Juluis Ceasar or is it ?

[cacian]

I hear somewhere that Juluis was actually was under the name of Julia.
Some historians think that Juluis was very effeminate in touch with his feminity and some romans thought he was gay but some others took him as someone who liked to dress up a woman hence the name ''Julia''.
This apparently angered the romans hence his stabbing.
I thought I share this here.
Any added information on Ceaser would be grately appreciated.
Thanks!

[Charles Darnay]

I don't doubt that you read this somewhere, but this is total BS. The effeminate part, or his supposed homosexuality is more a reflection on changing views of masculinity (this has been discussed elsewhere recently, so I won't go into it), but the idea that his name of Julia, or Caesar was really a woman is so contrary to history or any evidence that exists.

[cacian]

I don't doubt that you read this somewhere, but this is total BS. The effeminate part, or his supposed homosexuality is more a reflection on changing views of masculinity (this has been discussed elsewhere recently, so I won't go into it), but the idea that his name of Julia, or Caesar was really a woman is so contrary to history or any evidence that exists.

Juluis was not a woman he was a man with women tendencies.
Hence the name Juluis to Julia.
His stabbing was because of his effeminate tendencies he was without a doubt a man alright.

[JCamilo]

His name was Julius, not Julia. Julia is how his family/lineage/house is called and had nothing to do with him or his sexual preferences.

[Charles Darnay]

and the stabbing was a result of fear of dictatorship, and had nothing to do with his personality.

[JCamilo]

Et tu, Brutus? You said you liked!

[cacian]

His name was Julius, not Julia. Julia is how his family/lineage/house is called and had nothing to do with him or his sexual preferences.

Hi Jcamilo
Sexual preferences?!!
His physical tendencies his looks I mean were rather more effiminate then masculin meaning he felt more confortable dressing and looking like a women then a man.
That is nothing to do with sexual tendencies.

[stlukesguild]

None of the portrait busts of Julius Caesar from the period suggest that he looked even the least bit feminine or effeminate. I can only assume that you came across this information on some web blog written by idiot who hasn't the least clue.


http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_juliuscaesar.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=juliuscaesar.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_julius_caesar_germany.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=julius_caesar_germany.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_juliuscaesarTusculumbust.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=juliuscaesarTusculumbust.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_gaius-julius-caesar-lovers-1137.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=gaius-julius-caesar-lovers-1137.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_Caesar3.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=Caesar3.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_ASC4353.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=ASC4353.jpg)

A few minutes online reveals that the rumors of Julius' supposed effeminacy stems from the fact that early in his career, Julius was sent upon a mission to Bithynia to secure the assistance of King Nicomedes's fleet during which he spent so long at his court that rumors and jokes arose of his having an affair with the king. Caesar would vehemently deny these for the rest of his life. Mention of these rumors were repeated in the histories of Cassius Dio and Plutarch, and were embellished by Suetonius, who accused Julius of Impudicitia, which implies the willingness to be penetrated, and further suggested that Julius had brought the notoriety of infamia upon himself when he was about 19, for taking the passive role in an affair with King Nicomedes. It seems that these rumors were later spun into proof of Julius Caesar's homosexuality by some half-a**ed academics.

[Emil Miller]

{edit} No way.

[Mugs]

I also heard Cleopatra was actually a dude named Clarence Patrick. When they mated, was it Julia who bore the child? Must be... the plot thickens.

[JuniperWoolf]

He had a lot of heterosexual sex. It's argued that Brutus was his son, Brutus' mother Servilia was Caesar's favorite lover for a long time. I like to think he was, even though Caesar would have only been in his mid-teens when he fathered Brutus. Makes the whole affair just that much more worthy of legend.

[Themis]

Juluis was not a woman he was a man with women tendencies.
Hence the name Juluis to Julia.
His stabbing was because of his effeminate tendencies he was without a doubt a man alright.

I'm sorry. Apparently, I don't get lit-net humour these days, but honestly is this a joke?

[Scheherazade]

His physical tendencies his looks I mean were rather more effiminate then masculin meaning he felt more confortable dressing and looking like a women then a man.
Please do tell what these conclusions are based on? Books, articles?

I am looking forward to reading them.

[Emil Miller]

I hear somewhere that Juluis was actually was under the name of Julia.


Some years someone started a rumour that the Latin American band leader Edmundo Ross was actually an Irishman called Edmund O'Ross.
Why do people do it?

[cacian]

I'm sorry. Apparently, I don't get lit-net humour these days, but honestly is this a joke?

Hi Themis this is not a joke at all. This is as serious as it gets.
Why could it not this be true?
There are thousands of men today who feel more femimine then masculine it is totally normal. I know at least at a dozen like that who have kids and are happily living with their partners.
These men like to dress up like women sometimes go out and have it fun showing up their femininity then come back and are men again. They have families kids and are very happy.
They are no gay they just feel their feminine side is as important if not more then their masculnity.
Women do that all the times. They cut their hair short, they wear trousers, they play football, ride bikes, do boxing you name it is rather vey masculine and yet they have men partners and have kids.
What is the difference?


Et tu, Brutus? You said you liked!

Yes he had a son and he was not gay it is just that I think he must have enjoyed his dominant feminine side.
Us human are half masculine and half feminine.
Some have it even some others have one part more dominant then the other and so on.
Nothing to do with being gay.


Please do tell what these conclusions are based on? Books, articles?

I am looking forward to reading them.

Yes these are actually documented apparently if you can find them.
I was having a discussion with some friends about it and they reckon it is true.
Apparently Nero was the same and they reckon that his presumend suicide was not suicide but premeditated killing.
Anyway I will ahve to research it for myself.

[JCamilo]

I am now waiting the momment Count St.Germain will come telling his roman name was Julia Gayus Caesar and that we never really understood what the menage a triumviratum was the best thing ever.

[Charles Darnay]

Yes these are actually documented apparently if you can find them.
I was having a discussion with some friends about it and they reckon it is true.


When "reckon"ing passes for credibility - this is when we have a problem.

I had a conversation with a friend who reckoned that Henry VIII was actually a squid - which is why he had six wives - because squids have six tentacles you see.

Another conversation reckons that Shakespeare never wrote a line but it was all written by Queen Elizabeth I: why not, right?

Hitler was gay and his actions served as an outlet for his sexual frustration - this was reckoned?

The humanities are often shrugged off when put aside math/science due to such speculations - but they demand the rigorous research that goes into any scientific experiment.

[Nikhar]

I had a conversation with a friend who reckoned that Henry VIII was actually a squid - which is why he had six wives - because squids have six tentacles you see.



roflll :D
I might have actually rolled on the floor laughing out loud had my roomie not been sick. :p

[cacian]

When "reckon"ing passes for credibility - this is when we have a problem.

I had a conversation with a friend who reckoned that Henry VIII was actually a squid - which is why he had six wives - because squids have six tentacles you see.

Another conversation reckons that Shakespeare never wrote a line but it was all written by Queen Elizabeth I: why not, right?

Hitler was gay and his actions served as an outlet for his sexual frustration - this was reckoned?

The humanities are often shrugged off when put aside math/science due to such speculations - but they demand the rigorous research that goes into any scientific experiment.

Haha the day of reckoning all that :D
Anyways there is that saying that simply states:
''there is no smoke without fire''
I do not have a problem believing these added bit of information.
People have had and still have different tendencies since the dawn of time and for these romans such as Ceasar and Nero it is no different.
There was a mention about 'bisexuals' and gymnasiun during the Greeks and so Romans are just the same only with a different name because they came from a different time and place.
So yes actually I believe it and what's more it makes it is more interesting because it means these mighty emperors were actually humans just like you and me and the tragedies of it all is that they were apparentlu killed because of their differences/femininity.
Hatred and killing of men who are either gay or enjoy a spot of femininity still goes on today.
Romans then and us now is exactly the same and what's more it seems that nothing has really changed because attitude towards something different has no shifted an inch.
It is about time it did.:)

Anyway why does it bother you that it might well be true?

And why do I keep thinking Romania and Romans are linked?


I am now waiting the momment Count St.Germain will come telling his roman name was Julia Gayus Caesar and that we never really understood what the menage a triumviratum was the best thing ever.

Not gayus is appropriate but the rest is a possibility.:D

[Charles Darnay]

Anyway why does it bother you that it might well be true?

And why do I keep thinking Romania and Romans are linked?

As someone who studied Classics extensively, it is infuriating. As an analogy: there are "Christian Science" textbooks which make such statements as: "we don't actually know where electricity comes from." I would imagine that someone who devotes a good part of their life to the study of physics finds this infuriating. As do I when people make groundless claims about the ancient world. Just because it happened "long ago" does not mean anything goes.

I am all for alternative views of history - but back them up with something credible.

And Rome and Romania are linked by ancestry and language.

[Scheherazade]

So yes actually I believe it and what's more it makes it is more interesting because it means these mighty emperors were actually humans just like you and me and the tragedies of it all is that they were apparentlu killed because of their differences/femininity.The question here is not whether it was a possibility but whether there is enough historical proof to support such claims other than "friends reckoning".

As for Queen Elizabeth... I reckon she was actually a he... A man who felt more comfortable in women's clothes and could not come out as a gay man either due to the pressures of the times.

That also explains nicely why (s)he was never married... Doncha think?

[cacian]

As someone who studied Classics extensively, it is infuriating. As an analogy: there are "Christian Science" textbooks which make such statements as: "we don't actually know where electricity comes from." I would imagine that someone who devotes a good part of their life to the study of physics finds this infuriating. As do I when people make groundless claims about the ancient world. Just because it happened "long ago" does not mean anything goes.

I am all for alternative views of history - but back them up with something credible.

Oh I see so would it also bother you if I said that Jesus had effiminate features meaning he also felt he was half man and half woman and the only reason he died/ was killed was because he was suspected like Juluis and Nero to have feminine tendencies.
Would that change the fact that Jesus was Jesus?
This is just a theory question.
For me history is made regardless of gender race or sexuality and the more sexual differences is involved in making history the better because it brings us closer to those whom we first thought were unapproachable such as emperors philosopher or prophets . This means that anyone anytime regardless can make a difference.
The quicker we come to term with sexual differences the better we are for it.


And Rome and Romania are linked by ancestry and language.
Now that is interesting. I know nothing of this because everytime one says romanian one thinks gypsies.


The question here is not whether it was a possibility but whether there is enough historical proof to support such claims other than "friends reckoning".

As for Queen Elizabeth... I reckon she was actually a he... A man who felt more comfortable in women's clothes and could not come out as a gay man either due to the pressures of the times.

That also explains nicely why (s)he was never married... Doncha think?

I have heard about Queen Elizabeth being a man but I am not so sure because I could not see the reason for her to pretend to be a woman.
Men kings had more power during that time so for him to pretend to be a she surely would have put her in a lesser position because that would have meant less things to do. A woman at that time had more restrictions in terms of what one could achieve.
It does not make sense.

[Charles Darnay]

Oh I see so would it also bother you if I said that Jesus had effiminate features meaning he also felt he was half man and half woman and the only reason he died/ was killed was because he was suspected like Juluis and Nero to have feminine tendencies.
Would that change the fact that Jesus was Jesus?
This is just a theory question.
For me history is made regardless of gender race or sexuality and the more sexual differences is involved in making history the better because it brings us closer to those whom we first thought were unapproachable such as emperors philosopher or prophets . This means that anyone anytime regardless can make a difference.
The quicker we come to term with sexual differences the better we are for it.



I am all for gender and sexual orientation equality - but you don't need to invent history in order to do it. I don't think you will convince someone who does not accept homosexuality as natural that it is so simply by saying "well, Caesar was gay." Leave the past out of social squabbles.

[papayahed]

Oh I see so would it also bother you if I said that Jesus had effiminate features meaning he also felt he was half man and half woman and the only reason he died/ was killed was because he was suspected like Juluis and Nero to have feminine tendencies.
Would that change the fact that Jesus was Jesus?
This is just a theory question.



The point, I think, is not about the femininity. I think other posters are bothered by the lack of evidence. If you are going to make those types of statements and try to pass them off as a fact, which you are doing, then you need to provide the links to research papers, books, etc. which led you to your conclusions or it's just some wild idea. Saying that some people reckon it's true does not make it true or a valid debate topic.

[cacian]

I am all for gender and sexual orientation equality - but you don't need to invent history in order to do it. I don't think you will convince someone who does not accept homosexuality as natural that it is so simply by saying "well, Caesar was gay." Leave the past out of social squabbles.

I am sorry if you and I differ about people and who they are.
I see privacy and sexuality as one and call a private matter.
The most important thing about life is the ability to accept ourselves and others and only then history is properly made.
The less focus on sexuality and the more focus on individuality personality and essentiallly focus on moving forward.
Sexuality is private behind closed doors and only those involved with it matter.
I have no say on what others do privately and neither should you.
No one is imposing anything on you and therefore neither should you impose your views on them.
I think this as fair as it gets.
Intellectual achievement is the mental ability to challenge hatred and division of any kind.
The mind is only fully free and truly powerfull when it stops finding faults in others.
History is not fully grasped because it is lacking that mental upheaval the challenge to be different.
Untill humans cross that bridge and accept that others will always make that difference then history as it stands will always lack that cruscendo the ability to stem forwards and towards intellectual freedoms.
Until then we are still rehashing and recreating that same old song that power is physical attainment.
Frankly and after a while this will get rather tiresome.


The point, I think, is not about the femininity. I think other posters are bothered by the lack of evidence. If you are going to make those types of statements and try to pass them off as a fact, which you are doing, then you need to provide the links to research papers, books, etc. which led you to your conclusions or it's just some wild idea. Saying that some people reckon it's true does not make it true or a valid debate topic.

I agree but as I mentioned before I am merely passing what I have been told.
I don't think I am trying to undo a past or reform a future but more trying to engage in discussions that might be slightely different from the norms.
The point of anything is anything.
I thought these views were interesting and since litnet is open minded and well read I thought why not.
Anyhting is up for discussion and any theory is a theory until proven otherwise.
I am up for different discussions and that is what I am doing.
Does it really matter in the end who these people were?

[stlukesguild]

Haha the day of reckoning all that
Anyways there is that saying that simply states:
''there is no smoke without fire''

So if there is "smoke"... the slightest rumor of something... then it must be true? I remember reading of all the rumors suggesting that Paul McCartney was dead... back in the late 1960s... and there are plenty of rumors concerning George Bush executing the 911 attacks (which we all know he was too dumb to have pulled off). So you believe any and all rumors you stumble upon?

I do not have a problem believing these added bit of information. People have had and still have different tendencies since the dawn of time and for these romans such as Ceasar and Nero it is no different.

It isn't a question of whether or not homosexuality, bi-sexuality, or what have you existed in the past. It is a question of whether there is enough credible documentation to suggest that Julius Caesar was a cross-dresser or a bi-sexual.

There was a mention about 'bisexuals' and gymnasiun during the Greeks and so Romans are just the same only with a different name because they came from a different time and place.

WTF??:ack2:

So yes actually I believe it and what's more it makes it is more interesting because it means these mighty emperors were actually humans just like you and me...

Well you may be into cross-dressing, but the idea has yet to enter my mind.

I would like to know how being homosexual or bisexual or a cross-dresser would make Caesar more "human" than if he were simply heterosexual?

...and the tragedies of it all is that they were apparentlu killed because of their differences/femininity.

Julius Caesar's assassination had absolutely nothing to do with his sexual preferences or the fact that he appeared "effeminate". Did you even look at the portraits (above) of Julius... or do you simply ignore facts that contradict your hypothesis?

Hatred and killing of men who are either gay or enjoy a spot of femininity still goes on today.

Certainly... but that in no way goes toward proving that such was the situation with regard to Julius.

Romans then and us now is exactly the same and what's more it seems that nothing has really changed because attitude towards something different has no shifted an inch.
It is about time it did.

Again, the fact that prejudice and hatred based upon sexual preferences, appearances, race, nationality, religion, etc... existed in the past and still exists today has absolutely nothing to do with the question of fact. Or perhaps you are one of those who embrace the notion of presenting false or alternative histories in a misguided attempt to change the present?

Anyway why does it bother you that it might well be true?

It doesn't bother me in the least. As I stated elsewhere, I couldn't care less if Julius were humping the whole of the Praetorian Guard, sheep, or his pet rock. What does concern me is suggesting that rumors or our own personal reckoning is akin to documented, historical fact.

I am sorry if you and I differ about people and who they are.
I see privacy and sexuality as one and call a private matter.
The most important thing about life is the ability to accept ourselves and others and only then history is properly made.
The less focus on sexuality and the more focus on individuality personality and essentiallly focus on moving forward.
Sexuality is private behind closed doors and only those involved with it matter.
I have no say on what others do privately and neither should you.
No one is imposing anything on you and therefore neither should you impose your views on them.
I think this as fair as it gets.
Intellectual achievement is the mental ability to challenge hatred and division of any kind.
The mind is only fully free and truly powerfull when it stops finding faults in others.
History is not fully grasped because it is lacking that mental upheaval the challenge to be different.
Untill humans cross that bridge and accept that others will always make that difference then history as it stands will always lack that cruscendo the ability to stem forwards and towards intellectual freedoms.
Until then we are still rehashing and recreating that same old song that power is physical attainment.
Frankly and after a while this will get rather tiresome.

This smells of political correctness at its worst: the idea that credible documented facts are irrelevant to the study of history and half-truths, rumors, myths, and outright lies are not only acceptable... but preferred, as long as they support some contemporary social issue.

As others have stated repeatedly, the reason your posts have been called into question has absolutely nothing to do with our not being open to alternatives to heterosexuality or imposing our biases upon others. It has to do with whether the facts support the hypothesis in this situation.

[Charles Darnay]

I am sorry if you and I differ about people and who they are.
I see privacy and sexuality as one and call a private matter.

what does this have to do with anything on this thread?



The most important thing about life is the ability to accept ourselves and others and only then history is properly made.

Fine. But accepting someone for who they are is different than accepting a made up story. History is properly made by facts and deeds, not rumours.

The less focus on sexuality and the more focus on individuality personality and essentiallly focus on moving forward. [/QUOTE]

Once again, what is the relevance of this.



Sexuality is private behind closed doors and only those involved with it matter.
I have no say on what others do privately and neither should you.

You are right that I have no say on what others "do" privately, but I do have some say on what others "did" or "did not do" privately - this is the role of history, particularly the history of "great men" such as Caesar.



No one is imposing anything on you and therefore neither should you impose your views on them.

Ignorance is not an accepted view - rumours are a form of ignorance - I should be allowed to challenge rumours.




Intellectual achievement is the mental ability to challenge hatred and division of any kind.

Challenging hatred is wonderful, but intellectual achievement relies on...intellect. Intellect relies on some form of logic. The lack of logic is ignorance. Ignorance, even if it is right-hearted and well-intentioned is ignorance and contrary to "intellectual achievement.



The mind is only fully free and truly powerfull when it stops finding faults in others.

Actually, one of the greatest things about humans is the ability to challenge other's ideas in order to investigate any form of "truth". The Cartesian idea of "doubt everything" has led to such developments as the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment - we would be nowhere today without these two movements.



History is not fully grasped because it is lacking that mental upheaval the challenge to be different.
Untill humans cross that bridge and accept that others will always make that difference then history as it stands will always lack that cruscendo the ability to stem forwards and towards intellectual freedoms.
Until then we are still rehashing and recreating that same old song that power is physical attainment.
Frankly and after a while this will get rather tiresome.



Again, history relies on evidence (whether artifact or document). What holds the study of history back is this idea of "I reckon therefore it is true." It is such ideas that allowed the "dominant idea" (whether it was the Church's view of reality, or the Misogynistic view of power) to persist.

But of course....all this has gotten far off-course. The idea is not that rejecting an effeminate promotes some ancient form of hatred, but rather that it has no historical backing (as far as I have seen).

[Whifflingpin]

"As for Queen Elizabeth... I reckon she was actually a he..."

Obviously - that is what (s)he was hinting at in that famous speech at Tilbury - "I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but..."