People don't necessarily have names, not in the sense we would use it. The "name" of Imperator Augustus was Octavianus, which just meant: The Eighth, as he was the eighth child of his parents. In general, Romans didn't have names, they just acquired titles and nicknames during their life.
He was born Gaius Octavius. (He apparently got his cognomen of "Thurinus" somewhat after his birth.) He changed his name to include Octavianus, after his birth family, after Gaius Julius Caesar died and Caesar's will named Gaius his adopted son and heir. At each point, he had a name that was recognized as such, distinct from titles and nicknames.
If you're going to try to be pedantic, get at least the core details right.
Actually, Romans had some name, but it didn't really matter. And it gets even more complicated. There were 18 praenomens in use, as far as we know, but most of them went out of use, and only the three Caius, Lucius and Marcus remained, at least for males. As they didn't really help to distinguish people, they went mostly out of daily use, or were left abbreviated in inscriptions. If people were aristocracy, they also had the name of their gens. Thus Caius Iulius (Caesar) was of the gens of the Iulians. But
Emperor Julian Apostata belongs to a different time period. He was not living in Rome (I don't find any source right now that he ever was in Rome even for a visit), but in Constantinople and talking Greek instead of Latin. His name is of Latin origin (as he was the Emperor of the Roman Empire), but that's about as Latin as it gets for him. Differently than for Romans living two or three centuries earlier than him, the actual meaning of the names was not as important as the inheritance of the names from his
You are still not helping your original claim, that Romans didn't have names in the same way we do. They certainly used them differently, but he wasn't named Nero because of his strength or Ahenobarbus because of his beard. You'll find the same kind of name changes in many of the ruling families before the late 20th century -- for example, Prince Phillip abandoned his birth titles and changed his family name to Mountbatten. It doesn't mean he was born in, or conquered, Battenberg.
This has never been more obligatory (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who says "people have names" is a wrong assumption can be safely dismissed as a crank.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
He was born Gaius Octavius. (He apparently got his cognomen of "Thurinus" somewhat after his birth.) He changed his name to include Octavianus, after his birth family, after Gaius Julius Caesar died and Caesar's will named Gaius his adopted son and heir. At each point, he had a name that was recognized as such, distinct from titles and nicknames.
If you're going to try to be pedantic, get at least the core details right.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
I was rebutting the claim about "people have names" being a false assumption, so it matters very much if Romans had names. I have a name, Donald John Trump has a name, Yoshihide Suga (more formally è... 義å) has a name. "People have names" is an empirically provable fact, not a false assumption.
And Octavius was Augustus Caesar's nomen at birth because he was a member of gens Octavia. It had absolutely nothing to do with his birth order.
Trying to translate Roman names the way you
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This has never been more obligatory (Score:2)
You are still not helping your original claim, that Romans didn't have names in the same way we do. They certainly used them differently, but he wasn't named Nero because of his strength or Ahenobarbus because of his beard. You'll find the same kind of name changes in many of the ruling families before the late 20th century -- for example, Prince Phillip abandoned his birth titles and changed his family name to Mountbatten. It doesn't mean he was born in, or conquered, Battenberg.