Talk:Julius Caesar/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



there is a vandalism under the 'early life' title. It's not in the edit box though so I can't delete it. can anyone do anything about it? - Jake the Editor Man 19:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ceaser Good or Bad

Do you think Ceaser was a good or bad man in his time? -User:Julius1Ceaser9:38, 21 April 2008

Have a Question about Ceaser ask the Ceaser Master

User:Julius1Ceaser —Preceding comment was added at 01:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi, sorry for posting here, but i have no idea where else to post.. :) I just wanted some answers to some questions. In the article, under "First consulship and first triumvirate" is says that Caesar's consulship was expanded with four years, and by this being consul for five years? How was this possible and why was it done? After what i understand you could only be Consul for one year alone. Please answer, I have a project about Julius Caesar and I would be glad to know the answer to the question.

- Ketiiil 22:05 06.11.2007 (UTC+1)

You've misunderstood - his consulship was for one year as usual. It was usual practice for a consul, on leaving office, to be appointed as a proconsul, to govern a province or command an army with authority of a consul. At this time this was also normally for one year, but in Caesar's case he was appointed proconsul of the Gauls and Illyricum for five years. --Nicknack009 21:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Thank you very much for helping me out. Makes more sense now =) I owe you one.

- (Ketiiil 18:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC))


Note: this is a false quotation which is in fact an internet hoax . Legis Nuntius 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.
--Gaius Julius Caesar

Where on earth does this quotation I removed from the end of the entry come from? I'm googling it and finding it everywhere (mainly on slightly odd political sites); NONE of the occurrences I have found so far give any more information than the tag line: --Gaius Julius Caesar. No source. It is unlikely to have been a statement of Caesar's - unless these are words put into his mouth by modern playwrights! Let me point out that Romans were not big users of drums - their martial music was wind-based (horns, flutes, etc.). MichaelTinkler

  • You've made me curious. The people that quote it seem to take it as Gospel that Julius Caesar did say this, but none has dug any deeper. Styllistically, I understood that Julius's style was fairly straightforward, and that made him a good example for students of Latin. The style for this, allowing for the peculiarities of the translator, still seems terribly florid. The English style is not of the 20th century. If Julius did write this, the end suggests that it was late in his life. Eclecticology

What does "The Die is Cast" mean?

The Die is Cast can refer to two things. One is that the die cast in the air and no one knows the outcome, or that the die have already landed and that he cannot change the outcome.User: 11:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

-i always thought "the die is cast" refers to the use of a die to cast molten metal. once the metal has been poured into the die, it cannot be removed until the metal has cooled, and the die unfastened or broken apart if it is plaster. the expression can be used to indicate an irreversible process whose outcome will not be immediately known. --rusty

    • "Iacta alea est." is the Latin phrase for "The die is cast" and it comes from the biography of Caesar by Suetonius, but in the modified form "Iacta alea esto", "Let the die be cast!". It is in the jussive subjunctive. "Iacta" means "has been thrown or hurled"; "alea" means "a device used for gaming". According to Lewis and Short's Latin dictionary, "alea" is used figuratively to mean, "any thing uncertain or contingent, an accident, chance, hazard, venture, risk." Because of the original subjunctive use and the actual meaning of the words, this phrase has the meaning of "here goes nothing." Translations using molten metal or that the die has already been cast are unfounded. Legis Nuntius 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This quotation paints a picture of a modern dictatorship with propaganda, nationalistic appeals, "seizing" of "rights". In Caesar's time it was all tied up in being thought a god and having good family connections, not the modern style at all (Jr. Bush notwithstanding). In other words, this doesn't really pass the smell test. It is also worth pointing out that this purported strategy did not work for Caesar. I would be interested both in a clear attribution of this remark and also any serious indication that Caesar's policies pursued this line Ortolan88
  • I had thought it might be from Plutarch, but haven't managed to find it there. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a quotation from one of Caesar's works - or rather, from a translation of one of his works, and this is an important point. It's meaningless to say that Caesar's style was simple and this English version is "florid", simply because a translator can translate things into florid or simple language as the urge takes them. A second important point to note is that Roman historians - and this includes Caesar himself - treated historiography as a literary genre. Because the quotation is in the first person, it would be a speech put into Caesar's mouth by the writer (which could be Caesar himself), but the reader is not expected to believe that it is word-for-word the speech that was actually made on that occasion. Today we would call this poetic licence. So it's not worth getting all worked up about, except insofar that it would be nice to know where it came from. I can't find it in many of dictionaries of quotations. Deb
  • The use of the phrase "And I am Caesar" makes it unlikely to have been said by Julius Caesar; the use of the term "Caesar" to denote a high office was not instituted until after the reign of Augustus (and even then, it denoted a minor office, subordinate to the emperor, who was referred to as Augustus in Latin or Basileus in Greek --- in the time of Diocletian the senior emperors were called "Augustus" and the junior emperors "Caesar"). In Julius Caesar's day, it was a name, nothing more; the wording would have made no sense at that time.
    • Augustus started the use of the term Caesar as a title when he named his grandsons Lucius and Gaius "Caesar" as heirs apparent in adopting them. It was a Roman tradition to take the name of the person who adopted you. In this manner, Octavian became Julius Gaius Caesar. The second emperor was born Tiberius Claudius Nero, to which was added Caesar for his adoption and Augustus for becoming emperor. The name Caesar was adopted by heirs apparent until the beginning of the fall. Caesar literally means "hairy" and it was a joke name for Julius Caesar because he was bald. Caesar would have been understood as heir apparent at the time. Legis Nuntius 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Actualy Caesar talking about himself in 3rd person is exactly what he did. All through the commentaries he refers to himself as Caesar. Also stating "I am not king I am Caesar." Or some argue that he actually said "whats this! Violence against Caesar!" when he was assinated. Which is the version I prefer because it suits his personality —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "Caesar neither said that nor did that. Armies were assembled by granting soldiers pillage rights, pensions and land in conquered lands upon retirement. The concept of patriotism among the populace as we know it today did not exist, nor did individual rights in the modern sense. It was essentially a class/caste system with no rights other than those assigned by the state or purchased through wealth." (
  • The idea that patriotism is a modern concept is ridicilous. Patriotism, love for ones country or people, is probably as old as civilization itself. What is new is nationalism in its intellectualized form. The claim that Roman citizens of the Republic lacked rights is also very wrong. They did have one, big right: Freedom!
    • This is absolutely true. The term Patria was used to describe Rome. It means "The Fatherland." Vergil wrote a poem of Roman nationalism and propaganda called the Aeneid and Livy's portrayal on the history was highly POV. Romans believed that they were the greatest. On the concept of Roman rights, Romans had many. It was a privilege to become a Roman citizen, and one was guaranteed to a trial for crimes (but not necessarily fair). Cicero wrote about the phrase "Civis Romanus sum" "I am a Roman Citizen!". This was the equivalent of stating that one had Roman rights. The United States of America is modeled in part on the Roman Republic. Both governments use the term senator. Legis Nuntius 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I haven't read all of Caesar's works, but "De Bello Gallica" (the Gaulish Wars) is written entirely in the third person; Caesar never, ever refers to himself as "I". Perhaps this quotation is from Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar". --Charlie
  • According to this piece in it isn't in any known work of Caesar or Shakespeare and first appeared on the Internet last year. Ortolan88
  • Discussion

  • This quote was most likely invented by a Moorean pseudo-intellectual college weenie with no grasp of history -- 09:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Has anyone considered it might be from the HBO Rome series? We should check the scripts.--Cjcaesar 13:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't recall it from any episode of HBO's Rome, and I love that show. It could, I suppose, be a piece cut from one of the scripts before production, but I'd tend to doubt it. --ADB

It was definitely not something from his accounts of the two wars. Perhaps it is from that mid 1st century AD poet who admired Pompey so much. I remember reading similiar things being put into Caesar's mouth from him, though his works are considered but literary. 11:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

It's exceedingly hard to prove a negative, which is why this piece of garbage is so dishonest. It bears all the earmarks, however, of a fabrication of our own time, and suddenly appeared around the time of the beginning of the Iraq war. Not only is is not in Caesar or any Latin author, I'd be very, very surprised if it could be find in anything at all written before 1990. Bill 17:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well in my opionion, know the facts, get them right, and if you cant come up with anything and if it isnt important, ignore it. Hooray for bad grammer and spelling!

Actually, the quote sees to be a rephrasing of a monologue found in Julius Caesar. Just check the Wikiquote and Wikisource pages; it's there. George "Skrooball" Reeves 01:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I know, I can't believe it, either. George "Skrooball" Reeves 01:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Except that it's a forgery. A vandal had inserted a version of this spurious quote into the "Cowards die many times before their deaths" speech in Act 2, Scene 2 of the Wikisource text (and copied it to Wikiquote), but it's completely out of place there and not in my copy of the Complete Works, so I've removed it from both sites. Perils of the internet, and the Wiki. --Nicknack009 11:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Alea Iacta Est

I've heard that the words alea iacta est according to the historian Plutarch were actually put by Caesar in Greek, quoting a greek play popular at the time (much the way we quote our favourite movie oneliners these days), does anyone know the exact source in Plutarch for this statement, the corresponding Greek wording, and the play and playwright supposedly quoted? -- Jörgen Nixdorf

Quick digging in electronic texts found the answer. I'm adding it to the main page so you can see this for yourselves. -- Jörgen Nixdorf

Still looking for the name of the quoted play though, please help out if you can. -- Jörgen Nixdorf

No one appears to be able to cite anything beyond the fact that it was Greek, translated to "let the dice fly high" (rather than "the die is cast", Suetonius's version), and a line from Menander. -- User:Publius

Be all of which as it may, the claim in the article on Julius Caesar that "alea jacta est" translates to "the die must be cast" is incorrect. It really is just "the die is cast"--the Latin is pretty simple and there's no other way to translate it. Would somebody who has access change that? -- Nathaniel Stetson

Quite right. --D. Webb 01:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Caesar said "alea iacta esto", which indeed translates to "the die shall be cast", before he crossed the Rubicon. Besides that, I agree that he said this in Greek, for every well-educated Roman used the Greek language. Cheers, Ralf

Caesar is quoting greek philosoph Menander, who is the original creator of that saying.

Nobody knows what he actually said - there are a couple of different versions. Suetonius, writing in Latin, says he said iacta alea est (the die has been cast - indicative). Plutarch, writing in Greek, says he said aneristho kubos (let the die be cast - imperative). Your alea iacta esto is apparently an attempt by the Renaissance scholar Erasmus to reconcile the two with a Latin imperative. I can't find any mention of Menander in Suetonius or Plutarch, so that may be one of Erasmus's ideas as well. --Nicknack009 09:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Caesar said: "Iacta alea est":

  • alea from alea,ae= the die
  • iacta from iactus,a,um= cast
  • est from sum,es,fui,esse=to be; est means is

but probable iacta is not a aggettive but a part participle, so it is a passive perfect:die is cast [by now].

Esto? Esto is the future imperative future of to be; but G. Iulis Carsar did not said it.-- 18:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


There's no mention of Caesar as an Imperator, though I know he was (the title only took on the meaning of Emperor later on). Unfortunately, I don't know the details nor when he was hailed as Imperator, so I can't really add to it with my current knowledge. Jsan 00:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To be hailed Imperator on the field of battle was the requirement for a general to achieve a Triumph. Caesar was hailed Imperator during his Spanish campaigns, but was unable to claim his triumph because of political maneuvering (he wanted to stand for Consul, for which he had to register in person, but if he crossed the Pomerium he lost his Imperium, which meant he lost his Triumph.). Winjer 18:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's own article on 'Imperator', this Gaius Julius Caesar was twice an imperator- in 60 BC and again in 40 BC. However, he never claimed a triumph. He had bigger things to do.Rev. James Triggs 21:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be important to make the different meaning clear, betrween "Emperor" and "Imperator". However, if Caesar never officially claimed one of the triumphs that would make him officially an "imperator", then, was he officially one?. Actually, he was killed when he wanted to claim this title! -Nbez 15:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The term Imperator is a difficult one due to its later political overtones. Literally it means nothing other than the holder of an Imperium, which means any Roman magistrate (consul, praetor etc.) However it is said in our, later, sources that it had always been the habit of Roman armies to hail their commander after a major success as 'Imperator', in which usage it presumably meant 'General'. A likelihood exists, because of the lack of early reference to that practice, that it more or less originated with Pompey who wished to claim a triumph for his African campaign despite being spectacularly ineligible (on account of having no formaI command) and based his claim on the fact that his troops had hailed him in the field. They could not call him anything else because he had no formal office at the time. Julius Caesar may have copied this for his claim to a triumph for his Spanish campaigning in 60BC (it was doubtful whether a Praetor could triumph), and Octavian resorted frequently to the practice to disguise the fact that he had no military credentials to speak of, from which it became the standard acclamation of an Emperor and was duly invested with an invented tradition. While this is speculative, it is important to remember that at Caesar's time the acclamation had no formal meaning. 05:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


It would seem to be considering his achievements, literary, generalship,engineering,law and politics, this is one ancient Roman who has done it all. His one failing was his big fat ego which led to his death. A genius nonetheless.

--Actually, I would say it was the multiple stab wounds that led to his death. ;-)

--It could also be argued that he died due to his trust in others and his sense of duty to Rome. I could be wrong, but didn't Artemidorus try to warn him, but he said that personal matters come after Rome? and shouldn't Caeser have an honour guard or something similar? Firestorm 00:36, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

He was entitled to lictors nad German guards, but didn't bother with them. He considered it better to just accept death when it came than to be constantly paranoid and obsessed over stopping it (the night of March 14th, at a party, Caesar even said that his preferred form of death was fast, violent, and unexpected). He also believed that no one would dare assassinate him, as it would lead to renewed civil strife, a lose-lose situation. Kuralyov 04:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-Don't neglect the fact that he was multilingual. He was fluent in not only Latin and Greek but in Hebrew and several dialects of Gaulic and German languages and possibly later leanred Egyptian.

Caesar achieved very great things in his lifetime, more than another singular roman did before or after. However Caesar had his faults in his ability to trust people after they turn on him before e.g. Brutus. He was very good in all things ancient roman culture desired, but a question if he is a genius is would he survive in a different situation persay in an alexander the great battle fighting more numerous and better ability troops. Caesar should be held as a genius because he brought peace after so many continous wars of civil strife. His biggest mistake was getting murdered after dismissing his lictors, with his death there erupted another civil war. In conclusion he was a genius but all geniuses make mistakes. --Alexstorer 22:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be fair to say, then, that he is considered to be a genius? After all, historical accounts are unclear, given the bias of ancient authors due to the political situation of the times. (i.e. You don't bad-mouth the Emperor's dead uncle)--Ironlion45 16:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Julius Caesar was a true military genius and he fared pretty well in other aspects of his life. It would indeed be fair to say that he was a genius. In fact, he is one of the Nine Worthies. He did make mistakes, like trusting certain people, but that was because he believed that they too wanted to help the Roman Republic. Living up to the ideals of the Republic is hardly a mistake, even if it caused his death and a civil war that eventually lead to the decline of the Roman People as proper leadership was not there. His accomplishments speak for themselves.Rev. James Triggs 21:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, I would agree that Caesar was indeed a genius, given his military and political accomplishments. But the fact remains that we should not be too fast in our praise of him; he was a power hungry tyrant who commited genocide on the people of Gaul and it was his insatiable lust for power that led to a bloody civil war and, later, his own death. He was a genius, but one on the same level as Hitler; it is only because we are looking on it 2000 years later that this man is idolized rather than denounced as a murderer and an utter disgrace to the Republic. He seized power by force and was clearly hated by a large proportion of the Senate, to whom he left no choice but to murder him if they wanted to restore the Republic. Also, it should be mentioned that the position of Dictator was only available by Roman law for a period of a few months and only during a period of crisis. The truth is that Caesar was a genius but no hero, and it annoys me when people speak so much praise of him, as stated above, because he deserves nothing more than contempt as a man who flouted the laws of the Republic and has the blood of millions on his hands.

Unmarked person, you have a point. But you neglect the fact that he was loved by the majority of the soldiers and the common people. The Senators hated him (rightfully so) because of his lust for power. But whilst he does deserve contempt for that, he should not be placed on Hitler's level; unlike Hitler, Caesar actually did some good changes- even though some were quickly eliminated. Besides, Caesar changed political structure; he changed the course of history. Therefore, if he is to be places as an enlightened despot (which he was) he, arguably ranks above Hitler. After all, this is 2000 years on; we do not neccessarily have all the information. Still, I probably have misjudged Caesar; such is the problem with matrys. As for the blood of millions, many leaders have killed many In WWII, Hitler massacred 12 million people in the Holocaust. But Winston Churchill, due to his part, along with the other allies, killed millions as well. Intent is the deciding factor. If the Jews had contracted a terrible disease, for example, ebola, would it be considered genocide-or euathanasia? Besides, Caesar was still better than many other rulers- Caesar did not have to put up with rebellions. Rev. James Triggs 20:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

--Caesar lived in a different time, in a culture that valued might and wealth, not love and mercy, a society that placed the state (the senate) above the people. What he did is not black and white, because despite his flaws, as a human, we truly owe Caesar much. And his death in fact destroyed the republic, and also was a military genius who, without, world history would be much different. And Hitler was not nearly as intelligent. Veni, Vidi, Vici!

civis romanus sum —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 23:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)(MissJessica254)Also in response to the unmarked person above, had the Senate been able to look beyond their personal purses and actually put the Republic ahead of themselves, Caesar may never have happened. There are many other persons of Ancient Rome, Pompey for example, who were power hungry and did not work within the frame of the mos maiorum.

Genius is an understatement. The man probably had an IQ comparative to that of Einstein's or Mozart's. But i just like to sing the guy's praises because I might be related to him. Adolph172 (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)blurb

Iacta alea est

I can't help feeling that the usual translation "The die is cast" gives a wholly misleading impression to the modern ear. (I've changed the translation from the unwarranted subjunctive; the Greek quote from Menander was in the subjunctive, but the Latin is indicative and is by far the more widely quoted.)

A better, if somehat demotic, translation would be "The bet's on." Djnjwd 22:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

That's very, very good. Bill 17:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I really believe that keeping "The die is cast" would be preferable. I understand your desire to modernize the phrase and show off your knowledge of this dead language, but it was a common expression of the day. Keeping it as "The die is cast" helps to give the reader a further insight into the times. Furthermore, "The bet's on" isn't any clearer than the previous phrase.

where "iacta alea est" comes from? it is "alea iacta est", "alea"=the die "iacta est"=has been thrown, there is no sense in the inversion. somebody can answer? --Zimbricchio 03:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's from Suetonius - here's a link to the Latin, which says "Iacta alea est". Latin, because of its inflections, was very flexible in word order, so there's no difference in meaning between "alea iacta est" and "iacta alea est", except perhaps an added emphasis on "iacta". --Nicknack009 06:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
splitting the verb phrase in this manner is a basic example of Latin chiasmus. The subject appearing in the middle forms the center of the grammatical cross Legis Nuntius 17:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Should this article still be featured?

The previous FA nomination for this article was approved in 2003 with only two votes. The current state of the article and the few disagreements over content go against the spirit of some of the points in Wikipedia:What is a featured article. The question thus is: Does this article still have FA quality? Personally I don't think so, but I'd like to hear some comments before doing something that may potentially annoy a lot of people. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 17:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Due to the lack of discussion I'm taking this to WP:FARC. Maybe a wider exposure will settle the matter definitely. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 23:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Julius Caesar 18th century bronze bust (Duxén collection)


Dear editors , contributors and readers of Wikipedia!

Recently I added a photograph of an late 18th century Julius Caesar bronze bust, from my own private collection. I own the bronze bust and have taken the photograph myself, so no copyright problem. I have listed it as fair use, since I allow anybody that want to display the picture to do so, the only thing I ask for, is that it is mentioned that the bust is from my private collection. I thought the photograpgh was an great addition to the article, since there wasn't any bronze bust's pictured in the article until now, and the bust is sculptured after an antique original, so it bears Caesar's traditional likeness. I myself love this bust and thought it wouldn't be more than right that more people could enjoy it, at least by a picture. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia and I hope it will be appreciated, let me know your concerns and what you think about it. --Jduxen

My concern is the license and the edit war revolving around it (please check Creative Commons License for a hint how to properly license the picture, I'd suggest by-nc-sa). Attribution to your collection is in the picture, and on the image description page. And now you insist on a third mentioning in the caption? Sorry, but no, this is not encyclopedically relevant information for the reader, but smells a bit like vanity. Sorry for being so blunt, but on top of it all the picture is not all that great, frontal lighting makes it hard to make out the 3d structure of the bust and it looks rather dark. --Dschwen 11:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dschwen!

Thanks for your interest in this picture. Yes, I know that it seems like vanity, but let me know why I must insist that the attribution should be in the caption. If you search the internet for bronze bust of Julius Caesar, you arrive at many pages, which have only copied Wikipedias main article of Julius Caesar, and therefore my attribution isn't there, anywhere on the site. To save me some very time consuming work, having to email all these sites and having them adding the subtitle of my bust, or removing the bust completely. The subtitle below my Caesar bronze bust, must be displayed also on the Julius Caesar main article on Wikipedia. And this is because I don't want it's list of reference to be lost, so that students of Roman history doing works about famous Romans, can't be able to pinpoint the bust's provenance. And on those sites it simply have been copied from Wikipedia, sometime has downsized it and made it so blurry, that the attribution on the picture itself could not be interpreted. I will again revert to the original setting, and I hope this will be fine with you. If not, I look forward to talking with you again.

Thanks for taking your time and writing your concerns!

Sincerely: --Jduxen 21 January 2006

I see your concerns.
  1. The licensing of your picture is flawed. Please check the Creative Commons license.
  2. If you disagree with contibution under an accepted licence the only alternative is to withdraw the contribution.
  3. The quality of the picture has not been adressed, what about a retake with propper lighting? Maybe also a slight variation of the angle? --Dschwen 12:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dschwen!

I had it licensed before under Creative Common license, but another Wikipedia user thought my criterias would be better represented under a common copyright. Could you please explain what the difference would between a common copyright and Creative Commons license for my picture? Sure, I could take another picture of it. The thing is that the more direct lightning on the bust, it refelcts back and the picture get's spoiled. Do you have any idea's on how to do a remake with proper lightning? How much should the angle be changed do you think? You don't mean a profile picture of the bust?

Thanks for interesting yourself in this!

Sincerely: --Jduxen 21 January 2006

The point is that your idea of a license, requiring an attribution in the caption is incompatible with wikipedia. No one knows a Jonas Duxén, it distracts the reader adds nothing to the value of the article. The consequence is to remove the picture if you cannot live with a free license like the contributors of the other 300000 images. --Dschwen 14:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dschwen!

That is very strange, because it has been nominated for removal before in it's initial phase because of the attribution, but was approved by an moderator after I had changed it to the Copyright it has now. I must also make you aware of, that at the Julius Caesar page, you could clearly see that the picture after mine, showing a picture from a bust of Julius Caesar from the British Museum, has an subtitle with it's complete provenance (even more lenghty than mine). And it says: "Julius Caesar, depicted from the bust in the British Museum, in Cassell's History of England (1902)." This is the subtitle below the picture on the Julius Caesar article, and as you could see it clearly states the provenance of the bust. Wouldn't this also then be incompatible with Wikipedia? I must ask you to not change the subtitle below my bronze bust, if you do, you tamper with the copyright and I believe that tampering with copyright isn't allowed on Wikipedia, nor any other place on the internet I am aware of. You are very welcome to nominate the picture for deletion with a good reason, so could a moderator again settle the case.

Thanks for your replies!

Sincerely: --Jduxen 21 January 2006

Dschwen, could you please cite the policy that explicitly says that "requiring an attribution in the caption is incompatible with wikipedia"? See for instance Black Seminoles which is a Featured Article and has attribution on the captions of some illustrations. Thank you. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I was reading up on this matter just after I posted my message :-). And actually Wikipedia:Captions allows listing the present location of the depicted object in parenthesis. So maybe I was a little harsh stating it is incompatible. But fact is the attribution is given on the Image description page, and a caption should provide only relevant information to the reader. Anyway, I'm not entirely sure whether this image and its controversial license is worth it anyhow or if replacement by this image would be a better solution. --Dschwen 22:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The current license (at least as of this version) only has the condition of attribution. Nothing wrong with that since many Creative Commons also have that requirement. Mirrors sometimes don't download image description pages, so Jduxen's concern is legitimate. And the image is in fact quite worth it. This might surprise you, but there are not many bronze casts of Caesar's bust out there. This is a storm in a teacup, in my opinion, which is a real shame because we are talking about legitimate, useful content and not somebody's favorite-TV-series fancruft. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll take your word for it since I can only decide on formal arguments. If the image is worth it on a scentific basis and not easitly replacable it's fine be me. Sorry for stirring the matter up, but at least we had a comprehensive discussion now after the preceding edit battle. --Dschwen 23:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Rune Welsh and Dschwen!

Rune Welsh, you bring forth my points much better than I did, thank you for taking your time and engaging yourself in this. Dschwen, I also thank you for engaging yourself in this and as you said, at least we had a comprehensive discussion about it. I hope this editing "battle" would now be over, and (I say this to all Wikipedians); If you do not like the picture and it's attribution, you are totally free to give a good reason and nominate it for removal, but you can't interfere with the copyright and remove the attribution below the bust. Thanks again for engaging yourself in this! Sincerely: --Jduxen 22 January 2006

To all those interested in this matter,

___I removed several times the name of the owner from the caption, and saw my edits reverted, so I feel related to this matter.

___What I want to point out, is that, according to me, the name of the owner should be removed from the caption, or, if the license says otherwise, the image should not be used on Wikipedia.

___My reasoning is that the caption should hold information on the image useful for the reader of the article. We should, therefore, avoid cluttering it with information not pertinent to the article, in order not to distract the reader. I think anyone will agree on this.

___Now, the point is, is knowing that the bust is in "Duxén collection" an information useful to the reader of the article "Julius Caesar"? As far as I know, the "Duxén collection" is not a museum as the "British Museum" of the next image, neither it is a private collection open to the public. As far as I understand, the bust is a private owned copy of some original. If I want to see the source for the drawing of the next image, I know I must go to London, at the British Museum. If I want to see the original, where should I look for it? Where is the "Duxén collection"?
___My answer is that the belonging of the bust to the "Duxén collection" is not a useful information to the reader; on the contrary, it clutters the caption, and should be removed.

___Obviously, the issue about the copyright remains. Jduxen wants, and has the right to require, that the image is credited to him/her. He/she does not believe that providing the credit in the image file and on the image itself is enough.

___So we have: (1) the need to remove the credit from the caption, since it does not carry information useful to the article; (2) the credit can't be removed from the article, since this is against the author will.

___According to me, the straighforward conclusion is that either (1) the author agrees to keep his/hers name only in the image page and on the image itself, or (2) the readers of the article will do without the image of a bronze bust on Caesar.

Best regards, Panairjdde 12:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Dschwen pointed out above that stating the location of the object is allowed in captions. This is part of a private collection, so obviously the name of the owner is going to be there. Maybe it warrants something more complete than "Duxén collection, XX country". The copyright description is clear and I don't see why this is more restrictive than some of the Creative Commons licenses out there. And the physical location of any object is always relevant information. For instance, there are a good deal of Medieval Manuscripts held in private collections that allow access to researchers. People wouldn't know they were there if these collections did not publicize the issue (as it happens, in fact, with many others, which is a shame I believe). -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
As regards the location of this bust, let me cite myself:
"___My reasoning is that the caption should hold information on the image useful for the reader of the article. We should, therefore, avoid cluttering it with information not pertinent to the article, in order not to distract the reader. I think anyone will agree on this.
"___Now, the point is, is knowing that the bust is in "Duxén collection" an information useful to the reader of the article "Julius Caesar"? As far as I know, the "Duxén collection" is not a museum as the "British Museum" of the next image, neither it is a private collection open to the public. As far as I understand, the bust is a private owned copy of some original. If I want to see the source for the drawing of the next image, I know I must go to London, at the British Museum. If I want to see the original, where should I look for it? Where is the "Duxén collection"?
"___My answer is that the belonging of the bust to the "Duxén collection" is not a useful information to the reader; on the contrary, it clutters the caption, and should be removed."
As regards Medioeval manuscripts in private collections, those are, in common sense, originals, and you could be interested knowing where they are, while the bust is a copy. In the automobile article, as comparison, it would not make sense to put "from John Smith collection" in the caption of the Ford Taurus image, because milions of Ford Taurus exist. On the contrary, a reader would be interested in knowing that one of the few existing existing 1895 Benz Velo is located at Toyota Automobil Museum. So, I repeat my previous question, "is knowing that the bust is in "Duxén collection" an information useful to the reader of the article Julius Caesar?" If not, the citation should be removed, IMO.
Panairjdde 15:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no one is countering my points. If on 31 January 2006 no good points will be raised, I'll proceed in this way:
  • If the author agrees, I'll remove the citation from the caption,
  • if there is no permission from the author, I'll remove the image from the article.
Best regards, --Panairjdde 21:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear all of you, As a Wikipedia user and as a person that has researched on Julius Caesar for projects, it is indeed revelant information to state exactly where it is. And, since it happens to be in aprivate collection, it would be necessary to state this. Even if you do not state who the owner is, much like you would cite where it is if it is in a museum, you should state the location of this private collection. Any piece of information should be sourced. Without the caption, you are not even saying whether it is real or fake. Or even, if it is Julius Caesar- it could be a remarkable coincidence. Besides, readers do want to know about where these things are as it demonstrates the lasting appeal that Julius has. i hope this issue will be satisfactorily resolved. Rev. James Triggs 22:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good day to all of You! I am a swedish student who has read quite a lot about(and of) Julius Caesar, what strikes me about this bust is not from where it hails, but how remarkably different it is from other busts(and pictures of busts) depicting Caesar that I've seen. I would like to know what model was used for it since it isn't even nearly old enough to actually have had Caesar as model. I do not wish to reduce its artistical worth, but all previous busts of Caesar I've seen have shown an ascetic(thin, hollowed cheeks) man with a very sharp nose and high flat forhead. None of previous descriptions fit very well with this bust. In short, I'd like to know what makes us(the contributor) certain that it has a resemblance to Caesar. Sincerely Yours Djingis Khan P.S: I don't have an english Wikipedia account but the picture is in the Swedish edition to and I figured it hailed from here.

The bronze bust was removed, the current bust at the top of the page is from a museum in Naples, Italy. The other busts on the page are from other countries and museums. Caesar's baldness is more advanced in the first bust, perhaps it was carved after the civil war when he had been living in Rome and was eating more than military rations. The forehead for all of them looks the same to me; the angle of each camera shot is different. Legis Nuntius 22:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Composition of images changed


I have changed the composition of the images, so when the reader first arrives at the article, they are greeted by two pictures of Caesar busts side at side. The text is not much effected by this, and the content box isn't moved at all. I believe that this way the space is used to it's max, and the initial impression for the reader is more colourful and grandious. As well as early on (if you are just doing a quick search of Caesar) get's two great likeness of him from sculptured antique busts or busts scuptured from antiques, and if they read on they have a clear picture of him in the head to start with. Let me know what you think of the modification. --Jduxen

I think it was the Thirteenth Legion that crossed the Rubicon with Caesar. Should this be changed?

i never really got any of that can you help me

--Faxle (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to featured article

I'd like for this to get back to featured status...any regular editors willing to help me? I've already addressed a few of the complaints out there (the EasyTimeline which was requested, for one), and will do a lot more after final exams in a few weeks. But it'd be cool if anyone wanted to help. I'm pushing to get it FA soon, so it can (hopefully) be main paged on the Ides of March :) Ral315 (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

External Timeline A graphical timeline is available at
The life of Julius Caesar
Would anyone oppose the addition of the templatebox on the right? This article is linked from the Timeline of the Roman Empire. People reaching this page will find the timeline at the bottom of this article faster. And what about making names and events in the Julius Caesar timeline hyperlinks? --Dschwen 16:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

About caesar's hair.

What does it mean? Wikipedia is self-contradictory. To illustrate:

Caesar ... derived from "cai-" (of unknown meaning) from which Gaius also derives.
List of Roman praenomina 
Gaius (C.) ... From Etruscan Cae or Cai, meaning unknown.
Gaius (name) 
Gaius or Caius was a common Roman praenomen derived from Etruscan Cai, meaning " I am glad".
Caesar (title) 
"Caesar originally meant "hairy"
Etymology of the name of Julius Caesar
The cognomen "Caesar" means "hairy" and indicates that this branch of the family was conspicuous for having fine heads of hair
Roman name 
Julius Caesar's cognomen meant hairy, while he was balding
Lucius Julius Libo 
Caesar is Latin for hairy.

Right. The assertion that it means hairy raises an eyebrow as none of the articles asserting it cite any sources. squell 14:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

For "Caesar" we could cite Charlton T. Lewis & Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, which says: [1]
caesărĭes , ēi, f. [kindr. with Sanscr. kēsa, coma, caesaries, Bopp, Gloss. p. 85, a] ,
I. a dark (acc. to Rom. taste, beautiful) head of hair, the hair (mostly poet.; only sing.).
Other Latin dictionaries give essentially the same definition. For "Gaius", Lewis & Short say only:[2]
At marriage festivals it was customary to call the bridegroom and bride Gaius and Gaia
The editor who wrote that "Gaius" comes from Etruscan "Cai" may have got it from [3] which doesn't give a reference. Hope this helps. Gdr 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Harry Thurston Peck cites three possible derivations:

The name Caesar was variously derived by the ancients, some assigning it directly to caedo, to denote that the first bearer of the name was cut from his mother's uterus by the “Caesarian” operation ( Plin. H. N. vii. 9 Plin. H. N., 7); and others explaining it from caesaries, because the first Caesar was born with a full head of hair ( Fest. p. 44 Müll.). Doederlein (Synon. iii. 17) assigns it to caesius, as applied to the colour of the skin, or perhaps of the eyes.

Which is correct? I favor Festus's explanation, but the other theories should certainly be mentioned in etymology of the name of Julius Caesar. —Charles P.  (Mirv) 18:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Level of Caesar's military reputation.

The article currently states:

Historians place the generalship of Caesar on the level of such geniuses as Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Genghis Khan, and Napoleon Bonaparte.

I would say that this is an exaggeration. I would suggest that historians tend to put the generalship of Caesar at the level below that of Alexander or Hannibal or Napoleon. Caesar is highly regarded, but I've rarely seen him referred to as one of the all time greats. john k 18:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

He is one of the all-time greats because whilst he did not conquer as much territory as others that was due to motivation, not lack of ability. Historians do not just look at how much they've conquered, but their general tactics and so forth.

Indeed, just look at the adversaries Caesar faced. As propraetor he succesfully wared in Hispania, as proconsul he defeated the Helvetians and then Ariovistus' Suebi, he conquered the Gauls and Belgians in a vicious ten year campaign, he invaded Britain twice, drove out the republicans from Rome with only a single legion after crossing the Rubicon, defeated four Republican armies (at Ilerda, Pharsalus, Thapsus and Munda) with those Romans probably being the hardest military opponent anyone could face in that timeframe, he defeated the Egyptians in 48 BC, defeated Pharnaces at Zela... In all his battles he was vastly outnumbered by his adversaries... He personally only faced a single defeat (Dyrrachium) which was a tactical defeat which he rectified at Pharsalus.
Caesar was a master both in regular battle as in siege operations (Avaricum, Alesia,...). His war record merits the distinction of being one of the best generals in world history. Personally, I find Alexander's war record far less impressive than Caesar's --fdewaele, 20 October 2006, 11:20.

Remember, generalship does not merely mean the ability to fight well. It means the ability to also motivate, to make good decisions, to keep morale high, the ability to have loyal and worthy troops whom, under your leadership, have become great themselves. Look at all the criteria, and decide. Rev. James Triggs 20:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Rev. James Triggs 20:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)== After JC death events in introduction ==

I think there is too much space dedicated to events happened after JC death in the introduction. Is this form something it was agreed upon, or can I change it?--Panairjdde 11:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. But, it should, at the very least be somewhere (naturally in a legacy section). But, since he is long-dead when we introduce him, it should be from the present-day perspective. Keep it, I think, but if it is too long, remove parts of it.

- MY response of this is that think of this: Julius Caesar fought Gauls, Britons, Spain, Middle East, and North Africa. Napoleon fough Europe, Alexander fought Middle East and India. What i am getting at is Julius Caesar was a better general because if fough and conquered DIFFERENT peoples. He understood enemies, as well as his own troops. I think he was on the same level or a different greater level. Caesar was a loved General, given the Crown. Napoleon took the crown and made the Pope put it on his head. Alexander took his position from his bloodline. Caesar, by my opion, did not do anything like this. He took his power from the love of his people.

Thats what i have to say. Imthelimodriver9 13:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

IMHO Caesar`s opponents are a lot more impressive than Alexander`s. Alexander was able to defeat a persian army, which strength was its mass, not its skill. I can not remember a single battle of Alexander`s campaing in which the persian forces did not flee within several hours. Taking into account that Caesar had to fight roman armies commanded by Pompey and T. Labienus and that Vercingetorix was not a military slouch either, i honestly rate Caesar achievements much higher than Alexander`s. 17:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Caesar's source of money

Unfortunately, all of the pomp, circumstance, and public taxpayers' dollars being spent incenced certain members of the Roman Senate. One of these was Caesar's closest friend, Marcus Junius Brutus.

- I seem to remember that the money from Caesar's public works came from the sale of booty, etc. from his triumphs. Not money that was extracted from the Roman public. It seems to me that this arguement is a bit of an anachronism and ignores the real source of aristocratic agitation: Caesar's monopolization of power and other insults to the senate. Does anyone else think this comment should be removed? Amphipolis 02:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Me.--Panairjdde 11:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm learning Caesar right now and I'm pretty sure he borrowed money from lots of people which is why he needed to become Pontifex Maximus. Might be wrong. 06:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the refertence to taxpayers' money is ill considered. The money came originally from Caesar's booty but could now be considered public money (perhaps taxpayers is not a very apt description of the Roman people) as money derived from the actions of a Roman magistrate. However the cost was not a significant issue to Caesar's opponents so much as the excessive goodwill Casar was earning thereby. 05:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Crassus also helped him out, but he made himself immensely rich during the gallic wars, and came from a successful patrician family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA

Extensive article 51k in length but only 3 references in the entire article, This was a major reason given for delisting from FA status in November 2005 and its still hasn't been addressed. The other issue is stability 50 edits in 10 days not many of those are vandalism and reverts. The last 500 edits have taken place in less than 2 months, there is a higher percentage of vandalism/reverts in these still not significant enough to cause this many edits. The edit count will reduce with cites as uncited sections draw more good faith but inappropriate edits. Besides this it is interesting read and the prose is Good it deserves to achieve GA and FA but these issues need to be addressed first. Gnangarra 15:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

After a re-read and discussion with nominator I'm happy to reverse my decision. Isuggest that this article gets semi-protection to reduce vandalism and address the stability problem. Gnangarra 04:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Passed GA

Congratulations to the editors of this article, please consider using <ref></ref>. when making future edits. Gnangarra 04:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Audio Version?

In relation to the request at the head of this page for an audio version to be created, I'd like to ask opinions on how the Roman names and Latin words should be presented. Obviously there's a great deal of controversy about Latin pronunciations - for example, should 'Caesar' be 'Seezer' as it is generally pronounced, or 'kai-sar' as remnant words (such as Kaiser) seem to indicate? Should 'Julius' be 'Julius' or 'Yulius'? I'm not asking for a full rundown of every term in the article - but I'd appreciate any suggestions as to how formal or precise an audio article is expected to be with regard to pronouncing a language that no-one's heard spoken by a contemporary native speaker. Thanks - Adaru 10:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't notice this section when I went to record the article, so I'll explain how I went about pronouncing the Latin. The Roman names I chose to pronounce in "English," meaning I used the most popular English pronunciation I knew (or asked about). Where true Latin words or pronunciations come up, I chose to pronounce (usually, though I may not have been consistant) as close to Ecclesiastical Latin (close to Italian) as possible, that being the system of pronunciation I knew best. If I've made any preceived errors in pronunciation, I do apologise. Let me know so if a new version is made I can make the corrections. Thank you, and hope that's helpful. -- Kevin F. Story (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

More on Caesar's career

I have a bit more information on Caesar's early career... in 68 B.C he was quaestor, and he went to western spain to act under the praetor there as a travelling judge, and in 65 B.C. he was aedile when he put on so much public games with his own money that (as I mentioned in some section above) he got himself into a MASSIVE debt that only the praetor- and consul-ship could get rid of. 06:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)r

Further reading

Of course, there are a lot of books written about Julius Caesar, but why not mention at least the important ones? Now, I'm not saying that Meier's book is the most important ... it's just for starts.—Barbatus 03:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

I'm going to put this article up for semi-protect; there are just too many vandalisms. If anyone objects, feel free to remove the page from requests for protection (but, just as a favor, please let me as well). Thanks -Patstuart 23:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do. I think, that padlock could be placed on every article about a 'historical celebrity.' In the last few weeks, I've mostly been reverting instead of editing. Too many idiots.—Barbatus 00:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Crime with Cleopatra?

I don't understand the following:

Caesar and Cleopatra never married. In fact they could not marry. As Roman law stood, the institution of marriage was only recognized between two Roman citizens and as Cleopatra was Queen of Egypt, she was not a Roman citizen. In Roman eyes this did not even constitute adultery. Adultery could only occur between two Roman citizens. Caesar is believed to have committed this crime numerous times during his last marriage which lasted 14 years but produced no children.

What crime? Adultery? But we have just learned that he did not commit adultery! Very confusing ...

You misunderstand. Adultery, by Roman Law, it is not considered adultery unless it is between two Roman citizens. He is believed to have committed adultery with Cleopatra, but this would not be considered adultery. He did not commit adultery- in Roman eyes. But this is now; we see it as a crime nonetheless. Does this explanation help? Rev. James Triggs 20:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Where do you live that adultery is a crime? Nonetheless, that should be irrelevant: if someone commits an act that his society with a clear concept of crime does not call a crime, he does not commit a crime. A crime is a knowing breach of existing law. Right? Renke 13:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. Wiktionary: "An act violating the law". he violated no existing law, and you can't say the Greeks committed crime by mixing church and state. the culture was completely different; today's social standards don't apply.--Makuta Bookworm 00:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What crime? Adultery? But we have just learned that he did not commit adultery!

No, what was learnt is that he did not commit the crime of adultery with Cleopatra. Caesar is known to have conducted affairs with Roman citizens; most notably, Servilia Caepionis. That is where the crime of adultery lies. 05:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman culture accepted that males could have affairs with pretty much anyone, but between nobles, it was expected to be kept discrete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not quite correct. It was alleged that Caesar had committed adultery with Servilia, and Caesar did not deny it, but we are aware of no proof. 05:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


This talk page was extremely long, so I took it upon myself to create some topical archives. This is my first attempt at any sort of archiving, so please let me know if I've done anything wrong! I hope the subsections are useful and will make this page more productive. —anskas 20:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Julius Caesar

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I created the Julius Caesar in popular culture page. I noticed this approach is gets used more and more. Pavel Vozenilek 16:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I've moved it to Durova's suggested title, to include ancient, medieval and early modern works that can't really be considered "popular culture". --Nicknack009 23:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Caesar on Sci-Fi

  • In an epsiode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Garek remarks in-either real of feinded suprise regarding Julius Caesar-that a man who could conquer an empire would leave himself open to assassination. {implying prehaps that a Cardassian Caesar would conquer a empire and not leave himself open to assasssination?}. Even in Science-Fictionthe name of "Caesar" still rebounds.

Caesar and Sulla

If cut down some of the details about Sulla added by Caesar10 - not because it's inaccurate (it's not) but because this is a very long article (and going to get longer - there's nothing about Caesar's tangential involvement in Catiline's conspiracy, or the Bona Dea scandal, yet), so detail not directly relevant to Caesar himself should be kept to a minimum. The Marius/Sulla civil war is very relevant to understanding Caesar's later actions and the Senatorial establishment's fear of him, but the procedure by which Sulla was appointed dictator or who his consular colleague was, for example, aren't. Details like that belong in Sulla's own article. Let's keep this manageable. --Nicknack009 17:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

request for semi-protection

I have requested Semi-Protection because of frequent vandalism by anonymous users. ArthurWeasley 00:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected. Durova 03:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


was the eulogy dramatic or not? Caesar's page: "but he did give a dramatic eulogy " Brutus' page: "a brief, factal, and undramatic eulogy"

Roman society viewed the passive role during sex, regardless of gender, to be a sign of submission or inferiority. Indeed, Suetonius says that in Caesar's Gallic triumph, his soldiers sang that, "Caesar may have conquered the Gauls, but Nicomedes conquered Caesar".[27] According to Cicero, Bibulus, Gaius Memmius (whose account may be from firsthand knowledge), and others (mainly Caesar's enemies), he had an affair with Nicomedes IV of Bithynia early in his career. The tales were repeated by some Roman politicians as a way to humiliate and degrade him. It is possible that the rumors were spread only as a form of character assassination. Caesar himself, according to Cassius Dio, denied the accusations under oath.[28]

Mark Antony charged that Octavian had earned his adoption by Caesar through sexual favors. Suetonius described Antony's accusation of an affair with Octavian as political slander. The boy Octavian was to become the first Roman emperor following Caesar's death

Julius In Britian

This article makes a brief and very sudden statement saying

"On August 26 55 and 54 BC he made two expeditions to Britain"

Could we go in too more detail on this possibly?

If you follow the link to Caesar's invasions of Britain, you get all the detail you could want. --Nicknack009 03:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Important: wrong image (not Julius Caesar)

The image ("19th century Italian marble bust) is not the "young Julius Caesar" but either the young Augustus or (more probably) Gaius Caesar. (There are neither records nor portraits from Caesar's youth. The later rejuvenated (but never youthful!!) depictions of Julius Caesar are only known from coins.)

19th century Italian marble bust

The second image below is an official portrait of Gaius Caesar, including the streak numbers which I added myself.

Gaius Caesar with numbers for hair strands

The depictions of Gaius Caesar are in the late Augustan style, which is why statues and busts of Gaius Caesar are often confused with those of Augustus, but never with Julius Caesar. The typical number of the strands of hair for Augustus/Gaius Caesar are 1/2/3/4 + 5 + 6/7/8, sometimes with slight variations. Even more typical is the hair pincer (in German: "Haarzange") between strands 4 and 5 (5a) or sometimes 3 & 4, if there are only three strands counting from the left.

In any case, this is not an image of Julius Caesar. Eickenberg 00:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Military Genius

Saladin was not a military genius, much less of the caliber of the other figures mentioned. The Islamic world was, when united, 1000's of times stronger then that of the West in the Middle Ages, much less isolated power of the Crusaders. He united them, he got them into the desert without water, and he won. That is being a smart general. It does not get you into the ranks of the greatest, by any stretch of the imagination. I think that Von Manstein (and several others) certainly deserves the final spot, but because of the reversion when i put his name forward, i have now simply deleted Saladin. Caesar and Saladin aren't even playing the same game, much less of the same caliber.

I've added some alternating names into the article. Please do not continue to just automatically return the article. Saladin was not under any circumstances a military genius.

RemPublicam Sum

Just curious...does anyone know where he said he was the Republic?--Cjcaesar 21:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is completely erroneous, so thanks for pointing this out. I sincerely doubt that Caesar would have spoken with such a gross grammatical error. It should be res publica sum, because a predicate takes the nominative case. Also the "King" story is from Suetonius who makes no mention of this. It appears to have been invented; I will correct this. Legis Nuntius 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds awfully alot like Louis XIV's L'état, c'est moi quote... -- fdewaele, 7 March 2007, 8:57.

The Fourth?

User:Dominus Latronius Caesar added "IV" after Caesar's name; I'm 95% sure that's vandalism, but I was wondering if this could be sourced. Can anyone confirm this? I for one have never heard of him being the fourth Gaius Julius Caesar. · AO Talk 01:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, never hearing of the fourth but here is a website i know of that is confusing me. Mabye one of yall can help me and the guy above me out. Imthelimodriver9 13:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Isn't the "j" in Latin pronounced as an "i" thus giving the name the sound "YOO-lee-oos KAI-zer?" That's how I learned Latin, correct me if wrong! -- 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's right. The latin pronunciation in the article use The International Phonetic Alphabet transcription system where "j" is pronounced as the english "y". ArthurWeasley 02:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, shouldn't Gaius be pronounced as gaːjus and Caesar as ˈkaɪzar? Pictureuploader 08:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to be treating the ai of Gaius as a dipthong rather than a vowel and a consonant, but the pronunciation guide in my Latin dictionary (The Collins Latin Dictionary and Grammar) doesn't list ai among the dipthongs, so you may be right on that, although in this case I'm not sure it makes much practical difference to the sound. As for the s in Caesar, Collins is quite emphatic that Latin s is "never [pronounced] as is rose", so that would seem to be a vote against ˈkaɪzar. Any more learned Latinists reading? --Nicknack009 10:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the correct pronunciation would not be kaɪzar... Collins is correct on that count, although if you're saying it quickly there isn't much of a difference in how it sounds. 12:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess there's a lot of pronounciations. The latin is probably the most accurate. Researcher1996 (talk)

Image on coins

You have in Aftermath of the civil war

In yet more scandalous behaviour, Caesar had coins minted bearing his likeness. This was the first time in Roman history that a living Roman was featured on a coin.

Also the dinari picture(RSC_0022.jpg) is captioned Caesar was the first living man to appear on a Roman Republican coin.

And then in the section Assassination plot I am informed

Roman mints printed a denarius coin with this title and his profile on one side, and with an image of the goddess Ceres and Caesar's title of Augur Pontifex Maximus on the reverse. While printing the title of dictator was significant, Caesar's image was not for it was customary to print consuls and other public officials on coins during the Republic.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Follow the link to the website from which the image of the dinari is from. You will find other republican coins with other consuls on them. Pompey the Great[4] had coins made of him as well as Mark Anthony[5] and Sulla.[6] The first quote appears to have been taken from somebody's website.[7] "In yet more scandalous behaviour" is language that belongs in a novel. There was nothing scandalous at all. Rich people minted coins simply because they had the precious metal to do it. It was a form of propaganda for the plebs. But, I agree; this article is a work in progress. Legis Nuntius 17:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have misinterpreted this evidence. Most of Pompey's coins show his supposed ancestor Numa Pompilius. The only coin on that page with a portrait of Pompey is from Cilicia, not Rome. The Mark Anthony & Cleopatra coin, obviously, post-dates the Caesar coins. Sulla's coins don't depict his head on the obverse; there is a small figure representing Sulla on the reverse, a much less ostentatious choice. Looking through these numismatic websites I see several coins where the consul is named but never depicted (until Caesar set a trend): the portrait is usually of a god or goddess, e.g. Roma. I know nothing about roman coins, but I'm unconvinced that you know better than the website quoted.
This contradiction has been in place for months on a major article...can some expert please sort it out? PaddyLeahy 14:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The quote in the article is "first living man to appear on a Roman Republican coin". Scipio Africanus was depicted as was Pompey and Sulla.[8] Cilicia was part of the Roman Republic; wikipedia has some nice maps to show this. The coin of Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra was another example of coin propaganda for the plebs in the Republican age. Brutus, Octavian, and Sextus Pompeius minted coins as well. Sulla seated above two recently defeated kings with his nickname Felix (epaphroditus, beloved of Venus) was also propaganda and hardly less ostentatious. Because these depictions occurred both before and after and were part of a general use of coins as propaganda during the late Republic, his portrait on the coin is not as remarkable as the article made it out to be. Your points have not convinced me that "Caesar was the first living man to appear on a Roman Republican coin." Legis Nuntius 21:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I see you were right that this material comes from [9]. That is copyright violation and should be deleted on sight, so I have done.
This web site does seem reasonably well-informed though, if not very well written. It still seems plausible that Caesar was "the first living man to have his portrait on the obverse of a Roman coin", where Roman refers to the "home state" not the distant and recently-conquered provinces where generals like Pompey and Scipio could do pretty much what they liked. This still seems a lot more in-your-face than Sulla's coins. The coin of Marcus Junius Brutus illustrated at Roman republican coinage shows his ancestor Lucius Junius Brutus, just as Pompey's home coinage shows Numa Pompilius, and Sextus Pompeius' coins show Pompey (obviously already dead at the time of issue). Political messages, yes, but not explicit self-glorification. Coins of Caesar's heirs and supporters (Octavian, Anthony) followed his example of course, which doesn't stop Caesar being first. PaddyLeahy 11:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
That website unfortunately mashes together the texts from Dio, Suetonius, and Plutarch rather than distinguishes them. There are some conflicting accounts and myths in the primary sources, yet the website treats them as fact and embellishes some of the truths for literary effect. You are very correct to say that Caesar's coin was more "in your face" than those previously minted. Generally, the minting of coins was a chance to display Roman pietas for the gods honored. Roman trade was extensive and several Caesar coins have turned up in modern day Saudi Arabia and India. A provincial general knew his coins would turn up in Rome. Caesar's coin was different from previous coins in that he minted it both himself and at Rome ensuring widespread distribution at the political center of the Republic. He also combined other self glorifying images and political attacks invented by Pompey, Sulla, and Scipio. The other web page referred to this as "scandalous" making it seem like a departure from what the Romans would be accustomed. Its description is misleading because Caesar's minting was more of another step towards the full blown propaganda they would serve as during Octavian's five civil wars. Octavian took it another step forward by minting his own image with divi filius, which set the stage for his own deification. The use of Roman coins as propaganda devices was a topic of discussion in an advanced Latin class on Tacitus and the Res Gestae Divi Augustus; it can also be found in several scholarly articles and books. A google search for "Roman coins" & "propaganda" brings up a few articles and bibliographies that a student looking for an essay topic may find useful (hint to future readers). Legis Nuntius 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I may be stating the obvious but surely the statement that Caesar was "the first living man to have his portrait on the obverse of a Roman coin" seems to be disputed or not acknowledged enough by historians as a fact to appear here. In fact it seems to be almost original research and therefore should not belong here. In these cases it's always easier to delete the disputed sentence or reach an compromise than to have to seemingly contradictory statements in the same article. Master z0b 05:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


Does anyone have any clarification on where the sentence declaring that Caesar had polio came from? I've never seen that anywhere. If it is unsourced it should be removed.Haven40 06:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

i agree i know only of these infirmatories: Deaf in one ear, possiblitly of infirtile, ecolepsy, and cant swim (possiblity). never hear the polio. i be the "polio" is a mistake of him mabye just spraining a leg, hence NO POLIO. Imthelimodriver9 13:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Salvete omnes,

I have a question about the chronology explained in the 4th paragraph of the 1.1 Early Life section, which says that Caesar's father died in 85 BC. If then says that Caesar was nominated to be Flamen Dialis in the following year, which would be 84 BC. However, the LOEB Classical Library edition of De Bello Gallico states in its opening chronology that Caesar was elected Flamen Dialis in 86 BC, which is the year BEFORE 85 BC. He married Cornelia in 84 BC.

Is it possible that Caesar's father died in 87 BC? Or perhaps the text was garbled due to a mistake in thinking about BC dates. Of course, it is possible that my source is incorrect. Though this is a small detail, I write because it would be shameful for an encyclopedia to have incorrect dates.



Source: Edwards, HJ (Translator), Caesar's The Gallic War. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1963. Page vii. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Huge length!

The page is incredibly long... There are tiny things which dont help the length. I know these things are minor, but...

  • perhaps things like "When Cicero, who was consul that year," could just be "When Cicero...", same with "Caesar supported Caecilius Metellus, now tribune," - do we need to know when other people are consuls or tribunes in Caesars article?
  • Also, under First Consulship and First Triumvirate it says "The election was dirty." which sounds funny.
  • Caesar's civil war could be cut down a little, since it has a main article
  • Assassination plot is long, but I wouldnt know how to shorten it.

Id like to make it more concise, but its impossible since he led such an eventful life! Hpmons 14:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Military history / name edit needed

The military history section currently ends with part of something on his name. Someone's edit has gone wrong somewhere, but because of subsequent sensible changes, it doesn't look like a simple revert job, so I have left it for someone else to sort out. Lovingboth 10:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There's also a sentence about the diadem incident at the end of the chronology, which similarly needs to go / be moved somewhere else Lovingboth 10:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is in need of a revision as some of these posts have pointed out. Given the number of school students who use this article, this would be a good project, perhaps after the term is over later this month and when the page is protected again. Legis Nuntius 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


It appears that some sort of vandalism/nonsense has been added to the end of Caesar's timeline. ('wht the heck_236yhki7r_bobhut') I have no idea how to edit this to remove it. Can anyone help? Terraxos 17:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

RGood Article Review requested. Proposed delisting from the GA list

I am placing this article up for possible removal from the GA list (delisting). I am opening a discussion at WP:GA/R to see if such a delisting is warrented. However, I believe the article does NOT meet the GA requirements of referencing as found in WP:WIAGA. Of specific concern, the,many sections are ENTIRELY without references. These sections include:

  • Conquest of Gaul - last two paragraphs
  • Fall of the First Triumvirate - entire section
  • Civil war - entire section
  • Aftermath of the civil war - entire section
  • Assassination plot - entire section
  • Aftermath of assassination - entire section
  • Military career - entire section
  • Honours - Entire section

It should be noted that the rest of the article is VERY well referenced. Since the article passed almost a year ago, this would lead me to two conclusions: The article was passed under a different set of GA standards, and as the standards have changed the article no longer qualifies as a GA, OR the unreferenced sections were added after the original well-referenced article was passed, making the article substandard. Either way, this article needs to be fixed or delisted.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has now been delisted following the Good Article Review. In addition to the concerns outlined above, there were also concerns about plagiarism brought up in the review. The full text of the review can be seen here. Please assume good faith and continue to improve the article. -Malkinann 01:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no reference for the closing statement of the Literary Works section, either. -Anonymous 01:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparent Vandalism

On the fifth line of the second paragraph in the section "Caesar comes to prominence", there is an inserted sentence that states "this website lies." I believe it should be removed but am unable to do so. Regularjohn44 09:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Julius Caesar was never emperor, im gonna change that--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 05:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Caesar's house

I have moved mention of Caesar's "modest house in the Subura" from his early life to his early career. It strikes me as unlikely that an aristocratic family that was active in politics, employed a tutor and was able to give Caesar an inheritance would need to live so humbly, but likely that Caesar himself, striking out on his own after the confiscation of his inheritance, would, and the passage of Suetonius says it was his first house, not his family's. --Nicknack009 11:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath of the civil war

Unfortunately most of this section was taken from a copyrighted web site (see discussion above on #Image on coins). This material was added by Special: contributions/ on 18th May 2005 (also responsible for copyvio at Caligula, according to his talk page). Much of the original copyvio has been gradually edited away since, but large chunks were left in this section. I have deleted all the copyrighted material remaining, I believe. The section now needs fixing up, but I can't do it myself as I have no access to information except for that web site. PaddyLeahy 11:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deaths in Gaul

I imagine that the statistics concerning the deaths of the Gauls are the combination of comments of Cassius Dio with modern demographic estimates (I'm pretty confident that Dio and Caesar didn't give percentages), in which case the numbers are almost certainly exaggerations. Instead of citing those numbers as established facts, you should probably quote more closely what the ancient sources actually say, or at least say, "according to Dio," or quote whatever study came up with the numbers. There is often an anti-Roman bias in Gallic archaeology, and I think that may be the case here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:28, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Use of i and j in name of Roman historical persons

I think that there should be a mention of the fact that Caesar's name was GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR and not GAIUS JULIUS CAESAR, because the letters j and u did not exist at the time it was written. perhaps, the latin spelling could replace the anglicised one. 22:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The Latin spelling is given in a footnote. If we were to be absolutely accurate the J should indeed be written as an I, but the U's should remain U's - they are not V's, they only look like that in the script used in monumental inscriptions - and mixed case, not all caps, should continue to be used, unless you're going to argue that medieval names should be spelled entirely in lower case because medieval manuscripts didn't use capitals the way we do. In any case, Wikipedia policy is to use the most familiar version of a name, and the conventional anglicised spelling is so widely known and used that it would be bordering on pedantic to correct it. --Nicknack009 23:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Notable relatives

"Julius Sabinus, a Gaul of the Lingones at the time of the Batavian rebellion of AD 69, claimed to be the great-grandson of Caesar on the grounds that his great-grandmother (Rhiannon, a Princess of the Helvetii) had been Caesar's lover during the Gallic war." I've removed the phrase "(Rhiannon, a Princess of the Helvetii)" because as far as I'm aware this is only an invention of Colleen McCullough for her Masters of Rome books. If I'm wrong then of course feel free to put it back in. Kuralyov 18:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Caesar's name

In Latin language there is not the letter "J j". -- 18:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Gaius Julius Caesar I

Could someone here take a look at Gaius Julius Caesar I and tell me if maybe we should nominate that article for deletion? Plinth molecular gathered 00:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Was his name not:Caius Julius Caesar Im reading a book and he is Caius? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

G and C are the same letter basically, the Latins (or Etruscans I forget which) gave C a tail to differentiate the two. The name Gaius is older than the letter G and so it has the initial "C." in abbreviations, but the ancient Latin texts spelled it Gaius. Legis Nuntius 18:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Deletion. Or redirect? Oda Mari (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Deletion. I would recommend gathering all of the Roman Dictator's ancestors together into one article rather than have them scattered about a few stubs. If Gaius Julius Caesar I is deleted, make note of him in one of his decendent's articles. Gaius Julius Caesar III, Gaius Julius Caesar (proconsul of Asia, 90s BC) has a larger stub, maybe Gaius Julius Caesar I & II should be incorporated into it. What we know of them comes from ancient biographies of the famous dictator (Julius Caesar IV I suppose). Ancestors of Julius Caesar perhaps? Legis Nuntius 18:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Deletion, largely because I don't think he existed. We know Caesar's father, the proconsul of Asia, was called Gaius, but from an inscription to that Gaius we know his father was also called Gaius (the man we're currently calling Gaius Julius Caesar II), but his grandfather was called Lucius. However, I believe that any individual with enough information on him to make a stub should have his own article, and should not be lost in a composite article like the Caecilii Metelli used to be. Anyone of whom all we know is his name can be mentioned on a disambig page. --Nicknack009 18:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The issue has been referred to a formal AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaius Julius Caesar I. If you've expressed your opinion here, I recommend you paste your comments over to the deletion discussion. Robert Happelberg 23:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Verifying conquest of Gaul casualty statistics

The recent change to the Conquest of Gaul section cites a Roman community forum and someone's private website. While the sources may not be as reputable as others, it lists some numbers. The Helvetii article makes a good summation on this:

In general, numbers written down by ancient military authors have to be taken as gross exaggerations. What Caesar claims to have been 368,000 people is estimated by other sources to be rather around 300,000 (Plutarch), or 200,000 (Appian); in the light of a critical analysis, even these numbers seem far too high. Furger-Gunti considers an army of more than 60,000 fighting men extremely unlikely in the view of the tactics described, and assumes the actual numbers to have been around 40,000 warriors out of a total of 160,000 emigrants.

I think it may be valuable to add some figures to the Conquest of Gaul section, but I think they should be incorporated into what is already there (not placed at the end), and citations given to either ancient or reputable classicist sources. The recent revision is also present in the Gaul article. I would like to see another source on the 1 in 4 Gauls slaughtered, 1 in 4 enslaved statistic. My first impulse was to revert. Legis Nuntius 02:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

contradictory information regarding coins

In the article there is a line that says "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." however the caption below the coins in question states that Caesar was the first person to have their face on a coin. I'm inclined to agree with the first statement rather than the caption. Master z0b 01:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the discussion of "Image on coins" above. Both statements are actually correct. The caption and corresponding text may be better melded because of the continuing confusion. Legis Nuntius 02:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Campaign into Parthia, Scythia and Germania

Greetings. Caesar planned to invade Parthia, Scythia, the Caucasian lands, Eastern Europe and Germania, but this plan was thwarted because he was murdered. I have found a quote and a link. Is this worth mentioning?

For he p579planned and prepared to make an expedition against the Parthians; and after subduing these and marching around the Euxine by way of Hyrcania, the Caspian sea, and the Caucasus, to invade Scythia; 7 and after overrunning the countries bordering on Germany and Germany itself, to come back by way of Gaul to Italy, and so to complete this circuit of his empire, which would then be bounded on all sides by the ocean.*.html It is in paragraph 58, in phrase 6 and 7 specifically. Darth Viller (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is worth mentioning. In one of Augustus' biographies, this is mentioned because it was actually Marcus Antonius who fought agains the Parthians. That biographer theorized that Caesar would have had as much trouble as his underling and would have faced defeat. Parthia was a thorn in the side of Rome for hundreds of years. Mention of Caesar's planned campaign would go best at the end of "Aftermath of Civil War" for the transition to the "Assassination Plot." Legis Nuntius (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would fit best in "Aftermath of Assassination" Darth Viller (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


does anyone know more about his friend Brutus? like why brutus decided to kill him? i know that caesar spared his life, so i want to know how come he betrayed him... maybe something about their relashionship or somethign of the kind... I'm doing a project in Social Studies, so I want to know about Brutus to make my report more accurate


Researcher1996 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not very interesting, not what i had needed to find out proply information. but it was okay! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

They're not Gregorian dates.

The birth and death dates (if not all dates in the article) need to be presented as Julian dates. For example, the Ides of March 44BC would have been March 13th by modern reckoning. A Wednesday, despite that the Romans wouldn't have called it that. When you use Julian dates, you have to note it, because otherwise you present a false continuity. Someone today born on July 13th would be incorrect to suppose they were born on the same date as Gaius Julius, whereas a person born on July 11th would have that claim. -- (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions about the article

Sorry to post this here, but I can't figure out how to start a new thread. I have three suggestions for the entry. First, discussing Roman politics in terms of 'populares' and 'optimates' is dangerous because so many anachronistic assumptions have gone into interpreting history in this way. The entry here makes it sound as though these terms name self-identified political parties, even an ideological tradition. Yet the sources suggest no such thing, and the most recent scholarship on the issue has shown not only that the 'political party' analogy distorts the sources, but that the people called 'populares' were neither unified nor, in most cases, driven by ideology. Rather, they were distinguished by their method of working through the popular assemblies against the majority of the senate. The flipside of the coin is that the 'optimates,' though some of them certainly did develop ideological justifications for their position, were primarily unified by their loyalty to senatorial supremacy. Most of our evidence for the use of these terms comes from Cicero, who was trying very hard to develop an ideology to support senatorial authority. We should not therefore conclude that his writings simply describe the reality, but rather that they tried to prescribe a certain way of looking at reality.

That brings me to my second suggestion. The entry does a fairly good job, in most sections anyway, of citing primary sources responsibly and noting divergent reports in different souces. Overall, though, the entry gives the misleading impression that we have an ample amount of clear and reliable information about Caesar. As it happens, we do have a lot of contemporary sources, but each and every source that we have is written from some perspective that should make us hesitant to treat it as a simple objective report of events. Caesar's commentaries are obviously tailored to present a favorable image of Caesar and his activities; Cicero's letters represent Cicero's point of view, which is very often shaped by what he feels that he should say to his recipient (remember that letters were not exactly 'private' documents in antiquity; even if Cicero did not intend to publish the letters, simply sending a letter virtually guaranteed that it would be read by people other than the recipient). The various historians who write about Caesar worked with sources of various reliability, and ancient hisoriography very often invented details or reported facts on slender evidence for rhetorical effect, besides being driven largely by a didactic purpose. It would help to have a short section of the entry noting these problems.

Finally, the entry claims that Caesar's political moves were influenced by his need to avoid laying down office in order to evade prosecution. This claim is indeed made by most historians of the period, but it has recently been challenged. It would be worth noting.

I hope to make some of these changes pretty soon, but I would like to know what others think about this before I do so.

- djr 11:17AM CST Nov. 12 2007

I agree with everything you say. The realm of ancient sources is so politically influenced and fragmented that it is better to trust some sources than others. BTW, to start an new thread you click the "+" at the top next to "edit this page".

Erik the Red 2 (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with all of these sensible suggestions as well. Look forward to the edits. JPotter (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

100 Most Influential Men In History

Surely the line "one of the 100 most influential men in history. [3]" is mere opinion, and if not opinion of an editor then the opinion of just one man and his novel. I think it should be deleted. (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course. It was the latest addition to the article (from Saturday) and so blatantly POV that you didn't really have to take this to talk. I went ahead and removed it. -- Jao (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
As I had before you, Jao. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It's properly sourced, what's the problem? JPotter (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Its just someone's opinion, policies are meant to help us create a good encyclopedia, they are not meant to be used by wikilawyers inserting whatever slanted opinion into articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Assume good faith please! Oughtn't a published source which includes Caesar as one of the most influential men in history be mentioned? The book is widely published. JPotter (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh I assume good faith but this is not appropriate and you cannot force it on us quoting WP:RS, its clearly American centred anyway and we are not an American but an international encyclopedia and because we want to be a reliable encyclopedia we do not use refs like this anywhere, this kind of stuff is rejected throughout the encyclopedia and the fact that 2 experienced editors have reverted you should hopefully mean something. He isn't even a historian, just a NASA retiree opining, which is great but not for us. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, no one is trying to force anything on anyone. Since you believe it's a Eurocentric slant, would it be more appropriate to say he is one of the most influential men in Western Civilization? Is it that Hart is not an historian? If we found an historian that said Caesar was one an influential man, would that suffice? JPotter (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Nobody's opinion should be stated as fact, we simply don't need to have this contentious kind of insertion. I agree with Jao, lets just let the facts state themselves, that is far more useful to our readers than opining about who is the greatest, a great pissing contest as someone describnbed this kind of thing on wikipedia recently. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, probably not in the lead. JPotter (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In a trivia section perhaps but as you say not in the lead, indeed. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
And one thing I know about history is that it is not opining about the most influential, history is trying to figure out what in the past actually happened to the best we can so I wouldn't call Hart a historian albeit perhaps a writer on historical themes. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
No, Hart is definitely not an historian. By the way, I didn't realize the phrase was recently added. I just saw the removal and knew the phrase would be easily sourced, but I didn't know that someone had just recently added that phrase to the lead. I find you latest reasoning compelling, although it took some arm twisting. Cheers. JPotter (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realise myself either. i only added Julius Caesar to my watchlist thsi weekend and was reading the article, as I do, and that was just obvious removal material. its jao who pointed out this is a recent addition. And I am definitely not assuming bad faith, nice to discuss it. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

For administrators: italian version of Julius Caesar is now a featured article, can you report it? Lo Scaligero (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem correcting vandalism move

Some clever person moved Julius Caesar to "Hagger ", including a string of spaces after the name. I tried to move it back, but the spaces in the name came with it. :( Now the redirect doesn't work properly. Can somebody who knows what they're doing sort this out please? (Sorry) Paul Fisher (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A Link in the Reference

The reference list is using some kind of technique such that it can change the number of column according to the width of the browser's window of the reader. As a result, the column width would also change. At certain width, the column would be so narrow that the 62nd line exceeds the limit. I would like to fix it myself but unluckily this article is locked. So can someone who is able to edit change the original line which is just a hyperlink to "[ Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, by Plutarch (chapter48)]" (without the quotes). Thanks in advance. --Quest for Truth (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done by myself as now I can see the edit button. --Quest for Truth (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oldest Marble bust

I did add this, since this is the only most and ever ancient bust ever discovered, and it is most notable to be here: The Department of Subaquatic Archaeological Research divers (headed by Michel L'Hour) discovered between September and October 2007, a 46 B.C. life-sized marble bust showing an aging Caesar with wrinkles and hollows in his face, in the Rhone River near Arles, southern France. France's Culture Minister Christine Albanel reported on May 13, 2008, that the bust is the most ancient representation known today of, Divers find Caesar bust that may date to 46 B.C.Picture of Marble Bustundated image --Florentino floro (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a note that the identification is disputed Csrster (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The picture on the culture ministry's web page is marked "D.R." for droits réservés: all rights reserved. In other words, it's a copyvio and won't be here much longer. The WP copy is already tagged for deletion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I added a fair use rationale to the image's page. This is a prime example of fair use given that the bust is over in France, the Associated Press claims US law applies, and the bust is unique in that it shows Caesar at an age not previously known. Compare this image to the fair use in Perfect 10 Inc. v. Amazon Inc. Legis Nuntius (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an important image (and perhaps deserves more prominence in the article), so I hope this works! --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't yet found a news source that explains why this bust is identified as Caesar. It looks nothing like him! --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should revert to a known image of Caesar until it is authenticated. It is now the lead image. Legis Nuntius (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Now there's a modest paragraph at the foot of the article on this most interesting find. I added some detail from the news reports and made the wording a little more cautious. Raders of Mary Beard's debunking TLS blog will detect broad holes in her stance of doubt: "hundreds" of years of extreme naturalism in Roman portrait sculpture, "immediate" diefication of Caesar, etc. --Wetman (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You guys are laughable: "The only contemporary portrait bust"? Ever heard about the Tusculum-Caesar? Care to check? Care to compare? But nooooooo, if AP writes or some French minister says that this is Julius Caesar, then it's got to be Caesar. WParrots. This is so ludricous. And I especially like this one: "Though the portrait assorts well with numismatic evidence". Care for share some expert's publication which supports this POV? And this one: "it is being given a date range of about 46 BCe, a time when Caesar was in Arles." Oh, yeah? Caesar was there in 49BC. In 46BC he was in Africa (Thapsus), then in Rome—don't you read your own articles???—, which is why Tiberius Claudius Nero founded the Arles-colony on his orders. And this one: "After Caesar's assassination, 44 BC, portraits of him would have been discreetly disposed of". Discreetly? They were smashed to pieces by the frenzied mob (cp. e.g. Appian, BC III.1.9). But please continue to increase WP's superb quality. You're doing a fine job. —Eickenberg (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your forceful comment. I take it that you are disputing the authenticity of the bust. This is a valid opinion. As stated above you, there are those that reached the same position because the bust looks nothing like him. I must forcefully disagree with your comment on Appian, he was not referring to Arles. Legis Nuntius (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not disputing. I'm stating that it IS CLEARLY NOT Caesar. I simply have to compare the Arles-bust and the Tusculum-Caesar, up to now the only bust/statue of Caesar made during his lifetime. There are no resemblances. Not one. That's not opinion, but an observation, the simplest and easiest way to attain scientific fact. The French government official probably only screamed "CAESAR!" because they need more money for their archaeological work. Greedy, dishonest bunch. And you're falling for their BS. As for Appian: I didn't say that Appian refers to Arles. He clearly refers to Rome, but this is to my knowledge the ONLY source on Caesar's busts being destroyed after his assassination. People who say that this also happened in Arles (namely statues thrown into the river) can only infer that from the Appian source. So Appian III.1.9 is scientifically relevant here. (Ever heard about circumstantial evidence?) —Eickenberg (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know very much about circumstantial evidence. I also know about propensity evidence and how it is inadmissible. It is inadmissible because its logic of proof commits the fallacy of composition. If the people of Rome start a riot, it does not necessarily mean that the whole Roman empire immediately started rioting when the news of the assassination finally reached them weeks after the occurence. I would think that if that had happened, at least one of the historians would have written about it. Speaking of evidence, evidence submitted by experts is called expert opinion. It falls under Article VII Opinions and Expert Testimony of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Even the opinion of an expert is not taken as a "scientific fact." Experts can disagree. Your own opinions are not scientific facts. The scientific method requires not only the subject to be questioned, but your own theories as well. It was because I question my own opinion that I suggested the disputed bust not be the lead depiction on the page. It should be authenticated by experts first. My own personal opinion or that of any other wikipedia user of what the bust looks like has no bearing on the official outcome. The majority of the busts out there do not have the insciption Caesar sum followed by an A.U.C. and a date. Even the authenticity and date of the Tusculum bust has been questioned. Legis Nuntius (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Not quite correct about the circumstantial evidence. If you can't back it up with further evidence, it's nothing more than a theory. But as a theory it's still admissable, and can be debated… which is where the "expert opinion" comes in. But a written source (even if it was altered in the copying process) or a statue or an inscription are never "opinion", they are (in itself) plain facts. For constructing a theory based on these facts it's of course pretty weak, if you only have one source, and you'll be prone to criticism, but nevertheless: the source itself is rock-solid. (In this specific case a counter-argument could be that it would be hard to explain, why Caesar's statue would have been thrown away in a Caesarian colony! The reaction to his assassination would have rather been the opposite, as the sources also confirm for Rome.) But if you see something like that as "inadmissable" in a scientific discussion, I have one question: why do you still allow the article to read "After Caesar's assassination, 44 BC, portraits of him would have been discreetly disposed of, as politically dangerous possessions", if neither the French "expert" nor the WP "experts" support it with AT LEAST some piece of circumstantial evidence, as I have done, of which the discarding of the statues in Arles could theoretically be inferred? It's a fact that they were thrown away, yes. But that's simply not enough to support the assassination theory. And btw: the Tusculum-Caesar has been debated, yes, but the majority of the arguments are about the dating: 44BC, 45BC etc., not about this being a lifetime-portrait or not. Communis opinio clearly answers this with a yes. That's not "fact", I know. What's a fact however (which I already stated above) is that the Arles-bust and the Tusculum-Caesar do not show the same person. —Eickenberg (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Another argument against the French assassination-theory would be that the Arles-colony (as all of Gallia Narbonensis) was not unter Decimus Brutus' governship anymore. Decimus had been assigned to Gallia Cisalpina. Narbonensis was under Caesarian influence then, and the cult of the deified Caesar was later very prominent in that province, which of course started with Caesar's soldiers and veterans in the colonies. Why then would loyal followers of Caesar throw away his statue? But oh, I forgot, that's circumstantial and inadmissable, right? And I also forgot that the Arles-bust isn't even Julius Caesar, so this all null and void anyway. Or is it? If the statue (which is a possibility) depicts the actual founder of the colony, Tiberius Claudius Nero, then it might be a theory that Caesar's followers in the colony threw away Nero's statue, because he had been a member of the Optimate party in Rome and had suggested rewards for the assassins (which were granted to them anyway because of the amnesty and Caesar's decrees that remained in effect). Furthermore, Tiberius Nero first joined Marcus Antonius against Octavian, which might also have been a reason for them to throw the bust away. Another possibility: Tiberius Nero was the father of the later emperor Tiberius, who had been adopted by Augustus, after he had snatched Nero's wife Livia to become his own wife. To obliterate Tiberius' biological origin and support the imperial adoption, the discarding of Tiberius Nero's bust (if it is Tiberius Nero, which is not clear) might have been a part of an Augustan damnatio memoriae. I don't read anything about alternative explanations in the media. Everyone seems to be clouded by the illusion that this is Caesar's bust. —Eickenberg (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Can any of this opinion be edited into the article?--Wetman (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe so. At the moment it is original research. The consensus growing here (3 now with Eickenberg) is that the status of the bust is at the moment disputed, but my original proposal to have it removed from the lead depiction has not been addressed. The discussion on Appian has come full circle. Originally, Appian was used for the opinion that busts of Caesar would have been smashed and not thrown in the river. I pointed out that Appian was referring to Rome and that it would be a fallacy of composition to apply what happened in Rome to Arles. I would agree with the proposition that it would be unlikely for residents of Arles to destroy a bust of Caesar in general. I also agree with the position that isolated pieces of evidence hardly lead to a conclusion. Just as this bust without additional evidence makes authentication dubious, "the ONLY source on Caesar's busts being destroyed after his assassination" is dubious as well. Plutarch, Appian, Dio, and Suetonius differ even when writing of the exact same events. While I called into doubt the means of arising to a position, it does not mean that I necessarily disagree with that position or agree with the counter argument. Personally, I find it suspect that the bust was found with a statue of Neptune from the 3rd century. I can't say for certain, but it is my opinion that they were all tossed in there at the same time. I have no idea where these guys are getting these dates, but I will treat them as opinion until a consensus of other academic opinions has been made. As for the image, I would like to see what the consensus is for its use. I propose again that it be removed as the lead image and the section concerning this new bust contain references to its disputed status. I also propose that it not be removed from the article altogether because one reputable source (reputable at the moment) claims that it is Caesar. Legis Nuntius (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The section that deals with it should be retitled as well - the Tusculum bust is considered to be contemporary, so even if this one is authentic, it's not "The only contemporary portrait bust" - and I'll go ahead and make that change. I'll also add the other images from the Commons to the one-image gallery that's already been created. It's a shame we don't have a photo of the Tusculum bust. Does anyone have access to a public domain photo of it? I'll have a trawl through the other language wikis and see if any of them have one. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded a free, high-resolution picture of the Arles bust. This might facilitate comparisons. Note that pictures of other finds at the same site are available at the same URL [10] (the Neptune statue looks really good). And yes, as the ID indicates I am from Arles. --Thomas Arelatensis (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

@Legius Nuntius: even if there's consensus here, it doesn't mean that it would validate an inclusion in the article. WP is all about adding "[citation needed]". At the moment, there is no "dispute": I don't know of any scholar who has a) either supported the opinion that it's Caesar or b) has come forth and published a rebuttal (unless you call the Times Literary Supplement a scholarly publication), although all my colleagues and in other institutes say that it's definitely not Caesar or that they have huge doubts. A lot of them are like: "Why do you even care? That's pseudo-scientific propaganda of politicians to get more funds. It's dishonest. We should ignore it." At the moment there are only government officials and (one?) government-employed scientist, i.e. a biased source, and they don't even present any arguments except their own conjecture. The main argument seems to be: Caesar was there in 46 BC (which is wrong: he was there in 49BC) and Caesar was the founder of the colony (which is also wrong: he was only the pater, cf. the two words in the colony's name: Paterna Iulia). What else is there? Nothing. MY SUGGESTION: move the complete paragraph and work it into Arles#Archaeology. As long as there is no further evidence or a rebuttal, it cannot qualify for inclusion here. @Nicknack009 images of the Tusculum-Caesar are found here (third row). The photos themselves seem to be public domain are definitely public domain [reason: the owner and copyright holder of all the Aeria-photos died in 1937], but they have a distribution copyright belonging to the university of Erlangen. Maybe they'll agree to a restricted license for use at WP. The second-oldest Caesar bust is the Corinth-Caesar here or here. It is directly based on the Tusculum-type, but was probably made shortly after his death (cf. the mourning expression, the slightly rejuvenized appearance as Divus Iulius, the beard as a sign of mourning; he still has few hair ~_^); maybe the author on flickr will allow its use on WP. —Eickenberg (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
One general addition concerning the original information by the French authorities: a) Michel L'heur, the supervisor, is a field archaeologist (especially underwater archaeology), and I haven't yet found any single publication by him that deals with ancient Rome or Caesar. He said however this: "We have consulted the most eminent specialists in ancient statuary so as to make sure that this really is a portrait of Julius Caesar." Who are those specialists? Are they specialists on Rome or Caesar, like Toynbee, Herbig, Zanker, Simon? Why haven't these specialists come forward and have publicly endorsed this theory? Makes me wonder… b) the expedition leader Luc Long stated that he knew immediately that it's Caesar, although he also doesn't have any credentials in the fields Rome/Caesar. But he claims that he also consulted "specialists in art history and forensic morphology". These specialists also haven't come forth yet. Furthermore there is not a single clue, if all those specialists unanimously stated that the bust depicts Caesar. Maybe only one of them said casually that it can't be completely ruled out, which is often enough for a gung-ho scientific announcement. I've seen this before: private endorsements by specialists for a colleague followed by public silence in order to ensure that their scholarly integrity remains intact, because in the end they can't be sure and won't risk their reputation. I'm not saying that this is the case here, but it sure smells fishy. —Eickenberg (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Further, I really don't see why news of a recently discovered bust should be in the article, even if it is legit. I mean, it smacks of recentism and undue weight. Imagine if there were a similar section about every purported bust of Caeser. It seems to me we are lucky that many of them were destroyed. It simply isn't pertinent, because it doesn't tell us about Caeser at all. maxsch (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I found a German newspaper article here that quotes some scientists on the matter. 1) Hansgerd Hellenkemper, director of the Roman-Germanic Museum in Cologne, supports the Caesar-theory, but says that it is a later portrait from Augustan times. With this argument he obviously contradicts himself, because Caesar's images (on coins and statues as Divus Iulius) looked younger than the real-life portraits (such as the Tusculum), with more hair and sometimes also as a mirror image of Augustus himself. So this "expert opinion" can be discarded, because an Augustan depiction of Caesar would never have looked like the Arles-bust. 2) The historian and Caesar-biographer Martin Jehne from Dresden doesn't explicitly support the Caesar-theory and only says that it is an important find. Furthermore he criticizes the French archeologists' argument that the bust was thrown away after and because of Caesar's assassination, for reasons that I have also written above (amnesty for the assassins, Caesar's decress remaining intact, Caesar elevated to god). This is in accordance to what Mary Beard has written in the TLS. So the French argument seems to be invalid. 3) The article continues with the argument that the bust would better fit in 45 BC after Caesar's victory at Munda and the Senate making him dictator perpetuo. All over the empire statues of Caesar were made. After his assassination many were collected to be altered in order to depict Caesar as divine. In this context the Tusculum Caesar is supposed to have appeared. This argument is however wrong, because lots of specialists (like the ones I mentioned above) date the Tusculum to 45 or early 44 BC. It completely matches the coins issued in 45 and 44 (e.g. the Buca denarius CAESAR DICT PERPETVO). So if at all, the Tusculum-type is the one that's at the base of later iconographical developments (cp. the Corinth-Caesar, which was mentioned on some blogs.) —Eickenberg (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This is totally insane! On a blog I found a link to a French video. And on that video the bust DOES look a little bit more like Caesar than on the published photograph. See here. —Eickenberg (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph on "oldest marble bust" moved and deleted

Paul Zanker, a world-renowned archaeologist and expert on Caesar & Augustus has shown that the marble bust from Arles is not Caesar. Therefore it is of no relevance to this article. I reworded the paragraph (pros & cons plus sources), and moved it to Arles#Archaeology. If some day in the distant future, the communis opinio will see this as a portrait of Caesar, we can always reintegrate it. —Eickenberg (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This aggressive behavior is discourteous to other Wikipedia editors. Deleting all mention of a portrait bust, said to be of Caesar but whose identity remains under professional discussion, does not help build an encyclopedia. Common civility keeps me from addressing this issue more frankly, but any editor who keeps the Wikipedia firmly in mind rarely makes such errors of judgement. I fully expect to be clubbed on the head with WP:CIVILITY for breathing a criticism of this ungracious behavior. --Wetman (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Come off it, will you please?! First of all I did not delete the paragraph. It has been moved to Arles, where it has a much better place. Secondly the paragraph was extremely poorly written. It is not discourteous to other WP editors. They should be glad that I substantially improved what they wrote, classified the paragraph in a better way (moved to another article). And they should also acknowledge that I didn't surge ahead with edits (like the others you refer to), but waited at first, discussed the matter and waited even longer, until at least 2 or 3 specialists on the subject had published their assessment. So I'm not aggressive. I'M THE EXACT OPPOSITE!!! Thirdly many experts have spoken out against the unfounded claim that this is a bust of Caesar. So AS LONG as it is not decided by communis opinio that it actually is Caesar, it has no place in the Julius-Caesar-article. I seriously hope you are capable of understanding. EDIT: and by the way, the article still mentions the bust and refers to the paragraph with a link!!! —Eickenberg (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It was reported by major news organizations that the bust was of Caesar. If professionals have later decided that it's not of Caesar, fine, but the fact that the initial news and report did allege it to be that of JC does warrant and inclusion in this article. JPotter (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
That's why it explicitly says: "For the recently discovered marble bust from Arles see Arles#Archaeology." Note: I will edit Caesar's name in there as well. But what more do you want? An in-depth report on how stupid the media and how ingenuous many WP editors are? —Eickenberg (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The main article is now (notice the neutral title) Arles portrait bust, as Arles is not the article for a tail that threatens to wag the dog. The question remains, what in the nature of a notice directing readers to Arles poprtrait bust will be permitted by

Eickenberg, whose idea of neutrality is "For the marble bust from Arles discovered in 2007 and in 2008 erroneously revealed to the public as Caesar's likeness see..."--Wetman (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You're an asshole, Wetman. And I don't give a fuck about civility at the moment: My first sentence had a completely neutral wording at first: "for the recently discovered marble bust from Arles see". Then JPotter talked about inclusion in *this* article, so I felt pressed to reword the phrase, and in the heat of the moment the word "erroneously" slipped in. And now you're accusing me of not being neutral. Yeah, right. I'll say it again: you're an asshole. —Eickenberg (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Tencteri and Usipetes

The German invasion of Gaul is not mentioned in this article.

The conflict between Caesar and Tencteri & Usipetes is mostly explained from the perspective of Caesar sceptics, so someone better write an article about Tencteri and Usipetes according to Caesar's evaluation.

Caesar's assessment of the situation on the ground is much more reliable & professional than most cases on the Internet.

Phalanx Pursos 17:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned, but not in much detail, in the section Conquest of Gaul: "In 55 BC Caesar repelled an incursion into Gaul by the Germanic Usipetes and Tencteri, and followed it up by building a bridge across the Rhine and making a show of force in Germanic territory, before returning and dismantling the bridge." Not much Caesar-septicism there, by my reckoning, but not much analysis either. This is an enormous article, and as the Gallic Wars have their own article, the account here of Caesar's Gallic campaigns is rightly brief. The Gallic Wars article doesn't have much detail on the German invasion either, but if you want to add more, it would be best done there rather than here. As for your additions to Tencteri and Usipetes, they're so pro-Roman that even Caesar might find them POV. Describing any group of people as "barbarian looters and sackers who wandered around Germany for many years" is not in any way neutral. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The German invasion of Gaul was prior to the Roman/Gaul conflict, the German invasion of Gaul is the most important evidence of the Roman/Gaul conflict. Tencteri and Usipetes attacked Caesar's cavalry, Caesar charged them with his cavalry and the German tribes panicked, jumped in the river Rhine and drowned. Afterwards was Caesar the one accused of war crimes by the Roman senate, so Caesar was already accused of war crimes before the Roman/Gaul conflict. Caesar's military forces were at peace before the German invasion of Gaul, so it's important that someone dedicates an article to the German invasion prior to the Roman/Gaul conflict.

Phalanx Pursos 17:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Caesar had been making war in Gaul for three years before the Tencteri and Usipetes invaded. You seem to be confusing them with the Suebi, the enemies of the Tencteri and Usipetes, who did indeed invade (a different part of) Gaul before Caesar's governorship began, led by Ariovistus. This is covered in the first paragraph of the "Conquest of Gaul" section, again in not much detail, but with references. The article on Ariovistus, which I had a hand in writing, has more detail. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
[[11]] I looked it up for you, Caesar's forces were at truce in Gaul and ordered not to attack even when under attack. But I read somewhere and I can't find it anymore; that Caesar's forces during & before that time were barracked in Gaul under the diplomatic stance that military force was not allowed, I can't find this article anymore so it would be nice if someone could look it up.

Phalanx Pursos 19:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly not understanding what's written. In the passage linked to, an excerpt from Book 4 of Caesar's Gallic Wars, Caesar tells how he marched against the Usipetes and Tencteri with the intention of making war with them, and agreed a truce with them to allow for negotiation as the two sides approached each other. It is not the first engagement of the Gallic Wars, and it was a temporary truce between two parties about to go to war, not a general peace with everyone in the region. I suggest you read the whole of the Gallic War to get an idea of Caesar's nine years in Gaul, rather than one passage out of context. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your correspondence and showing me all these links, but you explain the things how you want to see them. That's my point, I have studied Caesar's history at length in 2000. At this moment I just want to bash the Caesar sceptics, because I've studied justice and I suggest you do to.

Thank you.

Best regards, Phalanx Pursos —Preceding comment was added at 05:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Caesars face picture (bust) is wrong

The busts on the article are contradictory to what was said as the oldest and more real face of Caesar. See here The busts in the article and purported busts of Caesar are all wrong and biased to fulfill someone's interpretation of him. In the oldest and more realistic face his nose is little flatter/wider and the eyes are little closer. He looks more like Italian and Latin in appearance than more western/northern european in appearance especially the totally incorrect face of his in the Vienna bust in the article. Someone should state this information in the article, because the pictures are POV. (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

German invasion of Gaul

People who wrote this article pretend as if it didn't happen.

But those German tribes totally massacred Celtic villages & civilians, Caesar saved the Gauls and this truth is totally neglected. It's such a long story you can't explain this in 5 words, shame on you that Usipetes, Tencteri & Seubians are not mentioned in this article. If you don't explain Caesar's conflict with Usitpetes, Tencteri & Seubians in it's full truth, then you are a Caesar sceptic.

As token of respect & military salute; Underline Caesar saved the Gauls from the Germans. Phalanx Pursos 18:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not bad to be skeptic in some cases. Caesar has reason to justify his own invasion of Gaul. Iblardi (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I've studied barbarian atrocities, what these people do is put all their warriors in 1 group and totally burn villages to the ground killing everyone inside. Caesar repelled an invasion of Germanic tribes who had their focus on making Gaul Germanic land, Caesar wanted to prevent a second invasion. Usipetes & Tencteri drowned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phalanxpursos (talkcontribs) 20:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)