Talk:Reign of Augustus

General prose points

• during his first settlement with the Roman Senate: I think most historians treat the settlement as a moment, rather than a period, so "with his first settlement" would be better. We don't really define this term later, which I think is a mistake: the term appears in a subtitle but isn't really discussed in the prose.
  • Done! Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
• pomerium is not capitalised.
  • Changed it. Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
• There's quite a lot of WP:SEAOFBLUE throughout: this isn't a strict GA matter but best to avoid where possible.
  • Addressing this, in progress...Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
• The "spiteful source" about Alexander's nose is Cassius Dio, book 51.
  • Added it in a footnote. Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
• It also led to the cultural formation of a Greek East and Latin West: I don't understand this one. Egypt had been Greek-speaking before and remained so; likewise, the west had been Latin-speaking and remained so. What changed with the conquest of Egypt to justify "led to..."? It's perhaps interesting that Augustus doesn't (attempt to?) change the longstanding status quo by which Rome's eastern territories remained Greek in language and elite culture, but as that was at least over a century old, I'm not sure we can really talk about the conquest of Egypt as being the start of this division.
  • Good point, I've reworded it to "cemented" instead, which is true and does not imply that the cultural divide was created by Augustus. Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
• The the in the Aeneid is not capitalised unless it starts a sentence, and is never italicised. Wherever possible, omit it: "Virgil's Aeneid, an epic poem...".
  • Done! Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
• Goldsworthy is not remotely an Aeneid scholar: this isn't a huge problem as it's a nicely written and largely uncontroversial quote (though "even though Cleopatra and her Greek ancestors showed no real interest in such ancient cults" is perhaps a bit dicey), and as we're only at GA level here.
  • Okay! Good point about Cleopatra and Ptolemies, since they sponsored the construction of native Egyptian temples constantly and engaged in Egyptian religious rites, not just Greek ones. I'll remove the quote and just summarize Goldsworthy instead when I get a chance (have to run now, unfortunately). Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
• three triumphs in Rome for his respective victories in Illyria, Greece, and Egypt: cut respective, as we haven't specified an order of triumphs.
  • Done! Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• granted certain powers of the censor but not with the office itself, namely for the duty of conducting Rome's census.: and granted reads better, and cut namely, which is not correct here.
  • Done! Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• We have a footnote on "leading citizen" that says that basically nobody prefers this as a replacement of "first citizen": practically every source we cite either says "first" or "first or leading". Why go this way?
  • To be clear, in the main article for Augustus User:Ifly6 changed it to their preferred translation 'leading citizen' per Richardson 2012 and then proceeded to ignore/remove my other citations (they just kinda...do that a lot, which is somewhat rude, and not a fair representation of other sources). I therefore felt compelled to add a footnote there in the main article at least, which then carried over into this one. I've added both translations, 'leading citizen' and 'first citizen' in the prose, to demonstrate that either term is fine. You're right, though, 'first citizen' should certainly be highlighted in the prose. I think I'll do the same for the main article, since it conflicts with the translation shown in the WP:LEAD section. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• the Republic was not prepared to accept the control of Octavian as a despot: do political systems have wishes now? I like the idea here but it needs to be phrased more precisely.
  • Hah! LOL. Good point. I've changed that accordingly. ;) Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• soon to be princeps Augustus: I would cut this: "princeps Augustus" was not a title anyone ever used, and we're still two years out from the name "Augustus".
  • Done! Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• In his "Caesar Augustus: A Call to Order": it's a bit odd to cite the chapter title here -- but then even odder not to actually cite the chapter!
  • Very good point! Removed. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• after accepting the appointment as dictator perpetuo: this should be explained per GACR 1.
  • Another good point; I've provided the full context now for Julius Caesar. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Under his consulship, however, the Senate had little power in initiating legislation by introducing bills for senatorial debate: there is some confusion here. The Roman senate was never a legislating body (it issued senatus consulta; pieces of advice that held strong moral authority), and it was never the practice to introduce a bill to be passed by e.g. concilium plebis or the comitia tributa in the Senate.
  • Excellent point, and something I just ignored/skimmed/glossed over without thinking deeply about it at all, since it was part of the article before I started editing it again in the summer of 2025. I unfortunately no longer have access to Eck & Takacs 2003, only the 2007 edition which is now fully available online, and it has some radically different content across various page numbers (which are not aligned with the 2003 edition past pp. 15 or 20). I removed the statement due to it being spurious but also because it breaks up the narrative flow about control over the provinces. I'll keep rereading Eck & Takacs 2007 to find if there's a worthy statement about how the Senate operated while Octavian was consul in 30, 29, or 28 BC. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Octavian was no longer in direct control of the provinces and their armies, but he retained the loyalty of active duty soldiers and veterans alike: active-duty, but this is an anachronistic phrase: I would cut.
  • Done! Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• The quote from Werner Eck and Sarolta Takács starts with a speech mark but does not end with one. It's not usual practice to use them in blockquotes.
  • Ah! Thanks for pointing it out! I didn't notice it before and it must be a typo fragment from when I shifted material over from the main article Augustus], where it had been removed as a blockquote and shifted into a footnote instead (which is still the case over there). Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• According to historian H. H. Scullard, however, Octavian's power was based on the exercise of "a predominant military power and ... the ultimate sanction of his authority was force, however much the fact was disguised".: Scullard is pretty old news these days -- can we not find someone who wrote within the last half century? I would also cut however as potentially WP:EDITORIALISING.
  • I removed the however and the specific mention of H. H. Scullard by name, but I simply added Goldsworthy 2014 to the citation for that sentence (bundling Scullard 1982 and Goldsworthy 2014 together). Goldsworthy comes to a similar if not identical conclusion about the true source of Octavian's authority: control over the military (Goldsworthy calls him a "warlord" and essentially a military dictator for lack of a better term, though he dislikes anachronistic comparisons to modern dictators). I know Goldsworthy is not your preferred source, especially for the topic of Virgil and Aeneid studies where Goldsworthy is not a notable expert (as you've noted elsewhere). His biography on Augustus is otherwise WP:RELIABLE and published by Yale University Press (obviously a much higher quality source than Holland 2005, which was added to Augustus by some other editor long ago and shifted here when I moved material from the main article, but I never used that source). Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• The provinces ceded to Augustus for that ten-year period constituted much of the conquered Roman world, including all of Hispania and Gaul, Syria, Cilicia, Cyprus, and Egypt: do we need conquered here -- they constituted most of the Roman world, and I'm not sure what exactly "the conquered Roman world" means (Rome didn't get control of Italy by asking nicely for it).
  • Good point! I think it's yet again a choice of words added by another editor years ago (after my original FA nomination for Augustus in 2007), and something I just repeatedly gloss over without putting too much thought into it. At the very least it's redundant to remind readers that Roman controlled territory was at one point conquered by the mighty little city-state of Rome, but even this isn't fully accurate given the amount of territories that were peacefully annexed by Rome. For instance, all of Galatia in Anatolia, as explained in this article. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Octavian became the most powerful political figure in the city of Rome and in most of its provinces: I'm going to call "citation needed" on "most of". Who was more powerful where?
  • I think this might be a typo or an inartful way of saying the Senate had control over its own senatorial provinces where proconsuls appointed by the Senate nominally had control over the legions they commanded in those provinces (Illyria, Macedonia, North Africa, etc.). Augustus technically didn't have control over these legions and provinces, but the article makes it clear enough that his authority overrode these proconsuls and he issued them instructions, similar to how he gave orders to his own legates in the provinces that were officially allotted to him. In either case I have reworded things, removing the claim, especially since the point about senatorial provinces is made in the following sentences. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• The Senate's control over some of the Roman provinces helped maintain a republican facade for the autocratic principate: this is really not how Eder frames it. More generally, this whole paradigm of facade-versus-reality is really quite outdated now -- nobody writes about Augustus, as Syme did, as if he was tricking the Roman senate or people as to the nature of his regime. The appearances are an important part of the reality. See, in Eder, We would be wrong to dismiss all this as a pure formality because form was a decisive element in the late Republic. With the exception of some unusual honors everything remained within the Republican framework ... We can suspect Augustus the actor behind all this, but we cannot overlook the fact that Augustus emphatically conducted himself as "republican" especially when that mask was of little use to him, for example, near death in 23 B.C.. I haven't checked what Goldsworthy says but frankly his book, as a work of pop history outside his specialism (G. is qualified as a historian of the Roman army) doesn't have the academic chops to stand in this conversation.
  • Per your quote of Eder 2005 (thanks for providing that), I have reworded this part and emphasized the Republican framework, but I unfortunately do not have full access to Eder 2005 (Google books preview ends right after page 23, the crucial part you're explaining) and it's one of the few sources in the article that I did not consult directly when writing my article. As for Goldsworthy, they can be cited here and offer some reasonable critique, pop history status aside (pp. 234–235, though I'm removing a ton of context from pp. 233–234 that also strengthens his point here, along with additional information on p. 235 that also strengthens his point, but this is the crucial bit): No one could have had any doubts about Caesar's supremacy. His ten-year command mirrored earlier extraordinary commands of the likes of Pompey and Julius Caesar. It helped to create the façade of a public servant, taking on heavy responsibilities for the common good. The wider population are unlikely to have felt any qualms about this. Extraordinary commands had a proven track record of getting things done far more effectively than the traditional pattern of frequent transfer of responsibilities from one ambitious magistrate to another. Some senators may have felt the same way, and even those who did not drew solace from the chance of participating in the system. There was no other realistic alternative for as long as Caesar controlled the overwhelming bulk of the army. Bolded emphasis is my own. If you have suggestions on how to reword this per Eder 2005 and Goldsworthy 2014, I'm all ears, but I've done the best I can with what I have for now. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Also, in Adrian Goldsworthy's defense, he admires Ronald Syme but doesn't agree with him much on anything. He most certainly does not subscribe to a view that Augustus was tricking everybody, and outright says that Augustus seemingly had popular support from plebs, equestrians, and senators alike, even if none of them could challenge his military supremacy. As Goldsworthy 2014 highlights here, a lot of people from all walks of life benefitted from the new system and they were content to keep it that way. Galinsky 2012 comes to similar conclusions. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• However, by virtue of his imperium maius: we need to explain what that was. We should also remember that Augustus doesn't get it until 23, whereas we're talking about this as if it was part of the Augustan system in 27.
  • Agreed. Reworded and problem fixed! Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Octavian became the most powerful political figure in the city of Rome: back to this; I'm confused about the chronology here. We've just talked about 27, so we should be saying "Augustus", but later we talk about "the later reigning Augustus", which implies that we've gone some indeterminate distance back in time. We allude to his status as consul, which began in 31, but again that's not totally clear from the text.
  • Agreed. I have done my best to clarify the timeline here. Basically, anything in that subsection pertaining to the agreement to share provinces after 16 January 27 BC should mention the name Augustus, not Octavian, though in some instances we are still referring to Octavian, who was still very powerful as consul in 30, 29, and 28 BC (he just did not yet have the official legal sanctioning of his extraordinary military powers by the Senate). Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Octavian's control of entire provinces even followed Republican-era precedents for the limited objective of securing peace and creating stability. For instance, Pompey had been given a similar level of command across the Roman world: even is editorialising, and Pompey had not been given a similar level of command -- I assume we're talking about the Lex Gabinia de piratis persequendis, which gave him power within 50 miles of the Mediterranean coast. That's a lot, but a quick look at the map shows that it's a long way off what Augustus was given.
  • I have removed even and clarified about Pompey, though you are welcome to offer further suggestions on how to fix this, since I do consider it to be similar as the cited sources say, though with the caveat that it was not quite the same thing as Augustus (in my defense and those of the sources, the operative word here is "similar" and not "identical"). Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  @UndercoverClassicist Just letting you know that I have amended the article and included input by Southern 2014: p. 15, clarifying that Pompey was only given authority over Mediterranean coastlines 50 miles inland. Still a very enormous level of command across the Roman world, though not as extensive as Augustus and then Agrippa. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Why do we translate "Augustus" as "revered" but "Sebastos" as "reverend"? They're synonyms: we should pick one.
  • Well, personally, I would choose to translate them using the same phrasing, but I'm merely reporting what various cited sources have to say. For instance, it is Goldsworthy 2014 who translates the Greek Sebastos as "reverend", while Bringmann 2007, Galinsky 2012, and Zerbey IV 2016 are the ones who prefer "revered" for the Latin Augustus. I do like to make things tidy and consistent, but in this case we're also talking about transliterating terms from two different languages: one Greek, the other Latin. I also personally don't see anything wrong with offering synonymous terms, especially if various sources choose to translate things differently (I'd rather not pick one over the other and exclude translations I don't personally like; we should perhaps be offering our readers with a fuller range than that and a more comprehensive view of what cited sources have to say). Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Right, but as you point out, they're the same word -- giving different translations implies that the Greek word meant something different from the Latin, which it didn't. In this case, the distinction is pretty obviously an artefact of the fact that you've chosen different sources for different definitions, so it misleads readers slightly to present it as if it's "real". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  @UndercoverClassicist I mean, maybe? Not sure how many readers are going to read too much into the use of somewhat differently spelled yet synonymous terms, but unfortunately Bringmann, Galinsky, and Zerbey don't offer a translation for the Greek Sebastos, only Goldsworthy does that. Tell you what, I'll strike a compromise here by removing Goldsworthy's preferred translation, but I certainly cannot put words into his mouth, so to speak, and just translate it the way I personally like per WP:OR (deviating from source material). I'll keep the mention of 'Sebastos' but I just won't translate it into English, if that helps. Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Hi again! Do you find the current compromise to be acceptable? I simply removed the English terms offered by Goldsworthy there. Until I find some other reliable source offering English translations for sebastos (ones that align with terms already translated for augustus (title)), I intend to leave things how they currently read. I poked around online a bit for additional source material that might help and did not find anything immediately useful. If you have a ready source on hand, that would be great, but if not I think the current paragraph looks fine the way it is. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  For sebastos as "revered", see here, here, here and elsewhere. It seems very odd to insist on a distinction without a difference simply because the first source we found (Goldsworthy, who is neither a historian of emperors nor trained in Greek -- his degree is in Ancient and Modern) makes it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  @UndercoverClassicist Hello again. I'm not really insisting on anything, I just couldn't immediately find a source for sebastos as "revered", and I don't necessarily prefer to cite sources only once while using Google Books. However, I have added Levick 2010, Lenski 2016, and Chaniotis 2018 per your suggested sources. I made a very small note in the citation that Goldsworthy happens to prefer "reverend" instead, but the main prose of the article lists only "revered" as a translation for sebastos now. I think that concludes the matter. Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Also, I will cite Levick 2010 in the main article Augustus for this, since the Greek sebastos is mentioned in a footnote there. Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Goldsworthy blockquote: italics or quotes on "Augustus" (WP:WORDASWORDS), and double quotes for internal quote.
  • Huh. Okay! I have never seen WP:WORDASWORDS before, so I didn't realize I was supposed to deliberately alter quoted extracts like that in blockquotes, because the plain text seen in the blockquote is exactly how it is printed on p. 236 of Goldsworthy 2014. I have changed it per Wiki guidelines (even if I'm not a big fan of this rule; to me it seems wrong to do this). Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  MOS:CONFORM: if the alteration is purely typographical (e.g. adding italics or punctuation that doesn't change the pronunciation), make the change -- a quotation is not a facsimile. Likewise, if it's a straightforward and unimportant mistake in the original, change without comment. In other cases we may use more caution. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  @UndercoverClassicist Okay! I'll keep all of that in mind, so long as Wiki guidelines say that it's acceptable. Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• and by the late 2nd century became the title of the senior emperor, his junior partner titled as Caesar instead: this is the Tetrarchy, which didn't come about until the end of the third century (not the second) -- even then, what happened centuries later is not at all relevant to Augustus's reign, so we should cut it.
  • Done! Another good point. I was giving Southern 2014 the benefit of the doubt here per the late 2nd century. Perhaps she made a typo there that even the editors didn't question? LOL. In either case, good catch! Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• He transformed Caesar, a cognomen for one branch of the Julian family, into a new family line that began with him: not sure about this one: it was his cognomen (by adoption), so of course it would have been considered the name of his family line and his children would have inherited it -- what exactly are we saying he changed here?
  • I think this point became butchered by other editors over time in the main article Augustus, in otherwise valiant efforts to copyedit of prose and reduce the article WP:SIZE, but the ultimate point being made here is that it's an imperial family line, not just any ole family line made by various aristocratic Romans adding glory to their name (like Scipio Africanus). Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• The inscription on this shield represented the Roman virtus, a set of moral characteristics which Augustus had allegedly achieved and by doing so was believed to have lifted a curse on the Roman people: virtus is a singular virtue (courage), not a set of virtues. Can I call citation needed on "was believed to have lifted a curse"? I can't access the cited source on JSTOR but this seems like it needs some serious proving.
  • I have reworded it in singular rather than plural form, but please don't shoot the messenger! I'm merely mirroring the exact language used by the cited source here, albeit in French. Let's be frank, though, you can get away with saying just about anything in French, since it is just so damn charming, the fairer and more civilized language! ;) Surely you'll give it a pass on that fact alone! LOL. /s In total seriousness, Brizzi 2022 says the following: Quand l’essence même de la res publica semble désormais irréparablement polluée par la corruption des guerres civiles, qui ont rendu vaines les vertus d’un peuple entier, quand tout semble perdu et la survie même de l’Vrbs mise en péril, voilà qu’apparaît un homme pour en restaurer la destinée compromise ; et par son intermédiaire, les dieux renouvellent leur lien avec Rome. Grâce à l’augurium Augustum, sous le signe duquel Rome est née 26, d’où le Prince également a tiré son nom, celui-ci a pu mettre fin au maléfice des guerres civiles et reconstruire l’État. Comme garantie de la protection sacrée reconstituée au profit de Rome, du renouvellement de la faveur céleste qui rendra à l’Vrbs la santé et la victoire, les dieux réclament toujours la virtus, c’est-à-dire l’ensemble complet et cohérent des qualités morales caractéristiques du Romain. Toutefois, les dieux ne demandent plus ces qualités à un peuple tout entier, mais les cherchent désormais dans un seul homme. Telle est précisément la uirtus qu’on célèbre dans ses différentes composantes sur le clupeus symbolique affiché en l’honneur d’Auguste au mur de la curia Iulia. So there you have it, proving once again that I bring receipts to the table (I know that another editor for the main article on Augustus has cast aspersions about the manner in which I utilize sources, but his series of failed gotcha style criticisms that ironically misuse sources like Galinsky 2012 are oddly vindictive for someone whom I have never crossed paths with on Wikipedia). Per my wording, Brizzi does indeed use plural form here. Une parodie complète! Une parodie de la réalité! ...Sorry, can't resist. LOL. ;) Let me know if you have any issues with this part still, and I'll fix it. Also, if you would like, I could email you the source in question, since you have been kind enough to email me Galinsky 2012 chapters in the past (I would be glad to share). Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  On the curse: celui-ci a pu mettre fin au maléfice des guerres civiles et reconstruire l’État is pretty clearly a metaphor -- I can't read that, especially in the context of a very flowery passage, as saying that the Romans actually believed there was some kind of literal curse. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  @UndercoverClassicist Hmm. Alright. Do you have a suggested course of action for this part of the article, then? I want to include some input from Brizzi 2022, but I also do not want to inadvertently misrepresent their views here either. I'm open to any suggestion on how to reword things, or to remove Brizzi's input altogether if you find it controversial enough. Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Well, in the meantime, since you seem to take issue with the curse part, I have removed that bit from the statement citing Brizzi 2022, and only kept the parts about the moral characteristic and restoring favor of the gods for Rome. Acceptable? Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Also, while you're probably right about the curse thing, the ancient Greeks and Romans did seem to believe in curses generally speaking. For instance, the various curse tablets that have survived (though this type of primary source material is irrelevant to Augustus's actions as a leader, of course). Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, yes, the Romans and Greeks definitely believed in curses as a concept, but that's not to say that they believed that there actually was some kind of curse causing Roman civil wars. I'm not saying the latter is impossible, but we would need a good source to say it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Cool, that's agreeable, though I don't think it's necessary to elaborate or confirm Brizzi 2022 on this (it's a tangential topic, obviously). Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Not convinced that Richard Holland's book is a reliable source: he's a journalist, not a historian, and it's from a very minor non-academic press. We definitely need a better source for alienating his three greatest supporters: Agrippa, Maecenas, and Livia
  • Good point. Removed and done! Though I don't mind keeping Holland 2005 citations in other spots where they're merely buttressing points made by others. Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Officers acted on the orders of Marcellus and Augustus: which officers? When? This needs some fleshing out.
  • Huh, odd! I have removed that questionable footnote for now. I don't ever remember adding it. It cites old editions of books I do not have access to anymore (I have full access to Southern 2014 and Eck & Takacs 2007, but unfortunately not the previous editions Southern 1998 or Eck & Takacs 2003, both of which have different page numbering for similar content found in the later editions and also lack major additions and appendixes found in the later editions). Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Hello there! Thanks for starting the review. You've given me a lot to work with and I've started to address your first wave of suggestions. Very good point about the "first settlement" not being mentioned in the prose itself; I have remedied that in this article and the main one on Augustus. It is Super Bowl Sunday here in the US, so I'll be very busy today cooking and partying with my girlfriend and friends, but I will do my best in the coming week to address all of these points. Please let me know if any edits or solutions I've made to address them are somehow insufficient. Cheers! Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. If you could put a brief comment below each bullet point when you've addressed it (e.g. "done", or brief explanation if it's more complicated), or decided not to address it, that would help me keep track of where the review is. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Good idea! I'll start doing that now. Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist I have addressed all the points you've raised thus far. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do, and if you would like me to email you Brizzi 2022 for verification (I have it and the rest of the chapters of the book edited by Cavalieri et. al. 2022). Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Really quickly, for sake of transparency and since you already reviewed the subsection "Title of Augustus," I just want to highlight a new statement I've added there, citing the newly added source Claes 2022, pp. 79-80: In the 1st century AD the emperor Vespasian adopted the name Imperator Caesar Vespasianus Augustus, with "Augustus" as a cognomen to help legitimize his reign and Flavian assumption of Julio-Claudian patrimony. Just thought I'd let you know! Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I also added the following to the "Death of Augustus" subsection: Tiberius succeeded Augustus as emperor in AD 14. However, there was no clear legal framework for his succession or who could become princeps, which became starkly clear with the fall of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Afterwards, Vespasian established a legal basis for his succession by listing the offices and powers he inherited from Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius in the lex quae dicitur de imperio Vespasiani. Please let me know if there are any issues with these new additions. Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Particularly that last bit seems a bit out of scope, no? After all, Tiberius inherited the name/title in the end -- it may be germane to point out that Vespasian later resurrects it (and paints himself as a Julian) as an illustration of how closely it became linked with the status of the emperor, but reaching ahead to the stability of dynastic rule in 69 BE or naming Vespasian's law seems a bit much for this article (though perfectly good at Augustus (title). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Okay! I have reworded it, kept the new and reduced statement very basic and mostly just about Tiberius succeeding Augustus, and placed most of the input by Claes 2022 into a footnote instead. I hope this is a suitable compromise. I might work on Augustus (title) sometime after my open GA nominations are finished. Not a bad suggestion! I'm juggling a lot of things, though, including expanding Dai Temple, Architecture of the Song dynasty, and Architecture of the Ming dynasty (my latest Chinese history topics I've chosen to flesh out on Wiki). Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to announce that I have added this information to the articles Principate and Augustus (title). Hurray! Happy days. Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi again, just letting you know I'll be traveling and enjoying a mini vacation from February 19th to the 23rd and will be too busy to respond within that timeframe. Feel free to raise concerns here before and during that time, and I'll do my best to address them by Tuesday February 24th. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Just updating you a bit and letting you know I added a bit of info about the poet Ovid in the section about the "Death and succession" of Augustus. Let me know if the addition is suitable in your view. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Spot check

• I've checked a couple of the references and they all check fine on a factual and CLOP level. As above, sometimes I have doubts about the framing adopted, but it wouldn't be right to push this too hard at GA level: the important thing is that we have fairly represented the sources we have and neglected no major aspects.

• • Okay! Good to know. I'll do what I can to address the issues you've raised with the list of images you've provided below. Also, just quick reminder to sign your posts when you make them here, so I can easily distinguish between yours and mine, and also so that I can easily hit the "reply" button instead of the edit one at the top of the page. That being said, thank you very kindly for the big update! I'll let you know progress/completion of work on alt text for images. Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Lots of images! Almost none have alt text, which is not ideal for MOS:ACCESSIBILITY.
• File:Veiled head of Augustus, end of 1st century BC, Moi, Auguste, Empereur de Rome exhibition, Grand Palais, Paris - 14671108463.jpg needs a PD tag for the original work (a formality, as it clearly is PD)
• File:Augustus-in-Kalabsha.jpg: ditto.
• File:Octavianus Aegypto Capta 2020154.jpg: ditto.
• File:Octave (13668015683).jpg: ditto.
• File:Statue de L'Empereur Auguste - MR 99 - Ma 1278.jpg: ditto.
• File:Augustus first century aureus obverse.png: ditto
• File:Statue of the Emperor Octavian Augustus as Jupiter 1.jpg: ditto
• File:Cameo Augustus Dioscorides CdM Paris.jpg: ditto
• File:August com a "Pontifex maximus" (detall) (finals s. I aC), Museu Nacional Romà (Palau Massimo), Roma.jpg: ditto
• File:Augustus and Victory - Aphrodisias (7471671280).jpg: ditto
• File:Augustus MAN Napoli Inv6040.jpg: ditto
• File:Tiberius NyCarlsberg01.jpg: ditto
• File:Augusto di pirma porta, inv. 2290, 02.JPG: ditto
• File:Augustus Prima Porta (detail).PNG: ditto
• File:Agrippa Gabii Louvre Ma1208.jpg: ditto
• File:Gemma Augustea, a two-layered sardonyx depicting the Emperor Augustus surrounded by goddesses and allegories, 9-12 AD, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (21036461833).jpg: ditto
• File:Great Cameo of France CdM Paris Bab264 white background.jpg: ditto
• File:Rare denarius of Octavian & Caesar.jpg: ditto
• File:First-century AD cameo of Augustus wearing the rayed crown of the sun god, signifying his deification, Romisch-Germanisches Museum, Cologne (8115666537).jpg: ditto
• File:Domus-augusti-2.jpg: ditto (Italy does not have freedom of panorama)
• File:Photographs of the Mausoleum of Augustus 14 (cropped).jpg: ditto
• File:Arch of Augustus at Ariminum, dedicated to the Emperor Augustus by the Roman Senate in 27 BC, the oldest Roman arch which survives, Rimini, Italy (19948839545).jpg: ditto
• File:Roman - Portrait of Emperor Augustus - Walters 2321.jpg: needs a US PD tag for the original work (again, a formality).
• File:Cameo August BM Gem3577.jpg: ditto
• File:Glyptothek München – 18.04.2022 – Augustus Bevilacqua (4).jpg probably doesn't need a PD tag for the original, since it's in Germany, which does have FoP if the work is viewable from a public place.
• File:Hermann (Arminius) at the battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE by Peter Jannsen, 1873, with painting creases and damage removed.jpg: all good.
• File:TabulaPeutingerianaMuziris.jpg: all good.
• File:(Toulouse) Portrait de Julie Musée Saint-Raymond Ra 338.jpg: all good.
• File:(Toulouse) Livie Musée Saint-Raymond Ra 340.jpg: all good

Hello again. I'm happy to announce that all of these images now have proper licensing. I'll go ahead and make sure all of the images in the main article Augustus are also properly licensed with PD tags. I hope that settles things, then. Let me know if there's anything else that needs to get done. Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)