Talk:Tiberius

Suggestion for corrections in section on 29-26 BC

Text currently reads: "In 29 BC, both he and his brother Drusus rode in the triumphal chariot along with their adoptive father Octavian in celebration of the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra at Actium. In 26 BC, Augustus became gravely ill..."

1) After checking the footone, it seems that Tiberius rode with Marcellus (not Drusus) on the horses of Augustus' chariot. Suetonius Tib 6.4: "Then, just as he was arriving at puberty, he accompanied the chariot of Augustus in his triumph after Actium, riding the left trace-horse, while Marcellus, son of Octavia, rode the one on the right. " http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Tiberius*.html#6

2) It is an anachronism to call Octavian "their adoptive father". Augustus only adopted Tiberius in 4 AD along with Agrippa Postumus. He could not have already been Tiberius' adoptive father in 29 BC. He was certainly married to Tiberius' mother, but this is not the same as adopting him.

3) Augustus became gravely ill in 23 BC, not 26 BC. Dio 53.30: "Augustus became consul for the eleventh time with Calupurnius Piso as his colleage, and was then again taken ill, this time so seriously that there appeared tob e no hope of his recovery. At any rate, he arranged all his affairs as if he were at the point of death...". Piso and Augustus were consuls in 23. Wikipedia lists Piso as a suffect consul in 23. In any case, Piso was not consul in 26. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_consuls#First_century_BC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.47.33 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Command and Conquer

I took out the reference to command and conquers reference to Tiberium. It said it was named after Tiberius Drusus Caesar. This is not Tiberius and Tiberius is also a very common Roman name much like Gaius, Titus etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.141.119 (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

His Adoption

I restated his "adoption" by Augustus because Suetonius is very direct at saying he was adopted *after* his return from Rhodes which would put it very late in life. He married Julia abt 11 BC and he went to Rhodes possibly abt 6BC. Suetonius state he was there for eight years and that it wasn't until AFTER Gaius and Lucius died that Tiberius was then adopted, along with Posthumous. Wjhonson 03:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sexual Perversion

Ancient sources write how Tiberius engaged in extreme sexual pervesion "Rumor has it..." Let's name the source. Wetman 00:54, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My guess is Suetonius, but I'm not going to look it up. -- Decumanus 00:55, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes, Suetonius paras 43 and 44 have the juicy details. Although they sound plausible, it's of course difficult to know how much is true. Stan 03:57, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Did Suetonius think the activities were really so nasty? Or is it we who think so? I thought he was pretty trusty, considering he held a court position under Hadrian. Get the quote into the entry I say. Wetman 04:08, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Suetonius himself acknowledges that the stories are a bit, shall we say, tabloidish; the paragraph (#44) that describes Tiberius' taste for little boys opens with an acknowledgement that the stuff it reports is both vile (turpiore infamia) and rather hard to swallow. --No-One Jones (talk) 04:26, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It says that Drusus and Nero Caesar were banished to islands 'where they died'. I thought that they were murdered on the islands or starved to death. Also, on the section about Tiberius' death, if Suetonius and Tacitus mention Caligula's part in it why is it 'most likely that he died a natural death'?

I believe there's some stuff in Tacitus as well, though it's been awhile. radek 04:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The passage which reads, "Suetonius records livid tales of sexual perversity and cruelty...", should that not read, "Suetonius records lurid tales of sexual perversity and cruelty..."? Kidigus 16:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeedy. I've changed the text. "Livid" has come to mean, though some confusion, brightly colored, especially in the red region. Perhaps from the nearly exclusive use of the word in modern English in the phrase "livid with rage" (or, elliptically, merely "livid"); the expression originally referred to the rare and dangerous level of fury in which color drains from the face (the word means "ashen, pale grey"); the much more commonly-encountered level of rage results in a flushed appearance. In any case it's a simple matter. 69.19.14.28 23:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC) alsihler

Not surprising that those too dumb to spell "perversion" (perverion? pervesion?) would have a problem with sexual diversity and exploration. Of course we all are still against cruelty, but where there is no victim, Wikipedia should be NPOV, ancient texts cited or not.Ryoung122 02:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The RS's can take a POV and Wiki summarizes those views. Child molestation, then or now, is not 'exploration.'— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.250 (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I added a line about Suetonius' vivid descriptions about Tiberius' child molestation, at the very least to give readers a heads up before clicking the link. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Though it should be noted that these tales were certainy inventions based on rumors. After all, how would these authors know about what happened in capri ? It gave them the opportunity to invent nice stories. Tacitus also reports tales of perversion but is more cautious in its handling of his information than suetonius who take them for granted. It would make little sense that Tiberius, known for being austere to the extreme, would become a perverse in his old age (after 60). And while he showed little hesitation in executing those who considered a threat, there no evidence for him being sadistic, except for Tacitus and Suetonius... though both admit he was not so before the 20s AD.

Tiberius' name

Did he ever actually go by the name Tiberius Claudius Nero Caesar? I was under the impression his names were:

• at birth — Tiberius Claudius Nero;
• after his adoption by Augustus — Tiberius Caesar;
• after his accession — Tiberius Caesar Augustus.

Franey 11:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Unlike modern Western names, Roman names fluctuated a lot; and many Wikipedia editors tend to "pile it on" (or different editors tack on one thing and another), and we get to things like this. A check of his coins and inscriptions would do it; I'm no expert, but I have a suspicion you're right. A quick check of my own photos turns up no inscription of Tiberius', so I'll stay out of it. Ideally though the names should be listed in order during the course of the article, and the commonest name, prolly the official imperial form, should head the article off. Bill 12:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This site gives names of Roman rulers (kings, consuls and emperors) from primary sources. It gives Tiberius' name in his first and second consulships (13 BC & 7 BC) as TI. CLAVVDIVS TI. f. TI. f NERO, and in his third (AD 18, after his accession) as TI. CÆSAR AVGVSTVS. What name he went under between his adoption in AD 4 and his accession ten years later, it doesn't say. However:

• Augustus had dropped the Julius from his name by 38 BC, and seems to have treated Caesar as his nomen; certainly his filiation was placed after it (see his entries as consul, 30 BC to 23 BC);
• Tiberius adopted his nephew Germanicus at the same time as or soon after his own adoption by Augustus; Germanicus' name after this was apparently Germanicus Caesar (consulships in AD 12 & AD 18);
• both Suetonius & Cassius Dio say that Tiberius refused the title of Augustus voted him by the Senate (though he used it in correspondence with foreign rulers, and did not object when others ascribed it to him).

— all of which suggest Tiberius' adoptive, pre-accession name was Tiberius Caesar.

However, it's still a presumption. I'll change the article to give his correct birth and regnal names, and leave his adoptive name for now. Franey 15:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even if Augustus had "dropped" nomen Julius, it clearly was left sort of hidden, as daughters of future generations (such as daughters of Germanicus and daughter of Drusus, son of Tiberius, as well as daughter of Caligula) were "Julia something". Perhaps the "dropping" was only to save space in a long name... I think this shoud be taken into account when stating the regnal name, etc 217.140.193.123 6 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

It's true that the family continued to acknowledge their (adoptive) descent from the patrician Julii, but it's also true that they adopted Caesar as their nomen, and did not simply omit their nomen Julius. The big indication for this is that the name Caesar appears before the filiation on coinage and inscriptions. So I'm not sure what you mean by "take into account when stating the regnal name", but considering that the emperors in question never (so far as our evidence goes) used the name Julius during their reign, it seems pretty clear to me that we shouldn't be including it as a part of their name.

This was also, of course, the period when rules for Roman names were really starting to dissolve away, as the ranks of the Roman citizens became more ethnically diverse and less tied culturally to the heritage of the population of Latium. So it was becoming less and less remarkable to give a daughter her own name, or to adopt a non-traditional nomen, or to use a cognomen as a praenomen. Binabik80 02:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this assertion? pookster11 01:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The OCD article on the topic is "Names, personal, Roman"; Imperial-period names are covered in section 11. Pretty much any study of Roman nomenclature longer than about five paragraphs will cover it. Here's one I found in the public domain by googling roman personal names. If it's the women's names that particularly interest you, the OCD article cites a 1995 study Roman Female Praenomina by M. Kajava. Binabik80 03:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Did he not be Tiberius Iulius Caesar after his adoption? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.136.248.34 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Germanicus was assassinated?

It is fair to say that Germanicus was murdered? There is no evidence on that. He might have died of a natural ilness, so common for westerns travelling in the Middle East in his time...

Piso's suicide doesn't qualify as evidence? I don't think we should say he was definitely murdered, but we should certainly mention that there's a strong possibility of it. john k 6 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

I don't think that his suicide is an evidence. He was under heavy pressure because he was accused of taking arms against Rome as prefect of Syria, not only because of Germanicus alleged murder. He could be convicted of treason, a good motive for suicide also, isn't it?

Suetonius records Germanicus himself believing he had been murdered; then again, Suetonius has a tendency to jump on any sordid rumor and include it in his works. Not sure what you mean about Westerners often dieing of illness in Syria though; the region had been relatively uniform since the 4th century BC, and traders had come from Syria to every region of the Mediterranean since the 3rd millenium BC, so its not as if they were exposed to new climates. pookster11 01:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Trajan also died of an illness developed in the region. It was known for being one of the more unhealthy areas of the empire. 72.33.46.114 (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. Trajan was old and worn out. We really don't know what he died from - could have been an internal ailment of some body organ. I've never run across any statement from the ancient sources supporting your statement about Syria.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.250 (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Much of this page (added by 68.12.208.244 on July 13, 2005) was plagiarized from:

http://www.unrv.com/early-empire/tiberius.php http://www.unrv.com/early-empire/germanicus.php http://www.unrv.com/early-empire/sejanus.php http://www.unrv.com/early-empire/final-years.php

As the original author, and having not been asked permission, I removed the offending material.

Remaining article seems to have been copied directly from http://www.roman-emperors.org/tiberius.htm

Thank You, Chris Heaton www.unrv.com primuspilus@unrv.com

Dear Chris, surely wikipedia is now less for want off you inciteful commentary alex.thirkill@gmail.com (on Wikipedia, User:82.153.66.170)

Copyright violation is not tolerated on Wikipedia! Bill 23:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

If Germanicus was assasinated was it ordered by Tiberius or was it all the doing of Piso.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevol (talk • contribs) 12:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

and without an RS stating so this is just speculation— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.250 (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Pater Patriae

Tiberius Caesar was not the only emperor to refused to bear the title Pater Patriae, Nero refused too, cause he was very young to bear it.

Irrelevance?

Why on earth do we need to know that the middle name of a fictional character was Tiberius? Surely this should be kept to the article on James T Kirk, rather than being spooned in here. Granted there is some pleasure to be had in getting your favourite topic mentioned wherever possible, but I think this really is stretching it a bit. Unless there are any sound objections to its removal, I intend to delete this sentence on the grounds of irrelevance. Peeper 09:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Why on earth do we need to have an encyclopedia? :-) I agree that the reference is at the very edge of relevance, but the ST reference to "Tiberius" is probably the most widespread daily appearance of the name today (lots of reruns on TV), and readers value WP for its unlikely connections. In general I think it's useful to have links both ways when disparate subjects are connected - using "what links here" to find references to Tiberius is for more for editors, not readers. The sentence here should be minimal in any case, or even an entry in a list, with the etymology bit kept only in the Kirk article. Stan 17:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I'm still a relative newbie, I'll defer...while Wikipedia's obscure links are great, this one seems a bit more in-depth than is necessary, but then it's only a few lines so no cigar. Now then, I'm sure a character in Rosemary and Thyme had a dog called Tiberius, I must look that up ;) ... cheers, Peeper 18:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd also agree with its removal. As far as TV reruns go ... seriously, how often is Star Trek VI on TV? Binabik80 02:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

rarr! bring it on . grrr.ok i will!

Added back with a section on Tibberus in pop culture (Which I'll fill some more when I get a moment). Given that Nero's entry gives such trivia as a mention in a Bugs Bunny cartoon or as a name of a video game character in an up coming game, I'd say that a mention is well within Wiki tradition. Jusenkyoguide 10 January 2007

Repetition and error in first dealings with the senate

According to Tacitus, Tiberius' first dealings with the senate following the accession was to arrange Augustus' funeral. It was in the second meeting of the senators where they actually conferred on him the responsibilities of the state. Furthermore, in that meeting according to Tacitus Annals 1.11-12 when Tiberius asks to be entrustes with a single part of the state, Assinius Gallus inquires which part he would like. Thomaschina03 17:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Images

Is the second image (the 19th-century bust) really appropriate here? Tiberius had exceptionally distinct features, yet this second one could be of almost anybody. Is it possible to replace it with an image that does better justice to him?

Be bold. I removed it; next time, do it yourself, of course. Bill 20:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Nero

The Nero that Tib. exiled and killed in 30 CE was Nero son of Germanicus, not Nero (Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus) adopted son of Tib. that later became the Emperor. The link in the article goes to Nero the emperor, which is wrong, but I don't actually know how to fix that.

128.208.183.247 01:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem hopefully solved. (21.02.2006)

Chronology of AD 31

Crucial evidence for the chronology of the massacre of Sejanus' family is provided by the Fasti Ostienses (V.Ehrenberg & A.H.M.Jones, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius [2nd ed.Oxford 1955):

"XV k.Nov.Seianus s[trang.] VIIII k.Nov. Strabo [Seiani] f. strang. VII k.No[v. Apicata] Seiani se occidi[t......] Dec. Capito Aelia[nus et] Iunilla Seiani [in Gem.] iacuerunt"

I.e Sejanus was strangled on 18 October, Strabo was strangled on the 24th, and Apicata killed herself on the 26th. The two younger ones seem to have died between 14 November and 13 December ("Dec."). Livilla's death seems to have predated theirs, since when Tacitus' narrative resumes in Book VI, she is already dead while Capito and Iunilla are still alive.

Dio is mistaken in saying that all the children were already dead when Apicata committed suicide. ('His wife ... on learning that her children were dead, and after seeing their bodies on the Stairway, ... withdrew and composed a statement about the death of Drusus, directed against Livilla, his wife, who had been the cause of a quarrel between herself and her husband, resulting in their separation; then, after sending this document to Tiberius, she committed suicide.')

AD 19-31 Conflicting Agendas of Key Figures

Agrippina’s agenda:

to see her sons succeed to the Principate

Livilla’s agenda:

to maximise the survival chances of her sons (i.e. after 23 of Tiberius Gemellus). She must have believed – in the event correctly – that Gemellus’ survival, and that of Agrippina’s male offspring were incompatible. Crucially, her husband Drusus deferred to Germanicus, although the latter was only slightly older. Drusus and Germanicus remained the best of friends (“singularly united...wholly unaffected by the rivalries of their kinsfolk”, Tac.Ann.2.43), and after Germanicus’ death fostered and seemingly promoted Germanicus’ children with genuine affection (Ann.4.4.: “kindly disposed or at least not unfriendly towards the lads.”). If Livilla did indeed conspire to murder Drusus, this is as excellent a motive as any. To quote Seager (Tiberius, 182): The only possible explanation for her conduct is that she was acting in the interest of her sons, Tiberius Gemellus and Germanicus. If Drusus followed Tiberius, it was probable that he would respect his father’s wishes and hand over power to one or the other of the sons of Germanicus....”

Tiberius’ agenda

i: AD 19-23 It was Augustus’ wish that Germanicus should succeed Tiberius. “There is nothing to suggest that [Tiberius] ever dreamed of reversing Augustus’ decision on this vital point” (Seager p. 111).

ii: After 23 With Drusus’ death he seems to have been increasingly incapable of any coherent succession-policy, and Sejanus was slowly able to paralyse Tiberius’ will. At the senate meeting in September of 23 he talked of “restoring the Republic”, of handing back the power to “the consuls or whoever” (seu quis, Ann. IV.9), and he commended Germanicus’s children to the senate: (Ann.4.8: “I adjure you to receive into your care and guidance the great-grandsons of Augustus... So fulfil your duty and mine. To you, Nero and Drusus, these senators are as fathers. Such is your birth that your prosperity and adversity must alike affect the State”). And even while relations with Agrippina deteriorated, he remained open to the idea that one of Germanicus’ sons should succeed: note his rebuttal of Sejanus’ proposal regarding Livilla in 25 (when she was still of childbearing age), and his summoning Caligula to Capri in 30, out of harm’s way.

Sejanus’ agenda

i) to conceal his adulterous relationship with Livilla

ii) to avoid being killed by Drusus, who made no secret of his hatred of Sejanus (Tac.Ann.4.3 and 4.7) and who might well have put him to death had he succeeded Tiberius (the most cogent argument for Drusus having been murdered)

iii) to maximise the advantage of his intimacy with Livilla

a) by presenting himself as the protector and guardian of Tiberius Gemellus (note in the letter purportedly written by him to Tiberius, where he refers to the need for Tiberius’ family “to be secured against the unjust displeasure of Agrippina (Ann.4.39)”

b) by intermarrying with the ruling house: there was Livilla and her daughter, there was Gemellus, there was Claudius’ children etc. Sejanus had three children, and Sejanus’ daughter Junilla had been betrothed to Claudius’ son (Ann.3.29, Suet.Claud.27, Dio 58.11.5)

c) that he wished personally to marry Livilla’s daughter is possible but less likely (arguments in Seager, Tiberius p.213 note 6)

d) obtain all the powers once accorded by Augustus to Agrippa. Then he could marginalise Tiberius, exploit his near-stranglehold of access to Tiberius, confine Tiberius to his villa etc. and wait for him to die of old age.

Probably he wished to become Tiberius’ effective heir, but he was too smart to realise that someone of his Equestrian background could be emperor, pace Juvenal (Sat.x. 74ff.). The Senate would not have tolerated Sejanus as princeps, nor would the provincial armies. (For all the arguments, see Seager, Tiberius,

There is also a radical but unlikely hypothesis (cited in OCD [1970] 970B) that Sejanus “planned to strike at the principate”. He could not be emperor himself. But if the obvious candidates were eliminated (i.e. Drusus and the sons of Germanicus), then then he could appeal to popular sentiment at Rome, using his extensive network of friends to override the Senate. This hypothesis is supported by one crucial piece of evidence, an open letter written by Tiberius, rebuking some electoral institution in Rome: in AD 31, unknown to Tiberius, Sejanus had organised a highly irregular electoral meeting on the Aventine (normally the place was the Campus Martius). The Aventine had long populist associations. (Ehrenberg and Jones 53 = ILS 6044: “...improbae comitiae [q]uae fuerunt in Aventino, ubi [Sei]anus cos. factus est...”)

See especially R.Seager Tiberius, London 1972 81.190.70.164

I still have trouble accepting the theory regarding Livilla. It's really hard to ascribe any rational motivation to her actions. Clearly if she had hoped to become Empress of Rome then sticking with Drusus was a much better option than taking the risk of poisoning him and plotting with a mere equestrian for power. Seems to me she was genuinly in love with Sejanus, and apparently willing to do anything for him, as irrational as it was. --Steerpike 21:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism - Discussion on Deletion

From the historical website http://www.roman-emperors.org/tiberius.htm "In fact, that first meeting between the Senate and the new emperor established a blueprint for their later interaction. Throughout his reign, Tiberius was to baffle, befuddle, and frighten the Senators. He seems to have hoped that they would act on his implicit desires rather than on his explicit requests." ... "A close friend and confidant had betrayed him. His withdrawal from public life seemed more complete in the last years. Letters kept him in touch with Rome, but it was the machinery of Augustus’s administration that kept the Empire running smoothly."

These section are fully copied and unsourced in the wikipedia article. The reason I believe the plageriasm comes from wikipedia is that the other website has extensive footnotes in comparision to wikipedia.

- this previously unsigned comment was made by 168.28.128.78 on 5 October 2006.

Incidentally, the reason that I was about to make a discussion point on this was to highlight that very point! Given that the source at Roman-Emperors.com was constructed in 1997, I think that someone has done a straight copy-and-paste, with amendments made to wikify it, so to speak. Any recommendations? Cyril Washbrook 11:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Those sections all need to be removed. I don't have time to do it right now, but will tomorrow if no one gets to it. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there are only two sections that should remain: "Continuing Legacy" and the introduction. I'm cutting it all out, although if anyone objects, please feel free to revert. Cyril Washbrook 07:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Something Strange

Why is it that the page on Sejanus actually has less information than the page on Tiberius does? --168.28.128.78 00:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Should be fixed for now. --Steerpike 16:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to edit!!!

Someone screams hysterically:

The previous content of this page is suspected to have violated copyright. Please do not edit this page. Refer to the discussion page for details.

On my wish list: LOGIC!! If it was the former version which "suspected to have violated copyright" (now, perceive a tone of slight scorn!) - then why can't I edit this text?? I wish to relink Quintus Naevius Macro, to Naevius Sutorius Macro. OK, I respect copyrights, since Wikipedia needs copyrights to be able to exist, but I don't respect illogics! Rursus 08:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoever put up that comment should explain which Wikipedia policy it is based on. If they can/do not, I would delete the comment and go ahead with your edit. — Johan the Ghost _seance 16:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Page re-written. Enjoy. 128.97.244.16 11:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Rursus, I'd prefer it if you didn't insult me for removing plagiarised text that no-one else had bothered to delete, and that would have gone unchecked until someone viewed a previous question regarding that exact matter. It would have been morally contrary to Wikipedia policy to have allowed the text to remain, so given that you hadn't picked up on that, please don't lambast other members. I apologise for not altering that text at a later date - the intention was to prevent anyone from reverting upon seeing that a giant chunk was chopped out, but I forgot to return to remove/alter it at a later time. Thank you to all the contributors to the new page. Cyril Washbrook 10:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Terror

In the second paragraph, the article describes the decline of Tiberius' rule, which "ended in a Terror." Is a Terror a technical term for something? If so, we should link it to an article discussing the term. If not, I think we should perhaps delete that last phrase. Regardless, this is in need of clarification. Dustingc 18:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Son of God

I was watching a programme called 'Secret Bible', and it said that Tiberius Caesar Augustus was given the title 'Son of God' and asked his subjects to worship him as a god. Is this true?--Jcvamp 12:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Tiberius was famous for not wanting the inhabitants of the empire to worship him, and, unusually for emperors, he was not deified upon his death. However... his predecessor and adoptive father Augustus was indeed deified upon his death, and so divi filius - "son of the god" - was among Tiberius's official titles. This was exactly the same as every other Roman emperor, including Augustus who was the adoptive son of the deified Julius Caesar. TharkunColl 12:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Divi Filius was never a title of the Roman Emperors, it was used solely by Augustus. Later emperors (Caligula, Domitian, Commodus, the Severi) claimed to be gods themselves, and initially many new dynasties tied their rule to a deified member of the previous dynasty, but never actively took the title divi filius. The imperial cult likewise never worshipped any emperor as god until after their death; the exceptions to this rule, once again Caligula, Domitian, et alia, were all assassinated in part because of their claim of divinity and abuse of power. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.67.226.100 (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

what was tiberius geographical

what was Tiberius geographical info —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.221.53 (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

• He had none. He was a person. 164.67.226.242 01:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

New pictures

I have added several new pictures to this article, as well as a few 'old' ones from other Wikipedia articles. All properly tagged, and if possible, uploaded to the commons. I wanted to improve the visual attraction of the article somewhat, since it was mostly one big block text previously. Hope you like it. --Steerpike 23:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars

Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Citations

Someone with too much time on their hands needs to redirect the citations from Dio back to their original source, Tacitus' Annales. As seen by the reference section, Dio records numerous events from Tiberius' life, but all of them are drawn from Annales, in some cases verbatim with Tacitus, and Dio does not include as much detail or analysis. In fact, many of the points that are here made within the article are in fact made by Tacitus, while they are references to the later cursory treatment that Dio gives to the Emperor. pookster11 04:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nearly every citation in this article comes from me. The reasons why I sometimes included Dio instead of Tacitus is because a) it was more compact or better worded, b) I wanted to keep the citations diverse and not just only cite Tacitus (even though it's true that Dio's work was mostly based on the latter's), c) because it's interesting to compare how both authors sometimes describe same events (and regardless, readers might be interested in the exact 'location' of Dio's words in his text as well) and finally d) the entire section about Sejanus' fall is missing from Tacitus' Annals, so we only have Suetonius and Cassius Dio to go by. But I'll have look at it. --Steerpike 10:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sejanus' fall is in Annales- it breaks up in places but it's there. Second, you seem to have made my point for me. Yes, its more compact in Dio because Dio only gives a cursory overview of what was already in Tacitus. Thats WHY its compact in Dio- Dio is fully aware of the existence and importance of Annales. If you want to keep the citations diverse using Dio instead of Tacitus is ludicrous; Tacitus is Dio's SOURCE for the reign of Tiberius. Tacitus and Suetonius at least are drawing data from different sources; if you want to mix it up, go with those two, but don't make it "Tacitus" and "Tacitus-lite". Both authors describe the same events because, once again, Dio's work is BASED OFF OF TACITUS. Its like noting how "The Empire Strikes Back" treats the characters the same as "A New Hope". Adding references from multiple authors is fine, but in this case as we have three main historians of the period, and Dio utilizes Tacitus' works to write his own history, doesn't it make sense to tie the quotes back to the original rather than the secondary source? pookster11 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The sections on Tiberius' death and the fall of Sejanus are now done. I checked each reference to Cassius Dio with the Annals today, and found only one that could have been left out. The others remain until they are checked with Suetonius. The sections covering Germanicus, his relations with the senate and his early life will be done some other time this week. --Steerpike 21:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Apart from one citation, the section on Tiberius' early reign and on Germanicus are now also done. Seeing as Tacitus describes little of Tiberius' early life, I'm not sure this section needs further editing, so I consider the entire text (apart from that one citation) done as far as conversion of redundant Dio citations to Tacitus is concerned. --Steerpike 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Good job, thanks for doing all that. pookster11 09:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Death of Augustus

Also, to pookster11, the details surrounding Augustus' death are NOT, in my opinion irrelevant because firstly, they're not really about his death (which, for example, some authors ascribe to poisoning by Livia, including Tacitus) but about the consequences to Tiberius as successor to Augustus. Because secondly, it's important to note that Tiberius had Postumus Agrippa killed. And since he's mentioned as being disowned by Augustus earlier in the text, readers might wonder what happened with him. If this has anything to do with a dislike for Suetonius and/or Cassius Dio as sources, I should note that the story stems largely from Tacitus. In fact, he famously opens his treatment on the reign of Tiberius with the line: The first crime of the new reign was the murder of Postumus Agrippa. And he also speculates Tiberius and Livia were behind it. Whether or not the news delayed is probably open for discussion, but I would not omit the fact that Postumus was killed. --Steerpike 11:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As I noted in the edit, there is considerable debate among the sources themselves as to what occurred around the death of Augustus; the primaries themselves don't seem to know. Any treatment of Augustus' death would have to take this into account, as well as delving into secondary material to make sense of the various rumors and why the authors include them. That Postumus was killed is not the issue, nor is it an issue at all- the young man was clearly killed at the beginning of Tiberius' reign. What I am saying is that discussion of the events around the death of Augustus rightly belong either on Augustus' own page or on a separate page to account for the variety of rumors, stories, conspiracies, and analysis thereof by secondary scholars. I have no problem with any of the sources, and even if I did this is not the place to debate them. This is essentially what my argument and my edit boils down to- such a discussion comparing sources and making sense of the events around Augustus' death does not belong on Tiberius' page. What is relevant for Tiberius is that Augustus died and Tiberius stepped into power, not the how and why of Augustus' death. pookster11 22:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Things to be done

I think the article is shaping up pretty nicely now, but there's still a lot of room for improvement, especially on the section covering Tiberius' reign as emperor. His early life seems to be fairly detailed so I would leave that alone for now. Some suggestions:

• Rename the heading 'Early Reign' as 'Succession', because the section mostly talks about the transfer of power and his relation to the senate.
• Cut 'The Rise and Fall of Germanicus' at the suicide of Piso and create several new sections that cover more of Tiberius' policies, for example foreign relations and events (earthquake in Asia), religious policy, administrative policies, the revival of the treason laws, etc. There's a lot in Tacitus' Annals, especially books 2 and 3 that remains unused. I think that, currently, the article focuses a bit too much on the causes for his unpopularity, and doesn't really tell us much of Tiberius as administrator.
• Integrate more information from different sources, although I'm not sure there are many besides Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio that are really useful anymore. Josephus doesn't really write much about Tiberius that isn't already covered in detail by the aformentioned three writers. Velleius Paterculus' text is nothing short of hagiography so mostly useless. Pliny is fun for weird trivia (apparently Tiberius liked cucumbers and could see in the dark) but otherwise doesn't write much about his reign. Were there any others worth considering?
• Break up the section 'Legacy' into separate subsections covering 'Historiography' (discussions of the sources), 'Archeology' (covering archealogical findings related to Tiberius) and 'Tiberius in Fiction'.

Anything else? --Steerpike 12:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think its perfect, but then again I wrote it and I'm vain. Anyway, incorporation of TIberius's further policies would be great, but would also be extremely unweildy due to the sources. The most extensive source is of course Tacitus, and Tacitus is so blatantly biased against Tiberius that it would require multiple secondary sources to make sense of it in an encyclopaedic context. His early successes certainly deserve mention, though it has been shown that Tacitus' narrative blows the maiestas trials out of proportion (and as a side note, Tacitus credits Augustus with the revival and corruption of the maiestas law). As far as sources, you rightly point out that there isn't much else. Tacitus and Suetonius remain the primary sources, with Dio utilizing and tweaking Tacitus here and there and Josephus largely silent and Paterculus is too fragmentary to really add anything substantial. There is substantial epigraphical evidence especially in the East during the early part of his reign; the problem is his retirement to Capri throws everything off. People simply stop caring who or what Tiberius is supposed to be, and thus the records of his reign end up becoming the records of those who acted in Rome while Tiberius was in seclusion. To sum up, episodes from his early reign could stand to be added as they are certainly significant, but with the lack of sources and the nature of the sources that do remain, there's not a tremendous amount of data that can be added. pookster11 09:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Heir to Augustus

States that Tiberius was only person to gain imperium maius alongside Augustus. Didn't Agrippa gain the same honors in 13 BC? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilanham (talk • contribs) 04:06, Jul 10, 2007 (UTC)

You are right. In fact it seems he received it twice, for example Cassius Dio, Book 54, 12 and 28 I'll fix it in the article. --Steerpike 10:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC) EDIT: I seem to be mistaken. I was talking about Tribunician power, but that line in the article probably refers to Suetonius, Life of Tiberius, 21. I can't immediately find a similar statement on Agrippa, so I'll asume the article was correct. But I need to adjust that reference. --Steerpike 11:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dio 54.28.1 says that from 13 BC Agrippa had "greater authority than the officials outside Italy ordinarily possessed", apparently indicating imperium maius. However, we also have a papyrus fragment of Augustus' funeral oration for Agrippa (trans. R. K. Sherk, The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian (1988), no. 12). This states that his power was "not less" than that of other provincial magistrates, which may refer to imperium aequum (so, e.g., E. Badian, "Notes on the Laudatio of Agrippa", Classical Journal 76.2 (1980), 97–109). In other words, the article may be correct that Tiberius was the only person to receive imperium maius from Augustus, but this is not certain. I'll adjust the article to take account of this. EALacey 12:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My info comes from Augustus by Anthony Everitt. Pg.268 "...and for the first time Agrippa was awarded imperium maius, the overriding authority that allowed him to give orders to provincial governors." Although, Everitt does not reference this in his note, but his biliography states he used Suetonius and Cassius Dio in his writing. Maybe he used Augustus' Res Gestae? In either case, if there's any questioning of Everitt's work, perhaps my intial statement wrong. --Ilanham 19:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agrippa's power was second to Augustus'; Tiberius' was equal to Augustus'. Thats the main difference, and while its a minor difference at that, it is highly significant and noteworthy. When Augustus died, Tiberius was already Princeps in all but name and a handful of titles. pookster11 23:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

While Tiberius power was legally equal to Augustus, Augustus auctoritas meant that for all intents and purposes Augustus was still in sole control of the empire. Both men were marked as successors by this time however, Augustus had reached a advanced age and did not know how long he would live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.46.114 (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Gospels

There's a sectionette on what the Gospels tell us about Tiberius. Bugger all, actually. Is there any reason it should be kept? PiCo 03:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course. It is relevant information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.250 (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a link to Sejanus on the pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejanus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.0.157 (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency with this page and the page on Livia Drusilla?

I'm not a hundred percent sure I'm reading this all correctly, but in the entry for Tiberius' mother, Livia Drusilla, it says, regarding her marriage to Octavian (later Augustus) "At this time, Livia already had a son, the future emperor Tiberius, and was pregnant with the second (Drusus the Elder). Legend said that Octavian fell immediately in love with her, despite the fact that he was still married to Scribonia. Octavian divorced Scribonia in 39 BC, on the very day that she gave birth to his daughter Julia the Elder (Cassius Dio 48.34.3). Seemingly around that time, when Livia was six months pregnant, Tiberius Claudius Nero was persuaded or forced by Octavian to divorce Livia. On 14 January, the child was born. Octavian and Livia married on 17 January, waiving the traditional waiting period." So this says that Livia had the baby, and then, three days later, was married to Octavian, is that correct? In this entry on Tiberius, though, we read "In 39 BC, his mother divorced his biological father and remarried Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus shortly thereafter, while still pregnant with Tiberius Nero's son. Shortly thereafter in 38 BC his brother, Nero Claudius Drusus, was born." This seems to be saying that Livia married Octavian while still pregnant from her first marriage and had the baby shortly thereafter. I have no idea which of these is correct, but I thought you might want them to be uniform among these related pages. This is the first time I've come on the "talk" board, so I hope I'm going about this the right way. Blackavar1961 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Blackavar1961

Tiberius and Vipsania

"soon afterwards, Tiberius met with Augustus, and steps were taken to ensure that Tiberius and Vipsania would never meet again."

Is this insinuating that they had her assasinated? This needs to be more clear. What steps did they take exactly to make this happen, and did it suceed?JanderVK (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

12 AD vs 13 AD

With regard to the 13 AD date given for "co-princeps" of Tiberius under Augustus, consider that coins minted from 12-14 AD are stamped with "TI CAESAR AVGVST F IMPERAT VII", and bear the likeness of Tiberius on them; as well as others preceding 12 AD. Was there a date given based on the provided reference? Because when I looked it up, I found no date there specific to 13 AD. Are there other sources that are more explicit with regard to when Tiberius was considered a co-ruler with Augustus? Thanks. Firemute (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Lurid tales of sexual perversity

Why cant this be expanded? Sexual perversity can mean anything. I think its relevant to add what exactly were the allegations. 1 2 3 4 Portillo (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I at least added a line about what would now be considered child molestation/rape. I agree, it could be mentioned in a bit more detail without getting too graphic. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed religion section

A section on religion would be helpful to the reader. Tiberius worshiped the cult of Augustus and was reluctant to establish his own divinity. The article currently lacks any religious appeal, except for one section. The Romans were religious, not just political. Also, Tiberius was emperor when Christ died and he may have been open to Christianity. I am not sure there is a valid source on that one, however, it would be worth looking into. The tolerance of Tiberius may have allowed Christianity to spread throughout the Empire. That is signifigant. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Doubtful that Tiberius 'worshipped' any deity considering his dark personality, but that's just opinion. He went through the motions for POLITICAL reasons. Tiberius Caesar never heard of Jesus - that was something taking place far away and handled by one of his many-tiers below officials. The first mention of Christ/Christians to Romans was to Caligula by some apologists. Anyway, by confirming his stepfather was 'divine,' this helped keeping himself established as legitimate Princeps. The first note that the Christians in Rome had reached numbers worthy of attention was during Claudius' reign, and that only due to friction between Christians and Jews causing trouble in the city.50.111.19.250 (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Corrections suggested for section "Gospels, Jews, and Christians"

" According to Tertullian"
This makes it sound like Tertullian was a contemporary witness, rather than writing from a Christian viewpoint, in Africa, 200 years later. It should be clarified that he was neither a neutral party nor a contemporary.

"Tiberius most likely viewed Christians as a Jewish sect rather than a separate distinct faith.[106]"
Given that Tiberius died in 37CE, if any distinct Christianity existed before his death (a claim for which there is no evidence and no Roman record) it would have been a handful of people in the remote province of Judah. Further, the previous sentence dates the appearance of the religion decades after Tiberius' death. Therefore "most likely" is not an accurate descriptor. MOST likely would be that Tiberius never heard the name Jesus (in its Greek or any other form) nor the term Christianity at all, especially given that the first writings that mention either occur more than a century after his death. Perhaps the sentence should just be removed?

Completely inaccurate - writings existed very shortly after his death - and Tacitus wrote about the Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.36.161 (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

"Most scholars believe that Roman distinction between Jews and Christians took place around 70 CE."
"Most" is a term that can be argued here, because it depends which type of scholar. You can easily cite the opposite; that most scholars do NOT agree. However it's not as important as the other two problem areas I mentioned above because there is at least a degree of accuracy to the statement.
Tangverse (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"AD" misplaced

The abbreviation "AD" belongs in front of the year. 65.123.43.130 (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It can go either way in Latin or English. One of the benefits of a synthetic language. That said, it's better to keep it consistent one way or the other and some readers (like yourself) will find it distracting the other way 'round. — LlywelynII 01:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Issue with Historiography Section

The format of this section is extremely biased, it only gives reason as to why Tiberius was a good emperor as opposed to what historians overwhelmingly conclude. Why is it that modern historians conclude that he was a poor emperor? This is not an editorial, this is an informational article, both sides must be recorded.

Tiberius co-princeps date

Dear Wikipedia,

This article originally had AD 13 as the date of Tiberius/Augustus co-princeps (I have an earlier copy of the article in my file). In more recent research I found 5 other references with AD 13 as the date of Tiberius co-princep with Augustus. Then I rechecked this date, but found this reference had been changed to AD 12 causing me some confusion. Why the change in dates which contradicts other reference material? Is it possible to get copies of the source material you are using to compare it with other historical data?

Thank you,

James

76.174.161.74 (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

ps here are the paragraphs in question:

In AD 7, Agrippa Postumus, a younger brother of Gaius and Lucius, was disowned by Augustus and banished to the island of Pianosa, to live in solitary confinement.[30][33] Thus, when in AD 12, the powers held by Tiberius were made equal, rather than second, to Augustus's own powers, he was for all intents and purposes a "co-princeps" with Augustus, and in the event of the latter's passing, would simply continue to rule without an interregnum or possible upheaval.[34]

However, according to Suetonius, after a two-year stint in Germania, which lasted from 10−12 AD,[35] "Tiberius returned and celebrated the triumph which he had postponed, accompanied also by his generals, for whom he had obtained the triumphal regalia. And before turning to enter the Capitol, he dismounted from his chariot and fell at the knees of his father, who was presiding over the ceremonies.”[36] "Since the consuls caused a law to be passed soon after this that he should govern the provinces jointly with Augustus and hold the census with him, he set out for Illyricum on the conclusion of the lustral ceremonies."[37]

Thus according to Suetonius, these ceremonies and the declaration of his "co-princeps" took place in the year 12 AD, after Tiberius return from Germania.[35] "But he was at once recalled, and finding Augustus in his last illness but still alive, he spent an entire day with him in private."[37] Augustus died in AD 14, at the age of 75.[38] He was buried with all due ceremony and, as had been arranged beforehand, deified, his will read, and Tiberius confirmed as his sole surviving heir.[39]

Recent edits

There is way too much use of Tacitus, Seutonius, Cassius Dio and Velleius Paterculus as sources to justify the removal of the {{primary sources}} tag. Suggest putting that back. Also, Tiberius was Augustus's goto to man whenever his chosen successors died and he needed a competent general, was the son of Augustus's wife, and eventually Augustus's adoptive son and chosen heir. I'm not sure that "[Tiberius] was a Roman civil servant and military official who served as the Emperor of Roman Empire" is any improvement on what was there before, and suggest reverting that. Factotem (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with both suggestions. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please do revert. Haploidavey (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverted. Happy to discuss here. Factotem (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Did the nascent Roman Empire even have a civil service? Thought that came later. Factotem (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The "Empire" (by any other name) was in existence long before the first emperor, and running it required what we'd probably recognise as a civil service; maybe "public administration" is more apt. The top posts were appointed through public nomination and election of the self-same, usually wealthy individuals who led the armies, served the gods and administered the laws. We've several articles pertinent to this. Haploidavey (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The civil service (primitive) was in place as soon as Rome was independent of the Etruscans.50.111.19.250 (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Exactly the same thing has now been done at Claudius, where equally I think getting the fact that he was emperor stuck midway through the sentence does not help matters... Pinkbeast (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. I removed it from Claudius. Thanks. LivinRealGüd (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

A recent series of reverts has added two statements: That Antonius Pius reigned from 138. This fact is not about Tiberius; it is also readily available at Antonius Pius - and it's also self-evident from the end date and length of reign that he must have come to the throne circa 138. It's also clumsily worded, cramming a "his" and a "he" into the same phrase that refer to two different people.

Agreed. In this article, it's trivial detail, and makes for awkward reading: if anyone wants to know exactly when Antoninus reigned, they can click the link. Haploidavey (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

That the island of Capri is off the west coast of modern Italy. This also seems quite unnecessary; the reader would hardly suppose that Tiberius retired to an island off the north of Britannia. If we are going to mention it, locating it relative to Neapolis and the Gulf of Naples might be more use than the astonishing revelation that the Roman Empire was based in modern Italy.

Neither edit improves the page and hence I propose they be reverted. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Mostly agreed, though it might help to be told that he had a sumptuous estate on the island; that's what he retired to. Capri is reasonably close to Rome, so Tiberius could claim that he could keep in touch via the instant messaging of his day (which he did, pretty much), and thus fulfill all his duties while taking a long working holiday. I'm more concerned at by the addition of a drop-down/expandable thingy at the botton of the article, giving links to everthing Wikipedia has on Capri. What's the purpose in that? Haploidavey (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Have addressed the above, and provided basic context for "retirement" at Capri. Haploidavey (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Issue

Who is Tiberillus, who is listed under the heading "Issue" (in the box on the right-hand side of the page)? There is no link to his name, unlike the other three names under the same heading, and he is also not mentioned under the heading 4. Children and Family (which, by the way, does not make it clear who is a wife and who is his child).

Is this a child who died young? or maybe a character from "I, Claudius"? No dates or references are given. Anna Lowenstein (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, died young - see google. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"his "co-princeps" took place in the year 12 AD"

I believe that you have made a very good article overall, I would like to ask a question concerning the quote taken from the section:'Heir to Augustus' "Thus, according to Suetonius, these ceremonies and the declaration of his "co-princeps" took place in the year 12 AD, after Tiberius' return from Germania". I could not verify Suetonius actually stating '12 AD'. Can you provide a book page and volume that Suetonius made this statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faithvalleyrancher (talk • contribs) 14:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Source

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius His period as a Roman emperor 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is enough information to evaluate your concern. Could you tell us more about the problem? Larry Hockett (Talk) 09:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I put this site as a reference but it was reversed to put it back ? 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

That link just goes to the mobile version of the Tiberius Wikipedia article, so it is not necessary or helpful. Larry Hockett (Talk) 12:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius His period as a Roman emperor Help me please--👀Gremista.32 (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

What about his period as a Roman emperor? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, there's this, and this. I find myself thinking "CIR". -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Christianity

Add a section?

Should there be a section on the rise of Christianity during Tiberius' reign? He is emperor during Christ's ministry, and Jesus refers to him in the Bible "Render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasars". He did not persecute Christians and may have asked the Senate for Christ to be deified. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No, because although Christ's ministry became historically important later on and it gradually grew into a huge religion which was opposed by some of the later caesars, during Tiberius reign it was rather irrelevant for the Roman powers that be. And Tiberius never asked the Senate for Christ to be deified: those things were later propaganda by early christian "scholars" for which there is no historical record. After all the early church "fathers" were not above forging history to fit their needs. As there is already a short part in the article with regards to Jews and Christianity (4.2), and it mentions that Christ's preached during this reign, adding even more would seem undue weight. -- fdewaele, 29 September 2021, 19:50 CET.

Emperor Tiberius & The Resurrection of Jesus Tiberius appointed Pontius Pilate to Judea. It would not be a surprise that Pilate communicated to Tiberius concerning Jesus. Eusebius is the "Christian" historian who recorded the event of Tiberius asking the Senate of Jesus's deification. Christianity was allowed to spread under Tiberius. I believe a section would help, or more information in the article. Can we merely dismiss Eusebius as a liar? The information could be included in the article as "Christian tradition". There should be some information on why Tiberius let Christianity spread throughout the Empire without persecution. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

That's simple: because in the period AD33-AD37 the adherents of christianity were no more than a small number (probably a couple dozen people) in a far away minor province at best with communications being tardy. There's no proof that Pilate ever wrote about Christ to Rome, or that the emperor Tiberius - and not a secretary - in fact actually then read those dispatches if they were ever send. You cannot look through the looking glass of later centuries of Christian success to a day and age where for the reigning elderly Roman emperor the few existing Christians in a far away province were not even worth to be considered a nuisance. This topic might be appropriate for a separate article about early Christian traditions, but in a biographic article about Tiberius this would be undue weight. -- fdewaele, 29 September 2021, 23:52 CET.

"Can we merely dismiss Eusebius as a liar?" I would argue that he was a liar. Church History (Eusebius) has long been considered propagandistic in nature:

"The accuracy of Eusebius' account has often been called into question. In the 5th century, the Christian historian Socrates Scholasticus described Eusebius as writing for “rhetorical finish” in his Vita Constantini and for the “praises of the Emperor” rather than the “accurate statement of facts.” The methods of Eusebius were criticised by Edward Gibbon in the 18th century. In the 19th century Jacob Burckhardt viewed Eusebius as 'a liar', the “first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.” Ramsay MacMullen in the 20th century regarded Eusebius' work as representative of early Christian historical accounts in which “Hostile writings and discarded views were not recopied or passed on, or they were actively suppressed... matters discreditable to the faith were to be consigned to silence.” As a consequence this kind of methodology in MacMullen's view has distorted modern attempts, (e.g. Harnack, Nock, and Brady), to describe how the Church grew in the early centuries. Arnaldo Momigliano wrote that in Eusebius' mind "chronology was something between an exact science and an instrument of propaganda "

09:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

Christian tradition should not be disregarded. Eusibius answered why Tiberius did not persecute Christians. Pilate did not want Christ crucified. I am not here to argue the historical accuracy of Eusibius. Every historian has bias. Bias alone should not dismiss a historian. I am not promoting Christianity in the article either. I don't have an agenda. Labeling Eusibius account as Christian tradition is appropriate. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Much of the above seems to ignore that Eusebius was writing almost 300 years after the reign of Tiberius, and probably had little in the way of neutral or official documentary sources to go on, as well as living in the environment of a greatly expanded Christian church, surrounded by polemicism. It is not necessary to think him a liar to say he got a great deal wrong, and presents a one-sided view. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I agree including anything about Christianity at face value would be giving too much weight on something that hardly affected Tiberius. With that said, I have seen enough discussion over whether he is important to Christianity that it might make sense to include in the historiography section as it's own subsection. The fact Christians historically viewed him as a relevant figure justifies this in my opinion. However, I don't see him being portrayed by current reliable sources as giving a second thought to the cult in the eastern provinces. SpartaN (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not a vote, we are all commenting so far. I have no problem with a section discussing how Tiberius was viewed by Christians. I just disagree with taking Eusebius's narratives at face value, as it is a problem which I have often encountered in articles. Are there modern, reliable sources actually discussing Christian views on Roman emperors? Dimadick (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. I think one thing that is clear or historians can agree on is that there were no generalized persecutions of Christians under Tiberius. Paul the apostle was free to travel anywhere and start a church. There may be some grains of truth to Eusebius' account. Tiberius may have liked Jesus' words "Render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasars", had he been informed of them. I believe the best way is to present the information as Christian tradition, not as historical fact. How much information did Pilate give Tiberius concerning Christ? That is unknown. Tiberius did appoint Pilate to govern Judea. Sample: "Traditional Christian and historical accounts of Tiberius are generally favorable. According to historian Eusebius, Tiberius went to the Senate and asked that Christ be deified, but the Senate rejected this. Christianity gradually spread throughout Judea and there were no Roman systematic persecutions of Christians under Tiberius' reign. There is no evidence Tiberius converted to Christianity, as Tiberius later lived a debaucherous lifestyle contrary to Christian teachings." Cmguy777 (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"Tiberius did appoint Pilate to govern Judea." We do not know why or how Pontius Pilate was appointed. His article includes some educated guesses on his background, but the primary sources are silent.:

• "The sources give no indication of Pilate's life prior to his becoming governor of Judaea."
• "... his cognomen Pilatus might mean "skilled with the javelin (pilum),"... "If it means "skilled with the javelin," it is possible that Pilate won the cognomen for himself while serving in the Roman military; it is also possible that his father acquired the cognomen through military skill."
• "Like all but one other governor of Judaea, Pilate was of the equestrian order, a middle rank of the Roman nobility. As one of the attested Pontii, Pontius Aquila, an assassin of Julius Caesar, was a Tribune of the Plebs, the family must have originally been of Plebeian origin. They became ennobled as equestrians."
• "Pilate was likely educated, somewhat wealthy, and well-connected politically and socially."
• "According to the cursus honorum established by Augustus for office holders of equestrian rank, Pilate would have had a military command before becoming prefect of Judaea; Alexander Demandt speculates that this could have been with a legion stationed at the Rhine or Danube. Although it is therefore likely Pilate served in the military, it is nevertheless not certain."
• "Pilate was the fifth governor of the Roman province of Judaea, during the reign of the emperor Tiberius. The post of governor of Judaea was of relatively low prestige and nothing is known of how Pilate obtained the office. ... As Tiberius had retired to the island of Capri in 26, scholars such as E. Stauffer have argued that Pilate may have actually been appointed by the powerful Praetorian Prefect Sejanus, who was executed for treason in 31. Other scholars have cast doubt on any link between Pilate and Sejanus."
• "Pilate's title of prefect implies that his duties were primarily military; however, Pilate's troops were meant more as a police than a military force, and Pilate's duties extended beyond military matters. As Roman governor, he was head of the judicial system. He had the power to inflict capital punishment, and was responsible for collecting tributes and taxes, and for disbursing funds, including the minting of coins. Because the Romans allowed a certain degree of local control, Pilate shared a limited amount of civil and religious power with the Jewish Sanhedrin."
• "Pilate was subordinate to the legate of Syria; however, for the first six years in which he held office, Syria's legate Lucius Aelius Lamia was absent from the region, something which Helen Bond believes may have presented difficulties to Pilate. He seems to have been free to govern the province as he wished, with intervention by the legate of Syria only coming at the end of his tenure, after the appointment of Lucius Vitellius to the post in 35 AD."

Dimadick (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

My sample does not include Pilate. There apparently is no evidence Pilate persecuted Christians in Judea and he is recognized as Roman authority. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Paul the apostle was a Roman citizen. His persecution of Christians was in 35 AD lasted six months. According to the Bible stopped by Christ on Road to Damascus. Occurred during Tiberius rein. Maybe this could be mentioned too. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I added a section Christianity to the historiography section. Hopefully will stick. Tried to make narration in consensus with the talk page discussion. Any interest Tiberius had with Christ, apparently was learning Jesus advocated paying taxes to Ceasar, render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I still think the recent additions are giving way too much weight to what in fact was still a very minor sect during Tiberius' reign. Also there are now TWO separate sections about Christinity which is a bit too much in relevance to the topic of Tiberius Caesar. Methinks those two sections should at least be joined and trimmed. Also references to Paul's persecutions and Stephen's martyr death are off topic because those were actually Jewish persecutions and not Roman persecutions and thus not relevant to Tiberius and his policies. The fact that Paul also held Roman citizenship did not make his actions actions of and by the Roman state as he in fact purely acted in his capacity as a local Jewish powerbroker and enemy of what he (until his conversion) considered to be an inimical Jewish cult who should be oppressed for diverting from standard jewish ways. -- fdewaele, 5 October 2021, 11:50 CET.

Christianity I believe is the largest faith in the world. Not too much weight. Paul used his Roman citizenship for protection. He had a right to a trial. The section I made focuses Tiberius and Christianity. I think it should be separate. The main point was Tiberius let Christianity grow in Judea. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

But all that is irrelevant with regards to the emperorTiberius. Firstly when Paul prosecuted Christians he did not do it as a Roman citizen nor could he employ the might of Rome as he wasn't a Roman magistrate, but he did it in his capacity as a Jewish officeholder who saw in christianity a threat to jewishness. And when he converted to Christianity (the date of which isn't exactly known but was most likely in 36AD) he was only persecuted under later emperors (Nero) but not under Tiberius because in those days Christianity was still an insignificant sect. How Rome looked at christianity in those very early days was most likely plain indifference and accodring to sources they did not differ them from the Jewish religion (yet) and saw them as just another squabling Jewish sect. So with regards to THIS article about TIBERIUS that - and the passage about Paul (Paul the Persecutor and Paul the Persecuted) - is all irrelevant. -- fdewaele, 6 October 2021, 10:08 CET.

I realise we're not voting (as yet) but I must agree with fdewaele's objections and add a few of my own. The new "Christianity" section is not justified by its sources (which include an Australian newspaper's article on what might or might not be the earliest known Christian church - we don't employ newspaper articles in this way - and a "believer's" website whose authorship is devoted openly and honestly to seemingly unwritten early Christian histories and the relaying of related "traditional" narratives/speculations. No harm in that but it all adds up to an rather insubstantial and off-topic diversion from the fundamental topic - Tiberius. As pointed out above (severaly), Tiberius is very unlikely to have heard or cared about an obscure Jewish sect, let alone its leader, known to a very, very small number of people, very few of whom would have mattered to the Roman authorities. And why is "The Way", introduced in the first para of "Christianity", only explained in the last para of "Gospels, Jews and Christians"? Fact is, this is an article on Tiberius, not on his speculated, un-evidenced doings in relation to primitive Christianity. If anything of the "Christianity" content is worth keeping, add it to "Gospels, Jews and Christians", which shows editorial discipline, a grasp of objective, proportionate historical method, some sound scholarly sourcing, and an ability to see and stick to the point. Haploidavey (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

A rather old but far better informed and more scholarly source on Eusebius' (or as is more likely, Tertullian's) assertions regarding Tiberius, the refusal of the sought after official deification and the emperor's anger at the Senate begins at p.1 of the work below, available through jstor: Crake, J. E. A. “Early Christians and Roman Law.” Phoenix, vol. 19, no. 1, Classical Association of Canada, 1965, pp. 61–70, https://doi.org/10.2307/1086690 Haploidavey (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

And Cmguy777, who is "Drake, 2002"? (various page numbers are given inline, but the author makes only a single, no, two appearances in the article, with no title or publisher. So which of his many works is meant?)Haploidavey (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The section is how the Christian Church viewed Tiberius. Histography. I believe I left an article link on Drake. It is significant the Christian Church started under the Reign if Tiberius. Readers may view all Roman Emperors were against Christianity. Tiberius remained pagan. But it is not out of the question Tiberius liked Jesus saying render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's concerning taxes. I can review the information and make changes. I appreciate any editor's input. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Changes made. Title change. Information moved to the "Christians" section concerning persecutions. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

This version is much improvement over the previous version. Of course the reference to his "sexually immoral lifestyle, contrary to Christian teachings" is a bit funny given the immoral life various later popes and christians led. LOL. Also, it was a way of life which many pagan Romans also frowned upon and living a moral life was not exclusively Christian. Just as the disregard for it isn't exclusively pagan. -- fdewaele, 6 October 2021, 19:38 CET.

@Cmguy777; we should not try to bypass or minimise essential requirements for Wikipedia articles. Please identify "Drake 2002". Regardless of the merits (or otherwise) of the content you've added, your sources are not reliable sources. The work I've linked to above qualifies as a reliable scholarly source. Most of the sources you've used to support your arguments (notably the Emperor Tiberius & The Resurrection of Jesus page) don't meet Wikipedia's minimum standards. See WP:RS Haploidavey (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to bicker about sources. I have improved the article. Wikipedia requires a reliable source. Of course, scholarly sources are the best. Why is Emperor Tiberius & The Resurrection of Jesus unreliable? I respect your concerns about the sources. I don't mind changing the source. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

As of this timestamp, that's very much better; but you'll need to be straightforward about your source's opinion - he reports but does not support or believe Tertullian's story. Btw, the website you were using as source for Emperor Tiberius & the Resurrection of Jesus presents material as factual even whenit's deeply controversial or, as most sources would have it, implausible; the site and content has no publisher's editorial oversight, the editor is also the author (with no accademic qualifications in the topic) and though she has several publications on record, none have been submitted to serious scholarly review. That's it, really. Haploidavey (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The section is historiography. The church viewed Tiberius favorably. I will look into the matter. I don't think we should imply Tertullian was a liar or apply modern historical standards to a 2-3 century historian. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you there. The accounts of Suetonius, Dio and Tacitus (primary sources all, which should not be used uncritically, as they are in this article, for the most part) contain all kinds of inconsistency. Your note is relevant to what's known of Tiberius' bad relationship with his Senate. Nominally (and actually) deification of a deceased head of state was proposed by the new head of state and enacted by the senate; it was a measure of the deceased emperor's perceived worth and his successor's "filial piety". Tiberius himself was not deified by his successor (Caligula) after death. Haploidavey (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is not implausible Tiberius wanted Christ deified. Maybe he heard of miracles, the Resurrection, the darkened weather at the Crucification, the earthquake, people raised from the dead. Maybe Tiberius believed them. Let the reader decide any truthfulness of antiquity or ancient accounts. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Personal opinion has no place in an encyclopedia/Wikipedia. It's my personal opinion based on historical works that Tiberius probably never even heard about Christ and even if he had, he would never have been inclined to deify an unknown Jewish foreigner condemned as a "rabble rouser". Given the way Roman high society worked such event would actually have been very improbably and implausible. Especially as no Roman source mentions this. Had this happened it would have featured in Tacitus or another Roman historian's annals. Which they do not. And those guys were often inclined to portray previous emperors in a bad light and the proposed deification of what they considered to be a Jewish rabble rouser would fit that mold and would give them the opportunity to vent their dislike of the imperial person, or, if the Senate really did refuse (quod non) to exultate and champion the Senate's actions against that emperor. -- fdewaele, 13 October 2021, 13 October 2021, 11:27.

Yes, indeed, Cmguy777 is not using the cited source correctly or accurately. At no point does Crake (1964) state, allege or imply that Tertullian's (and thus Eusebius') accounts of this supposed slice of Imperial history are to be taken as literal and historical truths. It explores deification as an Imperial trope, and sets it apart from "real" deification. That's what the scholarly source says, so that's what the Wikipedia article should say. Haploidavey (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I was being neutral as possible. Crake (1964) did not in anyway explain why few would believe Tertullian. This is what the Church believed concerning Tiberius, not a 20th Century historian. That is all that is being stated in the article, the Church's view. Crake (1964) never explained why Tertullian is faulty. Crake (1964) never said who the "few" are that would believe Tertullian. Also Crake (1964) never really attacked Tertullian outright. Crake was a member of the Anglican Church. If Tertullian is attacked in the article, then there should be some reason why Tertullian's account of Tiberius is a myth? None is given by Crake. Crake (1964) just said few would believe Tertullian. Why? Not answered. Tertullian's view was accepted by St. Jerome and Eusibius. There was no explanation why only a few would believe Tertullian. The reader deserves a better explanation. And if Tertullian is so faulty then why would Crake (1964) even mention it? Crake should speak for himself, not what others believe or don't believe about Tertullian. The standards of the 20th Century should not be applied to Tertullian, St. Jerome, or Eusibius. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to resort to personal opinions about the evaluation of primary sources, because (in accordance with Wikipedia policy) that should be the job of modern, scholarly secondary sources. Crake is not the beginning and end of secondary source evaluations of this material. And no, we don't plonk down a whole ream of primary source material for the reader to make up their own mind about. We find the most reputable and relevant secondary source material we can. See below.

Legends are not lies - any more than myths are lies. There is such a thing as Christian legend and Christian mythology. Such legends retrospectively place the Church centre stage of Rome's moral and political life from the very beginning of Church history. Something that would not be borne out in reality for several centuries yet, except in this kind of Christian legend. It's no coincidence that notoriously 'bad' emperors in particular (Nero and Domitian, and Tiberius - don't forget his bad reputation and the fact that he wasn't deified at death) are thus retrospectively offered redemption through a defense of Christ, or even through belief in Christ; and the Church plays out a central role in its claims to provide the agency for this. It can claim authority and Unity, despite its deep divisions in doctrine and politics. Some samples of secondary source analysis of primary sources below, taken from Google Scholar.

See Harmes, Marcus, (2010) "Domitian, the fathers and the persecution of the church". In: Leeds International Medieval Congress 2010, 12-15 Jul 2010, Leeds, United Kingdom https://eprints.usq.edu.au/20033/1/Harmes__LeedsIMC_2010_AV.pdf

Regarding the legend in question (Tiberius, Christ and the senate, as conveyed by Tertullian et al), I quote: 'Barnes stresses the 'utter implausibiity' of the story. Crake argues that it is difficult to take Tertullian's tale at all seriously'.

And Barnes (see above):

Barnes, T.D., The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 58 , Issue 1-2 , November 1968 , pp. 32 - 50

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/299693

[1]

Haploidavey (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Tertullian was a pioneer in Christian apologetics. In general, the field is not known for either their objective views on topics, nor their attention to historicity. Dimadick (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I used Crake (1964) as my source not Tertullian. Crake gave no explanation why only a few would believe Tertullian. Barnes says "Utter implausibility" why? The reader deserves an explanation. That was why I was reserved in putting in Crakes' view. No explanation is given. We don't really know what source(s) Tertullian had. What evidence is there Tertullian is a fraud? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I added details from Crake (1964) in the note. But Crake does not explain why Tertullian is supposedly historically inaccurate. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Crake doesn't need to explain it, except to other scholars, almost all of whom would be very familiar with the material, its limitations and its pitfalls. The farther back you go, the less is known and the deeper the pitfalls. Church history is probably almost all pitfalls, and this really shows up when extravagant and unlikely claims and stories are circulated as "Truth". There is no sufficient circumstantial support in Roman history for what Tertullian says. But we don't do "Truth" on Wikipedia. We don't do "Lies" either. We read the literature very carefully, and we represent the middle ground, the mainstream, in our articles. Crake is definitely middle-ground; generally well-informed. Tertullian was not; but he was probably ciculating stories that had been told for several generations, each adding something they thought sounded good. Oral stuff; that the least reliable history of all. It's something one comes to accept; I've tried to explain this above, probably not at all well. Very few scholars write about difficult subject matter for a general readership. To explain why would take several books worth. You seem to want very simple, straightforward answers to simple, straightforward questions. Try reading some of the sources given. And then read some more. They might give you some clues at least. And that's me done here. Haploidavey (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I complied and put what Crake (1964) said in the article. We don't know what written source(s) Tertullian had, if any, concerning Tiberius. The Romans had a literate culture and wrote in Latin. Terullian could of had (a) written source(s) at his disposal. We don't know. Crake was an Anglican. Does that mean he was promoting Anglicanism in his history? No. I believe Tertullian is a source. How reliable is he? We don't know. I am not verifying Tertullian's account of Tiberius. How much history was lost after Rome fell to the barbaric tribes and was sacked? We don't know. Tertullian lived before Rome was sacked. All I am saying is that there should be some room left for a reader to make their own decisions concerning history. Crake (1964) does not make a direct statement Tertullian is a fraud. He says few would believe him. A suttle difference. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a note: the eventual decision to add this section was the right one. It's important to note Christian mythology/hagiography/apologetics influential in the present day and to link to fuller discussion of the problems with them precisely because of readers like OP who might otherwise be left in a vacuum thinking that Tiberius was a cryptochristian and reports from the early apologists were the gospel truth. — LlywelynII 01:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Letter from Pilate

Since Tiberius is said to have received a report from Palestine by Tertullian, it was presumably from Pilate or an eye-witness. There is an apparent Letter from Pilate that describes the events of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. It might be worth mentioning the report from Palestine was presumably from Pilate. Yes. The letter was apparently from the fourth century. It reads like an eye-witness event. Here are sources: A Letter from Pontius Pilate Paul Winter (March 1964) and Fathers of the Church The Letter of Pontius Pilate which He Wrote to the Roman Emperor, Concerning Our Lord Jesus Christ Is this worth mentioning in the article? I think so briefly. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe adding a note like this, "A letter was apparently sent to Tiberius from Pilate telling of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. The authenticity and year of the letter is in dispute, possibly from the 4th century." Cmguy777 (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Tiberius name; 16 years later

Tiberius is called Tiberius Iulius Caesar Augustus according to these inscriptions, but coins only show Tiberius Caesar Augustus, which makes me think that the omission of the Iulius may be just to save space. Maybe we should mention that in a footnote or something? Tintero21 (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A section on Tiberius coins might work or photo gallery in the Legacy section. I believe Roman coins have been discovered in England. I believe the coins were made out of either silver or bronze. You can buy Roman coins today. I believe it is a popular market. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Coin 1
• 
  Coin 2
• 
  Coin 3

Rather than this small selection, you can more helpfully link to Category:Coins of Tiberius at Wikicommons for anyone who might want to expand the article's treatment of Tiberius's coinage, which is certainly an important topic. One thing to bear in mind, though, is that files there from the UK government never bother to categorize their additions. In addition to the coins in the category, be sure to search for "coin Tiberius" or use similar queries to see if any of those files are clearer or better. — LlywelynII 01:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

acta senatus

I think it should be noted that records of the Roman Senate, acta senatus, were recorded on papyrus, that did not last long. Apparently none have survived in tact. That is why it can't be confirmed Tiberius supported the Christians. It seems all the accounts of Tiberius are all second hand accounts recorded later. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a lot of presupposition, not to say WP:OR, and I doubt very much that it would be accepted. One might claim that flying saucers are not mentioned in the Acta because papyrus weevils spoiled the only copies. I'm surprised at your bringing this up; hardly any originals have survived even in fragmentary form to attest to contemporary events in ancient history. So? Haploidavey (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no WP:OR. The acta senatus was published in the acta diurna, kind of the "CNN" of its times. Since there are no original copies, it seems research on Ancient Rome, by modern historians, does not use original source documents for verification, such as what took place in the Senate during the reign of Tiberius. So, I thought it would be helpful for the reader to understand this. For example, it is disputed that Tiberius asked Christ to be deified by the Senate, after his crucifixion, and Tiberius confronted the Senate over the matter. That is fine. I am all for using a modern historical assessment of the matter. I am not pushing anything here or promoting any fringe history. It is merely informing the reader there are no original records of the Roman Senate, because they were recorded on papyrus, and they were destroyed over time. Of course, a reliable source would be needed. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Source: Legislation against the Christians T. D. Barnes (1968) The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 58, Parts 1 and 2 (1968), pp. 32-50 (19 pages), Published By: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies Cmguy777 (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Barnes says that the account of Tiberius confronting the Senate is traced back to the acta senatus. Barnes said that the Apology of Apollonius took the account from the acta senatus during the reign of Tiberius. Barnes said that Tertullian, who recorded the account, did not use the Apology of Apollonius. In other words, Barnes is associating the account with the acta senatus. That is why I brought up the issue that acta senatus was on papyrus. It no longer exists. I am only reading from the first page of Barnes (p 32). Cmguy777 (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The section is not doubtful about Tertullian and early church. It is just a matter of opinion of how the early church viewed Tiberius. Without the Acta Senatus available for historians, it is difficult to ascertain what really took place during Tiberius's reign. I find it interesting that the early church has a positive view of Tiberius, a pagan Emperor. It is important for the reader to know Tiberius did not persecute the Church. The source in the article says only a handful of emperors persecuted the church. Another issue undiscussed is Tiberius's relationship with Pilate. The Romans had good communications for their time. What occurred in Palestine could have been communicated to Tiberius. Pilate according to the Bible did not want to crucify Christ. Historians are free to doubt the authenticity of the account. Practically speaking, there is no way to verify the account. But what can be verified is that the early Church viewed Tiberius positively. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

We should be a little more precise, and resist undue generalisation. What's "true" is that Tertullian claimed this. The claim does not address "what the early church" had to say about Tiberius, but what Tertullian, a very well-known Christian apologist, had to say about Tiberius, many years later, long after his death; tantamount to saying "once he'd read/heard the proofs, even this famous pagan emperor believed Christ was divine (or so I've been told by/read in an impeccable source)". And it spreads from there. No previous source is needed. It's part of Christian mythology. That's how Apologetics works. Haploidavey (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

PS: the upshot, as far as I'm concerned, is that we should only represent what Tertullian claimed through the filter of a modern, reliable and historically analytic secondary, mainstream source. Haploidavey (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Tertullian's statement is relevant to rather shaky claims that Roman laws recognised religions as licit or illicit. See Religio licita. Haploidavey (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

And perhaps one could take another look at what Barnes actually says, regarding Tiberius' supposed intervention with the senate on the matter of the deified Christ (never mind all the guff about supposedly lost evidence of the acta): "The utter implausibility of the story ought to need no argument." What we're left with is the employment of "legendary and fictitious" material. Barnes singles out a particularly unreliable late tradition that St. Peter "baptised Nero, his son and the whole Imperial court."

Just one more thing: what's with the New testament references? the article once carried a notice regarding over-dependence on Primary sources; Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio, you name it; all unsupported by secondary sources and modern analysis. In fact, contrary to how wikipedia is supposed to work. The same goes for Biblical texts. So, who removed the notice? And why? Haploidavey (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't checked every case, but on a skim through just now, it seems that references to primary sources in this article are usually paired with references to secondary sources, which is not against the rules and is not reliance (e.g. the section on the Retirement to Rhodes is drawing on Seager and Levick for the points of interpretation, while also providing references to the primary sources on which those interpretations are based). As long as that is what is happening, I think that is useful for readers and would resist efforts to strip the primary source references out. Of course if there are cases of OR in the article, where WP is interpreting the primary sources independently, that should stop (on the main point regarding T & Christians, I agree with the position that you have outlined). Furius (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, citing to both primary and secondary sources isn't happening, except in a very few cases; we don't need to strip much, just to confirm that the primary sources used are also used by secondary sources. I added the Seager and Levick analysis a couple of years back (iirc), and several other mainstream reappraisal of claims made. In the sources and notes section, these really stand out in the surrounding sea of Suetonius, Tacitus etc. The days are gone when all those primary sources were added together to make a convincing and conventional narrative. Haploidavey (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies are due, I didn't use or add Seager or Levick. Can't remember what I added, except that it was an addition to the section on Capri, a secondary source appraisal. Haploidavey (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC) PS: and today, some secondary source opinion on deification issues. Haploidavey (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I had thought the early church went into the 300s. I am not referring to the Biblical Church in the new testament that maybe lasted into the late 90s or early 100s. Perception is reality. The early Church, including Tertulian, and Father's supported Tiberius, for whatever reason. I admit there is no way to verify the account without an early reliable source. The account either took place or it did not. It is not about doubting or believing. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

"baptised Nero, his son" What son? Nero's only known legitimate child was a daughter, Claudia Augusta. Dimadick (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe the guy you're replying to mentioned the account was "particularly unreliable". — LlywelynII 01:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the original claims for this section, no, they're not appropriate to go into on Tiberius and every other article tangentially related to ancient Rome. Yes, it would be worth sourcing and improving discussion of in certain articles about the Historiography of ancient Rome, which needs its coverage of primary sources (as opposed to the POVs of surviving accounts) drastically improved. — LlywelynII 01:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Decennalia

The article needs some minor discussion of Tiberius's two decennalia—Romans don't seem to have yet started calling the second one a vicennalia or to have cared much about the intermediate quinquennalia at this point—particularly the fact that they seem to have been dated by Augustus's death in August rather than by the Senate's rubber stamping of formalities a month or two later, which is most of what our Wikipedia lists date by owing to our own biases. — LlywelynII 01:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)