The Various Caesars

[Ancient_Death]

who was the third ceaser of rome? i cant find out who it was

[P.Clodius]

Gaius, know to prosperity as Caligula

[Gaius Octavius]

Gaius, know to prosperity as Caligula

 

Didn't Augustus nominate two of his daughter's(?) children 'Caesars' and had Tiberius adopt them?

[P.Clodius]

Gaius, know to prosperity as Caligula

 

Didn't Augustus nominate two of his daughter's(?) children 'Caesars' and had Tiberius adopt them?

Yeah but I think he means actual rulers

[caldrail]

yes he did, otherwise you'd have to delve deep into family trees because caesar is a family name that became synonymous with royalty after Julius made it fashionable to rule as dictator.

[spittle]

.....and if we look for Caesars (family names) rather than Caesars (title of Emperor) we'll find that none of the Caesars (HRH) were actually born Caesars (DNA).

 

Caesar.....Kaiser.....Tzar (or Czar)......

Any more???

[WotWotius]

Gaius, know to prosperity as Caligula

 

Didn't Augustus nominate two of his daughter's(?) children 'Caesars' and had Tiberius adopt them?

 

You mean Gaius and Lucius.

 

If we assign ourselves to Suetonius' Twelve Caesars, Tiberius is the third Caesar; however, if you were referring to the third emperor, Caligula (Gaius) is your man.

[The Augusta]

Gaius, know to prosperity as Caligula

 

Didn't Augustus nominate two of his daughter's(?) children 'Caesars' and had Tiberius adopt them?

 

You mean Gaius and Lucius.

 

 

Augustus himself adopted Gaius and Lucius - and yes, they were henceforth given the 'surname' Caesar, as attested by many extant inscriptions etc. Tiberius was adopted with Postumus in 4AD and in his turn was forced to adopt Germanicus.

[Gaius Octavius]

Therefor, is there any sequence to "Caesars", regardless as to whether they ruled or not?

[The Augusta]

Therefor, is there any sequence to "Caesars", regardless as to whether they ruled or not?

 

We tend to look at 'Caesar' from the 21st century (and earlier historians of course) as being the title of the Emperors, but in fact this is a more modern convention, as is referring to Imperator Caesar Divi Filius as 'Octavian' to avoid confusion, or the Emperor Gaius as 'Caligula' (although why that has stuck I will never know). Caesar was nothing more than a surname in the late Republic/early Principate. In fact, Augustus' position was not 'Emperor' but 'Princeps'. 'Imperator' - from which we get 'Emperor' was a military title. So, in answer to your question, Gaius, no - I do not think a 'sequence' of Caesars is helpful. We do know that later on in the Empire the heir apparent/presumptive whatever was known as 'Caesar' but this came much later. As far as Augustus and the Julio-Claudians were concerned, Caesar was merely the family name. If we were going to be really pedantic about it, the 'Caesars' ended with Nero.

[Pertinax]

Gaius of the Julii, known as Caesar- at the time , Caesar being the least formal of the namings. The Augusta has logic here. After all we know who ruled in actuality, and when.

[The Augusta]

Gaius of the Julii, known as Caesar- at the time , Caesar being the least formal of the namings. The Augusta has logic here. After all we know who ruled in actuality, and when.

 

Indeed, Pertinax - thank you for clarifying further. 'Caesar' was actually a cognomen and not a nomen.

[caldrail]

Therefor, is there any sequence to "Caesars", regardless as to whether they ruled or not?

 

We tend to look at 'Caesar' from the 21st century (and earlier historians of course) as being the title of the Emperors, but in fact this is a more modern convention, as is referring to Imperator Caesar Divi Filius as 'Octavian' to avoid confusion, or the Emperor Gaius as 'Caligula' (although why that has stuck I will never know). Caesar was nothing more than a surname in the late Republic/early Principate. In fact, Augustus' position was not 'Emperor' but 'Princeps'. 'Imperator' - from which we get 'Emperor' was a military title. So, in answer to your question, Gaius, no - I do not think a 'sequence' of Caesars is helpful. We do know that later on in the Empire the heir apparent/presumptive whatever was known as 'Caesar' but this came much later. As far as Augustus and the Julio-Claudians were concerned, Caesar was merely the family name. If we were going to be really pedantic about it, the 'Caesars' ended with Nero.

 

Nicknames are frequently used in roman culture and these do stick. Felix means 'lucky', Pertinax means 'persistent', caesar means 'curly' (seriously, it does!). But because the names are used frequently the ordinary meaning is lost and the name becomes accepted. Also, the nature of roman families are less formal than our own, so a elder male of the family could simply adopt anyone as his son and pass his family name to them. Its a very diluting way of ensuring inheritance based on a society where death is commonplace. Only 2 out of 5 romans survive beyond the age of 20, so the elder male makes sure his family does not die out by this method. As for the name caesar, because it had been the family name of the principates leaders it was accepted as a 'rulers name' in much the same way that nicknames became important. Regarding Gaius, his 'caligula' nickname took hold because every other roman was named gaius and also because he never liked that name. True, he didn't like the nickname 'caligula' either, but his hatred for the name gaius was worse. Its a unique identifier that modern historians have reinforced to ensure identification.

[The Augusta]

Regarding Gaius, his 'caligula' nickname took hold because every other roman was named gaius and also because he never liked that name. True, he didn't like the nickname 'caligula' either, but his hatred for the name gaius was worse. Its a unique identifier that modern historians have reinforced to ensure identification.

 

Caldrail - please could you direct me to the ancient source that says that Gaius hated his praenomen. As for the nickname sticking because every other Roman was called Gaius - I'm not sure I can concur there. No Roman of standing was known by his praenomen - except, one presumes, among his own very close family and friends - therefore having an Emperor actually named 'Gaius' would not cause a problem. Tiberius was known as 'Tiberius' after all - his praenomen. I suppose it's a bit like later Royalty - Kings known by their Christian names etc.

 

My own theory is that the name 'Caligula' was probably never used during his reign, except by his enemies, as a taunt. I think posterity has latched onto it in the same way. The name comes dripping with the traditional picture of a madman. Why should historians use as it as a unique identifer when there was no other emperor called Gaius? There would not be any confusion.

Edited February 23, 2007 by The Augusta

[caldrail]

Caldrail - please could you direct me to the ancient source that says that Gaius hated his praenomen. As for the nickname sticking because every other Roman was called Gaius - I'm not sure I can concur there. No Roman of standing was known by his praenomen - except, one presumes, among his own very close family and friends - therefore having an Emperor actually named 'Gaius' would not cause a problem. Tiberius was known as 'Tiberius' after all - his praenomen. I suppose it's a bit like later Royalty - Kings known by their Christian names etc.

It was mentioned either by suetonius or tacitus. For romans I agree - calling himself gaius wasn't a problem. But then its recorded he never liked the name - I wonder if he associated it with childhood discipline? I seem to recall that he's referred to as Emperor Gaius frequently but its only hearing that name within earshot that annoyed him, so then I'd say that he regarded that as a breach of ettiquette. He was Caesar of Rome, and expected his onlookers to address at such.

 

My own theory is that the name 'Caligula' was probably never used during his reign, except by his enemies, as a taunt. I think posterity has latched onto it in the same way. The name comes dripping with the traditional picture of a madman. Why should historians use as it as a unique identifer when there was no other emperor called Gaius? There would not be any confusion.

According to the same source, caligula was used during his lifetime. It was after all his nickname as applied by troops on the german border when he was a child mascot. They called him caligula ('little boots') with some humour. In all probability it amused senators to hear him called that as much as soldiers, and people being what they are, nicknames tend to stick. As for dripping with the traditional picture of a madman, of course it does. He's been presented as such since his reign. However, caligula seems to have had something of a troubled childhood. I've said this before, but the impression I get is that his parents were not overly loving, possibly too busy to care for him, and he got more attention from the soldiers. Later of course he was a young man with some behavioural faults and I would say deeply annoyed at being addressed by his childhood nickname. He certainly looked at the senate with some disdain (the story of Incitatus) and as for the rest of Rome, did he not say that if Rome had but one neck he would hack it off? Well maybe he did or he didn't actually say that, but that anecdote was recorded to illustrate caligula's contempt. Oh yes, I've just remembered, didn't he execute a foreign ruler for wearing a purple cloak?