Talk:Gaius Suetonius Paulinus

A note about his name
When Tacitus refers to Gaius Suetonius Paulinus by one name, he almost invariably uses "Suetonius" rather than "Paulinus". I think we should stick to that for consistency's sake, and have followed that in my redraft. --Nicknack009 22:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have now added the following as a section in the article:
 * When Tacitus refers to Gaius Suetonius Paulinus by one name, he almost invariably uses "Suetonius" rather than "Paulinus", and this convention is used here. It should however be noted that many later sources prefer to use "Paulinus", as "Suetonius" is usually understood to refer to the historian.


 * I'm a bit surprised it has not been added previously in the last seven years. It would also be nice to have a Reliable Source for the statement 'When Tacitus refers to Gaius Suetonius Paulinus by one name, he almost invariably uses "Suetonius" rather than "Paulinus"', as it currently arguably looks uncomfortably like illegal Original Research by NickNack009. Also I'm no expert so I could be completely wrong, and have thus cautiously merely referred to 'many sources', but in my admittedly limited experience before coming across Wikipedia's Boudicca article a few hours ago, it was not just many sources, but all sources (Google shows that it's clearly no longer anything like all sources, though I've no way of knowing how much of this has always been the case, and how much is the result of over 7 years of using Suetonius on Wikipedia). And I'm not sure that Tacitus wasn't either trying to avoid confusion with some other now forgotten Paulinus in his day, or perhaps trying to damage his contemporary and possibly rival historian Suetonius by trying to ensure that when people said Suetonius they meant Paulinus rather than Tacitus's rival. After all, though the historian Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus is known by his middle name, this at least seems relatively unusual - Publius Cornelius Scipio is not known as Cornelius (and neither is Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus), Marcus Tullius Cicero is not called Tullius, and Gaius Julius Caesar refers to himself in his writings as Caesar, not Julius (and so on, probably ad infinitum).


 * As for the convention itself, I'm not too sure it would ultimately be such a good idea to reverse it more than 7 years later on, but had I been aware of it at the time I think I might perhaps have strongly objected, on the (perhaps deluded) grounds that we would be unwise to introduce confusion that others had (perhaps) spent almost 2000 years wisely and successfully avoiding. And, even though I'm not sure we should actually reverse it, I think it just might be a good idea if we gave at least some thought to the possibility of reversing it (both here and in the Boudicca article), in the hope of just possibly reducing such long-term confusion (as well as quite possibly to avoid continuing to promote a possible deliberate error by Tacitus). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As the lack of inline citations shows, this page was substantially written before Wikipedia's policy on cites became as strict as it now is. If reading Tacitus counts as original research for what Tacitus says, then I'd have to plead guilty. But all mentions of GSP in Tacitus are linked to from the references, so anyone can check. I'd point out that Suetonius is not a "middle name" in the modern sense - it's the first half of his family name, and there was some flexibility in how Romans referred to each other. According to Sallust, Caesar referred to Cicero as "Marcus Tullius" once in the Senate, and in early modern English he was sometimes called "Tully", although obviously he was and is most commonly known as Cicero. The emperor Augustus was born Gaius Octavius Thurinus, but was known as Octavius, rather than Thurinus, before his adoption by Caesar. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'm no great fan of Wiki rules myself. Have you any views on the argument that using 'Paulinus' may reduce confusion? And incidentally, do you know whether Suetonius the historian ever mentions the general, and, if so, what he calls him? Tlhslobus (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not uncommon, in ancient Rome or modern times, for two individuals to be known by the same name. Full names can be used in the event of ambiguity. I've had a quick search of the online text of the 12 Caesars at Lacus Curtius, and I can't find any instance of Suetonius Tranquillus mentioning Suetonius Paulinus. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Governor of Britain?
Needs a bit of a clean up here guys. It says here that he became Governor in 59...yet the wiki for Nepos, claims Nepos died in 57, and Britain didn't have no Governor for 2 years so one is wrong. I have seen sources that claim both 58 and 59, but none for 57....but I am no historian but someome must know enough to correct or edit this DarkMithras 2011CE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.246.129 (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

fugitives or refugees?
Mona is described in this article as a "refuge for British fugitives" as well as a center of the druids. The former though seems, to me, to be suspected - were they fugitives of British tribal laws, or Roman laws? If they were fugitives of Roman law it would probably mean that they had been given high standing by the Romans, such as citizenship, else they would have been dealt with by their own local law. Then what does Tacitus mean? does he mean that Mona was harboring fugitives from Roman Law or British Law - and as Mona was not within the conquered territories of Britain until Paulinus invasion. Is there a distinction being made between British fugitives and British refugees? Why did Tacitus choose the former term? Was he correct or was he more politically motivated. L Hamm 19:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Or were the fugitives deserters from the auxiliaries, or the legions? Either way we should be able to confirm it. L Hamm 19:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Image
I have removed the image in this article, which had a caption that claimed that it was an artist's impression of 'Suetonius Paulinus, the imperial governor, returned from campaigning in Wales to London'. It is in fact a painting by Chris Collingwood entitled AD 61, depicting 'cavalry and legionaries (plus an auxiliary Hamian archer) of the XIVth Legion' (http://www.directart.co.uk/mall/more.php?ProdID=2405). It is therefore arguably only partly (if at all) relevant to his life and career, and I've removed it accordingly. Michael Fryer 08:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Another image is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/suetonius.shtml --Snek01 16:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Boudica's fate
the article states unequivocally that boudica took poison. even the period historians are in disagreement over this, with tacitus saying so, and dio saying that she took ill and died. the history channel documentary dissembles, and says that all that is known with certainty is that neither she nor her daughters were taken captive.i think some note needs to be included to this effect. if a credible source for suicide by poison exists, then that needs inclusion.Toyokuni3 (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)