Wikipedia

Talk:Augustus

Featured articleAugustus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 23, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 31, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 16, 2005, January 16, 2006, January 16, 2007, January 16, 2008, January 16, 2009, January 16, 2010, January 16, 2012, January 16, 2013, August 19, 2014, January 16, 2015, January 16, 2016, January 16, 2019, August 1, 2023, September 23, 2023, August 1, 2024, and September 23, 2024.
Current status: Featured article


First Triumvirate as a junta, and other concerns

[edit]

OP 1

[edit]

@User:Ifly6: thank you for your work and raising of concerns about the article, though I would ask that you please refrain from making major edits while a current WP:FAR process is ongoing (see the link at the top of this talk page). I am trying to build a coherent narrative and collate things appropriately, but that is difficult if you are going to unilaterally decide to remove enormous chunks of the article on a whim. For instance, in the early life section, you removed this entire portion of a paragraph due to your dislike the the term "junta," which, by the way, Karl Galinsky (2012) uses on pp. 7–8 (and yes, he also depicts it as an informal alliance). -- "In 63 BC Julius Caesar became pontifex maximus, head of the College of Pontiffs, allowing him to build political clout and eventually form the First Triumvirate with the statesmen Pompey and Marcus Licinius Crassus.[43] This informal alliance, which superseded but did not suspend Rome's constitution, had fallen apart by the time Caesar crossed the Rubicon on 11 January 49 BC and initiated a protracted civil war.[44]" -- I have since removed the word "junta" if you think it is contested in academia or a mischaracterization of the First Triumvirate, but removing huge swaths of information and necessary context for subsequent statements about Caesar's military campaigns is neither helpful nor warranted. Pericles of AthensTalk 19:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify who is allowed to make edits to an article while an FAR process is ongoing? I notice the standard header says Please feel free to leave comments or be bold and improve the article directly and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Augustus/archive1 indicates the review process began in April 2025. NebY (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NebY I'm not saying someone should be forbidden from making edits. I'm strongly urging him to please refrain from making major changes to the narrative flow of the article while I'm right in the middle of editing it for the FAR process. It's a request, not a demand (I'm just another editor, I don't have authority over anything here, LOL, aside from perhaps having princeps privilege as the person who lifted this article to FA status in the first place back in 2007, LOL). Pericles of AthensTalk 19:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to assert ownership over the article because it is under review. Nor would something like WP:FAOWN foreclose other people editing the article, especially when (in its current state) this article should be delisted. Ifly6 (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 I didn't claim ownership, I said to please refrain from making major changes to the narrative while I'm busy, you know, refashioning the narrative! Using Galinsky (2012) for the most part, but also other sources at my disposal. I don't have access to a wide variety of them at the moment, but I'm doing the best I can in my spare time. It's a request for courtesy, not a demand. Pericles of AthensTalk 19:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. My immediate interpretation was that your post was essentially peremptory. I'm happy to find out that it isn't. See below, probably with some generous reading for tone if necessary, on content then. Ifly6 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 No problem! I don't have any real say in what gets removed or not, I'm just another editor, although I have been the primary editor trying to salvage this article for the past several months now. I noticed along the way that you've also made major edits, thanks for that! I do need all the help I can get, and I'm glad we're having a discussion on the talk page at long last instead of butting heads. I don't have the time nor the patience for edit wars over trivial things like sourcing. I'm just trying to rush this article over the finish line after the FAR page has been open for the greater part of a year. Pericles of AthensTalk 20:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 I'll say one more thing about this with the addition of a recent footnote, which you'll most likely be pleased to see. It's from Southern 2014: p. 91, where Patricia Southern explains the difference between the so-called First Triumvirate and the second one.

The so-called 'first Triumvirate', describing the agreement made in 60/59 BC between Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, Gaius Julius Caesar, and Marcus Licinius Crassus, would not have been recognised under this heading by the three men concerned; it is a convenient modern term derived from analogy with the later alliance. This earlier arrangement of 60 BC was an unofficial merger of interests, not sanctioned by law, and the participants were not styled tresviri, nor by the modern ungrammatical 'triumvirs'. They gave themselves no corporate title at all, but their association was dubbed by the people of Rome as the Three-Headed Monster.

In the Second Triumvirate subsection, I also included another footnote from Southern 2014: p. 91, combining it with a footnote that already existed for Galinsky 2012:

Two lessons had been learned from the career of Julius Caesar. The use of the title Dictator was a sensitive issue, and the office had been abolished by Antonius soon after Caesar's assassination. It would have been impolitic to reintroduce the concept so soon after the Dictatorship had been eradicated, and besides, there were now three men, not just one. Despite the avoidance of the actual word Dictator in the triumviral titulature, the closest analogy for the titles adopted by Antonius, Octavian, and Lepidus does in fact derive from the Dictatorship; both Sulla and Caesar were each in their turn legally appointed Dictator rei publicae constituendae. The terminology indicates that the Dictator Sulla and the Dictator Caesar were charged with reconstituting the Republic. Using almost the same formula, the members of the new alliance were appointed Tresviri rei publicae constituendae, with powers confirmed for five years. Between them the triumvirs possessed powers of a blatantly Dictatorial nature. Since it was only a short time since Caesar had been made Dictator perptuo and had been quickly assassinated after accepting the appointment, the triumvirs also avoided the slightest hint of the depressing notion 'perpetuus' by limiting their office to a five-year term.

I don't want to overwhelm readers with too many footnotes, so that will be the last one I'll add to the article. Cheers. Pericles of AthensTalk 21:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can strengthen and shorten this. I would write something more like this:

The so-called "first triumvirate" was a political alliance between Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar that started in 60 BC. It was an unofficial political alliance which had no formal legal basis. The alliance provoked substantial opposition from other politicians which were successful in largely stymying their goals except during Caesar's consulship in 59 and the joint consulship of Pompey and Crassus in 55 BC.

For relevant sources see First Triumvirate § Evaluation (which I wrote). I would also generally decapitalise "first triumvirate" inasmuch as it is no formal title. Similarly, we can stop using "second triumvirate" since there is no "first" to be had; "triumvirate" alone is more than sufficient after an explanation. Ifly6 (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 Good suggestions. I have amended the article to decapitalize "first triumvirate" and to stress how its unofficial nature. To clarify, do you think the footnotes should be shortened/summarized instead of having quotes verbatim? Or are we talking about the prose text? In either case things look much better now. I also clarified things in the footnote about the magister equitum and Gesche's position (which you recently tagged). Hope everything looks okay to you! Pericles of AthensTalk 17:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be a bit concerned about the excessive use of long quotes being a WP:COPYVIO issue, but I may be a bit too wary there. In general, however, I prefer to rework the material to make it fit better, especially when comparing two sources. Ifly6 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 I could perhaps trim some of them and summarize what is said instead of providing such huge quotes then (which are basically full paragraphs in length). It's just that Southern 2014 has so many good things to say! XD LOL. Galinsky pretty much agrees with Southern there and elsewhere, but uses somewhat different terminology and is much more vague than Southern (skimping on the little details in comparison). It's also why I quoted such a large page range for Southern, to reflect several statements made in her book to justify everything said in the statement. Pericles of AthensTalk 23:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 small update: I've trimmed various footnotes containing Southern 2014 quotations, breaking them up into smaller chunks with explanatory comments in between. I hope this is sufficient, because I do not want to remove vital context for readers who wish to know more by reading those footnotes. If anything my recent edits have at least placed us in safer waters, so that we do not have to be concerned about WP:COPYVIO. Pericles of AthensTalk 02:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OP 2

[edit]

@PericlesofAthens:

this is now linked again above, and if you don't like the word "junta" used by Galinsky (2012), then you are welcome to use a litany of sources to show a scholarly consensus and disagreement with him. Otherwise you are removing tons of important pieces of the narrative that damages the coherent flow of the article, during a Featured Article Review process no less (please pay attention to that on the talk page)

The "first triumvirate" is a modern fiction. It was not a junta. Nor did it supersede the Roman constitution. The members of the triuvmirate were profoundly unpopular even in 59 and continued to be so (especially after the outrages of 55). Most scholars now use "alliance" or "coalition". Eg Russell in EAH The nomenclature is misleading: this was not a legally constituted partnership with official powers like the later grouping (anachronistically called the Second Triumvirate) of Octavian [etc]... but a private and unofficial arrangement. Scholars of recent years ... avoid the term entirely. Similarly Morstein-Marx Caesar (2021) pp 119–20 it is almost impossible to use the phrase 'First Triumvirate' without adopting some version of the view that it was a kind of conspiracy against the republic... Nomenclature matters... I eschew the traditional 'First Triumvirate' altogether. This is all well-explained at First Triumvirate § Naming.

Now, on to the next question, which is the placement of this digression. It is placed after Octavian dons the toga virilis with a jump back to 63 BC to Caesar's election as PM. It would be better to discuss Octavius père's fortunes instead of jumping teleologically to his great-uncle who was not relevant at this time. It should either be presented in a single narrative or clearly signposted. Right now it just seems haphazardly placed rather than carefully crafted. Ifly6 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifly6 To be fair, Galinsky explicitly says that the First Triumvirate didn't supersede the Roman constitution, and he does call it an informal alliance of leading statesmen, though he does use the term "junta" that you strongly dislike. You're right that it's not the most accurate term, since coalition is certainly better. Thus I'll keep the word "junta" out of the article, since Russell and Morstein-Marx firmly disagree. Good work on quoting them! As for the placement of the discussion of the First Triumvirate, the "Early life" section is mostly but not strictly chronological. The mentioning of Caesar's alliance with Pompey and Crassus is placed where it is because it serves as convenient context for subsequent statements about Caesar's Civil War in that section (and Octavian's involvement in those conflicts). If you have a better proposal for reorganizing that information please let me see it, but it's the best way I could clearly associate the two things (First Triumvirate --> Crossing Rubicon --> Caesar's Civil War --> Octavian's direct involvement in battles and triumphs of that conflict). Pericles of AthensTalk 20:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
imo the "first triumvirate" is not very relevant background for the civil war. The civil war was caused by a breakdown in negotiations between Caesar and Pompey in late 50 and the first days of 49. See eg Morstein-Marx Caesar (2021) app'x 4. Caesar's electrifying Gallic victories and victory in the civil war are what is central to Octavian's inheritance, not a dissolved political alliance that occurred when he was four. Ifly6 (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 I mean, yes, there's that, but it's also just a tidy way to briefly explain how Caesar formed an alliance/relationship with Pompey at all in the first place. More importantly, it's also the way Galinsky charts things in a quick explanation from point A to point B, so if you have another secondary source with a specific page that only mentions the relationship of Pompey and Caesar breaking down in 50 BC as a prelude to the Civil War, by all means cite that instead! I still think the first mention of the First Triumvirate belongs in the "Earl life" section because it was formed during the early life of Octavian. Pericles of AthensTalk 20:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

[edit]

Separately if you've not already noticed I made substantial edits to the old claim from Mommsen that Octavian was fully adopted in Caesar's will. He wasn't, per Lindsey 2009 and Tatum 2024, and the material has been changed to say that. Ifly6 (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifly6 Cool! Nice work. So long as you're backing that up with reliable secondary sources like Lindsey 2009 and Tatum 2024, by all means add that to the article. I'm working with what I have at the moment (Galinsky 2012 and Southern 2014). In other news, I added Drogula 2015 per your suggestion, in the sub-section "First settlement," in the paragraph about Octavian's control over provinces versus those nominally controlled by the Senate. Pericles of AthensTalk 20:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proscriptions

[edit]

The best source on the proscriptions is Hinard 1985 who evaluates all the various estimates of the number of victims. See pp 275–92 and pp 415ff ("Catalogue des proscrits de 43"). Some differences should be compared with other sources of course and noted. T8612 may be of some help with this specific matter. Ifly6 (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifly6 Cool! I am unfortunately too busy to read through Hinard 1985 right now, but I'll certainly have a look, and I hope T8612 joins us! We need all hands on deck. Thankfully the article is looking much better now than it did in April when the FAR was initiated. Pericles of AthensTalk 02:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Material on proscriptions from Hinard 1985 added along with the lex Pedia. Some material copied from Quintus Pedius and Second Triuvmirate but given I wrote the copied material I don't think copy-within attribution is necessary. Ifly6 (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! The lex Pedia is a wonderful addition, and Hinard's breakdown of the numbers of victims for the proscriptions is most welcome. However, like you said, we need multiple secondary sources to back those assertions up. You removed one claim from the footnote by Eck and Takács 2003 about 2,000 being branded as outlaws, but Eck and Takács 2003 are perhaps not the best source to cite here (given the brief treatment of the proscriptions provided by Eck and Takács 2003). I'll continue combing through Galinsky 2012 and Southern 2014 for the "Sole ruler of Rome" section in the meantime, but I will come back to this and find some additional sources to cite for those estimates. Cheers and great job! Pericles of AthensTalk 23:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I indeed plan to write an article on the proscription of the Second Triumvirate at some point next year, but I can't right now. I also wish I could write the one on Augustus' coinage. T8612 (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is your view on the consensus as to how many victims there were? I would go with Hinard's c. 300: the statement at App BCiv 4.5 is both for all persons killed or dispossessed from 43 to Misenum in 39; the point that the triumvirs didn't need to proscribe someone just to rob them under colour of law is insightful. Most other sources essentially just repeat Appian's high estimate without analysis (eg Thien 2018 in EAH). Ifly6 (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would follow Hinard and say that 300 people were declared hostes, therefore sentenced to death, while thousands more had their properties confiscated. The difficulty with the Triumvirs' proscription is that--unlike Sulla--they amended their lists. T8612 (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's very reasonable. I agree. Ifly6 (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@T8612 Thanks for chiming in! And for clarifying about Hinard and the estimate for victims who were killed vs those who simply had their property confiscated. I very much look forward to seeing your future article on the proscriptions. Cheers. Pericles of AthensTalk 20:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Triumph

[edit]

It isn't the case that Augustus monopolised triumphs immediately after 23 BC. Lucius Sempronius Atratinus (consul 34 BC) triumphs in 21 ex Africa; Lucius Cornelius Balbus triumphs also ex Africa in 19. Further information in Lange's chapter in Alternative Augustan age (2019). Ifly6 (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifly6 I didn't see this until just now, but yes, I have fixed that issue thoroughly and clarified things using Bringmann 2007 and Southern 2014. I noted a few specific examples of triumphs outside the Imperial family as exceptions. Let me know if you think the subsection on triumphs needs any more tinkering, but it now seems pretty solid to me (feel free to add Lange's input if you think it's necessary). Pericles of AthensTalk 05:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional settlements

[edit]

Also, I'm not sure whether this is the case with the current article but it is common both online and in the Constitutional reforms of Augustus article: the settlements shouldn't be seen so schematically or as a ploy. There are politics involved here with Octavian's need to accommodate himself with the "republican" opposition. Eg among others: Welch, Kathryn (2012), "Dealing with Caesar: Finding Politics between 42 and 27 BC", Antichthon, 46: 126–149, doi:10.1017/S0066477400000174, ISSN 0066-4774. Ifly6 (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifly6 Southern 2014 and Galinsky 2012 come to similar conclusions as Welch, then. From what I have read Octavian-Augustus heavily considered how each of his moves would affect his reputation among the senatorial aristocracy (and for that matter he also appealed to the equites for support). Are there certain lines in the article that you find to contradict this sentiment? Or do you think additional statements should be added to clarify this? Pericles of AthensTalk 05:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the longer term I intend to merge History of the Constitution of the Roman Empire into Constitution of the Roman Empire. A lot of the work on that series of articles by the now-retired User:RomanHistorian is horrifically outdated and should be (and has partially been) rewritten in its entirety. Anyway, that's why I am going to remove the link to that article. Ifly6 (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 Thanks for letting me know. Looks fine to me! In the meantime I've added a much more high-value link: Legatus Augusti pro praetore. I also added contextual information on Pompey as a Republican-era precedent for the Senate granting Octavian extraordinary proconsular authority, as pointed out by Southern 2014. Pericles of AthensTalk 04:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lines such as the one that follows put the initiative in Octavian's hands.

Octavian's aims from this point forward were to return Rome to a state of stability, traditional legality, and civility by lifting the overt political pressure imposed on the courts of law and ensuring free elections—in name at least.

Welch 2012 argues, I think convincingly, that politics in the 30s and 20s were driven more by popular demands (equites and boni most likely) that the republic be restored. This then, drove Octavian's actions. Currently it feels like something Octavian just decided to do out of the blue. Ifly6 (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. If that assertion by Eck & Takacs 2003 is contradicted by Welch, by all means amend it or point out the discrepancy among academic views on the subject. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that Galinsky 2012 slightly sides with Eck & Takacs 2003, by arguing that many in the Roman political class and especially those who lived outside of Rome and didn't even engage directly in politics/elections were more interested in a return to stability/normalcy and constitutional legality, and not necessarily how it had existed in the latter phase of the Republic. They were simply tired of the civil wars, legally sanctioned killings of the proscriptions, and extrajudicial actions on top of that. From Galinsky 2012, p. 68:

The main significance of the senate meeting of 27 BC and its program was to signal not a return to the pre-Rubicon republic (or its five predecessors) but a distance from the triumviral period when, as Tacitus summed it up, there had been “neither custom nor law” ( Ann. 3.28). Augustus, then, did not “restore the constitution of the Republic” but rather “restored constitutional government” (Scheid 2007, 89). And it is good to question how many people really wished for a return of that republic – with all its instability, aristocratic jockeying for power, and the government’s neglect of the basic needs of people such as the ability to pursue happiness, domestic tranquility, and a productive life for themselves and their families. Hence, as Dio reports on that occasion (53.11.2), there were members of the senate “who abhorred the republican constitution as a breeder of strife, were pleased at the change in government, and took delight in Caesar.” If that was true of senators, it was all the more true of the vast majority of Italians. They were not interested in the politics of the capital, by which they were deeply affected but in which they could not participate unless they went to Rome and voted there. The libertas they welcomed was not the liberty to engage in cliquish competition for status and office in Rome but freedom from the effects of the discord, factionalism, and hardships that system had produced. Hence the end of the Res Gestae echoes its beginning where Augustus proclaimed to have liberated the republic from the tyranny of a faction. From all this, yet another reason emerges why Augustus wanted to “restore” the republican system: precisely as a constant reminder of its built-in weaknesses and risks. The republic, without a strong leader, was not the way most people wanted to be governed; there was no nostalgia for its excesses and the economic and political havoc that had resulted. If the system was to work again it required an Augustus. Leaving it to its own devices was to guarantee a return to the bad old days.

Can you share what Welch 2012 has to say? Very curious about that. And by all means cite Welch in that paragraph of the "Principate" subsection. Pericles of AthensTalk 05:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just for greater context, Galinsky 2012 continues on pp 69-70:

It would, therefore, be misguided to fixate, as scholars used to do for decades, on the “constitutional” aspects of Augustus’ restored res publica in the narrow sense of its institutional mechanisms. They were an important part of the unwritten Roman constitution, and Augustus took pains to preserve their “old traditional form,” as Velleius notes. Another central function of the res publica was the protection of private property, again duly noted by Velleius. Above all, the republican constitution was a system of values and principles. That was behind the senate’s awarding Augustus a golden shield on which four cardinal virtues were inscribed: (1) virtus itself, which means courage and leadership in both civilian and military life; (2) clemency, which was never absolute but contingent; an example is Augustus’ statement in the Res Gestae that he preferred to spare, rather than destroy, foreign peoples when they could be pardoned safely (3.2); (3) justice, which is essential for any good ruler and good government; and (4) pietas, which is the recognition that gods, res publica, and family are more important than one’s self and that good leaders act accordingly. Renewed emphasis on these and other values, and not legalistic minutiae, was a central aspect of the restoration of the republic.

In other words, people generally wanted a restoration of the "republic" but rather an idealized version of it, and not the one that allowed the sort of violent strife and violation of norms and property rights that existed under Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, Caesar, etc. Pericles of AthensTalk 05:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for Octavian's aims, you're right that he didn't just come up with such ideas out of the blue. Everything in life is caused by stimuli of some sort. If you can use Welch 2012 to outline exactly how Octavian reacted to popular demands at various times throughout the process of his accumulation of powers, by all means do so! Galinsky 2012 even seems to support that idea on pp 68-69:

Augustus did not hesitate to use that reminder periodically. In 23 BC he let the two censors quarrel, and in 19 BC he stayed calmly in the east while a former praetor, Egnatius Rufus, who had unsuccessfully run for the consulship a year earlier and was popular with the plebs, caused months of violent unrest that ended only when Augustus finally had him tried for conspiracy and executed. For many, such episodes were enough for a taste of the bygone days of the republic, which then was not yet the idealized abstraction it would become in modern times.

In other words, Augustus would often let things play out politically and then swooped in to act as an arbitrator with a new solution to old problems. The solution just happened to involve him amassing more powers. Pericles of AthensTalk 05:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
iirc the standard interpretation of the events with Egnatius is more that Augustus was concerned with challenges to his rule, specifically with his need for a totalising "the people support me and me alone" narrative. I would think Galinsky's narrative is perhaps too generous. As to the larger idea that the elite were somehow alienated from the republic, this is a core question at the heart of republican historiography. Morstein-Marx and Rosenstein's chapter "Transformation of the republic" in Companion to the Roman republic (2006) outlines three general approaches: Brunt who thinks people were alienated from the republican system; Meier in the "crisis without alternative" to the republican system; and Gruen who stresses continuities through to 49. Brunt's view, in my assessment has moved from a majority in say the 1980s to a minority today.
Welch 2012 argues that a substantial portion of "the republic died at Philippi" is Augustan revisionism and erasure of the continued republican resistance to triumviral rule. The republicans forced Octavian to negotiate after Brundisium and, at Misenum, secured their reinclusion in the political system. Antony then continued after 35 to try to attract republican supporters but was unable to beat Octavian's better self-representation on this front (contra Syme). The republican opposition then was able to force concessions – meaningful senatorial independence, the rule of law, etc – from Octavian as a price for their continued support for the regime. Indeed per Mouritsen Elites (2022) p 286 this rapprochement took years due to the memories of Octavian's rule during the triumviral period. (EDIT. In short, the issue is not that this rapprochement didn't happen: it is that it was not something that Octavian initiated or planned.) Ifly6 (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Separately, I highly recommend Gowing Empire and memory (2005) for a description of how Augustan self-representation was highly insistent that this was in fact the same republic as before the triumviral period. The fact they had to play pretend like this is because actually being the republic™ remained central to the regime's legitimacy. Ifly6 (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 Excellent points! Thank you for providing the summary of academic consensus since the 1980s swinging away from "them Romans were just sick and tired of that ole Republic" and more towards "actually, Octavian had to appease traditionalist sensibilities and respect existing institutions." Octavian as Augustus did try to slowly chip away at norms to invent new ones that aggrandized/centered himself. Take the realm of religion, with Augustus's promotion of the imperial cult even in western provinces of the Empire (see the new "Deification" subsection). However, even that was a slow torturous process as Southern 2014 points out. People in Rome were certainly not ready to view Augustus as a living god like the Egyptians viewed him as pharaoh, and were only allowed to worship his genius. In other words, there were simply some norms the people of Rome were simply not ready to swallow, and outright disrespect of the Senate was one of those norms. The new "Diplomacy" subsection demonstrates how Augustus brazenly flaunted this in some ways by assuming various privileges/powers of the Senate, but Augustus still tread lightly for the most part.
As for the "Principate" subsection, what would your solution be, then? We could minimize what Eck & Tacaks 2003 plus Galinsky 2012 have to say on the matter, though I think it's an important point to make that the Romans were sick and tired of lawlessness, and wanted stability. We at least need to keep the explanation of that sentiment in the article. Aside from that, feel free to tweak that section however you like using Welch 2012, and Gowing 2005 would be a nice addition. Pericles of AthensTalk 19:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the politically active Roman people cared about both their otium cum dignitate as well as pax. A unrestrained autocracy is not conducive to otium even if it provides pax: thus Octavian's largely autocratic aims were restrained by society's requirement that he play the enlightened republican who lives in a society. There are older narratives which paint Octavian as Intrigue level 99™; I think they erase society's initiative in shaping the compromise that is the principate. Ifly6 (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 Hah! Great points. I see that Southern 2014 has cited Gowing 2005 about other points (unrelated ones), so I wouldn't mind having access to that source. The problem is that I am now suddenly very busy in my life outside of Wikipedia (there are some who may be surprised to see that exists for me, LOL). In the meantime, as you have probably seen, I have toned down those statements asserted by Eck and Tacaks 2003, out of sheer caution that it paints too much a picture may lead readers into some wrong thinking about Octavian being an invincible mastermind. He was certainly persuasive, and demonstrated that he could be ruthless, but you're right that he had to operate within the confines of what Roman society desired, which was a return to positive norms that had existed during the Republic, just not the lawlessness exhibited by Sulla, Caesar, and the triumvirate. Please let me know if the edits made to the "Principate" subsection suffice for now. I unfortunately don't have much more personal time this week to address the issue or hunt down additional sources. Pericles of AthensTalk 23:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 On this very topic about Octavian not being a grand schemer (with Intrigue level 99™), I think you would enjoy this passage from Goldsworthy 2014: pp 3–4, which I intend to cite shortly.

There is far more to Augustus' life than this, and this bigger story is far from dull. One of the great dangers is to assume an inevitability about his success, whether based on his genius for politics or – and this is an older view – wider trends which made the creation of a monarchy at Rome little more than a matter of time. Augustus' longevity surprised everyone, as did his success, especially in the early years. Much of the time the gambler is more obvious than the careful planner. Augustus took risks, especially during the civil wars, and not all of these risks paid off. There was more of Julius Caesar about him than is sometimes appreciated, not least in his ability to extricate himself from scrapes of his own making. Nor is there any real evidence of a long-nurtured plan for creating his new regime; instead the picture is one of improvisation and experimentation, creating the system by trial and error, with chance events playing almost as big a role as design. The image of the icy manipulator also quickly vanishes as we look at a man who struggled, and often failed, to restrain his passions and hot temper. This is the Augustus who had an affair with the married and pregnant Livia, made her husband divorce her and then had the man preside over their wedding mere days after she had given birth. It is an episode you might expect more of Antony – or perhaps even more of Nero, great-grandson of Mark Antony and Augustus' sister.

Adrian Goldsworthy certainly does well in painting a picture, doesn't he? LOL. It will add some balance to the "Principate" section, I think. Pericles of AthensTalk 05:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions

[edit]

I intend to rewrite the section on the creation of the principate. In my opinion the current section is very muddled and still characterises Augustus too much as the mastermind initiator of these reforms. It also could be revised to be much shorter while covering much of the same material. Ifly6 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifly6 Muddled how, exactly? Also, Goldsworthy's comment about trial by error and experimentation pretty much dispels this notion of Augustus being a mastermind initiator. I think the subsection does a decent job of defining what princeps means, its context in Roman politics, and how it was utilized by Augustus. Pericles of AthensTalk 05:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Misenum and consul designatus

[edit]

Pelling in CAH2 10 (1996) p 20 gives Sextus Pompey's designated consulship as that of 33. This is corroborated by MRR 3.165 (Cos. desig. 33) and MRR 2.387 (Pompey himself was designated consul for 33, and was to be raised to his father's priesthood, the augurate, and receive 70 million HS from his father's estate). Can you confirm your other sources' claims for this cos desig year? Ifly6 (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifly6 Great question! I'm simply reporting what Southern 2014 says, versus what Bringmann 2007 has to say.
Southern 2014, p. 134:

Most important, Pompeius was to guarantee Rome's corn supply, and was excluded from basing troops in Italy. As reward for his compliance, he was admitted to the college of augurs, an he was to be consul in 38 BC, along with Antonius who was also consul designate for 38 BC (Figure 4.3). The triumvirs designated the consuls for 35 to 31, having already decided on those for 39 to 36. To mark their confidence and goodwill, they declared an amnesty for all those who had fled to Sextus Pompeius for refuge; the men who now returned to Rome would provide a fertile recruiting ground for Octavian's party.

Southern 2014, p. 134 (same page) also shows a coin image for Figure 4.3:

Antonius and Octavia are shown together on the obverse of this silver coin, with the legend M.ANTONIUS.IMP.COS.DESIG.ITER.ET.TERT. indicating that Antonius was consul designate for 38 BC. Bacchus is shown on the reverse, flanked by intertwined serpents and the legend IIIVIR.R.P.C. Tresvir rei publicae constituendae

Bringmann 2007, p. 299:

In the early summer of 39 Antony, Octavian and Pompeius concluded the treaty of Misenum. It left Pompeius in possession of Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica and also promised him the Peloponnese in the east. In return he undertook to lift the blockade of Italy and to guarantee the supply of grain to Rome. Numerous proscribed Republicans were restored. They were able to return to Italy, were considered for the planned distribution of offices and so strengthened Antony's following in the senate. Sextus Pompeius was promised the consulship for 35. But Octavian was resolved not to leave Sextus Pompeius, whom he had already condemned in 44 as an alleged participant in the conspiracy against Caesar, with the key position accorded to him by the treaty of Misenum. He divorced Scribonia and married the fascinating Livia, who was formally renounced by her husband Tiberius Claudius Nero, who had just returned to Rome with the restored Republicans.

So then, how can we reconcile this discrepancy, if Pelling suggests something different too? I think we can just say he was promised the consulship and leave it at that without stating the year in the prose, and explain the discrepancies among academic publications in the footnote for now. Unless there is a wider scholarly consensus that you know about and have seen in many other sources? I'm not certain about this at all, since I have not investigated this particular point before. Then again I'm not a prolific writer of Greco-Roman antiquity articles here, most of them focus on Chinese history (oddly enough one of my articles is Sino-Roman relations, which is a crossover, LOL). I did write the articles on Cleopatra, Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Ancient Macedonians, Parthian Empire, and Mosaics of Delos, though. Pericles of AthensTalk 05:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re Southern 2014 p 132: the statement for 38 here seems strange. He was supposed to serve a joint consulship with Antony? But, in 38, Antony was not consul in MRR.
Richardson (2012) p 54 gives this: [Sextus Pompey had been] given the promise of a consulship in the years to come... further appointments were made for 34 to 31, which included Pompeius and his collaborator Domitius Ahenobarbus. Inscriptions don't give a year either – ILLRP 426 (= ILS 8891) – just say that he was consul designate.
I'm not sure why there is so much difference at hand. Do Southern or Bringmann cite anything for their statements? Ifly6 (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great question! Bringmann 2007 has an extensive "Notes on the sources and bibliography" section at the end of his book, of sources used generally, but only has rare citations/footnotes, and often only provides clear citations for primary sources quoted at length (such as Cicero's letters, for instance). Southern 2014 has many endnotes at the end of each chapter, and even has four of them in the same paragraph I quoted (not even the full paragraph, starts on page 133 and extends halfway into page 134). However, those endnotes are for different statements than the one about the consulship. The closest endnote to that is endnote 69 (in the chapter "The Decisive Decade") for that last statement I quoted above: "To mark their confidence and goodwill, they declared an amnesty for all those who had fled to Sextus Pompeius for refuge; the men who now returned to Rome would provide a fertile recruiting ground for Octavian's party." In the "Notes" at the end of the chapter, #69 says "Syme 1939, 227; Kienast 1982, 43." Appian and Dio are otherwise cited in that paragraph, as is the coin image I mentioned (Figure 4.3) indicating Antony's designated consulship. Pericles of AthensTalk 14:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This, separately, doesn't make much sense to me: included Sextus Pompeius's future position as consul alongside consul designate Mark Antony for 38 BC. A consul designate is like a president-elect: you are going to be consul, you just haven't entered office yet. Sextus can't be consul alongside Mark Antony as consul designate... Antony isn't consul so they aren't alongside each other. There's no collegiality. Ifly6 (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can fiddle around with the wording of that if you like, or you can be bold and change it, but in essence yes, Southern 2014 is saying they were both consul designate for 38 BC. Pericles of AthensTalk 14:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Sextus Pompey (2002) p 51, there's a citation to App BCiv 5.73 which does say, after accounting for the existing designation of consuls for 38 to 35, that Sextus Pompey is to be consul with Octavian in the year that will be 33 BC. Ifly6 (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6 Great find! To be clear, p. 51 is in Kathryn Welch's book chapter "Sextus Pompeius and the Res Publica in 42–39," correct? I think we should add Welch there right away within that footnote, with a mention of Appian as the primary source. Pericles of AthensTalk 14:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you check out the article List of Roman consuls designate, it also cites Syme 1939, p. 221 and Swan 1967, p. 244 for the claim about Sextus Pompeius being consul designate for 33 BC. Pericles of AthensTalk 14:34, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Galinsky 2012 doesn't even touch the matter, but he confirms other details in that statement about the Treaty of Misenum. Pericles of AthensTalk 15:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have acted boldly and added Welch 2002 to the article, after viewing her book chapter online at scribd.com. Pericles of AthensTalk 15:08, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Senate and pont max

[edit]

The Senate also granted him the titles of pontifex maximus ('supreme pontiff')

It didn't. RGDA is clear that he was elected in traditional style (indeed Augustus brags about the crowds) when Lepidus vacated the position by his death. Ifly6 (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifly6 You're absolutely right! I have amended the lead section to reflect this. Thanks for pointing it out. Pericles of AthensTalk 01:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vergil and Augustus

[edit]

I wouldn't say that Vergil and others wrote plainly pro-regime poetry. Many of the poets who lived in the early Augustan period (none survived even to AD 1) were greatly traumatised by the triumviral period. I'm not an expert on Roman literature (my girlfriend is more so), having focused mainly on politics, but to say it is simply positive is a very face-level reading. Among others see Farrell's chapter in A Companion to Latin Literature. Ifly6 (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifly6 I would agree that it's an enormously complicated area of study. Keep in mind that Vergil wanted to write his epic poem specifically about Octavian before deciding against this and deciding to focus on Aeneas instead for his Aeneid. There was certainly a lot of flattery and praise aimed at Augustus by Vergil and Horace. Yes, they didn't always write pro-regime poetry and so, true, it's not fair to use a broad brush to depict all of their works as such. Maybe I can soften the language there, but the current statement reflects the synthesis of Kelsall and Goldsworthy's respective statements about Vergil and Horace with Augustus. You're free to counter this with Farrell and others, which would enrich the article and provide further perspectives anyway, in my view! Pericles of AthensTalk 00:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Without wishing to blow my own trumpet, I've just finished writing Harvard School, and would suggest it (with bibliography) would be useful reading on this point. There's a lot more scholarship than Kelsall and Goldsworthy and neither would usually be considered much of an authority in Virgilian circles. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:07, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, given the length of this article, I would not think that much more is necessary than saying essentially that Vergil wrote during the period, was sponsored by the regime, and that his works have been read both as pro- and anti-Augustan. A citation can then be given to an overview someplace of Vergilian studies. Ifly6 (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist Wow! Fantastic job on Harvard School. I read the lead section and skimmed through it a bit, and I must say it's very impressive. It might not be ideal to cite Kelsall and Goldsworthy there, yes, but it's what I have had access to on the subject while juggling dozens of other subjects about Augustus. @Ifly6 I softened the language already, but I can revise it a bit more to make it even more neutral and matter-of-fact as you suggest. Goldsworthy focuses most of his attention on how Augustus did not intervene in the works of Vergil and Horace, noting the one major exception of Augustus defying Vergil's deathbed wishes to have the Aeneid burned and destroyed. Pericles of AthensTalk 21:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just for fun I added "Harvard School" in the further info links for the "Ancient and contemporary views" subsection. Pericles of AthensTalk 21:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Goldsworthy focuses most of his attention on how Augustus did not intervene in the works of Vergil and Horace, noting the one major exception of Augustus defying Vergil's deathbed wishes to have the Aeneid burned and destroyed: we don't know any of this. The tradition about Virgil's deathbed wishes goes back to antiquity, but has no real authority behind it -- it's an interesting comment on how the poem was received (does it suggest that later biographers thought it credible that Virgil would want his work burned -- and if so, why?) but basically unverifiable as a point of historical fact. Likewise with Augustus's involvement in the poem's composition: his influence is obvious in several places but we have no idea how directly or otherwise that influence was exercised. There are ancient traditions as to which books were read to Augustus and which weren't, but again those are ultimately based on a whole lot of nothing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist To be clear, the last point you made aligns with Goldsworthy's views, since he argues that there's no evidence that Augustus micromanaged the writing of poems by his friends or others. If anything Goldsworthy argues that there was nearly total literary freedom under Augustus, outside a subtle climate of fear or slight coercion not to offend him too much in regards to nasty things about the past (but again, no evidence Augustus did anything to punish a poet for something aside from the example of Ovid). However, Goldsworthy does largely take at face value the story about Vergil's deathbed wishes being ignored. Since I don't have a source saying otherwise at my immediate disposal, it would be nice if you could please cite a reliable source that says otherwise and maybe reword that part of the "critical analysis" subsection to accommodate other views? Maybe it would be good to have at least some specifically Vergilian scholarship represented there, if they consider this episode about Augustus and Vergil to be highly suspect or inaccurate. Pericles of AthensTalk 23:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to get at all far into the matter of Vergil in this article. It remains excessively long at c. 15,000 words; it continues to need shortening to at least below 12,500. Ifly6 (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I would suggest that any biographical details of Virgil, being based on a highly unreliable tradition (I don't have the time to dig out a secondary source for that at the moment, but several of those cited at Harvard School make this point), would be good candidates for removal. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist @Ifly6 Well, since this is a sore spot for you two, I have not only softened the language that it was "possible" Augustus did this in defiance of Virgil's deathbed wishes, but I've also moved that entire claim into the footnotes. With that and other trimmings of the "critical analysis" subsection, I have also continued to address the WP:SIZE concerns raised here and on the FAR page. We perhaps have some more trimming to do, but serious progress has been made. As much as I would like to use Cavalieri et. al. 2022 to talk about views on Augustus in late antiquity and the Renaissance, I think the "critical analysis" subsection is fleshed out quite enough (even have Napoleon Bonaparte thrown in there for fun). Thoughts? Pericles of AthensTalk 16:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Current state of the article and its FA status

[edit]

After various amendments and additions have been made to the article in the past six months, I would like to hear from other editors here about their views on the current shape of things, and if the article requires further work to retain its FA status. From my perspective, given the expansions and improvements of late, it appears that we have been able to salvage it, but I need some feedback on that, please. In my view, every single section has been strengthened, and primary sources have been systematically replaced with secondary ones, though there are some online sources cited in the article that have not been properly added to the "Sources" section. Are there perhaps any glaring omissions that need to be addressed? For instance, the "Critical analysis" subsection has been fleshed out, with ancient, early modern, and modern authors mentioned, but it does not contain any views from medieval authors about Augustus. Personally I don't see this as a huge drawback, but if there was one area of the article that is still weak/unaddressed, it would be information about how Augustus was perceived during the Middle Ages.

Thoughts on that? I unfortunately don't have access to a few books that would help us in that regard. I'm not sure how much weight to give to that niche topic, either, since Goldsworthy 2014, Southern 2014, Galinsky 2012, Eck & Takacs 2007, Bringmann 2007, and others don't even mention the subject of medieval and Renaissance poets, chroniclers, historians, monarchs, etc. From what I've seen, Goldsworthy mentions virtually no author's perspective between the lifetimes of Cassius Dio and William Shakespeare. Beard 2021 addresses the topic, but I do not have full access to her book (I was only able to see limited previews on Google Books, and used it to create the postclassical visual arts subsection). Any assistance with this would be greatly appreciated, though I also need advice, clarification, or some kind of confirmation from other editors and reviewers that the article is in fact comprehensive enough as it stands. Thanks. Pericles of AthensTalk 00:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural_depictions_of_Augustus#Medieval covers that ground well, I think. He was generally less well-known in the MA than Julius Caesar, and the legend of the Tiburtine Sibyl the thing he was most famous for. Certainly this is how he appears in art. Following from this, he was generally regarded as a strong and good ruler, but I think details were very vague in the medieval mind. Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod Thanks! Good to know. Also yes, medieval Europeans had access to Cicero's letters after Petrarch discovered them in 1345, so they certainly knew quite a lot about Julius Caesar after that. I was familiar with the Tiburtine Sibyl through artwork, but did not realize medieval Europeans mostly knew about Augustus via that legend (or ignored most other details about him, aside from him being Rome's first emperor). At the very least I know that Augustan era literature like Virgil's Aeneid had a deep impact on Renaissance literature considering the negative attitudes about Mark Antony and Cleopatra expressed by Giovanni Boccaccio. In the 14th century Geoffrey Chaucer pushed back on this idea that Cleopatra was a salacious serial adulterer and highlighted how Cleopatra only had two known lovers (not that it matters, LOL). The 15th-16th century Renaissance humanist Bernardino Cacciante was the first author in Italy to reject these ideas in Augustan era literature and view Cleopatra positively. This is a great example of the profound effect of Octavian's propaganda campaign established while he was a triumvir and before the War of Actium even began. I wonder if I should include that in the article? It might be a tangential thought, but it's certainly related to Octavian. Pericles of AthensTalk 13:13, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod Unfortunately the citations for Cultural_depictions_of_Augustus#Medieval are handled very poorly. For instance, the citations for the Golden Legend are given as "Hall, 282; Murrays, 41," presumably page numbers of books, but these publications are not provided at all in the article! Given the index of her 2021 book Twelve Caesars, I know as a fact that Mary Beard mentions Chaucer, Dante Alighieri, and other medieval authors, but I cannot access those page numbers on Google Books, unfortunately. Pericles of AthensTalk 13:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've filled those refs in - *Murray, Peter and Linda, revised Tom Devonshire Jones, The Oxford Dictionary of Christian Art & Architecture, 2014, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780199695102, 0199695105 etc. Someone copied the refs from Tiburtine Sibyl, but not the books below - not me, as my edition of the Murrays is older, but the page still the same. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod Awesome! Thank you so much for fixing those references. I will cite them shortly here in our article on Augustus. In the meantime, I was able to add the first citation for the Golden Legend using a book by Gabriel Arlington (2000). I also used Arlington and a book chapter by Oswald A. W. Dilke (1987) for citations about medieval artwork and world maps, considering how various mappa mundi like the Hereford Mappa Mundi were based on the world map created by Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (originally commissioned by Julius Caesar, but finished during the reign of Augustus). Pliny the Elder alleged that Augustus personally finished this world map in the Porticus Vipsania following the death of Agrippa. Pericles of AthensTalk 15:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod Also, are we sure your publication was printed in 2014? I see two different sources online showing 2013 as the publication date: Internet Archive which shows the front matter as well as the website Oxford Reference. Pericles of AthensTalk 16:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now that the versions I'm looking at for 2013 have different ISBN numbers. I'll just cite your version then! Pericles of AthensTalk 16:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to our shortened footnote citation method chosen for the article, I'm a little confused as to how I should cite it, though, since Peter and Linda Murray were editors. I guess "Murray & Murray 2014" then? Pericles of AthensTalk 16:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to announce that The Oxford Dictionary of Christian Art & Architecture (2014) is now cited in the article! Pericles of AthensTalk 16:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2026

[edit]

In the section "Death of Augustus," the second sentence reads "Both Tacitus and Cassius Dio wrote that Livia was rumored poisoned him." It probably should read, "... to have poisoned him." ChrisMoller (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done GearsDatapack (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New sub-articles

[edit]

Due to WP:SIZE constraints and concerns raised on the Featured Article Review page, I'm happy to announce that I've successfully created two new sub articles: Rise of Augustus and Reign of Augustus, paired with the Early life of Augustus article (which I also expanded). None of the information and heavy amounts of research poured into this article has been lost despite major trimming efforts lately to get this article back down to an agreeable size. Pericles of AthensTalk 19:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good decisions. These aspects of his life make a lot of sense as standalone articles, given the scholarship needs on them. Biz (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Biz Thanks! Much appreciated, and I hope you and I can collaborate on improving them. It was a pleasure working with you on improving the article for the Principate. Pericles of AthensTalk 00:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@PericlesofAthens Likewise! My limited time to meaningfully contribute at this time of my life is being prioritised into other articles I've mentioned before, but given the priority of this article, I would be happy to help reduce the word count when you let me know you need that assistance. My new mantra is one article at a time... Biz (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Biz Sounds good. If you need help on a particular article let me know, and hopefully I can assist with it. I gained access to this entire book just today! Cited it a few times already. Pericles of AthensTalk 04:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]