Talk:Augustus/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Parents' names

How come the names of Augustus' parents, Gaius Octavius Thurinus and Atia Balba Caesonia, are not mentioned in the main text of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.140.55 (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That looks pretty dumb to me. The names of his parents and grandparents should be mentioned.98.67.173.244 (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Latin cursive redux

Taken from an above post of 13 November by anon. 129.24.160.39 regarding Augustus' name

REPLY TO ABOVE: Latin was NOT written in lower case, ever; and there were NO CURSIVE writing as well! To think that there were lowercase and cursive letters in ancient Rome clearly shows that you are using modern-day conventions as logic, when you should be thinking in ways that were actually used by the Romans; the two languages (Latin and Englis) are completely different! Only now in the modern-days is Latin put into lowercase lettering - because English has lowercase. If it were to be written as it actually was, then it WOULD BE WRITTEN in all uppercase. The Romans only wrote in uppercase letter, using V's instead of U's. If in doubt of this, take Latin. When writing a Latin name, it is correct to write it as it was truly written; and how it was acknowledged in ancient days by the Roman people. As a page that someone would use for research or quick study, it is important to use CORRECT writing and syntax from the actual civilization, people, and language. To say that one should not use the Roman letters as the Romans themselves did is an error of great proportion! The Roman/Latin alphabet is being used to reflect Augustus' true name, in the context of the Latin language and the Roman way of writing AND saying a person's name. It would be wise to educate yourself before trying to complain or change something that has been written. Would you say to change the written name, the actuality of its representation, into English if this were a Spanish person's name or the name of someone that was Greek or Russian - and they used the Spanish, Greek, or Russian alphabet/letters?? You should RESPECT the integrity of the nationality and want to learn more about the person as they were known and stop being all about the lazy way of learning - only thinking of the "English" way rather than to acknowledge the ways of the "others" of the world.

See [[1]] And there are many more examples of Roman cursive on the site. Thanks Catiline63 (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the Romans did not use cursive handwriting seemed quite specious to me.

Articles do state that lower case Greek and Latin letters were created during the Middle Ages. It is interesting that these are identical in all three languages: {k, o, u}. In thermodynamics, Boltzman's constant is widely misinterpreted, but it is actually the Greek letter "kappa", in the same way that we use these in the sciences and technology: alpha, gamma, delta, epsilon, zeta, eta, theta, lambda, mu, nu, pi, rho, sigma, tay, phi, and omega.

These upper-case Greek letters are not very useful in the science because they are identical with the Latin and English letters: alpha, epsilon, zeta, eta (H), iota, kappa, mu, nu, omicron, rho (P), tau (T), upsilon (Y), chi (X).
Also, with these following Greek letters, the upper case and lower case letters are practically identical except in size, so we only use one of them: beta, theta, iota, pi (rarely used except in infinite products), phi, chi, psi. The letter chi is rarely used anywhere except in statistics, where there are the noted chi-squared test and the chi-squared distribution.
These Greek letters have two distinct appearances and they are often used in the sciences and mathematics: gamma, delta, lambda, sigma, and omega, where the capital omega is the famous symbol for ohms and the lower-case omega is used everywhere for radian frequency. Someone mentioned one of the medieval additions to the Latin alphabet (U), but left out two. Medieval scholars added "J, j" and "W, w", where the latter took the place of the very common Roman combination of "UU" or "uu". "J" was created to be a consonant tha the Romans had written as "I" as in "IULIUS" or "IESUS".98.67.173.244 (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Bimilennial anniversary of death (2014)

I've just added Augustus's death to Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/August_19 because it's 2000 years ago this year (2014).

I've also asked at Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries#Bimillennial_-_how_to_mark.3F what the correct style is for marking 'big number' anniversaries.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

First emperor but inherited the throne...?

Great article but I'm a little confused by exactly what throne means here.

I understand throne to be something a king / emperor sits on which symbolises an inherited leadership of a state / nation / people or whatever.

So, what exactly does it mean that Augustus was first emperor but inherited the emperorship? Sorry if it's just a dumb question.

Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpawright (talk • contribs) 04:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

??? By doing a quick search, this is the only place in the article where the word "throne" appears: "Tiberius was also responsible for restoring Tigranes V to the throne of Armenia." This article stresses again and again that he is considered the first emperor of the Roman Empire. It does not state that he inherited any such position. Please show us where you see it any differently.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's from the Main Page blurb, I assume. "The young Octavian was adopted by his great uncle Julius Caesar from whom he inherited the throne in 44 BC." Better take this to WP:ERRORS, as it is somewhat misleading. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See also further discussion under heading Throne below. I believe the word "throne" was in general use prior to Augustus (Greek θρόνος - thronos) and may have been used for Julius Caesar's official seat as Dictator, but the Emperor's Throne became an official Roman term in Augustus' time - see article throne. Similarly, there is an anachronistic problem with "Emperor": Latin Imperator was originally a temporary title for a war commander who celebrated a triumph, but from Augustus on became an attribute of the ruler, eventually passing into English as Emperor. Similarly "Caesar", which was originally a personal cognomen of Gaius Julius Caesar whose meaning had nothing to do with rulership - see Caesar (name) for possible interpretations - but after its adoption by Octavian and subsequent Caesars passed into languages such as German (Kaiser) and Russian (Tsar) as the word for emperor. D A Patriarche (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Semantics

I know I'm nitpicking but being semiprotected I can't change it myself - Cleopatra was killed by a VENOMOUS snake - snakes aren't poisonous, although I don't imagine they'd taste particularly nice.86.169.166.122 (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the error, I've fixed it. Maedin\^talk 18:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The word "semiprotected" is always ONE word with no blanks or hyphens. The prefix "semi" is not used with hyphens or blanks. Please see these words: {semiarid, semibreve (a term in music), semicircle, semiconductor, semiconscious, semigroup (a term in mathematics), semiquaver, demisemiquaver, demihemisemiquaver, semiliquid, semipermeable, semiprecious, semisolid, semispherial}. I am writing this because people really need to learn how to use prefixes correctly.98.67.173.244 (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The comment on "semi" is IMHO a bit sweeping. "Semiprotected" is a neologism not listed in The Canadian Oxford Dictionary (OUP Canada 2001), so let's spell it consistently in Wikipedia but elsewhere, who cares? The Canadian Oxford (op. cit.) lists "semi-arid" not "semiarid", and nearly half its listings under semi... are hyphenated, e.g."semi-annual", "semi-opaque" &c. This may be a difference between U.S. and British usage. There is also a tendency in English for the hyphen after a prefix or in a compound word to be dropped as usage increases: in my time, "micro-computer" has become "microcomputer". But how did we get so far off topic?? I only got sucked in because I'm an avid amateur philologist. D A Patriarche (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

His height as an adult

Quoting from the article:
"Julius Marathus, his freedman and keeper of his records, says that he was five feet and nine inches in height"
Someone needs to note that in ancient times, five feet, nine inches, was not short or average for an adult, but rather that was TALL. Please explain this in the article.
The alleged great heights of such mythological or semimythological characters of ancient times as Goliath, Achilles, Ajax, and Sir Lancelot are doubtless exaggerations. If any one of these had even been 6' 3" tall, that would have struck most men and women as gigantic, back when the average Egyptian, Greek, Roman, man was probably about 5' 6", and women were usually shorter than that.
During Colonial Times in America, there was a Chief Tuskaloosa in Alabama who was said to be very tall. He probably was, and it was said that he could ride a horse with his own feet dragging on the ground. However, note that the average horse was a lot shorter back in the 1700s and earlier. Tuskaloosa might have even been a figure of the 1810 and 1820s. The present-day city and country of Tuscaloosa are named for him.
It is wrong to write historical articles and apply today's standards to them. It is also noteworthy that in the movie Gladiator (film), Romans are seen reading printed documents - but the printing press was not invented and put to use by Gutenberg over 1,500 years later!98.67.173.244 (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Assuming Marathus was not exaggerating his master's height, 5'9" in Roman times is actually about 5'7" in modern measure (see Roman Measures). But there are many accounts (sorry, no cites offhand) that describe him as short and wearing built-up sandals. Perhaps some of the latter were slanders by his enemies, but who do we believe? As for semimythological giants, Richard Lionheart is said (according to Clifford Brewer) to have been 6 feet 5 inches (1.96 m) D A Patriarche (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Jesus

Just thinking, maybe it'd be worth mentioning he is notable for being the ruler during the birth of Christ.

--68.45.156.4 (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2014

There is a minor typo in the last line of the section 3.3.3,Rebellion and marriage alliances, "During their marriage, Octavia gave birth to two daughters (known as Antonia Major and Antonia Minor)." , where "Octavia" should be "Mark Antony". Thilarus

Not done: Men are not known to give birth. Octavia the Younger seems to be correct here. Cannolis (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2014

Please change where dates that say BC with BCE and dates that say AD with CE. This change is needed because the more politically correct and secular terms for eras would be BCE and CE. SupaSmasha (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:BCE, either AD/BC or CE/BCE are acceptable conventions for Wikipedia as long as they are used consistently within the article. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

This makes little sense to me: "Following the assassination of his maternal great-uncle Julius Caesar in 44 BC, Caesar's will named Octavius as his adopted son and heir."VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The idea seems to be that Julius named Octavius as his heir in his will, and when he died Octavius was therefore his adopted son and heir. However, this sounds wrong; I thought Octavius was adopted before Julius's death. But it's not really my area of expertise, so I won't try to sort it out. Anyone who knows more about this than me? — Eru·tuon 20:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Calendar reform

In this change User:156.61.250.250 claims that Augustus completed the corrections to the Julian calendar in February AD 4. The source cited indicates the last change to the leap year cycle as part of Augustus's correction was the omission of the leap day in February AD 4. I believe, in a brief summary, it is better to indicate the first month that fully agreed with the proleptic Julian calendar, which is March AD 4. Otherwise, readers might assume that February AD 4 was in full agreement with the proleptic Julian calendar, and mistakenly think 29 February AD 4 existed. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Syntax issue

Hi. The part "Following the assassination of his maternal great-uncle Julius Caesar in 44 BC, Caesar's will named Octavius as his adopted son and heir." needs a bit of a fix. I have mulled it over, but cannot come up with something to resolve the non sequitur. Thanks Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out! Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, That works. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not sure how long it's been written like that, since I wrote the article back in 2007 or thereabouts (before submitting it as an FA candidate). It's hard to micromanage all of the articles I've written, especially since I don't usually come onto Wikipedia these days. So once again, I sincerely thank you for highlighting this. Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

While you have contributed to this article significantly, you certainly did not "write it". Nobody is justified in saying such a thing about this article.--Tataryn (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The majority of what I wrote is still here, but you're right, it's been improved by many others over time (and at least had a skeletal frame to work with when I started). However, saying that I just "contributed significantly" hides the fact that I did about 80% of the research and consultation of sources. The biggest contribution since then has been the addition of citations from a slew of new academic sources (from 193 citations when I was done with it to about 240 that exist presently). Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Common Era dates?

Shouldn't dates be given in the Common Era system (BCE/CE instead of BC/AD), per wiki style? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.192.26 (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have misinterpreted Wikipedia style on this point, which may be found at WP:ERA. That says "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content." Jc3s5h (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Augustus' religion

Instead of describing his religion as "Roman paganism", it would be better to refer to the "ancient Roman religion". Paganism was a pejorative term coined much later and would be an anachronistic way to refer to the official state religion of Augustus's Rome. ". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harikumar7891 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that's just utter rubbish.68.19.6.23 (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"Ancient Roman religion" could just as easily refer to Christianity, seeing how it was adopted by the Romans in late antiquity. The phrase "Roman polytheism" would be just fine and neutral for that matter. The link "Roman paganism" redirects to the article Religion in ancient Rome, while the link "Greco-Roman paganism" redirects to the article Hellenistic religion. Either choice would be fine, really.Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Harikumar7891 that paganism isn't a good term for this. "Ancient Roman religion" never refers to Christianity and in fact Ancient Roman religion is a Wikipedia article via redirect for exactly what is being discussed here, so it makes good sense to use it. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Minor tilting error

In the second paragraph it says, "His maternal great-uncle Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC.." This is wrong, it should say, "His maternal grand-uncle Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC.." — Preceding unsigned comment added by PromethiumElemental (talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: It's not an error, "great-uncle" being a perfectly acceptable spelling. See Talk:Uncle#Great uncle for a discussion. Favonian (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Octavian

In the beginning of the article, it's stated that Octavian is the anglicized version of Octavius. But surely Octavian is actually the anglicized version of his name once adopted: Gaius Caesar Octavianus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.114.208 (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

More on the name: Might not the full correct name be Gaius Octavian Rufus? i.e. Gaius of the Octavii clan and of the Rufus family? True the Rufus family name seems to have been but rarely used, but that full name would seem consistent with Roman naming practices. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Certainly there were Octavii called Rufus, but is there any evidence Augustus bore that name? Suetonius says his cognomen was Thurinus. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit request (suggestion?)

I see that many good images of statues and coins of Augustus are already featured in the article. However, I'd suggest to include the outstanding Meroë Head. I do know aesthetics are a completely personal matter, yet I had to propose that, and I hope this will get support. --188.217.50.30 (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, although none of our photos are ideal. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Great suggestion! I added the Meroë Head as requested, in a relevant section too, the one about his physical appearance. Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Biblical reference?

Should it be included in the article that Caesar Augustus was mentioned in the Bible?

"In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn." (Gospel of Luke 2:1-7)

-- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I honestly cannot see how this is relevant in the article for Augustus, although it might be relevant in some article dealing with Christianity in the Roman Empire. Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Murena confusion.

Under "Second settlement", it states that "Aulus Terentius Varro Murena (who had fought against Julius Caesar and supported Cassius and Brutus) was executed in consequence of his involvement in the Marcus Primus affair". However it was actually his half-brother Lucius Licinius Varro Murena who was involved in the Primus affair. Aulus Terentius Varro Murena died for unknown and unrelated reasons. See also Goldsworthy for reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghallach (talk • contribs) 12:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Good catch - I came to the talk page wondering about this. Unfortunately I don't have editorial permission to fix it, however! 2605:E000:8A48:400:B818:E3AA:E07A:B4C1 (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

References

No Mention of Either Julia's Exile - Why?

Hi. Why is there no mention of either Julie the Elder's exile (or fall from grace) or Julia the Younger's and their subsequent admonishments? Is that deliberate to make Augustus appear more humane or simply a failure of effective reporting? This article is extraordinarily biased and makes Augustus'(as it also does for some similar reasons with Julius Caesar) legacy very one-sided. Why is that? Where is the rest of his history and the analysis that accompanies it? Is this just a consequence of the lopsidedness of Wikipedia's dominance by male writers? This is a constant problem of historical reporting but is an exaggerated consequence in Wikipedia. Cheers. Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Pericles' reply

@Stevenmitchell: hello. I was the chief editor of this article in the past; I nominated and brought it to Wikipedia:Featured articles status roughly a decade ago. Firstly, perhaps we can include further information about Julia the Elder and Julia the Younger after we form a Wikipedia:Consensus about it, seeing how this is already a featured article.

Secondly, what you readily ascribe to "deliberate" malice or ill-intent is more likely the result of Wikipedia:Summary style, if not Wikipedia:Article size. Choosing what to include in this article is a delicate balancing act, seeing how there is a range of topics to cover, from high politics to military campaigns, with family matters as the other main concern. Wikipedia:Links are provided for Julia the Elder and Julia the Younger so that readers can discover more information about them in their respective articles, without bloating the size of this article, which is not allowed to exceed even 60 KB of text without a reasonable justification.

Thirdly, your claim that this article is "very one-sided" and "extraordinarily biased" and makes Augustus "appear humane" should be tempered by the fact that this article includes the following unflattering information about him:

• His execution of 300 Roman senators and equestrians allied to Lucius Antonius, as well as burning Perusia to the ground, a bloody act criticized by his contemporary Sextus Propertius
• His participation in the murders of fellow Roman citizens in collusion with Marcus Antonius (see the sub-section on "Proscriptions")
• His order given to Tiberius forcing him to divorce Vipsania Agrippina and wed Julia the Elder instead, which produced a loveless marriage; the cynical calculation was also made that Nero Claudius Drusus' marriage to Antonia Minor was "unbreakable", so Augustus did not arrange a similar forced divorce between the two of them.
• His exile and potential assassination of Agrippa Postumus, his own grandson
• Multiple claims of him being a coward, by ancient and early modern sources
• Multiple claims of him being an autocrat and an oppressive tyrant, by ancient and early modern sources

Fourthly, in regards to your musing about the "deliberate" intent of other editors, you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It is incredibly rude to begin a conversation by leveling accusations. The anonymity of the Internet is no excuse for that, especially when you should have followed the guideline of Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

As for your rhetorical questions about the possible genders of the editors of this article (which is dangerously close to Wikipedia:OUTING), might I also remind you that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum. This is a discussion page for the community on how to improve the article. All other discussions belong elsewhere, outside of Wikipedia.

Finally, in regards to your query about "the rest of his history" and further analysis, perhaps we should quote Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:

Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity. Some kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.

This article is not a book. It is an online encyclopedic entry that is supposed to present the most basic facts with some level of detail, but not much. It is not meant to include every detail that has ever been known about Augustus. The article is not a proper biography you can buy in a bookstore. There are many facts about Augustus' personal relationships that have been carefully excluded from the article, in order to make it balanced and readable/digestible for the average visitor (who will not spend much time if any beyond the Wikipedia:Lead section).

If you are willing to keep these strictures and Wiki guidelines in mind, I'd be happy to include further information about both Julias, although you won't be satisfied much if you're expecting several paragraphs on the matter. A sentence or two should suffice, although we should generally aim for the reduction of material in this article. Adding more and more moves the article further and further away from the state that it was in when it was successfully nominated as a Featured Article. A couple sentences about both Julia's would fit quite well in the "Death and Succession" section. Regards, --Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Augustus' birthplace. The "property of Ox Head" on the Palatine Hill is called Ad Capita Bubula in Latin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:BC42:0:B5F1:B2E1:AD9E:23C7 (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2017

Can someone add to Augustus's personal information card that he was a triumvir of Rome (as is present on the pages of Marc Antony and Lepidus) 108.53.207.178 (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: not a specific request. In general, it's mentioned that he was part of the Second Triumvirate, and the infobox only mentions his highest title (Emperor). Power~enwiki (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The map of the Roman Empire in the times of Augustus

The map is misleading, implying that during the reign of Augustus the Roman Empire expanded to include significant parts of Germany of today (until the Elbe River). In fact, following the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD the Romans retreated behind the Rhine line. The Rhine River remained the effective border between the Roman Empire and the Germanic tribe in the following centuries. Though the note under the map does mention some potential misunderstanding in Germania, the confusion remains.

In fact, the map only pretends to cover the (full) reign of Augustus, as implied by the title of the legend - ′Octavianus Augustus: 31 BC - 14 AD′. It does not says specifically that the map covers the full reign, which the author knows is incorrect. To avoid remarks as this one, the name of the file is ′Augusto 30aC - 6dC 55%CS jpg.JPG′. , i.e. it stops at AD 6, three years before the defeat in the above battle and 8 years before Augustus death.

I suggest to choose a map that shows the true expansion of the empire during the full reign of Augustus, which is what the reader expects. Yyaari (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Roman Empire under Augustus in 1 AD, as well as the Parthian Empire in brown and Chinese Han Empire in yellow

In regards to the map (i.e. "Augusto_30aC_-_6dC_55%25CS_jpg.JPG"), I've looked around on Wikimedia Commons, and it appears that there is no suitable replacement in the category "Maps concerning Augustus". The only one during Augustus' reign that seems to have a proper scholarly source behind it is this one, pictured to the right. It at least describes its source as the "Atlas of World History (2007) - World 250 BC - 1 AD, map", which is more than we can say about the map you've discussed (completely without a source). However, the map I've just presented here seems more than a little inaccurate, with a bit too much territory in the Black Sea, let alone all of Thrace and even parts of Dacia under the Roman Empire when they should not be (Thrace was only a client state, while Dacia wasn't conquered at all until the reign of Trajan). In light of that, I'm afraid the article will have to do without a map entirely until someone (anyone really) decides to upload a proper map to Wikimedia Commons, or provide credible academic sources (with precisely-cited page numbers) for the maps that have already been created. Anyone who attempts to add the map back to the article will be reverted immediately by yours truly, day in and day out, a hundred times in a row if necessary. This is a featured article. It should live up to higher standards than most Wiki articles and it should only contain images that are well-sourced. Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The map on the right is indeed inaccurate. Moreover, it is not detailed enough - one would expect to see at least the different provinces, with colors showing the extent of the empire at the beginning (31 BC) and end (AD 14) of the era. I agree that the article should be of the highest standard. Will look around for a proper map, and upload it to this discussion if I find any.Yyaari (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I can suggest three possible maps (a) the extent of the empire by the end of Augustus, Hadrian and Trajan, (b) showing the conquests of Augustus as well as the extent by his death, and (c) showing the extent of the empire by his death, categorized to types of provinces. All three sources seem credible, judging by the hosting sites. All show the extent of the empire by the end of Augustus' reign, AD 14. Option (b), however, is better suited because it shows the expansion during his time, as the name of the surrounding section suggests.

Yyaari (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yyaari: hi again. Thanks for sharing these maps.

Unfortunately, I think only the first map ("a") would be acceptable, because it at least comes from an ".edu" website, hosted in particular by the Utah State University. The other two web sources are questionable, since b) is from the latinlibrary.com (this doesn't seem to be tied to any sort of specific academic institution) and the map in c) is apparently from someone's Google page. The next step is to figure out if the map image from the Utah State University page is copyrighted by them, which I think is most likely the case. That means we would need to find someone who is skilled with vector images and photoshopping stuff to create a new map at Wikimedia Commons that is entirely based on the Utah State University map. By that I mean it must be a faithful representation. I've never actually made a map image before, but I think you can consult map-makers here on Wikipedia somewhere and they would be glad to lend us help. Regards, --Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: Thank you, I've just learned something. I am still looking for a credible map that shows the expansion under Augustus. I found one where the owner is vanRossenClassicalStudies, here. Is it credible? I'll try to shapren my skills in map making. Yyaari (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yyaari:Unfortunately, no, a "wikispaces" site is not a credible source. The map would have to come from a book, article, or online page connected to a scholarly institution, such as a university, a library, a historical society, or a museum. Your best bet would still be to contact someone who has experience making maps with vector images over at Wikimedia Commons. Regards, --Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that a general map is a static thing, which is even complicated when the ruler has an extremely long reign as Augustus had. It always gives the borders at one single moment, but isn't very accurate to depict subsequent gains (Dalmatia, Pannonia, Egypt, Cantabria, parts of Germania) or territorial losses (parts of Germania, but not everything previously gained). Plus a complication is that the Romans often worked through various client kings (for instance Galatia, Thrace, Judea) which were very depended on Rome and pretty much integrated in the empire. Perhaps one should simply label it "maximum extend of the Roman Empire during the reign of Augustus". -- fdewaele, 13 June 2017, 15:45 CET.

@Fdewaele: the problems you just described regarding the representation of shifting borders is pretty much solved by color-coding your map, i.e. using different shades/hues/tones to represent different stages of conquest and annexation. For instance, a certain shade of green to represent the earliest period versus a lighter shade of green to represent subsequent territorial expansion. It's not that difficult to do, although it would have to be based on a map from an academic source that pretty much does the same thing. That's the real issue here. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fdewaele: We have to balance the desire to show the full story while still making the main points stand out. Many maps depict the borders by the end of the reign of some main figures (through color-coding). In our case these would be Julius Caesar, Augustus, and some later emperor (typically Trajan, in whose time the empire reached its greatest expansion). This choice gives both the net expansion due to Augustus and also gives the long term perspective. @PericlesofAthens: I was looking only in the Internet. You mention articles and books. This indeed open possibilities. There are many highly regarded books and academic journals that show maps like the one I mentioned. Regarding client kings, again, once we select some credible source we can follow its decision in this case too. The problem is then technical: mastering the art of map making. I'll give it a try. Yyaari (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Augustus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061117112806/http://www.viajuliaaugusta.com/en/home.html to http://www.viajuliaaugusta.com/en/home.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Augustus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130209200013/http://cliojournal.wikispaces.com/The%20Achievements%20of%20Augustus%20Caesar to http://cliojournal.wikispaces.com/The%2BAchievements%2Bof%2BAugustus%2BCaesar

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2017

Add a Library Widget in between the "References" and the "Bibliography" sections

Mdanaher (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 15:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2017

"Suetonius presented the case that Octavian, although reluctant at first to proscribe officials, nonetheless pursued his enemies with more rigor than the other triumvirs."

TO:

"Suetonius said that Octavian was reluctant to proscribe officials, but did pursue his enemies with more rigor than the other triumvirs."

JUSTIFICATION: "although reluctant at first" are way too many words for "waiting" 2605:E000:9161:A500:C5B3:12E7:7862:8F3A (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Done as this request is mainly a grammar/syntax issue that doesn't change the meaning of the text. This page's protection was not intended to prevent edits such as this. I have no objection to this edit being reverted with good cause. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2017

Please change "AD/BC" to "CE/BCE" respectively. It is a more inclusive term and is more accepted in history departments for its lack of relying on religious belief TheLucarioSlayer (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not done - see MOS:ERA. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2017

When you google Caesar Augustus. It says "Roman roman Emperor" I thought that, that should be changed. PeterBrown (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 23:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Augustus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160829173428/http://www.academia.edu/6339880/Augustan_Legionaries to https://www.academia.edu/6339880/Augustan_Legionaries

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Change to Augustus

The section headings were not helpful. Under the original heading "Change to Augustus," he was variously referred to as Octavian and Augustus (but mainly Octavian) for several paragraphs before there was a description of his name change. So I have moved that heading to where it belongs, and replaced it with "Sole ruler of Rome," which is a more accurate description of what that section is about, and I've made the use of his name consistent. Richard75 (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Date of Reign has an error.

I can't edit the page, but I'd like to point out that the info bar on the right side says that he reigned from "16 January 27 BC – 19 August AD 14", I could be wrong, but shouldn't that 2nd date be 19 August 14 AD? Just that the 14 and the AD are switched around incorrectly. Just wanted to point that out, if I'm wrong then ignore this. Thanks!

Request for edit: detail on Postumus

An uncited detail on Postumus Agrippa refers to a folk etymology which equates 'Postumus' with "posthumous." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postumus_(praenomen) for more.

"This union produced five children, three sons and two daughters: Gaius Caesar, Lucius Caesar, Vipsania Julia, Agrippina the Elder, and Postumus Agrippa, so named because he was born after Marcus Agrippa died." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:8100:900:8CA:15B1:ADFB:DF14 (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for edit: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Octavian&redirect=no

It is only editable by admins. Octavian's name was changed to Augustus, so the redirect page should have this text:

{{Rcat shell
|{{R from former name}}
}}

And why is a redirect paged locked to admin editing only? It should be changed so that autoconfirm or less-than-autoconfirm users can edit it! --99percentNog1percentNig (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

One omission

One key position Augustus arrogated for himself, which is not noted in the lead, is command of all of the religious colleges & sodales. The point here wasn't as much to control religious dogma, as to control who was co-opted into these priesthoods & the ensuing prestige they bestowed. Yes, it is possible that leadership of one of these could be used to rally opposition to Augustus, but by this point the Roman populace wanted peace over all & there wasn't much serious interest in overthrowing him; rather, the point was he controlled another avenue the Roman upper classes had to advance & show up their rivals.

I'll need to review my notes where this point is made by a reliable source, but it is an important point. BTW, no one Wikipedia editor can be expected to know all the material in an article; but one of the strengths of Wikipedia is that there is no final draft. -- llywrch (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The lead section is at a decent size already, so one little blurb or sentence about this would be fine. Add it in if you want. Just don't fly off the handlebars and add a whole paragraph about it. Lol. Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

When I find the needed source to cite, I'll definitely do that. Until then, anyone is welcome to add it. -- llywrch (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Full names

Could someone add his full names with dating to the infobox? Since I moved his regnal name into the regnal name box since it is the name people associate with his unofficial reign as Roman Emperor. I hope no one revokes it, if they do I will just be sad. The only reason why I ask this because I am not a great wikipedia editor and I can't make the names appear right. slapnut1207 (Full names) 02:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

You're right to use the regnal name name, but the infobox should only include the sole regnal name, not a list of all the names they've used. For Augustus that would only be "Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus" with no dates (as that can be found in the body of the article). LivinRealGüd (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced content: removal or CN tag added?

Hi people, and thanks for all your contributions! One of our contributors removed various content for being unsourced. I was in the process of restoring some of it w/a cn tag, but I thought I would bring it up here before continuing. Comments? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Since it is a FA, I'd prefer if editors could discuss the unsourced content they want to add here. This page is followed by many people and they are likely to have an answer rapidly. I think an article cannot be "featured" with many cn tags in the text. T8612 (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, and anything that lacks a cited source was basically added after the successful FA nomination, which means it was not vetted material at the time. Such additions should be examined with extreme prejudice at the very least, and ideally we should find citations for such material quickly. However, with so many of them I think such material in the article should simply be excised for now, because we have no idea where people are getting these ideas and a lot of it could border on WP:No original research, for all we know. Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Missing IPA for "Octavius"

The classical latin pronunciation is missing for "Octavius". Also, the classical latin pronunciation for "Augustus" is listed *after* the anglicized version, which is in bad taste. I propose the missing pronunciation should be added and the latin pronunciations be listed first. 202.166.23.34 (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Bad link should be removed

I don't have enough qualifications to edit this page myself, but the external link to the "Humor of Augustus" should be removed or changed. It appears to point to a page that tries to install malware. Poplopo (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

poplopo Thank you. The link has been removed.--Chewings72 (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2019

Please change the age Augustus died at from 75 to 76 because he lived from 63BC to 14AD and died one month before his 77th birthday. TheGamerGuy171 (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Year alive	Age
63 BC	0
62 BC	1
61 BC	2
60 BC	3
59 BC	4
58 BC	5
57 BC	6
56 BC	7
55 BC	8
54 BC	9
53 BC	10
52 BC	11
51 BC	12
50 BC	13
49 BC	14
48 BC	15
47 BC	16
46 BC	17
45 BC	18
44 BC	19
43 BC	20
42 BC	21
41 BC	22
40 BC	23
39 BC	24
38 BC	25
37 BC	26
36 BC	27
35 BC	28
34 BC	29
33 BC	30
32 BC	31
31 BC	32
30 BC	33
29 BC	34
28 BC	35
27 BC	36
26 BC	37
25 BC	38
24 BC	39
23 BC	40
22 BC	41
21 BC	42
20 BC	43
19 BC	44
18 BC	45
17 BC	46
16 BC	47
15 BC	48
14 BC	49
13 BC	50
12 BC	51
11 BC	52
10 BC	53
9 BC	54
8 BC	55
7 BC	56
6 BC	57
5 BC	58
4 BC	59
3 BC	60
2 BC	61
1 BC	62
AD 1	63
AD 2	64
AD 3	65
AD 4	66
AD 5	67
AD 6	68
AD 7	69
AD 8	70
AD 9	71
AD 10	72
AD 11	73
AD 12	74
AD 13	75

Jc3s5h (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Slave owners

Could someone please add Category:Slave owners? - 2600:1702:31B0:9CE0:B17D:1077:68C8:A57F (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done, I think it is appreciate per the content.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverted, this is a meaningless category for the ancient world. T8612 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

T8612, why is it meaningless?--SharabSalam (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Every head of state of the ancient world, even every free man of some standing, had slaves. Making categories is about singling out people with similar features; here, almost every biographic article of ancient people would fall into this category. What's the point? T8612 (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The appropriate WP term for what it is not is "defining" - see WP:NONDEF. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2019

can i edit pls 165.161.17.54 (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You will be able to edit this and other semiprotected pages, if you create an account. Then, when your account is at least four days old and you have made at least 10 edits, you will become autoconfirmed. RudolfRed (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

And it would help if your edits were constructive rather than idiotic vandalism... Jeppiz (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020

Add the work Lobur, John Alexander. Consensus, Concordia and the Formation of Roman Imperial Ideology, Routlege, 2008 to the Bibliography. Erasmus73 (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The bibliography is for works that were actually used in writing the article. If a work is about the same topic as the article, but was not used in writing the article, it would go in a "Further reading" section. How do you know this work was used in writing the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs) 16:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, per the above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Name in lede

There is a bit of confusion over how Augustus should be named in the lede sentence. I made an edit a few days ago stating that “Imperator Caesar Divi filius Augustus (without parentheses)...was Roman emperor”. That is his full regnal name, as shown on the coins. However, this edit was quickly reverted with the name placed inside parentheses. I would appreciate people’s views on this. Векочел (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a title rather than a name really. Coins are generally a rather treacherous guide for names. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Векочел, I don't think there is much confusion. I reverted your initial edit for John's reasons above and also the fact that the formatting was approved in FA. In the future, if you have a concern about something that would apply to 71 emperors (Not to mention plenty of other Roman officials), at the very least seek a consensus of some kind rather then changing it yourself. Although I do recognize that you did eventually brought your concerns here! - Aza24 (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the name we should put in parentheses is Gaius Julius Caesar since that appears to be his actual name, after his adoption by another Julius Caesar. Векочел (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The thing about Roman names is that the honorifics are the actual names are kind of a grey area as far as cognomen and similar are concerned. The previous version is more accurate; I feel that the changes don't really do a good job as serving the lede sentence. Yes, he was born with a specific name, but after that name was changed, that ceased to be relevant to him in any way. This differs from other articles for example Bill Clinton or Pope Francis where they have a common name that may or may not include a title, but they still use their birth name. I'm not going to start edit-warring but these changes de-emphasize the name used by relevant sources and over-emphasize a name that per WP:UNDUE and WP:LEDE isn't reflective of their importance in both sources and the article. The full titled name doesn't necessarily need to be used but this isn't appropriately reflective either. - Aoidh (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong information - introduction

In the second paragraph of the introduction, it is said that: "His maternal great-uncle Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC, and Octavius was named in Caesar's will as his adopted son and heir, taking the name Octavian (Latin: Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus)." I would stop the phrase in "son and heir.", removing what comes after ("taking the name Octavian (Latin: Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus)."), for several reasons: one, he did not take the name Octavian; other people have referred to him by it (as well as by many other names), as the article correctly states in its body. But mainly, the taking (or rather receiving) the name Octavian has nothing to do with Julius Caesar's assassination and will and his adoption. That bit makes little to no sense there and I would suggest its removal.213.245.147.96 (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The name Octavian

I believe the name "Octavian" should at least appear in parentheses in the first sentence of this article, as this is a common way to refer to this person.45.46.252.14 (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"Controversial"?

The second sentence of this article reads, "His status as the founder of the Roman Principate (the first phase of the Roman Empire) has consolidated a legacy as one of the most effective and controversial leaders in human history." My question is, controversial to whom? Neither of the subsequent citations use the term controversial, or describe his life as having a notably high number of controversies. Relative to later Roman Emperors, Roman historians considered Augustus himself more or less controversy-free (though, his family certainly had many controversies). Giving this sentence a lot of credit, it is perhaps referring to the people he conquered, or even more tangentially the Roman Empire's conquests in general? However, in no other articles on ancient conquerors is the term "controversial" used with such prominence. I would propose changing "most effective and controversial" to something like "most effective and influential". Xenocide^{Talk|Contributions} 13:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the controversial part is about about how ruthless Augustus was in cementing his position. The general view is that he brought peace and stability and ended the turmoil of the Roman Republic, but it is often overlooked that he could be very cruel in doing so. Switching sides and dropping friends and allies without a second thought. (Cicero for instance was handed over in order to cement an alliance with Marc Anthony, even though Augustus admired and respected Cicero). It was only after he solidified his position as emperor that we can say he became more or less "controversy free", though I suspect that Augustan propaganda also played a part in this. Personally I have no objection to the term controversial being used. DutchHoratius (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

But is that "controversial"? For that you really need historians arguing for and against a position. His ruthlessness is entirely part of his tradition (in Shakespeare for example), not so much "often overlooked" as taken for granted. His treatment of many of his family shows that never changed btw. "most effective and influential" would be better. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree that controversial isn't the right word but to the core of DutchHoratius's point it is the only thing in the lead that represents the differing views of historians. Perhaps the line should be changed to "effective and influential" and then an additional line included on said views of praise vs critique. Aza24 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

It might be presented insufficiently or even clumsily, but the statement summarizes a significant chunk of the "Legacy" section where scholars throughout the ages have assessed the reign of Augustus in a critical if not hostile manner. Perhaps this is deserving of its own brief statement in the lead section without enlarging it too much or going off on a tangent. I agree, though, it is somewhat out of place in the second sentence of the lead, since the first paragraph of any biographic entry on Wiki should simply define the subject and outline the very basics of the person's life or monarch's reign. Criticisms of said person should be reserved for the final paragraph when the reader has already absorbed enough information to discern the significance of that individual (and why he should be criticized or lambasted in the first place). What's that old line again, from Dragnet? "Just the facts, ma'am". <-- That's how the first paragraph should be treated. For what it's worth, that statement about controversy did not exist when I crafted this article long ago and presented it as a Featured Article Candidate. It was a much later edition by an editor who thoroughly tweaked the lead section. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Just saying "controversial" doesn't summarize much. Can you suggest a wording that better captures the (fairly unanimous, surely) ambivalence of historians? Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I would remove it entirely. I don't know who managed to sneak a reference to "history.com", but that should be removed too. The first paragraph also discusses the Pax Romana and the Year of the four emperors, and it is out of place. However, his first name Octavian is missing there, and put instead in the second paragraph. As an aside, I don't think the article is still FA. T8612 (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed that "HISTORY.COM" citation since it is not up to snuff for a Featured Article that requires at least decent academic sources. I also reworded the last paragraph a bit, the part about Tiberius, his succession and relations with Augustus. The lead section should honestly be pruned a bit, with statements that are not found in the article either moved to the body or removed altogether. This was the most blatant example. Perhaps others could be considered, but it looks better now. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Birth name in lead

Separating the two discussions: above, the discussion is whether the first word in the article should be “Augustus was” or “Caesar Augustus was”. A second issue, though, is that his birth name, Octavius, by which he is referred to in many sources, should be in the lead, as Wikipedia’s Manual of Style says is the case for birth names that were later changed, and as is also the case for the articles presented in the discussion above as “examples”: Nero, Galba, Otho. No argument has been presented as to why only this Wiki article in particular should be an exception and NOT bring the title character’s birth name in the first paragraph, so I am proposing bringing it back to the first paragraph, without removing any other information already in it. Dan Palraz (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

So, for some reason his birth name which he practically never used should appear in the first sentence but his second most common name, "Caesar", which is literally part of his name, which appears in all sources that describe him, and is how he was known for most of his life, shouldn't... His birth name is already in the lede, it doesn't need to be mentioned in the outset already, as per MOS:MULTINAMES: "names should be distributed throughout the lead to mark major transitions in the subject's life" (using an outdated revision of this very article). See also wp:firstsentence: "Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information can be placed elsewhere" and "fuller forms of name may be used in the introduction to the lead". Avilich (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with you there, especially since "Octavian" appears in the very first sentence of the first paragraph, his other WP:COMMONNAME aside from Augustus. After both "Augustus" and "Octavian" are mentioned in the first paragraph, it's entirely acceptable to start the second paragraph explaining that his birth name was Gaius Octavius of the Octavia gens. You're right, the first paragraph should not be cluttered with various naming conventions that are fully explained in the first section of the article's body for anyone who wants to know more about this in depth. The first paragraph of the lead, like with any biographical Wikipedia article, should simply provide the most basic details about the person and definition of the subject. Also, I don't think the inclusion of "Caesar" in the first paragraph is entirely necessary, but I don't see much harm in it, given its frequent appearance in various academic sources when specifically mentioning his senatorial title Augustus. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Full name, 1st sentence, and disruptive editing

MOS:FULLNAME says "the subject's full name, if known, should usually be given in the lead sentence", so it makes sense that the full name 'Caesar Augustus' be displayed as such in the lede. In January, an editor called Jlvill made this edit in which he removed 'Caesar', placed the birth name 'Gaius Octavius' in the first sentence (though it was already mentioned in the 2nd paragraph), and inexplicably changed every single mention of 'Octavian' throughout the article to 'Octavius'. After I reverted his revision, the editor twice again went on to remove 'Caesar' and add 'Octavius' to the first sentence, which I again reverted. His only rationale was that the item in bold should for some reason match exactly the article's title. This doesn't make sense and contradicts policy.

Now, an editor called Dan Palraz just came in and made basically the same kind of edit, removing both 'Caesar' and 'Octavian' from the lede and replacing them with 'Octavius'. This editor is presumably a sock account, since he just so happens to have become active at the same time Jlvill became inactive, that is March 2021. I won't file a complaint or request an investigation; for now, I'll simply register my case here so it doesn't get reverted without discussion again. Avilich (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Why "Caesar" Augustus though? He had two common names, Octavian until 27 BC, then Augustus. This should be found in the lede, eg. "Augustus, known as Octavian until 27 BC". "Caesar Augustus" is not really the common name. T8612 (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Policy says WP:COMMONNAME as the article title and MOS:FULLNAME in the lede (e.g. Scipio Africanus). That happens to be the current arrangement here. When the two names differ too much, both can be mentioned separately, as in Scipio Aemilianus, but this isn't the case here. Avilich (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

But precisely, "Caesar Augustus" is neither the full name nor the common name. T8612 (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Caesar Augustus is the full name, or at least the fullest you can include without adding honorifics. He dropped 'Gaius', 'Julius' and 'Octavianus' by 38 BC, and added 'Augustus' in 27 BC. He shoehorned a victory title into the first position so it would still look like he had a praenomen, while divi filius isn't included per wp:romans#Abbreviations and filiations. Avilich (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but he still used other names at different times of his life; you could also argue that Augustus is an honorific. I'm not sure FULLNAME applies for a case like this. I would only keep Augustus and Octavian. The "Caesar" as first word of the lede is more confusing than helpful here. Since we have a full section in the article detailing all his names, I feel it is better to avoid complexity in the lede.

As an aside MOS:FULLNAME also uses Augustus as example, but an older version of the article and this should be amended. T8612 (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@T8612: Go give a check on the most recent revisions of Tiberius, Nero, Galba, Otho, and Titus, and tell me what you think. I actually completely agree with you that they don't look good at all, and that single names would be better in those cases. On the other hand, FULLNAME works well when just a single extra name is added (Julius Caesar, Vitellius, Valens). In the case of Augustus specifically, 'Caesar' is also arguably a common name for him too, and 'Caesar Augustus' is common both in introductory first-time mentions and in the general text of reliable sources (e.g.). It was his official name for most of his life, it's sufficiently short and concise that it can stand as any other introductory full name, and is certainly not so complex that it must only be mentioned elsewhere. Avilich (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

As said above, the irony is that Augustus for the emperor is given as an example of full name in Wikipedia's Manual of Style. There is no source for "Caesar Augustus" being his full-name. The title of the article is Augustus. In the Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, his lead is also just Augustus: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Augustus-Roman-emperor And there, when Caesar is added, his alternate name is given as "Augustus Caesar", not "Caesar Augustus". I, for myself, agree with (talk) in that Caesar doesn't belong in the first word of the article. Dan Palraz (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Uh, check again, I just gave one source and there's more in the article, whereas your Britannica entry was written for its print edition decades ago. Britannica always spells out the article's title first and the fuller name immediately following (for example), and in Augustus's case the author simply reverted the order of names incorrectly. The outdated example in the mos has no bearing on this discussion. Avilich (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is not outdated, it's Wikipedia's Manual of Style, still valid. And ironically you were the one who brought it into the discussion to justify your edit. Now, we have three users discussing the topic, two of which say the first sentence should read just "Augustus", Wikipedia's Manual of Style using it as an example, and you alone defending "Caesar Augustus" in the lead even though it was never his full name. So I'm led to believe you'll have to agree that, even if you don't like it, per Wikipedia's rules regarding discussing and editing, if the majority says so, "Augustus" should be used instead of "Caesar Augustus". Dan Palraz (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought this would've been obvious, but the 'Augustus' in the MoS is based on an old revision of this article (as T8612 pointed out) and is merely being used as an example. It's not saying that the article needs to be that way. MoS represents general guidelines, not rules for specific articles, and there's nothing there that commands that this article be the way you want it to be. Wikipedia doesn't operate by majority vote: editors are expected to provide reliable sources and follow the general guidelines, which I have and you have not, and to eventually reach a consensus. Avilich (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

You have not provided reliable source indicating "Caesar Augustus" was ever his "full name", and neither could you, as it isn't true. Consensus cannot be reached when one person who's alone defending a position is not willing to compromise. I think the only logic solution then is to ask for external opinions inputs, which I'm now going to do. Dan Palraz (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

You're going to canvass for support, you mean. ANyway, here are a few reliable sources 1, 2, 3, 4. Avilich (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm asking impartial people I've never spoken to for their opinions in order to do what is right in Wikipedia. Unless you're not so sure about the factual correctness of your insistent edits, you should be happy about it. Dan Palraz (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The Mos talk page isn't the place to ask for support, lol. You're supposed to assume the burden of defending your own edits. Avilich (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, not one of the four "sources" you "give" says that his full name was Caesar Augustus. Ironically, two of them, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, don't even bring "Caesar Augustus" at all, only "Augustus Caesar". Dan Palraz (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Did you even read them? The Britannica in any case gives his full name as something other than simply Augustus, so it was a mistake on your part to bring it up. It's easier to simply invert the order rather than, as you're implying, pretend 'Caesar' is not there. Avilich (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have read them, and again, not one says that "Caesar Augustus" was his full name. Anyway, I still agree with User:T8612 that "Caesar Augustus is neither the full name nor the common name”, and that “The "Caesar" as first word of the lede is more confusing than helpful here”. Other people’s opinions would also be appreciated, though. Dan Palraz (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I doubt you read them, but anyway, none of them show any awareness that Augustus had any one more those those two names, and, since 'Caesar Augustus' is the correct order, it follows that that is his full name. In no. 2 Syme refers to him as Caesar Augustus throughout the entire paper. "it's confusing" is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT-tier and has no basis in policy. And I'd also be more cautious in claiming that editor X agrees with you, since T86 said 'yes' when I said what Augustus' dull name is. Avilich (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I realize that's a convention Syme follows, but is it really that frequent in academic sources to couple these two titles together? I've usually only seen "Augustus" and before that "Octavian" in English sources. Technically speaking, as the "Name" section explains, his full title was Imperator Caesar divi filius Augustus, whereas he was previously known for a short time as Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. Did any Roman authors and ancient primary sources ever combine "Caesar Augustus" in that exact order? If so it's not listed in the "Name" section, and if that is the case, it should be. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, User:PericlesofAthens in that "Caesar Augustus" is neither his full name nor his most common name, and therefore should not be the opening of the article. Again, I understand that one specific user is insistent on adding it, but technically speaking it doesn't belong in the first sentence, not being nor the full name nor the most commonly used name, so I still agree with User:T8612 that, as per Wikipedia rules, the opening should just be "Augustus was...". Dan Palraz (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

More important than anything else is the frequency of "Caesar Augustus" in either primary or secondary sources, but I'm still uncertain about this. Avilich offers examples below of primary source material, but I'd need to look at an exhaustive list of modern secondary sources before coming to a conclusion. I was certainly under the impression that "Augustus" by itself is more common in modern literature and that the coupling of "Caesar Augustus" is more formal and slightly rarer. Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: In inscriptions it's always in that order. In literary sources, although the rule it seems is to call him simply either 'Caesar' or 'Augustus', throughout Appian's Mithridatic Wars there are mentions of "Caesar, surnamed Augustus" and one "Caesar Augustus". That this is the correct sequence is not in doubt, though inevitably one will sometimes find the order reverted, as in the Britannica. I have misgivings about divi filius being even mentioned the Name section because it basically falls into WP:ROMANS#Abbreviations and filiations, and I think it should not be given such prominence. Without it, we are left with Imperator Caesar Augustus which is basically Caesar Augustus with a victory title in front of it. "Caesar Augustus" is not just a convention that SYme uses, it's widespread in reliable secondary sources, and so I think fits quite well for an introductory mention. Avilich (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for sharing the primary source example with Appian. I certainly won't remove it given the sources provided, but we should investigate a wide range of secondary sources in that case. Per your suggestion, perhaps even the "Name" section should be reworded a bit or expanded slightly to explain this. I don't have time to address this right now, hopefully over the weekend I will have free time to look at a few more modern secondary sources for confirmation that the term is used frequently enough in scholarship. Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Having just noticed this discussion, it might be too late to give an opinion. But I think that "Caesar Augustus" is primarily a literary form, and it probably owes its familiarity more to its appearance in Luke 2:1 than to any other reason. Most English-language historical sources refer to him as "Gaius Octavius" prior to 44 BC, "Octavian" from 44 to 27 BC, and "Augustus" thereafter. Following standard Roman nomenclature, his name would technically have been "Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus", for which "Augustus" might be considered an additional surname, but there is little evidence that this form was in general use—Augustus seems to have superseded all other names, even though "Caesar" could be used as an alternative, at least to the death of Nero (or following the use of Suetonius, Domitian), or in addition to it (as in Luke).

But to return to the main question, following normal Wikipedia practice, I think the article should either begin with "Augustus", as the most familiar name (more familiar than any collocation of names in any order), or with his "legal" name, "Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus", immediately followed by "Augustus" and probably also "Octavian". An explanation for how this came to be his name and why he had so many different versions quite rightly belongs in its own section and not the lead, but these three should probably be in the lead sentence. I would suggest:

"Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, better known as Augustus, or Octavian before 27 BC..."

or something very similar. P Aculeius (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

No, "Imp. Caesar Augustus" was his actual tria nomina, and legal (no quotes here) name, however unorthodox it may sound. He's commonly known as 'Augustus' in the same way that anybody else will be referred to by a shorter form of their name, after they were introduced by a fuller name. Introducing him as 'Caesar Augustus' fits with MOS:FIRST ("fuller forms of name") and MOS:FULLNAME. I share T8612's concern that the lead sentence shouldn't be too complicated, but I don't think a single extra name will make a difference in this regard. Mentioning no less than 4 different names in the lede may be too much, however. He bore the name 'Caesar' much longer than any other, though, so that probably should appear in the lede. Avilich (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I realize that's how he appears in a number of inscriptions, but despite casual statements in various sources that "Imperator" was a praenomen, it never had been before, and never was for anyone who wasn't an emperor; it wasn't treated as one in filiations, and isn't listed among praenomina in reference sources that discuss them, although they may sometimes mention it as an exception. It's a bit like calling "Commander-in-Chief" (or "President") the president's praenomen: besides appearing in front of a recognizable name, it has none of the other hallmarks of being a name, and was never treated as one in any other case or context.

More importantly for this discussion, there was no law explicitly delineating Roman naming practices, and no part of the Roman bureaucracy was devoted to enforcing them; the concept of having a "legal name" that requires the approval of some authority to change or vary from belongs mostly to the 20th century, and is anachronistic when applied to Romans, hence the scare quotes. There are clear indications that the adoption of unusual styles or titles by Roman emperors didn't actually obliterate their traditional names; for instance their freedmen received the ordinary nomina that the emperors themselves preferred to omit or ignore.

But all of this is secondary to the fact that, outside of biblical contexts, the first emperor is nearly always referred to as "Augustus", occasionally "Augustus Caesar", and only rarely "Caesar Augustus", so it makes little sense to use that style for the lead, when there are several variations, some of which occur much more frequently. If he is referred to as anything other than "Augustus", it is typically as "Octavian" during the period from the death of Caesar in 44 BC to the senate's decree granting him the title of "Augustus" in 27. Most of the consequential events in his life occurred during this 17-year period, so it's understandable that this is widely used and should be in the lead. There's no rule stating that his birth or adoptive names need to be in the lead, but that would be typical practice. A formulation similar to what I proposed would not be too confusing or unwieldy for an article lead, even though a thorough discussion of his name throughout his life would be. If you don't like it, we could do something more along the lines of:

"Augustus (63 BC–AD 14), born Gaius Octavius, and widely known as Octavian from 44 to 27 BC..."

which could be easily tweaked as necessary. It would still be preferable to the current form that leads the article. P Aculeius (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

But again, 'Caesar Augustus' is not rare at all, it's his attested order of names in both primary and reliable secondary sources (Syme devotes a whole paper to it), it's literally stated with sources in the article, and makes inherent sense when you consider that agnomina are added last (thus, Caesar Augustus and not Augustus Caesar). The exact boundary between legality and tradition, and whether or not Augustus secretly retained the name 'Gaius Julius' in some hidden metaphysical plane for his freedmen to receive, are not of concern here, since 'Caesar Augustus' is how he and the sources refer to him. I'm sceptical of your claim, which you make so much of, that the Bible of all sources is the cause of that particular nomenclature's popularity, but, if it's true, it's based on established fact and not some made-up/arbitrary collection and order of names.

With regards to 'Gaius Octavius', it's already mentioned in the next paragraph, and he was only called that before he became notable. To mention that but not 'Caesar' on the first sentence would be inappropriate. If you absolutely insist, 'Caesar Augustus' could be put in parentheses, as in Augustus (Caesar Augustus; 63 BC–AD 14), also known as Octavian..., which was more or less the arrangement a year ago, but a fuller form of his name needs to be introduced somewhere, as in other emperor articles (for example). But again, the notion that an article title must match the term in bold is not based on policy. Avilich (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2021

In the segment Early Life, in the third sentence, please change "afer" to "after". Saglogog (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

A section about the Thurinus cognomen?

Should a section on his early cognomen Thurinus? It's very hard to find information about it, because search engines, including wikipedia, tend to "translate" it directly to Augustus. Here's an article, for reference, that seems to have merit: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jah-2015-0012/html Mr FJ (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2021

Change all instances of "BC" to "BCE" to reflect modern academic standards, and likewise "AD" to "CE". Delukiel (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Not done. See WP:ERA. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2021

Erase this piece of shit from history!!!!!!!!! What happened to cancel culture?

Not done It isn't clear what change you are requesting, and erasing individuals from history is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

a 3rd century(B.C? AD?) historian that criticized a ruler of the 1st century AD (he died in 14AD) after his death?

I'm talking about the legacy section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.34.174 (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It would be obvious, then, that it is referring to the 3^rd century AD if they were to be talking in retrospect about an emperor. There is a lot of era-mixing but most of the legacy section has AD dates where not otherwise specified so in my personal opinion, I don't think there is any need for the era to be repeated. - Mullafacation {talk page|user page} 17:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2022

I suggest simply a correction Julius Ceasar was a dictator for life but not an emperor 74.15.225.121 (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

closed tag after response by User: Paper9oll Happy Editing--IAmChaos 06:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

What? There is not a single place in the article where it claims Julius Caesar was an "emperor" of Rome. The article merely explains that emperors after Augustus used the title "Caesar" as an imperial one and many modern languages use the word "Caesar" or derivatives of it as a synonym for the word "emperor". That's not the same thing as claiming Gaius Julius Caesar was an emperor, which he was not (only a Roman dictator who usurped many Senatorial powers). Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2022

Change age of emperor. He died at 77 years of age and not 75. 104.221.76.29 (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

BC

I believe I left a semi-protected edit request when my account was new on this page, but I figured I'd bring up this issue again. I'm in favor of changing the instances to "BC" to BCE, and likewise "AD" to "CE" to reflect modern historical standards. I can do this now, but I wanted to get a temperature check on opinions before I do it. What are your thoughts on doing this? Delukiel (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:BCE which is part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Also, go to the talk page for that manual. At the talk page, on the right, not far from the top, you will see an Archives box. In the Archives box there is a search field. Search for BCE. You will see it has been discussed as far back as 2005 and as recently as 2022.

I am not aware of any change in the consensus that an editor's preference for BC or BCE is not a valid reason to change the notation on any particular page. Your preference seems to be site-wide, and not related to Augustus. So unless you can form a new consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers I don't see a valid reason to change the notation on this page. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Era_style, "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content". I see no such reasons in this case. BC & AD are commonly used by contemporary historians and their publications (e.g., see the instructions for contributors to the Journal of Roman Studies here), so the idea that a change would reflect "modern historical stands" is balderdash. Furius (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose a change. You were right to test the temperature, but it's very cold, as it very often will be for such changes. Johnbod (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for your thoughts. I will not be making this change! Delukiel (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)