Is there any evidence where, during the Third Reich, a German has been punished for not participating in the genocide or war crimes?

lighthaze · 1時間前

Having googled a bit, I somehow get the feeling that this is a myth created in Germany in the 50s and 60s.

This is an astute observation. Many of the perpetrators relied on this kind of defense, which in German legalese is called a Befehlsnotstand, superior orders. Essentially this means that they faced harsh penalty for disobedience to follow orders. German Criminal law accepts that people who were threatened by a present and otherwise inadvertable danger to life and limb of themselves or their family (Drohung, welche mit einer gegenwärtigen, auf andere Weise nicht abwendbaren Gefahr für Leib oder Leben seiner selbst oder eines Angehörigen verbunden war) would be free from punishment. § 52 (1) StGB, and similar § 54 StGB.

Demotion or being sent to a different unit, even if, as it was the case with some objectors from the SS, posted from comfortable KZ-duty to a frontline unit, this entailed a higher risk because it was a punitive/front line unit, does not count as clear and present, inadvertable danger to life and limb, and the highest German court has ruled such (e.g., BGH in Slg. D 26). There were many ways to escape such an assignment.

To cut a long story short, German Criminal justice has been involved in getting to the ground of this in a lot of processes after the war. Sadly, due to the prevalence of former Nazis inside the German criminal justice system, many of these appeals to Befehlsnotstand were successful, as in the Prozess against seven Guards from the extermination camp Belzec in Munich 1964, all of these were acquitted.

However, not a single case of harsh punishment that would fulfill the criteria of §52, 54 StGB has ever been proven, thus they had to rely on the shaky defense of a putative Befehlsnotstand, meaning they believed they would face such kind of punishment.

To quote a historian who has spent a lot of time researching the criminal punishment of NS-criminals after the war:

Not a single case of Befehlsnotstand is provable. The central office (for the Investigation of NS-crimes) in Ludwigsburg has followed every lead. In one case - about a Wehrmacht private named Schulz from Dortmund - it seemed as if Befehlsnotstand had been the case. Schulz reportedly objected to shoot yugoslav Partisans and was shot for that himself. Close research by experts from Ludwigsburg however brought to light that Schulz had been mortally wounded a day before the execution of the partisans. [Lichtenstein, H.: NS-Prozesse. Zum Ende eines Kapitels. Köln 1997, p.120, my translation.]

I'll let that stand as a closing statement. There was no reason for such a belief. Sorry for the wall of text surrounding this simple "No", but I thought a little context would be useful, since so many people still rely on this argument.

Sources/further Reading:

Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning, New York 2001, is an excellent source for this - and the only one I got in English. I'll happily provide German sources if anyone is interested, though.

[Edit: spelling]

lighthaze · 1時間前

Depends on how you define punishment - but since the kind of argument you mentioned relies on the punishment being harsh enough for people to overcome their sense of morality and ethics, this usually relies on the argument that "they would have been killed if they didn't kill themselves", creating an appealing moral dilemma that allows us to sympathize with the perpetrator and rationalize their decision to take part in crimes against humanity - after all, what would you do, when it's 'kill or be killed'?

It's notoriously difficult (and theoretically impossible) to prove a negative, but you're right, there's a total absence of evidence whatsoever, but in this case, we have tons of evidence to the contrary and none that proves harsh punishments for those chossing not to participate in genocide or war crimes.

A well-documented example might be instructive here, which is that of the Reserve-Polizei-Bataillon 101 from Hamburg (101st reserve police batallion). Like many other reserve police units (German police pre 1945 was organized in a para-military manner), it was used behind the front to provide security and serve as occupation forces. They were deployed in Poland, and took part in deporting polish citizens to make room for German settlers, and guarding the Ghetto of Litzmannstadt (Lodz), 1941/42, back in Hamburg, it was engaged in rounding up and deporting Jews. From June 1942, it was again deployed in Poland, under the infamous SS and Police-Leader of Lublin, Odilo Globocnik taking part in actions to round up and deport Jews to Ghettos.

On July 11, 1942, Major Trapp, commander of Res.-Pol.Btl. 101 was informed by Globocnik that his unit would be tasked with rounding up the ~1,800 Jews lifing in Józefów, near Bilgoraj in eastern Poland. The males were to be deported to a camp in Lublin, while the women, the elderly and the children were to be killed on the spot. This would be the first massacre for the unit. Trapp was obviously distressed with having to carry out these orders. One of his men, Leutnant Heinz Buchmann, told Trapps adjutant that he couldn't take part in the shootings - so he was tasked with escorting the male Jews to Lublin.

After arriving in Józéfow,

Trapp assembled the men in a half-circle and addressed them. After explaining the battalion's murderous assignment, he made his extraordinary offer: any of the older men who did not feel up to the task that lay before them could step out. Trapp paused, and after some moments one man from Third Company, Otto-Julius Schimke, stepped forward. Captain Hoffmann, who had arrived in Józefów directly from Zakrz6w with the Third Platoon of Third Company and had not been part of the officers' meetings in Bilgoraj the day before, was furious that one of his men had been the first to break ranks. Hoffmann began to berate Schimke, but Trapp cut him off. After he had taken Schimke under his protection, some ten or twelve other men stepped forward as well. They turned in their rifles and were told to await a further assignment from the major.

[Ordinary Men, p. 57]

Trapp gave his men a choice to participate or not. Some chose not to take part. Even later, as the possibility of having to murder people in cold blood became concrete reality, others chose to get out at the last moment.

One policeman approached First Sergeant Kammer, whom he knew well. He confessed that the task was "repugnant" to him and asked for a different assignment. Kammer obliged, assigning him to guard duty on the edge of the forest, where he remained throughout the day. Several other policemen who knew Kammer well were given guard duty along the truck route.

After shooting for some time, another group of policemen approached Kammer and said they could not continue. He released them from the firing squad and reassigned them to accompany the trucks. [Ordinary Men, p. 62]

So even after the killing had begun, there was still a way out. Others chose to miss their shots, and the NCOs had to finish the job with their submachineguns.

Two policemen made the mistake of approaching Captain (and SS-Hauptsturmführer) Wohlauf instead of Kam- mer. They pleaded that they too were fathers with children and could not continue. Wohlauf curtly refused them, indicating that they could lie down alongside the victims. At the midday pause, however, Kammer relieved not only these two men but a number of other older men as well. They were sent back to the marketplace, accompanied by a noncommissioned officer who reported to Trapp. Trapp dismissed them from further duty and permitted them to return early to the harracks in Bilgoraj. [ibid.]

Wohlauf was a hardliner Nazi, and he seemed to threaten them with death here - but there was no possibility for him to make that a reality, it was not a credible threat (and had he done so, he would have faced court martial himself). He had no legal right to do that, and in the event, the men were relieved by their NCO (Kammer) without Captain Wohlauf doing anything about the matter.

Other examples are that of First Lieutenant Klaus Hornig, of Res.-Pol.-Btl. 306. Hornig, leader of 2nd. Company, in October 1941 received an order to shoot 780 Russian PoWs, all political officers, in a forest near Zámosc, according to the infamous Kommissarbefehl, that ordered all captured political officers of the Red Army to be shot on the spot. Hornig not only refused to carry out that order, but also referred his subordinates to § 47 of German Military Criminal Law - which stated that subordinates, if they knowingly take part in an action that they know to be against the law, are as responsible as the ones ordering it - and incited them to refuse the order as well. He also heavily criticised present SS-men for their actions. In January, 1942 he was suspended from service and sent back to Germany to Frankfurt/Main. He later was prosecuted, mainly for his agitation against his superiors and the SS-men, and spent the rest of the war in prison and KZ. He is probably one of the examples for the harshest kind of sentence you could expect for refusal to carry out such orders. [Further Reading:Ueberschär, G.: Der Polizeioffizier Klaus Hornig.]

More examples are known from Polizei-Bataillons 61, 69, and 307, everywhere soldiers refused to take part in executions and weren't sanctioned.

There is sufficient discussion to be had about how extensive the possibilities were and a lot depended on the lower echelons of leadership, the Captains, Lieutenants and NCOs, in how many freedoms they allowed their men (interesting reading on this topic with contrary standpoints are Browning, Nazi Policy, Jewish Workers, German Killers; and Goldhagen, Hitlers Willing Executioners). However, one important context is a secret order from Himmler, in his position as leader of both SS and Police, that is two of the main perpetrator organizations for the Holocaust, he related to his subordinates. This stated, that while 'crucially important tasks for the survival of the German People' (referring to the Holocaust) had to be carried out, troop leaders had the 'holy duty' to make sure that the soldiers didn't get vulgarized/bestialized ("verrohen") by the actions, or take damage in 'body or spirit'. This order therefore allowed lower leaders to send their subordinates 'into holiday', relieve them from such 'heavy duties' or give them a different post - so by highest order, commanders had a lot of freedom to excuse objectors and accomodate their grievances with the task they had to carry out. And it was easier to ask for volunteers, anyway.

Sure, there was pressure - social pressure, pressure by officers, NCOs and comrades, attempts to coerce or convince people to take part, bribery with alcohol or extra rations. But in the end, if one was convinced not to take part, there was little in the form of hard punishment they could legally mete out:

Quite simply, in the past forty-five years no defense attorney or defendant in any of the hundreds of postwar trials has been able to document a single case in which refusal to obey an order to kill unarmed civilians resulted in the allegedly inevitable dire punishment. [Ordinary men, p. 170]

Those taking part knew that they were doing wrong. They chose so for a variety of reasons, ideology, pressure, believing to have to follow orders out of a misguided sense of duty and obedience, but not fear of real reprisals.

[continued below]

happytuesdays · 3時間前

In such cases, yes, that's what the cognomen or agnomen were for - so you could easily distinguish them by talking about Celer or Nepos. 'Metellus', too, is a nickname that got adopted by one branch of the clan of the Caecilii, so they could be distinguished from other branches.

Also, in those times Rome was still just a city with a lot of territory. So people, especially among the elite, knew each other pretty well and face to face, which lessened chances for confusion.

wongie · 3時間前

How would they not be responsible? The question of whether they can be legally prosecuted is a different one.

wongie · 3時間前

True, but to get the whole 15 years for Beihilfe you pretty much have to hold the murderers hand the whole way through.

wongie · 4時間前

Why? Your sentence doesn't get multiplied by the amount of victims, but is oriented on the longest possible sentence for the crimes you committed. It's even more than the Staatsanwalt demaned (3 1/2 years).

He was convicted for being accessory to murder (Beihilfe zum Mord).

Beihilfe means, according to § 27 StGB, that his sentence has to orient itself on the sentence for murder (at least life) , but be mitigated according to § 49 Abs. 1, which says that instead of being sentenced at least 'for life' (i.e. 15 years), he will have to face a sentence between 3 and 15 years. A maximum sentence of 15 years would be very harsh for accessory to murder.

I'm all for throwing Nazis in jail, but the law is the law.

wongie · 4時間前

This is about justice. About setting an example that, if you are involved in crimes against humanity, there will be justice, however long it may take.

If he didn't do anything, he would have been acquitted. This was not some kangaroo court.

wongie · 4時間前

Every member of society is responsible for his actions. If his actions include being accessory to or commiting crimes in the name of or for or ordered by his society, those crimes are his, too.

happytuesdays · 4時間前

Ah, yes, forgot to mention that - thanks!

happytuesdays · 4時間前

Glad I could help! What sounds confusing? I'd be happy to clarify.

ensign_paris · 5時間前

Ne, weil, normal, da kannste jeden fragen, bin ja kein richtiger Kneipenterrorist - (Mitläufer!) - jo, Mitläufer; aber jetz will ich sie haben, jetz is auch Laboe fällich!

happytuesdays · 5時間前

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: Yes and no - you seem to rely upon some misconceptions about how Roman names work. I've written a bit about how Roman names work during the late Republic and the early Empire (because that changes quite a bit over time) here which might be of interest.

Maximus Decimus Meridius is a bad example for a Roman name. It follows the external pattern - three names for a Roman citizen (praenomen/first name - nomen gentile/family name - cognomen/nickname), but the internal content is wrong.

Maximus can be a cognomen or agnomen, depending on context, which is something like a nickname, not a first name so it would never be in first place. First names or praenomina were chosen from a limited pool, names like Marcus, Gaius, Gnaeus, Sextus, Quintus, Lucius, Tiberius.

Decimus is such a praenomen, not a nomen gentile or family name which one would expect in second place. We would expect something like Iulius, Sempronius, Aemilius, Cornelius or so in this place.

Meridius sounds latin, but isn't. There is a cognomen Meridianus, from meridies (medius dies), midday, meaning midday-ly or southerly, though. So, close, but no cigar.

Now, to the question at hand: Yes, they sometimes had the same first name or praenomen as their brothers. Roman first names became customarily hereditary, so brothers having the same first name would not be uncommon. One example would be the brothers Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer, consul of 60 BC, and his brother, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos, consul of 57 BC. Both were sons of Quintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos, consul of 98 BC. One of the brothers is here distinguished by having a different agnomen apart from Nepos.

It was customary, however, to give the eldest son the praenomen of the father, and his other brothers praenomina that had also been in use in their fathers family. So usually, brothers would have different names. However, there are often cases were the elder brother dies in young years, and the younger brother assumes the praenomen of his father, as had been the case with the sons of Marcus Porcius Cato, Marcus Porcius Cato and Marcus Porcius Cato. The elder brother died while the younger still lived, but the younger then assumed his name - we don't know how he was originally called, though. This was only possible before the younger brother assumed the toga virilis and became officially enrolled among the Roman men, though, but far from uncommon. We have a lot of inscriptions that attest to this.

Assuming for a second that Decimus was a family name, changing this amongst brothers would be highly confusing, and given the value Romans placed on family relations, highly unlikely. It'd be like me having a different family name from my sister.

A Maximus Decimus Meridius (who would be unlikely to exist, since that's not a Roman name) could not have had a brother called Maximus Undecimus Meridius. A Quintus could have a brother named Quintus - though more likely than not, his brother would have to be dead for that. If they're both alive, they'd have another name added to distinguish them for each other - the primary function of names (among others!) is, of course, to differentiate one individual from another.

You're on to something with the Decimus->Undecimus thing, though. It was customary for Roman girls to receive nicknames such as Tertia, Quarta, Quinta and so on. Since they all just carried the female form of their family name as a name - so Cornelia, Iulia, Sempronia, Tiberia - sometimes if a family had enough daughters, they simply numbered them - Iulia the third, Iulia the fourth, Iulia the fifth and so on.

Source: Otto Salomies, Die römischen Vornamen. Helsinki 1988.

Rariity · 22時間前

I read like 10 comments from this guy and it's already Wehrabingo. Nice find!

grapp · 1日前

Well, one could say both - the public, as Seneca recounts, obviously delighted in seeing amateurs fight and die. But I meant that it was very common, yes. At one point in Bithynia the gladiatorial schools were unable to take in more convicted, and for the rest new punishments had to be found.

Cooro · 1日前

Und wer steckt dahinter? Na klar, der Jud!

Schlimm, was die Zionisten unseren Kindern eintrichtern. Wir müssen unsere Kultur unbedingt säubern von diesem zionistisch-amerikanischen, seelenlosen Imperialistendreck.

-MB aus dem Internet.

Zombi_Loin · 1日前

Glorious desert fox master race.

grapp · 1日前

You'd get executed regardless, and I know of no counterexample. Generally, this was a form of capital punishment, known as damnatio ad ferrum or damnatio ad gladium. This variant would give you no hope to escape your sentence. Essentially, you were convicted to die in the arena by fighting against others with the same sentence, fighting in pairs. The survivor would go against the next convicted until the last man standing. But he would have little joy in his victory, because he would then be executed. Possibly, a gladiator dressed as Dis, god of the underworld, would club him down with a hammer. The only possibility for mitigation was to go on living a bit longer by fighting well. Should you and your partner decide not to fight each other, they would find ways to motivate you.

Seneca recounts, with obvious distaste, such a spectacle in a letter to Lucilius:

By chance I came to the Arena on midday, expecting games, fun and other relaxation, where human eyes can relax themselves from the view of human blood. But far from it: Whatever had been fought before was mercy in comparison to what came, they omit all jokes, now it's only murder. They have nothing with which to protect themselves, since their whole body is exposed to blows they never strike fruitless. Such things most people prefer to the ordinary pairs [of gladiators]. And why not? No helmet, no shield defends the blade (ferrum). Protection, for what? Technique, for what? All that only delays death. In the morning, they throw humans before lions and bears [referring to the equally deadly damnatio ad bestias], in the midday before the audience. Murderers they have fight Murderers and determine the victor for another carnage. For the fighters, death is the way out.

Seneca probbly expected some sort of lighter spectacle, that was often held after the morning events of gladiatorial games, with play-fighting Gladiators and other light entertainment. For him, the brutal death of the convicts lacked the artistry and moral qualities of a real gladiatorial fight.

A variant of this was to put you to fight against a real gladiator, but without any protection against a trained fighter chances were very slim. And even if you managed somehow to overpower him, you are sentenced to death. This was just a variant of the executions that were held during gladiatorial games, other variants being burned alive or thrown to the beasts. It probably would play out the same as if you'd win a fight against another convict. Ending in death.

The milder form would be the damnatio ad ludum gladiatorum: This would condemn you to life as a gladiator, which sounds worse than it had the possibility to be. The life of a Gladiator was dangerous, but not every fight ended in death. Gladiators were the star athletes and sex symbols of Ancient Rome, and their popularity among the lower classes knew no bounds. This was a very popular form of punishment and an important source of recruitment for the gladiatorial schools, but it was no capital punishment.

In conclusion, I highly doubt that they would have let him live if he was convicted to one of the first two types of punishment. They were capital sentences, and death was the desired result and outcome for the state. The odds were stacked against the convicts in any case, having to fight each other or the gladiators with no defensive weapons and only a sword for themselves, against a trained fighter.

I don't have the episode before me, but I might give it a watch once I get home if I have the time.

depanneur · 1日前

Thanks, appreciate the answer!

I would define the expression of identity as the preference of one symbol over another in a particular context, so just like word choice in a language is meaningful, the choice becomes significant the moment it is expressed if alternatives existed.

Agree, that's a good definition. Particularly the aspect of context that influences the symbol and its reception. Like the same string of characters totally changes its meaning in a different context - the sequence of numbers 9-1-1 would lead to completely different interpretations written on the side of an ambulance, on a memorial or in a random string of numbers. Or what does it mean when an inscription is placed into a position where it cannot be read by anyone? It's hard enough to contextualize textual artifacts from the Roman era, I can't imagine the difficulties one or two thousand years more back into history.

And thanks for the book recommendation! I'll make sure to check it out.

Veqq · 1日前

Gottseidank. Was das Literarische angeht Pratchett mMn überlegen.

realCognitive · 1日前

Könnte aber auch Lungenkrebs oder Beulenpest sein, also nicht vorschnell in Panik geraten.

depanneur · 2日前

I guess my question is mainly for /u/WedgeHead.

How do the cultures of the Acient Near East express their identity? Or, the other way around, what aspects do you study to arrive at an answer, what material do you use? And what social strata are present in the material, e.g., can you say anything about the middle/lower classes at all, or is it mainly elite communication?

Sorry for the many question marks and if the question comes of a bit broad! I'm mainly asking because my own research atm. goes into questions of identity and expression in Roman Germany, in the context of Epigraphic Culture. Which means that the things I look at are mostly names, liguistic peculiarities, the gods they worship and how they did that, the men/women they marry, their social status as well as iconography and portraits/statues (which allow us to look at the way people dressed or wanted to be portrayed to the outside world); so mainly funerary inscriptions and votive altars and the way they relate to the landscape and population around them - I'd find it very interesting to see how similar questions are asked in other cultural contexts (and with a different material corpus, I imagine)!

MuffinsAndBiscuits · 2日前

Thanks, glad you liked it! That small reference was impossible not to make once I realized it :)

MuffinsAndBiscuits · 2日前

Iterations. Roman magistracies usually lasted only one year, and this tradition was kept for the emperor. The tribunician powers were renewed each year by tradition, so if he holds it for the 20th time, that would mean that he is also in the 20th year of his reign. The Consulship was awarded less often, and the title of 'Imperator' (different from Imperator as a name) was bestowed by the troops by acclamation. So when the emperor had led a victorious campaign, the troops might choose to honour him by such an acclamation. In theory at least, in practice it was an instrument of propaganda as well.

MuffinsAndBiscuits · 2日前

Well, Roman names can be confusing because they work a little different from modern naming conventions.

At the time of the late Republic, the Roman name consisted of three parts - these were the so-called tria nomina, and they were characteristic of a Roman citizen.

The first of these is the praenomen, this is the personal name. They came from a pool of conventional names, such as Caius, Marcus, Titus, Sextus, Tiberius, Lucius, Gnaeus and so on - all in all, a very limited pool. This is why they are often abbreviated, since a L. Sempronius can only be a Lucius, there is no other praenomen starting with L. In the late republic, these had become hereditary, so the son of a Lucius would have been Lucius (and not Draco). Women did not have a praenomen in that sense, or only very rarely, but since it wasn't so important as a name as the name of ones gens was, this shouldn't be overestimated.

The second is the nomen gentile, or family name (the gens is a bit wider than a modern family, think of it more as a clan), this was the name of the wider clan an individual belonged to. Names such as Iulius (from the gens Iulia), Cornelius (gens Cornelia) or Sempronius (gens Sempronia) belong to this category, and they come from wider areas, like Afranius (and the gens Afrania) from Picentinum. Functionally very close to our mothern family names. This is the most important naming element for a long time, since family and family connections were important for Romans. Women took this name in the female form, so the daughter of a Tiberius Sempronius was named Sempronia. Women also kept their gentilicium when they married, but would often add the name od their husband to their own, such as Cornelia Marci Uxor - Cornelia, wife of Marcus. Usually, you would refer to individuals by this name, unless you knew them closer and personally.

The third element is the cognomen, or 'known name'. These were probably originally simply nicknames, such as 'the bearded one' (Barbatus), 'the fat one' (Crassus), 'the beast' (Bestia), 'the Chickpea' (Cicero), 'the stick' (Scipio) and so on. By the late Republic, these had become hereditary and served to identify branches of a family, such as the Cornelii Scipiones or the Iulii Caesares. Women would often be further individualized by a cognomen such as maior or minor, or for multiple daughters names giving the order of birth (Prima, Secunda, Tertia, Quarta and so on). Liberated slaves would take over their previous name as a cognomen, adopting praenomen and nomen gentile from their previous master. Thus the famous Tiro, slave of Cicero, was known as Marcus Tullius M. lib. Tiro. The 'M. lib.' stands for Marci libertus, freedmen of Marcus. The agnomen was close to the cognomen in function, this included names for victors such as 'Africanus' or 'Asiaticus', and in later times individual names, which were not inherited. People could have more than one cognomen, and it became positively ridiculous in the later Empire - starting in the time of Augustus, famous individuals often took on two gentile names and two cognomina to stress their noble lineage to set themselves apart. Another reason for such polynomy might be adoption, so Publius Cornelius Scipio was also called Aemilianus (he was born an Aemilius), as well as Africanus and Numantinus. Same reason Gaius Octavius was known as Octavianus after his adoption by Caesar.

The cognomen generally became increasingly important during the late republic and early empire, which is why we know C. Iulius Caesar and M. Tullius Cicero better as Caesar and Cicero than as Caius and Marcus or Iulius and Tullius. This trend only increased, so that in the later empire, the praenomen gradually disappeared.

So a Roman citizen would usually, but not always, have these tria nomina, and they served to identify as citizens, because only citizens legally had these three names (there was a special kind of citizenship, latin status, where people also had these three names but wouldn't give the name of their father or their voting tribe).

Now there were more way people could identify and name themselves. A very common addition would be the name of the father and the name of the voting tribe (all Roman citizens were enrolled in one of these tribes), so during the Principate you'll often have tombstones identifiying an individual fully as, f.e., Marcus Cornelius, Son of Marcus, of the voting tribe Stellatina, called Rufus, from Bologna. (M Cornelius M f Stel Rufus Bononia). Some, wanting to stress their noble lineage, also added grandfather and greatgrandfather.

For emperors, things are a bit different. They had the praenomen imperatoris, so the title Imperator, a holder of imperium or command, was part of their name. Augustus was known as Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus, so Imperator here takes the place of the praenomen, Caesar, originally a cognomen is used as his nomen gentile, Divi filius refers to his father Caesar, who had been deified, and Augustus is used in the place of a cognomen, originally a honorific title ('the venerable') bestowed upon him in 27 BC. It became, by tradition, part of the official title of the following emperors, as did Caesar. There is a bit of a distinction to be made here: Only an emperor would be an 'Augustus', while 'Caesar' became a title for the designated successor. So an Imperator Caesar Augustus was the emperor, and his son or adopted successor would be known as a Caesar, or Imperator Caesar.

So, following Augustus, Tiberius Claudius Nero (standard Roman name here) became Imperator Tiberius Caesar Augustus, only keeping his praenomen. M. Salvius Otho became Imperator Marcus Otho Caesar Augustus, when the Senate named him emperor. Titus Flavius Vespasianus became known as Imperator Caesar Vespasianus Augustus, and so on and so forth. The emperors had other titles that were bestowed upon them customarily, such as the power of a tribune, the Tribuniciae Potestas, the Consulship, the title of father of the fatherland (pater patriae), supreme pontiff (pontifex maximus) or names for victorious campaings, such as Parthicus or Germanicus. So Marc Aurel would give his full name and title as 'Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus Armeniacus Medicus Parthicus Maximus, Pontifex Maximus, Pater Patriae, Consul III, Tribunicia Potestas XX, Imperator IV'.

tohodakilla · 3日前

As a Murky player, reading this gave me PTSD.

reddit gold Since June 2015	Three-Year Club
Verified Email	Team Periwinkle

Astrogator

トロフィーケース

本日のreddit gold目標額達成率