Talk:Julius Caesar/Archive 1

Wikipedia policy is to use the common name. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Mintguy (T) 18:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, same reasoning applies as for Bill Clinton vs William Jefferson Clinton; prefer the commonest usage for article titles. Most Romans would be totally unrecognizable if their full names were always used - Publius Vergilius Maro for example - not to mention link piping would get pretty complicated. Stan 18:38, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Anyway, I found the answer: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans) This name he stays! User:Husnock

Too many people watching the one article. Actually, the Roman naming convention page is just my proposal, but if nobody's objected to it in three months, it must be policy by now! :-) Stan 19:05, 5 Jul 2004 (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)

The accusation that Caesar had an affair with King Nicomedia of Bithnyia is unlikely to be true, I think. The accusation followed him throughout his life, but it doesn't fit with the rest of his character - he was a stickler for being a Roman of the Romans. This certainly didn't include homosexuality, popular in Greece but severely disapproved of in Rome. Can I suggest the page is edited to say only that this was a rumour? Winjer 18:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See this article on homosexuality in the Roman Empire, as well as specific information on Julius Caesar: [1]

Homosexuality existed in the Roman Empire and it was part of the culture of the time. It was not "severely disapproved of". It was not viewed then and there as it is here and now. Cultural anthropology would have us abandon our cultural and religious notions of homosexuality and to look at what role it played in the society at the time.

With regard to the alleged "affair" with Nicomedia, the "accusation" was that Caesar played the "female role" during sexual encounters. His having sex with another male would not have been the problem.

For the noble classes and rulers to engage in such acts was not at all unusual. One could have homosexual contact, and still be Caesar and a "Roman of the Romans". The terms are not mutually exclusive. --ScottyFLL 03:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

His last words have been various [sic] reported as:

• Kai su, teknon? (Gr., "And you, son?")

Suetonius reports that Ceasar said (in Greek) "kai su, teknon?" UNFORTUNATELY...someone decided, in their great wisdom, that it would be best to delete the precise reference to Suetonius, which I included originally. Furthermore, "teknon" more properly means "that which is born, a child." For the Latinists here, just don't go thinking "teknon" = "filius," because it doesn't.

Tu quoque, Brute, fili mi! (Lat., "You too, Brutus, my son!")

I challenge you to provide a reference for this. If you want to argue that Suetonius put Greek into Caesar's mouth, I'd be happy to look at any evidence (i.e., references to texts and/or scholarly works) you might have.

Et tu, Brute? (Lat., "And you, (my son) Brutus?" - it can be argued that "my son" is implied by the case used)

What the hell?? First of all, this quotation comes from S-H-A-K-E-S-P-E-A-R-E...only from Shakespeare. Secondly, the case used is the vocative. Q: How does this imply "my son??" A: It doesn't. The context, together with a certain little itty-bitty passage, in Greek, from Suetonius gives us the "my son" bit.

Looks like someone decided to delete all of Caesar's reported dying words except for the quote from Shakespeare's play. What's the reason for that?

You're right, unsigned pal. The first step is to restore the Suetonius quote and ref. Bill 23:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Don't some sources also state that Caesar said nothing before he died? It makes more sense that if he were stabbed several times he would be more likely to be in shock instead of saying something as overdramatic as "You too, Brutus, my son!".

You are correct--in fact, one such account's text is included in the article. I personally find this much more credible, as having been stabbed 20-some times, you're going to be in no condition to toss off famous last words. ADB

Another interesting small point:

In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, the dictator directed his famous last words at Brutus: Tu quoque, Brute, fili mi ("You, too, Brutus, my son?") or Et tu, Brute ("And [even] you, Brutus?").

How can it be both? Even if this was not the intended meaning, then at best this sentance is poorly worded. Besides, shakespeare used 'Et tu, Brute'. The 'Tu quoque, mi fili' phrase is what is commonly believed to be his actual last words, whether he said it in Latin, or the similar phrase in Greek.Ironlion45

Just curious why Atlantic Ocean is written "Oceanus Atlanticus"? Obviously it is the contemporary spelling, but the rest of the article in in English, right? pomegranate 00:34, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

It is put as ocean atlanticus because that is the latin way of saying it.--Alexstorer 22:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else notice "hello there alex hi dennis" at the very beginning of the Early Life section? It doesn't appear if you try to edit the page. Very weird.

This has been fixed.--211.28.125.161 11:24, 9 August 2006 (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.

In the article is written that Caesarion was Caesar's son. Is this true? Did actually Caesar recognize the child?--Panairjdde 16:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently; Cleopatra belived it, amd if Caesar had not also, he would not have allowed the use of his name; Mark Antony also declared so in the Senate, but the party of Octavian obviously had an interest in denying it. Plutarch records the parentage as a fact, but Dio and Suetonius have their doubts. Djnjwd 21:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Notice that, according to Roman law, a son must be recognized by his father to be part of the family. So, should I put a notice that, even if Cesarion possibly was biological son, he was not part of Caesar's family?--Panairjdde 07:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I dont think he recognized as legitimate because, in his last will, Caesar acted as if he had no sons by adopting Octavius and naming him (a grand-nephew) as heir. So he was not part of his family. Apart from legal implications, i think he knew the boy was his, as well as everyone else. The fact that Caesarion was Caesar's son is the reason why Octavius killed at the first chance he had. muriel@pt 07:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Caesarion's mother was not a Roman citizen, and thus neither was Caesarion, was probably rhe reason Caesar never publicly recognized him/included him in his will. If the boy can't inherit anything, then why bother?Kuralyov 10:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

One could reasonably argue that Caesar appointed Octavius as his heir because Caesar wouldn't live long enough for Caesarion to take over. So I don't think it's possible to draw any conclusions from that. ADB

Is it possible that Caesarion was recognized by Caesar, much in the way some medieval kings had recognized illegitamate children (i.e. Caesar considered the child to be his own, but not of the proper lineage to be an heir)?Varlet16 16:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sure Cleopatra wanted people - possible including Caesar - believe Caesarion was Caesar's son since it strengthened her position (and Egypts). However is it hard to believe that a womanizer - as Caesar was - would only father one child (Julia) with his first wive and then several marriages and affairs later have his second child when he is about 52??? In addition many historians argue the fact that Cicero mentioned the child only very late supports the view that the fathership was not really believed in. Well for Octavian's reason to kill: he could not afford to leave even the slightest chance to anybody else to claim a connection with Caesar since that was his only way to get the position he reached at Actium.

The author of the painting and bust should be mentioned, and when were they produced. Deus Ex 21:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

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.

Dear Muriel Gottrop, I would like to know what your source is for writing "where he (=Caesar) apparently learned to speak several languages, including Hebrew and Gallic dialects." Tommie Hendriks apjhendriks@hotmail.com

I would guess he learned Hebrew in either the East or in the Subura, and Gallic while in Gaul or Hispania. Kuralyov 20:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suetonius (life of the Caesars), Plutarch (Caesar) and JC (Commentaries on the Gallic Wars) all these sources mention his ability for languages. I dont know the paragraphs by memory. muriel@pt 10:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for the Gallic dialects: It is said that at least one of Caesar's immediate servants was a Gallic slave. But what is the source, where is it written that he did learn Gallic from him? Gallic slaves spoke Latin in Rome. And in Gaul Caesar used interpreters, even when he wished absolute privacy. De Bello Gallico 1.19: itaque priusquam quicquam conaretur, Diviciacum ad se vocari iubet et cotidianis interpretibus remotis per C. Valerium Troucillum, principem Galliae provinciae, familiarem suum, cui summam omnium rerum fidem habebat, cum eo conloquitur; –Therefore, before he attempted anything, he orders Diviciacus to be summoned to him, and, when the ordinary interpreters had been withdrawn, converses with him through Caius Valerius Troucillus, chief of the province of Gaul, an intimate friend of his, in whom he reposed the highest confidence in every thing;

As for Hebrew is there any evidence? And from whom should Caesar have learnt Hebrew in his youth, in the Suburra? The Jews in Rome spoke Greek, if they did not speak Latin. And why should he? In order to read the Books of the Jews? But they were translated into Greek (Septuaginta: LXX) since the third century BC.

Either there is a source, or this is a supposition. But one can suppose false things. It would be more plausible to suppose that Caesar learnt Etruscan. From Claudius it is known that he learnt it. The disciplina etrusca (auspicina, haruspicina, etc.) constituted an important part of the Roman Religion. So Caesar, being Pontifex Maximus, had to know it too. But Caesar learning Hebrew? Is this written somewhere else than in the Wikipedia? If it is the case, it would be very interesting to know the sources. So, please, look up, and give us that important information. If not, please delete that passage:

"where he apparently learned to speak several languages, including Hebrew and Gallic dialects." – or at least this: "including Hebrew and Gallic dialects."

Marc.

––

Thank you for having correct that error. But it is still included in the translations made from the English version, e.g. in the Latin one:

http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar

"In iuvente domi verecunda habitavit et linguas Hebraica Gallicaque loqui didicit."

please delete: "et linguas Hebraica Gallicaque loqui didicit" (which is also grammatically incorrect) – or change it into: "et utramque linguam didicit".

By the way: "iuvente" should be a typo for "iuventute".

Marc

Hmmm, I can only say that this case shows that Wiki is not perfect and first-hand material (written accounts, books) should always be mentioned to back-check every claim made. Flamarande 11:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no scholarly record that C. "learned languages" in his youth. See Suet. , Plut. , or DBG, DBC. More recently, Meier, Gelzer, etc. Even more extravagant was the allegation that he learned (!?) "Hebrew" . Even the jewish diaspora didn´t speak it any longer, Aramaic having largely superseded it (Flavius Josephus writes in Aramaic). This reveals a profound lack of understanding and sensibility for the cultural and the sociological constraints on the education system in classical Rome. Unfortunately this historical "urban legend" took its course and if you google C., you´ll come up up with innummerable hits from previous versions. This is unfortunate. A serious attitude a scrupulous and thourough examination of the sources and an understanding of the cultural and sociological framework where historical "events" take place are an absolute necessity to avoid falling in this kind of traps.

Don´t complain if your hear your eight grader brother protesting that Caesar´s favorite bedside book was the Torah.

michael 195.23.202.151 07:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the homosexuality section in order to toe the line proposed by Suetonius better, and I think it will allow those coming to this ariticle to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to believe it. So I don't get slamed, I'll quote Suetonius at length - "When Thermus sent Caesar to Bithnyia, he wasted so much time at King Nicomedes' court that a homosexual relationship between them was suspected, and suspicion gave way to scandal when, soon after his return to headquarters, he returned to Bithynia: ostensibly collecting a debt incurred there by one of his freedmen." (The Twelve Caesars, Book 2, Pengiun Classics version). That quote there is not enough to indict anyone, so in the spirit of fairness - and quite frankly, honesty - we ought to leave the issue open as it is. --Kulindar 05:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The part about "male lovers" quotes only from Caesar's political enemies. Contrary to the implications of the article, homosexuality wasn't an accepted social practice in ancient Rome. Caesar's enemies spread rumours about his being Nicomedes's homosexual lover when a youth as a means of damaging him politically.

Yes. It was. You should actually READ before contributing your garbage! Have you not heard of Hadrian? The only thing bad about Caesar's was he was PENETRATED. LEARN!!!! 71.32.199.15 20:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality wasn't accepted social practice so much as it was a fairly common dirty secret; in the Republican era, homosexuality wasn't uncommon, but it was very much looked down upon in the upper classes. Personally, I think it would be more appropriate to mention that there were allegations of homosexuality made by his political enemies, but also mention the social context of these allegations.---Mr. Nexx 21:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality was not looked down upon at all. Cite your source for that contention. It was the penetration of a free born male that was looked down upon. And that is mentioned in the piece. 08:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we're bugged out for Rita, so I can't get to my references, but you haven't cited any scholars, either; you've cited Suetonius. IIRC, Michael Grant was rather skeptical of Suetonius's assertion. ---Mr. Nexx 14:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with MrNexx. Unlike Alexander the Great, who few scholars dispute at least engaged occasionally in homosexual activity, I've not heard a unanimous decision on Julius Caesar's supposed homosexuality. Seutonius is not above reporting mere tittle-tattle and gossip, and it's still perfectly possible that these accuasions are just another series of political slanders invented to discredit Caesar by jealous collegues. So until the scholarly community has made a clear decision on it, it should be reported with multiple angles in mind, making note that while it was possible that Caesar was gay, it is not certain.--Kulindar 07:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Caesar was not gay. But he was not straight either. In ancient Rome the normal thing was bisexuality. Cite some scholars who believe the Nicomedes thing is false. Wikipedia is not a Christian gossip column. You can only contribue things that others have said not your own opinions. 71.32.199.15 08:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Michael Parenti, if you want, in 'The Assassination of Julius Caesar' is one source for anti-homosexual attitudes within Rome during this time period. Juvenal has nothing but disdain for it; Polybius writes that Roman soldiers caught in homosexual liasons could be flogged to death. So yes, there was a serious homophobic attitude in the Republic - moreover, the fact that the source for the liasons between Caesar and other men comes only from Caesar's most virulent opponents should make them suspect testimony. No official imperial historian under Augustus dared to repeat the stories, eloquent testitomy as to what Augustus thought of them. Like I said, it's uncertain - and should be written down as such, not as a decided fact.--Kulindar 07:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Look at Antinous. And sorry if I am being rude I am just sick and tired of some Wikipedians who thinks that everybody in the world adopted the the Christian Dark Age attitude of homosexuality and then goes around and deleted everything that someone else had spent a lot of time researching. Esp. sine the part you deleted was FULLY SOURCED BY PAGE NUMBERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 71.32.199.15 20:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't know bout his political enemies, but one thing I've heard or read somewhere was that Caesar slept his way to the top just like people of modern time sometimes do. And since there were no female senators&important sponsors...

I also don't know much bout the attitude of Romans regarding homosexuality, but this was the pre-christian times and the future laws&punishment again'st homosexuality was still centuries away, as was the "moral" institutions of christianity. But regardless of how tolerant or distolerant Rome was bout that, I'm guessing Caesar wouldn't have been bragging that he got a critical vote or large funds by sleeping with someone, male OR female.

Fred26 09:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The OCD says that it is "impossible to speak in general term about ancient attitudes towards 'homosexuality', or about the degree of its acceptance or toleration by particular communities", because the ancients ascribed more importance to specific acts, and that the "traditional belief that Roman men regarded 'homosexuality' with repugnance and that its presence at Rome was the result of Greek influence is mistaken". It has three pages on the subject, and refers to a dozen books, so I think we should be pretty careful about trying to interpret the ancient authors ourselves - just quote what they said, and refer to any modern authors writing on the subject. Stan 13:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

While it is impossible to prove whether or not the young G.J.C. had a homosexual affair with the king of Bithynia, there can be no doubt that homosexuality did not meet with universal approval in Roman society, and was, in fact, often received with the opposite reaction. This was especially true in earlier times, when the typically Roman ideal of austerity was in vogue. A good source on the topic is the book Roman Homosexuality by Craig A. Williams.

I would also like to point out that despite the wishful thinking of many today, animus towards homosexuality has been widespread in human cultures past and present; it is "normal," if you will. And while hysterical gay activists may wear out their ! key berating this posting, I believe they would hard-pressed to come up with a single credible source describing general acceptance of homosexuality in any major non-Western culture. Do Chinese, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Aztec, Incan, or any other cultures really consider homosexuality normal and on par with heterosexuality? Hardly. Such being the case, it is not surprising that Roman society would also have at least some degree of disapproval towards the practice, thus making allegations of G.J.C.'s homosexuality a convenient weapon for his many enemies. User:wgiuliano 23:27, October 3 2005 (UTC)

You miss the point, which is there is no evidence that preferring members of the same sex was frowned upon, in fact there was not even a word for the concept. Contrariwise, we have quite a bit of information about which acts were OK, which were not, and about how the OKness depended on one's age and social status. For instance, it was always OK for any Roman citizen to buy a slave for the purposes of penetration, no "degree of disapproval" attached to it. But if you bought a slave to penetrate you, that made you a "catamite", and you would be regarded with shame and horror. To bring it back to Caesar, it would have been of the utmost importance as to which role he played in sex acts, but no one would have cared about any proclivities he might have had. Stan 06:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Stan is entirely correct. For the others please do some reading. Homosexuality during the era was largely class based, with huge importance placed on the position, namely active / passive. Not a single, solitary Roman would have made a fuss had Caesar been given oral sex by a slave boy, however, if Caesar had given, as in the case of being penetrated during anal sex the free born Roman male's dominance was at stake, something all if not most Romans would frown upon. 71.35.229.17 05:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• People keep citing the Antonine age as a proof that homosexuality was accepted in Rome. We have to remember Rome's culture was not static, and by Hadrian's time, it was more acceptable. But Caesar did not live then, he lived in a more conservative Republic. As for Roman opinion of homosexuality in Caesar's time, well, it seems pretty obvious to me. If his enemy's would use it to insult him, then they could hardly have thought it "ok". --Cjcaesar 15:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality was considered decadent in Rome. Twenty years before the Caesar-Nicomedes incident, Marius had exonerated a man who murdered a homosexual making advances. Marius applauded the deed. The extent to which it was tolerated however is different. Certainly passive homosexuals were social pariahs if they were found out. The stigma also was considerable. But to say that homosexuality was socially tolerated is erroneous. It was rumoured of Sulla by Suetonius etc., but Sulla was never known to have engaged in it during his career in any public manner. Therefore I have removed that strange homosexual explanation under Caesar's male lovers(if in fact he ever had any). Personally I feel that it is suffice to say that he had a rumoured affair with Nicomedes and that the stigma created by the nature of such a relationship was used by his enemies. --Licinius 13:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Though we will never know for certain (as his memoirs no longer exist), ancient sources indicate that Sulla 'came out' late in life and revealed that he had a life-long partner, in a greek freedman named Metrobius. Though to be fair, By 'ancient sources', i do mean Plutarch. Though Wikipedia's own Metrobius section states similarly.

Many people in Caesar's time claimed that Caesar had had homosexual affairs. Even though most come from his enemies and are likely slander, these accusations must be mentioned. If anyone has a problem with them, they should make sure that the section on Caesar's male lovers clearly states the posibility or even probability of slander. —David618 05:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Before we begin a revert war on it, does Wikipedia have a standard for this? I personally use B.C.E., partially because of my undergraduate experience, but others seem to prefer BC; if Wikipedia has a standard, it should be followed. If there isn't a standard, I think we should come up with a rationale for which we're going to use, and why we choose this over the other. My vote would be for B.C.E.; Julius Caesar has nothing to do with Christianity, and it is increasingly the standard in antiquity studies.---Mr. Nexx 00:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia standard is BCE Kuralyov 20:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC) comment restored after attempted vandalism by User:Jguk

No it isn't. We leave articles de standard understood amongst the general public, and is overwhelmingly preferred by the general public - and it is they who we are writing for. See false etymology - this is date notation, it has no other meaning, jguk 21:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Please note that the above user has been single handedly engaged in a year long campaign to remove BCE/CE notation from Wikipedia, and has been the subject of an arbitration case. He has a history of vandalism and revert warring in his efforts to enforce his POV and to bully other editors into conforming with his views. The Wikipedia Manual of Style clearly states that both date notations are acceptable and leaves it up to the editors of an article to decide which to use. Please don't let User:Jguk bully you into using his preferred style. I believe a majority of editors prefer BCE/CE notation as it is culturally neutral, but this of course offends some fundamentalist Christians. I think it would be appropriate to use BCE/CE for this article. Sortan 22:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

BC/AD is still the usual among classical scholars. Stan 13:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The first revision of this article used BCE. The very next edit changed it to BC, and it seems to have been that way ever since. As Sortan notes, both are acceptable. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but I do think edit-warring over it is stupid, and calling it "vandalism" is doubly so. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The key point is that we convey our subject in a manner most likely to be understood and enjoyed by our readership. In this case we have one standard understood worldwide by the general public, and one not so understood, which has proved controversial where there have been attempts to introduce it to the general public. The question of what style we should use is a no-brainer - it should be BC, which is also the style this article has almost always used, jguk 18:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

While I sympathize with the rule of using the term most likely understood by the general public, there are standard exceptions to such a rule. Offensive terminology or (within Wikipedia) non-neutral terminology is avoided. There are many terms, that at one time were completely understood (and still are) but we now avoid them in polite company. My guess is that most would understand the use of "Jew" to mean, "deal sharply"; "white" to mean "fair", and hundreds of other terms. Well in some communities BC and AD raise similar hackles. Now I'm not arguing that we attempt to follow some politically-correct line -- but at the same time you should be able to recognize that we're right at the cusp historically, where these terms are becoming offensive, and we have the responsibilty to be progressive in our thinking, and think of the future and our readers. Mjchonoles 20:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I've never really understood who really does object to BC/AD notation - the arguments raised always seem to be that someone other than the person arguing against it, might be offended by it. I can't think why - many terms have come down to us from the past from many different religions, it seems silly to single this one out. One thing that is apparent is that changing from BC/AD notation has caused offence (as well as confusion and mockery). This has been shown in Canada, the United Kingdom and in Australia, where the offence caused by just a single change led to questions in parliament. Offence caused by this matter seems to be more as a result of changing from BC notation to BCE notation than the other way round. It's important to recognise what our readers understand and prefer - and if it's a question of not being able to phrase something without risking offending some, it's important to risk offending as few people as possible.

I live in a secular society, and to me that means accepting that there are people of many religions and denominations (all but one I disagree with - and atheists will disagree with them all!). This means accepting that there will be relics and images of different religions - and also that it is imperative to accept them all. My city was recently attacked by those who were so intolerant of a religious viewpoint other than their own that they sought to kill as many people as possible who disagreed with them - if we're really to promote religious tolerance we must avoid petty politically correct arguments that only obfuscate the real issues whilst offending large parts of the population.

Here the position is clear - WP accepts BC notation; this article has almost always had BC notation; our potential readership is most familiar with BC notation; even most classicists use BC notation - let's not stir up a hornet's nest here, jguk 20:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm offended by the terms. And because believers are threatened when their religion looses ground, doesn't mean that we need to cater to the religious-centric point of view. Mjchonoles 02:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I simply don't believe you're offended - if you genuinely thought this all was an intrusion of religion, then you would also object to the very numbering of the years and the use of various divinities' names for months and days, and yet I don't see you even mentioning those. So please spare us the fake outrage, this discussion has been beat to death elsewhere in WP. Stan 04:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say I was mortally offended, just offended. Like I'm offended when I hear a mild sexist joke. I might even laugh, but I feel funny about it. I don't feel the same way about the names of the months and days, because (for the most part), their names are not part of a current campaign of dominant believers. I would certainly imagine that believing Christians in Roman times refused to swear by Jupiter and perhaps avoided saying his name. I simiarly feel put upon any time I'm obliged to write AD or BC in any document, such as legal documents, that I need to produce. When I edit Julius Caesar here on the WP, I likewise am offended that I would have to refer to the titles (Christ, Domini) of a diety that I don't believe in. It's really hard to explain the feeling, but unless you're a member of some minority group, that the day-to-day assumptions of the majority create an oppressive environment. Mjchonoles 05:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, call me nuts, but if there is a standard, either way, someone should be able to point to it. I don't have a lot of time for this (two jobs plus post-bacc studies), so if someone could point to where this standard is stated, I'd appreciate it. Like I said, I prefer BCE/CE, but the more understood method is BC/AD, and my professor is fond of the statement "Medievalists are not PC; we use BC and AD, not BCE and CE." ---Mr. Nexx 07:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The standard is to use either one, as long as it's used consistently within the article. There was a gigantic debate over this which came to no real conclusion, so every time someone changes an article from one style to another, we get a lot of repetitive and annoying squabbles like the one you see on this talk page and in the article history. Sorry. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I find it interesting that one of my particular arguments against BC/AD was not addressed in the debate... according to modern scholarship, BC/AD is also inaccurate, as Jesus was most likely born in 4-6 BC/E, not in the year 1, or at the tail end of 1 BC/E. ---Mr. Nexx 12:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

We've already had long discussions on most aspects of this debate. The counter-argument to this is that, if anything, it is further evidence that BC and AD are just date notations, nothing more. They are not (and have never really been, except outside of when Anno Domini is mentioned in religious rites) statements of religious belief, they just serve as markers. I for one have no difficulty in saying (and see no particular problem in saying) that Jesus was probably born somewhere between 6 BC and 4 BC, jguk 13:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, Charles, I knew it was there somewhere. The debate essentially left the de facto position as being that we don't go round changing the date notation in stable articles (which this is). In this instance that means we continue using BC notation, in others it means continuing to use BCE notation, jguk 12:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I can live with this, so long as we keep to a standard and maintain it. I'll work on an article header which makes it clear, without being offensive (as the current revert headline, calling BCE and CE "atheist bias" is). ---Mr. Nexx 15:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Note to CDThieme: I am a non-Christian. The Wikipedia policy does, indeed, seem to be to keep the original notation. My note was not trolling; it was an attempt to stop a revert war which has been going on for the last several days. Though I, personally, prefer the BCE/CE notation (as noted above), keeping with Wikipedia policies makes more sense than fighting about it. If you have a good reason that has not yet been discussed for changing it, put it forward. If you want to change Wikipedia policy, do it through channels... not through pointless reverts. ---Mr. Nexx 05:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, you guys are about one revert away from having the page protected. As is well-known, it will inevitably be protected at m:The Wrong Version, so you'd better come to an agreement and stick with it. I don't care which way it goes, but I do insist that the revert-warring stop. Stan 13:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but all this reference to a Wikipedia policy seems to be incorrect. While the style says that BC and BCE are both acceptable, I see nothing that says that an article can't be changed. Please point to some specific authoritative place.

Indeed, the requirement to be NPOV should trump any style policy.

In any case, I'll leave this article alone (for now), because it seems pointless to change it when there are some who are so single-minded about this. Spending your time looking for articles that have moved from BC-->BCE seems sort of silly. On the other hand, I have no qualms in changing this or any article in the future, if I find some other reason to change the article. As I find it significantly uncomfortable in expressing a Christian POV in my work, I will correct articles whenever I'm making another substansive change.

Of course, I assume that User:Jguk will be following me around reverting things to his CPOV.

Mjchonoles 05:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I've no idea what CPOV is - but my views are that we should put our readers first and where there is a single generally understood standard (as there is here), that should be the form we use. By the way, whether it is written explicitly somewhere or not, WP policy by practice is not to change the style in a stable article. I think the ArbCom stated that too (when they looked at the issue it was a complete wash), jguk 07:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for a different dating system, first proposed by Calvin. By this dating system, we base everything off the first syndicated publication of Calvin and Hobbes. Anything before that is refered to as B.C., for "Before Calvin." Anything after that is refered to as C.E., for "Calvin's Era." By my estimation, that should both satisfy and enrage the largest number of people possible.

(note to self: Do not make proposals at 2 in the morning).

---Mr. Nexx 06:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this for real? Are you honestly squabbling over whether or not you've got an 'atheist bias' or a 'Christian bias'? Like it or not, Western society has been using the 'BC/AD' system for fifteen hundred years and, like it or not, changing it to 'BCE/CE' does not remove the fact that the entire dating system is centered around the birth of Jesus Christ (however inaccurate that starting point may be). There is no such thing as a secular calendar. So spare the rest of us the pretentions of being offended. There is one good reason for using 'BC/AD' - it's well-known. When you say 'CE' to many people, you have to explain that it's just 'AD' with a different name. Because the vast majority of people who will read this article, actually looking for information, are not going to be experts on Julius Caesar, let alone have knowledge about how the 'CE/BCE' system works. --Kulindar 06:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Genius. CrazyInSane 07:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've always disliked BCE for the simple reason that it's longer. If it's too biased to date everything in the conventional calendar, though, we can always use AUC. Josh

An objectively verifiable reason to use BC: All other articles on Roman history do. Therefore, I propose archiving (or striking) this section in a similar fashion to Talk:Hebrew calendar#BCE vs BC. If you want to voice your opinion about this in general, please do so at Wikipedia:Eras not Talk:Julius Caesar. squell 14:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for lifting the editing block. I reverted the page to BCE. I would like to present you with my credentials: I earned a degree in Philology from the University of Thessalonika in Greece. I am currently working on my PhD in Byzantine Studies.

Before you revert this page back to BC, please state YOUR credentials.

I'm a Christian but am not bothered by the use of BCE. To be honest, the use of BCE is more accurate. The fact is that Christ was almost certainly born in 6 BC(E). The year 0 was actually when the Emperor Augustus declared that the months in the year could never again be altered after he had added the month August to the calendar, just as Caesar had added July. It was only later that this year was proclaimed by the church to be the year of Christ's birth and so it was accepted that history was divided into BC and AD as it wasn't an adviseable idea to argue with the early Catholic Church...

The BCE / BC debate has been resolved on most pages by using the rule: "retain the date format used by the page's original author." The date format used by this article's original author (User:TimShell)was BCE. Therefore, using the equitable solution adopted on other pages, this page will retain the BCE dating format. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.225.78.240 (talk • contribs) .

It was ironically settled before you started changing it? Don't you read the comments on the top?

Please refrain from using the "BCE" notation within this article without first discussing an era change at the talk page. Per consensus, users have decided that the anno Domini era of numbering is appropriate for this article. If adding a new section and you prefer to use "BCE", it will be reverted for consistency (see WP:MOS).

--Ddahlberg 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not consulted for this supposed "settling" of the BC/BCE problem. On other pages, this issue has been settled with an equitable solution: maintain the date format used by the page's original author. If you would take the time to look at the original version of the Julius Caesar page, you would see that User:TimShell used the BCE format. You are thus completely unjustified in converting this article to BC. From now on, it will use the BCE format. Thank you. 68.225.78.240 02:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You're an anonymous user. Why should you be consulted? This has been discussed and discussed, and a consensus arrived at. There is no justification for you unilaterally deciding to reverse it. --Nicknack009 10:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The most important thing with BC/BCE is that a consensus should not be violated by unilateral action of one user. If there's never been a consensus, we go to the original editor, but if there has been one, we stick with whatever it was. john k 13:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because I'm not a registered user does not mean that I'm not a member of the wikipedia community. The consensus that was reached is: BCE should be used because the page's original author chose BCE. Consuetudo pro lege servatur. 68.225.78.240 19:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#eras. There is a notice at the top of the article, as quoted by Ddahlberg above, asking editors not to ignore the consensus reached, but your indiscriminate search-and-replace function keeps changing it to say "Please refrain from using the "BCEE" notation". You're not even reading what you're changing! I note your IP number has been already warned for vandalism three times. I've just given you another one. Please stop it, or you can expect to be blocked. --Nicknack009 20:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Your persistent vandalism has been reported to the admins. --Nicknack009 20:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Your persistent complaining has been reported to the vandals. 209.173.133.41 20:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The above commentator's contributions strongly suggest that he/she is a resurrection of User:68.225.78.240 and should be blocked indefinitely for violation of WP:SOCK. If he/she continues to use sockpuppets, semi-protection of Julius Caesar may be necessary. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a request for semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. This is getting out of hand. --Nicknack009 21:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought Caesar's birthday was thought to have happened on the 12th of July... At least that's what I remember from my History books. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 19:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I have been bothered by the birth date listed for some time. Now, it is not wrong so much as it is not certain. I think this should be pointed out for the sake of accuracy. Caesar is also thought to have been born on the 13th of July (Quintilis) and possibly two full years earlier, in 102 BCE. I am not certain of the format for showing ambiguous birth dates, so I will refrain from editing for right now. My source for these alternate dates is Christian Meier's Caesar biography. But I know I have seen this elsewhere, I just have to do some research. --Cjcaesar 22:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Although there are still some doubts on Caesar's birthday, most modern scholars agree on 13th July 100 BC. In particular Matthias Gelzer in his Caesar's biography (usually considered the most accurate biography of Caesar) (Caesar. Politician and stateman, Harvard University Press 1997, page 1, ISBN 0-674-09001-2) reports a detailed analysis of this problem. Briefly, in 42 BC the celebration of Caesar birthday were moved to July 12th because of the games on honor of Apollo (which occurred on July 13th). The doubts on his year of birth (100 vs 102 BC) comes from his age at the time of his consulate. Since the legal age to become consul was 42 years, Caesar had to be born in 102 BC to became consul in 59. Yet, scholars (including Gelzer) argue that Roman citizen who received the corona civica (which Caesar received in 80 BC) could stand for consulate earlier. Also patricians (as Caesar) could stand for consulate 2 years earlier (at age 40). Thus, the date of birth is likely to be July 13th 100 BC.--Calabrian 12:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

And there is 13th July 100 everywhere in other language wikipedias so I will change the date to 13th. -nagytibi ^{! ?} 13:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "Julii" a correct plural form of Julius. Even Juliuses would be better :)

Julii is the correct plural in Latin. Paul August ☎ 01:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, and and you can watch the TV series to hear it spoken with a British accent... :-) Stan 04:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, as a Latinist, I think Juliuses sounds absolutely horrific.--Cjcaesar 15:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

until the date style edit warriors find a more constructive use for their time. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected now. Hopefully three days was long enough to allow all involved to recover their sense of perspective. Perhaps we should switch to Roman dates to avoid the dispute altogether (only half kidding). --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

In the section on Ceasars invasion of Britain it was stated that his amphibious assult on Britan was the largest the world had known up untill D-day. In fact Kubali khan raised two fleets which were larger to invade the Japaneses Home islands. They were the largest invasion fleet the world had seen between ceasar's and D-day. I am not surprised that people would not know this because western history books usually mention the Mongol empire only as a catalyst for the creation of Russia. I'll even go as far ast to make the statement that many do not realize that the Mongols had the largest contiguous land empire ever. Roughtly 2 1/2 roman empires could fit in side what they had. --Hfarmer 01:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Important to note that to my knowledge the Mongol invasion of Japan was repulsed and deemed failure. Perhaps I should've been more clear in my original wording on the original article http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/invasion-of-britain.php. (see related copyvio below)

--Chris Heaton 10/18/05

I feel that it is more appropriate that the section on Caesar's family begin with his more proven legal relatives (such as his wives, children, and grandchild), and his undisputed female lovers, rather than his unproven homosexual lovers. I also editted the section on his homosexual lovers somewhat; the quotes are no longer there, but the substance of the accusations and Caesar's response to them is there. I think it would be appropriate to add to this section a note about his ancestors (Venus and Romulus), and his more immediate relatives (such as Gaius Marius). If we're going to sum up his family, let's do it right. ---Mr. Nexx 15:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"Caesar arrived a short time afterwards. As a welcoming present he received Pompey's head and ring in a basket. However, he was not pleased in seeing his enemy, once his ally and son-in-law, murdered by traitors."

I dont understand. How can Pompey be Caesars son-in-law? It doesn't seem to be mentioned elsewhere in the article

Jonatan 22:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Caesar married his daughter to Pompey in order to cement their alliance. ---Mr. Nexx 22:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, thanks. I just missed it. Lets delete this.

Jonatan 11:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Beginning with 'Cursus Honorum' 2nd to last and last paragraphs are direct copies from: http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/clodius-scandal.php

The 'First Triumvirate section is largely verbatim (with some deletion and re-arranging) from: http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/first-triumvirate.php

'Gallic Wars' is taken in part from: http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/gallic-wars.php http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/helvetii.php http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/gaul-conquest.php

'Germania, Britain, and Vercingetorix' is taken in part from: http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/political-opposition.php http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/crossing-the-rhine.php http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/vercingetorix.php

'Civil Wars' in part from: http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/crossing-the-rubicon.php http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/battle-of-pharsalus.php

'Caesar in the East' in part from: http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/battle-of-pharsalus.php http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/caesar-in-egypt.php

'End of the Civil War' in part from: http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/veni-vidi-vici.php http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/battle-of-munda.php

'After the Civil War' in part from: http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/battle-of-munda.php http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/caesar-the-god.php http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/caesar-the-king.php

'Assassination' in part from: http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/caesar-the-king.php

Not all material is verbatim copy, as some has been edited and some has certainly been written by other authors.

--Chris Heaton, www.unrv.com

The last edit not containing my copywritten material seems to be from: 22:05, 26 May 2005 CryptoDerk m (revert to last good version)

While Chris was certainly correct in removing his copyrighted material (and deserves an apology), his revert to 26 May 2005 was a bit agressive (if understandable). I will attempt, in steps, to restore the updates to the non-copyright material that occurred between 26 May and now. However, I'm sure to miss some, so please review...Mjchonoles 16:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Apologies to those authors/editors whose work I may have damaged with my revert. However, considering the hundreds of edits, additions, etc. that have been made since my material was added without permission, I was a bit limited in choice. As an aside, I have only started reviewing wiki articles like this because of other copyright issues. What would have been the best course of action in this case... a complete revert prior to the inclusion of my material as I did, or simply editing out that material and leaving the article as a choppy mess? At least in that regard the edits to material that is not my own would not have been adversly effected, but obviously the article would need to be completely re-written? --Chris Heaton

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)

By 61 BC, Caesar was assigned the Proconsular governorship of further Hispania, the province in which he had served as quaestor.

I'm no expert, but shouldn't this be proPRAETORIAN governorship? Caesar didn't hold the consulship until 59, but was praetor in 63. It strikes me as odd, then, that he would have proconsular imperium in 61 (since I am not aware of any extraordinary grants of power by the Senate to Caesar at this time).

-James

Ill look into this, but I know there were instances when different grades of imperium were granted to men who had not had the office commensurate with the imperium. offhand I cannot recall any specific instances, but I will look this up as well as Caesar's legal status as governor of Spain. He may have needed proconsular status in Spain for one reason or another... --Cjcaesar 15:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I looked in Meier, Oxford Classical Dictionary, and in the Dictionary of Roman Law and could find no mentions of Caesar being made Proconsul. Therefore, I must assume he was Propraetor when he went to Spain.

According to Cicero, Bibulus, and many other enemies of Caesar, as well as many neutral observers, including an eyewitness who gave an account to the historian Suetonius,

Who's the eyewitness? Is it the account of Gaius Memmius that Suetonius quotes? He (along with anyone else who might have witnessed events during Caesar's time in Bithynia) died long before Suetonius was born, so the fact that a written source was used should be made clear.

Also, who says Memmius was an eyewitness? He seems to have been of the same generation as Caesar, which would mean he might well have been present in Bithnyia at the appropriate time, but the only fact suggesting that he saw anything himself is Suetonius's statement that he named several Roman merchants who were present as well—which is suggestive, but hardly conclusive. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Since 144.35.254.5 (talk • contribs) has seen fit to revert my edits (and some others besides) without comment, I will repeat and expand the explanations I already gave in the edit summaries, so s/he may respond properly to any with which s/he takes issue.

• [2] suetonius ref is wrong; some issue with the text based on it too, see talk.

The reference to Suetonius 1.65–69 is wrong. Period. Chapter divisions for classical works have been standardized for a long time; chapters 65–69 cover Caesar as a military commander. No mention is made of King Nicomedes. Why was this reverted?

• [3] these "many neutral observers" are pure fancy; suetonius quotes, almost without exception, from known enemies of caesar. also he did deny the accusations, vehemently.

Who are the "many neutral observers"? Suetonius, our main source for this, gives eight contemporaries of Caesar who comment on this matter:

1. Licinius Macer Calvus, the poet; I don't know, and I don't think anyone knows, whether he was a friend or enemy of Caesar.
2. Publius Cornelius Dolabella, Cicero's son-in-law; alternately a friend and a rival.
3. Gaius Scribonius Curio, the elder; a rival.
4. Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus, a bitter rival.
5. One Octavius, exactly which is obscure; can't say one way or another, but Suetonius describes him as "a man whose disordered mind made him somewhat free with his tongue".
6. Gaius Memmius, the poet and politician; mostly a rival.
7. Cicero. No comment necessary.
8. Caesar's soldiers, with whom he was generally on good terms; their commentary is presented as an example of "the bantering songs which are usually sung by those who followed the chariot" in a triumph.

Five of these are Caesar's rivals; of the remaining two, one is of doubtful mental stability, according to our source. These "many neutral observers" are not to be found in Suetonius, at least. Why was this reverted?

For explanation of my change from "an eyewitness who gave an account to the historian Suetonius" to "Gaius Memmius (whose account may be from firsthand knowledge)", I refer you to my statements above, timestamped 07:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC). Why was this reverted?

I changed "There is no record of Caesar himself ever addressing the accusations" to "Caesar himself, according to Cassius Dio, denied the accusations under oath", adding a reference to the relevant chapter of Dio. The former statement is false. The latter statement is correct. Why was this reverted?

• [4] rephrase slightly, and no, suetonius does not describe this as true; he makes no comment either way

I changed "According to Cicero [. . .] and many other enemies of Caesar" to "According to Cicero [. . .] and others (mainly Caesar's enemies)" because I thought this a better reflection of the sources, as they are laid out above. Three of the eight sources are named; describing the remaining five as "many" others is an exaggeration. Five of the eight sources are Caesar's enemies; I believe "mainly Caesar's enemies" is a fair description of this. Why was this reverted?

From the sentence "Suetonius, while saying that Caesar's affair with Nicomedes is true, described Antony's accusation of an affair with Octavian as political slander", I removed the incorrect statement that Suetonius says that Caesar's affair with Nicomedes was fact. Suetonius, as he often does, takes no firm position on the truth or falsehood of the stories; he simply reports them with minimal commentary. Why was this reverted?

• [5] comment out references that cannot be to any standard edition of suetonius

Last, I commented out references to Suetonius 1:229, 233 because no standard edition of Suetonius divides the first book into anywhere near 233 chapters. I was unable to discern the author's intent, but hoped someone else might be able to puzzle it out. The references, as they stood, were useless and misleading besides. Why was this reverted?

—Charles P. (Mirv) 00:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

(05/11/19)

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)

(05/11/19)

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'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)

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)

I know this issue was brought up before, but it seems like it was never really resolved. Should the same be spelled with the ash (æ)? Personally, I feel that we should seek to the correct names, and not the ones that are considered more common. For examples, Encyclopædia Britannica is spelled using ash, even though a vast majority of people searching use the normal english spelling. The question I ask is whether in ash was used in classical Latin. I personally dont know the answer, but I think that should be the deciding factor, especially since it is a name. 24.14.92.28 01:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with using the ash. The reason Britannica is spelled with it is because that's their official, undisputed name. Caesar is usually referred to without the ash, and it's acceptable to do so without it. Therefore, we should use the more common name. Ral315 (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The ash has simply evolved from hasty handwriting of "ae", it is not pronounced in a different way. The "correct" name of Caesar would be spelled in capitals if we were to follow Roman orthography; I am sorry, but this is a rather pointless remark. Lucius Domitius 22:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

USE THE ÆSC! C is not soft before A! So therefore it needs to be an æsc.Cameron Nedland 21:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot resolve this, why not use both?Rev. James Triggs 22:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be his full name on the first line?

Yes, it should. I've restored the "Julius" to his name. --Nicknack009 16:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You got your a and e backwords in CAESAR.Cameron Nedland 04:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The above phrase is mentioned twice (search for "consulship"), the first time incorrectly. Perhaps one of the regular editors should correct this. AWhiteC 15:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

done squell 14:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel that this article may be too long for its own good. While I would not propose removing any of the content, I feel that a few subarticles might be preferred to this one, 57kb behemoth. Agree/disagree? Firestorm 15:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I shortened it a tiny bit.Cameron Nedland 22:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Caesar

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: [6]

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:[7]

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 [8] 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)

I pruned it down to the essentials, but not sacrificing much of anything, actually.

These were already included in the Category:Julius Caesar:

• Category:Roman generals
• Category:Roman dictators
• Category:Roman era historians
• Category:Julio-Claudian Dynasty
• Category:Military writers
• Category:Assassinated politicians
• Category:Murdered Romans
• Category:Nine Worthies
• Category:Roman Republican consuls
• Category:Romans in Britain

These are higher cats under that same cat; thus, per standard policy, removed:

• Category:Ancient Romans
• Category:Roman Republic

These were not included in the Category:Julius Caesar, but should have been, and therefore I moved them there. I think these are pretty silly as well; still, they can be defended:

• Category:Roman gods
• Category:Historical figures portrayed by Shakespeare
• Category:Pre-19th century cryptographers

These, on the other hand, are out-and-out nonsense:

• Category:Ptolemaic dynasty
• Category:Pederastic lovers
• Category:Historical novelists

Caesar, of all historians, could only be described as a novelist by someone bent on stressing, and in the most unfavorable light, that his campaign accounts are personal propaganda. While there is some homosexual rumor (the business with the king of Bithynia), neither one of the men was under age, though Caesar was young, and in fact one of the things held to be shameful was that Caesar was past the age of being a boy-lover. Fathering Caesarion does not make Caesar a member of the Ptolemaic dynasty; from the standpoint of a person coming to Wikipedia to get information, it is misleading and not useful to put him there — those interested in the dynasty will find him naturally enough under Caesarion. Bill 13:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Only a minor rephrasing is needed, not tagging with {{fact}}, well-intentioned though it may be. Plut. Jul. 63.5 presents it as a "story told by many"; Suet. Jul. 81.2 presents it as fact, with even a name attached to the soothsayer (which starts to remove it from the realm of urban legend). If we start tagging {{fact}} everything in Antiquity that isn't absolutely attested by rock-solid eyewitness evidence. . . ! Bill 15:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In the section under "Early Life" it states that Cornelia was daughter to Lucius Cornelia Cinna, Maurius' supporter and Sullas' enemy, but in Cornelia's page, it says she was daughter to Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Which is it?

Why is the term BC (Before "christ") used on this page? "jesus christ" never existed and BC/AD are just the modern fundamentalist-"christian" replacement of our Common Era terms BCE/CE! 142.176.115.205 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Assuming you to be asking a real question rather than just making a jejune point of some kind, Wikipedia has rolled this one around, as you might expect, in every direction, and the result was a policy to stick with the majority, traditional, viewpoint, except where it is very manifestly inappropriate, such as in articles on ancient rabbis.

While I agree in general, I actually think policy was to not bite the bullet and instead let the editors deal with the constant bickering. squell 13:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As for BC/AD being a "modern replacement" of BCE/CE, it's been a long time since I've read something so silly, even in Wikipedia. The latter is the modern invention of a minority with an agenda, not coming into such currency as it has until about 1975 or so; the former is the traditional expression of date in the West, and for a thousand years, the only way of stating the same basic fact.

I'd add that it has always seemed to me that "Common Era" is even more Christianity-centered than BC/AD. People who write BC/AD are merely stating that some event was before or after the appearance of a person called Christ; people who write BCE/CE are actually acknowledging that the Common Era does indeed hinge on that person's birth. At any rate, the whole thing is egregiously silly; BC/AD is a custom, much like calling the President of the United States "Mr. President", or Rome "Rome" rather than "Roma", etc. Bill 11:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, AD means "Anno Domini" which is a Latin term for "in the year of Our Lord Jesus Christ", so I'd say AD/BC is more Christianity-centered. I assume you thought AD stood for "After Death" or something. CrazyInSane 20:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You missed the point of my argument, and my Latin is excellent thank you, at least as long as I don't have to write it (you're invited to look at my website in case you think I thought for a minute that "AD" was After the Deluge or About Dandruff). "AD" is more Christ-centric than "BC", I'll grant you, but the notion that "the common era" should have reference to Christ is far more Christian than a bald statement that something is before or after Christ: for most people, there is nothing "common" about Christ, and in large parts of the world it would be inaccurate to say that the "common" dating would be the Christian one; but it is always accurate to say that something is after or before Christ. The argument is a subtle one, but it doesn't mean it's wrongheaded. Anyway, for the matter at hand, the whole business is the usual crap round and round. Bill 20:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• I will forever think of AD as After Dandruff thanks to you 161.19.64.5 23:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• I assure you that whoever invented "Common Era" did so to elude connotations with Jesus Christ. Some even think to themselves that the "common era" is based on Julius Caesar (J.C.) simply to assure comfort that our calendar is not associated with Christ. The only reason the "Common era" has "reference" to Christ is because the atheists are too lazy to create their own seperate calendar based from a different time in history because it would cause mass confusion, therefore they simply use the Gregorian calendar and mask the Christian notations. If you were to say In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ, 2006... I would find that to be quite more "Christian" than saying 2006 of the common era. The assertion that "CE" is more Christian-centric than "AD" is completely ridiculous, no matter the circumstances. CrazyInSane 20:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see Bill's point. BC/AD is explicitly Christian, but BCE/CE is exactly the same system under a different name. It's still based on Dionysius Exiguus's calculation of the birth of Christ. BCE/CE is just a euphemism. BC/AD is what it actually is. Other cultures have their own dating systems, but by calling ours the "common era" we are claiming that it's somehow a universal standard. It's not. It's the dating system used by the Christian-heritage west, and to claim it's "common" to everyone is to insist everyone follow the Christian standard. That's more Christianity-centric than to simply acknowledge that the dating system we use is Christian in origin. --Nicknack009 22:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the correct sources would be, however I think his surname begins with a soft "ʧ" sound, as in "chair". At least, that's how we pronounce it in Italy which I guess is pretty close to Rome :-)

I've never come across a german-like pronounciation à la "Kaiser Wilhelm".

Alex.

I assume you mean Caesar, which is a cognomen. The letter c in latin is always pronounced /k/. It was only later that the Italians and others adopted /tʃ/. —David618 05:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have always thought that the grapheme <ae> was pronounced as [e:] in Latin. Certainly not [aɪ]?? 128.214.199.92 13:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC) T.V.

This depends on whether you are using ecclesiastical or classical Latin. The Catholic Church pronounces <ae> as [e:] but the general consensus among classical Latinists, e.i. people studying Latin as it was used by ancient Romans, is that it was pronounced [aɪ]. The teacher for my History of Rome class last year was an arcaheologist, not a cultural or linguistic anthropolgist, so she pronounced everything as she had been taught in church. I have to say that her use of "kweester" (QUAESTOR), etc. made the lectures hard to follow. Both are correct in certain settings, but using [e:] when speaking of matters related to ancient Rome is wrong. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 22:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your explanation! I took a course in Classical Latin many years ago, but our teacher failed to mention this difference to us. Moreover, he explicitly taught us to pronounce every <ae> as [e:], so I guess he must have supported a minority view there, as he was a fully qualified Latinist. 194.251.240.116 07:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC) T.V.

There is plenty of evidence in Caesar's commentaries that show that he did have "prior planning and strategic thinking". Just because Caesar was amazingly quick in his marches and surprising his opponents does not mean that he did not plan. Certainly he was a great gambler but due to his tactical skill he was able to compensate. Some of the Greatest generals in history (Napoleon, Caesar and Alexander) all were great at using speed, surprise and a dash of daring to lead their armies to victory. --M Drusus 22:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

How about changing inscription-styled IMP•C•IVLIVS•CAESAR•DIVVS to (Imperator) Caivs Ivlivs Caesar Divvs? The iscription may be preserved after his name. Brand 15:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Second that, or even something more sensible. The current state of things looks both dumb and pedantic at the same time, a hard feat to pull off.... I haven't noticed any other Roman figure treated this way in Wiki, either. Divus of course is not part of his name at all, but a post-death honorific: maybe the article Hirohito will be our guide here. Bill 15:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Divvs being a post-death honorific; true. However, those inscription-styled names were usually used posthumously anyway. As to Caesar's getting special treatment, he is a special Roman. He is the most famous Roman of them all, and primus inter pares as well. So I don't see that as being too much of a problem.--Ironlion45 06:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, the man's name was Gaius Julius Caesar. Bill 14:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

On a related subject, I've been wondering how it is we know that the praenomen abbreviated C. represents "Gaius" and not, as older works expand it, "Caius". Does anyone know? --Nicknack009 14:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It was traditional. The letter 'G' didn't develop in the Latin alphabet until fairly late, similar to the letter 'U' (which was given as V) and the even later addition of the letter 'J' (instead of I). It is also believed by some that it was easier to engrave the simpler letters. (which, to be fair, it is).--Ironlion45 16:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Cossutia being his first wife isn't mentioned in the article, only in the sidebar, and I don't recognise the name. I'll remove it pending discussion and references.

According to Suetonius, Caesar was engaged to Cossutia by his family when he was a boy. She came from a wealthy equestrian family, but he broke off the engagement and married Cinna's daughter Cornelia when he became Flamen Dialis [9] - the priesthoods were strictly patrician. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology [10] calls her Caesar's first wife, but Suetonius doesn't actually say he married her, just that he had been engaged to. --Nicknack009 12:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

I've removed the succession box entry for the Julio-Claudian dynasty, as I strongly doubt that Julius Caesar is properly considered part of that dynasty. Paul August ☎ 21:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Might as well just call it the Claudian dynasty and have done with it.... Bill 22:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Augustus, and his Vipsanian grandchildren, are generally considered part of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, aren't they? john k 13:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Although, thinking about it, there really weren't any Julians in the Julio-Claudian dynasty. We have Octavians, Vipsanians, and Claudians, perhaps some Antonians and Aemilians...but no Julians. john k 13:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't as clear as I could have been. The traditional scholarly name of the dynasty is Julio-Claudian; the Julio- refers to Julius. It seems most peculiar, in the particular baroque kind of way for which Wikipedia is notorious, to remove Julius from the dynasty which he founded. Bill 14:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I had always that the "Julio-" referred to his adopted son, Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, aka Augustus. john k 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And since Augustus was born neither Julius nor Caesar, but adopted by the original JC, as extra-crispy he took the name from guess where. Wikipedia really needs to stop reinventing the wheel! Bill 17:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that noramlly Julius Caesar is not considered part of the Julio-Claudian dynasty—Augustus is normally the start because the Caesar was not an emperor. However, he is closely linked to the dynasty and it should be mentioned. —David618 ^t e 21:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The man born Gaius Octavius acquired his status as a Julian from his adoption by Caesar. But that doesn't mean that Julius Caesar was part of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, any more than it means that Julius Caesar's father, through him Caesar himself acquired his Julian status, was a member of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty. My understanding of this originally is that Augustus, Tiberius, and Caligula are technically "Julians", because Augustus was adopted son of Julius Caesar, Tiberius the adopted son of Augustus, Germanicus the adopted son of Tiberius, and Caligula the actual son of Germanicus. On the other hand, Claudius and Nero are Claudians, since Claudius was never adopted into the Julian clan, and Nero (originally Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus) was his adopted son. The connection into a single "Julio-Claudian" Dynasty can come from a) the fact that Tiberius and Caligula were both, by blood, Claudians; and b) the fact that all these rulers were closely related to one another, and it doesn't make a terrible amount of sense to artficially separate them on the basis of adoptions. thus "Julio-Claudians". It has nothing terribly much to do with Caesar the elder. john k 23:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

How is it that this article uses the Christian method of dating system BC/AD?!? The Gregorian calendar, that uses the Common era as its basis, was originally based on the date of death of Julius Caesar. BCE (Before Caeserian Era) and CE (Caeserian Era) were eventually turned to "common" to accustom to the alternative meaning of the common era, "Anno Domini". This "AD/BC" terminology was created by Christians as a conscious attempt at making us all talk about Jesus Christ, and it was easy since Jesus Christ and Julius Caesar have the same initials!!!! I demand that we start using Caeserian era terms now!!!!!!!!!142.176.117.16 22:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You are very confused. Caesar died in 44 BC(E) so the calendar is not in any sense based on the date of his death. Caesar did have some involvment in the modern calendar in that he established the 265-day, twelve month year with a leap day every four years, later adjusted somewhat under Gregory, who was a pope, but the numbering of the years is based on the estimation of the birth of Christ by Dionyisus Exiguus, who was a monk. The dating system we use, whether we're Christians or not (I'm not) and whether we call it BC/AD or BCE/CE, is a Christian one, like it or not. --Nicknack009 22:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The calendar dating time was a little off considering Caesar died in 44 BCE, but it was definitely based on Caesar. Christians didn't even exist until well into the 1st century CE, and Jesus was never even born, he never existed. Christians just want us to think that our dating system is based on their false god. Like it or not, this is 2006 of the Caesarian Era142.176.117.16 22:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The twelve month calendar was established by Caesar. The numbering of the years has nothing to do with him. If it was based on the date of Caesar's death it would be 2049, not 2006. Read some history, and try not to let your (perfectly understandable) dislike of Christianity get in the way of its historical importance. --Nicknack009 23:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In Caesar's time, and afterwards, the principal calendar used was the Ab urbe condita ("From the Founding of the City" [of Rome]) calendar, for which the year 1 was what we call 753 BC. This was devised, I believe, around Caesar's time by the scholar Marcus Terentius Varro, and synchronized with the better established Greek Olympiad system, which dated from 776 BC. The BC/AD calendar system was first devised in the 6th century AD by Dionysius Exiguus, who miscalculated the death of Herod to 753 AUC, rather than 750 AUC, when it actually happened, and tied the birth of Jesus to the death of Herod, as I recall. Or something along those lines. At any rate, this calendar didn't come into common usage in the west until some centuries after Dionysius. It was not accepted in the east for much longer - the Eastern Church kept its dates from when they dated the beginning of the world to based on the (much longer) dates for the antediluvian patriarchs in the Septuagint. None of these systems has anything to do with Caesar, and it is uncontroversial that the BC/BCE-AD/CE system derives from Dionysius's miscalculation of the birth of Jesus. This also has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed - even if Jesus didn't exist, the Gospels most certainly did by Dionysius' time, and his work was based on cross-referencing the gospels with Josephus (or Eusebius' chronology based on Josephus), as I understand it. Anyway, nothing to do with Caesar. john k 11:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like noone understood 142.176.117.16 wanted to be funny, and succeeded.--Panairjdde 11:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

== In the Early Life section, paragraph 4, sentence two says:

"Towards the end of Marius' life in 86 BC, internal politics reached a breaking point. During this period, a deteriorating relationship with John F. Kennedy led Caesar to shoot his lifelong friend."

Doesn't this sound a bit absurd? I guess it is a typing-linking mistake (or the aothor made a joke?)

If J.F. Kennedy shared a period in the history with Caesar we maybe should take it more under the lupe! ==

Asli

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)

either the adjective of pirates is wrong or the link.

Ci-lic-ian or Ci-cil-ian.

or maybe I am just wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.120.254.148 (talk • contribs) 08:48, June 23, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the link was correct but "Cilician" was mispelled. I've corrected this now. Paul August ☎ 19:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

As above. [11] —porges_(talk) 10:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not registered, so I would just like to give you the info on the discussion page: Caesar was born on July 13. However, July 13 was the first day of the annual Apollo games in Rome, so the offical celebration of Caesar's birth was shifted to July 12. That's the reason why many still believe that he was born on July 12. 212.9.162.233 23:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is highly misleading to label Sulla as Caesar's "Predecessor" in the dictatorship as this leaves the impression that a dictator was a regular magistrate (or worse, a kind of monarch). Sulla's and Caesars's dictatorships are separated by thirty years in which no one would have said that the dicatorship was "vacant" vel. sim. To regard Augustus as Caesar's successor is at least sanctified by usage since Suetonius.

But the infobox as a whole might be questionable, since it mentions a "Royal House" and "consort(s)", terms which are fitting for royalty since the Middle Ages and maybe for the emperors since Augustus, but not for the Roman republic.--193.175.194.60 07:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we get rid of this from the discussion. They take up half of the discussions and make it difficult to read and have absolutly nothing to do with the article.

Thanks, --Firebird 13:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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)