Talk:Augustus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Got the better of him

A quote from Tacitus says that Anthony's self-indulgence "got the better of him." I nearly changed this as being unencyclopedic but decided to refrain since it was within quotes. Obviously the translator from took some liberties, as the best ones do, when translating, since this is most likely does not translate literally from the Latin. Bringing up a larger point for all articles - when must an editor accept a tranlated statement? When may s/he do her/his own translation? Student7 (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm by no means an expert in WP policy regarding this, but I would say only when absolutely necessary. I would check for a better translation, and if none can be found, discuss what you propose as the translation. If no one objects/if there is consensus, then add it. Hope this helps and seems reasonable. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Main page worthy!

Nice! I knew all that hard work would pay off. You better be thanking me from above Augustus. Lol. On second thought, he'd probably have me cut down by his praetorians for adding criticism about him in the article. :P Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

While it seems like a pain, prompt warning of vandals on their page tends to discourage 80% of them, particularly the ones who have just started. It is worth the time.Student7 (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What does a deletion of the article contents actually bring anyone? Admins might have to think about people doind that but, on the other hand, why would (and is) people so stupid to want admins to half-protect articles only for them not to be able to delete their information. If they are not even half-protected, what is the achievement then? 134.60.10.143 (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Some clown inserted a racial slur at the end of the paragraph on Augustus's early life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.29.176.83 (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Augustus Stepfather

In the Early life Section, there is the following sentence: "Philippus never had much of an interest in young Octavius. Because of this, Octavius was raised by his grandmother (and Julius Caesar's sister), Julia Caesaris."

However, in the Main article: Augustus' Early life (link on the page) and in the Main article about Lucius Marcius Philippus (link on the page) the following sentence can be read: "Philippus cherished his new step-children as if they were his own."

Both statements seem to contradict each other. I suggest that some expert check the sources and decides where Philipus cherished or ignored Octavius!!!

Aeneas10 (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC) You are right in sayin that these statements directly contradict each other and that is one of the greatest problems with ancient historical texts. It is because one of the ancient sources says the one thing and another the other. Such is the unreliability of virtually all Roman texts.

Astrologer's warning

In the article, it says, "An astrologer had given a warning to his father. However, his father decided to keep the child despite the warning (rather than leave the child in the open to be eaten by dogs)." Does anyone know what the warning was? It was something to the effect like, "he will murder the father to marry the mother," like Oedipus, then I can see it being at least something that is note worthy. But to have the warning not mentioned, and his father ignoring it, seems to be extraneous and not adding to the value of this article. I can't find a reference to this "warning" and there is none listed. Can anyone verify this, and if so, say what the warning entailed? These two sentences seem so out of place.--69.27.229.11 (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Aeneas10 (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Cassius Dio 45.1 states that Octavian's father wanted to have him destroyed, because he was prophesied to one day wield absolute power- an idea anathema to Romans at that point. Almost certainly this story was created retrospectively, as a lot of pre and early natal legends, of great men in this age, were.

Equestrian or Plebeian?

Under the "Early Life" section, it states, "Octavian only mentions his father's equestrian family briefly in his memoirs". This statement seems to imply that Octavian's father was a member of the aristocratic equestrian order. However, the following paragraph contradicts that by stating, "Since Octavius' father was a plebeian, Octavius himself was a plebeian". One of those statements has to be incorrect. Octavian's father could not have been both an equestrian and a plebeian. The equestrian order and the plebeian class were two separate entities. Equestrians were knights and occupied the lower ranks of the aristocracy whereas plebeians were commoners and made up the lower class of Roman society. --76.89.202.43 (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand the nature of the Roman class system. By descent, you were either patrician or plebeian. By wealth, you were senatorial, equestrian, or in the various other property classes down to proletarian. The two class divisions were separate, and by Augustus' time the distinctionbetween patrician and plebeian, while still there, wasn't particularly important. The ruling class was full of plebeian families and had been for generations. It was perfectly possible to be an equestrian and a plebeian - in fact, most equestrians were probably plebeian. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, Atia Balba was a plebeian, not a patrician, as she was the daughter of the sister of G Julius Caesar Dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.184.1 (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Physical Appearance

I think I added the physical appearance portion months ago but I didn't reference it. I'm happy to see that it's now referenced and left in. I also added some of the physical appearance sections on the other 12 emperors pages from Suetonis's work. Because there is only flattering busts and coin profiles I think the first hand seeminglu impartial descriptions really benefit these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.242.8 (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I also added the bit where it says "commanded by Agrippa" I think it's important this is here. Until recently I was under the impression that Augustus personally led the fleet battle at Actium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.242.8 (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Octavianus

I noticed that there have been some recent edits regarding the emperor's second name. It now states that when adopted by Gaius Julius Caesar, his name became the same thing. I understand this, but Augustus by Anthony Everett, a recent biography, states that he also took the cognomen Octavianus. It also says later in the article that there is no evidence that Augustus ever went by the name Octavianus. This is where I am confused.

In short, was Everett wrong when he stated that Augustus used Octavianus as a cognomen? And why, then, is Octavian such a popular Anglicised version of his name at that period if he didn't use a name it could have descended from?

P.S. Sorry the name of this section is so similar to the previous one, but seeing as they have different subjects, I didn't feel like it was such a remarkable deal. --70.108.158.250 (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to what Everett says, Augustus never used the name himself. He was, officially C. Octavius Thurinus, then C. Julius Caesar, then C. Julius Caesar Augustus. To quote from pp.21 of Augustus by Patricia Southern (a more academic work than Everett's): "it was only when he arrived in Italy that Octavius learned of his adoption, which entitled him, if he so wished, to style himself C. Julius Caesar Octavianus. This combination of names followed the customary Roman fashion, indicating that Octavius had been adopted into the family of the Iulii Caesares from his original family of the Octavii. But Octavius completely ignored the last of these names, laying great emphasis from the very beginning upon his connection with C. Julius Caesar. He immediately began to style himself as such... Thus 'Octavianus' was never used by the young man himself, and in fact he would have taken exception to it. But the name is so deeply embedded in modern consciousness that it seems mere pedantry to insist on the use of any other. The name 'Octavian' has the advantage of distinguishing the first Augustus from the original C. Julius Caesar". Catiline63 (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response to my concern. I will have to check out Patricia Southern. 70.108.158.250 (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for quoting it seems mere pedantry to insist on the use of any other. Why are we doing so? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Like Caligula, Octavian is a name which the historical personage to whom it's attached never officially bore. It's a convenience to call C. Julius Caesar 'Octavian' (as it is to call C. Julius Caesar Germanicus 'Caligula'). Catiline63 (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

True. So? We call Caligula Caligula. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I fail to divine your point. Catiline63 (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

All of your observations are correct. None of them add up to the "pedantry", to quote Southern, of not calling Octavian Octavianus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Augustus was 75 when he died!

Since people keep changing this to 76, perhaps a quotation from Seutonius might help (my bold):

100. He expired in the same room in which his father Octavius had died, when the two Sextus's, Pompey and Apuleius, were consuls, upon the fourteenth of the calends of September [the 19th August], at the ninth hour of the day, being seventy-six years of age, wanting only thirty-five days. [1]

In other words, he was 75. Remember that there was no year "0". ðarkuncoll 17:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Eck's incompetence (factual accuracy tag, October 2009)

Roman Revolution:

This is Ronald Syme's phrase from 1939, explicitly comparing Augustus to Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler. If we are going to use it at all, we should use it correctly, not rely upon a mealy-mouthed translated textbook.

Perusia

Augustus sacrificed (up to 300 of) the senate and equites of the city of Perusia, an allied state. Half of this is more of Eck's waffling - people "executed at an altar" are sacrificed (to the god Divus Julius, not to Caesar's manes); half of this is reliance on an single poor source.

No claim sourced solely to Eck can be relied on, if these two are wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi PManderson. Nice to see you again, and that you still care about the article! I think I have a simple solution for this problem involving Eck's terminology. One part of that article section is exclusively focused on the senatorial proscriptions; the other is about the conflict in Greece followed by the splitting of Rome's territory between the three triumvirs, Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian. How about I remove the sentence referring to this event as a "revolution," rename one half of the section as "proscriptions," and the other as "Battle of Philippi and division of territory"? Does that sound sensible enough? Or perhaps you have a better suggestion than mine (i.e. names for a new subsection or, plural, subsections. But no more than two subsections; there are only three paragraphs to deal with here, after all). Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, what you should do is find a real history of the Civil War, written in English, read it through, and then check all the references to Eck's book. This is not a matter of section titles; the text makes several claims and implications here, most of them flat wrong, and inconsistent with the primary sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you've already mentioned that the city of Perusia has to be specifically mentioned in regards to where the 300 proscribed senators (and many more equites) all came from. Other than that, could you point out these other "claims and implications" so that I know what to research? Being a George Mason alumni, I still have access to JSTOR, i.e. a multitude of scholarly journals located in a very useful online database. I don't have any time to peruse through a library this week or the next, and I am no longer allowed to check out books at George Mason. Plus my local public library is a joke in regards to finding anything scholarly, let alone something so specific as the civil war involving the triumvirs. If I can find something on JSTOR to refute Eck, then great, problem solved, but if not, then I suppose that tag is going to be sitting at the top of the article for quite some time. In the meantime, the "Roman revolution" reference can be excised from the article as I suggested.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that you mention, I can see from quick glance at the article that the purpose(s) behind killing all of these senators and equites is not fully explained. That will change shortly...--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Now here is an interesting quote from p 19 of:

Scott, Kenneth. "The Political Propaganda of 44-30 B.C." Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, Vol. 11, (1933), pp. 7-49.

Cruelty during the proscriptions and responsibility for them must have been a two-edged sword in the propoganda of the Actian War, and doubtless Octavian had to face charges on these scores during the Perusine and Sicilian Wars as well. The testimony of our sources varies somewhat as to the degree of responsibility attaching to Octavian. As would be expected, VELLEIUS exculpates Octavian. He lays at the door of Antony and Lepidus the responsibility for the renewal of the horror of Sulla's proscription and represents Octavian as protesting to no avail and as outvoted by his two colleagues. And again VELLEIUS shifts the responsibility of the proscriptions upon Antony when he remarks that the proscription was begun with the blood of the tribune and practically ended with the death of Cicero, as though Antony had now become sated. In PLUTARCH the picture is one of a cold-blooded trading of friends and relatives in order to wreak vengeance upon enemies. Thus Octavian is said to have surrendered Cicero to Antony, while Antony in turn gave up Lucius Caesar, his maternal uncle, to Octavian. At the same time Lepidus apparently surrendered his brother Paulus to the wrath of his colleagues.

Dio takes much the same stand as as VELLEIUS, for he points out that Antony and Lepidus in the course of their long public career had made many enemies, while Octavian was too youthful to have grounds for hating people. Moreover, he was naturally mild, as was shown by his refraining from severe measures after he no longer ruled jointly with his colleagues. During the proscription he is credited with saving many people and punishing or rewarding slaves as they had respectively betrayed or helped their masters; in short DIO describes Octavian as trying to save as many as possible, Lepidus as being inexorable, and Antony as slaying savagely and without mercy.

pp. 19-20 now:

SUETONIUS' account, as often, seems to be colored here by Antonian propaganda or pro-Antonian sources: "Octavian administered for ten years the office of triumvir rei publicae constituendae, in the tenure of which he for some time indeed opposed his colleagues in their desire to carry out a proscription, but when it was once under way he executed it with greater severity than either of the others. For although they often could be influenced on behalf of many by prestige and supplications, he alone stoutly maintained that no one should be spared, and even proscribed C. Toranius, his tutor, who had been a colleague of his father in the aedileship. . .APPIAN makes it quite clear that Octavian had scores to pay just as did Antony and Lepidus.'

And Scott continues with descriptions of other senators and officials targeted by either faction. It seems that many prominent Romans (Cicero already mentioned in the article) were targeted and killed, some of them very close or even family members to one of the triumvirs. I have to be honest when I say that I am very confused about this fixation on Perusia; obviously all of those proscribed did not come from Perusia. In any case, I will mention in the article that the primary sources have conflicting accounts about the proscriptions, but all seem to agree that at least each triumvir, to different extents, had blood on his hands and used the proscriptions as a means to eliminate political enemies and seek vengeance against the other triumvirs. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: I have split that subsection into two new subsections and used the above material by Scott to include the input of several Roman-era historians. However, I think the input of one or two carefully-placed modern historians would neatly wrap up the proscriptions subsection. If there is any remaining sentence sourced by Eck that you dislike, please make that particular sentence(s) known and I will do my best to fix things and earn the removal of that factual accuracy tag.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. It appears that Appian's estimate that 300 senators (and 2,000 equites) were proscribed is a completely different figure provided by the earlier historian Livy, who claimed that 130 senators were proscribed. This is provided by Pat Southern in her Augustus (1998, Routledge), along with the assertion that Appian's estimate seems rather incredible considering how 300 senators was practically the entire Roman Senate in the pre-Caesarian age. However, she does not say anything about the city of Perusia in regards to the proscriptions or the Roman Senate. Please clarify your earlier point above about Perusia; I am still very confused.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's because, for the third time, it wasn't the Roman Senate; it was the town council of Perusia, which (as a free Italian city-state) also called its body "the Senate". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Now I get it. We are talking about two ENTIRELY different events. I am talking about what happened in the city of Rome and elsewhere in November 43 BC; you are talking about the result of a siege against Perusia that took place in March 40 BC. Both events happen to involve 300 senators, although in the former case we are talking about THE Roman Senate, and in the latter case, as you specify, the local senate of Perusia. I was focused on the former because I thought you were still talking only about the section involving the so-called "Roman revolution" which affected many patrician and equite families in Rome, not Perusia.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What are inaccurate information on Augustus?

Hi, I'm curious as to why this FA article of Augustus has to have the ugly tag of factual accuracy is disputed. at the top of the article? If only some portion of the article has been disputed, I'd like to remove the tag, and then put a small section template to pertinent section(s) because the tag serious raises a concern over the credibility of the article itself. If the concern would not be resolved any time soon, I guess this article could not avoid FA delisting, so please give some good and short summary on the dispute. Thanks. --Caspian blue 07:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Name

Although Augustus's full name changed a lot throughout his life, I do believe he ended up legally changing his name to Imperator Caesar Augustus, so shouldn't this be the name first listed at the beginning of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.213.16 (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Censuses of Augustus

I read elsewhere on Wikipedia that it is noted that there was held a census of the population of the Roman empire at the death of Augustus. Of obvious reasons I wonder how many censuses which are recorded from the period of his reign? And I think that is informations worthy of entry into the article. --Xact (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There were 3 Augustan censuses; in 28 BC, 8 BC, and AD 14 (just before his death). See Res Gestae Divi Augusti I.8. Catiline63 (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Names removed

Why were his Imperial names removed? Imperator Caesar Divi filius Augustus, and the names that gave origin to this final form? Dgarq (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

They've not. See note 2.Catiline63 (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

House of the Emperors

The text provides Augustus' burial place, but don't provide your house as an emperor. Can anyone tell me what was the residence of Roman Caesars? NandO ^ta_lk! 21:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Map

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Augusto_30aC_-_6dC_55%25CS_jpg.JPG

This map is wrong,especially where Vistula Veneti and Slavi are located.Vistula Veneti should be close to Vistula and Slavi needs to be at the Dnjester,Borysthenes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Latin name

What's the point of writing his "Latin name" as "IMPERATOR·CAESAR·DIVI·FILIVS·AVGVSTVS"? It's not like we are transcribing his name from a different alphabet; we use the same one they did. The capital letters and interpuncts may have been necessary for an inscription on a stone monument, but not here. This gives the impression that Latin commonly wrote names that way, and that this is an actual name rather than a combination of names and titles. I've seen it on some other Roman articles as well, but most don't have the name written like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and would support it's deletion. It's titulature, not nomenclature.Catiline63 (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

His full title was IMPERATOR CAESAR DIVI FILIVS AVGVSTVS PONTIFEX MAXIMVS IMPERATOR XIIII CONSVL XIII TIBVNICIA POTESTATE XXI PATER PATRIAE. Do a google search of cognomen ex virtute and you will see why his name is correct as written in the article. This was the practice among Romans with certain kinds of honorific titles: to take them as names. We know this because ancient Latin authors told us this, hence the term cognomen ex virtute. Pater Patriae was given as a name to Augustus by senatorial decree as a cognomen ex virtute.[2] This should have been covered in the 2nd-4th semester of Latin and would most definitely would have been covered in a class on Res Gestae Divi Augustus. As for the alphabet, there are several articles written here on wikipedia that talk about the invention of lower case letters during the Middle Ages and the invention of the letters U and J. You can get started with Latin alphabet to learn more. I hope this answers your questions as to why the original author wrote his name that way. You could improve the article by adding a reference to a source on cognomen ex virtute so that those in the future would not assume that the titles could not be his name. Gx872op (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, whatever we want his name to be on Wikipedia, it's still written as if it is carved into stone. The Romans had "lower case" letters, in the sense that they had other styles of writing beyond square capitals. If Augustus ever wrote his own name anywhere he probably would have used Roman cursive. We can just use our own alphabet to write his full name, whatever it is. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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.

In answer to Gx872op: As well as the issue of font (see Adam Bishop), the problem is also one of consistency with other articles. All other articles on Romans (including emperors) limit themselves to the familiar tria nomina and (for Republican personalities) victory cognomina. Thus for example Tiberius is not given as TIBERIVS CAESAR DIVI AVGVSTI FILIVS AVGVSTVS PONTIFEX MAXIMVS TRIBVNICIAE POTESTATIS XXXVIII IMPERATOR VIII CONSVL V (his official name at death) (nor as the simplified TIBERIVS CAESAR DIVI AVGVSTI FILIVS AVGVSTVS) but simply as Tiberius Claudius Nero (birth name), Tiberius Julius Caesar (adoptive name), and Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus (as emperor). Nor is Cicero given as MARCVS TVLLIVS MARCI FILIVS MARCI NEPOS CORNELIA TRIBV CICERO IMPERATOR PATER PATRIAE - why leave full filiation and tribe membership out? - but by the familiar form. The question is, why is an exception here made for Augustus?Catiline63 (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The unstated premise is that the other articles have a consistent theme to them that is somehow superior to this article. The conclusion being that this article should match that theme. These other articles are actually inferior as judged by the wikipedia community. Augustus is a former featured article, and a quick look at its talk page shows that it has had greater attention than other articles. Tiberius is a good article, but not at the level of a featured article. Tiberius has never been released on DVD or CD like this article. I could write an article about a Roman general, use different formatting, and then argue that every article on wikipedia should conform to my chosen format. If I change enough articles to my chosen format, I could argue that the majority of articles use this format, ergo all articles should use this format; however, this sounds a lot like argumentum ad populum. I would point out that also Sulla has the same format as Augustus and also prominently displays his special cognomen ex virtute of felix (lucky), which can be seen on his coins. If consistency is the issue, perhaps a comment on the pagina di discussione of the Italian version of Augustus should be made as well. Same goes for Spanish and Bulgarian, but not German, Portuguese and Tagalog. The English version of Augustus has been selected as the basis for translation into the wikipedia's of several other languages. Although it serves as a model, I don't think that its format should necessarily dominate all other articles, but if for the sake of argument consistency is an issue, I believe there is a stronger argument that other articles should follow this one than the other way around.

As for writing his name in our own alphabet, the article does this in bold letters. It also provides it in Latin. There is nothing false about his name in square capitals, and both are offered. By providing the Latin version from inscriptions, the average reader, who does not know that the letter "U" once did not once exist, will see the name as did the Romans. While Latin cursive is difficult to read as the contemporary Plautus pointed out, block letters would have been more easily understood. For these reasons, I believe that there is a valid point to the way the name is displayed. I see no reason to delete this portion of the article. Gx872op (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems, then, that the only reason to include his name like that is to show that the letter U didn't exist. In that case it would be far more useful to include an image of his name written on a monument, with an explanation of what it all means (which is done very well, for example, in the Arch of Titus article). To present his name as AVGVSTVS, for people who, as you say, don't know that U didn't exist, would suggest his name is pronounced with the English letter V. It is not "false", per se, to say that is how his name may have looked when carved into stone, but it infers that this is somehow natural for Latin to be written. The point of including a "real name" in brackets is to show how the name would be written in a non-Latin alphabet, with a transliteration; for example, Saladin, Darius, Socrates, etc (for Darius we even have the interesting development from Old Persian to Greek to Latin). None of that is happening with "Augustus". We use the same alphabet he used, aside from the few added letters, and, in Latin as much as English, the letters can be written in a wide variety of ways. Why not include the distinctive font of any English company's name (Sony, IBM, the names of London tube stations), why not include the Fraktur for any German born before it was abolished, why not write all medieval names in the particular style of handwriting they used? Why not use, for example, Shakespeare's signature at the beginning of his article? There is nothing particularly special about Roman block letters that requires them to be used outside of stone inscriptions. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. In that case, let me browse through Wikimedia Commons and see if I can find a picture of a stone monument with Latin block letters.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Already in the article is a denarius with the inscription CAESAR AVGVSTVS DIVVSIVLIV. I don't think any free images of the shield of Arles are around. This would be most relevant because it is the exact name in the lead sentence. There may be other copies elsewhere as the sources say copies were sent to all corners of the empire.

The current/former featured article point was indeed an error on my part. My point was only that this article seems to be more of a model to others than vice versa. Gx872op (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gx872op. You write: "Augustus is a former featured article" ??? No, it's not. It is a current featured article, not a former one. I hope this was just a slip of the tongue (or rather, the keyboard). I nominated it and got it passed as a FA on August 31, 2007, and it has not yet had a featured article review to decide whether or not it still deserves this status. As for the Latin name, I for one would not mind keeping "IMPERATOR·CAESAR·DIVI·FILIVS·AVGVSTVS", but as long as we're going to discuss this, we should probably have an up-or-down vote, since the merits of either side have already been presented. Shall we?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The FAC review was very incomplete; if Sandy had run things then as she does now, the article would have been through several cycles of FAC, each concentrating on a different section. It should not be taken as approval of any given aspect of this article; it may simply not have come up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC), one of the reviewers.

In regards to keeping the Latin name, provide your input as "support" or "oppose" below

• Support I find it useful, especially considering Gx872op's argument.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• It's not that I oppose it, I just oppose the way it is presented currently. We could explain it better in a separate section, with an actual image of a monument on which it is written (the Res Gestae perhaps?). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons of consistency, given above. Catiline63 (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support as per reasons above. The actual inscription is mentioned in the Res Gestae but not present there. It is a golden shield given by the Senate of Rome that bears the inscription IMP·CAESARI·DIVI·FAUGUSTO·COS·VIII albeit declined and abreviated. I'm not sure what this shield is called. There is also a marble version that adorns the cover of the Chambers Murray Latin-English Dictionary. If someone has a copy, maybe they could give more history on this shield that Augustus found so important that he wrote about it in his Res Gestae. Gx872op (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The name of the shield is the clipeus virtutis.[3] Gx872op (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Add your input here (sign with ~~~~)
• Oppose current presentation. Adam's original rationale is correct: the quasi-inscriptional form is not Augustus' "Latin name". --Akhilleus (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as incorrect. This form excludes his nomen, IVLIVS, ironically the only part of the name in which a reminder of Classical letter-forms is likely to matter to the reader - if we are going to indulge such pedantries, we should get them right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - I not sure I agreed with a single argument opposing it. It only adds understanding and value to the article by keeping it. Augustun84 (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why the quotes?

Under Rise to power / Heir to Caesar:

This was due to his "inflammatory" eulogy given at Caesar's funeral. . .

Why is "inflammatory" in quotes? If it's a POV issue, then the word should be omitted. If Antonius' eulogy was objectively inflammatory, then the quotes are unnecessary.

Any adjective coming from the Roman historian Tacitus should be in quotes because his account of history draws a very low opinion of the imperials. Other than that, it could also be the opinion of a biographer, but I have heard that word used to describe the eulogy somewhere before. I do believe it is a quotation and should be taken as such rather than an absolute fact. Whether the eulogy inflamed the public or whether the public was already inflamed may not be known. What is known with greater certainty is that a mob burned the capital following the funeral of Caesar. Gx872op (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Predecessor

There is no mention of one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.20.142 (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as the first emperor, he didn't really have one...Catiline63 (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Kind of like asking: "Who was the U.S. president before George Washington?"--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

He might have a point because the predecessor of Odoacer is listed as Romulus Augustulus, or rather Romulus Augustus. Gx872op (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That listing is incorrect. Romulus Augustulus was never a "King of Italy" (or rather dux Italiae, "Duke of Italy") as Odoacer was exclusively, but he was the last "Emperor" of the collapsing Western Roman Empire, which ceased to exist thereafter. Therefore, like Augustus, Odoacer had no predecessor for his title and position, because the ancient Kings of Rome never even had jurisdiction over all of Italia. This was something the later Roman Republic would not fully achieve until territorial expansions towards the Alps in the late 3rd century BC.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Erratta

Can someone please explain in the article how Octavian was adopted posthumously by Julius Caesar? Was it in Caesar's will that Octavian be adopted or did Octavian simply declare himself to have been adopted once he was made ruler? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.165.90.6 (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Octavius was adopted via Caesar's will which he gave to the Vestal Virgins after his return from Gaul because he was so impressed with Octavian's prowess and ability to reach him after all that had happened on Octavian's trip to his uncle. - Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.106.113.84 (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Temple of Augustus and Livia

-This temple is located in Vienne (not Vienna) in France. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienne,_Is%C3%A8re —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.228.12 (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.102.221.171, 25 July 2011

Please edit account of deaths of Mark Antony and Cleopatra - see Stacy Schiff's 'Cleopatra' for more accurate history. Mark Antony killed himself, but was not in Cleopatra's presence, and Cleopatra killed herself more than one week later, almost certainly not by a snake, but by poison.

174.102.221.171 (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. As noted in the template you used, you must provide specific text to be added or changed, say where that needs to take place, and provide sources that support the change. --Darkwind (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from DutchHoratius (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In the section descendants 1.D.I. (Nero Julius Caesar) links to Nero Ceasar which redirects to Nero the Emperor. This is a different person (1.D.V.a. in the list, Nero Claudius Caesar). Can someone change Nero Caesar|Nero Julius Caesar to Nero (son of Germanicus)|Nero Julius Caesar? Thanks in advance!

DutchHoratius (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Done Thank you for noticing this. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

needs better referencing plange 04:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As this was written 5 years ago, we can sefely say it has enough references now, as it is a FA. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Title?

Following his formal adoption by Julius Caesar wouldn't Octavian have been known to his contempories as "Julius Caesar the younger"? AT Kunene (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No, because Caesar was deadSmitty1337 (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Octavian / Octavius

I presume there is some technically correct Latin going on here with regards to the constant change in his name between Octavian and Octavius. But as a humble reader (rather than a Latin purist / scholar / student) it is very confusing. Perhaps the argument has been held elsewhere about the way to handle this, but wouldn't it make more sense in an English language article to use one common "name" for him? Sorry for what might sound like a dumb question, but as I've come here from the main page, I guess I might represent a portion of the readership today which otherwise hasn't read the article. Larkim (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Octavian is the more common form used in English, and should be used consistently throughout the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Is someone going to change it then? Anyone mind if I do, though I'm no authority on these things? Larkim (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not inconsistent. His name was Caius Octavius until he was adopted by Caesar; under the rules of adoptive names, his name then changed to Caius Julius Caesar Octavianus. Octavian is the usual English rendering of Octavianus. The article calls him Octavius before the adoption and Octavian after the adoption; this is correct. It does not need to be changed. Fumblebruschi (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Bah, that's what I get for answering questions without reading the article. I had assumed that the article was switching between the two throughout the text. Still, I think Larkim's question points out that the article could stand to be a little clearer about the changes in Augustus' name. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As per original comment then - it may be technically correct, but still adds confusion to the text. For a modern day example, see David Bowie. He is consistently referred to as Bowie throughout the article, though he only adopted the stage name at a later period in time. This may not be entirely consistent logic to follow through to Roman naming conventions etc, but as a clear and easy to read article it does help. I did consider suggesting that Octavian / Octavius should be changed to Augustus throughout the article on the same basis, but I doubt that would earn any support! Larkim (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I think that would be a bad idea. He was given the title Augustus later in his life.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. So have we concluded? Is Octavian to be changed to Octavius in the name of readability?Larkim (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please no. Some people will come here following links or texts from Octavian; the mention in the first paragraph is not enough. (If anything, change Octavius to Octavian, except for a sentence like Octavian had been born Gaius Octavius Thurinus, Octavius being the family name of his father, and Thurinus...; but when Julius Caesar adopted him....) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Do not change the names based on what a reader might expect. Before adoption, he is as above pointed out, Octavius, after adopted, he is Octavian(us), and after he recieved his title from the senate, he is Augustus. Instead of deciding upon a naming convention ‘to make it easier for readers unfamiliar with the man’, try to make it clearer in how the article is structured, or simply add a small paragraph at the top stating how his name changes. This will also make it clearer for readers which part of his life one is reading about. User:CannedMan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.73.40 (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be added to the beginning of the article so I don't need to read the discussion page to understand why the article is about two guys named Octavian and Octavius:

"His name was Caius Octavius until he was adopted by Caesar; under the rules of adoptive names, his name then changed to Caius Julius Caesar Octavianus. Octavian is the usual English rendering of Octavianus."66.66.149.221 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Throne

No problems with the article about Octavian-Augustus, about whom I know quite a lot. But one factor of the way it is featured on the front page is seriously misleading. The feature says he "inherited the throne" from Julius Caesar,his uncle in 44BC. This is incorrect: there was no Roman throne to inherit, there was no Roman position of king or emperor. Even in later years Octavian-Augustus was very circumspect about any such title, and respected the theoretically dominant status of the Senate. The article itself says clearly that Octavian-Augustus gained his inheritance. I don't know how to edit the front page but I wish someone would. Benyon3 (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw that too, a glaring error. It only appears once on Wikipedia main page. No big deal. Someone digests that. Why don't you change it in the article? Get started on Wiki ....Dave (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! "His inheritance" refers to the financial wealth (along with a few debts!  :) he inherited from his great uncle. And maybe a few loyalties thrown in. It doesn't refer to a non-existent throne. We need to make this clear, but I am not too clear on the exact inheritance myself (probably later in the article. Too lazy to read down). Student7 (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, he's right! The featured article says he inherited the throne. How do you change a feautred article? Got to be some protocol for that! Student7 (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the feature page needs changing to reflect the only thing Octavian inherited from Julius was his estate. From past experience with errors on the main page though only a senior admin has the access to correct this. - Galloglass 14:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

He also inherited his name, was adopted, and was, thusly, basically considered to be Caesar's son (in the Roman context, adoptees were considered to be as much a son as a natural born one). He used this to great effect to gain the loyalty of Caesar supporters. Without this inheritance of name, and without being considered Caesar's son, there would've been little political future for the boy. It is more complex that "inheriting the throne", sure, but you are brushing over things as well.65.0.97.220 (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha! I just noticed that on the main page of Wiki. That's a funny error, but one that needs to be fixed pronto. Or, if not, people can read the article and realize the mistake.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 August 2012

Add to the bibliography: K. Galinsky, Augustus: Introduction to the Life of an Emperor (Cambridge 2012) CaesarDF (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: See below for answer. Mdann52 (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 August 2012

Add to bibliography or Further Reading: Galinsky, Karl, Augustus: Introduction to the Life of an Emperor (Cambbridge 2012), paperback ISBN 9780521744423 CaesarDF (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Done Added to further reading. Mdann52 (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus

Just because he didn't use the name doesn't mean it wasn't his. I'd like to see the name restored.

". . .and assumed the name Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. To capitalize on the magic of his adoptive father's name, he always called himself Caesar, as do most of the ancient sources." (Allen M.Ward, Fritz M. Heichelheim, and Cedric A. Yeo. A History of the Roman People, 5th Ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010), 216.) Also, p. 447 here and pp. li, 46, note 151 here.

Yopienso (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, no response, so I've restored "Ocatvianus" and added yet another cite. Yopienso (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above - his name upon adoption was "Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus". That he chose to emphasise the "Gaius Julius Caesar" aspect does not alter the fact that his full name did include the Octavianus. Marcus Antonius would always refer to him as Octavianus, if only for the opposite reason, to try to deny him the legitimacy of being Caesar's son. For an ancient source, try Plutarch - for instance in his Life of Antony, he only ever writes Ὀκταουϊανóν (Octavianus) when refering to the adopted son of Julius Caesar. Oatley2112 (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A general Roman history which doesn't address the matter of Augustus' 'full' name doesn't really count as a superior source than that already given, above - a dedicated biography of the man which directly addresses the name issue and the wider scholarship on it. The conclusion of the superior source should stand. I might add that the go-to work on adoptive names during the late Republic, Part 2 of D. R. Shackleton Bailey's Two Studies in Roman Nomenclature ('Adoptive Nomenclature in the Late Roman Republic', pp.53-98), states that we cannot conclude either way whether the young Caesar was ever called "Octavianus": "It is often stated that he never himself used the adoptive cognomen 'Octavianus' (cf. Schmitthenner, pp.68 ff), but for triumviral period the evidence to this point is not conclusive" (p.75, 2nd ed, 1991).

So, unless you can trump the prime work on Roman adoptive nomenclature and a dedicated biography of the man, you can't write that the young Caesar was ever called "Octavian(us)". You can write that he *might* have, but not that he *was*. Catiline63 (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure to which "superior source" you refer. The article doesn't say he was ever called "Octavianus," so I don't understand what you're objecting to. The article as it stand now looks OK to me. Yopienso (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

For "called", read "named". The "superior source... already given" is Patricia Southern's autobiography, cited above (in the discussion headed 'Octavianus'). I referred to this discussion when I edited the article back a couple of weeks ago. The article currently quite clearly says that "Octavianus" was part of the young Caesar's nomenclature. Southern and Shackleton Bailey, who directly address the issue of his adoptive name, say that their is no proof that he bore "Octavianus". This uncertainty should be reflected - as it has been for the past couple of years, before the current edits were made. Catiline63 (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd also direct you to the 'Heir to Caesar' subsection under 'Rise to Power'. This presents a correct summary of the scholarly consensus. Catiline63 (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. As Southern says, "But the name is so deeply embedded in modern consciousness that it seems mere pedantry to insist on the use of any other. The name 'Octavian' has the advantage of distinguishing the first Augustus from the original C. Julius Caesar." Let's not be pedantic, then; she herself uses "Octavian." On p. 21 she writes, "Octavian had shown no offence at being addressed as Octavius and not Caesar, even though it may have irked him. . ."

I suggest putting your caveats into footnotes. Yopienso (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The caveats to the use of 'Octavian(us)' were in the article - twice - before you made your edits. Indeed one is still there. That Southern (and others) use 'Octavian' for the sake of convenience has never been an issue, and is acknowledged in the article. The sticking point is presenting it as a name he bore officially - which is by no means certain. In this regard what others called him is immaterial - C. Julius Caesar Germanicus never bore the name 'Caligula', but he was called it by contemporaries and by historians. Likewise while contemporaries and historians may call C. Julius Caesar the younger 'Octavianus', there's nothing to allow us to conclude that he ever bore the name. Thus the vagueries of Roman onomastics. Catiline63 (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of changing

Upon his adoption by Caesar, he took Caesar's name and become Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus in accordance with Roman adoption naming standards. Though he quickly dropped "Octavianus" from his name and his contemporaries referred to him as "Caesar" during this period, historians refer to him as Octavian between 44 BC and 27 BC.

to

According to Roman naming standards, upon adoption by Caesar his name would have become Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. He chose, however, to drop "Octavianus" from his name. His contemporaries referred to him as "Caesar" during this period; historians refer to him as Octavian between 44 BC and 27 BC.

Regards, Yopienso (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Or even:

According to Roman naming standards, upon adoption by Caesar his name would have become Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. To emphasize his connection to Julius Caesar, however, and to diminish his less impressive pedigree, he chose to drop "Octavianus" from his name. His contemporaries referred to him as "Caesar" during this period; historians refer to him as Octavian between 44 BC and 27 BC.

These are only suggestions; I welcome any tweaking or overhaul you might develop to give our readers accurate information. Yopienso (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Trouble is, by the late Republic there was no such thing as a "Roman naming standard" for adoptions - the comprehensive study made by D.R. Shackleton Bailey, cited above, shows this. Several options were open for adoptees, with no hard or fast rules, and not all modified their old nomen gentilicium into a new cognomen (e.g. Octavius --> Octavianus, Aemilius --> Aemilianus, etc.). Some, like P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (adopted by Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius), wholly abandoned their old nomen gentilicium. He became Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio (thus no 'Cornelianus'). Similarly the name of M. Junius Brutus (later killer of Caesar), was officially named Q. Servilius Caepio Brutus after he was adopted (no 'Junianus'). Conversely, D. Junius Brutus (another killer of Caesar), upon adoption by A. Postumius Albinus, *kept* his original cognomen and became D. Junius Brutus Albinus. Other adoptees seem not to have changed their names at all, or only little. P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther still called himself by that name after his adoption into the family of the Manlii Torquati. More famously, P. Claudius Pulcher, adopted into the plebeian Fonteii, merely took the plebeian form of his nomen gentilicium and became P. Clodius Pulcher. Catiline63 (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think everything you have laid down here argues for using the wording "common naming custom" or something similar. The fact that there are multiple options is interesting but not at all overwhelming; it still reduces the infinity of a priori options to just a few. siafu (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Cataline, to be blunt, I think you're engaging in the kind of pedantry Southern refuses. P. Claudius Pulcher's choice of name is famous only because it was controversial. Yopienso (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I think is a good treatment, a compromise of sorts:

Now officially styled C. Julius Caesar, to which the distinguishing extra name Octaviunus could be added. . ." John Hazel, Who's Who in the Roman World, p. 28. Yopienso (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to Catiline63 above, I agree that you cannot rely on the tradition naming conventions to justify the inclusion of the name Octavianus to Augustus' post adoption name. However, I don't think it is immaterial what his contemporaries called him. In fact, the only contemporary extant source, Cicero, although in his letters to Octavianus would refer to him as "Caesar", also refers to him as plain Octavianus on a number of occasions in his letters to Atticus. More tellingly, in his letter to Cornificius, a supporter of the young Caesar, Cicero refers to him as "Caesar Octavianus". Certainly I would think that is sufficient to lend credence that he was styled as CAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR OCTAVIANVS for at least the very early period immediately after his adoption, perhaps from 44 to 43 BC. I don't think it continued after the period of the proscriptions. However, I freely admit that my argument is very much under the banner of WP:OR! Oatley2112 (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 January 2013

To fix the Wikilink to File:Jean-Léon Gérôme - The Death of Caesar - Walters 37884.jpg in Augustus#Heir to Caesar; there's an extra full stop giving a very minor layout problem. 217.155.32.221 (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Minor edit only. Very difficult to see, but I found it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Augustus' age at death was 75

People keep changing Augustus' age at death from the correct figure, 75, to either 76 or, in the latest case, 77. He was born in September 63 BC and died in August AD 14. Adding 63 to 14 gives 77, but from this we have to subtract 1 since he died before his birthday in his last year, and another 1, because there was no "year zero" between 1 BC and AD 1 (see 0 (year)). His age, therefore, was 75. If anyone still doubts this, they have only to consult Suetonius. In Augustus, Ch. 100, he states quite explicitly:

He died in the same room as his father Octavius, in the consulship of two Sextuses, Pompeius and Appuleius, on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of September at the ninth hour, just thirty-five days before his seventy-sixth birthday. [4] ðarkuncoll 10:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Error in "Death and Succession"

On 19 August AD 14, Augustus died while visiting the place of his birth father's death at Nola

122.150.64.245 (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Posthumous Adoption

Uh, this means that he was adopted by Caesar after his death... Caesar died before Augustus. It is a bit hard to understand how Caesar could take actions after his own death. And since Caesar died before Augustus, it would appear that Caesar did not adopt Augustus after Augustus' death. This needs some clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.98.19.140 (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Octavius' adoption by Caesar was specified in Caesar's will, which was only revealed after Caesar's death... Oatley2112 (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well that should be clarified in the text somehow! Do we require readers to scrutinize an article's Talk page? --217.81.180.22 (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree! "Posthumous adoption" is a very strange subject, never done under present-day English/American law as far as I know, and there MUST be an explanation in the text of what that meant! Even for the transfer of property, it is not necessary to adopt someone in order to leave someone your property. You just write the transfer into your will.98.67.173.244 (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Introduction is too long?

Anyone else think the introduction is too long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.47.111 (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No indeed!
98.67.173.244 (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)