Talk: Julius Caesar#Image on coins

Caesar is currently part of the category "Genocide perpetrators". No part of this article seems to justify this, if there is consensus to considers parts of the Gallic wars a genocide it should be mentioned in the article to justify the inclusion, if not then the category should be removed. Looking at the Gallic wars article, one of the historians mentioned includes it in his book about historical genocide, the others dont seem to refer to it as such. There is a large disparity in actual casualty estimates by different authors, with the article weirdly and uncritically accepting those of David Henige, who is an Africanist and not a roman historian, and doesn't seem exceptionally prominent even in his own field. Generally historians seem to consider the casualty claims to be overexaggerated to flatter Caesar, with some stating they were nonetheless brutal while others claim they were comparatively mild to standard for the time. No claims are made that would indicate genocidal intent, not the mention the practical impossibility of executing one with four legions during something historians consider a propaganda and looting excursion. tl;dr things not supported by the article should not be implied by inclusion in a category. — jonas (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, agreed. Furius (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:The lack of justification itself justifies removal of the category under WP:CATVER. Ifly6 (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Julius Caesar|answered=yes}}

I think Pomey (ex. "Theatre of Pompey") is spelled "Pompeii" Mr. sus amogus (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}}. It isn't. The theatre is named for Pompey, the general. Pompeii was a city. Ifly6 (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|Julius Caesar|answered=yes}}

For offices held by Caesar, add:

Quaestor 68 BC

Aedile 65 BC

Praetor 63 BC Dmcd7 (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}}: This information is, as you know, mentioned in the article itself. The infobox is reserved for key facts about a subject, not exhaustive lists. Remsense ‥ 论 06:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Moved from|User talk:Remsense#Caesar}}

Hi, elaborate please what you mean by "most reliable" Becarefulbro (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:The Suetonius paragraph literally begins that he was writing a century after the fact. How would he know? If he did, he certainly didn't better than those writing prior to him. Remsense ‥ 论 17:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::That note can be removed, because Plutarch lived at the same time as Suetonius. How would he know? Like Plutarch, he used ancient sources and saw statues of Caesar. Becarefulbro (talk) Becarefulbro (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Inheriting knowledge of his seizures is one thing, articulating a lush description of his good looks with any confidence is quite another. Of course they were working from the same potential pool of sources—that's how we can make judgment calls about who's more reliable here. Remsense ‥ 论 17:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::::They are reliable to the same extent. Suetonius saw realistic painted lifetime images of Caesar. Becarefulbro (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::They would not be quite realistic enough to be reliable carriers of historical information with this level of specificity, to my understanding. The point is, it's better to lead a section with concrete factual information than with more interpretation-heavy information, all else being equal (this is a bit of an odd case, really) Remsense ‥ 论 17:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::What exactly do you consider unreliable in his description? Becarefulbro (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Mainly "tall" and "shapely limbs", really. Those are attributes that—especially the former—have potential to get muddled in the historical record instantly, sometimes even in the age of photography. This is verging on OR on my part at this point, so if you have secondary sources telling me I'm wrong here I'd be happy to defer. Remsense ‥ 论 18:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::But we know for sure the stature of Augustus, for example. Shapely limbs are visible on statues. Becarefulbro (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm actually going to move this to the article talk page so we can see what others think. Interesting stuff I hadn't pondered so far, though. Remsense ‥ 论 18:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Ok, thanks. Becarefulbro (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Augustus is also heavily idealized on his statues (and does not even age in his 70s). Most Roman emperors are depicted as tall, well-built men, but that doesn't mean they actually were. The portraits do have individualistic traits to make them recognizable but still adhere to the "portrait types" that convey ideological agenda about the regime,{{cite book|author=Elizabeth Thill|editor=Lea Cline & Nathan Elkins|chapter=Public Sculpture and Social Practice in the Roman Empire|title=The Oxford Handbook of Roman Imagery and Iconography|page=274|url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Oxford_Handbook_of_Roman_Imagery_and/FgRREAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA274}}, rather than being photographic snapshots of the individuals. Soidling (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:When it comes to these claims about who looked like what, I would strongly defer only to secondary sources. Images in the imperial era are heavily polished and idealised; it's rather plausible that descriptions written decades after the fact are not reliable (reflecting those idealised images rather than reality). I think we should not present any primary source material in the matter except as quoted by reliable secondary sources. Ifly6 (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:Only the sources that are contemporary or the later sources that directly depend on them inform some reliable details about someone's looks. As for Caesar's appearance, Suetonius begins with [https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html#45 "he is said to have been (Fuisse traditur)"], which is saying that he is relying on hearsay, not a definitive eyewitness. This contrasts with the other instances where he actually cites his sources like Cicero's letters or the speeches of Gaius Memmius. I'd argue that we need to put back the information that Suetonius was not Caesar's contemporary and that he was relying on hearsay. Soidling (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::I've boldly done so in this edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Caesar&diff=prev&oldid=1272351256. Ifly6 (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::Plutarch is the same secondary source who lived a century after Caesar, there is no reason to give him a preference. So can we put the more interesting notes of Suetonius above those of Plutarch? Becarefulbro (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Plutarch is a primary source. WP:CLPRIM. I would frame them in terms of two guys who lived about a century after Caesar died said such and such. Ifly6 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Is there a stylistic reason why the article uses the cognomen "Caesar" instead of his family name + cognomen "Julius Caesar"? Nivla (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:It is shorter. There is no actual benefit in terms of disambiguation from using "Julius Caesar" since during his lifetime essentially every person with the name Caesar is also a member of the Julii. Ifly6 (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)