Talk:Augustus/Archive 2

message: This article needs some different photos.  Most of the pictures here represent the "prima porta" Augustus.  Also, the "20th century" depiction should be removed entirely.  It's absurd. Datus (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much of the same 

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

message: I think the article needs to make mention of the short time after Caesar's assasination that Octavian went to war with Antony and came to the aid of assasin Decimus Brutus Albinus at Mutina with the consuls Hirtius and Pansa.
Also does anyone know exactly why he did this? It seems odd he would help an Assasin, perhaps it had something to do with Decimus being adopted as Caesar's 2nd son and Antony's falling out with Caesar? Or maybe he simply hated Antony more or was trying to eliminate his main rival? Do any ancient sources elaborate on exactly what his motivations were here? NeoRicen 06:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can come up with several reasons, but probably the best way to deconstruct what exactly Octavian was doing is to look at the results.  Its clear that Octavian manipulated Cicero to gain political allies amoung the moderates and the Optimates; Cicero himself states as much.  Octavian inherited Caesar's army and his name, giving him an edge, but by working with the Optimates (ie: his grand-uncle's assasins) Octavian gains additional political power among the people and is, in the end, able to say that he is truly a servant of the Republic, a supporter of neither Caesar's dictatorship nor the abuses of the Optimates.  Perhaps those were his reasons, or perhaps he was manipulated.  Either way, the end result is that Octavian ends up in command of almost all of the Senatorial legions (legions controlled by the state and in the previous civil-war loyal to the Optimates), as well as a majority of Caesar's legions as well as his own forces.  Combining arms with Antony and Lepidus allows Octavian full control of all of the military forces of the Republic and allows him to march into Rome at the head of eight legions and set up the Second Triumvirate, which this time is a legal institution.  Once again, in the end, this is all speculation based on what Octavian does overall, and basically put it shouldn't necesarily be included because it is an area of historical speculation on the part of us historians.  In other words, we're all still debating it, and we don't and probably never will have a definitive answer short of discovering Octavian's personal journal from those times.  pookster11 09:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice that even his personal journal may not tell: "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" (ppl have a tendency to justyfie what they did, even to themselves). Even if we analize what happened, whe cannot be 100% certain why it happened.Flamarande 12:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Legal institution in that the power of the Triumvirs is sanctioned by the Senate for five years and these three men are charged with restructuring the Republic.  In other words, legal in that it is done through legal means.  Were they cajoled, threatened, berated, what have you?  In the end its irrelevant.  The only reason it matters at all is in the fact that while the First Triumvirate was three guys with incredible personal power working behind the scenes and manipulating circumstances, the Second Triumvirate was three guys with moderate personal power attempting to work within the legal framework of the Republic. pookster11 06:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

text:  The question of NeoRicen, above, is why Octiavius came to the support of Decimus Brutus Albinus, not why he warred against Antony. NeoRicen's confusion is that Decimus Brutus Albinus was not the assassin Marcus Junius Brutus. Branko 02:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutina Conflict 

message: Someone (who's only been editing as a logged-in user since 31 Dec 05) has blithely gone off and moved this article back to Caesar Augustus, with the arch comment that the previous move, carefully considered by quite a few of us. was "inappropriate". This needs to be moved right back to Augustus, per the previous consensus. This is among the many kinds of things that makes Wikipedia look very silly. (I'm also puzzled how this person changed the redirects etc.; surely not an admin with just 9 days of logged-in editing?) Bill 13:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not defending a move (and I certainy didn´t do it) but is "Augustus"  really the "more commonly" used name? I have a few books and the authors name this person "Octavian" instead of "Caesar" which is normally used to designate "Julius Caesar". "Augustus" was a title (and Caesar also slowly changed into a title) and I believe that the majority of the latter emperors also adopted that title. Flamarande 13:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The short answer is that this man was referred to by various names (Caesar, Octavius, Octavianus are all met with in the ancient authors) — until he became emperor: from then on, he is almost universally called Augustus, which is also the usual practice of modern authors, except in careful writing when he is being referred to before that date, when in English at any rate he is usually referred to as Octavian, a custom owing much to euphony and Shakespeare; in French and Italian for example he is customarily referred to, under those conditions, as Octave and Ottavio (rather than Octavien and Ottaviano). The KJV Caesar Augustus, amusingly, is the most technically accurate appellation, which is what one would expect from the phenomenally talented, scholarly, and meticulous group of people who translated King James's Bible; yet that form is almost never used outside a Christian religious context. Bill 16:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, his official name became "Imperator Caesar Augustus" (with "Imperator" as preanomen), but he preferred to be addressed in person as "Caesar" to stress the familial relation with Julius Caesar. But historians refer to him as Augustus, never Caesar Augustus. Branko 02:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foolish move of this article back to "Caesar Augustus" 

message: :August reputedly has 31 days because Augustus wanted his month to match the length of Julius Caesar's July.
I remember reading that this is an urban legend, though not where. It would be nice if anyone could add information on who or what "reputes" this, and what opinions there are on this claim. 82.92.119.11 21:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  30 days hath September... 

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

message: Augustus was 75 when he died (not 77 as stated above). This can be confirmed by maths, and also Suetonius. In Chapter 100 of Augustus he states:
He expired in the same room in which his father Octavius had died, when the two Sextus's, Pompey and Apuleius, were consuls, upon the fourteenth of the calends of September [the 19th August], at the ninth hour of the day, being seventy-six years of age, wanting only thirty-five days.
In other words, he died 35 days before his 76th birthday. He was born on 23 September 63 BC, and died on 19 August AD 14. Since there was no "Year Zero" between 1 BC and AD 1, simply adding 63 and 14 to get his age will give an erroneous result, which must be reduced by 1 in order to give the correct figure. Or, put another way, we must convert all BC figures to "minus AD" figures – i.e. 1 BC becomes "0", 2 BC becomes "-1", and 63 BC becomes "-62". 62 plus 14 gives the correct figure of 76 – or, to be more precise, it tells us that his 76th birthday fell in the year that he died. He didn't reach it of course.
This common mistake (assuming the existence of a "Year Zero") affects all sorts of things, including the ages of Livia, Tiberius, and Claudius, the length of Augustus and Livia's marriage, etc. I have tried to correct as many as I can find.
It should also be noted, in passing, that 23 September 63 BC is a date on the pre-Julian Roman republican calendar. It remained the legal anniversary even after the introduction of the Julian calendar. TharkunColl 10:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How old was Augustus when he died? 

message: Biblically speaking it can be read in Luke 2:1 that "Caesar Augustus" decreed the world should be taxed (the reason Mary and Joseph were in Bethelham)  From where does he get the authority?  The three children: Alexander Helios -- King of Kings of Parthia and Media, Ptolemais Philadelphus King of Syria (Luke 2:2) and Caesar Ptolemais Philopator Philometor -- KING OF KINGS. Proverbs 1
All of octavian's title he assumes to compete with Caesar(ian)(Little Caesar).  Caesarian's birth is recorded on the walls of the Temple of Montu -- He was the son of Amen-Ra through Julius Caesar. We note after J. Caesar's murder octavian makes J.C. a god so that he can proclaim divi filius.  He then minted coins that read Caesar Augustus Divi Filius,(Caesar, Venerable Son of god) a potrait of himself on one side, and a huge star on the other. When one reads the story in the bible these things should be kept in mind. Octavian takes the name Caesar to counter Julius' living issue after his own name -- Caesar(ian). A review of history reveals that Romans often manipulated the "will".  It was through a "will" that Ptolemais Apion "decreed" Cyprus to Rome ( J.C. returned it to Cleopatra -- she minted a bronze coin with the image of her and Caesarian -- some say it is a type of "Aphrodite and Eros" -- the same iconography that is repeated as "Mother and Child".
octavian was in Judea for one reason, to reclaim the land that had been "stolen" from Rome ("donations" of Alexandria -- Coronation every knee bowed to the King of Kings).  These "Theives" being 14/15 year old Alexander Helios, his twin sister Cleopatra Selene, 5/6 year old Ptolemais Philadelphus, and 17/18 year old Caesar.
He is rome's "saviour" -- the tekhen(obelisk/token) in the center of St. Peter's square that is topped with the cross -- it is dedicated to none other than the Divine Augustus.  A.D.: in the year of our lord who? Does this dating refer to the birth of christ, or the birth of Imperial Rome?(the birth of christ is in the same moment as Rome proclaiming the "authority" to Tax the world).  The Tekhen has been made into a sun dial -- a big clock -- Roman Times.
Mac
:He gets his authority from censorial powers that were granted with his tribunician potestas.  Caesarion is killed almost immediately when Augustus seizes Egypt.  He is never a political threat outside of Egypt, and he's only a threat within Egypt because he is a Ptolemaic symbol.  Caesar proclaimed himself a god, and Antonyhad it ratifies after his death; Augustus had little to do with Caesar's deification.  Octavian takes Caesar's name beause it was Roman law; as the adopted son of Caesar, he took his adopted father's name.  It is doubtful the will was manipulated by Augustus, as he was 18-19 years old and in Greece, and it was Antony who made a display of reading the will (probably assuming he was the heir).  Mother/child iconography dates back to pre-history and was an explicit part of Ptolemaic syncretism.  Octavian/Augustus, to my knowledge, never visited Judea.  Judea itself at that time was a client kingdom under Herod the Great.  The children of Cleopatra were long dead by this time, having been offed at the occupation of Egypt and the subsequent Triumph in Rome, which occurred some 30 years before.  The obelisk that you reference was also part of that Triumph, and was actully placed there later by Nero as the center of his private hippodrome.  As far as the "birth" of imperial Rome, as far as anyone in Rome was concerned, the Republic continued to function straight through Augustus's reign.  Rome had long ago become an empire in the technical sense of the word.  Anyway, all that being said did you have a point to conribute to this discussion? pookster11 07:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murderer of the Innocent without Cause, 

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

message: Talk of "original research"!! Even for Wikipedia, the statement by anonymous that AD was only used for dating starting in the 18c is an unparalleled inanity. Since it's always to be preferred to assume the best, this doesn't mean the author of the statement is an idiot or malevolent or has an agenda, just that they're talking thru their hat, without the faintest idea of the facts in the matter. There are literally tens of thousands of examples of inscriptions, on stone and paper, dated AD; and I myself have seen many hundreds of them, and photographed several dozens. But to demolish the statement, it suffices to find a single counter-example; so pretty much at random, here's one, dated AD 1223. Bill 22:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously the (typically) incompetend Mr. Bill Thayer in ensuing a facade to turn Wikipedia into a Christcentric POV mess. Circa 520 CE, Dionysius Exiguus created what is now known as the "Common Era" (or Current era), and this was impeded by Christians circa 1800 CE when they created "Christian era" and now label it as the extremely POV "AD" or "Anno Domini". How can Wikipedia, a secular organization, even fathm supporting these radical euphemisms??? 142.176.56.185 23:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather expected this. In fact, you are a fool. "AD" is indeed POV, but in the matter of dating articles, Wikipedia has had to settle on something, and that is to leave the commonest terminology unless it is manifestly inappropriate as for the lives of rabbis. I am not Christian, and couldn't care less whether  or not Wikipedia is Christocentric. But you got caught making a very foolish and instantly refutable statement: the use of "AD" antedates the 18c, and gee you don't like getting caught out: nobody does. The best way to avoid that is not to talk thru your hat. Dionysius says nothing by the way about any "common era", his term is "ab incarnatione Christi". Go back to your crayons. Bill 23:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another example of a quite pathetic self-absorbed Christian psychopath. First of all, Thayer, you need to calm down and review the facts. Had Exiguus known that his dating in accordance with the birth of Julius Caesar in 1 CE (which was off by 45 years) would turn into a Christian facade I'm sure he would have  committed suicide in anger. Your accusations that my historical facts are inaccurate and that I am a fool are typical of the angered Christian who even goes as far as to deny his faith. You know you would be doing the right thing if you reverted to my BCE/CE edits, please give up your Christian shinanigans...for the love of Jesus Christ. 142.176.56.185 23:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously a troll just trying to anger you, Bill. Ignoring his comments would be the best solution, as I would expect his sole objective is to anger you and/or anyone who knows that he's full of ****.CrazyInSane 23:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Under "Rise to Power," it reads "The triumvirs then set in motion proscriptions in which three thousand senators and two hundred equites were deprived of their property and, for those who failed to escape, their lives, going beyond a simple purge of those allied with the assassins, and probably motivated by a need to raise money to pay their troops[4]. Is this correct, or was it three hundred senators and two mthousand equites? I'm not completely sure of the number I give, but I dont think that there were three thousand Roman senators. 68.60.9.47 01:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct the numbers are backwards, good catch. pookster11 01:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of senators 

message: I'm preparing an archive for this talk page, per the copy and paste method. I'm making the cut-off point slightly before January 2006 in an effort to keep recent discussions continuous without having to navigate through archives. Just glancing at the comments at the top of the talk page and comparing to early historical versions, I can see untangling this will take some time; therefore I will make sweeping edits in several steps. This, however, is a basic edit.
Xaxafrad 03:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

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

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

message: Martin van Creveld, a very respected military historian, has called the current Iraq War "the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them".  I came to this page to find out the context and find basically nothing.  Could somone link to the appropriate article or, if one does not exist, add the info on this campaign and why van Creveld thinks it was catastrophic?  Thanks, BT 17:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. It was catastrophic because the Romans lost three whole legions plus auxiliaries, over 20,000 men. --Nicknack009 22:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  The battle took place in 9 AD. It looks like either van Creveld or the newspaper repeating him got the date wrong.  - BT 05:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "most foolish war" 

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

message: "Reportedly, the suggestion of Octavian's stepping down as consul led to rioting among the Plebeians in Rome."  Who is our source for this?Ejectgoose 02:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure (you could check the history records to see who've added that information ), but I've heard similiar information on one of the PBS documentaries on the Roman Empire as well as other sources that I can't recall to mind right now, so I don't think it's too unlikely.  But it isn't just the statement you mentioned that needs a source, the whole article needs a lot more inline citations.  I would suggest placing  and perhaps somebody who knows the source for it (or knows that information is false determined by reliable sources) will add it in later. —Mirlen 22:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I do not comprehend why the bc | ad, rather than bce | ce.  Conversely, I do not comprehend why, if you are so insistent on Christian supremacy, then, why no mention of Jesus on the page, that I can locate anyhow.  I would, certainly, advocate that each of these omissions would be altered appropriately.
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta  | [[ %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  -]] 05:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual rule of thumb for articles not directly related to a religious topic is to simply be consistent throughout the article.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: you do realize that even BCE/CE is based on the birth of Christ right? 164.67.226.32 10:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it is based on a convention. The convention is based on the supposed birth of Christ. It is thus one step removed and the language (i.e. referring to a common era) is clearly more neutral. --D. Webb 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what makes the era "common"?  All of a sudden when Christ was supposedly born everyone got together and recognized our similarities?  Both dating systems are based on the same "comvention", ie: dating from the assumed birth of Christ in 1 AD/CE.  Calling it CE instead of AD in no way removes its connection, nor does it somehow make it more "neutral".  The debate is pointless; the Western dating system divides itself into eras based around the birth of Christ.  Don't like it?  Gain enough power so that someone cares and then change the dating system.  Till then, once again, the debate is pointless. pookster11 05:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

text: LUKE 2:1 Jesus was born in Bethlehem BECAUSE octavian declared his tax! BC/AD and BCE/ACE all are equivalent in roman context.  THe Bible is called the Vulgare in Latin the word means "common", so to call this the "Common era" is to more forcefully assert that (Roman)Christian ideology.  From my perspective, the "ad" more aptly refers to octavian and not Jesus Christ.  If octavian can declare a tax of the world, and receive this tribute, and is desrcibed as the supreme justice..then who is it that is Lord?  Paul sought to make his plea to "augustus" for supreme judgement, joseph went to Bethlehm with his pregnant wife to be Taxed, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God the things of GOd " is one line that is repeated in almost all of the gospels (repitition demonstrates conceptual re-inforcement) -- Jah said the serpent was more subtle than any other beast of the field. M.James  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.52.16.198 (talk) 11:52, August 23, 2007 (UTC) 
I would suggest to you that there is no "common" era. After all, the Jews still seem to be keeping their counting system (year 5000 and something), the Muslims still keep theirs (1400 ish, I think), and until the 20th Century, the Japanese had theirs. I am sure there are many other examples. Even in the "Christian" calender, it is suprising recently that we have lined them all up. Different countries switched to the Gregorian calender at different times. I think Russia was the last big nation to line up.
Surely the predominance of the AD/BC system is due to the successful colonialism of European (and, at the time, Christian) nations, with other calender systems being followed by less succesful nations. This renaming to BCE/CE is surely just a modern attempt to borrow Christian heritage, and "de-Christ" it. I know a number of Muslims who, should Islam become the world's dominant religion, would move everything to the Muslim calender, as they see that as the "correct" one, and only ust the ad/bc calender to facilitate life in non-muslim countries.
Also, I think that the above contributor seems to be confusing temporal and spiritual Lords. Also between temporal and spirtual justice. A man with an axe can deliver temporal justice (ask Henry VIII !), and similarly, the Roman Emperor can deliver temporal justice, but it is no more than that. Many, although not all, Christians believe that life on earth is not a fulfilment of heaven. So a man can declare himself a god, and try to tax the world, but that does not mean he is a god, or that he is some sort of Lord in other than the temporal sense. Maybe the above author has confused the translation of Christ with that of Lord. Perhaps if he studied biblical translations a little better, he would understand the difference.
Furthermore, Christ's reference to render unto Ceaser what is his must be taken in the context of Christ's teachings about God providing for us (therefore the need for large amounts of money is unnecessary), and his views on the moneylenders in the temple. Also, as Chrst knew his bible pretty well, he is making a reference to Job chapter 1 – The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away – so he is saying to his followers that they should not be too attached to temporal (and, by definition, tempoary) things, such as money.
Paul also reminds us that the love of money was the root of all evil (1Timothy 6:10).Mariya Oktyabrskaya 08:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [BC/AD vs. BCE/CE] 

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

message: First twon sentences in "Early Life" looks vandalised to me:
He was born in gay town (or Velletri) on September 23, 63 BC with the name Gaius Octavius 'aka his truest vato.' He was well known for bein the most hardcore nigga, ever. His father, also, came from a respectable but undistinguished family of the equestrian order and was governor of Macedonia.
21:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism on Augustus page 

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

message: I'm watching a TV programme called 'Mysterious Death of Cleopatra' on Discovery Civilisation, and they said that Octavianus took the name 'Augustus' from the name of the month 'August', as this was the month because it was significant in his rise to power, whereas the article on August says, and what I've always been taught is, that August was named after Augustus (for the same reason). I was just wondering if anyone has heard this alternative version, and whether it has any basis. And what do August and Augustus mean?--Jcvamp 04:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked up the name 'Augustus' and, according to Lucidcafe and other sources, 'Augustus' means 'the exalted', which means it would have been the name first, and the programme was incorrect. It might be an idea to add the meaning and a citation to the article.--Jcvamp 04:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Augustus was pontifex maximus or high priest, and he was regarded as a living god.  Think of this in the context of being named "the exalted one" and you get at its meaning.  I've heard the alternative version before, sometimes it gets mixed up.  I've also heard the 2 days from February myth coming from a Latin teacher. Legis Nuntius 04:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Augstus was regarded as a living god? What? Where? Please don't add to the confusion. Branko 03:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he seems to have gotten ruler cult in Greek cities while he was alive. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  August/Augustus 

message: The article seems to attribute some humbleness or imply that Augustus was no different from another citizen.the new Augustus was simply a highly-honored Roman citizen, holding the consulship within the city and acting as proconsul in territories abroadWith these powers in mind, it must be understood that all forms of permanent and legal power within Rome officially lay with the Senate and the people; Augustus was given extraordinary powers, but only as a proconsul and magistrate under the authority of the Senate. Augustus never presented himself as a king or autocrat, once again only allowing himself to be addressed by the title princeps.This seems similar to the way Augustus describes himself in the Res Gestae, but he took several liberties with the truth in that text that adorns his temple walls.  Didn't Virgil take some liberties with his description of Augustus as well?  I'm not entirely sure, but I believe that the Tribune had veto power over the senate, that the office was elected by the plebs, and that it was against the Roman constitution for the senate to grant it to someone for life.  I also thought that Augustus killed anyone who disagreed with his claims to power, including the other divi filius over in Egypt.  Is there a historian who believed that the senate still held legal power after the date considered to be the beginning of the empire? Legis Nuntius 19:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles and honors 

message: Hello everyone, I'm wikipedia's resident China-history nut, as you could easily tell from the contributions on my user page, my minor edits page, and my uploaded gallery. Time to take a break from all of that, however, when I saw how out-of-shape this article on Augustus was. There are many good Roman wiki articles and many poor ones, but this one is especially troubling in its lack of quality, since Augustus is without much debate one of the most influential and important figures in world history, not just Roman history. Therefore, over the next few days, I will be doing some massive edits to this article in order to raise it first to Good Article Status, and once that is complete, renominate it for Featured Article Status. Hopefully the second time around the article will pass; since I've already got three FA articles under my belt, it should be a done deal within a couple of weeks. Thanks to everyone here who is also contributing! I have noticed your edits in the history tab. Keep up the good work and providing of cited info.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this should really be FA as a vital subject for any encylopedia.  I don't really have a large number of secondary sources on this period, but I'll try to help out where I can.  One requirement for FA though is stability, so we'll have to lift s-protection eventually and see what happens (it's been s-protected since the start of May, so it's been quite a while).  — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it doesn't look like there's been a whole lot of vandalism recently and certainly no edit-warring. The article appears stable as of now.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've followed your articles on the Song Dynasty Pericles; excellent work. I'm glad you took up interest in this page. In the long run I'd like to see all biographies of Roman emperors brought to at least GA status, but yes, if there was one page which *really* should have been brought to FA, it's Augustus. I'll see where I can help here. Regards. --Steerpike 23:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, Steerpike! I love the new improvements.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA to FA Status 

message: I've edited out the former statement that Cleopatra committed suicide after being informed of her upcoming role in Octavian's triumph. The source I have (Scullard, p171) specifically states that Octavian "...did not wish to take her to Rome to grace his triumph." The description of Caesarion's death seemed a little gratuitous too. I don't have a copy of Green's book (cited for that sentence) so don't know if the 'butchered' description comes from there. More important I think is to identify that Octavian was eliminating the potential for another heir of Caesar to emulate his route to power. --FactotEm 20:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Thanks for helping out.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a lot to be done here and I wish I could do more, but I go offline tomorrow, potentially for quite a while. I might see if I can do something for the First and Second Settlement sections tomorrow but they are key aspects to Augustus' rule and I doubt I'll be able to do it justice in the time available. I look forward to seeing this as an FA when I get back online. Happy editing. --FactotEm 23:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths of Antony, Cleopatra and Caesarion 

message: Great, I can't wait to see what they have to offer. In the meantime, I have addressed your concerns, but I must reject two of them:
You're missing the big picture here. The Year of Four Emperors was but one year out of two centuries of relative peace and stability regarded as the Pax Romana, unlike the incessant violence and instability of other periods, such as the wars with Carthage, massive slave revolts and civil wars, and don't get me started on the Crisis of the Third Century. Lol. I could mention the Year of Four Emperors, but what does that have to do with Augustus' article? Nothing.
:We should assume our readers know nothing about classical history. All of these are defensible, but they will give an exaggerated picture to anyone who don't know the facts.
If I was to mention it, would that not be veering things a little off course from what's being discussed (i.e. Augustus and the Pax Romana)? Therefore, I believe mentioning the Year of Four Emperors is somewhat irrelevant, at least in the intro of Augustus' article, which is supposed to be summarizing information that is found exclusively in his own article, not other wikipedia articles like Year of the Four Emperors or other later events of brief and fleeting instability during the Pax Romana.--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have missed the important point here: this is, like Caesar's deification, posthumous. He was not a god in his lifetime. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, what? How did I miss a point I already knew and pointed out; is there somewhere in the article where it says he was considered a god in his lifetime? If so please correct it or reword it in a way that clarifies it as posthumous; so far the only other place in the article that I see this coming up is in the Death and Succession section, the second to last sentence that reads: "and it was proclaimed that Augustus joined the company of the gods as a member of the Roman pantheon." Other than that, the First Settlement section goes into detail about his claiming to be a son of a god (Julius Caesar), and his title Augustus having some symbolic religious meaning, but other than that, no other instances where it describes deification or religious veneration.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you as a person know it; my apologies for identifying you with your arguments or with the article text. But your argument omitted it. I shall dcubtless say such things again and again; but none of them are meant as aspersions on Pericles' knowledge of Roman history, merely on what he has typed, which is all I can know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Good work with the intro, it looks much more polished now. I'm not sure I understand what your concern is with the Latin names; I don't understand how they are not helpful to the article. As far as my sources are concerned (Eck states this, so do the authors in galinsky's book I think), those are the correct names in Latin. If there is any problem with the footnotes let me know, and I will fix them (I hope those corrections are sufficient with the author and titles for the CCAA).--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to the neutrality tag, exactly what bothers you the most? Which sentence do you think stands out as a blatant POV statement? Which comments or phrases in the article do you think are unneccessary and unencyclopedic in tone? I have purged many questionable sentences in the article that were obviously leaning towards a strong 'point of view' according to wiki guidelines, but I have a hard time noticing any others now, since the article has been heavily copy-edited in the past couple of days. Please point these questionable statements out.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The intro sounds perfect now, no need for further change. Good work.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addressing concerns 

message: Woo-hoo! We did it, people! Thanks to everyone who contributed to the article and gave their support. It was a lot of work, but it has paid off with recognition as one of wikipedia's finest articles.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Credit to your hard work Pericles, the article looks great. Congrats! --Steerpike 15:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Observing the discussion above, if there is anything you feel needs to be added or edited about naming conventions and titles, feel free to make further contributions. I think the article is fine how it stands now, though.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Status! 

message: I would urge contributors to use the word "decimate" more carefully in Roman history.  It appears twice in this particular article.  It is being used with its modern definition (i.e. to destroy, obliterate), of course, but the word decimation had a different, specific meaning to the Roman military.  It was a punishment inflicted on disloyal Roman Legions where 1 out of every 10 legionaires was executed and the rest banished.
Dissento 21:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. There is the possibility of confusion, and the reference to Pompeius' fleet as "almost entirely decimated" is hard to understand under the ancient or modern meaning. I've reworded the relevant sentences. EALacey 09:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word "decimate." 

message: It looks like all the coin images were removed from this article, but no explanation was given. I thought they added to the article. Why were they deleted? Mlouns 17:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were deleted by User:PHPertinax, who seems to be new to Wikipedia. Probably just a mistake. I restored the images. --Steerpike 21:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: CNG is not advertising their coins through Wikipedia. These images were uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons by Wikipedians such as myself. Uploading images requires you to include proper licensing and source information, in which case a link to the CNG retail website is required. The link merely provides source information, and is not used to advertise CNG products. Also note that the images which are used here are only indirectly sourced to CNG. Instead they originate from Wildwinds, which is merely an online coin catalog. The use of these images in this article (and elsewhere) is completely in compliance to Wikipedia's policy. --Steerpike 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You can't simultaneously say that you hold the copyright on an image and release it into the public domain. If it's in the public domain, no one owns it. N.b., your comment is not an explanation of the removal of the other images. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The image in question (show to the right) was replaced by Steerpike with the edit summary "better coin + explanation" . Note that the image itself was not deleted. Where was it claimed that the image "violated copyright"? Paul August ☎ 17:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way it is a beautiful coin and nicely photographed. Paul August ☎ 17:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why were coin images removed? 

message: I'm sure many of you have heard of the recent discovery of a new site in Rome that's supposed to be related to the founding of Rome . There is mention of Augustus restoring this site during his reign and this is attributed to him due to the presence of a decoration of a "white eagle". I was not aware that this symbol was attributed to Augustus and don't see anything in the article mentioning such a symbol. Can someone who is more knowledgeable about topics dealing with Augustus tell us if this is in fact the case and to what extent was a "white eagle" used to symbolize Augustus's reign? JRWalko (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Eagle represents Jupiter, who was associated with the emperor, Augustus being the first.  The article on Zeus mentions this.  The only image showing a "white eagle" (although I believe that white is more the color of the material used in all cases) that is on wikipedia is this one.  The eagle also represents Rome and was on Roman battle standards during the Republic.  The yahoo article itself does not specify whether the eagle was meant to symbolize the emperor or Rome or both.  Roman Art does not mention the use of this iconography, nor does the poorly written and un-cited Roman Emperor page.  Imperial iconography would be contained in a Roman art book, or an art history in antiquities class. Legis Nuntius (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Eagle 

message: The article needs to be more wide regarding these wars and there is almost no independent articles about these wars ..can some one create these pages .... thanks--Blain Toddi (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wars and Expansions under Augustus 

message: "In 27 BC, Octavian officially returned democratic power to the Roman Senate...."
Rome was never a democracy. Why do some writers at wikipedia still try and make this point. Other articles about the romans prove it was not/never a democracy. It was an aristocracy then a thinly vield monarcy.
(68.100.228.217 (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The election of the Tribune of the Plebs would make it a republic.  We hail Greece as the birthplace of democracy but only male property owners could vote.  Would America not be a democracy because our own senate was elected by the state legislatures and not the people?  We named it the Senate because like the Roman Senate, it was neither composed of nor elected by a body of the people it was to represent.  The people only elected the House, not the president and not the Senate.  The 17th amendment change that.  Also note that there is a world of difference between democratic power and a democracy. Legis Nuntius (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yeah, the Senate was not a direct representative government, since members-for-life in the Senate were ex-officials that were once elected by the comitia centuriata and comitia centuriata to serve posts such as the annual consulship. However, the statement "In 27 BC, Octavian officially returned democratic power to the Roman Senate" does not imply that the Senators were chosen directly by the people (although members of the senate were previously chosen to serve other posts) or that Rome in its entirety was a democracy. It simply means that they, amongst themselves, were equal members of their political body—the senate—and made decisions about foreign policy and Rome's finances by a senatorial vote that was unhindered by an outside force other than an elected plebeian tribune (or Augustus). Should I clarify all of this in the article (a rather long explanation), since it may be misleading? Or simply leave the statement as it is? I'd like to get more opinions on this.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take out "democratic"; if the Senate was ever democratic (a long and doubtful case), it ceased to be so under Augustus, who commended magistrates routinely. As for the rest of Pericles' post: the word he wants is "parliamentary" and the assertion he makes is false. The princeps was not, except in the most formal sense, equal in power to other senators; the Senate made decisions when he did not, but when did they overrule him? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, "parliamentary" is certainly much better, but I think a simple "officially returned power" would do; what should be said is that he "officially" and "on record" (wink, wink) returned power to the senate, but did not return any actual powers or authority that could check him or even influence his independent decisions (a point I think the article makes clearly). By that point it was all ceremony, I'm not arguing otherwise. So go ahead, strike out the word "democratic". The point I was trying to make is that Rome and its Senate originally had some democratic aspects in the Republican era...which were obviously stamped out for good with the imperial order during and after Augustus.--Pericles of AthensTalk 08:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Carthage was ruled by its rich men, and was therefore an oligarchy. Rome was also ruled by its rich men, and was therefore a Republic. – Will Cuppy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol! Good one, Cuppy. May he R.I.P. In contemporary terms, American politicians are all men (and some women) from incredibly affluent backgrounds with ties to big lobbyists, simply because you cannot run a successful campaign without employing hundreds of thousands of dollars from your own pocket or from many donors (some with a little more cash and influence than others). So is my country the US of America a true democracy in this regard?--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  incorrect satatment 

message: the real aspect of Augustus , very similar to Lucius Vorenus of Rome HBO series :
http://aycu07.webshots.com/image/38926/2005899107681102128_rs.jpg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaiusCrastinus (talk • contribs) 20:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Augustus in Technicolor! Lol.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fake colors of Augustus 

message: I am in the process of updating this page. I am using Anthony Everitt's book Augustus: The Life of Rome's First Emperor as my source of information. I think a lot of what is on here was taken from websites (or blogs) with information of dubious quality.RomanHistorian (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to counterbalance that, I've created a new "Criticism of Augustus" section; it's by far not finished, but it's a start.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing; please add inline citations to all new statements that you are introducing from Everitt's book. If you unfamiliar with how to cite material with wikipedia codes I can show you, but you have to properly cite your material, preferably when you immediately post it. Thanks.--Pericles of AthensTalk 08:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope no one minds, but I've moved the paragraph about the slave being a father-like figure to Augustus over to Early life of Augustus; I think it is more appropriate over there than here; the last thing we need is more uncited material clogging up a section that should be a tiny summarization of the Early life article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 08:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Stick it up your keister, Crastinus. Lol.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: "An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie...This article's sympathies lie with the greatness of Augustus"
Is that so? I'm the prime editor of this article, and I'm proud to say fuck Augustus; screw that tyrant, anti-democratic son of a bitch right in the ear and out the other. I never do this sort of informal thing on wikipedia (cursing, that is), but in this case I just wanted to make it emphatically clear, if you thought I had some sort of fan-boy boner for this opportunistic bully and murderer of antiquity. No, I just think the era was incredible and is rich in history; Augustus just happened to be the guy who came out on top and had the arms to back it up.--Pericles of AthensTalk 08:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing; please add inline citations to all new statements that you are introducing from Everitt's book. If you unfamiliar with how to cite material with wikipedia codes I can show you, but you have to properly cite your material, preferably when you immediately post it. Thanks.--Pericles of AthensTalk 08:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope no one minds, but I've moved the paragraph about the slave being a father-like figure to Augustus over to Early life of Augustus; I think it is more appropriate over there than here; the last thing we need is more uncited material clogging up a section that should be a tiny summarization of the Early life article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 08:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Stick it up your keister, Crastinus. Lol.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foul language here, I hope you laugh and take no offense 

message: Near the end of this section appears the phrase:  "Octavian gave his sibling sister, Octavia Minor, in marriage...."  I was going to perform a minor edit and remove sibling, but then I read the entire dicusssion page and thought it would be better just to mention this and let others decide.--JGC1010 (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebellion and marriage alliances 

message: In the first half I've cleaned up verbiage for concision and clarity, English idiom, more forceful verbs and the like: not for facts or conclusions. Octavian/Augustus is lost here in the welter of information, which needs to be simplified and repeatedly linked to the main articles: see Roman Civil War for the less-than-coherent sequence of separate articles almost covering each phase. Octavian's own position is lost in this article as it stands, FA or whatever. At each juncture the article should answer questions like "What were his needs at this point?" "What was his decision at this point?" The view needs to be consistently from Octavian's center. If the broader picture is not told elsewhere, well, it should be.--Wetman (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree!--Octavian history (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a minute, let me get this straight: you're saying that this article has too much background information on wider events and not enough about Augustus the man and his motives, intentions, etc.? If so I would encourage you to improve the article, but come talk about it on my user talk page, since I was the chief editor of this article and brought it to FA status. We'll see what we can do about analysis of Augustus' decisions and motives, although very little of Augustus' own writing has survived (spare his politically-correct Res Gestae).--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Augustus" is lost 

message: The link towards "Vienne" leads to the French département of Vienne ( Vienne), but not the town, which is elsewhere, in département of Isère (Vienne, Isère).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.221.227.145 (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad link 

message: Someone should fix the infobox – it should be Consort instead of Consort to, because Augustus was not a consort. Surtsicna (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consort to/ Consort 

message: I have added a note about the pursuit of gold during the Terraconensis campaigns by Augustus, and a picture of one of the largest, Las Medulas. My Spanish colleagues have researched this site in great detail now, following my own work in the 1960's. Pliny the Elder probably visited the spot much later in ca 74 AD and provides an eye-witness description in Naturalis Historia. It is highly significant for the History of mining and the History of technology as well as funding the expanding Empire. It was recently declared a world heritage site. Peterlewis (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff. Thanks for improving the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold mines