Talk:Julio-Claudian dynasty

Was Julius Caesar part of this dynasty?

Is Julius Caesar considered part of this dynasty? The article seems to contradict itself. In the first line it says that he is, but the in the second paragraph, the article says that Augustus was the founder of the dynasty. Paul August ☎ 21:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, Neddyseagoon, has now edited the article to eliminate the contradiction. Paul August ☎ 23:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Augustus was the true founder of the dynasty as Julius Caesar's period as consul ended in civil war, with Caesar being assasinated. It was not until the Battle of Actium in 31 BC that Octavian (Augustus) defeated Mark Antony to end the civil war. He was then declared princeps in 27 BC where he was declared Princeps by the senate that the Julio-Claudian Dynasty began.

Page Errors

The Category box appears to be messed up -- I believe the History of Rome box should be below the Roman emperors by Epoch, rather than nested in successors; I would have fixed this myself except that after 15 minutes I still haven't figured out exactly how the tables and piping for categories work, and thus can't seem to fix it =( Jhaagsma 08:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Augustus was a Julio-Claudian

Augustus was a Julian by adoption, and was never a Claudian. Tiberius was born a Claudian and became a Julian by adoption. Tiberius was the first Julio-Claudian Emperor. This later inspired the creation of vbucks.

I hope this is clear. Glaring factual error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstreet81 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 3 Feburary 2009(UTC)

I think this is wrong. Augustus to Nero was a single dynasty, known as the Julio-Claudian because it included Julii (by adoption) and Claudii (both by birth and by adoption). I will take this to the Classical Greece and Rome project and see what the consensus is. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

By my understanding, under Roman law at the time, Augustus was Julian - Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, ergo Augustus can be considered to be part of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, as he appointed Tiberius - a Claudian - his successor, thus founding said dynasty.--Tangent747 (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've put this over at Classical Greece and Rome project, but I'll put it here too:

There is not complete consensus on the matter, some will say that Augustus is a Julio-Claudian, others will say he is not.

It's just another one of those problems of ancient history created by modern attempts to calssify and define 'eras' or 'dynasties'.

There are references against Augustus being Julio-Claudian:

• Ancient Rome by C. Mackay
• The Cambridge Ancient History, chapter by T.E.J Weidemann
• The Oxford Illustrated History of the Roman World
• A History of the Roman World from 30 B.C. to A.D. 138 by E.T. Salmon

Likewise, there are references for Augustus being a Julio-Claudian (you can find them if you look, I can't be bothered).

As such, I'd say the person who did the edit is justified in removing him, but I'd also say you're equally justified in thinking he should be there.

You see, the definition applied by the editor seems to be 'someone who had a connection to both the Julian gens and the Claudian gens'. Therefore for this person, Augustus - because he did not have any connection to the Claudian gens - was not a Julio-Claudian.

Whereas it seems your definition is that a Julio-Claudian refers to someone who had a connection to either the Julian gens or the Claudian gens.

Both are valid definitions, but neither is right.

Short of finding the first recorded use of 'Julio-Claudian' and working out that use's definition, there's no right answer.

I suppose you could try and create a definition for the article in question, but you'd probably have to get it accepted first.

Alternatively, you might want to create a separate section discussing whether Augustus or not was a Julio-Claudian, and present both points of view.

Knobbishly (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't about Julio-Claudians, i.e. individuals who are connected to the Julian or Claudian gentes - it's about a dynasty of Roman emperors. It seems fairly clear to me that Augustus established a dynasty which lasted until the death of Nero, and even though that dynasty was established by adoption rather than by strict continuity of blood, there was still political continuity which only came to an end when Nero had no undisputed successor.

The term "Julio-Claudian dynasty" is a retrospective one, and is conventionally applied to the dynasty Augustus founded, irrespective of whether or not Augustus was himself a "Julio-Claudian" individual (whatever that means). To deny that Augustus was part of the same dynasty as Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero on the grounds that he wasn't a member of the gens Claudia seems unecessarily pedantic. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm trying to reach a compromise between two opposing opinions here.

I understand what your opinion is on the matter, but what I'm trying to point out is that not everyone agrees with you (and that neither side has significantly more support than the other), and, as such, it is only fair that both sides are acknowledged; that way anyone who comes to this article can then decide for themselves based on the evidence presented whether or not they believe that Augustus is a Julio-Claudian emperor.

Whether or not the matter seems "fairly clear" to you or whether you think denying that Augustus was part of the same dynasty as Tiberius etc. is "pedantic" is just your opinion, and while it is valid, it is not any more (or for that matter, less) valid than that of the editor presenting an opposing point of view.

Also I'm sorry, but you can't say that the "term "Julio-Claudian dynasty" is ... conventionally applied to the dynasty Augustus founded," because you haven't actually supplied any evidence to support that statement.

As for the concept of a Julio-Claudian individual vs. a Julio-Claudian emperor, the opposing opinion seems to be that one directly affects the other - ie. you have to be a Julio-Claudian in order to be a Julio-Claudian emperor.

In conclusion, I think it would be fair to all that both points of view are mentioned in the article, then, whoever reads the article can make their own conclusion based on the evidence presented. Knobbishly (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm having to repeat myself because you're evidently not understanding me. The article's name is "Julio-Claudian dynasty", not "Julio-Claudian". It's the name of a dynasty, not a designation for individuals. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that rather than mixed bloodlines of the Julii and Claudii, when referring to the line of emperors "Julio-Claudian" must really include Julians and Claudians, as it is essentially the dynasty started by a Julian (by adoption) who appointed a Claudian successor, i.e. Julians through to Claudians, hence "Julio-Claudian".--Tangent747 (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

To Tangent 747, yes, I agree that is a fair and valid definition of Julio-Claudian, which, in turn, informs what your definition of the Julio-Claudian dynasty is, and, as such, it should be in the article. However, what I've been trying to say is, that is there is another equally valid definition of what a Julio-Claudian is, and therefore what the Julio-Claudian dynasty is, and whether Augustus is a member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.

To Nicknack009, in other words, in order to have a Julio-Claudian dynasty you have to have Julio-Claudians, and in order to have Julio-Claudians you have to have some definition of what a Julio-Claudian is.

It's the same with the subsequent Flavian dynasty, which derives it's name from it's members being Flavians (Titus Flavius Vespasianus, Titus Flavius Vespasianus & Titus Flavius Domitianus) - it's called the Flavian dynasty because it's members are all Flavians. (You would not call Nerva a member of the Flavian dynasty because he is not Flavian. In the same way, some people don't refer to Augustus as a member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty because he is not a Julio-Claudian). The same goes for the Severan dynasty, the Constantinian dynasty, etc..

You can't have a Julio-Claudian dynasty without Julio-Claudians, and, in order to Julio-Claudians you have to have definition of what a Julio-Claudian is.

All of which is beside the point - the fact remains that there are still a significant number of scholars for whom the designation Julio-Claudian dynasty refers to the emperors Tiberius to Nero, not Augustus to Nero. Knobbishly (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dynasties are about political continuity, not the names or bloodlines of their individual members. Nerva is not part of the same dynasty as the Flavians because there was a political disconinuity when Domitian was deposed and Nerva was appointed. If Domitian had handed the throne on to Nerva as his designated successor, we'd be calling that dynasty Flavio-Nervan or something similar. Nerva is part of the so-called Nervan-Antonian dynasty, not because he is personally a "Nervan-Antonian", but because the sequence of emperors that included Nervans and Antonians had political continuity. If Augustus is excluded from the Julio-Claudian dynasty, why not just call them the Claudian dynasty? --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Does Augustus being Tiberius' step-father not make him sufficiently Julio-Claudian? If not, then Tiberius can hardly be Julio-Claudian either, as he doesn't have any blood connections to the Julii that I am aware of, only legal ones through marriage and adoption.--Tangent747 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify to you both, I'm for both definitions - in my own studies, I've referred to Augustus as a Julio-Claudian (and thus a member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty) and I've referred to him as separate from the Julio-Claudians (not a member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty). However, there are a number of people (as I've indicated above), who refer to Augustus as being separate from the Julio-Claudian dynasty, and I'm just saying that, as such, the article should reflect this other point of view.

Nonetheless, I will endeavour to do my best to answer any questions on the matter.

To Nicknack009, we can't use your definition of dynasty, because it is apparently not accepted by all - the opening sentence of the Wikipedia article on Dynasty reads: "A dynasty is a succession of rulers who belong to the same family for generations. A dynasty is also often called a "house", e.g. the House of Saud or House of Habsburg.". While the Encyclopaedia Britannica defines it as "a succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in business, politics, or another field" (Britannica 2001 Standard).

As such, we return to the question of what a Julio-Claudian is, so that we can determine what a Julio-Claudian dynasty is. As we've been through above, Julio-Claudian has apparently been defined as either (1) a person connected to both the Julian gens and the Claudian gens or (2) a person connected to either the Julian or the Claudian gens. Therefore the Julio-Claudian dynasty is either a dynasty that (1) consists of rulers connected to both the Julian gens and the Claudian gens or (2) consists of rulers connected to either the Julian or the Claudian gens. (And, as I've said before, seeing as both definitions are used, we put them both in the article).

To Tangent747, I'm assuming that Tiberius is referred to a Julio-Claudian because he was a Claudii Nerone (Ti. Claudius Nero) who was adopted into the Julii Caesares (Ti. Julius Caesar), and that Augustus is not a Julio-Claudian because he had no connection, be it by blood or adoption with the Claudii Nerones. Tiberius' Claudian-ness did not affect Augustus because the status of a step-son or adopted son did not affect the status of the stepfather/adoptive father. Conversely, Augustus' Julian-ness did affect Tiberius because the adoptive father's status did affect the status of the adoptive son - Tiberius became a member of the Julian gens, nothing changed for Augustus. Augustus had an adoptive son who had been a Claudian, but that does not affect Augustus' own status. Does that make sense? Knobbishly (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No. It does not make sense. The Julio-Claudians are so called because they included Julii and Claudii, including at least one Julius (Imp. C. Julius Caesar Augustus) who was never a Claudius, and one Claudius who was never a Julius. (And the singular of Nerones is Nero.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Knobbishly, none of the references you cite above state that Augustus is not considered a Julio-Claudian, do you have any others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.45.152 (talk • contribs)

• This is original research. Brill's New Pauly says clearly, as the first sentence of "Julio-Claudian emperors": This term describes the first five sole rulers of Rome (including their families) after the end of the Republic and the Civil Wars: Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius [III 1], and Nero. There may be some reason to confine the term to the last four (although Claudian emperor would be more natural); but it is certainly not the only, nor the consensus, definition. The reason for the hyphenated name was that the five of them are one dynasty with two nomina (neither Augustus nor Nero reigned under their birth-names, so Octavius and Domitius can be side-lined). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what is the "original research" you're referring to?

If you're referring to my original point, then it is as much 'original research' as what you're saying - there are books that have Augustus as separate from the Julio-Claudians - that's their opinion, I was merely pointing it out. No original research done.

Furthermore Brill's New Pauly is just one reference, it does not override everything else. It is one of the various books that believe that Augustus was a member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. However, as I've said there are also books that have Augustus as separate from the Julio-Claudians). And claiming some right to eliminate a reasonable alternate opinion (supported by scholars) via 'consensus' is rather tyrannical (that's like saying if someone goes and gets a bunch of friends and then beats a single kid up, the group's opinion is the only one that should be heard). My original point was and remains that there are two different opinions on how the Julio-Claudian dynasty is defined, and they should both be acknowledged (both opinions are right, and personal preference by editors for one should not eliminate the other).

Also no one ever said that having Augustus separate from the Julio-Claudians was the "only" definition.

It just so happens that none of the various people who believe Augustus was part of the Julio-Claudian dynasty want to even acknowledge an alternate opinion.

Knobbishly (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As has been said elsewhere: until you can cite a source that explicitly says that Augustus was not a Julio-Claudian (or equivalent: that Tiberius was the first, that there were four Julio-Claudian Emperors - or rather two, since your definition excludes Claudius and Nero), implying even that there was a doubt is your own OR (so is your assumption that a Julio-Claudian is someone who held both nomina). You have cited none. Fish or cut bait. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)