Talk:Julius Caesar/Archive 2

Early Life
There is no such thing as the "Moorish" language. Moorish is an adjective for Moors, who were, according to Wikipedia itself, "several historic and modern populations of Muslim (and earlier non-Muslim) people of Berber, Black African and Arab descent from North Africa, some of whom came to conquer and occupy the Iberian Peninsula for nearly 800 years." During the time of Caesar, there were no such people. Could the writer have meant "Mauri"? If so, the word should be changed, I think, to "Mauretanian" or maybe "Berber." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.32.1 (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Assassination clarification
Caesar was murdered in the Curia of the Theatre of Pompey. This article does not actually mention it....but shows a picture of it. Odd. The section of the article I mention also has NO refrences. This may need to be rewritten. I will look for the historical information and add the refrences. Please note the differences between what is stated in this article in regards to what is stated in the Theatre of Pompey article.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Helvetii
"the Helvetii were mobilising for a mass migration, which the Romans feared had warlike intent", which has been disproved, as they were mostly women and children. Terry Jones excellent BBC series says this.--andreasegde (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Helvetii were mobilising for mass migration on to other peoples territory and in order to gain this they needed to engage in fighting with the Auedi tribe and these were friends of Rome so in order to pervent this Julis ceasar battled them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 07:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Death date
The article Julian calendar claims Caesar was killed 14 March 44 BC, according to the proleptic Julian calendar (that is, projecting the rules of the Julian calendar backward from dates in the middle ages that are established beyond doubt). The "Julian calendar" article also claims that the 15 March date that is often described as "the ides of March" is according to the roman calendar that was actually in effect in Rome on the day Caesar died. I don't have a reliable source to say if the "Julian calendar" article is correct, but I do have a reliable source (Blackburn & Holford-Strevens, The Oxford Companion to the Year, 2003, Oxford U. Press) to say that there was massive confusion about the proper insertion of leap years from 45 BC to AD 8. So can someone find a reliable source that explains exactly which calendar the infamous "ides of March" was in? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you put a footnote in discussing this problem, rather than a fact tag which seems to indicate that the whole date is in some sort of doubt, whereas in fact it is one of the better-attested events of its era. c.f. the date of birth Rachel Pearce (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wendy|talk]]) 14:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC) hi peeps!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.155.78 (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope that one of the editors with a better collection of sources than I have can solve this. A footnote saying that there were problems with leap years between 44 BC and now would imply there is no resolution to the matter; I suspect someone has resolved it. I just don't know what that resolution is (the "Julian calendar" article is not well-referenced on this point).
 * We know EXACTLY when he was killed: on the Ides of March of the then-current calendar. It's not clear to me why old-style dates need to be recalculated. I mean, let's say you were born in London on (say) September 8 1708. Once Britain had skipped 11 days to join the Gregorian calendar a half-century later, did you start celebrating your birthday on the 19th? No, the DATE 'September 8' is what had meaningful emotional significance for you, not the precise position of the earth in its orbit around the sun. Doops | talk 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If I was born in London on September 8, 1708, anyone who wanted to could figure out the proleptic Gregorian date, or relate it with precision to many other events in what was then thought of as the developed world. In the case of Caesar, I think it would be worth knowing whether or not the date of his assassination can be related with precision to the modern calendar, especially since, for most of the intervening time, the calendar was named after him. If no one comes along in the next half day or so, I'll change the fact tags to a footnote indicating that there is an uncertainty of about a day in the relationship between the observed Julian calendar and the proleptic Julian calendar from 45 BC to 4 AD due to inconsistent observance of leap years and a scarcity of appropriate records for that period.


 * That seems reasonable. While you're at it you may as well give the proleptic Gregorian date too -- or, now I come to think of it, are they perhaps the same for the first century BCE? Doops | talk 02:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Succession boxes
These succession boxes need to be updated—is there a quick way to do it? OneWeirdDude (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Gaius Iulius Caesar"
fell in lov ewith great wonderful cleo patra who requested a snake that bit her on the breast and after Ceasar comited suicide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.74.79 (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This spelling has been discussed here and dismissed. It has now been reinstated, twice, without edit summary. WP:NC is the policy, and the most easily recognized name is, of course "Julius". I propose sticking with "Julius" and reverting, once again, to the version established after the admittedly brief communal discussion. Editors holding opposing viewpoints: please comment here, rather than just hitting the "revert" button. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe should be included as the correct, though alternate spelling in English? Putting Iulius as the lead word is a bit much in an English article. Shakespeare (Pope?) kind of set the stage (!) on this spelling. Or maybe before that! Student7 (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Also I have an issue with this: "more correctly, Caius Iulius Caesar", the letter "G" was in use by the time of Caesar and the usage of C in Gaius was by that time archaic and only used in abbreviation. --121.216.138.52 (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be about being a factually correct, not about intentionally spreading factually incorrect information to cater to the lowest common denominator. The correct spelling of the name is Iulius not Julius. Nowhere in the proper pronunciation of the name is there a J sound. What uneducated English speakers think it should be spelled like should not dictate the spelling in the article. It would be like the Italian article on George Bush calling him Giorgio Bush because the name George in Italian is Giorgio. - Damicatz (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would hardly call the words of Shakespeare the "lowest common denominator", he is responsible for the practically universal usage of Julius. GAIVS·IVLIVS·CAESAR should be added, certainly but as has been discussed the most widely recognised name should be used. Julius is just an anglicised version of Iulius, just as Pompey is an anglicised version of Pompeius and Mark Antony - Marcus Antonius etc. Do you suggest every anglicised name be changed to the original, even to the point that the inexpert person cannot recognise and find the information they want? --58.168.76.28 (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is what redirects are for so that when you enter an incorrect spelling, it points you to the correct spelling. The point is, his name was never Julius Caesar. He lived long before there was an English language. His nomen is Iulius. Ergo, Julius is incorrect regardless of whether it's merely a translation or not. Again, other Wikipedia versions don't translate English names into their respective languages. Look at the Italian article for George W. Bush. You'll note it still refers to him by his proper name George even though George could be translated into Italian as Giorgio. The only time names should be modified is if the language requires it (e.g for declension). - Damicatz (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The letter 'J' is used to represent the consonant form of the Roman 'I' in the same way 'U' represents the vowel form of the Roman 'V'. Now in most Romance languages 'J' is pronounced differently than as in English, more similar to how the Romans would pronounce the consonant sound of 'I'. You will find many instances where this is the case(Jupiter, Janus etc.). Therefore it is not the letter 'J' at fault it is more to do with the English pronunciation of the letter. Now, do you also suggest that the article be called Ivlivs Caesar? Well capitalisation didn't exist back then so it has to be IVLIVS CAESAR. The point is the alphabet has changed since the time of Caesar, capitalisation has evolved, the letter 'U' has come to replace the vowel form of 'V' and 'J' has come to replace the consonant form of 'I'. To suggest that his name should be spelt "Iulius" is nonsensical because it is using the modern alphabet in some senses but not in others, how can you accept the use of 'U' but not 'J'? Obviously today we use the modern alphabet and wikipedia must also use it. --121.217.207.97 (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Methinks that insisting on the spelling "Iulius" is not unlike saying that the proper spelling of Tokugawa is 徳川, not "Tokugawa". After all, that's how Japanese people spell it and have always spelled it. There's also the point that most people wouldn't know how to pronounce "Iulius" (and many can't, or won't, read an IPA pronunciation key), so if you "fix" the spelling, you likely end up butchering the pronunciation to something used neither in English nor Latin. Or they will continue to pronounce it "Julius", gaining nothing. - furrykef (Talk at me) 17:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Status
In my opinion, this article is ready for a GA nomination. Is there any particular reason why it has not yet been renominated? RomanHistorian (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The only major issue that I can see is that the Civil War section has no citations, but my copies of Plutarch and Suetonius should make citing most of it a pretty easy task. Other than that, it may not hurt to add one or several of the maps on this page. Alexius  Horatius 00:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to bring up one issue to the attention of the editors here. I looked up this article to research whether Julius Caesar declared himself dictator, was elected by the Senate, or whatever the case may have been. The Civil War section merely says, "In Rome, Caesar was appointed dictator," and then "Late in 48 BC, Caesar was again appointed Dictator, with a term of one year." By whom was he appointed? -- or nixing the passive voice (usually an all-round good idea) who appointed him? ô ¿ ô  23:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Assassination of Julius Caesar
most of the infomation in is also on this page. is it nessacary to have two pages with the same infomation? Rdunn (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Alas, yes. Most likely the "main" article was forked from here when it grew too large. A "summary" is needed here. I like to see short summaries myself, otherwise, what was the point of forking? But new editors most likely post stuff here, not realizing there it is or should be in the "main" article, and assume that it is "missing" here (which is true, but it is deliberate!). Hard to keep up with summaries. I like to see ratios of 3:1 main:summary at the minimum and up to 10:1 for long sections. There is no rule, as someone will be sure to tell us, if I don't. Feel free to edit the "summary" here if the stuff is in the "main" article and the detail doesn't seem necessary here. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is fine to shorten this section. However, someone just outright blanked it and I have restored it. We need something in this section. A concise summary is fine. But we need something about the assassination. Cshay (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Early life - drawing
This 19th century drawing looks pretty basic and amaturish, and looks only a little like Caesar (he is balding, I spose). Can we get rid of it? - I'm not sure it adds anything to the article.Catiline63 (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Et
The citation for the translation of et provided does not address this particular phrase, and therefore, I'm afraid, comes under WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. I can only assume that the reluctance to give the literal translation here is connected with a prejudice against beginning an English sentence with "And" - a prejudice without any foundation whatsoever, especially in speech. And the funny thing is, in English "and" can mean all those things too (even, too, etc.), so is by far the best translation here, as it conveys all the possible meanings of et. ðarkun coll 10:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This deletion of relevant, sourced material now seems to be WP:3RR and will be dealt with accordingly. There can be no WP:SYNTHESIS when the material directly agrees with the wording in the source. I will be reinstating, after giving User:TharkunColl time to act to avoid the sanction: see WP:3RR. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made one edit and two reversions. I am not in breach of 3RR. ðarkun coll 13:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is about prejudice against initial "and" per se; in fact, "And you, Brutus?" would be perfectly fine, if the intended meaning is "Okay, now I have seen what those people think about me. What are you going to do to me, Brutus? Are you going to help me, or what?". However, if the intended meaning is "What? Are you too involved in this? Do even you hate me?", which is how the Latin phrase is usually understood, it strikes me as being quite awkward. Then again, I'm not a native English speaker, but I think I am correct in saying that "You too, Brutus?" would be a more natural expression, and hence be a better translation. —Alatius (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "And you, Brutus" covers the second meaning you describe perfectly. Given this, it is perverse to translate it "You too, Brutus". If Caesar, or rather Shakespeare, had meant that, he would have said Tu quoque, Brute. ðarkun coll 13:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Last words
As the Latin version, although the most famous, seems to be a later invention I have moved the "Greek" paragraph above it. Added citation for the source of the "Latin". This will perhaps take some of the heat from the "and" or "also" argument for the Latin translation into English, but it needs to be correct and still needs a tweak. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Kai su also translates literally as "And you" rather than "You too". What's this apparent aversion to using "And" in English, when both the Greek and Latin do so (kai and et)? ðarkun coll 18:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong area of sea
The article said 'His conquest of Gaul extended the Roman world to the Atlantic Ocean' but the empire already had conquered the Iberian penisuluar so was already on the edge of the Atlantic. I have changed this to 'North Sea'. The expansion was more North than West.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  06:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah here is some last words for ya.....how about your beloved julius caesar was a homosexual he better known as every woman's husband and every man's wife........if you dont believe check great song by ras kass called "Nature of the Threat" in which he speaks of origins of racism and homosexuality and much more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.205.146 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of this nature are also historical and it's covered in the lives of the twelve Caesars. Your shit band with their shit song are just spouting probably wuss rock to compensate for no chicks.

Caesar was NOT a "Roman Emperor"
Why is it that so many people (Americans mostly no doubt) think Caesar was a "Roman Emperor"? I see this even in the news media occasionally, which can become truly irritating. He wasn't an emperor, and people who think he was need to stop contributing to Roman history articles. RomanHistorian (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Gaius Julius Caesar indeed was not the first Roman emperor. He was the dictator perpetuus but not an "emperor". his adoptive son Augustus is considered to be the first emperor as he founded the principate. But the Romans themselves not always made the correct distinction. For instance Suetonius included Caesar as the first in his work the Twelve Caeasars. That's probably partly from were the error stems. -- fdewaele, 16 November 2008, 20:38 CET


 * (ec) Do you have any suggestions to prevent this from happening?
 * I notice that while the lead mentions Caesar was dictator for life it's not especially prominent, perhaps this should be moved to the first paragraph of the lead. Also, to help reduce the number of times people feel the need to assert he was emperor, I think it would be worth mentioning the popular misconception that he was emperor in the lead (again, early on to catch the eye). Nev1 (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What an obnoxious thing to say. As though Americans have a monopoly on ignorance (or ignorance of history, in particular). As any number of recent studies have demonstrated, it's a global problem (and, IMHO, predates Caesar himself). By all means, though, enjoy your prejudices; I assume they give you some sort of comfort. Dppowell (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Since editors of this talk page were too busy being indignant for various reasons to address the problem, I've done it myself. Any objections? Nev1 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have an objection, at least the wording you used. The introduction is constructed chronologically, and your sentence move confuses the sequence, making it look like he was dictator before the triumvirate, the conquest of Gaul etc. I have reverted. If you want his dictatorship more prominent, you'll need to do a more fundamental rewrite of the intro. ::--Nicknack009 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I still think that there should be something early on in the lead similar to what I put in, although I respect the lead has an established chronology. Nev1 (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that it's those who say that Caesar was not emperor are betraying their own ignorance. The Romans never had any such office as "emperor" - legally their state was a republic and remained so. However, the English word "emperor" is derived from the Latin Imperator - commander, or commander-in-chief, which Caesar most certainly was, as were his successors. The Romans themselves, as evidenced by Seutonius's Twelve Caesars, certainly considered him the first of the line of dictators-for-life (which he was, of course), and furthermore Augustus claimed his pre-eminent position on the basis of being Caesar's heir. The fact of the matter is that it is only modern convention that claims Augustus as the first emperor. ðarkun coll 22:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Augustus is most commonly recognized as the first Roman Emperor. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Only by modern historians. The Romans themselves had no such concept. ðarkun coll 00:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We gotta go with the modern historians. Emperor Julius? not. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Julius Caesar lived in the Republic and the term Imperator was an honourific. When Augustus was granted the name Augustus by the senate, this was when Imperator started being used as a proper title. Imperator could help a bit. rdunn 11:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that is simply not true. Augustus also lived in the republic, and Imperator was still an honorific. ðarkun coll 11:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Prithee sir that is not what I meant. What I mean was although he lived in the Republic he became Imperator when the empire was formed. Also look at the link of Imperator, it does say in there. rdunn  11:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that's incorrect. The state remained a republic throughout Augustus's life. And you can't use another Wikipedia article as a source, because it might be equally wrong. ðarkun coll 11:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the term changed meaning in the later empire, Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar used it in exactly the same way. Either both should be classed as emperors, or neither. ðarkun coll 11:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they did not. Sure, both Caesar and his heir used the term "Imperator" as an honorific but later Augustus adopted it as his first name, dropping "Gaius".
 * But what you are missing is that the term "Imperator" is of no importance here. We are talking about the English term "Emperor" which is NOT (at the time) the equivalent of Imperator but of the titles "Princeps" or "Augustus". You argument is like a German argument about the usage of "Kaiser" and the Latin name "Caesar" when both mostly do not mean the same thing (this Caesar here was not "Kaiser" and neither was Constantine's son Crispus even though he was "Caesar" for some years).
 * But you are not alone. Similarly confused are sentences like "he became Imperator when the empire was formed" - when was the Roman Empire formed. That's debatable but nowhere in the 1st century BC - it had been an Empire for centuries. But if by "Empire" we mean "the rule of Emperors" (as is stupidly done in English), then the starting point is none other than Augustus. Str1977 (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is going to end up going in circles because of different peoples views I think. what Im am trying to say is that we go with the modern/Roman view of Augustus being the first in the line of dictators (see 12 caesars above) rdunn  13:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Roman view was very clear - Julius Caesar was the first in the line of dictators. Have you ever read The Twelve Caesars? Julius Caesar is first. ðarkun coll 13:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, Julius Caesar was the last dictator ever. Though not in a line of dictators as except for him and Sulla and the office was dormant since 200 BC. Str1977 (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * yes I have read it. I miss read what was said above because I'd just come out of a Roman History (oh the irony) lesson where we were talking about the term "Caesar" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdunn (talk • contribs) 13:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This could turn out to be the "Byzantine" argument all over again. The established modern convention is that Augustus established a new kind of state, which we call the Roman Empire, of which he was the first emperor. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and is not the place to challenge established convention. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We could say Tiberius was the first emporer because he was the first person to accept the title. r d u n n 10:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There is only one possible solution: Augustus was the first "Emperor", by which we moderns (and it is an English term after all) mean ruler of that quasi-monarchical form of government called Principate established by Augustus. It has nothing to do with an Empire (except by backformation) or Res Publica. Rome was always a Res Publica and had an Imperium early on. It did not become an Imperium in 31 BC or 27 BC. Str1977 (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Pontifex Maximus not an "honor"
The section headed Honors (or titles) or some such, lists "pontifex maximus" as among the many titles awarded to Caesar by the Senate during his dictatorship. It was one of his titles—his earliest one in fact—but he got it long before he became dictator or was even terribly well known in Rome. And it was, up to that time, a perfectly ordinary title to have. It cannot be said (which is implied in the article) to be one the titles that provoked his assassination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amboisvert (talk • contribs) 02:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I have amended the section to make clear that he was elected to the office and it wasn't merely a title bestowed upon him by the Senate, which is what it previously implied. Erik the Red  2    03:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Gaul was one of Julius Caesar's enemies he also had more enemies that tried to capture and kill him as well. After Caesar was outlawed by the Senate wouldn't he have to receive his titles again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.166.216 (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Gaius Julius Poop Caesar
For some reason, on the upper right it says "Gaius Julius Poop Caesar". But I can't seem to figure out how to remove it, doesn't appear in the page code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.140.254.10 (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Succession Table
Shouldn't the succession table be placed somewhere before the references/external links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.206.111 (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Coinage Error
The article states the following under the section of Assassination, "While printing the title of dictator was significant, Caesar's image was not, as it was customary to print consuls and other public officials on coins during the Republic." this statement is quite incorrect. While it is true that Roman coins had always been adorned with the images of consuls and other public officials, Caesar was the first Roman to have his image appear on coinage while still alive. This said, Caesar's image appearing on coins is extremely significant and the article should be changed to reflect this. I found this information from A Breif History of the Romans by Boatwright, Gargola, and Talbert printed by the Oxford University Press. Chrisschn (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC).
 * Your book is incorrect, and this is an old topic for this page answered in the archives. Both Scipio and Sulla had coins with their image printed in their lifetime.  Caesar was the first to combine Sulla and Scipio's precedent by a) printing the image himself b) printing the coin in Rome c) printing his image as a bust.  Scipio printed his own image as a bust but not in Rome, although his coins flooded the Roman market (seen by the number of his coins discovered in Italy.  Sulla was the first to appear on a Roman coin during his lifetime, although he did not print it himself and he was not represented by a bust but as a reclining figure with his title of felix.  Caesar did not invent coin propaganda, but combined elements already seen.  Pompey the Great did the same thing.  Augustus took it to a new level himself.  It was more a part of an evolution of numismatic propaganda that occurred over several generations.  76.99.55.47 (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Consorts?
Why are Caesar's wives referred to as "consorts", this word has hugely regal and imperial connotations and only serves to imply that he was some sort of monarch. As has been discussed Caesar was never Emperor and this word just serves to continue the myth that he was. It should also be removed in the interest of consistency as the articles on Marius and Augustus use the word spouse. I would change it myself but the article is locked so would someone please oblige? --121.216.138.52 (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because not all are "wives". Consort has no regal meaning if not preceded by "Queen" or the like. That he was never Emperor has no bearing on whether he was a monarch at all. Str1977 (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. Consort appears only in the infobox. Infobox titles must be fitting to many possible articles. Str1977 (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on consort is inappropriate no matter what the different meaning are, many people will interpret it as meaning Caesar was Emperor or Royal. All three were wives of Caesar so why isn't "spouse" more appropriate? --58.168.76.28 (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't come on. As I explained "consort" is perfectly acceptable and does in no way imply royalty. Queen consort would. Empress consort would. But not merely "consort". And why not "spouse"? Because it is a template - if you want to raise it, go to the templates talk page and raise it there. This article in itself does not contain the word "consort". Str1977 (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations for Cassius Dio
I am using this page to help locate good sources of information on Caesar, but I have noticed that there are no citations for Cassius Dio. For example, under the "assassination plot" section, it mentions things that Dio wrote multiple times, but never cites where those came from. All the Suetonius ideas and quotes are cited well, but why does Cassius Dio not have any?99.154.113.157 (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sexual practices
I have a problem with the following statements in that section: "he had an affair with Nicomedes IV of Bithynia early in his career", "It is possible that the rumors were spread only as a form of character assassination", "This form of slander was popular during this time in the Roman Republic to demean and discredit political opponents", "living a Hellenistic lifestyle based on Greek & Eastern culture, where homosexuality and a lavish lifestyle were more acceptable than the conservative traditions of the Romans". Having an affair wouldn't be controversial, the act of a Roman male being penetrated was. The second bit is pure speculation without citation, the third is just completeley uncited. Homosexuality was never accepted in Greece per se, it was pederasty. And Rome being conservative?

I suggest:

Roman society viewed the act of being penetrated during sex, regardless of gender, to be a sign of submission or inferiority, thus it was only considered socially acceptable for Roman males to penetrate others which included males, usually adolescent slaves or those from the lower classes[128]. According to Cicero, Bibulus, Gaius Memmius, and others (mainly Caesar's enemies), he had an affair and was penetrated by the Greek King Nicomedes IV of Bithynia early in his career. The tales were repeated, referring to Caesar as the Queen of Bithynia, by some Roman politicians as a way to humiliate and degrade him. Indeed, Suetonius says that in Caesar's Gallic triumph, his soldiers sang that, "Caesar may have conquered the Gauls, but Nicomedes conquered Caesar."[129] Caesar himself, according to Cassius Dio, denied the accusations under oath.[130] Featuresaltlakecity (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the Lex Scantinia? There was a death penalty for same sex relationships between free men. Granted there were (many) changes by the time of Caesar but it is surely fair to argue that the conservative segments of Roman society would still regard homosexuality as wrong. Many of these changes were as a result of Hellenisation but I agree it isn't really right to call it a "lifestyle based on Greek and Eastern culture". I agree it has a a lot to do with the act of submission but there is also the aspect of homosexuality not being totally accepted in Rome. --121.217.207.97 (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

date of birth
sorry, I didn't get the point, most probably, but about 80% of the historians and annalists say, Caesar was born on 12 or 13 of July. The rest are more inclined to the 12th. Why did you chose 13th as the date of birth of Caesar? Probably, if you are not sure (because none of us witnessed the birth of Caesar) it fits more to leave just July 100 BC. Because you say citing 12th ant 13th at the same time is impossible, how could you explain the mentioning of 100 or 102 BC? Isn't it the same mistake you are making? Or probably your wife was born on the 13th of July and you love her so much that... Think about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.122.183.66 (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * it all dependes apon what calender you use. rdunn  PLIB  10:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, could you enlighten me on the subject - which is the calendar you used for 13th of July, and which one was used to define 12th of July? It is of interest to me. Thank you so much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.122.183.66 (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * it is either the julian or the gregorian, but you have to remember he was born 2000 years ago so we cant definatley know for the 12th 13th is an aproximation. rdunn  PLIB  11:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is neither the Julian nor Gregorian calendar, but rather the Roman calendar in which this date is expressed. ðarkun coll 11:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but neither the Julian, Gregorian, nor the Roman calendars could explain the difference of just 1 day! Sorry, guys, I do not feel convinced by your citations. I would rather accept that part by rdunn: "he was born 2000 years ago so we cant definitely know for the 12th 13th is an aproximation". So, I would suggest to leave it as it was before - 12 or 13 July, 100 or 102 BC. Otherwise, I think somebody's wife is born on the 13th and the guy wanted simply to make her happy :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.122.183.66 (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC) check the external links and references under the article, supporting the version for 12th: Life of Caesar. Project Gutenberg e-text. p. 67. http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext05/8cesr10.txt.; http://militaryhistory.about.com/b/2007/07/12/ancient-rome-julius-caesar-born.htm; Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Gaius Julius Caesar - just have a look there are articles in support of the 13th - http://www.crystalinks.com/juliuscaesar.html; C. Julius Caesar Jona Lendering's in‑depth history of Caesar (Livius. Org) Who do you believe, is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burta22 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the dissent expressed here. This objective article should reflect the ambiguity in our knowledge of Julius Ceasare's birthday. The citation mentions "There is some dispute over the date of Caesar's birth." 1. We obviously all agree with this question of fact. Then it goes on to refute the 12th being Ceasare's date of birth without offering any evidence that his true birthday was the 13th. "The day is sometimes stated to be 12 July when his feast-day was celebrated after deification, but this was because his true birthday clashed with the Ludi Apollinares." 2.

The Ludi Apollinares being held on the 13th does not mean that his date of birth was in fact on the 13th, but they celebrated on the 12th just to avoid a clash. Where is the evidence of the 13th? Without a proper citation saying otherwise, this article should incorporate the date that has more credibility, that date is the 12 July-the date "when his feast-day was celebrated after deification". Otherwise, this article is misleading and not a proper representation of objective historical knowledge.

Furthermore, according to the Wikipedia article on the Ludi Apollinares the event was held from the 6-13th. Therefore the statement (2) mentioned above is counterintuitive. It states that the reason 13 July was not the feast-date after deification was because of a conflict with the Ludi Apollinares. The Ludi Apollinares would have conflicted with a July 12th celebration as well. "The Ludi Apollinares were Roman games that were held from the 6-13 of July."

Pronunciation in Classical Latin
Is the ‘i’ in ‘Gaius’ really fully vocalized, or should it be a semivowel/consonant in the IPA transcription? Jchthys cont. 03:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of pronunciation, this is the only article on Caesar I've ever seen that says his name was pronounced with a hard C sound in 'Classical' Latin. All C's may have been originally hard in Latin, but by 100bce there were many proper nouns that used a soft C. Are we sure this is correct?StevoDog21 (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Greek texts (Appian, Dio etc) transliterate it with a Κ. I'm not well-informed about these specific pronunciation changes, but in the Romance languages c is only soft when followed by i and e. I know that in medieval Latin ae become e, so presumably the c in medieval "Cesar" would be soft, but while it was still classical "Caesar" it would remain hard - I think. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lede image
Any reason why the contemporary, or near contemporary, bust, possibly a likeness, has been replaced with an "artist's impression" from the 17th century? --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I found that revision strange myself and restored the first century A.D. bust as the lead image.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please comment
On this AfD Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ceaser was a very powerful man... =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.239.194 (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Et tu, Brute?
The article states, regarding Caesar's supposed last words: "The version best known in the English-speaking world is the Latin phrase 'Et tu, Brute?' ('And you, Brutus?', commonly rendered as 'You too, Brutus');[99][100] this derives from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, where it actually forms the first half of a macaronic line: 'Et tu, Brute? Then fall, Caesar.' It has no basis in historical fact and Shakespeare's use of Latin here is not from any assumption that Caesar would have been using the language, but because the phrase was already popular at the time the play was written."

But isn't the phrase "Et tu, Brute?" French rather than Latin?

As French, spoken in an otherwise English passage, it is a perfect (it is, after all, Shakespeare) rendering of Caesar's supposed last words. Cosmopolitan, educated Englishmen of Shakespeare's time would have been fluent speakers of French, just as cosmopolitan, educated Romans of Caesar's time were fluent speakers of Greek. Thus, the use of French in discourse that is otherwise English perfectly renders the social significance of the use of Greek in discourse that was otherwise Latin. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC))


 * It's not French, it's Latin. Brute is the standard Latin vocative of Brutus, and the t in et is pronounced. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Although you're (as Nicknack explains) wrong here, Bob99, there are certainly other examples of the phenomenon you describe. Some of the old Loeb Classics editions of Cicero's letters, for example, render his Greek snippets as French, I believe. Doops | talk 04:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The translation 'You too, Brutus' for 'Et tu, Brute' is correct insofar as et is sometimes used as short form for etiam.--Jkbw (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is really not much special about this usage of et. See, under "H". Iblardi (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it is not, I was just wondering about the translation given at the beginning of this talk.--Jkbw (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the author meant by "Shakespeare's use of Latin here is not from any assumption that Caesar would have been using the language". My schoolboy Latin has faded, but I remember "Gallia Est Omnis Divisa in Partes Tres" as Big Julie wrote, and have always assumed the Romans spoke Latin as their Lingua Franca. Myles325a (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As the guilty editor, I've clarified this bit. Here the context is Julius Caesar, rather than history. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Off-topic afterthought: I was set "Omnia Gallia in tres partes divisa est" with the verb at the end, as quoted here. Was this a consequence of being Old Moonraker, using an ancient edition prepared by an ancient editor, or was this a "student" edition, with JC's grammar adjusted to meet the expectations of the syllabus? Wikisource offers the wording recalled by User:Myles325a. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No clue, but good inquiry.Ceasarswife (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Image in dispute
I have removed the image in the infobox. It is currently disputed as to it's lisence. There is none. Per wiki commons policy; please do not use and spread this image until the image has been properly sourced and licensed.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone object to this one? --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * From the la-wiki? Great!. --Jkbw (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

New image for infobox discussion
Before you make a decision, as part of project illustration (which seems nearly defunct) I have created an image. It may not be acceptable by the members here but you never know. It can be adjusted in any manner as it is Public Domain. Or it can be redone in a more proffesional medium such as oils or acrylic.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If this illustration is not acceptable. I am more than willing to take suggestions and creat another one. What does everyone want? Perhaps a Photoshop version with more realism? Let me know. I am at your service for this project.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh and the old image was deleted.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The first suggestion, as noted in Talk:Julius Caesar, above, is a near-contemporary likeness and so more in keeping with encyclopedic principles. There is also some rather harsh, but possibly relevant, opinion on having a more recent drawing at Talk:Julius Caesar. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As a wikipedia project illustration member I can say, that illustrations by members are acceptable for Wiki....but only with full consensus of other editors.

I have read both sections of the talk page. I don't like the image "Early Life", not because it looks amateurish, but because it falls short of illustrating the subject in good detail.

The other bust you suggested is what the pencil sketch is based on. Most Encyclopedias do use contemporary or modern illustrations for Biographies of deceased person where a photograph is impossible. It brings the person to life to be something people of today can relate to. That doesn't mean this illustration is right for this article.....but it was designed for it.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for completness: this bust was used before the "as suggested by Old Moonraker" version—which I still support—was added as lede image in mid-2007. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Except.....that is the disputed and deleted image. It cannot be used on Wiki and will most certainly be deleted as well. The Licence is invalid as the image is not over 100 years old.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. It's now marked for deletion, but I thought it had already gone? --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick Google search. All versions of that image are not Public Domain and would require permission, however I did find other images of the same bust that claim Public Domain. Is that bust a favorite here. It's one of my favorites. I will endeavor to provide some options.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * External link to a copyright version, to let users know what we are talking about if the WP copy is deleted. I like it too. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It would apear that those images were direct links to the Wikipedia and Wikicomons image.....becuase today....those pics are not coming up at all now with several diffent Google search terms. SO here is an external link to the another copyright version of the bust. It may well have to be used with "Fair Use" rational;--Amadscientist (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I just remembered that a friend of mine made a trip to Italy last year and took a number of phtotgraphs at the Vatican Museum. Let me see if he had this bust in any of his images. He would certainly give permission if he has it. It's a long shot but let me look--Amadscientist (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well.....I did find an image nearly identical to the one deleted on a free clip art site. However.....the image has no author or original source references and no date given so it is likely it was a derivative of the Wikicommons image and it's false claim of Public Domain.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the license and putting the pic back in the infobox. I've increased the size slightly, so that both lead infoboxes align as they did before, but other editors may think that the image is too large as a result. As always, I'm happy to go with the flow.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Survival of Mother
Anybody know any details on survival chances of mothers giving birth by C-Section at this time? Was it a case of baby first and forget the mother, or did they actually have a good chance of survival? A Taxed Mind (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Zero chance. It was try to save the child and forget the mother, I'm afraid... Catiline63 (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

False Petition?
What is this stuff about a "false petition" asking Caesar to return power to the Senate? Not Suetonius nor Plutarch nor Appian mention this. Both simply refer to a session of the Senate at which Caesar was to preside. Plutarch and Appian both say that Tillius Cimber had a petition concerning his exiled brother. The section is footnoted to an Australian article on petitions, which even manages to spell 'Caesar' wrong. Surely better sources can be found. This is one of the most famous events in history! Paul B (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to represent what the ancient sources actually say. Paul B (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazingly this has been in the article for three years, originally added by an anonymous editor in 2006. Paul B (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Family Tree
The "Family Tree" found within this encylopedic listing is incorrect; none of the references sited by the author/authors supports the actual lineage of the House of Caesar: references made to names, birthdates and dates of death are largely in error. In fact names and lineage have been given to persons in this tree, who never existed.

The official geneology, constructed from research conducted over a 1,200 year span by the Vatican, Italian / Roman government officials and the heirs of the House of Caesar / House of Catulus is recognized as GA, but is not publised at the request of the heirs, represented by the heir executor, the Count Miridonova, HRH Regulus Julius Caesar.

It is therefore suggested that this article NOT be considered GA based upon the content of the geneology provided or the descriptions or references made to the "characters" within that geneology as outlined by this encylopedic listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.209.88 (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can identify specific errors, identify then. Most of your post makes proclamations without content, referring to mysterious hidden sources which for some reason we should bow down to. Paul B (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Heirs of the house of Caesar" Lol! Catiline63 (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Link to www.findagrave.com
Hi, today User:Dougweller removed the link to www.findagrave.com due to concerns about non-compliance with WP:EL. As far as I understand, WP:EL contains recommendations, not absolute rules. As there is an article about Find a Grave, and thousands of articles link to it by means of a template, I plead in favour of reestablishing that link. --Jkbw (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

'populares' in intro; and the melodramatic 'master of the Roman world'
I edited the following phrase:

"A politician of the populares tradition"

In a Roman context, the word "tradition" (the usual English word for translating mos) is nonsense as a way to express how the populares operated. "Tradition" implies the sober passing-on of a customary, socially-approved way of doing things. The populares were often reformers, but they were also sometimes demagogues or "radicals," and were regarded as non-traditional. In fact, it could be argued that a primary distinction between populares and optimates was that the latter prided themselves on being traditional and characterized the former as radicals.

The phrase 'master of the Roman world' is also silly, and melodramatic, apparently borrowed from Hollywood, Colleen McCullough, and gaming. It is not a serious term for describing Caesar's place at the pinnacle of the Roman power hierarchy. The word "master" is dominus in Latin, and even if you find Caesar's contemporaries calling him that, the tone is difficult, and carries implications you don't want to parse in the introduction.

It also seems perverse, or obscure, to mention poor Bibulus in the intro, and not Cicero, whom many more readers will come to the article knowing and expecting to see. Though Cicero was not consistent in his support of either side, he leaned toward the optimates.

I know this is a much-viewed, much-edited article, and in the past I've tried to avoid meddling. Apologies for pitching in. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to apologise. I'm pretty sure I'm the editor who used the term "populares tradition", and I did so to avoid giving any impression the populares were any sort of political party, as some older sources characterise them. The optimates/populares conflict as a way of understanding Roman politics has a tendency to mislead modern readers used to a party political system, when the Roman system was ultimately based on the individual politician forming and breaking alliances as needed to achieve the levels of status and influence needed to pursue his interests. Nonetheless, taking the populist path was a distinct and established, if disreputable, way of doing politics in Caesar's day, and Caesar's actions need to be understood in some sort of context. Caesar identified himself as a political heir of Marius, and pursued the land-reform programme of the Gracchi, and I thought "a politician of the populares tradition" was a reasonable shorthand for that for the purposes of the introduction.


 * I agree that Bibulus was a minor figure among Caesar's opponents. Cato was his most determined opponent, and Cicero, probably the anti-Caesar figure of most historical importance in his own right, really only opposed him once he was sure he couldn't be co-opted into the establishment the way the equally disreputable Pompey eventually was. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you completely; I was grateful when I found a good scholar using the word "tactics" as a way of understanding the popularists. And I myself think there's a popularist ideology as well, contrary to the dominant scholarly view. (Though Mary Beard, T.P. Wiseman and others of late have been easing toward that position.) It seems evident to me that the Gracchi were trying to bring about what we would think of as genuine reforms; so too Caesar, sometimes, and even the much-maligned Clodius Pulcher. There's been an over-reaction to the word "party," too, that for instance keeps people from appreciating Lily Ross Taylor's Party Politics in the Age of Caesar, which is still hugely insightful if you get over the word "party."


 * By the way, if you're interested in Bibulus, I recommend: Michael J.G. Gray-Fow, “The Mental Breakdown of a Roman Senator: M. Calpurnius Bibulus,” Greece & Rome 37 (1990) 179–190. Metellus Scipio, Pompey's father-in-law and last consular colleague, is probably more important as an opponent to Caesar. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Deification
The sub-heading "Honours and titles" has : Julius Caesar was the first historical Roman to be deified. Not quite: several are known before him. It might be more accurate to call him the first official divus of the Roman state but there is also evidence - admittedly equivocal in many respects, not least for Cicero's tirade (see footnotes in linked article) - for cult to him as a living divus long before his official apotheosis. See Imperial cult (ancient Rome). Haploidavey (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Good or Bad?
Julius Caesar was assassinated. Do you believe, based on facts, that Caesar's intentions were inherently good or bad? Would you have assassinated him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.92.134 (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not. I would of gladly killed Nero though. --Misortie (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Name
The 'Name' section states that Caesar/Kaiser was his family name, it was actually his cognomen.


 * Yes, that may be ambiguous, but the cognomen could also be part of a family's name, in the sense that it distinguished a stirps (branch) of the gens. For instance, Lucius Licinius Lucullus and Marcus Licinius Crassus don't really seem to have considered themselves as members of the same "family" for any practical purpose. The Licinii Crassi were, however, a distinct family. The Iulii Caesares were indeed a "family" in the sense of stirps. I'll take a look at the specific wording. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think in context this is probably OK. The section is already pretty technical for a non-specialist, given that "Julius Caesar" is such a highly trafficked article — the more people who visit an article, the greater its general interest, and the less specialized or technical it should be. That's why almost every section of this article is cross-referenced to others, so people who want to dig deeper into the subject can, while leaving the article accessible to my 7th-grader. One hopes. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ I agree with Cynwolfe. Samwb123Please read 18:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

what are they wearing in that 16th-century woodcut
What are they wearing in that woodcut is that how people thought ancient roman dressed in the 16th-century is that how they would have dressed in really early antonym and Cleopatra performances —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.73.4 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Julius or Iulius?
Which one is the right standard writing for the name in this and every other page of a Roman Julius? Romans wrote Iulius, but most pages have it Julius. Should it be reverted? Dgarq (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The short answer: The English spelling is unquestionably "Julius", and however the Romans spelled it is irrelevant on the English Wikipedia.


 * The long answer: In fact, the Romans did not write "Iulius", because they did not have the same upper/lower case distinction that we employ. In the formal inscription style, the name would be written "IVLIVS", while the more cursive writing style could be transcribed with our lower case letters as "iulius". The two forms "i" and "j" were originally nothing but alternative shapes for the same letter, and the same was the case with "u" and "v". Only very late (in 15th century maybe) did the practice emerge to use "i" and "u" for the vowels, and "j" and "v" for the consonants. The name was then spelled "Julius", both in English and Latin. Only in the last century or so, the usage of "j" and, to a lesser extent, "v", has decreased in Latin texts, so nowadays you are more likely to see the spelling "Iulius". But in English "Julius" prevails. Alatius (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would only add that obviously passages that directly represent inscriptions would follow the original. Any Latin passages quoted in notes should also faithfully reflect the editor's orthography. The first footnote is a good example of when the form Iulius will come into play: official nomenclature, a technical subject that is properly relegated to a footnote in this high-traffic, general-interest article. So Iulius should not be used when writing in English, and would appear on Wikipedia only in specific and limited contexts. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But this is not about the name in English, is the name in Latin. The Roman names are allways written in Latin on wikipedia, except on articles such as Constantine, in which the Roman name appears after. Dgarq (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This has actually been answered above. So, to reiterate: we aim to meet the needs of non-specialist readers in article titles. Pompeius becomes Pompey in his article, because most English readers know him as Pompey; the article itself tells an enquiring reader his name in Latin. IVLIVS or IULIUS become Julius because that's an orthographically familiar form to English readers; the name itself is still Latin. Haploidavey (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read that, the question is, the names in Latin that allways accompany the names in English, when they're not the only ones. My doubt is if the name in Latin coming next to the name in English (example: Constantine, in Latin Constantinus) should be written, in the case of Julius, Iulius or Julius in the Latin version of it. As you can seen, the name Pompey also appears, before, in Latin. Should a Julius appear as Iulius in its Latin version or not? The first poster contradicted himself, he said the Romans didn't write Iulius but then he says they inscripted IVLIVS and cursively wrote iulius, I just didn't understand. Dgarq (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. The Romans tended to use either all capital or cursive letter forms; they were rarely mixed; in other words, if you're using strict Latin orthography from the era in question, based on epigraphic evidence (contemporary dedications, coins, manuscripts) its either IVLIVS/IULIUS or approximated by our lower case ivlivs/iulius, but not Iulius/Ivlivs. Is that clearer? Just to make sure: it's Julian the Apostate rather than Flavius Claudius Julianus. English name (because that's how he's known by most readers), followed by Latin name using English orthography. If the presentation of a Latin orthography is really justified by your sources, by all means use it but don't include it in short articles simply because you can; keep things crisp and to the point. Obscure names usually have no "Anglicised" equivalent - for example Caius Julius Vercondaridubnus comes from secondary sources (our preferred sources here). These use English orthography. Haploidavey (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I didn't know about the capital/cursive thing. And by cursive I assumed it was referring to hand cursive writing. In my country we don't call it capital/cursive, but "maiuscules" and "minuscules". I knew capital means BIG, but I didn't know about the cursive. Yet, no one answers my question: in the case of Julianus (in Latin Flavius Claudius should we finish that with Iulianus or Julianus? Dgarq (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Julianus. Haploidavey (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

'Literary works' deletion
Someone just deleted the entire 'literary works' section intro. This is ridiculous. Are you saying Caesar didn't really write this stuff? What you mean is that you're requesting citations, so add the tag. The information itself is uncontested. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article is farther, not closer, from being a GA if it presents a Caesar with no military or literary career! Let's at least maintain some words on which to hang those precious footnotes. Wareh (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think even the list of commentarii were deleted, which link to those articles. I recently posted a little article on his poetry but neglected at the time to provide a footnote here — this is little known and might sound dubious to those unaware of it. The paragraph under the list is what needs some support; I flagged that "middle-brow" some time ago but haven't gotten back to it. (A vague term even now, and misleading in ancient Rome.) Interpretive statements about Caesar's perceived purpose in writing require the citation of secondary sources. So I don't think we're saying the section is fine as it is, only that content not evidently controversial shouldn't be deleted without either (a) discussing it here on the talk page or (b) making some attempt to show that it's unverifiable. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction in offspring name: Octavius vs. Augustus
The sidebar says offspring included "Augustus 63 BC–AD 14 (grand-nephew, posthumously adopted as Caesar's son in 44 BC)". The article itself says Octavian/Octavianus, with a parenthetical note that he was "later Augustus". The sidebar should be corrected likewise, but I'll just make the suggestion and leave the actual editing to the regulars. Kkken (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Those who know anything about Roman history will not be confused; those who do not should follow the links, and find that the situation is more complex than an infobox can handle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
group of senators intercepted Caesar just as he was passing the Theatre of Pompey, located in the Campus Martius, and directed him to a room adjoining the east portico.

should be

group of senators intercepted Antony just as he was passing the Theatre of Pompey, located in the Campus Martius, and directed him to a room adjoining the east portico.

Jscoogan (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, that's been bothering me for ages. As soon as I find a ref (the existing one doesn't completely cover our text) I'll get on with it. Thanks! --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Template
Why does the information template on the right have headings like "Consort" and "Royal House". JC wasn't a king or royal or anything like that. I wonder if anyone would have a problem if I changed it to another template? JPotter (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree you should change it. perhaps change it to "dynasty" because that would fit better.Profitoftruth85 (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This has bothered me too. The Roman office of dictator was constitutional, in theory (which is not to say that "dictator for life" wasn't utterly contrary to tradition); it was not a "reign", Latin regnum. Avoidance of the language of kingship (rex, regnum) was an issue very much alive at the time, and something that Augustus paid careful attention to, whatever the reality in effect. The three women listed as "consorts" were Caesar's wives. "Offspring" is also an odd word to modern ears. I'm not recommending any particular language, but it might be worthwhile to distinguish between biological children and the adoptive heir. "Dynasty" is better than "royal house," agreed. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

pjax napolean
Pax Romana Pax Romana means Roman Peace it also is a Latin term talking about how the Roman Empire was in its glorified prime. Pax Ramona only lasted from twenty-seven BC all the way to eighteen AD (witch is about two hundred years). The Roman Empire through the word “PEACE” uses it as a way into there places to get the great Romanization of the western wolrd. In the year sisty-nine AD he so called “year of the four emperors”, following the fall of Nero and the Juilo-Claudian line, witch almost intrupted nearly two hundred years of civil order. Pax Romana also is a state of comparative tranquility throughout the Mediterranean world from the region of Augustus ( twenty-seven BC to Fourteen AD) to the region of Marcus Aurelius (sixty-one AD to one hundred and eight AD ).Agustus laid the foundation for this period of concord, witch also extended to North Africa and Persia. The empire protected and governed  individual province, permitting each to make and administer its own laws wale accepting roman taxation and military control

this is not true dont take it off plz until june 11th 2010

pjax napolean
Pax Romana Pax Romana means Roman Peace it also is a Latin term talking about how the Roman Empire was in its glorified prime. Pax Ramona only lasted from twenty-seven BC all the way to eighteen AD (witch is about two hundred years). The Roman Empire through the word “PEACE” uses it as a way into there places to get the great Romanization of the western wolrd. In the year sisty-nine AD he so called “year of the four emperors”, following the fall of Nero and the Juilo-Claudian line, witch almost intrupted nearly two hundred years of civil order. Pax Romana also is a state of comparative tranquility throughout the Mediterranean world from the region of Augustus ( twenty-seven BC to Fourteen AD) to the region of Marcus Aurelius (sixty-one AD to one hundred and eight AD ).Agustus laid the foundation for this period of concord, witch also extended to North Africa and Persia. The empire protected and governed  individual province, permitting each to make and administer its own laws wale accepting roman taxation and military control

this is not true dont take it off plz until june 11th 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingrelickingpieboy (talk • contribs) 16:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

suggestion for a new link
http://www.history.com/topics/julius-caesar

a lot of interesting work on different aspects of caesar's life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.255.10 (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

'extensive reforms of Roman society'
I'm not actually sure this statement can be supported. It is emphatically true of Augustus, but seems like a gross inflation of what Caesar could actually have achieved in the short amount of time he was dictator. Just as the Republic lurched along for decades after the civil wars of the 80s and the dictatorship of Sulla, there's nothing to say that it couldn't have continued to do so after the death of Caesar, if Brutus and Cassius had won out and if the young Octavian hadn't been one of the great political geniuses of all time. I'm not exactly sure what Caesar is supposed to have "reformed" that dismantled the Republican apparatus of government irrevocably. The point is, however, there is nothing in the article itself to support the statement that Caesar began "extensive reforms of Roman society" (whatever 'society' is supposed to mean here, since the Roman constitution would seem more to the point). Where is this discusssed? More space is given to his sex life. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good find. The problem is that his role as dictator is summed up in the Civil war section and not given it's own section. It should be either renamed dictatorship or given its own section. I'm also not sure about extensive reform but certainly a large amount of reforms were made. That being said, since there was a massive war between caesar's supporters and detractors, they pushed two extreme sides of what really happened and also since Octavian has the same family name of Julia its impossible to know what was done by either.
 * In terms of reforms he started a massive colonization program, created the Julian calendar, increased the number of offices... I think there is a large list of stuff he did, began, or wanted to implement out there.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hadn't noticed Profit's thoughtful response. Agree that his dictatorship should be separate from the Civil War. I'd have to look at the extent of colonization; since I know mostly about Gaul, my impression is skewed to think that most of this was in Gaul as the result of the wars of the 50s there, so what may be at issue is the amount of territory involved, not a change in Roman practice. Since it doesn't accord with our notions of tyranny, his extension of citizenship throughout North Italy is often overlooked, as is his admission of ethnic Celts to the senate. The Julian calendar is a a whale of an achievement, agreed. The number of offices is a fairly trivial point, since these had fluctuated, mostly increasing, throughout the Republic. Sulla tinkered with such things; some of his reforms remained in place, others not. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The end of Mommsen's Roman History is largely devoted to the wonders of Caesar's rule. His tone may be dated, but I believe his facts are sound, and there is a case for including a point of view held by a Nobel Laureate on his field. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I flew off at the word "society." And my predisposition to think that all J.C.'s achievements tend to be exaggerated in retrospect of what Augustus actually did. J.C.'s brilliance (to me) is more of an individual and personal nature. Hence Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, and no Augustus. This is why I try not to edit this article. I have opinions about it. These are not always useful here. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Augustus had fifty years or thereabouts; Caesar had barely sixty months, and was out of Italy for much of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Deaf people
Julius Caesar was just added to the category "Deaf people." The "Health" section mentions no issues of hearing impairment. A quick search through the article of "deaf" and "hear" produces no illumination. I'm aware of hearing impairment on the part of Marcus Crassus, but not J.C. I didn't want to act out of ignorance and hastily, but is this maybe a joke or an error? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. Mystery solved. Have deleted the category and added an explanation. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Works
This article says that some of Caesar's speeches survive. My favorite library catalog shows no trace of them; if they exist, they should be named. (It also shows some other scripta minora, but that may be miscataloging of the output of the nineteenth-century classicist Carl Julius, who apparently wrote under this name in Latin.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * They don't, unless you count Sallust's reconstruction of the oratory from the case involving Catiline's fellow conspirators. Scripta minora are known, but not extant, and even some of the supposed fragments are subject to attribution to his kinsman. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't count Sallust's speech in Caesar's works, any more than I'd count the Funeral Oration as a surviving work of Pericles. Even if one does, it would require far more words than the section will admit. If you haven't removed them, out the speeches go. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, right: I count that as a work by Sallust. I was looking for what might've led to the claim. I haven't edited the section to correct it. A thorough revision might be something I'm tempted by in future. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the article this past week or two?
The article is aesthetically worse, and the introduction is garbage. Who is responsible for this? Somebody should undo every contribution these past couple weeks in order to restore this article's previous state.--Tataryn77 (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is not a place to dump useless modern depictions of every individual in this article. I have fixed this article and have removed some of the less needed images. I'm going to keep a close eye on this article from now on because it seems like it is the most popular article to mess around with.--Tataryn77 (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead section hasn't had an edit in weeks, maybe months. An editor has been adding a number of illustrations — too many, in my opinion — but they seem like good-faith additions, and I'm not sure why you're so zealous about dumping them without discussion. Modern depictions aren't always useless, if they're labeled and explained properly: they show how ancient figures are reimagined in different time periods. There's a lot about this article I would change, but calling something "garbage" isn't a very specific or helpful criticism. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the harsh wording. There was a painting of Cleopatra testing poisons on captives, and an etching of a bust of Mark Antony... at a side angle. The article just seemed like a bungled collage of pictures. Anyways. Its cleaner looking now. Perhaps a better bust for Antony and a new image of Brutus (the article is absent an image of Brutus now). --Tataryn77 (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:TOPIC: Pictures for "every individual in this article" weaken the item and detract from the ones that are relevant; to the casual reader it gives the impression that the editors lack discrimination and judgement and so weakens the authority of the piece overall. I'd really like to ditch all that don't relate directly, but certainly retaining, for example, the "adopted" son Octavius, for the possible family likeness. Views at where to draw the (new) line requested. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I propose there be two images of Caesar - the lead bust and perhaps the current bust already within the article. There should be one bust of Pompey, and either one of Crassus or Sulla (or both? currently there are both). One bust of Mark Antony, Cleopatra, Octavius, and Brutus (currently missing Brutus). Then, I suppose the current images of coins and paintings is fine. Thoughts? --Tataryn77 (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see why the 'testing poisons' thing set you off. Here's an element of presentation I've wondered about. The images of Marius and Sulla are quite large in proportion to those of Caesar himself. (Also, Marius's has a strong orientation, and should be facing to lead the eye into the text, not out of it.) Crassus's is also quite large, even though its identity as Crassus is disputed. Would it make sense graphically, if these supporting players are going to be fairly numerous, to make these smaller?
 * And second, while some may not agree, I strongly believe that captions for paintings should specify the period or artistic movement that produced them, so that the kind of general reader likely to come to this article has a frame of historical reference. I know people can't resist the painting of Vercingetorix's surrender, but its depiction of Gallic armor and equestrian gear is notoriously anachronistic (and the description on Commons is just as bad, noting that Gauls rode bareback — they did not, but rather had a four-horned saddle that's been attested archaeologically, reconstructed, and found to provide rather effective compensation in lance-work for not having stirrups — but I digress.) If the artist is known to have taken a heroic nationalist approach, or some such (Royer, however, seems to have been an utterly eclectic and rather dull historical and mythological painter), this can help viewers understand what kind of interpretation they're seeing. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose keeping Vercingetorix's surrender is alright, that painting features prominently on the covers of a few Caesar books (Caesar against the Gauls, etc.) The re-orientation of a couple busts may be in order too. If that Crassus bust's authenticity is in question then it should be removed. Crassus was a key figure within Caesar's early life but it would make more sense to have the re-oriented busts of Sulla and Marius and leave it at that. I guess having busts of Caesar's fellow triumvirs would be optimal, but they should all be small and oriented correctly nonetheless. Also, I plan to add that true contemporary bust of Caesar to the article - probably removing that other bust (within the article not the infobox picture). Do you know which bust I'm talking about? --Tataryn77 (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So I added the contemporary bust. I still feel a few of the busts should be facing inwards though. Nevertheless the article looks much better than it did a couple days ago. --Tataryn77 (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So glad you didn't mean the controversial Arles portrait bust. The gallery in the "Depictions" section toward the bottom of the article has room for a fourth example, if there's a Caesar bust you'd care to place there, and the choices could be reevaluated. Yes, the Vercingetorix painting is famous and should stay. I say, do what you think is best. My view would be that certain images are essential; others can add "points of entry" and visual interest to long gray blocks of text. The many portrait busts are a little monotonous. Can you think of any additional ways to illustrate Caesar's life: a map, a photo of a relevant ruin? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was hoping you were not a supporter of the Arles bust "hypothesis" either. I added a map of the Roman Republic after Caesar's conquests (I found it in commons). The map itself should be replaced by a better one eventually. I'm pretty sure Caesar's conquests pushed the border to the Rhine (not depicted in the map) - but perhaps it's a more accurate representation of the Republic after Caesar's initial conquests? Not sure. I'll sort it out soon and post up a permanent map. Atleast the map now gives a visual idea of the republic's size during Caesar's time.
 * It's ashame Caesar's ashes or at least the mausoleum which they were originally interred doesn't remain. If I'm wrong and the mausoleum is still in Rome (no doubt modified/dismantled over the centuries) then we should put a picture of that at the end of the article (I'm pretty sure there is no remains of the mausoleum though). Also, there's no "Legacy" section? Wouldn't Caesar's legacy section be large and helpful if it existed? --Tataryn77 (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On that note I must add that there is no section mentioning what happened to his remains. I would be able to remedy this quickly with a book but I'm in the middle of moving and all my books are not on hand. --Tataryn77 (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Check Temple of Caesar for additional images. There's a section above where I'm characteristically mouthy about "extensive reforms of society," where it's agreed that a section on J.C.'s dictatorship, and on what I would prefer to call political reform (particularly the extension of citizenship), is missing. That would overlap with "Legacy," I'd think — the calendar reform is sometimes underestimated as one of his positive achievements. That, and spawning that elusive beast "Europe," through the conquest of Gaul — where again I have opinions best kept separate from WP (I think his diplomatic genius is more important than his military "genius," but he chose to advertise the latter in the BG for its superior "public relations" value). If you think you might tackle that, you might want to check out the relevant portions of Imperial cult (ancient Rome), especially End of the Republic (a much-sweated over article!); some of the things about Caesar's dictatorship and "deification" that seem striking to us were perhaps less so to the Roman themselves. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sweater alert! The traditional place of his cremation (the later site of his Temple as divus) would be well worth a pic, especially if it included the floral tributes of modern admirers. Leastways flowers were laid there when I last saw it. Little posies of them, in various states of freshness and decay, one tiny block of smouldering incense and one very small candle. It was all very cultic and immediate... By the way, the article looks better to me for your changes so far; though the noseless pairing of Sulla and Marius seems, um, unfortunate. On the subject of ashes: not sure. They might have remained in his Temple but could have been removed to the Imperial Mausoleum. Theological niceties would have prevailed either way. I'll check my sources. Haploidavey (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll post anything relevant here, not in the article; if I do anything more than revert the occasional vandal in article space, I end up editing there. I already have too many half-finished projects screaming in my ear. As for the pic. hum, well, I suppose one could also just look at what we already have: a little bit drab, but...

Header change
I made a change to the header. I replaced it with the version from June 25, 2006. This was when the article become a Good Article. The header before had too much information. I think a lot of this article is currently excessive and should be shrunk. Why not replace it with what the article was back when it became a good article?RomanHistorian (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not? Because wikipedia standards have changed – for the better, I hope. The article suffers many problems, including TMI, but please, revert and discuss. I see nothing to be gained by an over-bold reversion to a less informative version – least of all one that's padded out with non-encyclopedic superlatives. Haploidavey (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine revert it. It is excessively long and substandard so it suits the article.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please define "substandard"? The current lede could be improved, I agree; but I don't find it "substandard." Since many readers only read the introductory section, I feel that this one does give an adequate capsule narrative of Caesar's career. I'm not sure about the emphasis on the so-called "First Triumvirate," which is a phrase that doesn't need to be perpetuated, but something about his political rise needs to be there, which depends in part on the alliance with Pompey and Crassus, the failure of which is what leads to the civil war. That Caesar was among the populares and not the optimates is important, though its importance is perhaps not well expressed. I should note that I've only edited this article when I've found intolerable errors or grandiose "Masters of the Universe" phraseology, and have not tried to impose my own notions of what its content should be. But I absolutely do agree that it should be clear and readable. Just not laden with sensational language and poorly formed notions about Roman politics and government. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I dumbed down the language a bit. If someone is only going to read the intro, they probably don't know what an optimate is, nor do they need to know the Latin word for "dictator in perpetuity". Also, giving some of the full names could make it more difficult to read for these non-history junkies.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That was way over the line, RomanHistorian. You deleted some perfectly well-sourced material. I also agree with the phrase "non-encyclopedic superlatives" — testosterone-fueled crap like "undisputed master" that I edited out months ago. (To explain: If "undisputed," exactly where did all those senatorial assassins come from?) Please, if you want to make changes, read the article and edit it. This was far far too sweeping for an article watched by more than 700 users. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * However, somehow I failed to note recent changes to the introductory section that are deleterious. These need to go. One sentence is even ungrammatical. Cynwolfe (talk)
 * I don't know how I overlooked this earlier (maybe this edit was during my Wiki-break), but I restored the lede as of August 19. Marius does not need to be here. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Early life
I rolled the information on Caesar's early life into its own article so I could shorten what was there. Most people reading this don't care about info like the name of some tribune in 63 BC.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * TMI, I agree — there and many other places. Sections that are developed in their own articles need to be streamlined. For instance, there's an entire paragraph in the Gallic Wars section on questions of demographics! It's surely enough to say that based on principles of demography, Caesar's numbers are likely to be inflated. This is one of the top thousand article on WP. Most people will want a quick non-technical read, and the introductory section needs to be a good snapshot and is always in need of improvement. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article lacks one section, though, that it very much needs (discussed above somewhere): it has no section on what Caesar actually did as dictator — the reforms mentioned early in the article. I think these improvements can be made without being contemptuous of the work others have put in. These things grow by accretion, and then one realizes that they need to be spun off into separate articles for those readers interested in this level of detail. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)