Talk:Augustus/Archive 1

message: how did he die and when?
He died of natural causes as he was 77 years old, one of the longest and oldest Roman Emperors.  I have also noticed that this article states that he was diefied after his death.  This is not true.  He was a rare breed in that he was diefied before his death, which added to his long list of power.  He is one of the few to be declared a god before death.  This can be found in Mary T. Boatwright's...The Romans: From Village to Empire: Oxford 2004.
: "Romans: From Village to Empire", pg 351: "The divinity that the senate ratified after the death of Augustus was only one of such posthumous honors."
:Augustus never presented himself a personally divine.  Prior to his death, the Imperial cult was based around the numen and gens of Augustus, but never on Augustus himself until after his death and apotheosis. pookster11 11:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Augustus Caesar's death 

message: I think Augustus should be included in the category of Roman emperors. Not only does the article say he is (and if the category is wrong, the article should be changed to be consistent), but the authorities agree - the first sentence of Michael Grant's The Roman Emperors says Augustus "was the first Roman princeps or emperor". Stan 16:31, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Stan, you surely know that our smart Augustus only used titles and offices of the ancient Roman Republic. He was princeps senatus, governors of all important provinces, censor, tribune, you name it. He was not emperor, although its generally assumed as the first. Its not a big mistake, but nevertheless a mistake.  If everybody wants it categorized like that, well... Muriel G 17:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying Michael Grant is mistaken then? You're braver than I am! :-)  Augustus had the same titles as later people we call "emperors", so if you say he's not, and they were, you're in the awkward position of trying to pick somebody else as a first emperor, and I don't know of any authority who names a different person. Stan 17:41, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman emperor category 

message: This is a fairly minor point, but in the article it says the people of Rome didn't want a despot. Although I can understand this, sort of (Romans always resented kings), I always read that they were tired of war and had been sufficiently purged of pro-republican elements (whether by the Second Triumvirate or by natural death) to accept a dictator like Augustus so long as he didn't overtly declare himself a king. Brutannica 03:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you mention Jesus, since Augustus died while Jesus was still a youth? This article is primarily about Augustus' own life and career, it's not a general history of Rome. Also, "Peace" in this case means absence of war; gladiators were part of the entertainment of the time, and Romans took about as much notice of a gladiator's death as we would of a stock car driver dying in a wreck out on the track.  The Romans had been in one civil war after another for half a century, they were so relieved that Augustus finally brought it to an end that they didn't complain much about the loss of liberty that came with his rule. Stan 06:25, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And the fact is, while the senatorial class migt have lost priveleges, nothing really changed much for the common people - the only difference is that they voted how Augustus bribed them, not how any other candidates bribed them.Kuralyov 21:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Acceptance of Augustus

message: I recently added a good deal of information to this page and I used the information found on UNRV website to write the information. I mainly cut and pasted and tryed to re-write the information the best I could to avoid copyright problems. I would ask that someone read the page and re-type or even revert the page if neccacry. I am not trying to seal copyrighted information, just trying to added material to Augustus's page. 
Roman Emperor 01:58 A.M., June 8, 2005 (UTC)
Cutting and pasting, even with some word changes, is plagiarism, I think.  If you want to use the material as a source, but write it in your own words, that's fine. john k 03:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Question 

message: I'm not an expert on Roman history (by a long shot), but I do recall that Crassus operated a firefighting company a generation before Caesar Augustus came to power.  (Larry Gonick has a great footnote on the subject in The Cartoon History of the Universe II.)  Similarly, didn't the Senate's armed guard of "lictors" act as policemen during the time of the Republic?  Besides, these seem like pretty minor accomplishments when compared with establishing the Pax Romana.  I'm nixing the comments in the introduction, ergo, until these quibbles get addressed.  —Anville 18:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The lictors weren't police, they were merely were bodyguards to the higher-ranking magistrates. And Crassus had a private firefighting force, which he used to help only those who could pay him exorbitantly - Augustus made a government firefighter brigade that would help anyone, regardless of social class. Kuralyov 19:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire brigade? Police force? 

message: I fail to see why we need to link to a disambiguation page  instead of just an inline disambiguation.  If there were more than two articles people might reasonably expect when typing Augustus it would make sense, but as is it just turns a potentially one-step process ("Oh, I meant the honorific." *click*) into a two-step process ("Oh, this isn't what I meant." *click* "Yes, this honorific is what I want." *click*).  — Laura Scudder | Talk 18:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has offered any response I am going to change it to the more logical disambiguation style.  Please discuss here if you disagree.  — Laura Scudder | Talk 06:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambiguation 

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

message: I don't have a problem with the new addition, but reverted it because I felt like sounded silly enough to warrant a citation in order to be taken seriously by our readers.  Anyone have one?  — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Suetonius, Augustus 68, 71. --Nicknack009 03:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We want to be careful with how much Suetonius is used as a source here.  Suetonius has a lot of well documented problems, and much of what he says is either no where else or contrary to other sources.  When we're stuck, like with Caligula or aspects of Nero or Claudius, its perfectly acceptable to use Suetonius, keeping in mind his errors and proclivity towards being the "Inquirer" of his day.  Basically put, simply because its in Suetonius does not mean it should be placed in an encyclopedia article about Augustus. pookster11 05:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Suetonius reports things that may or may not be so; and yes, there is in certain quarters a tendency to latch onto the titillating stuff (Tiberius' minnows, Caligula's horse, etc.) But he was at least a near contemporary, and can at least be trusted to report what was being said at the time. Not only is that the beginning of the later reception — to use the technical term — of the history of Augustus, but such gossip become part of the history also impacted that history as it was unfolding. In short, I'd rather include the gossip of Suetonius than the speculations of Michael Grant. Bill 12:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Suetonius is about one-hundred and fifty some years and two dynasties after the death of Augustus.  He has a clear agenda throughout and is generally hostile to every single one of the Julio-Claudians, and gives all of them the quote, "Let them hate me so long as they fear me."  As the emperors and dynasties get closer to the emperor of his own time, Hadrian, he generally deals with them in a better light, but is clearly hostile to the very institution of the Principate throughout.  Its also clear from later sources that he had little to no impact, certainly not as much impact as Tacitus or Josephus or Plutarch.  As such, I fail to see why it is vital that we include every titillating aspect of Suetonius in what is supposed to an encyclopedia article, not an overview of the historiography of Augustus.  Simply because he's closer to the time period does not make him a better source; it would be like some future generation using Art Bell as their source for the past twenty years.pookster11 05:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Bill on this. Suetonius is an important early source. He wasn't contemprary with Augustus, but he does purport to have had access to contemporary sources now lost, including, for example, slanderous speeches by Mark Antony, which are historically interesting and informative. Yes, he had an agenda, as do all historians: all that means is we must read him critically, like any other source of the period. Supposed hostility to the Julio-Claudians (considering the proscriptions of the Second Triumvirate and the way he treated his daughter, I think Augustus deserves some hostility) doesn't disqualify him as a source. --Nicknack009 09:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seem to have gotten off track a bit, so allow me to backtrack some.  All I was originally saying was that we should be careful how extensively or exclusively we rely on Suetonius as a source for this article.  If we want this to be a decent, encyclopedic article, then it is not necessary to integrate every gritty detail from any source that may mention Augustus.  The accusations of sexual favors are an interesting historical side note, but in the end they are little more than a side note; beside his escapades against the Parthians, Antony's biggest failure was his inability to effectively counter Octavian's propoganda campaign in Rome, and this is merely an example of an accusation that went nowhere and had little affect on the overall political campaign.  And I mean no personal offense or disrepect here Nicknack, but I'm wondering if you have read and analyzed Suetonius's treatment of the Julio-Claudians.  As I alluded to before, most of Suetonius's writings on the Julio-Claudians are based around slanderous accusations of a hyperbolic nature with little to no eveidence that actually repeat themselves; Augustus is accused of many of the same crimes and outrages as Tiberius, who is accused of the same crimes and outrages as Gaius Caligula, and so on.  So yes, in this case, the degree of hostility that Suetonius has towards the Julio-Claudians and apparently to the Principate in general, while not disqualifying him as a source, should at least cause one to think at least twice about including aspects from Suetonius that appear only in Suetonius.  And just as a minor point, and I'm sure you would agree, whether or not we actually like any aspect of these historical figures should not preclude us from attempting to give an accurate account of their lives and historical significance. pookster11 11:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Suetonius is an inveterate muck-raker, I think we can both agree on that. He muck-rakes most freely when writing about subjects who can't hurt him. He's obviously going to be more diplomatic about Hadrian and anyone whose memories Hadrian's going to feel particularly protective about. But I don't think he makes stuff up, and what he reports of the propaganda war between Antony and Octavian is very informative and relevant to the individuals and their times. I agree that Antony's accusation of sexual misconduct is no more than a side-note, but it's an interesting side-note, and an article, while obviously needing to be based based primarily on substantive stuff like achievements, political significance and so on, needs interesting side-notes (so long as they're sourced). There's no rule that says an encyclopedia has to be totally po-faced. --Nicknack009 17:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  accusation of sexual favors 

message: ... How long do you guys think we should wait before moving this page to Augustus? -Silence 01:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't seem to matter much, since redirected; but yes, the current location seems silly, and is one of the many things that make Wikipedia look bad. The justification for "Caesar Augustus" is that some segments of the population will only bump into the guy because of having read Scripture in the KJV, which so refers to him; maybe more people than the rest of us, so not exactly to sneeze at. Still, my 2¢ worth, it should be changed. Bill 13:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So how does one go about moving an article to a page that already exists as a redirect? Is it just a matter of copying and pasting, or does that confuse the edit history? --Nicknack009 17:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A request has to be made to an admin, who can switch the two pages around. Where and how that request is made, I have no idea. Bill 17:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't copy and paste, you need to do a Requested Move, I think. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Requested moves is the proper place to go, but that place has a huge backlog; I know of articles that have been waiting to be moved for over eight months now. I recommending contacting an admin directly to handle the move. Incidentally, once we've moved this page to Augustus, we might want to consider removing the disambig notice on the top of the page and instead linking to the honorific Augustus at the beginning of the article text in the same way that Mark Antony links to Antonius at the start. Disambiguation notices are genuinely only for when the two articles are so unrelated that the other article couldn't be linked to within the article's text; that's clearly not the case here, and indeed the two are very closely linked, enough that each should link to the other in the initial paragraphs, with or without the disambig.  -Silence 21:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Presto change-o...I suspect this has created a large number of broken links and double redirects, however. But I'm sure you won't mind cleaning them up, right? :) Adam Bishop 21:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  :) -Silence 21:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  So..