Talk:Julius Caesar

poopy :D

Realigning article

I have made some changes to the article. While I have made the sections shorter, I have not deleted anything. I just moved the information on his early life to its own page, and on his consulship and wars to their own page. I have also made the language more understandable for most of the people who will want to read this article (non-history junkies). This means getting rid of most names and dates and being a bit broad about things. I am going to add information on his dictatorship, and would like to move the articles we have on him into a series. I think some of these might be promotable to "good article" status.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What names and dates did you delete from the article? It isn't clearly tracked. Gx872op (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

New section on dictatorship

Though I applaud the effort to add this section, the political evaluation of Caesar's dictatorship is based mostly on one source (Fuller), whose biases I assume to be those reflected here, as I see no reference to Gelzer or Meier or other of the more important biographies of Caesar. Nor do I see reference to the views of leading scholars of the Late Republic such as Erich S. Gruen or Fergus Millar. For instance, the section asserts that Caesar undertook an "unprecedented legislative agenda" and then proceeds to list acts that are entirely and utterly according to precedent; in fact, one of these, the limiting of the grain dole, is a conservative measure that rolls back one of Clodius Pulcher's leges (see Leges Clodiae). Caesar didn't "force" a reduction; he took a budget-cutting measure that pruned Clodius's treasury-draining program of free grain, which had been itself quite radical — even the supposed mad dog Saturninus hadn't dared propose such a thing, and advocated charging the poor at least a nominal fee. Taking a census was not unprecedented (quite the contrary — it's one of the things the Roman censor regularly did). The equestrian composition of juries had, though I'm fuzzy on the details of this, been a political football for a while: I could be recalling this incorrectly, but I believe one of the pro-aristocratic measures Sulla had taken was to do away with equestrians on juries. Sumptuary laws were certainly not without precedent: Crassus's father and his consular colleague had passed some (or such were passed during their consulship), and I believe there were earlier ones.

The sentence in this section on the collegia, or professional guilds (not all collegia were of this type) is staggeringly biased. They are called "subversive," as if this is a simple fact. Please see this little section on how these neighborhood and guild associations figured in Roman politics (though the article topic distorts emphasis there). The point is, they are usually associated with the populares, and suppressed by the optimates; since Caesar is usually considered one of the populares, this is a very interesting action on his part. It suggests that his agenda contained some "conservative" elements, as has been noted by various scholars.

The term limit on Roman governors: again, this is not some radical new idea, but a longstanding question of Roman politics: see prorogatio. Debt-restructuring had occurred at various times during the Republic; see for instance Lucius Valerius Flaccus (suffect consul 86 BC)#Credit crisis of the 80s, where debt was repaid at one-quarter the amount owed. Agrarian law as pertains to distributions for veterans again was no innovation; this had been a point of contention between the senate and Pompey, but the handling of ager publicus had always been subject to elite shenanigans, and agrarian law was part of the Gracchan agenda.

As for the "few more reforms." I have no idea what is meant by "police force" here; if the technical term is not used, the phrase should be linked to the relevant article for those who wonder what this was (this was usually a function of the praetor's office and the tres viri). But to whatever extent there was a "police force" in the Roman Republic, it was not new to Caesar, whatever further measures he took to formalize and expand these services.

Oddly, one of the most radical things Caesar did is underplayed. You might want to check whether Caesar "extended Latin rights throughout the Roman world" (the technical term "Latin rights" needs to be linked to its article), but he did extend citizenship throughout Cisalpine Gaul, which had been an issue at least since the Social Wars. And he was accused of admitting even "trousered" Gauls (i.e., Narbonese) into the senate, on which see Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford University Press, 1939, reprinted 2002), p. 79; cf. Syme in "The Origins of Cornelius Gallus," p. 43. This was a truly radical reform but one which most modern people would see as a capacious and forward-thinking policy. The statement that Caesar took steps to turn Italy into a province makes no sense whatever; what does "Italy" mean here? Northern Italy (Cisalpina) was one of the oldest Roman provinces, and had been among the three assigned to Caesar at the beginning of the Gallic Wars; although I don't have the references at hand at the moment and am in a rush, Caesar's extension of citizenship throughout the peninsula in fact meant quite the opposite: after this time, Cisalpina is no longer assigned as a province (its governance was formalized under Augustus, and all Italia was administered through the municipalities directly under Imperial control, without the intermediate layer of a provincial government).

The word "ossifying" is uninformative and probably misleading. It's one thing to use clear and simple language and not technical terms; it's another to use vague and value-laden words. I don't know what the whole sentence means here: "This process, of ossifying the entire Roman Empire into a single unit, rather than maintaining it as a network of unequal principalities, would ultimately be completed by Caesar's successor, the emperor Augustus." I don't know what "principalities" in particular means, nor "unequal," since for instance in Gaul there continued under Augustus to be differences of legal status among for instance the Gallic civitates and towns as to whether each was Roman colonia or a "free" civitas (the Augustan historian Pompeius Trogus is said to come from the "free" civitas of the Vocontii).

Factual inaccuracy: "all Caesar's appointments were of his own partisans." This is simply untrue. He famously "pardoned" such opponents as Varro, to whom he gave a special appointment as a kind of minister of culture. Marcus Brutus and Cassius Longinus got appointments — that was Dante's point when he regarded them as personal traitors to someone who had favored them, and thus the poet placed them in the center of hell with Judas Iscariot. This was a matter of accepting Caesar's clementia with gritted teeth: it diminished one's own dignitas to accept his mercy, because it meant that the Republic of equals was gone. But the alternative was to die in exile like Nigidius Figulus, or such.

Sorry to go on and on, but there was such contempt expressed above for the work that others had done on this article (very little of which was mine, by the way) that I thought Pot needed to meet Kettle. It's quite true that the article had become too dense and technical; the solution is not, however, to resort to unexamined language and sloppy thinking that reinforces misconceptions about the politics of this time. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, what is this: "A fest was also held" during Caesar's triumphal celebration. This could refer to a number of things: games and theatrical performances? a religious festival, perhaps the event he held when he dedicated the Temple of Venus? public banquets like those arranged by the epulones? Again, if "fest" is the best English word for the event, we at least need to link to an article or section that describes what this really was in its Roman context. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree what most of what you said, and completely understand your point. There is no doubt that Fuller holds an unfavorable view of Caesar in many respects, although most of his book is a bit more neutral on this point. However, Fuller does give a relatively comprehensive view of Caesar's dictatorship, which was something mostly missing from this article before, so I figured it would be preferable to have to fix a POV issue than to have to add an important section which had never been added. I agree that Fuller has a POV and this needs to be fixed on the article. Now, at least, we have a starting point on Caesar's dictatorship to polish. I personally agree that Caesar's legislative reforms were unprecedented although don't mind if that point is modified or taken off. You are right that many of the changes were not that unprecedented. However, as you alluded to above, it took multiple people over a span of centuries to pass these laws. Caesar did it all within a year. The shear scale of the changes over such a brief period of time was unprecedented.

His process of 'ossifying' Rome was certainly unprecedented. Itally (everything south of Cisapline Gaul/modern Po Valley) was never treated the same in the Republic as the rest of Roman territory. Towns in Italy were allowed to govern themselves and were treated more like unequal allies. Thus there was never a 'governor' over Italy like there was over, for example, Cisapline Gaul. Actually Rome didn't even appoint its first governor until it extended outside of Italy (I believe to Sicily and Sardinia during the First Punic War). This was also the time you saw the first promagistrate, since this office was needed to have enough quasi-high magistrates to command armies long-term and thus govern a territory. For the most part, the 'Roman Republic' was nothing more than the city of Rome. Rome was a 'federal' state in the sense that it was city with a network of alliances through treaty (fodera, the root of the word federal, meaning 'treaty'). These other towns were not Roman but rather Roman allies. This system worked decently for a couple centuries. But after the First Punic War, Rome started governing areas outside of Italy with governors rather than letting these towns govern themselves, which caused a lot of strife. During the Second Punic War, several of Rome's allies turned to Hannibal, which was met with a violent Roman reaction. This made it clear that the allies were actually vassals, and as such they held resentment from this point on. The balance was permanently disrupted, and no one even tried to do anything about it. Saturnius got the closest, by trying to extend rights to Rome's neighboring towns. Caesar extended them much further than that.

Some other changes were unprecednted or nearly so. His land reforms accomplished what Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus tried but never did. Their land reforms were no different from those passed by Licinius about 200 years earlier, but which had never been inforced. Through Caesar's "police force" (Fuller's word not mine) Caesar accomplished what Licinius failed to.In addition, his changes to the calendar certainly were unprecedented. The closest anyone had gotten with such a massive calendar change before was a century earlier when the beginning of the year was moved from the spring equinox (mid March) to January 1 so the consuls could be in command of their distant armies by the time the war season began. Also, it goes without saying that his political reforms were unprecedented.

Also, by saying that he appointed his partisans, I was referring to his senatorial appointments. The senate had been set at 600 members by Sulla although by the time of the civil war, much of that number had defected to Pompey. Many did not return, and in any case Caesar increased senate membership to 900 so he made many appointments. As for the guilds, the word 'subversive' is Fuller's word, and in many cases he is right. Rome at this time was run by mobs, which were organized and fought each other. This was largely set in motion by Milo and Clodius, who was himself killed during a gang war. This was a natural consequence of the fact that the people had been driven off their land and flooded into Rome. This was a critically important piece of legislation.

When I have the time I want to add some more references. I agree that there are still issues so feel free to modify it.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

Citation 8 is a dead link, I have taken the liberty of removing it. Optomal7 (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bh7123, 14 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I think it's reasonable to suggest that his birthday should be listed as July 12 or 13.

Bh7123 (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not unreasonable, but I imagine the presentation has been thought through, because of the care taken with footnotes 2–4 to parse such issues. Footnote 2 discusses July 12. I'm more concerned with footnote 1, which is not a scholarly source and gives a false first impression of the kind of sources used to prepare this article (nor would naming J.C.'s mother require a footnote). Cynwolfe (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done per Cynwolfe, the range of birth dates is carefully explained in the footnote given, so without broad consensus this stays as it is. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 15:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Darwin6d6, 22 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

I'm new to editing on Wikipedia so I apologize if I'm not doing this right. Under the Civil War section the article says "Upon crossing the Rubicon, Plutarch reports that Caesar quoted the Athenian playwright Menander in Greek, saying let the dice be tossed. In reality Plutarch reported that Caesar said "let the die be cast." This is both present in the book "Fall of the Roman Republic" which comes from Plutarch and on many sites. When I followed footnote 50, the site had no mention of dice and actully supported Caesar saying "let the die be cast." Darwin6d6 (talk) 2:08 AM, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, what struck me about the sentence is that Plutarch isn't the one crossing the Rubicon. Is there a difference between tossing and casting dice in English? The footnote doesn't link to the right passage, and I'll fix that as well as the dangler, but I'm not sure what your other point is. WP has an article on the Latin version of the phrase, given by Suetonius, alea iacta est. It also gives Menander's Greek as quoted by Plutarch, ἀνεῤῥίφθω κύβος. The sources used in that article, however, aren't so great. "Cast" does sound better than "tossed," partly because in English the casting of lots has a stronger connotation of determining destiny. And I'll add the link to the article on the phrase. Could you clarify what else you're asking? Cynwolfe (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Plutarch indeed has "Let the die be cast", from Menander; it's Suetonius who reports "the die is cast". I propose to add this, with a ref and acknowledgement to User:Darwin6d6.--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Sorry it took so long. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from atom14113, 28 March 2011. Addition to Health: Suspicion of Caesar's seizures

{{edit semi-protected}}

I think it's important to note that a potential cause of Caesar's seizures can be linked to symptoms of lead poisoning. You don't have to search too far to find supporting facts and others' concluding to the same suspicion.

• "Roman aristocrats, who regarded labor of any sort as beneath their dignity, lived oblivious to the human wreckage on which their ruinous diet of lead depended. They would never dream of drinking wine except from a golden cup, but they thought nothing of washing down platters of lead-seasoned food with gallons of lead-adulterated wine. The result, according to many modern scholars, was the death by slow poisoning of the greatest empire the world has ever known. Symptoms of "plumbism" or lead poisoning were already apparent as early as the first century B.C. Julius Caesar for all his sexual ramblings was unable to beget more than one known offspring. Caesar Augustus, his successor, displayed not only total sterility but also a cold indifference to sex." Caligula was thought to have lead poisoning. Last paragraph under health:

Dear me, no. This won't run, quite apart from the highly coloured language and unfounded claims. The lead-poisoning theory's sort-of-OK-ish (at least in parts) but the text is a copy-vio of http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/perspect/lead.htm. I'm sure the US Environmental Protection Agency's great at Environmental Protection but it's hardly a reliable, reputable scholarly source on Roman history in general or Caesar in particular. By the way, we can't cite other wikipedia articles either. Haploidavey (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Will I don't think it should run as is or necessarily cite the works I've mentioned, the above listed was a quick introduction to the theory. I do however believe Ceasar's seizures was from lead poisoning. It's really hard to go back 2,000 years in time but I do think there is value in allowing the subjectivity of facts and conclusions to the wiki-audience if worded appropriately. An interesting read on ancient lead use is found here: . Is there value in citing the potential of Caesar having lead poisoning or not to the reader? Beast regards Haploidavey, - Atom14113 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atom14113 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There are scholars who doubt Caesar even had "seizures"; the physical demands of his military career argue against it, since there's little evidence that he suffered from periods of incapacitation. Adrian Goldsworthy (p. 466 in his biography of Caesar) seems to think that there's only one ancient source that claims Caesar's military performance was ever affected by his supposed epilepsy, and then only on a single occasion during the civil war. Goldsworthy holds that the assassination itself suggests that nobody thought he was likely to become incapacitated or die any time soon. (Not a good argument, in my view, but point taken.) My feeling (which I'm too lazy at the moment to back up with numerous citations) is that a medical explanation for Caesar's behavior in the latter part of his life is ultimately not very helpful in understanding either the politics of the time or his psychology. Any number of people might suffer from lead poisoning or epilepsy and not be Julius Caesar, if you follow me. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Though I should add that I'm not trying to suppress discussion of his health in the article, as long as it's kept in proportion and tied to good scholarship. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Should perhaps point out, althought's it's probably been made redundant by the Vitruvius cite below, that the quoted source links lead poising to Caesar's apparent lack of fertility, and not to his supposed epilepsy. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Now Caesar suffers from migraines, according to a book called Conquering Your Migraine: The Essential Guide to Understanding and Treating Migraines for all Sufferers and Their Families. It is reasonable to assume he also had athlete's foot and jock itch, as I'm told that these are not uncommon in the military. The jock itch is probably why one of the Bruti stabbed him in the thigh. A little known fact is that athlete's foot causes megalomania. Seriously, though, migraines make more sense to me than epilepsy, if only the source were a little more scholarly. Returning to his supposed infertility, Ronald Syme debunks it in "No Sons for Caesar?" Historia 29.4 (1980) 422–437, citing rumors of various offspring and pointing out that an argument for infertility requires Cleopatra to be stupid enough to try to pass off somebody else's kid as his. (One doesn't have to accept Syme's case, however beguiling, that if a Brutus was Caesar's son, it was Decimus, not Marcus.) Cynwolfe (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The Lead theory is a dead theory

The 'lead in the water' theory has been largely demolished, the vast majority of Roman piping was actually made out of concrete.

Vitruvius, who flourished during Augustus' time, writes that the Romans knew very well of the danger of lead pipes and that terracotta or concrete was preferred because of this.

Vitruvius from 'De Architectura': "Water conducted through earthen pipes is more wholesome than that through lead; indeed that conveyed in lead must be injurious, because from it white lead [cerussa, lead carbonate, PbCO3] is obtained, and this is said to be injurious to the human system. This may be verified by observing the workers in lead, who are of a pallid colour; water should therefore on no account be conducted in leaden pipes if we are desirous that it should be wholesome" (VIII.6.10-11).

Furthermore lead pipes were fed by the aqueducts and channels made of limestone. The few lead pipes that there were, were soon after construction encrusted with a calcium carbonate coating which formed from the limestone, which lowered lead exposure to minuscule levels. Analysis of Roman remains show less lead exposure than modern man.

see this pic for the build up of Calcium carbonate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eifelwasserleitung05.jpg

Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks. I had forgotten Vitruvius said that. There's a general modern perception that people in antiquity and the Middle Ages didn't have enough sense, somehow, to avoid what was making them sick. My favorite example of this is explaining the use of spices to cover the taste of spoiled food at a time when there was no refrigeration. Spices may slow spoilage when added to fresh food, but eating spoiled food makes you sick. The cause and effect isn't hard to determine. Meat smells fresh, you eat it, you're fine; meat smells funky, you eat it, uh oh. Another indication that they regarded lead as harmful is the way it was used in rituals, where the only messages to the gods you inscribe on lead are those meant to do harm or restrain. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Great information Gaius Princeps! Your subject line is very misleading and I don't know if it was meant to discredit the theory I presented? You sound like a lead-pipe lobbyist spouting rhetoric in the Roman Forum. If you would dig a bit deeper you would find that the common causes of lead poison wasn't because of the piping as you have obviously point out, as it's known that calcium buildup coats the inside. Lead was however used in the production of wine and food. Sapa, which was syrup created for the production of wine by reductions in lead vessels caused metal to leach into the juice due to the grapes acidity. More information:"Lead and wine. Eberhard Gockel and the colica Pictonum" by Josef Eisinger. WHAT NOW PLAYA!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atom14113 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Not so great information from you Atom14113.

If you would dig a bit deeper you would see that the sapa theory is based upon the assumption of 100% use of lead cooking pots, rather than copper or other types, and that sapa was consumed in vast quantities by every individual every day.

Although defrutum and sapa prepared in leaden containers would indubitably have contained toxic levels of lead, the use of leaden containers, though popular, was not the standard and copper was used far more generally. There is no indication how often sapa was added or in what quantity or using what vessels. Any assumption of these is pure conjecture.

Jerome Nriagu, a geochemist, stated in 1983 that "lead poisoning contributed to the decline of the Roman empire." However, Nriagu used very flawed reasoning to come to this conclusion.

John Scarborough, a pharmacologist and classicist, criticized Nriagu's book as "so full of false evidence, miscitations, typographical errors, and a blatant flippancy regarding primary sources that the reader cannot trust the basic arguments."

He concluded that the ancient Romans were well aware of the dangers of lead poisoning and that it was not endemic in the Roman empire.

Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And very little of this is relevant to the article Julius Caesar. Even if he were eaten alive by lead poisoning, it would be a rather small point in the context of his career and historical importance. I suggest you start an article Lead poisoning in ancient Rome, or join in at Lead poisoning#History. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Amen.

Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.207.151.240, 25 April 2011

Alia iacta est does not mean "let the dice be tossed." It means "The die has been tossed," as per the Wikipedia page on the phrase. Please correct this error.

71.207.151.240 (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The boy Octavian, age 35

I've made a change to the Political Rumours section. The line originally read, "The boy Octavian became the first Roman emperor following Caesar's death." This implies that a) Octavian was a boy and b) he became Emperor as a boy shortly after Caesar died. Both of these implications are of course factually incorrect: at 18, Octavian was not a "boy" at Caesar's death by Roman (or modern) standards, and he certainly wasn't a boy ~15 years later when he became Emperor! I have edited the sentence to say simply, "Octavian eventually became the first Roman Emperor." This seems more neutral and less prone to misinterpretation. --NellieBly (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. I suspect he's called adolescens or iuvenis somewhere, leading to the inept "boy." In Caesarian (and I think Varronian) usage, adolescens is generally anybody under 30 who hasn't started the cursus honorum. Iuvenis can (I think) take you up to 40, then vir till you hit senex around age 60, probably, though these weren't rigid or formal categories. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

The date in the line "Julia with Cornelia Cinnilla, born in 83 or 82 BC" dose not make sense because you said that she (Cornelia Cinnilla) died of child birth in 63 b.c. its ether that or Julia was the mother and Cornelia Cinnilla was married at one years old. 33pig (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following you. Cornelia is the wife of Caesar; she died in 63 (actually, 69 or 68; in 63 Caesar was married to Pompeia, whom he divorced over the Bona Dea scandal). Julia is the daughter; she was born 20 years earlier, in the 80s. Julia died in childbirth in 54. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Im guessing since there wasnt a followup, this was the result of BC confusion. Its the same basic problem as the THAC0 problem, and sadly, even spelling it out each time doesn't help. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Astonishing 27-day route-march to Spain" is impossible

The distance of this march, Rome to Obulco, (modern day Porcuna) is normally quoted as being about 1,500 miles or 2,400 km. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Munda which seems close to being accurate. 56 miles a day (89 km.) for an individual is an extremely fast for a single day. Moving an army that fast on foot every day for a month is impossible. Not difficult, but flat out impossible.

There are many exaggerations and errors in history, and this is one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucktrack (talk • contribs) 13:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a good question. I haven't studied this in detail, but from what I can gather from a quick look, the likely explanation is that it was Caesar and a mounted guard who made the trip in that time, not the whole of the army, which may have set out earlier from a staging area such as Cisalpine Gaul. He may have been catching up. Suetonius evidently says twenty-four days, and the cited passage from Plutarch doesn't support this account — as is often the case when I start looking too closely at the footnotes for this article. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The military historian Theodore Ayrault Dodge (Caesar: a history of the art of war among the Romans, p. 433) seems to confirm what I was thinking. Dodge notes that Caesar had quartered his legions in the municipia when he went to Rome, and that he "had his legions strung out from Gaul to Sicily. He was not well concentrated and had to make many changes to accord with his new plans" to head to Spain. Stationing some troops in Apulia and along the Adriatic, he "ordered the Eighth, Twelfth and Thirteenth legions back towards Gaul … and concentrated these and Fabius's three in the Narbonese." Only after doing this does he himself leave Rome. So in our article, "march" is incorrect. The army did not march from Rome, where in any case it had not been, but rather the force bound for Spain had been massed in the Narbonensis prior to the siege of Marseilles. The siege is a primary obstacle for the "march to Spain" timeline, which had been bothering me. Dodge's narrative confirms that the legions bound for Spain are sent ahead. Still don't know what to make of Suetonius's 24 days, and don't know what the other ancient sources for this, if any, might be. Suetonius mentions this chunk of time in a discussion of Caesar's literary output, not in a narrative of military campaigning. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"Caesar made an astonishing 27-day route-march to Spain, where he defeated Pompey's lieutenants" Very interesting. That makes sense and it appears we agree that using the word march is misleading as used in the above quote from the article. I believe it should be reworded because it is widely believed he actually marched his legions from Rome in 27 days. http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62339&page=9 Bucktrack (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Two wording errors need to be corrected

Two wording errors need to be corrected

Late that summer, having subdued two other tribes, he crossed into Britain, claiming that the Britons had aided the one of his enemies the previous year. Should be Late that summer, having subdued two other tribes, he crossed into Britain, claiming that the Britons had aided one of his enemies the previous year.

And Great games and celebrations were held on April to honor Caesar’s victory at Munda. Should be

Great games and celebrations were held in April to honor Caesar’s victory at Munda.

207.30.62.198 (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Have corrected. Haploidavey (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Both corrected, finally. And thanks again. Haploidavey (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Be bold. Both errors were very simple to remedy. You could have easily fixed the errors yourself. Think about it. Thank you for your vigilance, though.--Tataryn77 (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the IP couldn't have done that. The article's semi-protected; only auto-confirmed editors can edit there. Haploidavey (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Think about it Tataryn77. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Then spend 60 seconds and register, rather than several minutes (sometimes upwards of half an hour) to explain it. Think about it!--Tataryn77 (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BITE. Think about that. Attacking someone who is only trying too help is pointless and unhelpful. Paul B (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't "atacking" anyone. I said "thank you for your vigilance". You should pay more attention Paul.--Tataryn77 (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I hardly think so. You should be less smug. But I'm fed up with you, so won't reply further. Paul B (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, there'll be no pudding tonight for either one of you. Tataryn77, The refrain "think about it" implies that the IP posted mindlessly, without thought. After "both errors were very simple to remedy," one can't help hearing the unspoken "you dummy" or similar epithet. You may not mean it that way, but it seems unwelcoming. Even if the IP was inspired to register as soon as (s)he spotted the errors, there are still levels of protection that keep you from editing until you're established. A more encouraging approach might be "If you're interested in trying to edit, follow this link to find out how to create a user account. It's quick. Happy editing!" Ironically, in claiming not to be attacking anyone, you attack Paul by accusing him of being too witless to pay attention. If you'd left out that sentence, you would've almost sounded sincere — as would saying "I didn't mean to attack anyone, sorry," since obviously it strikes others that you were at least unwelcoming. What are you, like, 14 years old? (See, that last sentence was gratuitously insulting and made you to forget anything helpful I just said.) Cynwolfe (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes; and I'm not trying to rub it in but it's as well to remember that some editors connect to this site under less than ideal conditions, via their school or college. It's always worth taking a look at the IP source when responding to requests to change a semi-protected page. Still, we all make mistakes. Bread and water, anyone? Haploidavey (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from sesesq 16 July 2011: BC--BCE

{{edit semi-protected}}

I don't expect this to change the "consensus" but I am disappointed in you who would impose your de facto religious beliefs in what should be a secular medium. It is your dictate to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" yet you allow yourselves to offend non Christians in a way that, were non-Christians to demand the same of you, you certainly would be at least equally offended. I ask that you reconsider, and secularize this article. Sesesq (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Taking offence is not an argument. I'm an atheist and a secularist, and I have no objection to BC and AD on religious grounds. All dating systems are arbitrary. Wikipedia policy is that both BC/AD and BCE/CE are acceptable.

In any case, BCE and CE are no less the Christian dating system, based on Dionysius Exiguus's estimate for the birth of Christ, just with a different name, and by calling it the "common era", claims that the Christian dating system is somehow universal, which it isn't. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be speaking to us as if we're Christian; as if Wikipedia is Christian. That's ridiculous. I'm sorry that you see the use of BC/AD as meaning Wikipedia is coming from a Christian POV, because it isn't. Take the English days of the week and months for example. Wikipedia uses January to refer to the first month of the common calendar year in a secular sense throughout numerous articles, even though the term is explicitly Roman pagan, and is based on their deity Janus. According to your logic, shouldn't that be "secularized"? If a concerted group of people were to rename January to "Common Month #1" to secularize it, do you think Wikipedia should immediately begin revising all of its articles to reflect this change for the sole reason that it is more secular? And as with Nicknack009, I am also an atheist and a secularist. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 09:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with your overall sentiment, Wikipedia does have policies about general naming and such. For instance, we are right now on "en.wikipedia.org" because its in english. And it would be foolish to say that most of the english-dominant countries weren't majority christian. Validity of that belief or not isn't in question. Because that is the calendar system our language generally uses, it makes sense to have it be the primary system here too. And of course, its accurate enough to work no matter what we name it. So theres no good reason to confuse everyone. (I'm responding to sesesq, if its not clear.) 74.132.249.206 (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Name ending in "-ar"

According to the German Wikipedia, names (and in fact all nouns) ending in "-ar" are highly unusual in Latin, pointing to a foreign source. This would seem to favor the "Catharginian or Phoenician word for Elephant" theory on the origin of the Caesar cognomen. Can somebody with knowledge of Latin weigh in on this? Are names and nouns ending in "-ar" really so rare? And do unusual noun endings really point to the foreign origin of a word? -- 77.7.142.251 (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The same point is made on en:wp, here. A little more also at Etymology of the name of Julius Caesar. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting tag?

I've left a note on the talk page of the editor who left the copyediting tag. I don't really see what needs to be done along those lines here, but am glad to do it, once I understand what the deficiency might be. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I picked the best tag I could from the standard tags and didn't want to tag with more than one. The main issue was not "mechanical" as suggested on my talk page but "style, cohesion, [and] tone". I read the entire page, which has become quite lengthy. Several of the sections repeat themselves internally and bounce around chronologically. Many sentences are confusing. Here is one example of a section that is very hard to follow:

Caesar's formative years were a time of turmoil. There were several wars from 91 BC to 82 BC, although from 82 BC to 80 BC, the dictator Lucius Cornelius Sulla was purging Rome of his political enemies. Domestically, Roman politics was bitterly divided. In 85 BC Caesar's father died suddenly[10] so at sixteen Caesar was the head of the family. The following year he was nominated to be the new high priest of Jupiter.[11] Since the holder of that position not only had to be a patrician but also be married to a patrician, he broke off his engagement to a plebeian girl he had been betrothed to since boyhood, and married Lucius Cinna's daughter Cornelia.[12] Then, having brought Mithridates to terms, Sulla returned to Rome and had himself appointed to the revived office of dictator.[13] Sulla's proscriptions saw hundreds of his political enemies killed or exiled. Caesar, as the nephew of Marius and son-in-law of Cinna, was targeted. He was stripped of his inheritance, his wife's dowry and his priesthood, but he refused to divorce Cornelia and was forced to go into hiding. The threat against him was lifted by the intervention of his mother's family, which included supporters of Sulla, and the Vestal Virgins. Sulla gave in reluctantly, and is said to have declared that he saw many a Marius in Caesar.[9]

You can see that this switches back and forth between the time of Sulla's dictatorship and before, Marius is mentioned here twice but the second reference makes no sense because we don't know the importance of Marius. Mithridates even less so, wikilinks are powerful but here there was an over reliance on them. The sentence following the number 12 starts out with "Then, having brought Mithridates to terms," the reader is inclined to think Caesar brought Mithridates to terms, the rest of the sentence doesn't clarify that. Consider, "My brother worked hard. Then, having finished a big project, our father came home and he got himself some water" - who finished the project and who got the water? This may have a grammatical answer but it doesn't have clarity, especially combined with the chronology switching back and forth (in particular his father's death in 85 is out of place). Then we see in a later section:

Caesar's body was cremated, and on the site of his cremation the Temple of Caesar was erected a few years later (at the east side of the main square of the Roman Forum). Nowadays, only its altar remains[87][88]. A lifesize wax statue of Caesar was later erected in the forum displaying the 23 stab wounds. A crowd who had gathered there started a fire, which badly damaged the forum and neighbouring buildings. In the ensuing chaos Mark Antony, Octavian (later Augustus Caesar), and others fought a series of five civil wars, which would end in the formation of the Roman Empire.

Huh? When did the crowd gather, was it a few years later at the Temple of Caesar or contemporaneous with the cremation, and the wax statue, what is its relevance and when was it there? Did it melt in the fire? I'm being a bit facetious, but this is very confusing. Apparently this same crowd with their fire is also in the following section regarding the aftermath. Julius's deification and Octavian's title as "Son of God" is mentioned twice in that section, in the first and fourth paragraphs, which is unnecessary and confusing.

I found this entirely impossible to parse:

Caesar then became involved with an Egyptian civil war between the child pharaoh and his sister, wife, and co-regent queen, Cleopatra. Perhaps as a result of the pharaoh's role in Pompey's murder, Caesar sided with Cleopatra; he is reported to have wept at the sight of Pompey's head,[58] which was offered to him by the pharaoh as a gift.

The section about Name and Family repeats the comparison to Kaiser and Tsar unnecessarily and in an article of this length, the reference to Simeon II of Bulgaria seems a bit unnecessary. The mention of Servilia in the same section comes late and conflicts with the first paragraph of Early life and career and the article on Servilia puts the affair much later.

These are just a few of the things I ran across that made it clear to me why this article, although generally well organized and very informative, is not even close to regaining GA and is close to falling to C-class. I suggest each section be re-written to excise unnecessary material (especially where there is a "main article" tag) and make things internally consistent and as chronological as possible. Then the transitions between the sections be cleaned up.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for being so detailed. This is what I would call a rewrite, not mere copyediting. I have to recuse myself from that, because I don't work on WP topics that I research for my own professional purposes and have "original" ideas on. Hope someone else is willing to tackle it. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that the Guild of Copy Editors (who knew?) now forbid us to work on the article anyway, until they have done with it. I would suggest that the kinds of problems Doug is pointing out require a thorough knowledge of the subject matter. They are not really matters of copy editing, but of editing, in the old-school frame of editing-copyediting-proofreading. A clear revision of the article requires a precise understanding of the chronology (which is unusually detailed for the 50s and 40s because of Cicero's letters), as well as the political mechanisms of the Roman Republic, which would keep you from ascribing to the Hollywood view of J.C. There are also matters of undue weight that continually plague this article, such as a fascination with Caesar's sex life or his supposed physical infirmities, and a tendency to see him as more radical than he actually was. His achievements are assessed disproportionately, and one always has to be aware that every single thing he appears to us to have accomplished could actually have come to nothing, had it not been for Augustus. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

edit request by globalhawk2002 7 dec 2011

I just noticed that the second paragraph referenced Augustus as Octavius and not Ocatavian in the second paragraph. Is this something that needs to be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalhawk2002 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Caeser and Alexandria

There may be a more prgmatic reason why Caeser and his legion ended up at Alexandria. The legion hadn't been paid for months and the only likely source of any real loot for wages was Alexandria. Cleopatra, as the richest woman in the world recognised this and paid the back wages.

The legions would have become almost docile and spent their new wages in Alexandria. Not only had this wise policy saved the city from being stormed, looted and burned but Cleopatra probably got most of the money back via the wineshops etc any way. She was a good business woman!AT Kunene (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 January 2012

The citation needed in the second sentence of the second paragraph of this article can be met with Michael Parenti's The Assassination of Julius Caesar

64.118.113.21 (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The page number for the reference is needed—do you mean page 51? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Caeser & Cleopatra, no marriage

The article has this sentence: "Caesar and Cleopatra never married, as Roman law recognized marriages only between two Roman citizens."

I think it is wrong to imply that the reason they did not marry was that law. For one, Caesar was already married to someone else at the time, but besides that are political issues: marriage to Cleopatra would have looked bad to many in Rome (it's one thing to have an affair with a non-Roman, it's another to marry them).

I don't think it's the place of the article to speculate about Caesar's reasons for not marrying Cleopatra, I would say the whole sentence should be deleted.

IBrow1000 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has commented on this, I am going ahead and making the change.

IBrow1000 (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 March 2012

This is a new article about the re- date of the cremation ritual of C. Can possibly be added in note 100: http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/articula/LiberaliaTuAccusas.pdf 46.129.19.16 (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

An English version is at http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/articula/LiberaliaTuAccusas_en.pdf

and a German version at http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/articula/LiberaliaTuAccusas_de.pdf

A complete citaion (with template) would be:

• Carotta, Francesco; Eickenberg, Arne (2011). "Liberalia tu accusas! Restituting the ancient date of Caesar's funus" (PDF). 113 (2). Bordeaux: Université Michel de Montaigne III (Maison de l’Archéologie): 447–467.

Regards, mabdul 13:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Is this a reliable source? I couldn't find any reference to a peer review stipulation in the journal's submission requirements. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

REA is a prominent scientific journal, peer review is part of the procedure. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.19.16 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Carotta, among other claims to fame in a variety of fields, is a "part-time satirical artist". His work on Julius, including the startling (to me, at least) discovery that the emperor general was also Jesus of Nazareth, has been described as "meant as a parody" but also "remarkable and ingenious". I feel that there is some way to go before accepting this for inclusion.

Forgive me for not looking too far afield for the quotes; they are from the author's own article here on Wikipedia.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Newton was ( also) a theologian and an alchemist, Da Vinci was a painter, inventor, botanist and anatomist. I don't see the point. (by the way, Caesar was not an emperor as you wrote). In REA Carotta et all have delivered scientific arguments. Has Wikipedia a higher standard than science itself :) (?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.19.16 (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 may 2012

i think it should be added that julius caesar lived in a poor part of rome in his youth and after he became high priest he moved to the holy path. also i think that his attitude toward minoroties should be expanded on.

Gyb1993 (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This proposal is more in line with chronology and sources, I think:

Caesar's body was cremated and a lifesize wax statue of Caesar was erected on a tropaeum at the rostra, displaying the 23 stab wounds. A crowd who had gathered there started a fire, which badly damaged the forum and neighboring buildings. On the site of his cremation the Temple of Caesar was erected a few years later (at the east side of the main square of the Roman Forum). Nowadays, only its altar remains.