Talk:Julius Caesar/Archive 1

message: Is there any reason to have a List of Battles & a Chronology of J.C.'s life in this article? Both of these ought to be mentioned in the text body. (And I'm unaware of any other biography with these kinds of helps.) I believe they are unnecessary, & should be removed. -- llywrch 20:39, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I can go either way. Chronological stuff could go to year articles, but he is by far the #1-most-interesting Roman for the general public, and a chronology is a useful way to summarize a moderately complicated text for the impatient reader. The list of battles is most usefully subsumed in timeline in any case. Stan 20:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a chronology is very neat for this and any biography. The list of battles can go if the rest of the world like, but i added it to give some detail to the section Caesar as a military commander. Muriel Victoria 13:21, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Battles & Chronology?

message: I remember reading that Caesar had a certain sense for the future, a sort of precognition. Could anyone tell me if and where in classical sources references are made to this? I searched the article, but wasn't surprised not to find it as it hasn't been proven. Thank you. -- Redge 14:49, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Precognition?

message: Just curious why Atlantic Ocean is written "Oceanus Atlanticus"? Obviously it is the contemporary spelling, but the rest of the article in in English, right? pomegranate 00:34, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
It is put as ocean atlanticus because that is the latin way of saying it.--Alexstorer 22:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small niggle 

message: Anyone else notice "hello there alex hi dennis" at the very beginning of the Early Life section?  It doesn't appear if you try to edit the page.  Very weird.
This has been fixed.--211.28.125.161 11:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ??? 

message: The author of the painting and bust should be mentioned, and when were they produced. Deus Ex 21:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of pictures near top?

message: In the section on Ceasars invasion of Britain it was stated that his amphibious assult on Britan was the largest the world had known up untill D-day.  In fact Kubali khan raised two fleets which were larger to invade the Japaneses Home islands.  They were the largest invasion fleet the world had seen between ceasar's and D-day.  I am not surprised that people would not know this because western history books usually mention the Mongol empire only as a catalyst for the creation of Russia. I'll even go as far ast to make the statement that many do not realize that the Mongols had the largest contiguous land empire ever.  Roughtly 2 1/2 roman empires could fit in side what they had.  --Hfarmer 01:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparative size of Invasion fleets

message: Beginning with 'Cursus Honorum' 2nd to last and last paragraphs are direct copies from: http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/clodius-scandal.php
The 'First Triumvirate section is largely verbatim (with some deletion and re-arranging) from:
http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/first-triumvirate.php
'Gallic Wars' is taken in part from:
http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/gallic-wars.php
http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/helvetii.php
http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/gaul-conquest.php
'Germania, Britain, and Vercingetorix' is taken in part from:
http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/political-opposition.php
http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/crossing-the-rhine.php
http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/vercingetorix.php
'Civil Wars' in part from:
http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/crossing-the-rubicon.php
http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/battle-of-pharsalus.php
'Caesar in the East' in part from:
http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/battle-of-pharsalus.php
http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/caesar-in-egypt.php
'End of the Civil War' in part from:
http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/veni-vidi-vici.php
http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/battle-of-munda.php
'After the Civil War' in part from:
http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/battle-of-munda.php
http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/caesar-the-god.php
http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/caesar-the-king.php
'Assassination' in part from:
http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/caesar-the-king.php
Not all material is verbatim copy, as some has been edited and some has certainly been written by other authors.
--Chris Heaton, www.unrv.com
The last edit not containing my copywritten material seems to be from:
22:05, 26 May 2005 CryptoDerk m (revert to last good version)
:While Chris was certainly correct in removing his copyrighted material (and deserves an apology), his revert to 26 May 2005 was a bit agressive (if understandable). I will attempt, in steps, to restore the updates to the non-copyright material that occurred between 26 May and now. However, I'm sure to miss some, so please review...Mjchonoles 16:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: :According to Cicero, Bibulus, and many other enemies of Caesar, as well as many neutral observers, including an eyewitness who gave an account to the historian Suetonius, 
Who's the eyewitness? Is it the account of Gaius Memmius that Suetonius quotes? He (along with anyone else who might have witnessed events during Caesar's time in Bithynia) died long before Suetonius was born, so the fact that a written source was used should be made clear.
Also, who says Memmius was an eyewitness? He seems to have been of the same generation as Caesar, which would mean he might well have been present in Bithnyia at the appropriate time, but the only fact suggesting that he saw anything himself is Suetonius's statement that he named several Roman merchants who were present as well—which is suggestive, but hardly conclusive. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  eyewitness account? 

message: The above phrase is mentioned twice (search for "consulship"), the first time incorrectly. Perhaps one of the regular editors should correct this. AWhiteC 15:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: done squell 14:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Consulship (of) "Julius and Caesar" 

message: I feel that this article may be too long for its own good. While I would not propose removing any of the content, I feel that a few subarticles might be preferred to this one, 57kb behemoth. Agree/disagree? Firestorm 15:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I shortened it a tiny bit.Cameron Nedland 22:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long Article 

message: I pruned it down to the essentials, but not sacrificing much of anything, actually.
These were already included in the :Category:Julius Caesar:
*:Category:Roman generals
*:Category:Roman dictators
*:Category:Roman era historians
*:Category:Julio-Claudian Dynasty
*:Category:Military writers
*:Category:Assassinated politicians
*:Category:Murdered Romans
*:Category:Nine Worthies
*:Category:Roman Republican consuls
*:Category:Romans in Britain
These are higher cats under that same cat; thus, per standard policy, removed:
*:Category:Ancient Romans
*:Category:Roman Republic
These were not included in the :Category:Julius Caesar, but should have been, and therefore I moved them there. I think these are pretty silly as well; still, they can be defended:
*:Category:Roman gods
*:Category:Historical figures portrayed by Shakespeare
*:Category:Pre-19th century cryptographers
These, on the other hand, are out-and-out nonsense:
*:Category:Ptolemaic dynasty
*:Category:Pederastic lovers
*:Category:Historical novelists
Caesar, of all historians, could only be described as a novelist by someone bent on stressing, and in the most unfavorable light, that his campaign accounts are personal propaganda. While there is some homosexual rumor (the business with the king of Bithynia), neither one of the men was under age, though Caesar was young, and in fact one of the things held to be shameful was that Caesar was past the age of being a boy-lover. Fathering Caesarion does not make Caesar a member of the Ptolemaic dynasty; from the standpoint of a person coming to Wikipedia to get information, it is misleading and not useful to put him there — those interested in the dynasty will find him naturally enough under Caesarion. Bill 13:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloated category silliness

message: Only a minor rephrasing is needed, not tagging with , well-intentioned though it may be. Plut. Jul. 63.5 presents it as a "story told by many"; Suet. Jul. 81.2 presents it as fact, with even a name attached to the soothsayer (which starts to remove it from the realm of urban legend). If we start tagging  everything in Antiquity that isn't absolutely attested by rock-solid eyewitness evidence. . . ! Bill 15:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ides of March

message: There is plenty of evidence in Caesar's commentaries that show that he did have "prior planning and strategic thinking".  Just because Caesar was amazingly quick in his marches and surprising his opponents does not mean that he did not plan.  Certainly he was a great gambler but due to his tactical skill he was able to compensate.  Some of the Greatest generals in history (Napoleon, Caesar and Alexander) all were great at using speed, surprise and a dash of daring to lead their armies to victory. --M Drusus 22:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military Genius and accusations that Caesar was not a strategic thinker

message: either the adjective of pirates is wrong or the link. 
Ci-lic-ian or Ci-cil-ian.
or maybe I am just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.120.254.148 (talk • contribs) 08:48, June 23, 2006
:Thanks, the link was correct but "Cilician" was mispelled. I've corrected this now. Paul August ☎ 19:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kidnapping by pirates

message: As above.  —porges(talk) 10:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epilepsy? 

message: It is highly misleading to label Sulla as Caesar's "Predecessor" in the dictatorship as this leaves the impression that a dictator was a regular magistrate (or worse, a kind of monarch). Sulla's and Caesars's dictatorships are separated by thirty years in which no one would have said that the dicatorship was "vacant" vel. sim. To regard Augustus as Caesar's successor is at least sanctified by usage since Suetonius.
But the infobox as a whole might be questionable, since it mentions a "Royal House" and "consort(s)", terms which are fitting for royalty since the Middle Ages and maybe for the emperors since Augustus, but not for the Roman republic.--193.175.194.60 07:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predecessor 

message: Tell me how Julius Caesar died and were to go to find out this information.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.206 (talk • contribs) .
:The talk page of an article is generally used for discussion of the article- you could try asking your question at the humanities reference desk.
:Don't forget to sign your posts, either.
:EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 22:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did he die 

message: there is a vandalism under the 'early life' title. It's not in the edit box though so I can't delete it. can anyone do anything about it?
- Jake the Editor Man 19:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: User:Julius1Ceaser  —Preceding comment was added at 01:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Have a Question about Ceaser ask the Ceaser Master

message: Hi, sorry for posting here, but i have no idea where else to post.. :)
I just wanted some answers to some questions. In the article, under "First consulship and first triumvirate"
is says that Caesar's consulship was expanded with four years, and by this being consul for five years? How was this possible and why was it done? After what i understand you could only be Consul for one year alone. Please answer, I have a project about Julius Caesar and I would be glad to know the answer to the question.
- Ketiiil 22:05 06.11.2007 (UTC+1)
:You've misunderstood - his consulship was for one year as usual. It was usual practice for a consul, on leaving office, to be appointed as a proconsul, to govern a province or command an army with authority of a consul. At this time this was also normally for one year, but in Caesar's case he was appointed proconsul of the Gauls and Illyricum for five years. --Nicknack009 21:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I've heard that the words alea iacta est according to the historian Plutarch were actually put by Caesar in Greek, quoting a greek play popular at the time (much the way we quote our favourite movie oneliners these days), does anyone know the exact source in Plutarch for this statement, the corresponding Greek wording, and the play and playwright supposedly quoted? -- Jörgen Nixdorf   
    
:Quick digging in electronic texts found the answer. I'm adding it to the main page so you can see this for yourselves. -- Jörgen Nixdorf   
   
Still looking for the name of the quoted play though, please help out if you can. -- Jörgen Nixdorf   
    
No one appears to be able to cite anything beyond the fact that it was Greek, translated to "let the dice fly high" (rather than "the die is cast", Suetonius's version), and a line from Menander. -- User:Publius   
    
Be all of which as it may, the claim in the article on Julius Caesar that "alea jacta est" translates to "the die must be cast" is incorrect. It really is just "the die is cast"--the Latin is pretty simple and there's no other way to translate it. Would somebody who has access change that? -- Nathaniel Stetson   
:Quite right. --D. Webb 01:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody knows what he actually said - there are a couple of different versions. Suetonius, writing in Latin, says he said iacta alea est (the die has been cast - indicative). Plutarch, writing in Greek, says he said aneristho kubos (let the die be cast - imperative). Your alea iacta esto is apparently an attempt by the Renaissance scholar Erasmus to reconcile the two with a Latin imperative. I can't find any mention of Menander in Suetonius or Plutarch, so that may be one of Erasmus's ideas as well. --Nicknack009 09:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alea Iacta Est

message: There's no mention of Caesar as an Imperator, though I know he was (the title only took on the meaning of Emperor later on). Unfortunately, I don't know the details nor when he was hailed as Imperator, so I can't really add to it with my current knowledge. Jsan 00:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Imperator?

message: It would seem to be considering his achievements, literary, generalship,engineering,law and politics, this is one ancient Roman who has done it all. His one failing was his big fat ego which led to his death. A genius nonetheless.   
--Actually, I would say it was the multiple stab wounds that led to his death. ;-)   
    
--It could also be argued that he died due to his trust in others and his sense of duty to Rome. I could be wrong, but didn't Artemidorus try to warn him, but he said that personal matters come after Rome? and shouldn't Caeser have an honour guard or something similar? Firestorm 00:36, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)   
    
:He was entitled to lictors nad German guards, but didn't bother with them. He considered it better to just accept death when it came than to be constantly paranoid and obsessed over stopping it (the night of March 14th, at a party, Caesar even said that his preferred form of death was fast, violent, and unexpected). He also believed that no one would dare assassinate him, as it would lead to renewed civil strife, a lose-lose situation. Kuralyov 04:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  JULIUS CAESAR -A GENIUS? 

message: I can't help feeling that the usual translation "The die is cast" gives a wholly misleading impression to the modern ear. (I've changed the translation from the unwarranted subjunctive; the Greek quote from Menander was in the subjunctive, but the Latin is indicative and is by far the more widely quoted.)   
    
A better, if somehat demotic, translation would be "The bet's on." Djnjwd 22:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very, very good. Bill 17:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: It's from Suetonius - here's a link to the Latin, which says "Iacta alea est". Latin, because of its inflections, was very flexible in word order, so there's no difference in meaning between "alea iacta est" and "iacta alea est", except perhaps an added emphasis on "iacta". --Nicknack009 06:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: splitting the verb phrase in this manner is a basic example of Latin chiasmus.  The subject appearing in the middle forms the center of the grammatical cross Legis Nuntius 17:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iacta alea est

message: The previous FA nomination for this article was approved in 2003 with only two votes. The current state of the article and the few disagreements over content go against the spirit of some of the points in Wikipedia:What is a featured article. The question thus is: Does this article still have FA quality? Personally I don't think so, but I'd like to hear some comments before doing something that may potentially annoy a lot of people. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 17:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the lack of discussion I'm taking this to WP:FARC. Maybe a wider exposure will settle the matter definitely. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 23:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article still be featured? 

message: (05/11/19)   
    
I have changed the composition of the images, so when the reader first arrives at the article, they are greeted by two pictures of Caesar busts side at side. The text is not much effected by this, and the content box isn't moved at all. I believe that this way the space is used to it's max, and the initial impression for the reader is more colourful and grandious. As well as early on (if you are just doing a quick search of Caesar) get's two great likeness of him from sculptured antique busts or busts scuptured from antiques, and if they read on they have a clear picture of him in the head to start with.   
Let me know what you think of the modification.   
--Jduxen   
    
I think it was the Thirteenth Legion that crossed the Rubicon with Caesar. Should this be changed?
 i never really got any of that can you help me
--Faxle (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composition of images changed 

message: I'd like for this to get back to featured status...any regular editors willing to help me? I've already addressed a few of the complaints out there (the EasyTimeline which was requested, for one), and will do a lot more after final exams in a few weeks. But it'd be cool if anyone wanted to help. I'm pushing to get it FA soon, so it can (hopefully) be main paged on the Ides of March :) Ral315 (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anyone oppose the addition of the templatebox on the right? This article is linked from the Timeline of the Roman Empire. People reaching this page will find the timeline at the bottom of this article faster. And what about making names and events in the Julius Caesar timeline hyperlinks? --Dschwen 16:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting back to featured article 

message: :Unfortunately, all of the pomp, circumstance, and public taxpayers' dollars being spent incenced certain members of the Roman Senate. One of these was Caesar's closest friend, Marcus Junius Brutus.   
- I seem to remember that the money from Caesar's public works came from the sale of booty, etc. from his triumphs. Not money that was extracted from the Roman public. It seems to me that this arguement is a bit of an anachronism and ignores the real source of aristocratic agitation: Caesar's monopolization of power and other insults to the senate. Does anyone else think this comment should be removed? Amphipolis 02:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me.--Panairjdde 11:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caesar's source of money 

message: Extensive article 51k in length but only 3 references in the entire article, This was a major reason given for delisting from FA status in November 2005 and its still hasn't been addressed. The other issue is stability 50 edits in 10 days not many of those are vandalism and reverts. The last 500 edits have taken place in less than 2 months, there is a higher percentage of vandalism/reverts in these still not significant enough to cause this many edits. The edit count will reduce with cites as uncited sections draw more good faith but inappropriate edits. Besides this it is interesting read and the prose is Good it deserves to achieve GA and FA but these issues need to be addressed first. Gnangarra 15:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After a re-read and discussion with nominator I'm happy to reverse my decision. Isuggest that this article gets semi-protection to reduce vandalism and address the stability problem. Gnangarra 04:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: Congratulations to the editors of this article, please consider using . when making future edits. Gnangarra 04:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Passed GA

message: In relation to the request at the head of this page for an audio version to be created, I'd like to ask opinions on how the Roman names and Latin words should be presented. Obviously there's a great deal of controversy about Latin pronunciations - for example, should 'Caesar' be 'Seezer' as it is generally pronounced, or 'kai-sar' as remnant words (such as Kaiser) seem to indicate? Should 'Julius' be 'Julius' or 'Yulius'? I'm not asking for a full rundown of every term in the article - but I'd appreciate any suggestions as to how formal or precise an audio article is expected to be with regard to pronouncing a language that no-one's heard spoken by a contemporary native speaker. Thanks - Adaru 10:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't notice this section when I went to record the article, so I'll explain how I went about pronouncing the Latin. The Roman names I chose to pronounce in "English," meaning I used the most popular English pronunciation I knew (or asked about). Where true Latin words or pronunciations come up, I chose to pronounce (usually, though I may not have been consistant) as close to Ecclesiastical Latin (close to Italian) as possible, that being the system of pronunciation I knew best. If I've made any preceived errors in pronunciation, I do apologise. Let me know so if a new version is made I can make the corrections. Thank you, and hope that's helpful. -- Kevin F. Story (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Audio Version?

message: I have a bit more information on Caesar's early career... in 68 B.C he was quaestor, and he went to western spain to act under the praetor there as a travelling judge, and in 65 B.C. he was aedile when he put on so much public games with his own money that (as I mentioned in some section above) he got himself into a MASSIVE debt that only the praetor- and consul-ship could get rid of. 202.169.221.108 06:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Caesar's career 

message: Of course, there are a lot of books written about Julius Caesar, but why not mention at least the important ones? Now, I'm not saying that Meier's book is the most important ... it's just for starts.—Barbatus 03:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: I'm going to put this article up for semi-protect; there are just too many vandalisms. If anyone objects, feel free to remove the page from requests for protection (but, just as a favor, please let me as well). Thanks -Patstuart 23:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do. I think, that padlock could be placed on every article about a 'historical celebrity.' In the last few weeks, I've mostly been reverting instead of editing. Too many idiots.—Barbatus 00:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is getting ridiculous 

message: I don't understand the following:   
    
    
Caesar and Cleopatra never married. In fact they could not marry. As Roman law stood, the institution of marriage was only recognized between two Roman citizens and as Cleopatra was Queen of Egypt, she was not a Roman citizen. In Roman eyes this did not even constitute adultery. Adultery could only occur between two Roman citizens. Caesar is believed to have committed this crime numerous times during his last marriage which lasted 14 years but produced no children.   
   
    
What crime? Adultery? But we have just learned that he did not commit adultery!   
Very confusing ...   
    
You misunderstand. Adultery, by Roman Law, it is not considered adultery unless it is between two Roman citizens. He is believed to have committed adultery with Cleopatra, but this would not be considered adultery. He did not commit adultery- in Roman eyes. But this is now; we see it as a crime nonetheless. Does this explanation help? Rev. James Triggs 20:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Where do you live that adultery is a crime? Nonetheless, that should be irrelevant: if someone commits an act that his society with a clear concept of crime does not call a crime, he does not commit a crime. A crime is a knowing breach of existing law. Right? Renke 13:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What crime? Adultery? But we have just learned that he did not commit adultery!   
No, what was learnt is that he did not commit the crime of adultery with Cleopatra. Caesar is known to have conducted affairs with Roman citizens; most notably, Servilia Caepionis. That is where the crime of adultery lies.203.164.147.121 05:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime with Cleopatra? 

message: This talk page was extremely long, so I took it upon myself to create some topical archives. This is my first attempt at any sort of archiving, so please let me know if I've done anything wrong! I hope the subsections are useful and will make this page more productive. —anskas 20:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the Julius Caesar in popular culture page. I noticed this approach is gets used more and more. Pavel Vozenilek 16:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it to Durova's suggested title, to include ancient, medieval and early modern works that can't really be considered "popular culture". --Nicknack009 23:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Julius Caesar]] 

message: If cut down some of the details about Sulla added by Caesar10 - not because it's inaccurate (it's not) but because this is a very long article (and going to get longer - there's nothing about Caesar's tangential involvement in Catiline's conspiracy, or the Bona Dea scandal, yet), so detail not directly relevant to Caesar himself should be kept to a minimum. The Marius/Sulla civil war is very relevant to understanding Caesar's later actions and the Senatorial establishment's fear of him, but the procedure by which Sulla was appointed dictator or who his consular colleague was, for example, aren't. Details like that belong in Sulla's own article. Let's keep this manageable. --Nicknack009 17:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Caesar and Sulla

message: I have requested Semi-Protection because of frequent vandalism by anonymous users. ArthurWeasley 00:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've semi-protected. Durova 03:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: request for semi-protection

message: This article makes a brief and very sudden statement saying 
"On August 26 55 and 54 BC he made two expeditions to Britain"
Could we go in too more detail on this possibly?
:If you follow the link to Caesar's invasions of Britain, you get all the detail you could want. --Nicknack009 03:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julius In Britian 

message: The image ("19th century Italian marble bust) is not the "young Julius Caesar" but either the young Augustus or (more probably) Gaius Caesar. (There are neither records nor portraits from Caesar's youth. The later rejuvenated (but never youthful!!) depictions of Julius Caesar are only known from coins.)
The second image below is an official portrait of Gaius Caesar, including the streak numbers which I added myself.
The depictions of Gaius Caesar are in the late Augustan style, which is why statues and busts of Gaius Caesar are often confused with those of Augustus, but never with Julius Caesar. The typical number of the strands of hair for Augustus/Gaius Caesar are 1/2/3/4 + 5 + 6/7/8, sometimes with slight variations. Even more typical is the hair pincer (in German: "Haarzange") between strands 4 and 5 (5a) or sometimes 3 & 4, if there are only three strands counting from the left.
In any case, this is not an image of Julius Caesar. Eickenberg 00:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important: wrong image (not Julius Caesar) 

message: User:Dominus Latronius Caesar added "IV" after Caesar's name; I'm 95% sure that's vandalism, but I was wondering if this could be sourced. Can anyone confirm this? I for one have never heard of him being the fourth Gaius Julius Caesar. · AO Talk 01:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fourth? 

message: Isn't the "j" in Latin pronounced as an "i" thus giving the name the sound "YOO-lee-oos KAI-zer?"
That's how I learned Latin, correct me if wrong!
--24.245.11.103 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that's right. The latin pronunciation in the article use The International Phonetic Alphabet transcription system where "j" is pronounced as the english "y". ArthurWeasley 02:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The article seems to be treating the ai of Gaius as a dipthong rather than a vowel and a consonant, but the pronunciation guide in my Latin dictionary (The Collins Latin Dictionary and Grammar) doesn't list ai among the dipthongs, so you may be right on that, although in this case I'm not sure it makes much practical difference to the sound. As for the s in Caesar, Collins is quite emphatic that Latin s is "never [pronounced] as is rose", so that would seem to be a vote against ˈkaɪzar. Any more learned Latinists reading? --Nicknack009 10:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the correct pronunciation would not be kaɪzar... Collins is correct on that count, although if you're saying it quickly there isn't much of a difference in how it sounds. 76.180.49.69 12:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Does anyone have any clarification on where the sentence declaring that Caesar had polio came from? I've never seen that anywhere. If it is unsourced it should be removed.Haven40 06:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Polio

message: Salvete omnes,
I have a question about the chronology explained in the 4th paragraph of the 1.1 Early Life section, which says that Caesar's father died in 85 BC.  If then says that Caesar was nominated to be Flamen Dialis in the following year, which would be 84 BC.  However, the LOEB Classical Library edition of De Bello Gallico states in its opening chronology that Caesar was elected Flamen Dialis in 86 BC, which is the year BEFORE 85 BC.  He married Cornelia in 84 BC.  
Is it possible that Caesar's father died in 87 BC?  Or perhaps the text was garbled due to a mistake in thinking about BC dates.  Of course, it is possible that my source is incorrect. Though this is a small detail, I write because it would be shameful for an encyclopedia to have incorrect dates.
Thanks,
-Higgins.
Source:  Edwards, HJ (Translator), Caesar's The Gallic War.  Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1963.  Page vii. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.88.96.124 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: The page is incredibly long... There are tiny things which dont help the length.  I know these things are minor, but...
* perhaps things like "When Cicero, who was consul that year," could just be "When Cicero...", same with "Caesar supported Caecilius Metellus, now tribune," - do we need to know when other people are consuls or tribunes in Caesars article?
* Also, under First Consulship and First Triumvirate it says "The election was dirty." which sounds funny.
* Caesar's civil war could be cut down a little, since it has a main article
* Assassination plot is long, but I wouldnt know how to shorten it.
Id like to make it more concise, but its impossible since he led such an eventful life! Hpmons 14:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge length! 

message: The military history section currently ends with part of something on his name. Someone's edit has gone wrong somewhere, but because of subsequent sensible changes, it doesn't look like a simple revert job, so I have left it for someone else to sort out. Lovingboth 10:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also a sentence about the diadem incident at the end of the chronology, which similarly needs to go / be moved somewhere else Lovingboth 10:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is in need of a revision as some of these posts have pointed out.  Given the number of school students who use this article, this would be a good project, perhaps after the term is over later this month and when the page is protected again. Legis Nuntius 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military history / name edit needed 

message: It appears that some sort of vandalism/nonsense has been added to the end of Caesar's timeline. ('wht the heck_236yhki7r_bobhut') I have no idea how to edit this to remove it. Can anyone help? Terraxos 17:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: I am placing this article up for possible removal from the GA list (delisting).  I am opening a discussion at WP:GA/R to see if such a delisting is warrented.  However, I believe the article does NOT meet the GA requirements of referencing as found in WP:WIAGA.  Of specific concern, the,many sections are ENTIRELY without references.  These sections include:
*Conquest of Gaul - last two paragraphs
*Fall of the First Triumvirate - entire section
*Civil war - entire section
*Aftermath of the civil war - entire section
*Assassination plot - entire section
*Aftermath of assassination - entire section
*Military career - entire section
*Honours - Entire section
It should be noted that the rest of the article is VERY well referenced.  Since the article passed almost a year ago, this would lead me to two conclusions: The article was passed under a different set of GA standards, and as the standards have changed the article no longer qualifies as a GA, OR the unreferenced sections were added after the original well-referenced article was passed, making the article substandard.  Either way, this article needs to be fixed or delisted.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has now been delisted following the Good Article Review.  In addition to the concerns outlined above, there were also concerns about plagiarism brought up in the review.  The full text of the review can be seen here.  Please assume good faith and continue to improve the article. -Malkinann 01:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no reference for the closing statement of the Literary Works section, either. -Anonymous 01:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA|RGood Article Review]] requested.  Proposed delisting from the GA list 

message: On the fifth line of the second paragraph in the section "Caesar comes to prominence", there is an inserted sentence that states "this website lies." I believe it should be removed but am unable to do so.
Regularjohn44 09:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent Vandalism 

message: I have moved mention of Caesar's "modest house in the Subura" from his early life to his early career. It strikes me as unlikely that an aristocratic family that was active in politics, employed a tutor and was able to give Caesar an inheritance would need to live so humbly, but likely that Caesar himself, striking out on his own after the confiscation of his inheritance, would, and the passage of Suetonius says it was his first house, not his family's. --Nicknack009 11:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caesar's house 

message: Unfortunately most of this section was taken from a copyrighted web site (see discussion above on #Image on coins). This material was added by Special: contributions/68.12.208.244 on 18th May 2005 (also responsible for copyvio at Caligula, according to his talk page). Much of the original copyvio has been gradually edited away since, but large chunks were left in this section. I have deleted all the copyrighted material remaining, I believe. The section now needs fixing up, but I can't do it myself as I have no access to information except for that web site. PaddyLeahy 11:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath of the civil war 

message: I think that there should be a mention of the fact that Caesar's name was GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR and not GAIUS JULIUS CAESAR, because the letters j and u did not exist at the time it was written. perhaps, the latin spelling could replace the anglicised one. 213.7.22.126 22:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Latin spelling is given in a footnote. If we were to be absolutely accurate the J should indeed be written as an I, but the U's should remain U's - they are not V's, they only look like that in the script used in monumental inscriptions - and mixed case, not all caps, should continue to be used, unless you're going to argue that medieval names should be spelled entirely in lower case because medieval manuscripts didn't use capitals the way we do. In any case, Wikipedia policy is to use the most familiar version of a name, and the conventional anglicised spelling is so widely known and used that it would be bordering on pedantic to correct it. --Nicknack009 23:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of i and j in name of Roman historical persons 

message: "Julius Sabinus, a Gaul of the Lingones at the time of the Batavian rebellion of AD 69, claimed to be the great-grandson of Caesar on the grounds that his great-grandmother (Rhiannon, a Princess of the Helvetii) had been Caesar's lover during the Gallic war." I've removed the phrase "(Rhiannon, a Princess of the Helvetii)" because as far as I'm aware this is only an invention of Colleen McCullough for her Masters of Rome books. If I'm wrong then of course feel free to put it back in. Kuralyov 18:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable relatives

message: In Latin language there is not the letter "J j". --82.50.176.80 18:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caesar's name 

message: Could someone here take a look at Gaius Julius Caesar I and tell me if maybe we should nominate that article for deletion? Plinth molecular gathered 00:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: G and C are the same letter basically, the Latins (or Etruscans I forget which) gave C a tail to differentiate the two.  The name Gaius is older than the letter G and so it has the initial "C." in abbreviations, but the ancient Latin texts spelled it Gaius. Legis Nuntius 18:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue has been referred to a formal AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaius Julius Caesar I. If you've expressed your opinion here, I recommend you paste your comments over to the deletion discussion. Robert Happelberg 23:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaius Julius Caesar I 

message: The recent change to the Conquest of Gaul section cites a Roman community forum and someone's private website.  While the sources may not be as reputable as others, it lists some numbers.  The Helvetii article makes a good summation on this:In general, numbers written down by ancient military authors have to be taken as gross exaggerations.  What Caesar claims to have been 368,000 people is estimated by other sources to be rather around 300,000 (Plutarch), or 200,000 (Appian); in the light of a critical analysis, even these numbers seem far too high. Furger-Gunti considers an army of more than 60,000 fighting men extremely unlikely in the view of the tactics described, and assumes the actual numbers to have been around 40,000 warriors out of a total of 160,000 emigrants.I think it may be valuable to add some figures to the Conquest of Gaul section, but I think they should be incorporated into what is already there (not placed at the end), and citations given to either ancient or reputable classicist sources.  The recent revision is also present in the Gaul article.  I would like to see another source on the 1 in 4 Gauls slaughtered, 1 in 4 enslaved statistic.  My first impulse was to revert.  Legis Nuntius 02:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifying conquest of Gaul casualty statistics 

message: In the article there is a line that says "While printing the title of dictator was significant, Caesar's image was not, as it was customary to print consuls and other public officials on coins during the Republic." however the caption below the coins in question states that Caesar was the first person to have their face on a coin. I'm inclined to agree with the first statement rather than the caption. Master z0b 01:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the discussion of "Image on coins" above.  Both statements are actually correct.  The caption and corresponding text may be better melded because of the continuing confusion.  Legis Nuntius 02:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradictory information regarding coins 

message: Greetings. Caesar planned to invade Parthia, Scythia, the Caucasian lands, Eastern Europe and Germania, but this plan was thwarted because he was murdered. I have found a quote and a link. Is this worth mentioning?
For he p579planned and prepared to make an expedition against the Parthians; and after subduing these and marching around the Euxine by way of Hyrcania, the Caspian sea, and the Caucasus, to invade Scythia; 7 and after overrunning the countries bordering on Germany and Germany itself, to come back by way of Gaul to Italy, and so to complete this circuit of his empire, which would then be bounded on all sides by the ocean.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Caesar*.html
It is in paragraph 58, in phrase 6 and 7 specifically. Darth Viller (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is worth mentioning.  In one of Augustus' biographies, this is mentioned because it was actually Marcus Antonius who fought agains the Parthians.  That biographer theorized that Caesar would have had as much trouble as his underling and would have faced defeat.  Parthia was a thorn in the side of Rome for hundreds of years.  Mention of Caesar's planned campaign would go best at the end of "Aftermath of Civil War" for the transition to the "Assassination Plot." Legis Nuntius (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign into Parthia, Scythia and Germania 

message: does anyone know more about his friend Brutus? like why brutus decided to kill him? i know that caesar spared his life, so i want to know how come he betrayed him... maybe something about their relashionship or somethign of the kind... I'm doing a project in Social Studies, so I want to know about Brutus to make my report more accurate
thanks
Researcher1996 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 21:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project 

message: The birth and death dates (if not all dates in the article) need to be presented as Julian dates. For example, the Ides of March 44BC would have been March 13th by modern reckoning. A Wednesday, despite that the Romans wouldn't have called it that. When you use Julian dates, you have to note it, because otherwise you present a false continuity. Someone today born on July 13th would be incorrect to suppose they were born on the same date as Gaius Julius, whereas a person born on July 11th would have that claim. --70.131.61.17 (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  They're not Gregorian dates. 

message: Sorry to post this here, but I can't figure out how to start a new thread. I have three suggestions for the entry. First, discussing Roman politics in terms of 'populares' and 'optimates' is dangerous because so many anachronistic assumptions have gone into interpreting history in this way. The entry here makes it sound as though these terms name self-identified political parties, even an ideological tradition. Yet the sources suggest no such thing, and the most recent scholarship on the issue has shown not only that the 'political party' analogy distorts the sources, but that the people called 'populares' were neither unified nor, in most cases, driven by ideology. Rather, they were distinguished by their method of working through the popular assemblies against the majority of the senate. The flipside of the coin is that the 'optimates,' though some of them certainly did develop ideological justifications for their position, were primarily unified by their loyalty to senatorial supremacy. Most of our evidence for the use of these terms comes from Cicero, who was trying very hard to develop an ideology to support senatorial authority. We should not therefore conclude that his writings simply describe the reality, but rather that they tried to prescribe a certain way of looking at reality. 
That brings me to my second suggestion. The entry does a fairly good job, in most sections anyway, of citing primary sources responsibly and noting divergent reports in different souces. Overall, though, the entry gives the misleading impression that we have an ample amount of clear and reliable information about Caesar. As it happens, we do have a lot of contemporary sources, but each and every source that we have is written from some perspective that should make us hesitant to treat it as a simple objective report of events. Caesar's commentaries are obviously tailored to present a favorable image of Caesar and his activities; Cicero's letters represent Cicero's point of view, which is very often shaped by what he feels that he should say to his recipient (remember that letters were not exactly 'private' documents in antiquity; even if Cicero did not intend to publish the letters, simply sending a letter virtually guaranteed that it would be read by people other than the recipient). The various historians who write about Caesar worked with sources of various reliability, and ancient hisoriography very often invented details or reported facts on slender evidence for rhetorical effect, besides being driven largely by a didactic purpose. It would help to have a short section of the entry noting these problems. 
Finally, the entry claims that Caesar's political moves were influenced by his need to avoid laying down office in order to evade prosecution. This claim is indeed made by most historians of the period, but it has recently been challenged. It would be worth noting. 
I hope to make some of these changes pretty soon, but I would like to know what others think about this before I do so.
 
- djr  11:17AM CST Nov. 12 2007
:I agree with everything you say. The realm of ancient sources is so politically influenced and fragmented that it is better to trust some sources than others. BTW, to start an new thread you click the "+" at the top next to "edit this page".
Erik the Red 2 (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with all of these sensible suggestions as well. Look forward to the edits. JPotter (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about the article 

message: Surely the line "one of the 100 most influential men in history. [3]" is mere opinion, and if not opinion of an editor then the opinion of just one man and his novel.  I think it should be deleted. 80.177.2.156 (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. It was the latest addition to the article (from Saturday) and so blatantly POV that you didn't really have to take this to talk. I went ahead and removed it. -- Jao (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I had before you, Jao. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It's properly sourced, what's the problem? JPotter (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its just someone's opinion, policies are meant to help us create a good encyclopedia, they are not meant to be used by wikilawyers inserting whatever slanted opinion into articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Assume good faith please! Oughtn't a published source which includes Caesar as one of the most influential men in history be mentioned? The book is widely published. JPotter (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh I assume good faith but this is not appropriate and you cannot force it on us quoting WP:RS, its clearly American centred anyway and we are not an American but an international encyclopedia and because we want to be a reliable encyclopedia we do not use refs like this anywhere, this kind of stuff is rejected throughout the encyclopedia and the fact that 2 experienced editors have reverted you should hopefully mean something. He isn't even a historian, just a NASA retiree opining, which is great but not for us. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, no one is trying to force anything on anyone. Since you believe it's a Eurocentric slant, would it be more appropriate to say he is one of the most influential men in Western Civilization? Is it that Hart is not an historian? If we found an historian that said Caesar was one an influential man, would that suffice? JPotter (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody's opinion should be stated as fact, we simply don't need to have this contentious kind of insertion. I agree with Jao, lets just let the facts state themselves, that is far more useful to our readers than opining about who is the greatest, a great pissing contest as someone describnbed this kind of thing on wikipedia recently. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  Also, probably not in the lead. JPotter (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In a trivia section perhaps but as you say not in the lead, indeed. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And one thing I know about history is that it is not opining about the most influential, history is trying to figure out what in the past actually happened to the best we can so I wouldn't call Hart a historian albeit perhaps a writer on historical themes. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: No, Hart is definitely not an historian. By the way, I didn't realize the phrase was recently added. I just saw the removal and knew the phrase would be easily sourced, but I didn't know that someone had just recently added that phrase to the lead. I find you latest reasoning compelling, although it took some arm twisting. Cheers. JPotter (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realise myself either. i only added Julius Caesar to my watchlist thsi weekend and was reading the article, as I do, and that was just obvious removal material. its jao who pointed out this is a recent addition. And I am definitely not assuming bad faith, nice to discuss it. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  100 Most Influential Men In History 

message: For administrators: italian version of Julius Caesar is now a featured article, can you report it? Lo Scaligero (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: it.wiki

message: Some clever person moved Julius Caesar to "Hagger     ", including a string of spaces after the name. I tried to move it back, but the spaces in the name came with it. :( Now the redirect doesn't work properly. Can somebody who knows what they're doing sort this out please?  (Sorry)  Paul Fisher (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem correcting vandalism move 

message: The reference list is using some kind of technique such that it can change the number of column according to the width of the browser's window of the reader. 
As a result, the column width would also change. At certain width, the column would be so narrow that the 62nd line exceeds the limit. 
I would like to fix it myself but unluckily this article is locked. 
So can someone who is able to edit change the original line which is just a hyperlink to 
"Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, by Plutarch (chapter48)"
(without the quotes). Thanks in advance. --Quest for Truth (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done by myself as now I can see the edit button. --Quest for Truth (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Link in the Reference 

message: I did add this, since this is the only most and ever ancient bust ever discovered, and it is most notable to be here: The Department of Subaquatic Archaeological Research divers (headed by Michel L'Hour) discovered between September and October 2007, a 46 B.C. life-sized marble bust showing an aging Caesar with wrinkles and hollows in his face, in the Rhone River near Arles, southern France. France's Culture Minister Christine Albanel reported on May 13, 2008, that the bust is the most ancient representation known today of Caesar. news.yahoo.com, Divers find Caesar bust that may date to 46 B.C.Picture of Marble Bust  undated image --Florentino floro (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture on the culture ministry's web page is marked "D.R." for droits réservés: all rights reserved. In other words, it's a copyvio and won't be here much longer. The WP copy is already tagged for deletion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a fair use rationale to the image's page.  This is a prime example of fair use given that the bust is over in France, the Associated Press claims US law applies, and the bust is unique in that it shows Caesar at an age not previously known.  Compare this image to the fair use in Perfect 10 Inc. v. Amazon Inc.  Legis Nuntius (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an important image (and perhaps deserves more prominence in the article), so I hope this works! --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't yet found a news source that explains why this bust is identified as Caesar. It looks nothing like him! --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should revert to a known image of Caesar until it is authenticated.  It is now the lead image. Legis Nuntius (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Now there's a modest paragraph at the foot of the article on this most interesting find. I added some detail from the news reports and made the wording a little more cautious. Raders of Mary Beard's debunking TLS blog will detect broad holes in her stance of doubt: "hundreds" of years of extreme naturalism in Roman portrait sculpture, "immediate" diefication of Caesar, etc.  --Wetman (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your forceful comment.  I take it that you are disputing the authenticity of the bust.  This is a valid opinion.  As stated above you, there are those that reached the same position because the bust looks nothing like him.  I must forcefully disagree with your comment on Appian, he was not referring to Arles.  Legis Nuntius (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disputing. I'm stating that it IS CLEARLY NOT Caesar. I simply have to compare the Arles-bust and the Tusculum-Caesar, up to now the only bust/statue of Caesar made during his lifetime. There are no resemblances. Not one. That's not opinion, but an observation, the simplest and easiest way to attain scientific fact. The French government official probably only screamed "CAESAR!" because they need more money for their archaeological work. Greedy, dishonest bunch. And you're falling for their BS. As for Appian: I didn't say that Appian refers to Arles. He clearly refers to Rome, but this is to my knowledge the ONLY source on Caesar's busts being destroyed after his assassination. People who say that this also happened in Arles (namely statues thrown into the river) can only infer that from the Appian source. So Appian III.1.9 is scientifically relevant here. (Ever heard about circumstantial evidence?) —Eickenberg (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I know very much about circumstantial evidence.  I also know about propensity evidence and how it is inadmissible.  It is inadmissible because its logic of proof commits the fallacy of composition.  If the people of Rome start a riot, it does not necessarily mean that the whole Roman empire immediately started rioting when the news of the assassination finally reached them weeks after the occurence.  I would think that if that had happened, at least one of the historians would have written about it.  Speaking of evidence, evidence submitted by experts is called expert opinion.  It falls under Article VII Opinions and Expert Testimony of the Federal Rules of Evidence.  Even the opinion of an expert is not taken as a "scientific fact."  Experts can disagree.  Your own opinions are not scientific facts.  The scientific method requires not only the subject to be questioned, but your own theories as well.  It was because I question my own opinion that I suggested the disputed bust not be the lead depiction on the page.  It should be authenticated by experts first.  My own personal opinion or that of any other wikipedia user of what the bust looks like has no bearing on the official outcome.  The majority of the busts out there do not have the insciption Caesar sum followed by an A.U.C. and a date.  Even the authenticity and date of the Tusculum bust has been questioned. Legis Nuntius (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite correct about the circumstantial evidence. If you can't back it up with further evidence, it's nothing more than a theory. But as a theory it's still admissable, and can be debated… which is where the "expert opinion" comes in. But a written source (even if it was altered in the copying process) or a statue or an inscription are never "opinion", they are (in itself) plain facts. For constructing a theory based on these facts it's of course pretty weak, if you only have one source, and you'll be prone to criticism, but nevertheless: the source itself is rock-solid. (In this specific case a counter-argument could be that it would be hard to explain, why Caesar's statue would have been thrown away in a Caesarian colony! The reaction to his assassination would have rather been the opposite, as the sources also confirm for Rome.) But if you see something like that as "inadmissable" in a scientific discussion, I have one question: why do you still allow the article to read "After Caesar's assassination, 44 BC, portraits of him would have been discreetly disposed of, as politically dangerous possessions", if neither the French "expert" nor the WP "experts" support it with AT LEAST some piece of circumstantial evidence, as I have done, of which the discarding of the statues in Arles could theoretically be inferred? It's a fact that they were thrown away, yes. But that's simply not enough to support the assassination theory. And btw: the Tusculum-Caesar has been debated, yes, but the majority of the arguments are about the dating: 44BC, 45BC etc., not about this being a lifetime-portrait or not. Communis opinio clearly answers this with a yes. That's not "fact", I know. What's a fact however (which I already stated above) is that the Arles-bust and the Tusculum-Caesar do not show the same person. —Eickenberg (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another argument against the French assassination-theory would be that the Arles-colony (as all of Gallia Narbonensis) was not unter Decimus Brutus' governship anymore. Decimus had been assigned to Gallia Cisalpina. Narbonensis was under Caesarian influence then, and the cult of the deified Caesar was later very prominent in that province, which of course started with Caesar's soldiers and veterans in the colonies. Why then would loyal followers of Caesar throw away his statue? But oh, I forgot, that's circumstantial and inadmissable, right? And I also forgot that the Arles-bust isn't even Julius Caesar, so this all null and void anyway. Or is it? If the statue (which is a possibility) depicts the actual founder of the colony, Tiberius Claudius Nero, then it might be a theory that Caesar's followers in the colony threw away Nero's statue, because he had been a member of the Optimate party in Rome and had suggested rewards for the assassins (which were granted to them anyway because of the amnesty and Caesar's decrees that remained in effect). Furthermore, Tiberius Nero first joined Marcus Antonius against Octavian, which might also have been a reason for them to throw the bust away. Another possibility: Tiberius Nero was the father of the later emperor Tiberius, who had been adopted by Augustus, after he had snatched Nero's wife Livia to become his own wife. To obliterate Tiberius' biological origin and support the imperial adoption, the discarding of Tiberius Nero's bust (if it is Tiberius Nero, which is not clear) might have been a part of an Augustan damnatio memoriae. I don't read anything about alternative explanations in the media. Everyone seems to be clouded by the illusion that this is Caesar's bust. —Eickenberg (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Can any of this opinion be edited into the article?--Wetman (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe so.  At the moment it is original research.  The consensus growing here (3 now with Eickenberg) is that the status of the bust is at the moment disputed, but my original proposal to have it removed from the lead depiction has not been addressed.  The discussion on Appian has come full circle.  Originally, Appian was used for the opinion that busts of Caesar would have been smashed and not thrown in the river.  I pointed out that Appian was referring to Rome and that it would be a fallacy of composition to apply what happened in Rome to Arles.  I would agree with the proposition that it would be unlikely for residents of Arles to destroy a bust of Caesar in general.  I also agree with the position that isolated pieces of evidence hardly lead to a conclusion.  Just as this bust without additional evidence makes authentication dubious, "the ONLY source on Caesar's busts being destroyed after his assassination" is dubious as well.  Plutarch, Appian, Dio, and Suetonius differ even when writing of the exact same events.  While I called into doubt the means of arising to a  position, it does not mean that I necessarily disagree with that position or agree with the counter argument.  Personally, I find it suspect that the bust was found with a statue of Neptune from the 3rd century.  I can't say for certain, but it is my opinion that they were all tossed in there at the same time.  I have no idea where these guys are getting these dates, but I will treat them as opinion until a consensus of other academic opinions has been made.  As for the image, I would like to see what the consensus is for its use.  I propose again that it be removed as the lead image and the section concerning this new bust contain references to its disputed status.  I also propose that it not be removed from the article altogether because one reputable source (reputable at the moment) claims that it is Caesar. Legis Nuntius (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The section that deals with it should be retitled as well - the Tusculum bust is considered to be contemporary, so even if this one is authentic, it's not "The only contemporary portrait bust" - and I'll go ahead and make that change. I'll also add the other images from the Commons to the one-image gallery that's already been created. It's a shame we don't have a photo of the Tusculum bust. Does anyone have access to a public domain photo of it? I'll have a trawl through the other language wikis and see if any of them have one. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: @Legius Nuntius: even if there's consensus here, it doesn't mean that it would validate an inclusion in the article. WP is all about adding "[citation needed]". At the moment, there is no "dispute": I don't know of any scholar who has a) either supported the opinion that it's Caesar or b) has come forth and published a rebuttal (unless you call the Times Literary Supplement a scholarly publication), although all my colleagues and in other institutes say that it's definitely not Caesar or that they have huge doubts. A lot of them are like: "Why do you even care? That's pseudo-scientific propaganda of politicians to get more funds. It's dishonest. We should ignore it." At the moment there are only government officials and (one?) government-employed scientist, i.e. a biased source, and they don't even present any arguments except their own conjecture. The main argument seems to be: Caesar was there in 46 BC (which is wrong: he was there in 49BC) and Caesar was the founder of the colony (which is also wrong: he was only the pater, cf. the two words in the colony's name: Paterna Iulia). What else is there? Nothing. MY SUGGESTION: move the complete paragraph and work it into Arles#Archaeology. As long as there is no further evidence or a rebuttal, it cannot qualify for inclusion here. @Nicknack009 images of the Tusculum-Caesar are found here (third row). The photos themselves seem to be public domain are definitely public domain [reason: the owner and copyright holder of all the Aeria-photos died in 1937], but they have a distribution copyright belonging to the university of Erlangen. Maybe they'll agree to a restricted license for use at WP. The second-oldest Caesar bust is the Corinth-Caesar here or here. It is directly based on the Tusculum-type, but was probably made shortly after his death (cf. the mourning expression, the slightly rejuvenized appearance as Divus Iulius, the beard as a sign of mourning; he still has few hair ~_^); maybe the author on flickr will allow its use on WP. —Eickenberg (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One general addition concerning the original information by the French authorities: a) Michel L'heur, the supervisor, is a field archaeologist (especially underwater archaeology), and I haven't yet found any single publication by him that deals with ancient Rome or Caesar. He said however this: "We have consulted the most eminent specialists in ancient statuary so as to make sure that this really is a portrait of Julius Caesar." Who are those specialists? Are they specialists on Rome or Caesar, like Toynbee, Herbig, Zanker, Simon? Why haven't these specialists come forward and have publicly endorsed this theory? Makes me wonder… b) the expedition leader Luc Long stated that he knew immediately that it's Caesar, although he also doesn't have any credentials in the fields Rome/Caesar. But he claims that he also consulted "specialists in art history and forensic morphology". These specialists also haven't come forth yet. Furthermore there is not a single clue, if all those specialists unanimously stated that the bust depicts Caesar. Maybe only one of them said casually that it can't be completely ruled out, which is often enough for a gung-ho scientific announcement. I've seen this before: private endorsements by specialists for a colleague followed by public silence in order to ensure that their scholarly integrity remains intact, because in the end they can't be sure and won't risk their reputation. I'm not saying that this is the case here, but it sure smells fishy. —Eickenberg (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Further, I really don't see why news of a recently discovered bust should be in the article, even if it is legit. I mean, it smacks of recentism and undue weight. Imagine if there were a similar section about every purported bust of Caeser. It seems to me we are lucky that many of them were destroyed. It simply isn't pertinent, because it doesn't tell us about Caeser at all. maxsch (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a German newspaper article here that quotes some scientists on the matter. 1) Hansgerd Hellenkemper, director of the Roman-Germanic Museum in Cologne, supports the Caesar-theory, but says that it is a later portrait from Augustan times. With this argument he obviously contradicts himself, because Caesar's images (on coins and statues as Divus Iulius) looked younger than the real-life portraits (such as the Tusculum), with more hair and sometimes also as a mirror image of Augustus himself. So this "expert opinion" can be discarded, because an Augustan depiction of Caesar would never have looked like the Arles-bust. 2) The historian and Caesar-biographer Martin Jehne from Dresden doesn't explicitly support the Caesar-theory and only says that it is an important find. Furthermore he criticizes the French archeologists' argument that the bust was thrown away after and because of Caesar's assassination, for reasons that I have also written above (amnesty for the assassins, Caesar's decress remaining intact, Caesar elevated to god). This is in accordance to what Mary Beard has written in the TLS. So the French argument seems to be invalid. 3) The article continues with the argument that the bust would better fit in 45 BC after Caesar's victory at Munda and the Senate making him dictator perpetuo. All over the empire statues of Caesar were made. After his assassination many were collected to be altered in order to depict Caesar as divine. In this context the Tusculum Caesar is supposed to have appeared. This argument is however wrong, because lots of specialists (like the ones I mentioned above) date the Tusculum to 45 or early 44 BC. It completely matches the coins issued in 45 and 44 (e.g. the Buca denarius CAESAR DICT PERPETVO). So if at all, the Tusculum-type is the one that's at the base of later iconographical developments (cp. the Corinth-Caesar, which was mentioned on some blogs.) —Eickenberg (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is totally insane! On a blog I found a link to a French video. And on that video the bust DOES look a little bit more like Caesar than on the published photograph. See here. —Eickenberg (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oldest Marble bust

message: Paul Zanker, a world-renowned archaeologist and expert on Caesar & Augustus has shown that the marble bust from Arles is not Caesar. Therefore it is of no relevance to this article. I reworded the paragraph (pros & cons plus sources), and moved it to Arles#Archaeology. If some day in the distant future, the communis opinio will see this as a portrait of Caesar, we can always reintegrate it. —Eickenberg (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This aggressive behavior is discourteous to other Wikipedia editors. Deleting all mention of a portrait bust, said to be of Caesar but whose identity remains under professional discussion, does not help build an encyclopedia. Common civility keeps me from addressing this issue more frankly, but any editor who keeps the Wikipedia firmly in mind rarely makes such errors of judgement. I fully expect to be clubbed on the head with WP:CIVILITY for breathing a criticism of this ungracious behavior. --Wetman (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Come off it, will you please?! First of all I did not delete the paragraph. It has been moved to Arles, where it has a much better place. Secondly the paragraph was extremely poorly written. It is not discourteous to other WP editors. They should be glad that I substantially improved what they wrote, classified the paragraph in a better way (moved to another article). And they should also acknowledge that I didn't surge ahead with edits (like the others you refer to), but waited at first, discussed the matter and waited even longer, until at least 2 or 3 specialists on the subject had published their assessment. So I'm not aggressive. I'M THE EXACT OPPOSITE!!! Thirdly many experts have spoken out against the unfounded claim that this is a bust of Caesar. So AS LONG as it is not decided by communis opinio that it actually is Caesar, it has no place in the Julius-Caesar-article. I seriously hope you are capable of understanding. EDIT: and by the way, the article still mentions the bust and refers to the paragraph with a link!!! —Eickenberg (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It was reported by major news organizations that the bust was of Caesar. If professionals have later decided that it's not of Caesar, fine, but the fact that the initial news and  report did allege it to be that of JC does warrant and inclusion in this article. JPotter (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why it explicitly says: "For the recently discovered marble bust from Arles see Arles#Archaeology." Note: I will edit Caesar's name in there as well. But what more do you want? An in-depth report on how stupid the media and how ingenuous many WP editors are? —Eickenberg (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The main article is now (notice the neutral title) Arles portrait bust, as Arles is not the article for a tail that threatens to wag the dog. The question remains, what in the nature of a notice directing readers to Arles poprtrait bust will be permitted by 
Eickenberg, whose idea of neutrality is "For the marble bust from Arles discovered in 2007 and in 2008 erroneously revealed to the public as Caesar's likeness see..."--Wetman (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: You're an asshole, Wetman. And I don't give a fuck about civility at the moment: My first sentence had a completely neutral wording at first: "for the recently discovered marble bust from Arles see". Then JPotter talked about inclusion in *this* article, so I felt pressed to reword the phrase, and in the heat of the moment the word "erroneously" slipped in. And now you're accusing me of not being neutral. Yeah, right. I'll say it again: you're an asshole. —Eickenberg (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph on "oldest marble bust" moved and deleted 

message: The German invasion of Gaul is not mentioned in this article.
The conflict between Caesar and Tencteri & Usipetes is mostly explained from the perspective of Caesar sceptics, so someone better write an article about Tencteri and Usipetes according to Caesar's evaluation.
Caesar's assessment of the situation on the ground is much more reliable & professional than most cases on the Internet.
Phalanx Pursos 17:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned, but not in much detail, in the section Conquest of Gaul: "In 55 BC Caesar repelled an incursion into Gaul by the Germanic Usipetes and Tencteri, and followed it up by building a bridge across the Rhine and making a show of force in Germanic territory, before returning and dismantling the bridge." Not much Caesar-septicism there, by my reckoning, but not much analysis either. This is an enormous article, and as the Gallic Wars have their own article, the account here of Caesar's Gallic campaigns is rightly brief. The Gallic Wars article doesn't have much detail on the German invasion either, but if you want to add more, it would be best done there rather than here. As for your additions to Tencteri and Usipetes, they're so pro-Roman that even Caesar might find them POV. Describing any group of people as "barbarian looters and sackers who wandered around Germany for many years" is not in any way neutral. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The German invasion of Gaul was prior to the Roman/Gaul conflict, the German invasion of Gaul is the most important evidence of the Roman/Gaul conflict. Tencteri and Usipetes attacked Caesar's cavalry, Caesar charged them with his cavalry and the German tribes panicked, jumped in the river Rhine and drowned. Afterwards was Caesar the one accused of war crimes by the Roman senate, so Caesar was already accused of war crimes before the Roman/Gaul conflict. Caesar's military forces were at peace before the German invasion of Gaul, so it's important that someone dedicates an article to the German invasion prior to the Roman/Gaul conflict.
Phalanx Pursos 17:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Caesar had been making war in Gaul for three years before the Tencteri and Usipetes invaded. You seem to be confusing them with the Suebi, the enemies of the Tencteri and Usipetes, who did indeed invade (a different part of) Gaul before Caesar's governorship began, led by Ariovistus. This is covered in the first paragraph of the "Conquest of Gaul" section, again in not much detail, but with references. The article on Ariovistus, which I had a hand in writing, has more detail. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: [] I looked it up for you, Caesar's forces were at truce in Gaul and ordered not to attack even when under attack. But I read somewhere and I can't find it anymore; that Caesar's forces during & before that time were barracked in Gaul under the diplomatic stance that military force was not allowed, I can't find this article anymore so it would be nice if someone could look it up.
Phalanx Pursos 19:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're clearly not understanding what's written. In the passage linked to, an excerpt from Book 4 of Caesar's Gallic Wars, Caesar tells how he marched against the Usipetes and Tencteri with the intention of making war with them, and agreed a truce with them to allow for negotiation as the two sides approached each other. It is not the first engagement of the Gallic Wars, and it was a temporary truce between two parties about to go to war, not a general peace with everyone in the region. I suggest you read the whole of the Gallic War to get an idea of Caesar's nine years in Gaul, rather than one passage out of context. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks very much for your correspondence and showing me all these links, but you explain the things how you want to see them. That's my point, I have studied Caesar's history at length in 2000. At this moment I just want to bash the Caesar sceptics, because I've studied justice and I suggest you do to.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Phalanx Pursos  —Preceding comment was added at 05:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tencteri and Usipetes  

message: The busts on the article are contradictory to what was said as the oldest and more real face of Caesar. See here http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h0ZkufRJgTLP42gP7qjF2UDt8P-wD90L3OI00 The busts in the article and purported busts of Caesar are all wrong and biased to fulfill someone's interpretation of him. In the oldest and more realistic face his nose is little flatter/wider and the eyes are little closer. He looks more like Italian and Latin in appearance than more western/northern european in appearance especially the totally incorrect face of his in the Vienna bust in the article. Someone should state this information in the article, because the pictures are POV. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Caesars face picture (bust) is wrong

message: People who wrote this article pretend as if it didn't happen.
But those German tribes totally massacred Celtic villages & civilians, Caesar saved the Gauls and this truth is totally neglected. It's such a long story you can't explain this in 5 words, shame on you that Usipetes, Tencteri & Seubians are not mentioned in this article. If you don't explain Caesar's conflict with Usitpetes, Tencteri & Seubians in it's full truth, then you are a Caesar sceptic.
As token of respect & military salute;
Underline Caesar saved the Gauls from the Germans. Phalanx Pursos 18:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not bad to be skeptic in some cases. Caesar has reason to justify his own invasion of Gaul. Iblardi (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I've studied barbarian atrocities, what these people do is put all their warriors in 1 group and totally burn villages to the ground killing everyone inside. Caesar repelled an invasion of Germanic tribes who had their focus on making Gaul Germanic land, Caesar wanted to prevent a second invasion. Usipetes & Tencteri drowned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phalanxpursos (talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  German invasion of Gaul 

message: Substituted at 20:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment