Talk:Julius Caesar/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Tusculum portrait

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I agree with the need for a citation in making any claims about the bust chosen for the infobox. I didn't participate in that discussion, but I believe it's preserved in Archive 1. I thought the original wording of the caption was fine, but the "probably" might be misplaced; it's pretty certain that it's a surviving bust of Caesar, but only quite likely that it was actually made in his lifetime. I also don't think we should go so far as to word the caption in a way that asserts it was made "from life," which implies that he sat for it—that it, that the artist worked directly from the living model.

According to Paul Zanker in the article he contributed to the Blackwell companion to Julius Caesar (not cited here), the only certain portraits made in Caesar's lifetime are the coin profiles. The Tusculum bust conforms to those, and is the "name bust" in the typology of Caesar's earliest portraits that depict him according to the conventions of Roman realistic portrait sculpture of the late Republic. During the reign of Augustus, we start to get the idealized, Neo-Attic portraiture which yield the handsome J.C. bust that's more famous and which I think at one time illustrated this article. These aim to make Caesar look more like Augustus, or more accurately, the image of Augustus that the princeps and his heirs wished to promulgate.

I would prefer Zanker as the source because he's a specialist in Julio-Claudian portraiture and Augustan art. (His WP article doesn't really do a very good job of either explaining why he's notable as a scholar—he's a standard citation on Augustan art—or the scope and importance of his English-language publications.) There's nothing inherently unreliable about the other source, but it's very broad in scope, as the title Alexander to Actium would indicate. It isn't the best source for dating a bust of Julius Caesar, or describing the circumstances in which it was likely to have been created. Thought I should explain at length here, since an edit summary can lack nuance and sound unduly curt. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer you didn't delete perfectly reliable sources and keep re-adding what has been addressed as copy-right infringment. If you object to "from life" (which i can understand) then a simple edit fixes that, but one expert is not more important to the article than another...especially when one does not contradict the other. Do not remove references because you prefer one over the other.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't need extra sources for something uncontroversial. The sentence "a bust of Caesar believed to have been made during the life of the ruler" is much clumsier than "the only surviving bust probably made in his lifetime". It also contains unnecessarily confusing terminology: "the ruler"? Was he ever "the ruler" as such? And even if we accept that he became so, was he one when this bust was made? One cannot claim "copyright infringement" over a short simple descriptive phrase. The version you deleted also contains more useful information than the clumsier longer one. BTW, many of the things you say in your edit summary are very misleading. The fact is that you did make a drive-by deletion without making any effort to even look up the facts. Just chopping off content in that arbitrary way is very properly frowned upon. Paul B (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but a copyright infringement is any copy that is already published by a person that retains the right to copy and a drive by deletion is a single edit that is only a deletion and does not do anything more...I referenced the fact (and any claim not referenced may be removed...period). Removing a reliable source in favor of another reference that does NOT date the bust or contradict the other reference IS.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Also...this is indeed a controversial statement. If you calim this bust is the only one depicting the ruler and yes...he was a consul, a ruler or Republican Rome considered by many to be the first emperor of the empire, than you indeed do need a reference for that claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but it isn't. Short phrases using normal descriptive language cannot be copyrighted. The phrase "Portrait of William Shakespeare", for example, is not copyrighted because it happens to have been published by someone word-for-word. Your edit was indeed a single edit that deleted and did nothing more. That's exactly the edit that Cynwolfe referred to. Rewriting history to shore up false claims to infalibility does not put you in a good light. What you say about "removing a reliable source" is utter rubbish. Replacing one source with a better one is standard practice. You are displaying all the characteristics of an editor who needs to have "the last word" to "win". This is not a helpful attitude at all. Your last sentences in the second post seem to make no sense. You were the one who called him a "ruler". We don't need to reference that. We don't need it at all. What's most shocking, is the fact that every edit just makes the sentence more clumsy almost to the point of absurdity. Paul B (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Discuss the edit not the editor, your lack of civility is not helpful at all or you accusations about reliable sources. The source was both accurate and reliable and your edit is just pushing out information that has been added and addressed all concerns. That is edit warring. There has been no rewrite of history the dating is accurate and the term ruler caould be used, but you diputed it so i altered it to address your concerns. You just reverted out of spite without any policy to back you up.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, Zanker's is the more expert opinion on the matter. Pointing that out is not an "accusation of reliable sources". If you really want to discuss edits, rather than editors, you might care to drop the accusations of spite and edit-warring, and assume that we're all working towards consensus here. You started this business when you deleted useful, uncontroversial material. Your subsequent long-winded, double-cited "ruler" edit evidently didn't and doesn't address all concerns (even with "ruler" removed), as you claim. Else others would not have challenged or changed it. And now we have "The "Tusculum portrait", a bust of Caesar believed to have been made during the life of the figure.[1] (mid-first century B.C.)[2]"? Haploidavey (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I don't doubt who may or may not be the greater expert (nore is it a matter of my liking it or not), only that one not being as great is not an excuse to remove information in an incivil manner and make accusations in the edit summary or edit thuggary by calling it a "Drive by deletion". Yes, it is an accusation of reliability if you are claiming one academic is greater than the other and therefore the "other" should be excluded". Wikipedia takes a different view with copyright and even a sentence lifted too closely can be an infringement. But if consensus is against that all I can do is take it to the Noticeboard and frankly that just makes the person that added it look bad. I'll ask in passing on an editors talkpage for thier opion.

Whether or not Zanker is the greatest academic expert on Caesar or not...he doesn't date the object. So the addition of the Green reference is a good addition...even if we are sticking to the text as it was...although I am still advocating for the additn of the exact dating mentioned by green. Come on. Caesar was born at a point in time that we can tell much closer by even a mid century dating. It could well mean after his death. It could well mean a lot of things, but is better than just..."in his lifetime". But thank you very much for adding to consensus on this.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the date is redundant if we say it was made during his life. It clearly represents Caesar in his maturity, which places it in the mid-1st century BC, given that the infobox provides bio dates. If I understand the previous discussion on image selection, this bust was preferred over the more familiar Augustan-style one because it's more likely to represent what Caesar actually looked like—hence "made during his life" is more informative for the reader than the bare date. Peter Green is a fine scholar and translator whose work I enjoy, particularly his essays in Arion, but the page snippet I can see in preview reads like a short photo caption, so I'm not sure whether he's discussing the portraiture of Julius Caesar, or just providing an illustration to go along with his survey of the late Republic. Although Zanker is preeminent in Julio-Claudian portraiture and Augustan art, and Green in the Hellenistic period more generally, I would certainly be interested in having Green weigh in. If Amadscientist can help us out with two or three sentences of context from the book, which he must have enviably at hand if he can see more than the mere snippet I do, then we can integrate Green's perspective, if it differs from that of Zanker on the question of whether the bust was made during Caesar's lifetime or shortly thereafter (Green seems to agree that it does depict Caesar). Would that be possible? Zanker may be sufficient and even the best source for the claim we want to make, but we could offer an explanation in the note that some disagree on the identification or dating of the bust. Perhaps Green has a note on that? Cynwolfe (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

IMO long captions on lead images can be useful (I'm responsible for a shockingly long one at Anne Whateley). But that's only if the length is useful. The wikilawyering should stop, I don't believe there sare an real copyright concerns; that's just a weapon being used is this increasingly obvious battle to "win", which is the real problem. However, the matter can be raised at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The last version I created was made without reference to any source, so I do not see how it can conceivably violate copyright. It might be useful to know why the sculpture is believed to be contemporary and even have additional commentary on the evolution of his image. Paul B (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There are no copyright issues. Having four ordinary words in common with the source text, and these four not even presented in the same sequence, doesn't violate copyright, and the footnote attributes the thought. Keeping the Green footnote, however, implies that he too says the bust was made during Caesar's lifetime, when the snippet I can see just dates it to the mid-1st century BC—which could include a few years after Caesar's death. I await Amadscientist's summary or quotation of what Green says about the bust, since I'm sure he can't be arguing for the inclusion of a source he can only see as a snippet preview out of context.

And yet, you still make the accusation of Wikilawyering now. LOL! It isn't a war or a battle...I found the quote when researching Busts of Julius Caesar for work I am doing for Wikipedia on Julius Caesar. Dating these busts is difficult as not many people have done much work that I can find and feel it is far too close to what Zanker wrote...but if you object it is not a point I will battle over.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you addressed the inelegance of the caption, Paul B, but I still like your original one better, with the slight move of the adverb to modify the time frame rather than the ID of the bust. Part of the bust's importance is that it may be the only one made during Caesar's life. That's pretty special, and it's what the source says. I can understand requesting a citation for such a claim, but it's not a fringe position, or an attention-getting argument from a young scholar or an archaeologist who wants to publicize something he just pulled out of the Rhone. And I agree with you that it serves the reader to explain the significance of an image. The "Depictions" section could use a paragraph on the tradition and issues of portraiture. Zanker's contribution to A Companion to Julius Caesar would be good for that. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It is pretty simple. Zanker does not give a date. Caesar lived for about 66 years. One claim (with the reference) states "during his lifetime" and preserves whatever the editor feels is special about that, however the other reference was a relaible source that dated the bust more to the end of the man's life which is far more accurate to an adult sculpture. Sorry Cynwolf, but elegance is not something we strive for and edit warring out an editors contribution simply because you don't like it is not a part of consensus...it's just an attempt to shut out the editor.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is on the side of the caption pretty much the way it was with the added ref and works for me. The "Depictions" section could use expansion as Cynwolfe stated and I support that.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I don't support adding a ref based solely on a Google snippet. It's an insubstantial basis for an argument, if none of the parties can see the context. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a full Google preview online. The reference only need be verifiable and accessible. The publication can be checked.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deification

I split this off from "aftermath" since (a) it's a fairly different topic from the killers and partisans squabbling for the empire and (b) Caesar's Comet needs greater prominence in the article than a single link in the "see also" section, which makes it look like an unrelated event. Octavian certainly tried to use it to solidify his position relative to the killers and Antony and, while we can mention modern theories about its nonexistence, comet or nova, &c., it certainly showed up on the coinage and apparently featured on Caesar's temple statue.

Should the cult be in the "legacy" area?

It would, in fact, be nice to have an entire section (even if only an overview + link) giving more details about Caesar's cult, but I don't have the right sources to manage. Anyone? — LlywelynII 11:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

We've a section or two on the basics and background in our Roman Imperial cult article. I think we need at least a link to that section; the next section (in that article) explains some of the attitudes to the Divus Julius, and Octavian's use of the same. I know the material fairly well; in terms of a legacy, the Divus Julius cult was a bit of an oddity - how much more of an overview d'you think this article needs? Haploidavey (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Interim, I've inserted a new subhead and piped a link from this article to what seems the relevant material. Haploidavey (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Divus Julius redirects to this article; I wonder whether it ought to go to a more specific treatment of the divus business? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder that too. I don't think it a useful redirect; the title and status belong to a very late chapter in his life (and death), and though he's the first divus, he's not really typical. I've linked to what I consider the most relevant and explanatory section of Imperial cult (ancient Rome)'; are you suggesting a separate article for Divus Julius? Or Divus? Haploidavey (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that if someone wanted to develop an independent article dealing with this, that would certainly be possible. However, for the redirect at present I'm only suggesting that it go to the most informative section in an existing article. (I was leaving the choice of section entirely up to you or someone else.) There would be no technical obstacle later if Divus Julius were to be developed into an article simply by replacing the redirect tag with content. I set up redirects often in the hope that they'll be articles someday, like Sacrifice in ancient Roman religion (currently a section link, potentially a complete article). Then I link to the future article title, because it's easier to remember and saves time fixing links later. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"Astonishing 27-day route-march to Spain" is impossible

The distance of this march, Rome to Obulco, (modern day Porcuna) is normally quoted as being about 1,500 miles or 2,400 km. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Munda which seems close to being accurate. 56 miles a day (89 km.) for an individual is an extremely fast for a single day. Moving an army that fast on foot every day for a month is impossible. Not difficult, but flat out impossible.

There are many exaggerations and errors in history, and this is one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucktrack (talk • contribs) 13:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a good question. I haven't studied this in detail, but from what I can gather from a quick look, the likely explanation is that it was Caesar and a mounted guard who made the trip in that time, not the whole of the army, which may have set out earlier from a staging area such as Cisalpine Gaul. He may have been catching up. Suetonius evidently says twenty-four days, and the cited passage from Plutarch doesn't support this account — as is often the case when I start looking too closely at the footnotes for this article. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The military historian Theodore Ayrault Dodge (Caesar: a history of the art of war among the Romans, p. 433) seems to confirm what I was thinking. Dodge notes that Caesar had quartered his legions in the municipia when he went to Rome, and that he "had his legions strung out from Gaul to Sicily. He was not well concentrated and had to make many changes to accord with his new plans" to head to Spain. Stationing some troops in Apulia and along the Adriatic, he "ordered the Eighth, Twelfth and Thirteenth legions back towards Gaul … and concentrated these and Fabius's three in the Narbonese." Only after doing this does he himself leave Rome. So in our article, "march" is incorrect. The army did not march from Rome, where in any case it had not been, but rather the force bound for Spain had been massed in the Narbonensis prior to the siege of Marseilles. The siege is a primary obstacle for the "march to Spain" timeline, which had been bothering me. Dodge's narrative confirms that the legions bound for Spain are sent ahead. Still don't know what to make of Suetonius's 24 days, and don't know what the other ancient sources for this, if any, might be. Suetonius mentions this chunk of time in a discussion of Caesar's literary output, not in a narrative of military campaigning. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"Caesar made an astonishing 27-day route-march to Spain, where he defeated Pompey's lieutenants" Very interesting. That makes sense and it appears we agree that using the word march is misleading as used in the above quote from the article. I believe it should be reworded because it is widely believed he actually marched his legions from Rome in 27 days. http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62339&page=9 Bucktrack (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I see it still says "After an astonishing 27-day route-march" To me, it's neither a march nor a route-march. Here's a reasonable definition of route-march: "a practice march in peacetime or one at a distance from the enemy in wartime in which troops maintain the prescribed interval and distance but are not required to keep step, maintain silence, or hold their arms in any one position." There wasn't a march, or a route march, that distance in that period of time, even if that's what history reports! Wouldn't this be more accurate: "Caesar made an astonishing 27-day journey to Spain, where he defeated Pompey's lieutenants." Ceasar did, not his legions. Bucktrack (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

quaestor/praetor confusion

In the 7th and 9th paragraphs of the Early Life and Career section, there is mention of both a Quaestorship and a Praetorship. Did Caesar actually hold both of these positions or was this just a typing error? thanks Ws04 (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a typo. Just needs some kind of clarification, like adding the year ("after his praetorship in 62" or whenever it was), since his election as praetor is not otherwise mentioned. The timeline can also seem confusing because he did two stints in Spain. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 September 2013

Please change the birth place in the top biography from Rome to Rome, Italy to be more specific and helpful ERROR011001 (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The article itself is called Rome, not Rome, Italy, which is a redirect. It by far the most common use of the name. Paul B (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

birth date minus death date seems not to agree with "age" noted at death date

suggest one of the three numbers be adjusted so that the set appears to conform to generally accepted rules of arithmetic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.57.4 (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Caius vs Gaius

Why is only the name Gaius used in this article, although that is not the name used in ancient times? ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Because that's the form most modern books use, and Wikipedia goes by secondary sources. As far as I know, the name is rarely spelled out in Latin sources, instead abbreviated to C., whereas it is spelled out in Greek sources, where it's written with a gamma. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I had thought Wikipedia existed to educate people, not to perpetuate errors and myths. ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It's neither an error nor a myth. The name was always pronounced Gaius, as Quintilian says: "C is used as an abbreviation for Gaius" (Institutio Oratoria, 1:7.28) and as the Greek spelling with a gamma shows. When it was spelled out in full, it was spelled Gaius. The traditional abbreviation to C. dates back to before the letter G was introduced into the Latin alphabet, when C could stand for both sounds. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 October 2013

Please, change this statement "Caesar also wrote that if Octavian died before Caesar did, Marcus Junius Brutus would be the next heir in succession" in Dictatorship and Assassination. It was Decimus Brutus, not Marcus Brutus, who was named an heir in the second degree. Appian, The Civil Wars Book II 143.1: "Most of all did it seem pitiful to them that Decimus Brutus, one of the murderers, should have been named by him for adoption in the second degree; for it was customary for the Romans to name alternate heirs in case of the failure of the first. Whereupon there was still greater disturbance among the people, who considered it shocking and sacrilegious that Decimus should have conspired against Caesar when he had been adopted as his son." 95.188.140.129 (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This was brought up last year and not implemented. That and an earlier comment ("One doesn't have to accept Syme's case, however beguiling, that if a Brutus was Caesar's son, it was Decimus, not Marcus.") causes me concern as to whether this change has a consensus. Regards, Celestra (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The edit request is nothing to do with Decimus being Caesar's son, it's about him, rather than Marcus Brutus, being named in Caesar's will, and is sourced. The statement that Marcus Brutus was named in Caesar's will is not sourced. I will make the change. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

official nomenclature / inscription

Pompey has an "official nomenclature" which I believe was how an Ancient Roman's name was inscribed on monuments, etc. Similarly, the inscription IMP•C•IVLIVS•CAESAR•DIVVS used to be included in Julius Caesar (as mentioned here) but has since been removed. I think it should be put back and possibly modified by the addition of CN, F and N as per Pompey's inscription.

Perhaps this should be put into in the {{Infobox monarch}} transclusion? Let me know if this should be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rome instead. --AlastairIrvine (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Latin?

Under Caesar's "Early Life and Career", bright grey eyes (oculis caesiis) should in fact be *Oculi Caesii*. Oculis Caesiis is the latin plural ablative/dative form for grey eyes, not the plural nominative form that it should be. I believe the translation in the historia augusta of oculis caesiis is "with grey eyes" referring to the color of eyes Caesar had "borne" which is correct but for the sake of political correctness it should be changed to the nominative form.

Please correct me or ignore this if I am incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bension Tran (talk • contribs) 05:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2014

yo, the group leader that killed him was not lead by Brutus mannnn 38.100.106.130 (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The past tense of the verb to lead (as in "lead us to victory, Caesar") is spelled "led". The metal is spelled "lead" (as in "Caesar led the Romans wearing armour made of lead"). Yes, the words sound the same, but one's a verb and one's a noun mannnn. Also, a group leader can't be led, by definition. What do they teach you in Lemont? Paul B (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: If you want to suggest a sensible change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2014

change spelling of "pompey" to "Pompeii" 174.96.203.10 (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The person is called Pompey in English. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image

I have removed this image from the infobox:

Image A

It was added without discussion and I felt that to include it as the main image it should gain a consensus from concerned editors. What do others think?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I am at a loss to understand why you would just remove a perfectly legitimate image, leaving it empty. The infobox should have an image. If there is one you prefer for some reason, say so. The infobox should have an image which has a reasonable claim to historical authenticity, not, say, a painting by a 19th century artist. I am restoring the image, since, contrary to your edit summary, there simply no rule that there has to be "consensus" to add an image. Indeed there already was an image. All the the editor who changed the infobox image did was rearrange the order of the images. Unlike you he did not remove a legitimate image Paul B (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

An image is content. All content requires a consensus. You claim the image is "perfectly legitimate and has "reasonable claim to historical authenticity" No...actually it doesn't. I looked and can find no references to the bust being created from the living person. Also, before this image there was another image that had some consensus of editors and your edit warring to place this bust back without any reasoning is not an argument. I am removing the bust in good faith as you are simply incorrect. The infobox does not need to have an image and the main image on this page has a history of being a contentious issue. Please wait for others to weigh in and do not edit war. If the consensus of editors is to return the image than it should be returned, but I have a legitimate concern, have challenged the current image. Clearly you want it and I don't. There is no consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Image B

• Image B had a long standing consensus for use until a more legitimate bust was located that was created during the lifetime of the dictator, however there were copyright issues and it was deleted. I would prefer an free version of that bust, but if we can't find one I prefer the image B bust.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You say "all content requires consensus". That's utter nonsense. Content is changed or added to articles all the time without requiring discussion on talk pages. But the central point is that you are emptying the infobox for no reason when we have many legitimate images to choose from. We can have a debate about which is the best, for sure, but leaving it empty is wholly the wrong approach. Your behaviour, IMO, is disruptive. Also your accusations are without merit. Reverting an edit is not "edit warring". You reverted an edit, one that was made quite a while ago without any objection, so the term applies equally to you. It seems you believe that when your edits are reverted it's a case of "edit warring". When you do it, it isn't. There's a term for that: double standards. I am not "in favour" of this sculpture. I simply reverted to return to the status quo with an image in the infobox as required. I don't really care which of many acceptable images are used, but removing the image altogether and leaving the box empty is wholly contrary to policy and good practice. You say "I looked and can find no references to the bust being created from the living person." This comment reveals remarkable ignorance. There is no evidence that the other bust was created "from the living person" either. However, the removed image is thought to be from the 1st century, which is as close as we can reasonably expect to get. The bust with the greatest claim to date from his lifetime, found a few years ago, is not one of which we have a free image. I can see no argument whatever in your assertions, which appear to be "I don't want it" and nothing more. There is little doubt, as far as I know, that the Kunsthistorisches bust is authentic (i.e. a genuine ancient Roman antiquity). According to an article by Ann H. Allison in Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, 1975 it came to Vienna from Catajo (cat. Nr. 1 1493). It is displayed in the museum's Roman sculpture gallery. Paul B (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to dance with you Paul. You've been here since 2002 and are one of the most experienced editors I have ever come across. If you want to discuss me and my behavior, I would understand if you felt compelled to take the dispute to ANI. A bold edit that removes content is not a revert weeks or months after another editor's bold edit. It is a removal and is a Bold edit in itself. Reverting then discussing is normal, but you have not demonstrated the burden of evidence to add the content back. What is bust A's claim to historical authenticity as you said. How is this a better image for the info box than the older image that had a previous consensus to use or why shouldn't we even consider something else with more historic context? There is no right version. If other editors feel bust A is the better image to use by the strongest argument consensus is clearly formed. It doesn't even generally take that long but I do feel the image in this article should have a discussion to decide. Bust B is from Trajan's forum is considered one of the earliest depictions of Caesar from A.D. 117—138. All you have demonstrated is authenticity (i.e. a genuine ancient Roman antiquity). --Mark Miller (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)).

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2014

add 3D anaglyph of César d'Arles in depictions

• 
  3D anaglyph of the marble bust found in the Rhone River near Arles

Dromeuf (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done. As has been gone over endlessly, that's not Caesar. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Per previous discussions, cf. Arles bust. Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2014

Please change

Despite greatly outnumbering Caesar, who only had his Thirteenth Legion with him, Pompey did not intend to fight. Caesar pursued Pompey, hoping to capture him before his legions could escape.

to

Caesar pursued Pompey to Brundisium, expecting restoration of their alliance of ten years prior; to wit, throughout the Great Roman Civil War's early stages, Caesar frequently proposed to Pompey that they, both generals, sheathe their swords. Pompey refused, legalistically arguing that Caesar was his subordinate and thus was obligated to cease campaigning and dismiss his armies before any negotiation.

because it better illustrates the relationship between Pompey and Caesar at this time, after the Triumvirate and their views on the Roman Civil War.

Historical.edu (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. CTF83! 01:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Assasination

I looked through the article, and I know the original messenger could not get to Caesar but wasn't there someone in that mans place who actually TOLD Caesar he was going to be killed but Caesar shrugged him off? BustaBunny (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Speculation adds nothing unless you have a reliable source to such...but thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, sometimes on Wikipedia people can be helpful by posting relevant replies instead of what you just did. For example, did you know that I actually have reliable sources? Not really, BUT if you had instead shared your thoughts on the matter, than you may have found out!

I mean I could just randomly wreck the whole article, but why do that if there is a talk page. I though that was the whole point of these talk pages, so I don't do that. Gets a consensus together ya know? BustaBunny (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Besides the threat to vandalize the page...do you have a source? Consensus is not based on original research and speculation. Yes, you could do a lot of things...and you can also be blocked for doing it with a threat now hanging here.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The editor made no such threat. Yes, this is the wrong page to be asking a question, but a new editor can't be expected to know that. Bustabunny, asking questions about aspects of history should be done at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. This talk page is for discussing improvements or alterations to the content of the article, not for asking questions about the subject matter. Paul B (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Paul I missed this so my response is a little late but that was considered a veiled threat and was part of the reason the editor was blocked.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

But as for the original question, it stuck in my mind and I just found this source if anyone feels it is pertinent info for the article. <ref name="Cawthorne2005">{{cite book|author=Nigel Cawthorne|title=Caesar|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=afRytnsjGocC&pg=PA102|year=2005|publisher=Haus Publishing|isbn=978-1-904950-11-0|pages=102–}}</ref>--Mark Miller (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Notes section

This article is badly in need of a "notes" section. Many of the references are in fact "notes". Cosprings (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

edit request by erlinger.3 30 March 2003

The following line from the Wikipedia page on Gaius Iulius Caesar is wrong: On Caesar's return to Italy in September 45 BC, he filed his will, naming his grandnephew Gaius Octavius (Octavian) as the heir to everything, including his name. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar) In his Life of Caesar, Plutarch clearly states that Caesar left every Roman citizen a considerable gift (Plutarch, Life of Caesar, 68.1). This statement is echoed in other ancient authors, but perhaps more importantly, it is accepted as fact by R. Syme in his seminal and monumental The Roman Revolution (1939, Oxford University Press) on pages 98-99. Indeed, Caesar's giving a fair amount of money to every Roman citizen is perhaps one of the reasons that the Roman population did not revel in the dictator's assassination and drove the assassins out of Rome, a key step in the civil wars that enveloped Rome after Caesar's death.

True, although I disagree with your claim as follows: Caesars giving a fair amount of money to every Roman citizen is perhaps one of the reasons that the Roman population did not revel in the dictator's assassination".

The Roman people LOVED caesar his reforms reinvented Roman society and benefited various less fortunate classes in ways the standing Republic under previous pro-consuls could have never imagined,his only true enemies were that of the senate and rich landowners who despised his idealism and wanted to overthrow him on the charge of attempting to usurp principled Roman Government to a loathed dictatorship. Ad-15-Alhlam (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Intro Picture

Why a sketch of the bust rather than the actual picture 'of it?
Thus i posted the actual picture of the the Bust (and not a sketch of it). Problems anyone???
(Agilulf2007 (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC))

Yes.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Abbott

I am seeing references to an Abbott as a reference, but this isn't explained anywhere, the first time it is mentioned in the article, the full reference should be supplied. I assume this is a reference to History of Julius Caesar by Jacob Abbott, but I can't confirm it. Those references should be cited by the full reference at first or removed if it can't be confirmed. Sephiroth storm (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a blind guess here, but Frank Frost Abbott seems a more likely candidate. I'll take a trawl through the article history, see if I can find the work cited (could be one of several). Haploidavey (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI, here's the relevant diff. An editor (who seems no longer active here) seems to have bolted on part of Wikipedia's article on Roman Constitutional (?) History, while omitting that article's supporting sources. And thus has it been ever since... so will fix this article's refs accordingly. Haploidavey (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Though it's now as should be, I've a doubt or two over its use as a source in our article, purely on the grounds that scholarship on Roman Constitutional history (and Caesar's role in the same, of course) have likely moved on a tad since the 1900's. On google-scholar, modern scholarly works neither cite nor appraise Abbott, fwiw. No, wait a bit. A couple cite him, but for works other than this. Haploidavey (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2015

Please remove Cleopatra from the list of spouse(s) on the info box on the right-hand side. While Cleopatra was a lover of Caesar's, she was never his wife or official spouse since he was married to Calpurnia at that time. Cleopatra herself was officially married to Ptolemy XIII and then Ptolemy XIV during her relationship with Caesar. 66.117.129.3 (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• PX Done --Stability (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a related comment. The article contains the statement "Caesar and Cleopatra never married, as Roman law recognized marriages only between two Roman citizens."

The wording of that sentence is misleading in implying that there would have been a marriage if not for that law. That seems very unlikely for a large number of reasons (and anyway to imagine what might have occurred without the law is unsupported speculation). Better to shorted it to just "Caesar and Cleopatra never married." IBrow1000 (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@IBrow1000: That still implies that they would have married. "Caesar and Cleopatra were not married."? Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: I agree that flows better into the following sentence of that paragraph. I am going ahead and making the edit. IBrow1000 (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Typo

Looks like there's an accidental "Piny the Elder" in the text. Apologies for any procedural cock-ups, I'm not a frequent contributor. 2601:646:8200:C050:CFEA:74E7:B745:90CC (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Presuming you meant the one in the Julius Caesar#Health and physical appearance, Done. And thanks for catching that. Cannolis (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2016

Add in (Personal life, Health and physical appearance of Julius Caesar) a new research published on Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology "Celiac Disease Could Have Been the Cause of Caesar's Epilepsy." Giulio 1987pascal (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)http://journals.lww.com/jcge/Citation/publishahead/Celiac_Disease_Could_Have_Been_the_Cause_of.98260.aspxGiulio 1987pascal (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

In 2016, academic student Imparato F. published the article "Celiac Disease Could Have Been the Cause of Caesar's Epilepsy", arguing that atypical form of coeliac disease can rightly be included among the possible causes of the Emperor’s ailment. Indeed signs such as “ Very pale man of notable thinness, affected by alopecia”, giddiness, recurrent headaches, depression and obviously epilepsy, (description handed down by Plutarch and Suetonius), may also fall outside of apparent gastrointestinal manifestations, in 10% of patients with coeliac disease. Therefore, Imparato F declares how it’s difficult for neurocysticercosis and strokes explain an inherited event, and for the latter, placate with typical Mediterranean diet, based on spelt, bread and cereals.

See Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology:Celiac Disease Could Have Been the Cause of Caesar's Epilepsy. Imparato, Fabio.doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000558

Giulio 1987pascal (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done. Your request doesn't specify how you think the text should be changed. Try searching epilepsy in the talk page archives (see top of page). It's far from certain (even highly unlikely) that Caesar had epilepsy or any other major health problem. Statements by ancient sources are not grounds for diagnosis, let alone prognosis, at a distance of 2,000 years. Please also read Julius Caesar#Health and physical appearance, which imho is already overburdened with such theories. Haploidavey (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Simply add this new theory below the others which are exposed in the paragraph; at the end of paragraph "Health and physical appearance".

However, sincerely I don’t have any idea what do you mean for “let alone prognosis”, since I did not expose any prognosis, and the article that I have mentioned does not talk too. Therefore, this is an encyclopedia, which should aim to convey accumulated knowledge, so that it may be used as a work of reference. Considering these facts, I suppose that the article about Caesar’s ailment should report all hypotheses claimed by researches, advanced in course of years, or anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giulio 1987pascal (talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

On the prognosis, you're right. You didn't mention it, and nor does your suggested source. Apologies. However, that does not detract from my argument against inclusion. Such theories emerge with some regularity from fields completely unrelated to the scholarly study of history. This article must be based on works by modern historians, published by reputable publishers and appraised by their peers. And it's not wikipedia's job to report all hypotheses and claims about anything and everything. A positive review of the paper and its theory by a reputable specialist in the field of Roman history (not medicine) might justify its use here. As far as I can tell, no such review exists. Sorry. Haploidavey (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, if consensus among those who watch this page favours the inclusion of the source and content, that's fine. So far, I've been the only one to respond. Any takers? Haploidavey (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I think your considerations are probably right. I just want to advance the idea that all founded and published hypotheses, based on symptoms, handed down by historical sources, should be considered at the same way; Obviously regarding their plausibility. I have found it plausible and then i have made a request, no more than that. I just hope that historians will consider it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giulio 1987pascal (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Massacre of the Usipetes and Tenchterhi

So why exactly isn't Caesar's massacre of the women and children of the Usipetes and Tenchterhi mentioned here and our article on the Gallic Wars? This is a whole lot harder to ignore with all the media coverage of this massacre in various media outlets (for example [1], [2]–the latter referring to the event as "genocidal").

We should be vary wary of this sort of exclusion. It's unfortunately typical of Wikipedia's coverage of figures important in Western history. For example, until fairly recently there was no mention of the particularly nasty elements of Charlemagne's (massacre, religious warfare) and Hernando de Soto's legacies on their respective articles (actually, the de Soto article still seems to have been written by a tourism agency). :bloodofox: (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

well it actually depends on which place you are from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.204.184 (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

I can't figure out how to change this - the article summary right under the page name has some nonsense in Spanish that looks like vandalism. Helikophis (talk) Helikophis (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"In 48 BC, Caesar was given permanent tribunician powers"

I was unable to find this claim on the given source page (Abbot, page 135: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hn6hzq;view=1up;seq=139), nor in the adjacent pages, nor in the section that later deal with 48 BC. Please correct me if I'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skoskav~enwiki (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

According to Christian Meier in his biography of Caesar, Caesar was merely granted the honor of sitting at the bench in which the Tribunes sat at "in order to document his special relations with the plebs, and its representatives." Chapter 13, section titled "The Campaign in the East", 4th paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahvuh (talk • contribs) 03:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julius Caesar. 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/20101129220004/http://virgil.org/caesar/ to http://virgil.org/caesar/

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) 15:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Julius Caesar. 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/20071209113843/http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext05/8cesr10.txt to http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext05/8cesr10.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113125550/http://cliojournal.wikispaces.com/The%20Assassination%20of%20Caesar to http://cliojournal.wikispaces.com/The%2BAssassination%2Bof%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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julius Caesar. 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/20120322013940/http://hsc.csu.edu.au/ancient_history/personalities/rome/caesar/caesar.html to http://www.hsc.csu.edu.au/ancient_history/personalities/rome/caesar/caesar.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) 18:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

where and how insert this text:Christianization of the pagan cult of Julius Caesar

Caesarius of Terracina is the saint chosen for his name to replace and Christianize the pagan figure of Julius Caesar; Then there is the Julian, associated with Saint Caesarius, in Italy, whose church at the Imperial palace on the Palatine in Rome, recorded from the seventh century, shows that the name was interpreted in terms of the imperial title that originated with Julius Caesar. Caesarius of Terracina also achieved prominence because a church, the imperial chapel, was named after him by Valentinian III, an example of a saint with a suitable name being chosen as a patron. Caesarius was the obvious patron for the chapel of the Caesars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frangpan (talk • contribs) 11:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Gigantic IVLIVS CAESAR in the infobox

What purpose does this serve? It's not done in any other Roman bio articles that I've seen, and it doesn't add anything. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

False statement Deleted. Julius Caesar was NOT undisputed master in 48 BC

Article falsely said in note a: "

"Caesar ruled as undisputed master of the Roman Republic from 49 BC until his assassination in 44 BC. During the time, he served as either dictator or consul, or both"

But in 48 BC Caesar was in a civil war vs Pompey and Senators. Thus I deleted the statement claiming he was undisputed master that year. The year 48 BC had a big time of dispute. (PeacePeace (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC))

What is the antecedent of the pronoun His?

Article says,

"Bibulus attempted to declare the omens unfavourable and thus void the new law, but he was driven from the forum by Caesar's armed supporters. His bodyguards had their ceremonial axes broken, two high magistrates accompanying him were wounded, and he had a bucket of excrement thrown over him. In fear of his life, he retired to his house for the rest of the year, issuing occasional proclamations of bad omens"

To what person does the pronoun His in His bodyguards refer? The closest possible noun antecedent is Caesar. Does the editor mean to say that Caesar's bodyguards had their axes broken, then Caesar had excrement thrown over him, & Caesar retired to his house? (PeacePeace (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC))

Name in inscription form

Is there a reason that this article lists Gaius Julius Caesar's name as it would appear on a classical inscription (where it would actually appear as C. IVLIVS CAESAR) rather than according to modern conventions, as per almost all the other articles about ancient Romans (i.e. Pompey, Caligula, Augustus, etc.)? Should this not be changed?2601:85:C202:150:D87C:5C45:DE74:D320 (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2018

please may I edit Wikipedia because some of the information is wrong Shmamem (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for permission to edit the article. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article; however, you can do one of the following:

• If you have an account, you will be able to edit this article four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
• If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this article.
• You can request unprotection of this article by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. An article will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Illyricum - southeastern Europe?

In the section detailing military campaigns it reads

' With the help of political allies, Caesar later overturned this, and was instead appointed to govern Cisalpine Gaul (northern Italy) and Illyricum (southeastern Europe), with Transalpine Gaul (southern France) later added'

By normal definitions Illyricum refers to the area convering modern ex-yugoslav countries, which whereas south-eastern Europe normally refers to Romania, Bulgaria and Greece. I suggest an edit to '(Adriatic Coast)' or '(West Balkan)' or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjenn987 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed minor edit to "Early Life and Career" paragraphs 3 and 4

I suggest a minor edit to the following (part of paragraph 3 and 4):

Following Sulla's final victory, though, Caesar's connections to the old regime made him a target for the new one. He was stripped of his inheritance, his wife's dowry, and his priesthood, but he refused to divorce Cornelia and was forced to go into hiding.[19] The threat against him was lifted by the intervention of his mother's family, which included supporters of Sulla, and the Vestal Virgins. Sulla gave in reluctantly, and is said to have declared that he saw many a Marius in Caesar.[14]

Caesar felt that it would be much safer far away from Sulla should the Dictator change his mind, so he left Rome and joined the army, serving under Marcus Minucius Thermus in Asia and Servilius Isauricus in Cilicia. He served with distinction, winning the Civic Crown for his part in the Siege of Mytilene. He went on a mission to Bithynia to secure the assistance of King Nicomedes's fleet, but he spent so long at Nicomedes' court that rumours arose of an affair with the king, which Caesar vehemently denied for the rest of his life.[20] Ironically, the loss of his priesthood had allowed him to pursue a military career, as the high priest of Jupiter was not permitted to touch a horse, sleep three nights outside his own bed or one night outside Rome, or look upon an army.[21]

The following is structured more clearly and logically:

Following Sulla's final victory, though, Caesar's connections to the old regime made him a target for the new one. He was stripped of his inheritance, his wife's dowry, and his priesthood, but he refused to divorce Cornelia and was forced to go into hiding.[19] The threat against him was lifted by the intervention of his mother's family, which included supporters of Sulla, and the Vestal Virgins. Sulla gave in reluctantly, and is said to have declared that he saw many a Marius in Caesar.[14] Ironically, the loss of his priesthood had allowed him to pursue a military career, as the high priest of Jupiter was not permitted to touch a horse, sleep three nights outside his own bed or one night outside Rome, or look upon an army.[21]

Caesar felt that it would be much safer far away from Sulla should the Dictator change his mind, so he left Rome and joined the army, serving under Marcus Minucius Thermus in Asia and Servilius Isauricus in Cilicia. He served with distinction, winning the Civic Crown for his part in the Siege of Mytilene. He went on a mission to Bithynia to secure the assistance of King Nicomedes's fleet, but he spent so long at Nicomedes' court that rumours arose of an affair with the king, which Caesar vehemently denied for the rest of his life.[20]

Because: The sentence "Ironically, the loss of his priesthood had allowed him to pursue a military career, as the high priest of Jupiter was not permitted to touch a horse, sleep three nights outside his own bed or one night outside Rome, or look upon an army.[21]" is relevant to Caesar's relationship with Marius; not his supposed affair with King Nicomedes.
Fantasticawesome (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Very small number of links to other wikipedia languages

Not sure how to check if that's true or what to do about it, but it seems like there are very few links to the page in other languages on wikipedia. At least one, the Arabic version ([[3]]), is definitely missing Samiam (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrong years in his history?

I sadly don't know the correct years, but in his "Dictatorship and assassination" section there are several little mistakes with the years of the historic events, just as a short example:

"Near the end of his life, Caesar began to prepare for a war against the Parthian Empire. Since his absence from Rome might limit his ability to install his own consuls, he passed a law which allowed him to appoint all magistrates in 43 BC, and all consuls and tribunes in 42 BC.[97] This, in effect, transformed the magistrates from being representatives of the people to being representatives of the dictator.[97]"

I am impressed he managed to appoint things up to 2 years after his death ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.61.248 (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Latin IPA

I'm glad someone finally got rid of that ridiculous inscription format as the "Latin version" of Caesar's name. However, I think that we should give the IPA of the classical pronunciation. Anyone up for that?Ermenrich (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see it's in a footnote. Wouldn't it make sense to place it on the top? Also, there's really no reason to claim that his "Latin name" is in all caps.Ermenrich (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Ermenrich, there's a discussion related to this ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome‎, which might benefit from your input. Furius (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)