Talk:Augustus (title)

Minor question: Is it correct to identify centuries with Roman numerals?

when was he born. when did he die. where was he born.

I think, not pl. (pluralis) Augusti, but gen.(genitivus casus) Augusti. Why pluralis? -LinasLit

"Pl." is the abbreviation of "plural". The nominative plural form of augustus is augusti. Yes, the genitive singular form of augustus is also augusti, but that is mostly irrelevant to the article; by general convention, Latin nouns in English text are only declined in the nominative case, singular and plural. Publius 12:19, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The justification for an article on Augustus as well as one on Augustus Caesar can only be a discussion of the history and use of the title Augustus. Biographical material about Augustus and his other titles does not belong here. Adam 12:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, that information is extremely important to understanding the nature of the title Augustus. To simply say that it means "Emperor" is to ignore important distinctions in official and constitutional theory. The name Augustus had no constitutional meaning; it was simply a name given to an extraordinarily powerful citizen. The information about Caesar Augustus's career is an explanation of how that name came to be associated with the Imperial powers and dignities. Caesar Augustus's career is inseparable from the history of the title because he gave it its meaning by an extraordinary concentration of powers.

To be named Augustus was to be the supreme commander of all Roman legions. Was this because he was named Augustus? No, it was because he had been invested with imperium maius, after the model of Caesar Augustus. To be named Augustus was to be the leader of the Senate and to receive diplomatic envoys on behalf of Rome. Was this because he was named Augustus? No, it was because he was appointed princeps senatus, after the model of Caesar Augustus. to be named Augustus was to have personal inviolability, the right to rescue a plebeian from the hands of a magistrate, and the right to interpose his veto on any act or motion of any magistrate. Was this because he was named Augustus? No, it was because he was voted tribunicia potestas, after the model of Caesar Augustus. To be named Augustus was to be head of the Roman state religion. Was this because he was named Augustus? No, it was because he was elected pontifex maximus, after the model of Caesar Augustus.

I submit that no article about Augustus is complete without a brief summary of the career of Caesar Augustus, as this career is quite inseparable from what being Augustus meant. If an American citizen somewow created an office called "Algernon" that was simultaneously commander-in-chief, leader of the executive, judiciary, and legislature, head of state, chief priest, and governor of most States of the Union, would it not be odd if the encyclopedia read simply "'Algernon' is chiefly significant as a title first used by Algernon Montcrieff", and gave no further explanation for how being Algernon came to encompass all those offices and powers? Publius 22:42, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, OK, but the explanation of that needs to be shorter and clearer than it was in the original version. And it should not be a biography of Augustus, sinec we already have one of those. Also, please explain what "NN" means. Adam 10:45, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I recognize that this would require some work, but I think this article should be moved to Augustus (title) and Caesar Augustus moved here. I think that would be more intuitive page names. A quick sampling of What links here shows that a huge number, if not the majority, of links to this page should be to Caesar Augustus - Fornadan 22:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I suppose this page should rather be renamed to Augustus (honorific), "title" being (historically) probably slightly off mark (well, depending on historians' interpretation: "honorific" seems to have most chance to be accepted by all).

The move can be performed without needing to "wait" for anything, since Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans) has: [..] the usual names of emperors always "own" those articles, even for the less-well-known ones, so we have Titus, Claudius, and Nero as articles on individuals, even though these are generic names shared by many other Romans.

It's always possible to steer for a change of that guideline (not needed as far as I'm concerned!), in the mean while however,...

--Francis Schonken 12:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've cleaned up the talk page to use headings to hopefully help the flow of comments a little. I've not changed any existing text, but merely tried to add headings and divide the jumble as appropriate to lend some clarity. Ashdog137 21:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article appears to have been split from an article on Augustus (the emperor himself) so as to discuss Augustus (the title itself). As such, I don't see what relevance the Triumphs section has, as it appears to discuss the triumphs of the emperor, rather than information about the title. In the absence of comments to clarify, I intend to remove this section in a week. Ashdog137 21:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Noticed this hadn't been done after nearly a year, or maybe it got reverted, so removed it. Lessthanideal (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Theodoric, king of Ostrogoths and Italy, and Chlodwig, king of Frank, both used title of Augustus, but seemed not to claim imperial status —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greutungen (talk • contribs) 12:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Such a smart and well-written article — and not a single source cited. For some reason, this tickles me.

If anyone's still actively tending this article, I wonder whether a section might be added on the use of the title Augustus/-a for deities, which I think (only my impression) occurred only after Octavian became Augustus. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why aren't these titles capitalized? That's the convention in the literature. I realize that, normally, free-standing titles do not get capitalized, but in this case, they're also names, so it's a bit different. And, again, the convention is to write of "Augusti", not "augusti", from at least as early as Gibbon, and still today (e.g., Schultz' section "The tetrarchy: a new form of imperial rule, 293-312 C.E. in A History of the Roman people). - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

You are right. Srnec (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Social Networking 2603:8081:5601:4B6E:B528:B2DA:C081:AC3F (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply