Talk:Tiberius

message: Text currently reads:
"In 29 BC, both he and his brother Drusus rode in the triumphal chariot along with their adoptive father Octavian in celebration of the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra at Actium. In 26 BC, Augustus became gravely ill..."
1) After checking the footone, it seems that Tiberius rode with Marcellus (not Drusus) on the horses of Augustus' chariot.  Suetonius Tib 6.4: "Then, just as he was arriving at puberty, he accompanied the chariot of Augustus in his triumph after Actium, riding the left trace-horse, while Marcellus, son of Octavia, rode the one on the right. "
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Tiberius*.html#6
2) It is an anachronism to call Octavian "their adoptive father".  Augustus only adopted Tiberius in 4 AD along with Agrippa Postumus.  He could not have already been Tiberius' adoptive father in 29 BC.  He was certainly married to Tiberius' mother, but this is not the same as adopting him.
3) Augustus became gravely ill in 23 BC, not 26 BC.  Dio 53.30:  "Augustus became consul for the eleventh time with Calupurnius Piso as his colleage, and was then again taken ill, this time so seriously that there appeared tob e no hope of his recovery.  At any rate, he arranged all his affairs as if he were at the point of death...".  Piso and Augustus were consuls in 23.  Wikipedia lists Piso as a suffect consul in 23.  In any case, Piso was not consul in 26.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_consuls#First_century_BC  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.47.33 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for corrections in section on 29-26 BC 

message: I took out the reference to command and conquers reference to Tiberium. It said it was named after Tiberius Drusus Caesar. This is not Tiberius and Tiberius is also a very common Roman name much like Gaius, Titus etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.141.119 (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Command and Conquer

message: I restated his "adoption" by Augustus because Suetonius is very direct at saying he was adopted *after* his return from Rhodes which would put it very late in life.  He married Julia abt 11 BC and he went to Rhodes possibly abt 6BC.  Suetonius state he was there for eight years and that it wasn't until AFTER Gaius and Lucius died that Tiberius was then adopted, along with Posthumous. Wjhonson 03:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Adoption 

message: Ancient sources write how Tiberius engaged in extreme sexual pervesion "Rumor has it..." Let's name the source. Wetman 00:54, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is Suetonius, but I'm not going to look it up. -- Decumanus 00:55, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, Suetonius paras 43 and 44 have the juicy details. Although they sound plausible, it's of course difficult to know how much is true. Stan 03:57, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Did Suetonius think the activities were really so nasty? Or is it we who think so? I thought he was pretty trusty, considering he held a court position under Hadrian. Get the quote into the entry I say. Wetman 04:08, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Suetonius himself acknowledges that the stories are a bit, shall we say, tabloidish; the paragraph (#44) that describes Tiberius' taste for little boys opens with an acknowledgement that the stuff it reports is both vile (turpiore infamia) and rather hard to swallow. --No-One Jones (talk) 04:26, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes indeedy. I've changed the text. "Livid" has come to mean, though some confusion, brightly colored, especially in the red region. Perhaps from the nearly exclusive use of the word in modern English in the phrase "livid with rage" (or, elliptically, merely "livid"); the expression originally referred to the rare and dangerous level of fury in which color drains from the face (the word means "ashen, pale grey"); the much more commonly-encountered level of rage results in a flushed appearance. In any case it's a simple matter.  69.19.14.28 23:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Not surprising that those too dumb to spell "perversion" (perverion? pervesion?) would have a problem with sexual diversity and exploration. Of course we all are still against cruelty, but where there is no victim, Wikipedia should be NPOV, ancient texts cited or not.Ryoung122 02:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The RS's can take a POV and Wiki summarizes those views. Child molestation, then or now, is not 'exploration.'— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.250 (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Perversion 

message: It is fair to say that Germanicus was murdered? There is no evidence on that. He might have died of a natural ilness, so common for westerns travelling in the Middle East in his time...
:Piso's suicide doesn't qualify as evidence?  I don't think we should say he was definitely murdered, but we should certainly mention that there's a strong possibility of it. john k 6 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)
:I don't think that his suicide is an evidence. He was under heavy pressure because he was accused of taking arms against Rome as prefect of Syria, not only because of Germanicus alleged murder. He could be convicted of treason, a good motive for suicide also, isn't it?
:Suetonius records Germanicus himself believing he had been murdered; then again, Suetonius has a tendency to jump on any sordid rumor and include it in his works.  Not sure what you mean about Westerners often dieing of illness in Syria though; the region had been relatively uniform since the 4th century BC, and traders had come from Syria to every region of the Mediterranean since the 3rd millenium BC, so its not as if they were exposed to new climates. pookster11 01:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Trajan also died of an illness developed in the region. It was known for being one of the more unhealthy areas of the empire. 72.33.46.114 (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubbish. Trajan was old and worn out.  We really don't know what he died from - could have been an internal ailment of some body organ. I've never run across any statement from the ancient sources supporting your statement about Syria.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.250 (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germanicus was assassinated? 

message: Much of this page (added by 68.12.208.244 on July 13, 2005) was plagiarized from:
http://www.unrv.com/early-empire/tiberius.php
http://www.unrv.com/early-empire/germanicus.php
http://www.unrv.com/early-empire/sejanus.php
http://www.unrv.com/early-empire/final-years.php
As the original author, and having not been asked permission, I removed the offending material.
Remaining article seems to have been copied directly from http://www.roman-emperors.org/tiberius.htm
Thank You,
Chris Heaton
www.unrv.com
primuspilus@unrv.com
:Dear Chris, surely wikipedia is now less for want off you inciteful commentary alex.thirkill@gmail.com (on Wikipedia, User:82.153.66.170)
::Copyright violation is not tolerated on Wikipedia! Bill 23:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: and without an RS stating so this is just speculation— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.250  (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: According to Tacitus, Tiberius' first dealings with the senate following the accession was to arrange Augustus' funeral.  It was in the second meeting of the senators where they actually conferred on him the responsibilities of the state.  Furthermore, in that meeting according to Tacitus Annals 1.11-12 when Tiberius asks to be entrustes with a single part of the state, Assinius Gallus inquires which part he would like. Thomaschina03 17:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition and error in first dealings with the senate 

message: Is the second image (the 19th-century bust) really appropriate here? Tiberius had exceptionally distinct features, yet this second one could be of almost anybody. Is it possible to replace it with an image that does better justice to him?
:Be bold. I removed it; next time, do it yourself, of course. Bill 20:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: The Nero that Tib. exiled and killed in 30 CE was Nero son of Germanicus, not Nero (Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus) adopted son of Tib. that later became the Emperor.  The link in the article goes to Nero the emperor, which is wrong, but I don't actually know how to fix that.
128.208.183.247 01:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nero 

message: Agrippina’s agenda:
to see her sons succeed to the Principate
Livilla’s agenda:
to maximise the survival chances of her sons (i.e. after 23 of Tiberius Gemellus). She must have believed – in the event correctly – that Gemellus’ survival, and that of Agrippina’s male offspring were incompatible. Crucially, her husband Drusus deferred to Germanicus, although the latter was only slightly older. Drusus and Germanicus remained the best of friends (“singularly united...wholly unaffected by the rivalries of their kinsfolk”, Tac.Ann.2.43), and after Germanicus’ death fostered and seemingly promoted Germanicus’ children with genuine affection (Ann.4.4.: “kindly disposed or at least not unfriendly towards the lads.”). If Livilla did indeed conspire to murder Drusus, this is as excellent a motive as any. To quote Seager (Tiberius, 182): The only possible explanation for her conduct is that she was acting in the interest of her sons, Tiberius Gemellus and Germanicus. If Drusus followed Tiberius, it was probable that he would respect his father’s wishes and hand over power to one or the other of the sons of Germanicus....”
Tiberius’ agenda
i: AD 19-23
It was Augustus’ wish that Germanicus should succeed Tiberius. “There is nothing to suggest that [Tiberius] ever dreamed of reversing Augustus’ decision on this vital point” (Seager p. 111). 
ii: After 23
With Drusus’ death he seems to have been increasingly incapable of any coherent succession-policy, and Sejanus was slowly able to paralyse Tiberius’ will. At the senate meeting in September of 23 he talked of “restoring the Republic”, of handing back the power to “the consuls or whoever” (seu quis, Ann. IV.9), and he commended Germanicus’s children to the senate: (Ann.4.8: “I adjure you to receive into your care and guidance the great-grandsons of Augustus... So fulfil your duty and mine. To you, Nero and Drusus, these senators are as fathers. Such is your birth that your prosperity and adversity must alike affect the State”). And even while relations with Agrippina deteriorated, he remained open to the idea that one of Germanicus’ sons should succeed: note his rebuttal of Sejanus’ proposal regarding Livilla in 25 (when she was still of childbearing age), and his summoning Caligula to Capri in 30, out of harm’s way.
Sejanus’ agenda
i) to conceal his adulterous relationship with Livilla
ii) to avoid being killed by Drusus, who made no secret of his hatred of Sejanus (Tac.Ann.4.3 and 4.7) and who might well have put him to death had he succeeded Tiberius (the most cogent argument for Drusus having been murdered)
iii) to maximise the advantage of his intimacy with Livilla
a) by presenting himself as the protector and guardian of Tiberius Gemellus (note in the letter purportedly written by him to Tiberius, where he refers to the need for Tiberius’ family “to be secured against the unjust displeasure of Agrippina (Ann.4.39)”
b) by intermarrying with the ruling house: there was Livilla and her daughter, there was Gemellus, there was Claudius’ children etc. Sejanus had three children, and Sejanus’ daughter Junilla had been betrothed to Claudius’ son (Ann.3.29, Suet.Claud.27, Dio 58.11.5)
c) that he wished personally to marry Livilla’s daughter is possible but less likely (arguments in Seager, Tiberius p.213 note 6)
d) obtain all the powers once accorded by Augustus to Agrippa. Then he could marginalise Tiberius, exploit his near-stranglehold of access to Tiberius, confine Tiberius to his villa etc. and wait for him to die of old age.
Probably he wished to become Tiberius’ effective heir, but he was too smart to realise that someone of his Equestrian background could be emperor, pace Juvenal (Sat.x. 74ff.). The Senate would not have tolerated Sejanus as princeps, nor would the provincial armies. 
(For all the arguments, see Seager, Tiberius, 
There is also a radical but unlikely hypothesis (cited in OCD [1970] 970B) that Sejanus “planned to strike at the principate”. He could not be emperor himself. But if the obvious candidates were eliminated (i.e. Drusus and the sons of Germanicus), then then he could appeal to popular sentiment at Rome, using his extensive network of friends to override the Senate. This hypothesis is supported by one crucial piece of evidence, an open letter written by Tiberius, rebuking some electoral institution in Rome: in AD 31, unknown to Tiberius, Sejanus had organised a highly irregular electoral meeting on the Aventine (normally the place was the Campus Martius). The Aventine had long populist associations. (Ehrenberg and Jones 53 = ILS 6044: “...improbae comitiae [q]uae fuerunt in Aventino, ubi [Sei]anus cos. factus est...”)
See especially R.Seager Tiberius, London 1972 81.190.70.164
::I still have trouble accepting the theory regarding Livilla. It's really hard to ascribe any rational motivation to her actions. Clearly if she had hoped to become Empress of Rome then sticking with Drusus was a much better option than taking the risk of poisoning him and plotting with a mere equestrian for power. Seems to me she was genuinly in love with Sejanus, and apparently willing to do anything for him, as irrational as it was. --Steerpike 21:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AD 19-31 Conflicting Agendas of Key Figures 

message: From the historical website http://www.roman-emperors.org/tiberius.htm
"In fact, that first meeting between the Senate and the new emperor established a blueprint for their later interaction. Throughout his reign, Tiberius was to baffle, befuddle, and frighten the Senators. He seems to have hoped that they would act on his implicit desires rather than on his explicit requests." ... "A close friend and confidant had betrayed him. His withdrawal from public life seemed more complete in the last years. Letters kept him in touch with Rome, but it was the machinery of Augustus’s administration that kept the Empire running smoothly."
These section are fully copied  and unsourced in the wikipedia article. The reason I believe the plageriasm comes from wikipedia is that the other website has extensive footnotes in comparision to wikipedia.
- this previously unsigned comment was made by 168.28.128.78 on 5 October 2006.
::Incidentally, the reason that I was about to make a discussion point on this was to highlight that very point! Given that the source at Roman-Emperors.com was constructed in 1997, I think that someone has done a straight copy-and-paste, with amendments made to wikify it, so to speak. Any recommendations? Cyril Washbrook 11:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those sections all need to be removed.  I don't have time to do it right now, but will tomorrow if no one gets to it. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, there are only two sections that should remain: "Continuing Legacy" and the introduction. I'm cutting it all out, although if anyone objects, please feel free to revert. Cyril Washbrook 07:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism - Discussion on Deletion  

message: Why is it that the page on Sejanus actually has less information than the page on Tiberius does?
--168.28.128.78 00:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be fixed for now. --Steerpike 16:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something Strange 

message: Someone screams hysterically:
:The previous content of this page is suspected to have violated copyright. Please do not edit this page. Refer to the discussion page for details.
On my wish list: LOGIC!! If it was the former version which "suspected to have violated copyright" (now, perceive a tone of slight scorn!) - then why can't I edit this text?? I wish to relink Quintus Naevius Macro, to Naevius Sutorius Macro. OK, I respect copyrights, since Wikipedia needs copyrights to be able to exist, but I don't respect illogics! Rursus 08:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever put up that comment should explain which Wikipedia policy it is based on.  If they can/do not, I would delete the comment and go ahead with your edit. — Johan the Ghost seance 16:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Rursus, I'd prefer it if you didn't insult me for removing plagiarised text that no-one else had bothered to delete, and that would have gone unchecked until someone viewed a previous question regarding that exact matter. It would have been morally contrary to Wikipedia policy to have allowed the text to remain, so given that you hadn't picked up on that, please don't lambast other members. I apologise for not altering that text at a later date - the intention was to prevent anyone from reverting upon seeing that a giant chunk was chopped out, but I forgot to return to remove/alter it at a later time. Thank you to all the contributors to the new page. Cyril Washbrook 10:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I want to edit!!! 

message: In the second paragraph, the article describes the decline of Tiberius' rule, which "ended in a Terror." Is a Terror a technical term for something? If so, we should link it to an article discussing the term. If not, I think we should perhaps delete that last phrase. Regardless, this is in need of clarification.
Dustingc 18:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terror

message: I was watching a programme called 'Secret Bible', and it said that Tiberius Caesar Augustus was given the title 'Son of God' and asked his subjects to worship him as a god. Is this true?--Jcvamp 12:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Tiberius was famous for not wanting the inhabitants of the empire to worship him, and, unusually for emperors, he was not deified upon his death. However... his predecessor and adoptive father Augustus was indeed deified upon his death, and so divi filius - "son of the god" - was among Tiberius's official titles. This was exactly the same as every other Roman emperor, including Augustus who was the adoptive son of the deified Julius Caesar. TharkunColl 12:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Divi Filius was never a title of the Roman Emperors, it was used solely by Augustus.  Later emperors (Caligula, Domitian, Commodus, the Severi) claimed to be gods themselves, and initially  many new dynasties tied their rule to a deified member of the previous dynasty, but never actively took the title divi filius.  The imperial cult likewise never worshipped any emperor as god until after their death; the exceptions to this rule, once again Caligula, Domitian, et alia, were all assassinated in part because of their claim of divinity and abuse of power. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.67.226.100 (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Son of God 

message: what was Tiberius geographical info —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.221.53 (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what was tiberius geographical 

message: I have added several new pictures to this article, as well as a few 'old' ones from other Wikipedia articles. All properly tagged, and if possible, uploaded to the commons. I wanted to improve the visual attraction of the article somewhat, since it was mostly one big block text previously. Hope you like it. --Steerpike 23:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New pictures 

message: Someone with too much time on their hands needs to redirect the citations from Dio back to their original source, Tacitus' Annales.  As seen by the reference section, Dio records numerous events from Tiberius' life, but all of them are drawn from Annales, in some cases verbatim with Tacitus, and Dio does not include as much detail or analysis. In fact, many of the points that are here made within the article are in fact made by Tacitus, while they are references to the later cursory treatment that Dio gives to the Emperor. pookster11 04:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nearly every citation in this article comes from me. The reasons why I sometimes included Dio instead of Tacitus is because a) it was more compact or better worded, b) I wanted to keep the citations diverse and not just only cite Tacitus (even though it's true that Dio's work was mostly based on the latter's), c) because it's interesting to compare how both authors sometimes describe same events (and regardless, readers might be interested in the exact 'location' of Dio's words in his text as well) and finally d) the entire section about Sejanus' fall is missing from Tacitus' Annals, so we only have Suetonius and Cassius Dio to go by. But I'll have look at it. --Steerpike 10:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sejanus' fall is in Annales- it breaks up in places but it's there.  Second, you seem to have made my point for me.  Yes, its more compact in Dio because Dio only gives a cursory overview of what was already in Tacitus.  Thats WHY its compact in Dio- Dio is fully aware of the existence and importance of Annales.  If you want to keep the citations diverse using Dio instead of Tacitus is ludicrous; Tacitus is Dio's SOURCE for the reign of Tiberius.  Tacitus and Suetonius at least are drawing data from different sources; if you want to mix it up, go with those two, but don't make it "Tacitus" and "Tacitus-lite".  Both authors describe the same events because, once again, Dio's work is BASED OFF OF TACITUS.  Its like noting how "The Empire Strikes Back" treats the characters the same as "A New Hope".  Adding references from multiple authors is fine, but in this case as we have three main historians of the period, and Dio utilizes Tacitus' works to write his own history, doesn't it make sense to tie the quotes back to the original rather than the secondary source? pookster11 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections on Tiberius' death and the fall of Sejanus are now done. I checked each reference to Cassius Dio with the Annals today, and found only one that could have been left out. The others remain until they are checked with Suetonius. The sections covering Germanicus, his relations with the senate and his early life will be done some other time this week. --Steerpike 21:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Apart from one citation, the section on Tiberius' early reign and on Germanicus are now also done.   Seeing as Tacitus describes little of Tiberius' early life, I'm not sure this section needs further editing, so I consider the entire text (apart from that one citation) done as far as conversion of redundant Dio citations to Tacitus is concerned. --Steerpike 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  Good job, thanks for doing all that. pookster11 09:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Also, to pookster11, the details surrounding Augustus' death are NOT, in my opinion irrelevant because firstly, they're not really about his death (which, for example, some authors ascribe to poisoning by Livia, including Tacitus) but about the consequences to Tiberius as successor to Augustus. Because secondly, it's important to note that Tiberius had Postumus Agrippa killed. And since he's mentioned as being disowned by Augustus earlier in the text, readers might wonder what happened with him. If this has anything to do with a dislike for Suetonius and/or Cassius Dio as sources, I should note that the story stems largely from Tacitus. In fact, he famously opens his treatment on the reign of Tiberius with the line: The first crime of the new reign was the murder of Postumus Agrippa. And he also speculates Tiberius and Livia were behind it. Whether or not the news delayed is probably open for discussion, but I would not omit the fact that Postumus was killed. --Steerpike 11:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I noted in the edit, there is considerable debate among the sources themselves as to what occurred around the death of Augustus; the primaries themselves don't seem to know.  Any treatment of Augustus' death would have to take this into account, as well as delving into secondary material to make sense of the various rumors and why the authors include them.  That Postumus was killed is not the issue, nor is it an issue at all- the young man was clearly killed at the beginning of Tiberius' reign.  What I am saying is that discussion of the events around the death of Augustus rightly belong either on Augustus' own page or on a separate page to account for the variety of rumors, stories, conspiracies, and analysis thereof by secondary scholars.  I have no problem with any of the sources, and even if I did this is not the place to debate them.  This is essentially what my argument and my edit boils down to- such a discussion comparing sources and making sense of the events around Augustus' death does not belong on Tiberius' page.  What is relevant for Tiberius is that Augustus died and Tiberius stepped into power, not the how and why of Augustus' death. pookster11 22:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of Augustus 

message: I think the article is shaping up pretty nicely now, but there's still a lot of room for improvement, especially on the section covering Tiberius' reign as emperor. His early life seems to be fairly detailed so I would leave that alone for now. Some suggestions:
*Rename the heading 'Early Reign' as 'Succession', because the section mostly talks about the transfer of power and his relation to the senate.
*Cut 'The Rise and Fall of Germanicus' at the suicide of Piso and create several new sections that cover more of Tiberius' policies, for example foreign relations and events (earthquake in Asia), religious policy, administrative policies, the revival of the treason laws, etc. There's a lot in Tacitus' Annals, especially books 2 and 3 that remains unused. I think that, currently, the article focuses a bit too much on the causes for his unpopularity, and doesn't really tell us much of Tiberius as administrator.
*Integrate more information from different sources, although I'm not sure there are many besides Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio that are really useful anymore. Josephus doesn't really write much about Tiberius that isn't already covered in detail by the aformentioned three writers. Velleius Paterculus' text is nothing short of hagiography so mostly useless. Pliny is fun for weird trivia (apparently Tiberius liked cucumbers and could see in the dark) but otherwise doesn't write much about his reign. Were there any others worth considering?
*Break up the section 'Legacy' into separate subsections covering 'Historiography' (discussions of the sources), 'Archeology' (covering archealogical findings related to Tiberius) and 'Tiberius in Fiction'.
Anything else? --Steerpike 12:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its perfect, but then again I wrote it and I'm vain.  Anyway, incorporation of TIberius's further policies would be great, but would also be extremely unweildy due to the sources.  The most extensive source is of course Tacitus, and Tacitus is so blatantly biased against Tiberius that it would require multiple secondary sources to make sense of it in an encyclopaedic context.  His early successes certainly deserve mention, though it has been shown that Tacitus' narrative blows the maiestas trials out of proportion (and as a side note, Tacitus credits Augustus with the revival and corruption of the maiestas law).  As far as sources, you rightly point out that there isn't much else.  Tacitus and Suetonius remain the primary sources, with Dio utilizing and tweaking Tacitus here and there and Josephus largely silent and Paterculus is too fragmentary to really add anything substantial.  There is substantial epigraphical evidence especially in the East during the early part of his reign; the problem is his retirement to Capri throws everything off.  People simply stop caring who or what Tiberius is supposed to be, and thus the records of his reign end up becoming the records of those who acted in Rome while Tiberius was in seclusion.  To sum up, episodes from his early reign could stand to be added as they are certainly significant, but with the lack of sources and the nature of the sources that do remain, there's not a tremendous amount of data that can be added. pookster11 09:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things to be done 

message: States that Tiberius was only person to gain imperium maius alongside Augustus.  Didn't Agrippa gain the same honors in 13 BC? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilanham (talk • contribs) 04:06, Jul 10, 2007 (UTC)
:You are right. In fact it seems he received it twice, for example Cassius Dio, Book 54, 12 and 28 I'll fix it in the article. --Steerpike 10:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dio 54.28.1 says that from 13 BC Agrippa had "greater authority than the officials outside Italy ordinarily possessed", apparently indicating imperium maius. However, we also have a papyrus fragment of Augustus' funeral oration for Agrippa (trans. R. K. Sherk, The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian (1988), no. 12). This states that his power was "not less" than that of other provincial magistrates, which may refer to imperium aequum (so, e.g., E. Badian, "Notes on the Laudatio of Agrippa", Classical Journal 76.2 (1980), 97–109). In other words, the article may be correct that Tiberius was the only person to receive imperium maius from Augustus, but this is not certain. I'll adjust the article to take account of this. EALacey 12:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My info comes from Augustus by Anthony Everitt.  Pg.268  "...and for the first time Agrippa was awarded imperium maius, the overriding authority that allowed him to give orders to provincial governors."  Although, Everitt does not reference this in his note, but his biliography states he used Suetonius and Cassius Dio in his writing.  Maybe he used Augustus' Res Gestae?  In either case, if there's any questioning of Everitt's work, perhaps my intial statement wrong.  --Ilanham 19:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: While Tiberius power was legally equal to Augustus, Augustus auctoritas meant that for all intents and purposes Augustus was still in sole control of the empire. Both men were marked as successors by this time however, Augustus had reached a advanced age and did not know how long he would live.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.46.114 (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heir to Augustus 

message: There's a sectionette on what the Gospels tell us about Tiberius. Bugger all, actually. Is there any reason it should be kept? PiCo 03:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. It is relevant information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.250 (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Gospels 

message: I'm not a hundred percent sure I'm reading this all correctly, but in the entry for Tiberius' mother, Livia Drusilla, it says, regarding her marriage to Octavian (later Augustus) "At this time, Livia already had a son, the future emperor Tiberius, and was pregnant with the second (Drusus the Elder). Legend said that Octavian fell immediately in love with her, despite the fact that he was still married to Scribonia. Octavian divorced Scribonia in 39 BC, on the very day that she gave birth to his daughter Julia the Elder (Cassius Dio 48.34.3). Seemingly around that time, when Livia was six months pregnant, Tiberius Claudius Nero was persuaded or forced by Octavian to divorce Livia. On 14 January, the child was born. Octavian and Livia married on 17 January, waiving the traditional waiting period."
So this says that Livia had the baby, and then, three days later, was married to Octavian, is that correct?
In this entry on Tiberius, though, we read "In 39 BC, his mother divorced his biological father and remarried Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus shortly thereafter, while still pregnant with Tiberius Nero's son. Shortly thereafter in 38 BC his brother, Nero Claudius Drusus, was born."
This seems to be saying that Livia married Octavian while still pregnant from her first marriage and had the baby shortly thereafter.  I have no idea which of these is correct, but I thought you might want them to be uniform among these related pages.
This is the first time I've come on the "talk" board, so I hope I'm going about this the right way.
Blackavar1961 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency with this page and the page on Livia Drusilla? 

message: "soon afterwards, Tiberius met with Augustus, and steps were taken to ensure that Tiberius and Vipsania would never meet again."
Is this insinuating that they had her assasinated? This needs to be more clear. What steps did they take exactly to make this happen, and did it suceed?JanderVK (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tiberius and Vipsania

message: With regard to the 13 AD date given for "co-princeps" of Tiberius under Augustus, consider that coins minted from 12-14 AD are stamped with "TI CAESAR AVGVST F IMPERAT VII", and bear the likeness of Tiberius on them; as well as others preceding 12 AD.  Was there a date given based on the provided reference?  Because when I looked it up, I found no date there specific to 13 AD.  Are there other sources that are more explicit with regard to when Tiberius was considered a co-ruler with Augustus?  Thanks.  Firemute (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 12 AD vs 13 AD

message: Why cant this be expanded? Sexual perversity can mean anything. I think its relevant to add what exactly were the allegations. 1 2 3 4 Portillo (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I at least added a line about what would now be considered child molestation/rape. I agree, it could be mentioned in a bit more detail without getting too graphic. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lurid tales of sexual perversity 

message: A section on religion would be helpful to the reader.  Tiberius worshiped the cult of Augustus and was reluctant to establish his own divinity.  The article currently lacks any religious appeal, except for one section.  The Romans were religious, not just political.  Also, Tiberius was emperor when Christ died and he may have been open to Christianity.  I am not sure there is a valid source on that one, however, it would be worth looking into. The tolerance of Tiberius may have allowed Christianity to spread throughout the Empire. That is signifigant. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. Doubtful that Tiberius 'worshipped' any deity considering his dark personality, but that's just opinion. He went through the motions for POLITICAL reasons. Tiberius Caesar never heard of Jesus - that was something taking place far away and handled by one of his many-tiers below officials.  The first mention of Christ/Christians to Romans was to Caligula by some apologists. Anyway, by confirming his stepfather was 'divine,' this helped keeping himself established as legitimate Princeps. The first note that the Christians in Rome had reached numbers worthy of attention was during Claudius' reign, and that only due to friction between Christians and Jews causing trouble in the city.50.111.19.250 (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed religion section 

message: " According to Tertullian"<BR>
This makes it sound like Tertullian was a contemporary witness, rather than writing from a Christian viewpoint, in Africa, 200 years later. It should be clarified that he was neither a neutral party nor a contemporary.<BR><BR>
"Tiberius most likely viewed Christians as a Jewish sect rather than a separate distinct faith.[106]"<BR>
Given that Tiberius died in 37CE, if any distinct Christianity existed before his death (a claim for which there is no evidence and no Roman record) it would have been a handful of people in the remote province of Judah. Further, the previous sentence dates the appearance of the religion decades after Tiberius' death. Therefore "most likely" is not an accurate descriptor. MOST likely would be that Tiberius never heard the name Jesus (in its Greek or any other form) nor the term Christianity at all, especially given that the first writings that mention either occur more than a century after his death. Perhaps the sentence should just be removed? <BR><BR>
::Completely inaccurate - writings existed very shortly after his death - and Tacitus wrote about the Christians.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.36.161 (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections suggested for section "Gospels, Jews, and Christians" 

message: The abbreviation "AD" belongs in front of the year. 65.123.43.130 (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It can go either way in Latin or English. One of the benefits of a synthetic language. That said, it's better to keep it consistent one way or the other and some readers (like yourself) will find it distracting the other way 'round. — LlywelynII 01:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "AD" misplaced 

message: Dear Wikipedia, 
This article originally had AD 13 as the date of Tiberius/Augustus co-princeps (I have an earlier copy of the article in my file). In more recent research I found 5 other references with AD 13 as the date of Tiberius co-princep with Augustus. Then I rechecked this date, but found this reference had been changed to AD 12 causing me some confusion. Why the change in dates which contradicts other reference material? Is it possible to get copies of the source material you are using to compare it with other historical data? 
Thank you, 
James
76.174.161.74 (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiberius co-princeps date 

message: There is way too much use of Tacitus, Seutonius, Cassius Dio and Velleius Paterculus as sources to justify the removal of the  tag. Suggest putting that back. Also, Tiberius was Augustus's goto to man whenever his chosen successors died and he needed a competent general, was the son of Augustus's wife, and eventually Augustus's adoptive son and chosen heir. I'm not sure that "[Tiberius] was a Roman civil servant and military official who served as the Emperor of Roman Empire" is any improvement on what was there before, and suggest reverting that. Factotem (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both suggestions. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please do revert. Haploidavey (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Reverted. Happy to discuss here. Factotem (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the nascent Roman Empire even have a civil service? Thought that came later. Factotem (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Empire" (by any other name) was in existence long before the first emperor, and running it required what we'd probably recognise as a civil service; maybe "public administration" is more apt. The top posts were appointed through public nomination and election of the self-same, usually wealthy individuals who led the armies, served the gods and administered the laws. We've several articles pertinent to this. Haploidavey (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

text: The civil service (primitive) was in place as soon as Rome was independent of the Etruscans.50.111.19.250 (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Exactly the same thing has now been done at Claudius, where equally I think getting the fact that he was emperor stuck midway through the sentence does not help matters... Pinkbeast (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, that makes sense. I removed it from Claudius. Thanks. LivinRealGüd (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: A recent series of reverts has added two statements:
That Antonius Pius reigned from 138. This fact is not about Tiberius; it is also readily available at Antonius Pius - and it's also self-evident from the end date and length of reign that he must have come to the throne circa 138. It's also clumsily worded, cramming a "his" and a "he" into the same phrase that refer to two different people.
:Agreed. In this article, it's trivial detail, and makes for awkward reading: if anyone wants to know exactly when Antoninus reigned, they can click the link. Haploidavey (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly agreed, though it might help to be told that he had a sumptuous estate on the island; that's what he retired to. Capri is reasonably close to Rome, so Tiberius could claim that he could keep in touch via the instant messaging of his day (which he did, pretty much), and thus fulfill all his duties while taking a long working holiday. I'm more concerned at by the addition of a drop-down/expandable thingy at the botton of the article, giving links to everthing Wikipedia has on Capri. What's the purpose in that? Haploidavey (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Have addressed the above, and provided basic context for "retirement" at Capri. Haploidavey (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Who is Tiberillus, who is listed under the heading "Issue" (in the box on the right-hand side of the page)? There is no link to his name, unlike the other three names under the same heading, and he is also not mentioned under the heading 4. Children and Family (which, by the way, does not make it clear who is a wife and who is his child).
Is this a child who died young? or maybe a character from "I, Claudius"? No dates or references are given. Anna Lowenstein (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, died young - see google. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue 

message: I believe that you have made a very good article overall, I would like to ask a question concerning the quote taken from the section:'Heir to Augustus' "Thus, according to Suetonius, these ceremonies and the declaration of his "co-princeps" took place in the year 12 AD, after Tiberius' return from Germania". I could not verify Suetonius actually stating '12 AD'. Can you provide a book page and volume that Suetonius made this statement?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faithvalleyrancher (talk • contribs) 14:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "his "co-princeps" took place in the year 12 AD" 

message: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius
His period as a Roman emperor 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is enough information to evaluate your concern. Could you tell us more about the problem? Larry Hockett (Talk) 09:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I put this site as a reference but it was reversed to put it back ? 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That link just goes to the mobile version of the Tiberius Wikipedia article, so it is not necessary or helpful. Larry Hockett (Talk) 12:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius His period as a Roman emperor  Help me please--👀Gremista.32 (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What about his period as a Roman emperor? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , there's this, and this. I find myself thinking "CIR". -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 

message: Since Tiberius is said to have received a report from Palestine by Tertullian, it was presumably from Pilate or an eye-witness. There is an apparent Letter from Pilate that describes the events of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. It might be worth mentioning the report from Palestine was presumably from Pilate. Yes. The letter was apparently from the fourth century. It reads like an eye-witness event. Here are sources: A Letter from Pontius Pilate Paul Winter (March 1964) and Fathers of the Church The Letter of Pontius Pilate which He Wrote to the Roman Emperor, Concerning Our Lord Jesus Christ Is this worth mentioning in the article? I think so briefly. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Letter from Pilate

message: Tiberius is called Tiberius Iulius Caesar Augustus according to these inscriptions, but coins only show Tiberius Caesar Augustus, which makes me think that the omission of the Iulius may be just to save space. Maybe we should mention that in a footnote or something? Tintero21 (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A section on Tiberius coins might work or photo gallery in the Legacy section. I believe Roman coins have been discovered in England. I believe the coins were made out of either silver or bronze. You can buy Roman coins today. I believe it is a popular market. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than this small selection, you can more helpfully link to Category:Coins of Tiberius at Wikicommons for anyone who might want to expand the article's treatment of Tiberius's coinage, which is certainly an important topic. One thing to bear in mind, though, is that files there from the UK government never bother to categorize their additions. In addition to the coins in the category, be sure to search for "coin Tiberius" or use similar queries to see if any of those files are clearer or better. — LlywelynII 01:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiberius name; 16 years later 

message: The article needs some minor discussion of Tiberius's two decennaliaRomans don't seem to have yet started calling the second one a  or to have cared much about the intermediate  at this pointparticularly the fact that they seem to have been dated by Augustus's death in August rather than by the Senate's rubber stamping of formalities a month or two later, which is most of what our Wikipedia lists date by owing to our own biases. — LlywelynII 01:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Decennalia