Why Caesar Committed Genocide (and Why He was Proud of It)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 лип 2024
- Okay, the time has come: we've leapt to the defense of Julius Caesar in several videos at this point (after all, the man clearly had -- and has -- his detractors), but the truth is that, beyond offering hope and opportunity to the poor of Rome, Gaius Julius Caesar was also responsible for the death of an estimated one million people in Gaul.
In this episode we examine the horrors that Caesar's legions visited upon the tribes of Gaul, and propose a philosophical and moral framework for evaluating historical atrocities.
00:00 Introduction
01:31 Can we judge the past? (Yes)
06:44 The human cost of the Gallic War
13:30 The Battle of Alesia
16:21 The decline of Gaul and the Fall of Rome
🔔 Subscribe here: / @tribunatespqr
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Branding and design by Kate Hillstead: katehillstead.com
Host sculpture portraits by Daisydewdles: daisydewdles
#history #rome #spqr #ancientrome #roma #roman #romanempire #romanrepublic #caesar #juliuscaesar #roman #ancienthistory #deathofcaesar #idesofmarch #firsttriumvirate #romanhistory #hborome #romehbo #fallofrome #gaiusjuliuscaesar #crossingtherubicon #romanpolitics #politics #diplomacy #gaiusjuliuscaesar #documentary #documentaries #historydocumentary #gaul #gallic #france #francia #juliocesar #war #warfare #morality #relativism #ethics #warstories
What criteria can we use to judge the morality of actions from the ancient past? Can we even judge them at all?
From the context of their time.
Simply ask, how did other peoples around them act and think.
Why even try? Don't ask questions you don't want the answers to, or already know the answer to.
No, we cannot. Modern concepts and values do not apply to history under ANY circumstances. It's that simple.
No. Our moral norms, values, and worldviews are so different that we can't apply those to people and their actions and deeds, people who lived more than 2,000 years ago.
By the dissenting voices within their own society is a big start. Tacitus was my introduction to Rome and is the primary reason I have a very negative view of the Empire ("They make a desolation and call it peace." - Tacitus). This works for many cultures. The victims of the Assyrian Empire. The rather impressive self-awareness of the Greeks on their culture's history of naked will to power ("The weak suffer what they must" - Thucydides). The relative tolerance and benevolence of the Persian Empire ("And in any locality where survivors may now be living, the people are to provide them with silver and gold, with goods and livestock" - Ezra quoting Cyrus the Great). The invention of human dignity is not a modern invention. It is reflected in many writers in antiquity, back even to the bronze age ("To bring about the law of righteousness in the land so that the strong may not harm the weak." - The Code of Hammurabi). It may have waxed and waned or been ignored, but believing in the inherent value of human life is not something we made up in the 18th century. It's an old idea, and I firmly believe we can judge people by that standard.
You can admire Caesar’s military genius, but still believe Caesar did many things we would consider cruel and detestable. That is not contradictory, but necessary.
Fully agree. The willingness of too many to place actions from the past beyond the scope of our judgement is ultimately harmful to the historian’s efforts
why is it ?
He's is a military genius but at the same time a pragmatist
And his morality is usually ambiguous
He treated his soldiers like men, which was huge for the time. To consider anybody at all but one's self. Compare that to Crassus's selfishness at scale.
It's an unfortunate truth that many peoples, tribes, and nations have been condemned to the abyss of history for the simple fact of lack of writing. The Gauls and Germans had no means with which to record their struggle against the Romans. The victors aren't the ones who write the history books, the scribes do the writing for them.
Another awesome video, Tribunate. Keep em coming!
Gallic religion and culture was organized around druidic learning that was all based on oral tradition - Caesar coopted or killed these druids and much of its history was lost in the process.
You brush up against the point but it seems worth mentioning, if only because it can be so difficult for modern observers to think in these terms. But Caesar is an unreliable narrator on these matters, not because we can expect him to downplay or justify his brutality, but because he is likely to have exaggerated it. No doubt the questions regarding how we engage in the moral aspects of the ancient past still stand, but it adds a level of complexity to our assessment as well. Caesar may or may not been as effective at committing genocide as he claimed, but that he would seek to portray himself as such is itself noteworthy.
You're right, we should have included a few lines about the disputed nature of Caesar's numbers in the commentaries. The figures from his commentaries are almost certainly exaggerated, but we sought to take him at his word here and since there aren't any agreed upon numbers for these specific incidents thought it best to use the sources.
Ultimately the exact numbers mattered less to us than conveying the horror of mass death and using the war as a pretext for talking about how best to judge actions from the past.
@@tribunateSPQR It's probably a subject worth examining itself: on what points would Caesar be motivated to exaggerate & which to downplay, based on Roman norms.
There's a song by Jacek Kaczmarski, which in translation goes something like this:
The heavy step of the legions thunders over Europe
The end of the republic is inevitable
The Gallic hills rot in mixed blood
And Julius Caesar writes his diaries
...
Let us, Caesar, when we conquer the whole world
Rape, rob, satisfy all desires
Soldiers' simple requests have been the same for years
And Julius Caesar does not forbid fun in silence
...
The new order civilizes the conquered nations
Crosses grow along the roads from the Rhine to the Nile
The whole world resounds with complaints, screams and tears
And Julius Caesar practices conciseness of style
In terms of raw violence, it seems Octavian dei Augusti truly was his great grand uncle’s son.
His guiding principle was that Caesar was too lenient towards enemies. No surprise he ended up with so much blood on his hands
@@tribunateSPQR Caesar *was* obscenely lenient to his *Roman* enemies. Not so much anyone else.
This is what it means to truly love, Roman civilization and history in general. To actively inquire on the human condition of these eras and events. In his greatest triumphs, and deepest moments.
Thank you for your kind words. We're passionate about Rome and all history - celebrating the achievements but also not shying away from aspects that no one should emulate. Only a comprehensive analysis of history allows us to actually learn from the past.
This is a very well articulated video, glad I found this channel!
Thank you! Very glad the almighty algorithm showed us to you
Thanks for this video. Often times people can be so entranced by stories of the past and places like Rome and people like Julius Caesar that they can forget to contextualize them with the fact that the millions of unnamed, unmentioned people were still people, all who had their own lives, all of whom are just as valuable as the figures we lionize.
It's unfortunate but a LOT of people try to use Rome and Caesar as exemplars without acknowledging the fucked up stuff that happened in the name of providing for the elite. Although it does end up kinda funny to see conservatives try to justify modern policy off of their ignorant ideas of Rome and especially of Caesar who was about as anti-conservative as one could get at the time.
Well said - our previous content has been very pro-Caesar as by and large we feel that his domestic reform agenda was far superior to the one offered by Cato and his reactionary clique but when Caesar was operating outside of Rome he still adopted traditional Roman imperialist attitudes.
He was sophisticated enough to advocate for greater rights within his community but was a product of his time in thinking that anyone outside of Rome wasn't quite fully human in the same way a citizen was
@@tribunateSPQR I guess my biggest unanswered question about Caesar would be what his personal motivations were regarding his domestic agenda. Did he ACTUALLY care about the plebians and want to make life better for them? Or was it, from the start, a naked political move that his brilliant strategic mind knew would be the best way to attain power.
We know he was absolutely laser-focused on attaining power from very early on in life, and by sorta going all in on representing the Populares causes (Except when he needed to make compromises with his opponents) it absolutely worked in vaulting him to heights only last seen with the Gracchi...But we also see how that ended for the Gracchi brothers, so I don't know if it would appeal to him as the "perfect" strategy, much more a risky strategy that could easily get him killed, especially with so many powerful Optimates like Cicero, Cato the Younger, Pompey later on, etc (Is there some good place to get a list of roman senators from any given time, like the late republic? I'm not well versed enough to just remember all the major figures, and theoretically there are lists of most of them, right?).
Obviously I don't think there can be any answer since he was a master at propoganda and I doubt we could ever take anything he said or wrote at face value just due to the fact it was all for his pursuit of power. But he almost definitely had SOME personal views, whatever they may be, even if he didn't share them and was willing to compromise them. I'd love to think that deep down he actually did care for some of the lower classes (He obviously saw slaves like most Romans did, as more or less subhuman, but you can't win them all I guess) and part of his desire for power is just the basic knowledge that you can't affect change without power. IIRC the Julii got hard hit by the Sulla proscriptions so it would make some sense if he felt a life long drive to limit the power of the more conservative senatorial class...but it's just impossible to say, huh?
Sorry for throwing all this at you in a comment haha
@@Tinil0Happy to lend my 2 cents to this:
I believe Caesar was actually a fairly conventional politician at the start of his career, though inclined toward popular causes he was no radical and his moves that ran counter to constitutional precedent were carried out in reaction to his opponents also flouting constitutional norms. Read Robert Morstein-Marx’s excellent “Julius Caesar and the Roman people” for a thorough defense of this view.
As for the ideas that shaped him - here we must rely more on conjecture. Arthur Kahn’s “the education of Julius Caesar” is my favorite biography of the man and it goes into great detail looking at the religious and philosophical influences that would have shaped Caesar’s worldview
i could have fixed him
Great story telling and editing, keep up the great work! You good sir just gained a new fan/sub :)
Thank you so much! We're very appreciative of your support!
Well if you lack the belief that all people are in possession of one equal human nature or believe that the commons are culpable for the sins of their authorities, its not too difficult to imagine yourself doing such a thing.
well this was certainly a hell of a video
Out of all the videos we have done so far this was the toughest one to write and record. Thank you for sticking with it despite the grim subject matter
god damn this was a brutal one. great video, i had never learned much about rome's actual military conquests
I know this one was particularly joyful, but we felt it was important to show this darker side of Rome, especially as the "why men think about Rome" people insist on presenting a sanitized version of Roman history.
Glad that you found it informative
@@tribunateSPQR This kind of content is a breath of fresh air. Harsh truth presented in a way that makes you analyze the character of Caesar. An incredibly interesting historical figure but also a man capable of some of the most hideous atrocities imaginable.
Lots of people interested in Roman history downplay the brutality of the Romans. Hell, many are straight up ignorant about just how far they could take things.
On the polar opposite, I have seen certain people describe Rome as an "empire of psychopaths" which to me is just plain silly, not to mention a massive misunderstanding of what antisocial personality disorder actually is.
another BRILLIANT video from you guys! this is the roman content that youtube so desperately needed!
thanks so much! We feel that though the Romans are fascinating - its necessary to adopt a critical stance since so much pop history (esp. on UA-cam) will leave people thinking they were unequivocally the good guys
Another great video, well thought out
Thanks!
Thank you so much I'm writing a report on how the Gallic War was a genocide for my class and I found your video both educational and very interesting.
Glad it was helpful!
While I do grief what happened, I think it's important to recognize that Gauls would applaud this too simply if it was their leader eho destroyed the Latin enemy.
We fully agree, but don't believe it is an adequate rationale for Caesar's actions and the intentional targeting of noncombatants
@@tribunateSPQR The Gauls terrorized and sacked Rome 300 years prior to this event. I think the Roman people did not forget past wrongs very easily.
@@therealestg9 thats like USA invading Great Britain today for their past wars.
What a great video
It sucks because Caesar was generally on the more populist side of things and his opponents in Rome were generally worse.
We’re firmly in Caesar’s camp when it comes to domestic Roman politics, but it is disappointing how he (and every other Roman) viewed foreigners as unworthy of an basic human dignity
You'll find out that many so-called "populists" (even ones that lean towards the left) are like this throughout history. It's an unfortunate fact but for most of history, helping out the "people" meant only helping out other people who were same nationality as you. Anyone considered an "outsider" was to be treated with utter suspicion at best and with genocidial intent (and action) at worse. An aspect of human history that most people just refuse to believe because of how cruel it is.
@@tribunateSPQR The same could be said about US president Andrew Jackson. His campaign and promises as president was that he wanted to breakup the big banking institutions at the time because now much they were preying on the average citizen and forcing them into deep debt. He was also a strong defender of democratic values by supporting more checks and balances in the government. But everyone should know how he treated Native American tribes (Trail of Tears, anyone?). It's an unfortunate fact that many self-proclaimed "populists" were also some of the worst towards anyone they considered an "outsider."
In Italy we obviosly take great pride of our roman ancestors (for example even metro stops are named after roman empereors). If you don't study history by yourself, Italian school never mention massacres (for the exception of Carthage and Jerusalem), Caesar is seen as another national hero.
An important what if should be, if Gauls were pacified without a genocide, which in the biggest numbers reach as far as 1 million, how it would impact Roman defense with so more recruits avalaible
Thanks for this comment. In America we are also presented with sanitized version of our national heroes
@@tribunateSPQR yeah but in the US the link is also very political. Every normal american would start to ask questions on why the US dropped more tons of bomb on Laos, neutral country, than nazi germany, or why they still have a blockade on Cuba. Roman action even though can be still be "heard" (we got France now, thanks Caesar), can be de sanitized and shown as what they were. I think the main problem is also sources, nothing remains of a gallic prespective of the gallic wars
This is a very good video. There is a lot of interesting aspects of Rome. But I find that people who love Rome as if it is a fandom tend to write off Roman cruelty as being characteristic of their time and place without much investigation of other cultures and their practices. Empire is, by nature, violence. And Roman, even in the context of it's era, was extraordinary in it's naked brutality, to the disgust of many of it's own citizens.
Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium .... ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
"To rape, to slaughter, to plunder, these things they call "imperium".... They make a desolation, and call it peace."
- Tacitus, placing a speech against the Empire in the mouth of a British Chieftain
There are no heroes and villains in history. There are traits we can admire, but we cannot forget that Rome was not aspirational (though they have things that can be aspired to).
Its amazing that those people want to erase the humanity and forget the eloquence of Roman critics of the Roman Empire.
People who do this will make blanket statements like "everyone thought this way" but intentionally exclude everyone who disagreed from their definition of "everyone"
Well said, we alluded to the Tacitus quote but couldn't find a good spot for it this one.
Glad you enjoyed the video!
@@tribunateSPQR I hope you one day get to cover Tacitus' work more on the channel. A portrait of a historian as much as the events he covered.
A great reminder 😢
The farther away a historical event is from our time, the more people tend to think it was meant to happen.
Well said - we tend to view things that happened before our time as not just inevitable but necessary. The farther back the event, the stronger this impulse is.
You bring up great moral and philosophical questions! As a fan and lover of all things Roman, this was a hard video to watch.
Researching this stuff is what made the atheist historian Tom Holland become convinced that the rise of Christian morality in the empire was far more of a ethical paradigm shift than he initially realized.
I think this tracks to a certain extent, Caesar was in many ways the “best” that a man could be according to the values and norms of his time. But it’s clear that he still falls woefully short of what we would consider a model for emulation
Lol bc Christians never caused genocides.
Didn’t know that about Holland.. always figured he was Christian.
I think modern opinions of the past are so skewed by the modern concept of “peace” which is an idea that’s barely 100 years old. Before then I think everyone across every culture understood it was conquer or be conquered.
In the words of Hobbes "The war of all against all"
No? Not all peoples thought that way.
Fair
Also its bullshit WE dont have Peace today WE Had wars in the Balkans all the time, africa IS filled with wars, the middle east AS well.
I always feel sorrow that due to a lack of literacy and also the means of recording and preserving writing being either rare or inaccessible, we have lost the voices of most "ordinary people" throughout history. The "Great Man" only goes so far in telling us of the time they lived in, especially as these people were largely from an elite group that had a vastly different life to the general populace. Caesar is fascinating, but I want to know more about life as most of us would have experienced it had we lived back then. It is frustrating we have so little of that, to me.
It really is a shame how few surviving sources there are for the non-elite.
Our most recent video takes this on directly and looks at Roman graves which do offer the best primary source on the lives of the ancient romans ua-cam.com/video/29W8b6rAFN4/v-deo.htmlsi=sxZrP2HoygrzjcjY
I'm pretty sure when the Vandals/Barbarians invaded Rome, they were motivated by the memory of their ancestors that suffered. Note: They put an end to the 'gladiator games' that was basically wholesale human sacrifice of non-Romans, dressed up as an entertainment/sport for the public.
I've actually been considering a video on how Rome's self-professed hatred of human sacrifice was all really just PR branding since they had such an affinity for judicial murder
Great video so far, but I hate to disappoint.. the “dedication” at the end of Rambo III is false, apparently. Was listening to a podcast and they said they were surprised but it was photoshopped later on lol I was devastated, it’s one of the best end credits.
...I'm questioning everything right now
@@tribunateSPQR I was in the exact mental state lol
Ramo III has the dedication, it says "This film is dedicated to the gallant people of Afghanistan" (just checked it). So to be honest doesn't look very different from the photoshopped one in the context of the movie, when they, well, show a fight of people, who call themselves as "mujahideen".
If I may, I think I'd have to contend with the idea that Caesar committed genocide in Gaul on a national or localised level (while at the same time acknowledging that the conquest was without a doubt brutal in some areas. See no further than the siege of Uxellodunum)
For a start, there's the issue of numbers. It was the later historian Plutarch, not Caesar, who gave the 'killed 1 million, enslaved 1 million out of a population of 3 million' number. This number, as with all ancient writers, should be taken with a heavy grain of salt due to the immense size and is most likely an exaggeration. Modern archaeological evidence instead seems to suggest that the pre-conquest population was in the 8-10 million range instead.
Most of the Gallic population, it seems, survived the war considering the fact that later Roman villas have been mostly found on the site of old Gallic farms. This indicates a continuity of elites in Gaul which followed a Roman model. As we now understand it, Roman 'colonisation' was not colonisation in the same sense that we think of today with the European colonial empires of the early modern period. It was a conquest, not a colonisation. The native population was not inhibited from social mobility within the new social order and the land wasn't made poor for the benefit of the metropole. Gaul was integrated into the Roman state, not destroyed, and Celtic culture continued to exist as late as the 4th century AD.
So, on a national level, Caesar didn't commit genocide. His motives for conquest were based on gaining personal prestige and glory, not a desire to ethnically cleanse or destroy a block of peoples to then completely repopulate the land with his own. The fact that he was willing to work with other tribes during the conquest and had no problems ruling over the Gauls in the already Roman provinces of Cisalpine Gaul in northern Italy doesn't point to him having any issues with the Gauls on a racial basis.
But what about on a localised level, where individual tribes apparently were destroyed? This is something which, again, doesn't seem to fit the term genocide. Most of the major recorded casualties of the conquest occured after the various battles, when the retreating men were pursued and cut down by the Romans. This was fairly standard practice for armies in the day (and can be seen in other examples like the Second Punic War with Hannibal) and was about stopping the enemy from regrouping, not destroying their ethnic character.
You mention the case of the Eburones at 12:26 as being the clearest example of genocide during the conquest, but the idea that Caesar completely wiped them out has been disputed. The fact that he attempted to attack them again two years after his first campaign against them shows that they survived, and it's unlikely that the Romans were able to access them due to the surrounding environment being so hostile.
And in numerous other examples, the families of the combatants in battles were pursued by the Romans not to exterminate, but to enslave (ancient Romans saw war prisoners and their relatives automatically as slaves). Horrible? Yes. Genocide? No, the intent was financial, not racial/ethnic. The Gallic war was filled with mass killings (as would be the better word to use in these circumstances) but not mass genocide. Most modern historians and scholars agree with this classification.
the descriptions match those of today in gaza.
The horrors men commit to build empires on the backs of the oppress have changed very little in 2000 years.
The only reason the Gauls didn't like what Caesar did is that he did it to them. If they were doing it to some other tribe, they'd see it as good. They presumably saw it as good when they invaded Rome in the time of Marius and before that, just as the Romans (for all their praise of their own conquests) saw it as evil when the Celts invaded them back then. "The standards of the day" do seem to have been a general thing, but they were relative; "what helps my tribe is good, what hurts my tribe is bad."
Yes, we didn't want to argue that the Gauls were more moral than Caesar, they likely would have committed many of these same atrocities either against other tribe or Rome itself had they been able. However, I don't feel like this excuses Caesar's actions
@@tribunateSPQR true. But what determined which groups did evil to which other groups seems to have mostly been based on who had the power to do it, not on a moral difference.
Some exceptions exist of course - not ancient, but I recently read about the Moriori refusing to fight the Maori, which was a genuine difference in values leading one side to be the victim - but usually it's just power that determines who is victim and who is oppressor =/
Agreed.
Cruelty, as policy, was inflicted on part by Rome, to reduce rebellion, taking modern judgement aside. Rome calculated such harsh actions would reduce widespread rebellion in the future. It did seem to work with Spartacus and the Gauls. Not morally justified but correct in Rome's view to maintain Empire.
Do you plan on making a video on the Battle of Teutoburg Forest and the later campaigns in Germania? I used to hate Arminius and see him as a traitor but when you read more thoroughly, I can't truly blame the guy tbh
That's a great idea! We have tried to steer clear of military history as there are so many bigger channels that handle those topics (and often quite well). But we could certainly do one on the social and economic backdrop of Roman expansion into Germany and why Arminius would have been driven to betray the Romans. I agree with you that he made the correct decision in light of the brutality of Roman imperialism
@@tribunateSPQR Agreed, Roman military history is well documented by many youtubers. While it's certainly fascinating and easily what Rome is most known for, I personally find the social, political and economic side of Roman history a lot more interesting.
It really annoys me that Julius Caesar did such evil stuff in Gaul, because he seems like one of the less evil people in the ancient world! I want at least one guy from the past I can root for!
He was probably less evil than most of the Gauls he killed but that doesn't say much =/
I really feel that he was about as "good" of a person as it was possible to be at that time - however committing genocide is a pretty big dealbreaker for us
It is, though it's not without its savage merits, and they are; where it gets really complicated is at the individual level @@pandakicker1
I can't find a flaw in that argument.
-Titus@@pandakicker1
Spartacus was a breath of fresh air from the ancient world, Escaped from a Gladiator school, freed lots of slaves , only killed solider's roman solider's who were sent to kill them or imprison them again
@@mrscanlan.5016 Slave rebellions were always extremely violent, and everyone from the population was affected, Did they ever have slaves or not.
First of all the conflict of Celts and Romans dates back to first sack of Rome in 390 BCE. This conflict was just natural power struggle of the region. If Celts could do this themselves they would have subjected Roman empire themselves and would have done same "war crimes". Julius Caesar was the one great leader who was capable of ending this long lasting conflict and there hides is his brilliance. Punishing rebellious tribes with the most severe punishment was Roman trademark in the East which helped to forge this enormous Empire. Judging these events by our christian moral values as good or bad is really not helping to analyze this conflict rationally. Sudden realization that fractured tribes couldn't stand versus organized united Empire was quick and devastating. Although we have no written evidence, from archeological evidence we can conclude that inner relations between tribes weren't the most peaceful either, which was one of the reasons of their downfall too. Anyway, this "brutalism" was part of the game and a necessary tool for conquest and unification of tribes. And if I could speculate then without Roman Empire European tribes would have been just a victim to other unified Empires.
Did the Gauls object to conquest and enslavement in general? Or just it being done to them? Would they be okay with conquering and enslaving Romans? Does it matter which view they held?
Ironic that the Romans attribute to their Gallic conqueror, Brennus, the famous line, "vae victis". Caesar sure knew how to bring woe to the vanquished.
The Arab caliphates would go on to do the exact same thing in the Middle East, especially in terms of the cultural genocide.
Stop bringing out the Southern US slavery as something justifiable because at that time people were so disgusted by the injustices that people like John Brown who first hand experienced the brutal treatment of slaves
Our point is that US slavery is unjustifiable under any circumstances- as was Roman slavery.
We’re big fans of John Brown here
One thing to remind yourself is that the other option to slavery in ancient wars was genocide that's why civilizations tended to enslave and barbarians tended to slaughter the captives since they had no use for mass amounts of slaves
@@laisphinto6372why didn’t barbarians have use for money from selling slaves?
Up to the postwar, genocides were considered a good thing, because it brought peace to the genocider's people. That's why Julius Caesar's alleged genocide of the Gauls (most historians think he exaggerated the numbers) boosted his popularity so much in Rome (the very fact that he may have fabricated the numbers upwards already demonstrates genocides were seen as a positive thing among the Roman populus). The very concept of genocide; and of genocide as a bad thing is essentially a post-WWII invention/cultural change/innovation.
I think you're oversimplifying things. Thucydides seems to depict the depopulation of whole towns as an evil thing, centuries before Julius was born. People like Darwin criticized what they saw as genocides in the 19th century. Our current views are massively shaped by WW2 but weren't created out of nothing by it.
That was definitely something we considered in making the video -- that in various historical sources from all across the world, numbers like "one million" often get used as a substitute for saying "a lot." Definitely something we might revisit in its own video. Thanks for watching! - Titus
Definitely a sweeping broad generalizarion that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Based Caesar
It is just from a religious perspective as a master over the land &world and a conqueror
lovely video but it unfortunately goes nowhere for too long. i'm 4 minutes in and you haven't even delved into the topic. a bit irritating, feels like i wasted time. i would recommend a generally faster cadence + subtitles as well as getting into the literal meat of what you're presenting instead of meaningless commentary
EDIT: 7 minutes in and still literally NOWHERE. please take into consideration my observations (for your bettering) as at this point i am going to click away from the video in irritation and it's a shame as i saw a lot of value in the initial concept :)
I think the last question is completely wrong though.
*If* Rome genuinely brought centuries of objective prosperity and wellbeing, after an initial bout of brutality, then you can argue its conquests were fundamentally justified in principle, but that people like Caesar were more brutal than they needed to be.
With regard to your "would you accept the bargain in the place of the slaughtered Gauls?"argument, that can easily be turned on its head: "Would you go back to the past to prevent a traumatic conquest of your ancestors, knowing that it would result you actually being born into absolute poverty?"
It's far more important to ask whether Roman rule brought any benefits whatsoever and whether those benefits could not have arisen without Roman rule.
It was not a genocidal war. It was a war of conquest which caused massive civilian casualties,like many others in the antiquity. Your theory is disproved by the very fact that Gaul, immediatly after the roman occupation, became one of the most prosperous and populated provinces of the roman Res Publica. That would not have been possible if Caesar had perpetrated a genocide,
Our contention is not that Caesar sought to eradicate ALL Gauls, he wanted to leave as many alive as he could to ensure there would be tax-payers in the new Roman province. Rather that genocidal actions were undertaken against specific tribes in Gaul - this is something that he freely admits and the utter disappearance of the Eburones indicates that on at least one occasion he was successful.
Lets put it this way the rough estimate of the population of Gaul pre conquest was 6 million. 1 million died and 1 million enslaved are rough estimates. 2 million out of 6 million. 1/3 is a substantial portion of the population even if you exclude the enslaved population it is still 1/6 of the population dead. How is that not a genocide?
@@sergiodasilva6505 these figures are hypotetical, since Plutarch is not a reliable source. He is a biographer, not an historian. The definition of genocide is the following " the deliberate killing of a large number of people of a particular nation or etnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group". Caesar ' s aim was never the destruction of the Gauls. Many gaulish tribes were their main allies.His cavalry and auxiliaries were gaulish. After the conquest Gaul became more prosperous and was densely populated. Many gaulish aristocrats were given the roman citizenship. It was by no means a campaign of genocide like the campaigns of Chingis Khan, which left depopulated for decades vast areas
The flaw in your thinking is viewing the Gauls as a monolithic people. Did Caesar intend to exterminate all Gallic peoples? No. But he made an effort to exterminate particular tribes or subgroups of the Gauls, and that absolutely qualifies as genocidal.
@@DarthNicky . I base myself on the facts as reported by the sources ( mainly Caesar himself but not only ) . Caesar's aim was never to exterminate a particular gallic tribe. He was looking for allies instead. For example, when he was ambushed by the Nervii at Sabis, he annihilated their army but offered protection to the survivors and their familes when they surrendered. He did not enslave anybody, even if ,according to the ius belli, he was entitled to do so. With the Aduatuci things went differently, but for a reason : when they realised that the Romans were constructing huge siege works, they pretended to surrender and opened the gate to the legions. The town was not sacked and nobody was hurt. In order to prevent that drunk roman soldiers could in any way damage the Gauls, he even ordered all his troops out of Aduatuca before the night fall. At dawn the Aduatuci treacherously attacked the Romans and were defeated.Eventually, Caesar sold into slavery all the inhabitants, 54000 souls. He applied the ius belli of the time and defining as genocide this action is incorrect. The principles of bona fides and pacta sunt servanda were overarching for the Romans and their violation had automatically dire consequences for the perpetrators. The same occurred with the Usipetes and Tencteri, which were not gallic, but germanic tribes: they attacked the Romans during a parley and they violated therefore the ius gentium. They send envoys to Caesar but he detained them because of the previous violation. He attacked the Germans , which were destroyed. The roman cavalry killed many civilians as well , but Caesar never gave such an order. Killing civilans present at a battlefield was a common practice in the ancient world. The same happened to Boudicca's rag tag army, which , in turn, had previously killed 80000 roman and british civilians. The surviving Germans decided to stay with Caesar not as slaves or servants but as" clientes". Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the two tribes were not wiped out since they are both mentioned by the sources until the early 4th century. For these reasons and many others Caesar's actions do not qualify as genocide.
He should have kept conquering all the way to the Volga. Caesar, a true descendent of the Indo European conquerors. Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizarro as well.
Julias Caesar Was German 🇩🇪
Wah wah wah wah sounds like this was written by a millennial
Caesar didn't commit any genocide, the first genocide was the Armenian Holocaust, what happened with Caesar was just another footnote on the history of the ancient world, he sure treated them better than Carthage
Gaulic Propaganda. Not listening to a barbar lover.
this is how to win wars in this time.
Don't care. Hail Caesar.
Roman Empire was Build on Genocide and War Crimes ...Carthage,Gaul,Hispania,Dacia,Germania,Britannia !
Real academic anthropologists and historians would vehemently disagree that there is a 'moral' aspect to their work, which is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. Ethics is the purview of philosophers and theologians, while cultural relativism is literally anthropology 101.
Based Caesar
The more I learn about Caesar, the more I want to bring a monarchy in the so-called United States.
@@Skibbityboo0580and what if your great leader ended up being hillary clinton?
Ok nazi