the title Augustus etc.), his rightful successors, they were the new gods, Father and Son, and later both were ruling from heaven as a divine entity side by side (after Augustus' apotheosis = ascension), fathers and godfathers of the new Rome, the new Iuppiter (diuus having been chosen for its closeness to Dieus, the old name of Jupiter), accompanied by heaps of religions reforms and revolutions. No sane (Greek-speaking) Roman would have used an article ("the God" or "a God"), at least not in official imperial terminology. We also have to keep in mind that Divi filius was not a title but part of Augustus' name (like the praenomen Imperator). Therefore it shouldn't be translated either, but explained in a footnote. Or have you ever seen Iulius Caesar translated? … as "Wooly worm Elephant"? ;-) —Eickenberg16:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but the fact remains that you are speaking in the language of a a very specialist field, and this is a work for the general reader, and that means you have to translate. And the fact that Augustus incorporated a lot of titles into his official name, doesn't make them personal names. "Imperator" needs translated, or the general reader will have no idea what incorporating it into his name signified, same with "divi filius", same, for that matter, with "augustus". I still think the translation of "divi filius" needs an article in English – they may not have used one in Greek, but at that time the Greeks didn't have to worry about "God" being misinterpreted as a monotheist god, and besides, there is no one-to-one correspondence between words in different languages. The aim must be understanding, not some ideal of accuracy that actually impedes understanding unless you've already studied the field in depth. --Nicknack00920:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and I have for many years. I can understand the argument for providing an article for the general reader. This is not a specialist encyclopedia, so I guess you're right. Then it would however need a footnote or a secondary article to explain what for the Romans was really meant by Divi filius. One sidenote: Imperator was a true praenomen of Augustus. For his first imperatorial acclamation in 43 BC, imperator was still applied as a mere title (for the man holding an imperium, although in Octavian's case this was quite a joke). Later it was an actual praenomen and part of his name. All scholars are very clear about this. The same applies for Augustus, which was in Octavian's case his name, for later emperors either their name, their title or both. The distinction between Augustus as name and title can still be seen with the last West-Roman emperor Romulus Augustulus, who was officially called Dominus Noster Romulus Augustus Pius Felix Augustus. One Augustus is a title, the other is a true name. With Divi filius it was different: it was only his name, not a title. —Eickenberg02:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Because divus was used as an adjective, it has been used by some (e.g. Cicero, Ovid etc.) to mean divine or deified in one case and god in still another by the same author.[3][4] You can find an English translation through the link at the bottom of the Augustus article under Res Gestae Divi Augusti ("The accomplishments of the deified/divine Augustus"). Greek uses the same word to translate deus and divus (theos I believe, but my Greek years are long gone). Hence, there was difficulty in getting at the Roman meaning of the two and inserting a Greek article where there was none. I've seen all translations used and also the use of both articles, but as you both have pointed out, the translation is useless without the correct context. Terming some a misconception is a little strong as the Harvard University Press has published such translations for years. This discussion was very good however and the points should be incorporated into a wiki article. Legis Nuntius04:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
August/Augustus
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I'm watching a TV programme called 'Mysterious Death of Cleopatra' on Discovery Civilisation, and they said that Octavianus took the name 'Augustus' from the name of the month 'August', as this was the month because it was significant in his rise to power, whereas the article on August says, and what I've always been taught is, that August was named after Augustus (for the same reason). I was just wondering if anyone has heard this alternative version, and whether it has any basis. And what do August and Augustus mean?--Jcvamp04:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I've looked up the name 'Augustus' and, according to Lucidcafe and other sources, 'Augustus' means 'the exalted', which means it would have been the name first, and the programme was incorrect. It might be an idea to add the meaning and a citation to the article.--Jcvamp04:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Augustus was pontifex maximus or high priest, and he was regarded as a living god. Think of this in the context of being named "the exalted one" and you get at its meaning. I've heard the alternative version before, sometimes it gets mixed up. I've also heard the 2 days from February myth coming from a Latin teacher. Legis Nuntius04:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article seems to attribute some humbleness or imply that Augustus was no different from another citizen.
the new Augustus was simply a highly-honored Roman citizen, holding the consulship within the city and acting as proconsul in territories abroad
With these powers in mind, it must be understood that all forms of permanent and legal power within Rome officially lay with the Senate and the people; Augustus was given extraordinary powers, but only as a proconsul and magistrate under the authority of the Senate. Augustus never presented himself as a king or autocrat, once again only allowing himself to be addressed by the title princeps.
This seems similar to the way Augustus describes himself in the Res Gestae, but he took several liberties with the truth in that text that adorns his temple walls. Didn't Virgil take some liberties with his description of Augustus as well? I'm not entirely sure, but I believe that the Tribune had veto power over the senate, that the office was elected by the plebs, and that it was against the Roman constitution for the senate to grant it to someone for life. I also thought that Augustus killed anyone who disagreed with his claims to power, including the other divi filius over in Egypt. Is there a historian who believed that the senate still held legal power after the date considered to be the beginning of the empire? Legis Nuntius19:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
GA to FA Status
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hello everyone, I'm wikipedia's resident China-history nut, as you could easily tell from the contributions on my user page, my minor edits page, and my uploaded gallery. Time to take a break from all of that, however, when I saw how out-of-shape this article on Augustus was. There are many good Roman wiki articles and many poor ones, but this one is especially troubling in its lack of quality, since Augustus is without much debate one of the most influential and important figures in world history, not just Roman history. Therefore, over the next few days, I will be doing some massive edits to this article in order to raise it first to Good Article Status, and once that is complete, renominate it for Featured Article Status. Hopefully the second time around the article will pass; since I've already got three FA articles under my belt, it should be a done deal within a couple of weeks. Thanks to everyone here who is also contributing! I have noticed your edits in the history tab. Keep up the good work and providing of cited info.--Pericles of AthensTalk18:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this should really be FA as a vital subject for any encylopedia. I don't really have a large number of secondary sources on this period, but I'll try to help out where I can. One requirement for FA though is stability, so we'll have to lift s-protection eventually and see what happens (it's been s-protected since the start of May, so it's been quite a while). — Laura Scudder☎18:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I've followed your articles on the Song Dynasty Pericles; excellent work. I'm glad you took up interest in this page. In the long run I'd like to see all biographies of Roman emperors brought to at least GA status, but yes, if there was one page which *really* should have been brought to FA, it's Augustus. I'll see where I can help here. Regards. --Steerpike23:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I've edited out the former statement that Cleopatra committed suicide after being informed of her upcoming role in Octavian's triumph. The source I have (Scullard, p171) specifically states that Octavian "...did not wish to take her to Rome to grace his triumph." The description of Caesarion's death seemed a little gratuitous too. I don't have a copy of Green's book (cited for that sentence) so don't know if the 'butchered' description comes from there. More important I think is to identify that Octavian was eliminating the potential for another heir of Caesar to emulate his route to power. --FactotEm20:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I think there's a lot to be done here and I wish I could do more, but I go offline tomorrow, potentially for quite a while. I might see if I can do something for the First and Second Settlement sections tomorrow but they are key aspects to Augustus' rule and I doubt I'll be able to do it justice in the time available. I look forward to seeing this as an FA when I get back online. Happy editing. --FactotEm23:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Intro
Latest comment: 17 years ago24 comments5 people in discussion
At present, omitting the first sentence and the notes.:
Augustus accumulated political power during his youth due to his blood relation and reputation with his grand uncle Julius Caesar. Roughly a year after Julius was assassinated in 44 BC, Augustus used his political power and martial might to form the Second Triumvirate over Rome. Augustus eventually became consul and then proconsul, ruling with special senatorial grants of power as a de facto emperor, yet he never claimed to be an emperor or even dictator. The other two members of the ruling triumvirate weren't as fortunate as Augustus; Mark Antony committed suicide and Marcus Lepidus was forced into exile.
due to his blood relation and reputation with his grand uncle
I think I know what this means, but it doesn't say it.
Great uncle.
Augustus used his political power and martial might to form the Second Triumvirate
Not sole agent; Antony had a good deal to with it.
yet he never claimed to be an emperor or even dictator.
He was not dictator and Emperor was not an office; but the same could be said, with the same weaseling, of his successors, probably up to Diocletian,
Although he preserved the outward facade of the Roman Republic and governmental power vested in the Roman Senate, Augustus ruled in actuality as an autocrat for 41 years, longer than any subsequent Emperor other than Theodosius II. The period of Augustus' reign is the dividing line between the Republic and the Roman Empire. His true power rested in his own financial success and resources gained in conquest, building of patronage relationships throughout the empire, the military's respect for him and loyalty to him, and favor of the Senate and the people relieved that Augustus had ended a century of civil wars. In a First Settlement with the Roman Senate, Augustus acted as one of two consuls, controlled more than half of Rome's provinces, and acted as supreme commander of Rome's armies. In the Second Settlement, Augustus stepped down as consul, yet kept all of his original powers while assuming additional powers of offices he did not belong to, such as tribune, censor, and consul.
He was an autocrat from 43 BC onwards; after Actium over all of the Roman possessions.
Century of civil wars? The Social war began in 91 BC.
offices he did not belong to is not English.
By ending a century of Roman civil wars, Augustus initiated an era of peace, prosperity, and imperial greatness known as the Pax Romana, or Roman peace, which lasted for more than 200 years. He expanded the boundaries of the Roman Empire through conquest and annexation, secured the empire's borders with client states, and established diplomatic peace with Parthia. Augustus made crucial reforms to the Roman system of taxation, built networks of roads with an official courier system, established a standing army, established the Praetorian Guard, and created official police and fire fighting forces for Rome. The period of his reign left behind many erected statues and monuments in his honor, with large building projects overseen by senatorial commissions. With the death of Lepidus, Augustus became the pontifex maximus, the highest religious priest in the empire. He became revered as a deity by the Roman people, and was granted many titles such as pater patriae, "father of the country". He transformed the Julian family cognomen of Caesar into an imperial family line starting with him. After a disappointing loss of his two most potential heirs Gaius and Lucius, the only viable heir left was his stepson Tiberius, who was named his successor once he adopted Augustus' nephew Germanicus.
Prosperity? Not implausible, but requires a source, either here or lower down.
This is not a Neutral Point of View; it is the voice of the Monumentum Ancyranum.
many erected statues and monuments is not English either.
He received veneratio from the Populus Romanus (actually by a decree of the Senate, I think). This is not the same thing as being revered by the Roman people.
Response I just want to make it clear, although I hold Augustus in high esteem, I do not want that reflected in any possible POV statements that might appear in the article. I will address your concerns as soon as possible, but I just started my first semester of my senior year of college, and already I am bogged down with reading assignments. I hope you understand if I am unable to frequently respond or make copy-edits during this week, as I will be busy. I agree, an experienced copy-editor should be summoned. Maybe we should take this to the league of copyeditors?--Pericles of AthensTalk02:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, I don't have much time to look this article over, but I think two things about the intro are strange: Augustus' names are given in inscription style, with small caps and abbreviations. "IMP•CAESAR•DIVI•F•AVGVSTVS" is not actually Augustus' name, and if it's necessary to give his full titles the abbreviations should be expanded. Second, the intro doesn't mention his adoption, which is a pretty important part of his rise to power. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Addressing concerns
Great, I can't wait to see what they have to offer. In the meantime, I have addressed your concerns, but I must reject two of them:
You're missing the big picture here. The Year of Four Emperors was but one year out of two centuries of relative peace and stability regarded as the Pax Romana, unlike the incessant violence and instability of other periods, such as the wars with Carthage, massive slave revolts and civil wars, and don't get me started on the Crisis of the Third Century. Lol. I could mention the Year of Four Emperors, but what does that have to do with Augustus' article? Nothing.
We should assume our readers know nothing about classical history. All of these are defensible, but they will give an exaggerated picture to anyone who don't know the facts.
If I was to mention it, would that not be veering things a little off course from what's being discussed (i.e. Augustus and the Pax Romana)? Therefore, I believe mentioning the Year of Four Emperors is somewhat irrelevant, at least in the intro of Augustus' article, which is supposed to be summarizing information that is found exclusively in his own article, not other wikipedia articles like Year of the Four Emperors or other later events of brief and fleeting instability during the Pax Romana.--Pericles of AthensTalk04:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
He received veneratio from the Populus Romanus (actually by a decree of the Senate, I think). This is not the same thing as being revered by the Roman people.
Yes, you are correct about the Senate's decree; maybe I should have been more specific in stating that he was revered since not only temples designated solely for worshipping him were built, but also an official cult established in worshipping him upon his death and becoming a recognized deity. Here is what Eck states on page 124 of his book (the bolding of text is my own doing):
Augustus' coffin, which bore a wax eagle above it visible to all, was placed on the pyre. As the flames rose, an eagle flew up into the sky — a sign that the deceased had been raised to the gods. Later a senator affirmed under oath that he had seen Augustus' spirit rise to heaven. Livia rewarded the witness with the sum of one million sesterces. The Senate proclaimed that Augustus had joined the company of the gods, and was now a divus. It voted to begin construction of a temple for his veneration, and to create a new priesthood, the sodales Augustales, to celebrate the cult of the deified princeps. Augustus had become a member of the Roman pantheon, a part of the Roman religion and cult on which the future security of the republic depended.
Wait, what? How did I miss a point I already knew and pointed out; is there somewhere in the article where it says he was considered a god in his lifetime? If so please correct it or reword it in a way that clarifies it as posthumous; so far the only other place in the article that I see this coming up is in the Death and Succession section, the second to last sentence that reads: "and it was proclaimed that Augustus joined the company of the gods as a member of the Roman pantheon." Other than that, the First Settlement section goes into detail about his claiming to be a son of a god (Julius Caesar), and his title Augustus having some symbolic religious meaning, but other than that, no other instances where it describes deification or religious veneration.--Pericles of AthensTalk18:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course you as a person know it; my apologies for identifying you with your arguments or with the article text. But your argument omitted it. I shall dcubtless say such things again and again; but none of them are meant as aspersions on Pericles' knowledge of Roman history, merely on what he has typed, which is all I can know. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson02:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
and if it's necessary to give his full titles the abbreviations should be expanded
I just expanded it, and it is his title, it is explained later in the First Settlement section, as well as cited in the War and Expansion section.--Pericles of AthensTalk04:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Second, the intro doesn't mention his adoption, which is a pretty important part of his rise to power.
I've rewritten the intro; I did not remove the tag because that should wait until we are agreed on this. But this should give an idea of what I have in mind. I did not touch the first sentence, which is a separate problem. I find the inscriptional forms intriguing; but the impression that they are the Latin names is not perhaps helpful. Please check to be sure the footnotes are still appropriate; and, of course, feel free to rewrite again. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Good work with the intro, it looks much more polished now. I'm not sure I understand what your concern is with the Latin names; I don't understand how they are not helpful to the article. As far as my sources are concerned (Eck states this, so do the authors in galinsky's book I think), those are the correct names in Latin. If there is any problem with the footnotes let me know, and I will fix them (I hope those corrections are sufficient with the author and titles for the CCAA).--Pericles of AthensTalk18:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the neutrality tag, exactly what bothers you the most? Which sentence do you think stands out as a blatant POV statement? Which comments or phrases in the article do you think are unneccessary and unencyclopedic in tone? I have purged many questionable sentences in the article that were obviously leaning towards a strong 'point of view' according to wiki guidelines, but I have a hard time noticing any others now, since the article has been heavily copy-edited in the past couple of days. Please point these questionable statements out.--Pericles of AthensTalk22:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I did another rewrite of the intro, mostly excising odd sentences or wording. Some information, such as the fact that Octavian impressed Caesar by crossing hostile territory, seemed a little bit too detailed for the intro. Let me know if you like it better or worse. --Steerpike20:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
On Augustus' name, it should be clear that his name was not "IMP•CAESAR•DIVI•F•AVGVSTVS". Nor was his praenomen "imperator"; that's a title. For comparison, check out Victoria of the United Kingdom; her name is not given as "Queen Victoria". Her titles as Queen of Great Britain and Empress of India are mentioned in the first sentence, but not as her name. George III's name is "George William Frederick". --Akhilleus (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
From Eck's book on page 93 (the bolding of text my own doing):
Augustus made it emphatically clear that he wanted his name to be associated with victory. As noted earlier, virtus — military courage and valor — was one of his four virtues recognized by the official decree of the Senate in 27 BC, and in fact his very name implied triumph after he adopted Imperator, a word meaning "victorious commander," as his first name.
You're right; Aug did adopt imperator as a praenomen. This is a surprise to me. Hopefully the article covers the various changes to Octavian's name over his career. (Still haven't been able to read past the intro.)
Nevertheless, the inscriptional form is not the correct way to give his name, and I am unconvinced that "Divi Filius" is part of his actual name. Indeed, Syme says (p. 113): "After the first constitutional settlement and the assumption of the name 'Augustus', the titulature of the ruler was conceived as 'Imperator Caesar Divi filius Augustus'. Posterity was to know him as 'Divus Augustus'." This seems to indicate that Divi Filius is a title, but not a name; I'm certainly open to correction, if another source tells otherwise.
Looking more carefully at the opening, since several different versions of Octavian's name are given, I don't see a problem giving his titulature in parens, but I'd do it like this: Augustus (Latin: Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus;[a]September 23, 63 BC – August 19, AD 14), born Gaius Octavius and known as Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus prior to 27 BC, ... That way we avoid the impression that Augustus' "real" name is in all caps. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure in here somewhere with all the equivocating, is the fact that Octavian was never actually "called" "Augustus" during his lifetime, as we call him today. He was called by his regular name. It is history that has named him. I agree with all the history and am certainly not arguing his pre-eminence. Student717:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Octavian becomes Augustus
Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion
I’m not sure that the section "Octavian becomes Augustus" accurately reflects the subtleties of the Augustan settlement, and there are specific statements that I would challenge...
I’m not sure that the first sentence in this section ("The western half…had sworn allegiance to Octavian…") is correct – is there a cite for it? His authority was based on the Triumvirate until that ran out in 33 BC, whilst his actions from 31 BC were legitimised by his position as Consul. It’s not clear by what authority he acted between these years, though he had been granted the sancrosanctitas of a tribune after defeating Sextus Pompeius and Scullard (p169) suggests that Octavian "…was prepared to take the risk and rely on his…auctoritas".
Is it correct to introduce the rule of "…an unofficial and unannounced Principate" after Actium in the second sentence? With hindsight this is technically correct, but at the time authority still lay with the republican office of Consul which Augustus held continuously until 23 BC. The principate did not start to become established until the first settlement in 27 BC.
Princeps Senatus was an honorific given in republican times (e.g. to Pompey). Princeps was a different beast, granted for the first time to Augustus.--FactotEm13:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I would dispute the weight, following the quote of Eck, currently given to Octavian’s financial resources as the reason for his power. Undoubtedly his fortune was an enabler, primarily in winning the loyalty of soldiers and clients, but Scullard (p211) states that Augustus exercised "…a predominant military power and that the ultimate sanction of his authority was force, however much the fact was disguised."
And his fortune was an effect of his political leadership; he was an aristocratic faction leader in the manner going back at least to Scipio. The difference is that there was no other. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
To say that Augustus was "…at first reluctant to accept…" command of the provinces without further qualification seems to veer towards the Augustan propaganda version of events. Sulla had relinquished his power some 50 years earlier but his actions did not succeed in ending civil conflict. Having fought so hard and long, Augustus was never going to make the same mistake. Scullard (p210) describes the transfer of authority thus: "After Octavian had doubtless consulted his friends and thus paved his way, in a meeting of the Senate…he renounced all his powers and provinces…" and "When this statement was greeted with cries of protest, he agreed with apparent reluctance to undertake the administration of a large provincia…" (I understand a similar game was to be played at Tiberius' succession, and represented a way of making those who might oppose complicit in the ceding of power).
I agree. This is as arguable as Caesar's refusal of the crown, and for the same reasons. (That is to say, there was a scene with Antony at the Lupercalia; but did it show Caesar's intentions, or his propaganda? So here.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Saying that Augustus "…did not have a wholesale monopoly on political and martial power…" obscures the fact that whilst the Senate did control some provinces with a military presence, Augustus controlled some 20 legions whilst the remaining 5 or 6 legions were distributed amongst 3 senatorial proconsuls (Scullard p211). Augustus gives the impression of republican tradition but in reality he’s unequivocally in control. Also wasn’t Egypt, over which Augustus retained more personal control than his other provinces, the breadbasket of Rome, not Africa? --FactotEm12:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
By all means, use cited information from Scullard and Syme and be bold, edit, edit, and edit some more if something bothers you. If you think emphasis on Augustus' economic power and security is given too much weight in comparison to loyalty of soldiers, military might, and political coercion, then by all means, counterbalance this with cited info from Scullard and Syme. I don't own Scullard and Syme's books, so if you two could help out in that department it would be an enormous help. I used mostly Eck, the Cambridge Companion, Chisholm, and Bunson as sources, yet the article would be improved greatly with facts from an even wider plethora of different sources than the ones used so far.--Pericles of AthensTalk18:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I've made a few changes accordingly. The last sentence in the 2nd para of the lead is still missing something about the control of the military as the basis of his power, but given comments elsewhere I shall leave that to your discretion to change. --FactotEm13:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Noted. In light of this, I have added this to the introduction: "Augustus' control over the majority of Rome's legions established an armed threat that could be used against the Senate, allowing him to coerce the Senate's decisions. With his ability to eliminate senatorial opposition by means of arms, the Senate became docile towards his paramount position of leadership." I think the intro is fine now, nothing more needs to be added.--Pericles of AthensTalk19:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
FactotEm:
Saying that Augustus "…did not have a wholesale monopoly on political and martial power…" obscures the fact that whilst the Senate did control some provinces with a military presence, Augustus controlled some 20 legions whilst the remaining 5 or 6 legions were distributed amongst 3 senatorial proconsuls (Scullard p211). Augustus gives the impression of republican tradition but in reality he’s unequivocally in control. Also wasn’t Egypt, over which Augustus retained more personal control than his other provinces, the breadbasket of Rome, not Africa?
I should probably reword that section for better clarity, since this is the passage from Walter Eder in the Cambridge Companion that I used to write that part of the First Settlement section:
Similarly, even a republic-minded senator could get along with the division of the provinces. About half of the empire, including the granary of Africa and the strategically important provinces of Illyria and Macedonia with their several legions, remained in the hands of Senate and People, keeping Augustus from a military monopoly. Moreover, it had been customary since Pompey to grant, at times, immense military empowerments to outstanding individuals in order to secure peace in the empire. Finally, it was not alien to republican thinking to give members of the upper classes the opportunity to demonstrate their achievements for the res republica with a conspicuous display of military might or pomp and thus to confirm their special dignitas. So long as Augustus kept to republican precedents like Pompey and Caesar in the administration of his provinces through legati of consular and praetorian rank and one could see his powers as emanating from the imperium he held as the annually elected consul one could easily imagine that one was living in a republic...There was only one problem: Augustus' continuous tenure of the consulate. More was involved than a blemish that contradicted the principle of annual change. Rather, the condition hindered the work of the Senate, which felt unsure of its footing especially when this permanent consul, who possessed paramount auctoritas, was absent from Rome. (CCAA, Eder, p 24-25.)
I hope the beginning of this explains why I wrote that passage in the article. Furthermore, at the end of this, it shows another base for Augustus' retaining of power: the inability of the Senate to act or control the empire without him and his guidance. This is a recurring theme in Eck's book as well.--Pericles of AthensTalk18:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
For that matter, I do not have access to the Cambridge Companion; it's out. Thank you for typing in so much. But this illustrates the danger of absorbing other people's metaphors: CCAA is using "monopoly" in the strict sense of absolutely all; such cases are vanishingly rare, so the principal sense is actually "dominant market position", which Augustus is certainly comparable to. Similarly, Africa certainly is a granary, but it is not the granary.
I;m afraid the only safeguard here is to read several books, and let them rub off each other. One good method is not to try to squeeze every drop of information out of a source, but to summarize large passages into very small ones: "Augustus had most of the Roman military under his direct command; but not quite all". SeptentrionalisPMAnderson02:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I still think the use of the word "monopoly" is misleading. It tends to dilute the reality of the situation. Augustus did not need all the legions, just enough to ensure that he could not be militarily (and therefore polictically) challenged. The rest of the source is more apposite I think to the situation; that the Senate was allowed (as opposed to Augustus was kept from) some provinces in order to disguise his autocracy. Unfortunately don't have any sources for this, and it is largely an issue of semantics, so take or leave these comments as you see fit. --FactotEm13:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I have fixed that just now, along with rebuffing and polishing many parts of the article, getting rid of one entire sentence that was dubious while replacing it with cited info about Augustus' political tactics of creating an unofficial principate while upholding the image of republican order (a falsehood since he was the true power behind the state and the actions of its military).--Pericles of AthensTalk08:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Featured Article Status!
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Woo-hoo! We did it, people! Thanks to everyone who contributed to the article and gave their support. It was a lot of work, but it has paid off with recognition as one of wikipedia's finest articles.--Pericles of AthensTalk21:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Observing the discussion above, if there is anything you feel needs to be added or edited about naming conventions and titles, feel free to make further contributions. I think the article is fine how it stands now, though.--Pericles of AthensTalk16:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Use of the word "decimate."
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I would urge contributors to use the word "decimate" more carefully in Roman history. It appears twice in this particular article. It is being used with its modern definition (i.e. to destroy, obliterate), of course, but the word decimation had a different, specific meaning to the Roman military. It was a punishment inflicted on disloyal Roman Legions where 1 out of every 10 legionaires was executed and the rest banished.
Good point. There is the possibility of confusion, and the reference to Pompeius' fleet as "almost entirely decimated" is hard to understand under the ancient or modern meaning. I've reworded the relevant sentences. EALacey09:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Why were coin images removed?
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
It looks like all the coin images were removed from this article, but no explanation was given. I thought they added to the article. Why were they deleted? Mlouns17:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Coin images posted by CNG Coins were removed because they are in direct violation of Wikipedia's official policy on commercial advertising. CNG had posted 3 images whose descriptions were hyperlinked to the CNG online retail shopping web site.
CNG is not advertising their coins through Wikipedia. These images were uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons by Wikipedians such as myself. Uploading images requires you to include proper licensing and source information, in which case a link to the CNG retail website is required. The link merely provides source information, and is not used to advertise CNG products. Also note that the images which are used here are only indirectly sourced to CNG. Instead they originate from Wildwinds, which is merely an online coin catalog. The use of these images in this article (and elsewhere) is completely in compliance to Wikipedia's policy. --Steerpike16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Reply:
If this is truly the case, then please elaborate on why a photo of an Augustus silver denarius, which I personally own, was deleted from the Augustus page on the false premise that it violated a copyright, which is nonsense because I own both the coin and its image, and I released any/all copyright privileges to the public domain.
You can't simultaneously say that you hold the copyright on an image and release it into the public domain. If it's in the public domain, no one owns it. N.b., your comment is not an explanation of the removal of the other images. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Silver denarius of Augustus.
The image in question (show to the right) was replaced by Steerpike with the edit summary "better coin + explanation" [5]. Note that the image itself was not deleted. Where was it claimed that the image "violated copyright"? Paul August☎17:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm sure many of you have heard of the recent discovery of a new site in Rome that's supposed to be related to the founding of Rome [6]. There is mention of Augustus restoring this site during his reign and this is attributed to him due to the presence of a decoration of a "white eagle". I was not aware that this symbol was attributed to Augustus and don't see anything in the article mentioning such a symbol. Can someone who is more knowledgeable about topics dealing with Augustus tell us if this is in fact the case and to what extent was a "white eagle" used to symbolize Augustus's reign? JRWalko (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The Eagle represents Jupiter, who was associated with the emperor, Augustus being the first. The article on Zeus mentions this. The only image showing a "white eagle" (although I believe that white is more the color of the material used in all cases) that is on wikipedia is this one. The eagle also represents Rome and was on Roman battle standards during the Republic. The yahoo article itself does not specify whether the eagle was meant to symbolize the emperor or Rome or both. Roman Art does not mention the use of this iconography, nor does the poorly written and un-cited Roman Emperor page. Imperial iconography would be contained in a Roman art book, or an art history in antiquities class. Legis Nuntius (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Wars and Expansions under Augustus
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article needs to be more wide regarding these wars and there is almost no independent articles about these wars ..can some one create these pages .... thanks--Blain Toddi (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
incorrect satatment
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
"In 27 BC, Octavian officially returned democratic power to the Roman Senate...."
Rome was never a democracy. Why do some writers at wikipedia still try and make this point. Other articles about the romans prove it was not/never a democracy. It was an aristocracy then a thinly vield monarcy.
The election of the Tribune of the Plebs would make it a republic. We hail Greece as the birthplace of democracy but only male property owners could vote. Would America not be a democracy because our own senate was elected by the state legislatures and not the people? We named it the Senate because like the Roman Senate, it was neither composed of nor elected by a body of the people it was to represent. The people only elected the House, not the president and not the Senate. The 17th amendment change that. Also note that there is a world of difference between democratic power and a democracy. Legis Nuntius (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Well yeah, the Senate was not a direct representative government, since members-for-life in the Senate were ex-officials that were once elected by the comitia centuriata and comitia centuriata to serve posts such as the annual consulship. However, the statement "In 27 BC, Octavian officially returned democratic power to the Roman Senate" does not imply that the Senators were chosen directly by the people (although members of the senate were previously chosen to serve other posts) or that Rome in its entirety was a democracy. It simply means that they, amongst themselves, were equal members of their political body—the senate—and made decisions about foreign policy and Rome's finances by a senatorial vote that was unhindered by an outside force other than an elected plebeian tribune (or Augustus). Should I clarify all of this in the article (a rather long explanation), since it may be misleading? Or simply leave the statement as it is? I'd like to get more opinions on this.--Pericles of AthensTalk22:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Take out "democratic"; if the Senate was ever democratic (a long and doubtful case), it ceased to be so under Augustus, who commended magistrates routinely. As for the rest of Pericles' post: the word he wants is "parliamentary" and the assertion he makes is false. The princeps was not, except in the most formal sense, equal in power to other senators; the Senate made decisions when he did not, but when did they overrule him? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson20:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, "parliamentary" is certainly much better, but I think a simple "officially returned power" would do; what should be said is that he "officially" and "on record" (wink, wink) returned power to the senate, but did not return any actual powers or authority that could check him or even influence his independent decisions (a point I think the article makes clearly). By that point it was all ceremony, I'm not arguing otherwise. So go ahead, strike out the word "democratic". The point I was trying to make is that Rome and its Senate originally had some democratic aspects in the Republican era...which were obviously stamped out for good with the imperial order during and after Augustus.--Pericles of AthensTalk08:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Lol! Good one, Cuppy. May he R.I.P. In contemporary terms, American politicians are all men (and some women) from incredibly affluent backgrounds with ties to big lobbyists, simply because you cannot run a successful campaign without employing hundreds of thousands of dollars from your own pocket or from many donors (some with a little more cash and influence than others). So is my country the US of America a true democracy in this regard?--Pericles of AthensTalk18:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The fake colors of Augustus
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
the real aspect of Augustus , very similar to Lucius Vorenus of Rome HBO series :
That model is horrid. Suetonius wrote, "oculus habuit claros ac nitidos" – clear, bright eyes. "capillum leviter inflexum et subflavum" – his hair was slightly curly and a bit golden. Also, "colorem inter aquilum candidumque" – his complexion was between dark and fair. That model doesn't represent this at all. HBO series?! Hahaha, illiterate fool. Datus (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Update
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
I am in the process of updating this page. I am using Anthony Everitt's book Augustus: The Life of Rome's First Emperor as my source of information. I think a lot of what is on here was taken from websites (or blogs) with information of dubious quality.RomanHistorian (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Good. Two requests: Do note, preferably with footnotes, what you are taking from Everitt. Much of this seems to be taken from good sources which have been misunderstood (see the discussion of "monopoly" above).
One of Raul's Laws is An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie. This article's sympathies lie with the greatness of Augustus, and it was more extreme before the intro was rewritten. Please keep an eye on this. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson18:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, seeing the section below, part of what is meant here is Pericles leaning over backwards (and I did not realize how far his tongue was in his cheek for the FA nomination). But the result is what matters; the language of Imperial greatness can be found in all too much of the secondary literature on Augustus, to say nothing of Vergil, and I still think more of it has rubbed off than we really need. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Foul language here, I hope you laugh and take no offense
"An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie...This article's sympathies lie with the greatness of Augustus"
Is that so? I'm the prime editor of this article, and I'm proud to say fuck Augustus; screw that tyrant, anti-democratic son of a bitch right in the ear and out the other. I never do this sort of informal thing on wikipedia (cursing, that is), but in this case I just wanted to make it emphatically clear, if you thought I had some sort of fan-boy boner for this opportunistic bully and murderer of antiquity. No, I just think the era was incredible and is rich in history; Augustus just happened to be the guy who came out on top and had the arms to back it up.--Pericles of AthensTalk08:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, now that I've got that out in the open, I see what you mean about "sympathy" for Augustus, especially in the "Legacy" section (there are still plenty of sentences in here that are not originally mine). There was one sentence in particular with a lot of flowery language that I was trying to convey with Walter Eder's info on page 23 of his Augustus and the Power of Tradition in the Cambridge Companion; I have revised that to make it much more neutral and encyclopedic in tone. Also, RomanHistorian, please point out exactly which statements strike you as seemingly too strong in POV.--Pericles of AthensTalk08:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
One more thing; please add inline citations to all new statements that you are introducing from Everitt's book. If you unfamiliar with how to cite material with wikipedia codes I can show you, but you have to properly cite your material, preferably when you immediately post it. Thanks.--Pericles of AthensTalk08:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope no one minds, but I've moved the paragraph about the slave being a father-like figure to Augustus over to Early life of Augustus; I think it is more appropriate over there than here; the last thing we need is more uncited material clogging up a section that should be a tiny summarization of the Early life article.--Pericles of AthensTalk08:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Near the end of this section appears the phrase: "Octavian gave his sibling sister, Octavia Minor, in marriage...." I was going to perform a minor edit and remove sibling, but then I read the entire dicusssion page and thought it would be better just to mention this and let others decide.--JGC1010 (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
"Augustus" is lost
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
In the first half I've cleaned up verbiage for concision and clarity, English idiom, more forceful verbs and the like: not for facts or conclusions. Octavian/Augustus is lost here in the welter of information, which needs to be simplified and repeatedly linked to the main articles: see Roman Civil War for the less-than-coherent sequence of separate articles almost covering each phase. Octavian's own position is lost in this article as it stands, FA or whatever. At each juncture the article should answer questions like "What were his needs at this point?" "What was his decision at this point?" The view needs to be consistently from Octavian's center. If the broader picture is not told elsewhere, well, it should be.--Wetman (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute, let me get this straight: you're saying that this article has too much background information on wider events and not enough about Augustus the man and his motives, intentions, etc.? If so I would encourage you to improve the article, but come talk about it on my user talk page, since I was the chief editor of this article and brought it to FA status. We'll see what we can do about analysis of Augustus' decisions and motives, although very little of Augustus' own writing has survived (spare his politically-correct Res Gestae).--Pericles of AthensTalk16:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
bad link
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Someone should fix the infobox – it should be Consort instead of Consort to, because Augustus was not a consort. Surtsicna (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Augustus died in 10 CE! Not in 14 AD.
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
Your first error is that the year following 1 BC is 1 AD. There is no year zero. The Romans identified the year by who was consul. In this case, it was Sextus Pompey and Sextus Appuleius. Historians record the death of Augustus from this. We have pretty extensive records of the roman consuls. Take a gander at List of Roman Consuls. It provides the books to which you may wish to compare your research. Legis Nuntius (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
-
Yes, the astronomical year 0 = 1 BCE; and -1 = 2 BCE, etc.. That's all taken into account...
Yes also that the Romans used mostly consulships for dating and recording events. This is a great source of confusion today as there exist no consulship lists for the 1st centuries BCE and CE reliably correlated to an exact astronomically based Julian calendar. The only simple, exact, contemporary, reliable and verifiable connection, that I am aware of, between a firmly anchored historical record of a real celestial observation on the one hand and on the other hand Augustus' death, is via the Olympic calendar as referenced by Phlegon and Josephus. (I have others that are considerably more complex though...)
I'd be most happy to learn whatever else may be known about the exact original basis for the current day assumptions dating Augustus' death to 14 AD. It may well be that the consulship you named is originally based upon said year 14 and not the other way around??? It is clear to me that the consulship lists are reliable only to the extent of about ± 20 years! In the end I believe there are good reasons for believing that the year 14 error is based upon an original false assumptionthat Phlegon's eclipse was the March 19, 33 CE total solar eclipse, which could only be observed from Antarctica and certainly not from the Roman Empire...
Your assumption relies on the accuracy of dates from several texts, and yet you dispute the accuracy of others that have established a different date. This is why you must publish your theory. No accurate list of the consuls of the 1st century BC? We have an inscription of a list of their names; it is called the fasti Capitolini. We have thousands of Roman inscriptions which mark the date by naming the consuls such as the Res Gestae. We have texts that mark how long an emperor ruled. Others mark the date from the founding of Rome. Prosopograhers compile this information. If the consular lists were unreliable, then how can we trust Josephus's dates? When did they become unreliable? Was it the names that were unreliable or the date? When did it become unimportant to the Romans, or those interested in the affairs of the Romans to stop counting years? Publish your work first and subject it to scrutiny by prosopographers. That is the scientific method, and if you claim to be scientific in your methods, you should have no problem with this. Legis Nuntius (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that you were trying to change dates on Tiberius as well. The entire world will be resistant to your attempts to rewrite history. Legis Nuntius (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- -
Yes, yes, yes and yes again!
Ultimately it all falls back upon that which is the one firm and reliable reference frame, does it not? That which is is. Reality. Astronomical events as readily available today are easily confirmed as being reliable even to the minute and second at least as far back as to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year of reign – unless of course you do not trust those Babylonian records as being genuine?
Although there is some evidence in support of the belief that the AUD and the Olympic calendars were begun in consequence of some celestial discontinuity prior to the beginning of those calendars, for our purposes here this consideration is irrelevant. What is relevant here is that whatever calendar or time reference we use must of necessity be firmly and exactly anchored upon the astronomical time line accessible to us or else it will suffer accordingly. I trust that you have no problem with that?
My findings are published and are being published on the web (cf. my links above!) while in the process of being in an ongoing and ever refined study. My working manuscripts are one and the same as my published web pages. I am doing my best for simplifying and bringing the real pearls of my research to the surface for all to share more easily, but, as you yourself indicated by your above words, it may be easy to get lost in the massive amount of available information which may not always be arranged in a manner the reader is prepared to readily digest or comprehend.
As you said:
"We have texts that mark how long an emperor ruled. Others mark the date from the founding of Rome..."
Examples of that are Tacitus', Josephus', and Suetonius' texts. Tacitus is occasionally using AUD. Josephus is occasionally using Olympic years. No doubt you are well aware that Tacitus is frequently naming more than one consulship per solar year and even while such an occasional consulship may be tied to an AUD reckoning other consulships may suffer from the many uncertainties of consular lists as well as from the uncertainties within Tacitus' own Annales.
And, even when the AUD is being thus referenced that specific AUD calendar must of necessity be firmly anchored upon an astronomically based time line in order to be accurately placed within the Julian calendar. It is entirely possible that two different historians separated perhaps a thousand or more years in time may be using two distinct and separate AUD calendars while yet under the false assumption and belief that "it is one and the same." The same goes for the Olympic calendar and any other calendar not based firmly and unequivocally on the celestial clock. Think about it: Which one is being more likely to be correct? It's the one closer in time to the original source, is it not? Thus the error is most likely upon us, not upon them, is it not?
What I have found is that the best available original manuscripts of Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, and also each of the New Testament authors are perfectly reliable even to the extent of the "subscripts" of Paul the Apostle's epistles. What is not reliable is any third party transcript, translation, or interpretation of these same sources. When I am seeing an apparent error re name or date in any of the above sources, I might initially tend to question the original source, but in the end I find that the error is not in the original source but much closer to home. I must be ready to question and to correct my own prejudices as mostly taught me by a culture used to different standards and concepts of time. I must be ready for a paradigm shift lest I remain where I was and in the same darkness and confusion. Though I have yet to dive into a full fledged study of the fasti Capitolini and the Res Gestae I have little doubt but that they too may be relied upon... But only to the extent that they are being solidly anchored upon the one celestial time line as verifiable by astronomical lists and software. They are what they are. Nothing more. Nothing less.
"The entire world will be resistant to your attempts to rewrite history."
Indeed they always were. They are. I have no doubt they always will be.
Isn't that why forerunners are "always" persecuted? Or... should I say followed more or less aggressively or more or less willingly as the case may be?
Yet, isn't light ever so much more desirable than darkness? Then, why do we fear the darkness? Isn't darkness nothing but the absence of light? Do we need to be in fear of Nothing? Indeed, I am convinced that we have no basis for fear at all! We need to turn around and face our very own fears and realize there is nothing there to fear. Nothing at all!
Thanks for your most valuable feedback! And Tiberius?... Yes to that too! But the Wikipedia computer was preprogrammed to resist my initial uninitiated attempts to enter correct and relevant information into the otherwise "open" Tiberius page. So I learned that I must first go via this backdoor Discussion/Talk room and I found that by so doing I could enter even closer to the source of error: "Augustus' death in 14 A.D..."
There is satisfactory astronomical evidence for a 14 AD date. Consider Suetonius De Vita Caesarum:
Tantam mox fiduciam fati Augustus habuit, ut thema suum vulgaverit nummumque argenteum nota sideris Capricorni, quo natus est, percusserit. "From that time on Augustus had such faith in his destiny, that he made his horoscope public and issued a silver coin stamped with the sign of the constellation Capricornus, under which he was born." Divus Augustus.94
You can find an online ephemeris here. You will note that the moon was in Capricorn on September 23, 63 BC and it was in Leo on September 23, 67 BC. Also on September 23 67 BC, Sun: Virgo, Mercury Venus and Mars: Libra, Jupiter: Gemini, Saturn: Virgo.
Tiberius was the successor to Augustus and his astrologer Marcus Manilius had this to say about him:
Sed, cum autumnales coeperunt surgere Chelae, felix aequato genitus sub pondere Librae. iudex examen sistet vitaeque necisque imponetque iugum terris legesque rogabit. illum urbes et regna trement nutuque regentur unius et caeli post terras iura manebunt. ""When Autumn claws begin to rise, blessed is the man born under the scales of Libra. As a judge he places the balance of life and death: he will make laws and impose his yoke over the world. Cities and kingdoms will tremble before him and be ruled by his will alone, and after his time on earth, command of the heavens will await him." Astronomica liber quartus
Someone may wish to check my grammar on the above translation. If you check the position of the moon for Tiberius on his birthday of November 16th 42 BC, you will note that it was in Libra. Vettius Valens of Antioch calculated the positions of planets by using a date "from Augustus." You can read the work of a classics professor here. The professor gives specific birthdates for the horoscopes that are based on Augustus. You could cross reference a modern ephemeris with the record of Vettius Valens. There are even more Roman astrologers with extensive works; you can check them too. sed, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Quite a bit would need to be wrong for your theory to be correct. Perhaps there is an error involving one Olympiad in your sources or calculations seeing that your date is a difference of 4 years. Legis Nuntius (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- - -
Yes, there is certainly plenty of support for astrology being prominent in the minds of the people of those early centuries even as it is today. In fact astrology was probably even more relied upon then than now. Yet even now rulers of men, kings and presidents seem to turn extensively to such artisans as are willing to use their skills and crafts for gaining power over those puppets by means of their trickery and deceptive magic.
And yes, astrology certainly does have a firm and reliable anchor in astronomy by means of the ephemeris charts. One must certainly take care not to throw the baby out with the bath water when studying the relevant references to astrology.
Now, I notice that Vettius Valens of Antioch lived and worked in the mid second century or about 200 years after the time when Augustus was born. Thus Vettius Valens is certainly far from being a contemporary source re events surrounding the time of Augustus. Yet, I find the two references to Augustus on page 28 of Professor Riley's "A Survey of Vettius Valens" quite interesting. Unfortunately, those references are only a part of an instruction of Vettius re how to find certain planets on the sky, not an actual calculation that can be verified against any specific celestial event. Perhaps such calculations are available elsewhere? And what exactly does Vettius refer to: The beginning of Augustus' life, reign, sole reign, or death?
Thanks for the link to the ephemeris site! Seems to be a good one! However, I notice that 46 BC in that ephemeris is not being represented by anything like the 445 days long year of the Julian calendar reform. I don't know how to accurately find a date provided in terms of a pre-Julian reform calendar, do you? It seems to me that Augustus' birth date "September 23," as translated from Suetonius' words...
"5. Natus est Augustus M. Tullio Cicerone C. Antonio conss. VIIII. Kal. Octob."
must necessarily reference a date in the calendar actually used by people at that time and not a date in the post-Julian reform calendar. If I am not mistaken, that would then also mean that any correlation with the constellation Capricorn etc. in one calendar would not likely be found in the other? After all, a date from before the pre Julian reform, e.g. September 23 of Augustus' birth, would be approximately 445-365=80 days off season would it not? That is, September 23 of that year would fall some place in the middle of the summer and not in the fall, correct?
If you are skilled in the use of astrological charts, perhaps you might wish to look up Augustus' birth date in an earlier year? I have found a way showing that the dates re Augustus as provided by Suetonius and Josephus agree even to the exact day. You may review my findings here and here. I'd be much interested in seeing what a skilled astrologist might see in Augustus' horoscope based upon those revised dates.
At any rate, I find that one must be quite cautious when dating anything with the help of astrology. People generally and astrologists in particular add much of their own to the bare facts. In order to arrive at a correct solution we cannot rely on anything beyond the bare facts and we must take great care to separate fact from fiction. I've seen a number of apparently most impressive and convincing astrological interpretations which in the end are shown to be misapplied. It is clear to me that although a completed astrological presentation may be so rare as to find no counterpart at no other point of time in eternity, the bare data themselves can be used for building many different such unique astrological presentations. Any one of those astrological presentations can then be used for deceiving such as may be willing to follow the apparent beauty of those presentations.
You claim:
There is satisfactory astronomical evidence for a 14 AD date. Consider Suetonius De Vita Caesarum:
Tantam mox fiduciam fati Augustus habuit, ut thema suum vulgaverit nummumque argenteum nota sideris Capricorni, quo natus est, percusserit. "From that time on Augustus had such faith in his destiny, that he made his horoscope public and issued a silver coin stamped with the sign of the constellation Capricornus, under which he was born." Divus Augustus.94
What are the bare astronomical facts of that text?
Even assuming that Augustus' claim and the silver coin are based on fact and not some appetizing fiction or PR, all I find is that the "constellation Capricornus" had something to do with something related to the Latin word "natus." I see you applying these words of Suetonius to the fact that per the ephemeris "the moon was in Capricorn on September 23, 63 BC" (while noting also that nothing fits Capricorn on September 23, 67 BC.) Thus it appears to me that any association between Capricorn and either the sun, the moon, or any planet could be considered as the bare underlying fact for Suetonius' words, or isn't that what you are implying? In addition to that, when I look under Capricorn (astrology) I find that Capricorn may also be applied either to December 22 – January 19 (tropical) or to January 15 - {{{Sidereal Finish Date}}} (siderial). I do not know the relevancy of any of those applications but neither do I find any such correlations with my seasonally corrected date for Augustus' delivery, i.e. June 28, 67 BC, perhaps you do? I do however find that per said ephemerison October 4, 68 BCE when I believe Augustus was conceived, i.e. "born" in the sense that word was then, as now, widely used in those countries, Jupiter was in Capricorn for an extended period of time: December 24, 69 BC – January 6, 67 BC. Couldn't this be the real reason for the fear of a new king and for the killing of babies during that particular period of time? Or isn't Jupiter very much associated with kings and rulers in astrology? Indeed, if, as I find, that Augustus was conceived/born at the very beginning of that Scripture year, i.e. on Tishri 22, 68 BCE, isn't that reason enough for an enlightened initiate to do what Theogenes did, or to quote the words of Suetonius?!:
"Augustus persisted in concealing the time of his birth and in refusing to disclose it, through diffidence and fear that he might be found to be less eminent. When he at last gave it unwillingly and hesitatingly, and only after many requests, Theogenes sprang up and threw himself at his feet."
So, what do you say? If you claim Suetonius' words re Capricorn and Augustus' birth in favor of Augustus' death in 14 BCE, do I not have equal or even better reason for claiming those very same words of Suetonius in favor of Augustus' death on August 19, 10 CE?
Thank you for translating and alerting me also to those words of Marcus Manilius re Tiberius' birth, especially these words:
A friend and collegue of mine has recently published a book (The Second Coming in a New Perspective by Toby Joreteg) indicating that the last part of Daniel 11 is a prophecy referencing the time of Caesar Tiberius' reign. While my friend is applying this prophecy primarily to the time while Tiberius himself was still alive I have noticed for some years now that the reckoning of years used for the Julian and Gregorian calendars actually have their beginning with the beginning of the reign of Caesar Tiberius. That is, Tiberius was adopted as Augustus' son and heir to the throne on June 26, 1 BCE, and in consequence thereof Tiberius' name is being associated with the beginning of the next subsequent year in full accord with Scriptural reckoning of time. (There was a de facto coregency between Augustus and Tiberius for more than 10 years.)
Thus in effect, while using the Vatican calendar, a.k.a. Julian or Gregorian calendar, we are in fact submitting under, and being controlled by Tiberius' name and calendar, are we not?
Recognizing on top of that that the Latin word "caeli" in this text could well derive its origins from a Hebrew word commonly translated "heavens," but which word may equally well be translated in terms of the masculine plural of the word "name," does it occur to you that Suetonius' words "command of the heavens..." takes on a more ominous meaning – even in the here and now for each of us?
I find August 22, 56 BCE confirmed also by the fact that Mars was in Libra from Mars 24, 56 BCE – September 5, 56 BCE. And isn’t it relevant that it was Mars that was in Libra considering that Tiberius was very much a general and a military man of war? Yes, on November 16, 42 BCE the moon, Venus, and Uranus were all in Libra too, but which is more significant, Mars vs. all of the moon, Venus, and Uranus? Can one be preferred based on the bare data given by Marcus Manilius' text or not, or would either one satisfy the text?
I did not bother to read all of that, it was unnecessarily long. As to your last question, it displays how you have not fully investigated your theory. Romans identified themselves with the position of the moon. We find this by the great many texts that describe this. We have a record of the position of the moon for Tiberius and Augustus. You haven't studied this and yet you discount it? It seems that you have jumped to a conclusion without fully investigating the facts. I believe this is what you have done with your theory on the dates associated with Augustus. Roman astrologers are good for only one thing: they recorded the position of the planets in reference to verifiable dates, such as the birth of emperors. We can verify the position of the planets today. What the astrologers said it all means is irrelevant. All that matters is that they recorded the positions of astronomical phenomenon with great accuracy. Our record of consuls matches astronomical phenomenon recorded by several ancient sources. I am pretty sure you found evidence of an error in recording the year of an eclipse. This is the simplest explanation. I am now repeating myself and I see that logical reasoning is futile here. This is my clue to end this dialog for good. ValeLegis Nuntius (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- - - -
I am sorry if somehow I have offended you as apparently I have!
Yes, indeed, my "theory" is a large project and I don't know how long it'll keep on growing. In the meantime, of course, it is impossible to ever have "fully investigated [my] theory." The only points in my "theory" or in anyone's theory that can ever be considered "fully investigated" are such details as are already perfect and which cannot ever be improved upon. That is obvious, yet we frequently need to be reminded of the obvious, don't we? Reality itself is perfect, my perception of it is not, nor do I believe reality itself as it was, is or will be, can ever be "fully investigated" by anyone.
Apparently I have a blind spot re:
"a record of the position of the moon for Tiberius and Augustus."
Will you please provide me with an exact reference to that "record" such that I can study it for myself and learn?
Please also provide me with your exact references to the records referenced by these words of yours:
"Roman astrologers... recorded the positions of astronomical phenomenon with great accuracy," and
"astronomical phenomenon recorded by several ancient sources."
Why are you "repeating [your]self" by your statements?:
"Perhaps there is an error involving one Olympiad in your sources or calculations seeing that your date is a difference of 4 years" and
"I am pretty sure you found evidence of an error in recording the year of an eclipse."
Are you hinting that you know for a fact that there is such an error? If so, are you saying that the error is on me, or are you saying that the error is in the best available manuscripts of either Phlegon's or Josephus' words as above quoted? To maintain credibility you need to show proof in support of your claim!
The bottom line is that conventional first century BCE & CE chronology as referenced by historians generally suffer from a major unresolved problem in that there is little or no correspondence between modern dating of historical records from that time (in terms of AD or BC) and the dates of known celestial events. This is shown quite clearly by comparing e.g. NASA's lists of historical eclipses of the sun and of the moon with the table I have published here. Yet, you seem to indicate that there are other "records" from that time period:
"Our record of consuls matches astronomical phenomenon recorded by several ancient sources."
If indeed you do have access to such records, then I am most interested in studying such references firsthand for myself. If you do not have such exactly specified records to show, I do not see what basis you can have for claiming that there...
"is an error involving one Olympiad in [my] sources or calculations."
Therefore, please provide me with those exactly specified references of yours if indeed you have such!
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have added a note about the pursuit of gold during the Terraconensis campaigns by Augustus, and a picture of one of the largest, Las Medulas. My Spanish colleagues have researched this site in great detail now, following my own work in the 1960's. Pliny the Elder probably visited the spot much later in ca 74 AD and provides an eye-witness description in Naturalis Historia. It is highly significant for the History of mining and the History of technology as well as funding the expanding Empire. It was recently declared a world heritage site. Peterlewis (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
