Warlords: It's not Augustus Caesar, it's Caesar Augustus!

[Malarkey]

They did the same thing with Civ4 when they show who you compare to in real life after winning the game, and they reference Caesar Augustus as Augustus Caesar there as well. So give the man some respect.

Just because Gaius Julius Caesar has Caesar as the last name in his title, does not mean that the Roman emperors who came after him did as well. Octavian, who later became known as Caesar Divi Filius Augustus, successor to Julius Caesar himself chose to use Caesar in his title out of respect of Caesar's accomplishments. The title of Caesar later became synonymous with Emperor, and many emperors who came after Augustus also chose Caesar as their title. The title was morphed and used in other empires, such as in Germany where the title is Kaiser. There are many other forms of the Russian emperor title such as Tsar, Tzar, Czar. All of these titles originate from the same name, and the title always comes before the name. That is at least the case in the english language.

So Firaxis, get it right already!
[/end rant]

 

[Pantastic]

Don't forget noble Salad, he was the tastiest Caesar of them all.

 

[pholkhero]

didn't Julius adopt Augustus as his son??

 

[n0xie]

Gaius Octavius, was named Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus according to Roman naming custom, since Caesar adopted Octavius, leaving all his posession in his will to Octavius. Octavius did not choose this: it was just commonlaw. (much like our offspring automatically bear our last name)

While we're at it, Ocatavius was never called by the 'name' Augustus. Augustus was a title given to him by the Senate, which means 'majestic'. (much as we use 'your majesty' in modern english).

Also since Latin spell names backwards, Caesar is actually a 'common name' or 'nickname' rather. His real name would be roughly translated 'Gaius of the clan Juliae, the hairy', the hairy being a jest at his balding head.

If you're going to rant, at least get your facts straight.

 

[Malarkey]

Gaius Octavius, was named Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus according to Roman naming custom, since Caesar adopted Octavius, leaving all his posession in his will to Octavius. Octavius did not choose this: it was just commonlaw. (much like our offspring automatically bear our last name)

While we're at it, Ocatavius was never called by the 'name' Augustus. Augustus was a title given to him by the Senate, which means 'majestic'. (much as we use 'your majesty' in modern english).

Also since Latin spell names backwards, Caesar is actually a 'common name' or 'nickname' rather. His real name would be roughly translated 'Gaius of the clan Juliae, the hairy', the hairy being a jest at his balding head.

If you're going to rant, at least get your facts straight.

Thank you n0xie for the correction. I read the wiki page, and see that I was wrong. I'll have to do my fact checking next time. It's definately been a while since I learned this.

EDIT:
Upon further inspection, I found the following discussion on Wikipedia's talkback page for Augustus.

While we're discussing names, it seems to me that the main article should be Caesar Augustus and Augustus Caesar should be the redirect; the name was always rendered in inscriptions as "IMP CAESAR DIVI F AVG", never as "IMP AVG CAESAR DIVI F" ("Augustus" was appended to his stylised name "Imperator Caesar Divi f.", which he had been using since 40 BC). It is correct to call him Caesar Augustus, but not Augustus Caesar; all of his successors as 'emperor' maintained the same order, first "Caesar", then "Augustus". Publius

I agree. Muriel Victoria 10:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think the confusion comes from whether to use "English" order or "Latin" order, both of which are rational, so it's not really a correctness issue. Google favors C-A over A-C by about 50%, but in an attempt to exclude skewing by ignorant websites, I plugged them into book titles in Amazon (on the theory that writers and editors are careful about titles), and A-C shows up in 13 titles, C-A in 7. So "most common form in English" is unclear. I'd be happy with just "Augustus" - when I see that, I think of the person first, generic title second, but the "Caesar" addition is a good way to finesse the ambiguity. Stan 15:13, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The problem is that he was never called "Augustus Caesar"; the form "Augustus Caesar" implies a title, like "King Wenceslas" or "Emperor Palpatine", which is grossly inconsistent with the historical fact that "Augustus" was a new name added to his existing name. This is like calling Scipio Africanus "Africanus Scipio" or Pompeius Magnus "Magnus Pompeius"; it may work in poetry, but it's simply not correct.

"Augustus Caesar" is a misunderstanding, and should therefore be used as a redirect to the correct form, "Caesar Augustus". "Commonest in English" doesn't really change "correct in Latin". I suggest that we switch the articles and add an editorial note to the article explaining the matter. Publius

The absolute 'correctness' of a name is often not where the title of a page goes. The wikipedia standard is that the most commonly used name in english is to be used, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Not sure which version is more common, but whichever is should be used. Maximus Rex 03:40, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yep, ironically we may end up titling an article in a way that was never used of the person in his/her lifetime, just because that is now most common. For instance, did Titus Livius's contemporaries call him Livy? I suspect not. Similarly for Virgil. Now in the case of Augustus, if we're uncertain as to the most common usage, that suggests that maybe there isn't one - for instance with "Livy" vs "Livius" you instantly "know" which one is most common, no need to look at Google or anywhere else - in which case we're free to pick the most correct version. Stan 05:48, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I note for the sake of comparison: Britannica uses "Augustus, Caesar";Encarta and Columbia use just "Augustus". But since Augustus is already a separate article, I would advocate moving to Caesar Augustus, as Britannica has essentially done, and as Augustus seems to advocate. If there is no objection, then I shall move the article. -- Emsworth 01:54, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Augustus

So it seems that people are rather indecisive of the convention, but most appear to favor Caesar Augustus.

And in all honesty, that's the only way I've heard it referred to as, other than from Civ4 itself.