 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Young Drusilla, who apparently inherited her doting father's tendency to viciousness, attacked her mother's killer screaming and biting," edit
Oh for crying out loud!! Attacking your mother's killer is necessarily indicative of a tendency to viciousness? Wouldn't you?
38.117.238.82 03:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe that Suetonius did not mention her attacking Caesonia's killers; rather that her savagery toward other little children, scratching at their eyes and faces, proved her to be Caligula's daughter. Moreover, I don't think Suetonius actually mentioning much about Caesonia's method of dying except to say that she died with Caligula and was run through with a sword.203.116.59.24 11:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- The text is a citation obviously. The Roman historians wrote that way. We're lucky having better quality historians today, but sometimes it can be very funny adding up all preposterous statements from the Roman historians just for the humourous effect of the sheer illogics. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Refs edit
(PIR2 M 590) (6-41) I took this out. It is an abbreviation of a ref to a section of a German encyclopedia. It seems to have been put in there by BOT. Abbreviations from classics works out of context are a secret classics code not understood even by classicists. We don't want it. If you can't understand it don't put it in! If someone wants to read the German article and use it as a fully specified ref, go ahead, but it would go in a footnote. Thanks.Dave (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Page links to the wrong Drusilla -- Caligula's sister, not his daughter. Blue5732 (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)blue5732
Tone edit
Wrong tone. The incredulity of the editor is inserted like a sore thumb and his repetition of "claims" questions the sources in an inappropriate manner. Maybe you are shocked and in disbelief, editor. What you think about it should not be in the article, which is not about your disbelief, but is about Caesonia. So, I'm going to fix the tone. Now, you can't express your own disbelief, but you can express the published disbelief of someone credible in the field. Have you got a ref there? Anyone question the author? If so, do put it in. Thanks.Dave (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)