Talk:List of Augustae

Untitled
The photograph of the sculpture is obviously of the wrong woman. Apparently, that photograph is of a bust in the Louvre of Augustus's sister, Octavia.

Octavia.JPG (15KB, MIME type: image/jpeg) octavia, sister of augustus, wife of mark antony, louvre, paris

When you click on the jpeg to enlarge it, the information above is what you get. Does somebody have or can obtain a photo of Augustus' wife, Livia for this entry? Stevenmitchell 17:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * On Livia article, the caption to this page says "Once thought to be Octavia Minor, now identified as Livia, in Egyptian basalt."--Panairjdde 20:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

List completeness?
The Fausta page mentions that she was made Augusta, but isn't listed here. Is there a reason for this, or is it just a simple oversight? —Donal Fellows (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. — Sowlos  06:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Augusta (honorific) → List of Augustae – Augusta (honorific) as a separate article from Augustus (honorific) makes little sense. They're not separate words; they're different forms of the same word. (Augusta (honorific) really should be a redirect to Augustus (honorific), perhaps Augustus (honorific).) However, this article's content has long established itself as a list and it's perfectly legitimate to have a separate list for women bearing the title. The article's name should reflect this. — Sowlos 20:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support (except it should be "list of Augustae", capitalized, I 'd think). I've been meaning to propose this myself. The title discussion belongs in one place, but the list is useful. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support It makes sense to merge Augusta and Augustus to one page for the definition and history, and then have a separate list of Augustae: It would improve all articles concerned. As it currently stands we have all the definition and history on the Augustus page and the Augusta page is pretty much just a list (and there is no corresponding list of Augustus). The change would keep all the definitions and history together and give onus to start listing the Augustuses as well as the Augustas. --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the terms Augustus and Augusta are the male and female forms of the same word, the titles are totally distinct and not in any way interchangeable. One was a title for a reigning sovereign (or a male relative being associated with that sovereignty). The other was a title merely for a spouse or daughter (or other female relative). To treat them as comparable is an example of an anachronistic equality of the sexes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.136.140 (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The honorific was also attached to deities, for instance: see List of Roman deities, where linking to the main article explaining the meaning of the honorific was unduly complicated by having two separate gendered articles on the concept. I agree with the reasoning of Rushton2010 following. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think its a sexism issue- Nobody is saying the titles are "equal". All that the move would achieve is to have the definitions and history in one place, and the recipients in another; there by making the information both clearer and easier to find. Having the information in one place would surely make it easier to demonstrate differences between the male and female versions of the title --Rushton2010 (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I would also like to add that while the masculine and feminine forms were not necessarily equal, they were not distinct insofar as one referred to a sovereign and the other never did. Augustae did have a significant degree of imperial authority. There are even several women in the list who ruled in their own right because they were Augustae and multiple men who ascended (or tried) on the basis or their relationships to Augustea. Of course they were not interchangeable; one referred to men, the other to women. However, the distinction on the basis of authority and prestige was not always clear-cut. The articles could be better organized and structured to represent that. — Sowlos 08:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Euphemia.jpg