Talk:Julius Caesar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Julius Caesar is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Former good article Julius Caesar was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 24, 2004.
Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated B-Class)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
WP0.5 Icon.png This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Nuvola apps date.svg A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on March 15, 2004, July 13, 2004, March 15, 2005, March 17, 2006, March 17, 2007, and March 15, 2008.



Archives

/Names and Titles
/Dates
/Family, affairs and sexuality
/Resolved and insignificant sections
/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
Sound-icon.svg The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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#Use the most easily recognized name 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)

[edit] 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. AlexiusHoratius 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)

[edit] Assassination of Julius Caesar

most of the infomation in

Main article: Assassination of Julius Caesar

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. ðarkuncoll 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#Avoiding three-revert rule violations. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have made one edit and two reversions. I am not in breach of 3RR. ðarkuncoll 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. ðarkuncoll 13:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)? ðarkuncoll 18:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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. ðarkuncoll 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. ðarkuncoll 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. ðarkuncoll 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. ðarkuncoll 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. ðarkuncoll 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. ðarkuncoll 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.rdunn 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] External links

Has anyone looked at the external links section in the last two years? -- Solipsist (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? A little on the small side in my opinion (I also have only visited this page a few times over the last few days), but all the links lead to .org websites (with the exception of the BBC article). Killiondude (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
What I thought had been wrong with it was some vandalism that had appeared to have been around for over 2 years. But it was actually just recent vandalism affecting the template Spoken Wikipedia-3, that's been corrected. -- Solipsist (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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. rdunnPLIB  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.  rdunnPLIB  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. ðarkuncoll 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."

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1], 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

as suggested by Old Moonraker
as suggested by Amadscientist

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#Lede image, 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#Early life - drawing. --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. [2] --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;[3]--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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. [4] Paul B (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] '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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Name

{{editsemiprotected}}

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)
X mark.svgN Not done I agree with Cynwolfe. Samwb123Please read 18:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] '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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julius_Caesar"