That Caninius guy knew exactly what he was doing. He knew that 4 hours of consulship were enough to have his name mentioned in a youtube video 2000 years later
Caesar was a tyrant and he delibrately destroyed the Roman Politics. That's why he had to fall prey to more than 5 specific dagger, knife and sword wounds. He had to pay for the price of the "last three straws" incident along with his life.
Actually nudity was somewhat common in festivals in ancient Greece and Rome. Men participated in any gymnastics activity nude. Also some famous women when publicly drunk drop off their cloths.
That Octavian kid sounds like he'll be living under Caesar's shadow for the rest of his life. There's no way he can possibly do anything that will eclipse his uncle!
“At one o'clock, Caesar announced the election of a consul to serve until 1 January--which was the next morning. So I can inform you that in Caninus' consulship, no one had lunch. Still, nothing untoward occurred while he was consul: such was his vigilance that throughout his consulship, he never ever closed his eyes.” /Cicero.
@@JonatasAdoM oh, Cicero was spicy with the sarcasm. You expect historical figures to be all stoic, but I like to imagine Cicero and Cato were sassy b×tches on the floor of the Senate...
@@JonatasAdoM I think this is evident from 20:40 - such a snarky comment, with its intent so clear, is just the sort of back-biting you’d expect from 3 blokes in a pub 😭
Historia civilis has released up until now 22 videos about ceasars life. The 23rd video will be the final video about ceasar. Ceasar was also stabbed 23 times The numbers Mason what do they mean...
"Not king, but Caesar" aged so well, since his name it self became the base for the word "Emperor" in multiple languages, including Russian (Tsar) and German (Keiser). Thus, to an extent this sounds as "Not king, but emperor!" from a linguistic point of view.
@@MelkisgoedvoorJanyeah, there's a yt channel that's mostly focused on the Latin language that covers a bit of history and etymology as well as pronunciation. I think the channel is polymathy
Between reading that line in Shakespeare's version of events and knowing that emperors used his name as a royal title, in middle school I honestly started wondering if "Caesar" was an actual title in the Roman Republic, and "Gaius Julius" holding that title is why we remember him as "Caesar."
I bet that Caesar is going to live a long prosperous life with no one, not even his friends would even try to kill him, no one at all... Surely March 15, 44 BC would be an extremely uneventful day with nothing interesting at all.
I like to think that Antony got so engrossed in his conversation with Caesar that he forgot about the conspiracy, and felt it would be super awkward to bring it up a few hours later and just didnt.
Harrison Mosburg i might do that and post it on a fake historia civilis channel. Call it something like “historia civilis fanpage” or something like that.
I love that in the case of Antony, we can't rule out that he simply forgot about the conspiracy because he didn't have a clue that a bunch of senators asking him to help remove Caesar was a big deal.
I'd go with both.. a personal political move that he quickly forgot. Also, he fucked up badly.. so my guess is he wanted to see what Caesar would do with him but the conversation went on for too long.. mentioning the conspiracy after he was forgiven would have shown his dishonesty and slight lack of loyalty.
@@everybodyisanidiot4553 thats a good point, "oh hye buddy. Pal, a few years ago a couple of senators asked me to help depose you, totally slipped my mind until just now hahaha."
@@spcxplrr I took ancient cilivilzations in highschool which focused heavily on Rome. I genuinely can’t remember shit from it because Antony wasn’t pink.
I strongly suspect/hope that the series will continue with Octavian/Augustus' rise to power. There's so much intrigue and political maneuvering through that time period that it would be right in HC's wheelhouse. Plus, it will be interesting to eventually see him compare Augustus' methods for consolidating power with what Caesar did here.
I'd actually like to see us pick up another point in the timeline, even if only for a bit. Maybe the early Republic, or the conquest of Greece, which is never covered, only mentioned in hindsight. If we go on to Bricks McMarble, then we're basically set to follow the whole Dynasty, all the way to Burnie McFiddler. Now I want to see that rennacted with blocks, but it's not all I want to see rennacted with blocks. He can pick up where he left off later. For those of you who are interested, the other three are Disappointing McPedophile, Artist McLost's Shit, and Stutters McLonglife.
"When he himself in one of his triumphal processions rode past the benches of the tribunes, he was so incensed because a member of the college, Pontius Aquila by name, did not rise, that he cried: 'Come then, Aquila, take back the republic from me, you tribune'; and for several days he would not make a promise to any one without adding, 'That is, if Pontius Aquila will allow me.'" - Suetonius, _The Life of Julius Caesar_ , Chapter 78
Thanks Arcaeca for citing from Suetonius's book, De Vita Caesarum. Otherwise even in Google, where I wished to read that same book, most pages of the book are missing.
This video's public bread is provided by the Capitoline Brotherhood of Millers. The Brotherhood uses only the finest flour: true Roman bread for true Romans.
No I disagree People around the man (Cesar in this case) corrupt him So everyone can be corrupted The moment you start to believe someone can't be corrupted is the moment you gave him the listens to be corrupt
@@NadDew You've failed to prove your point, while the OP is quoting from an historian who - following a career spent writing biographies of powerful people - famously said "I used to believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but now I've come to believe that power doesn't necessarily corrupt - it reveals. When the man is able to do anything he wants to do, you'll see what it is he always wanted to do." I'll go with the seasoned professional biographer of powerful people on this one, no offense intended.
I don't think that corruption is the only way for a human to be wielded out, as we are born ambitious and prepared to throw one another under the bus from birth to grave, the only distinct difference is that after we are children we learn to control that behaviour. The only limiter on that behaviour is personal power, people will conceal their true nature if they are incapable of otherwise acting on it. I mean the average workplace is a perfect example of this. We all know that two faced colleague that belittles everyone because at their core they are a spiteful human being, yet the moment they get into a management position they will exercise blatant favouritism and shut down people that they dislike. I've known family who have been screwed over for much less favourable candidates due to the person in the superior position being able to choose whom they surround themselves with. Ceasers qualities as a General also made him a Tyrant. He was a master of managing the battlefield and his choices, he kept his friend close to him to prevent him becoming a significant power rival and then proceeded to tackle becoming an Emperor by targeting politics in the same way he started war. He slowly fortified his position until he had everything he needed then attacked the political institution relentlessly. His main mistake was being unaware that these same subject would do something unlawful to end his regime.
I can't agree with the point made in 8:36 honestly. While sure, such is true in most *modern* democracies, that *definitely* wasn't the case in the Roman Republic, as Caesar had literally just defeated 1.5 civil wars when he started accumulating powers. The Roman Republic had had precedence for dictators taking absolute power - *Caesar had literally lived through one* - and the incidents involving the Gracchi brothers proved that the Roman Republic just wasn't as stable as any modern democracy. The Roman Republic was decaying rapidly, and looking at that decay and saying it was somehow more stable than the alternative is just a lie. Healthy political systems do not cause stability, but are rather a sign of such stability and other factors. By the time Caesar arrived on the political scene, those factors were long gone from Roman politics.
id upboat this comment if not for the fact that you believe modern democracy is healthy by any sense of the word and not heading in the same direction as the roman republic lets just hope that we get a good emperor and not a total system collapse
@@Retard634 You say this when most modern, 'first world' democracies have not had a civil war or any sort of internal conflicts in at least a century, especially since after the end of the Cold War and the overthrow of Stalinism in the former Eastern Bloc. Modern democracy, while definitely not without flaw, is far less prone to collapsing into brutal violence and civil war than the Roman republic was by a long stretch, and absolute dictators akin to Sulla are far less likely to take power - for example, the United States, which despite its flaws has not had a civil war in over two centuries.
Danwar yes but it has to, we are on the same trend of the Roman Republic, a system dominated by money, by the interests of the corporate aristocrats, just because there is no civil war, does not mean there will not be one in the future. political violence is on the rise, the policies of many West European states has seen to a radical rise in crime and a widening of political divides, in America and Europe people are thrown by the wayside as the soldiers of democracy (really, the soldiers of the media and the corporations), march forward to their own ends. the Gracchi attempted to curb this, just as he does now and it led to even more violence and instability. the Roman Republic also by the time of the Gracchi had had no civil wars at all, if anything, the American Republic may be doing worse.
I’m reminded of a line from History of the World Part 1: “Remember, thou art mortal! Remember, thou art mortal! Remember, thou art mortal!” “Oh, blow it out your ass!”
Fun fact about Tribune Aquila: Given that Pontius Aquila was attributed as a member of the Pontia gens, it’s possible that Aquila was an ancestor to another person of the same name: Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judaea and the one who supposedly overlooked the trial of and ordered the crucifixion of ya boi, Jesus.
Damn, this feels like when I learned that Nabokov got traumatized because his father saved a Russian politician from Sergei 'Gaming' Taboritski's assassination attempt. Turns out he was in the crowd as a kid so yea. Nice fun fact, wonder if he asked his ancestor tribune Pontius Aquila for his permission lol
If it ends at some point it will likely be when Octavian becomes Augustus, he then might do other parts of Roman history or maybe go back to Alexander the Great
@Maintenance Renegade i don't think the welfare programs played a significant role here, the corruption of the elites and the lack of counterbalance to the amount of power a rich person could gather were the reasons
Yeah, though the rot started long before then. Take the Second Punic War, encouraging the Senate to consolidate power to better direct the war, undermining the checks and balances of other institutions. Then with chastisement of Greece and Spain you have vast sources of wealth pouring into the Senate's pocket, causing destabilising wealth inequality. And then the final defeat of Carthage removed any major external threat to Rome's interests up until they started butting heads with Parthia, meaning there was little external reason for the nobility to set aside personal grudges. The Graachi and other reformers were a reaction to this gradual process of wealth and power consolidation, and on both sides the mos maiorum, the unspoken code of conduct in Roman society, were eroded as people sought power. This culminated in Marius and Sulla seizing power outright and from each other, and though Sulla tried to set things right, the rot of mos maiorum was left unaddressed. The institutions looked stable on the surface, but the first time others sought personal power after his death (Pompey and Crassus), there was little pushback. The rules could no longer be enforced, since they were all unspoken gentlemanly agreements. And from disregarding them, it didn't take much for actual laws to be disregarded, like that obscure technicality about crossing the Rubicon with an army.
I love how you colour code each 'prominent' member of the story, it means that if you're diligent enough, you might notice a *familiar* colour at the table. Great video as always!
"Caesar pushed up against Rome's political system and found nothing pushing back" Well...if you don't count constant political opposition, and a worldwide civil war... Yeah, I guess so.
Well, he managed that from his expertise of the republic’s grand corruption and bureaucratic decay, he conquered and enslaved, and became super rich and influential, while the senators bickered about petty shenanigans, so he went, killed and stole and enslaved and got all sort of powers and no one was there to stop him in time
@@lorenzooliveira1157 Achieving political power, even in Republican Rome, ultimately derives from military power, and Caesar won all those civil wars. He had no major opposition only after he defeated his rivals on the battlefield. He defeated Afranius in Spain, Pompey in Greece, Ptolemy in Egypt, Cato in Africa, and Pompey's sons in Spain. He could not have amassed all his power without winning hard fought battlefield victories in a civil war that crossed the whole ancient world. It's not like he was just a politician and was able to manipulate the system easily to his advantage, he had a huge army, and had to fight for those powers. Augustus was much more snakelike, and able to slowly accumulate the same powers, but even he was only able to do so by being in control of almost all the legions, and was not against threatening the senate with armed soldiers.
Yes, but as he said, it was not necessary for Caesar to try to take more power for himself and destroy the Roman institutions after he had won, he did so because no one or nothing could have stopped him, including his own conscience. Sulla had marched on Rome before him but didn't try to destroy Roman politics forever, and Caesar didn't need to, he did because he was an egomaniac.
Before even 3 minutes in: >Triumph celebrating end of civil war >Caesars allies in control of senate giving him false triumphs Tell me again about the constant opposition, and that civil war?
No. He didn't. He publicly humiliated Aquilla and little did he realize that the same man, whom he humiliated was going to conspire against him. There is a video on Caesar's assassination posted by a channel "Kings And Generals". Watch that video. You'll hear the name "Aquilla" in the list of conspirators against Caesar. Caesar was arrogant and was seduced by glorification of his images. He abused the power of "Prefect of Morality" by punishing the two tribunes-Flavus and Marullus, whose names are mentioned at the beginning of William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.
Ominous foreshadowing. Who am I kidding, we all know how this will end up, but let us all wait in anticipation for the grand finale of Caesar's career.
I'm not sure where HC is getting the idea that the late Republic was politically healthy. Sulla and Marius, Catiline and Clodius had shown that it absolutely was not.
yea honestly i think his hatred for Caesar is blinding him from seeing how corrupt and decayed the Roman Republic truly was. it was just an Oligarchy filled with corrupt elites Masquerading as a republic.
Too be fair, the Republic lasted hundreds of years before it decayed to the point of collapse. It had a pretty good run, as far as large, vaguely democratic bureaucracies go.
@@franciscomm7675 yeah, this video was somewhat odd, he usually shows a pretty unbiased picture. I can undestand his criticism of Caesar, but in this episode it was uncharacteristically vicious. He could have criticised him without distorting the opposition and the republic to such an extent.
16:16 This is a 4d next level top-Caesar joke that I'm sad you kind of missed. The 'Rex' part you got down pat in the video, but what 'non Rex sum, sed Caesar' needs to work is the Latin pronunciation of Caesar (i.e. Kaesar). It's a little bit of a walk, but basically: Caesar was saying he was the _opposite_ of a king, here. The _furthest you could get_ from "Rex." Consider the pronunciation of Rex. How would 'rex' be pronounced, if you flipped it on its head and started with the 'x?' Well, we know that X makes the 'ks' sound in 'rex,' as in 'reks.' If you flip it around, then that becomes 'kser.' Since you have to stress the first consonant to pronounce the word properly, you can even write it 'keserr.' Keserr. Keser. Kaeser. Caesar.
@@reschadakbari1593 Tsar is slavic, Czar is magyar and sometimes south slavic. (the line between those two is far thinner than they will ever want to admit). they are not interchangeable but people often confuse them and use them as such.
@@cageybee7221 yes, but I'm just saying that the term Tsar/Czar derivated from that since the russians became the central hub for orthodox christianity after the byzantine empire fell
PLEASE, please make videos about: 1) The Kings' Era 2) The Early Republic 3) The Early Empire (Augustus etc) 4) The Five Good Emperors Exactly the way you have been doing it for the last years of the Republic. Discussing the politics, battles, thoughts of the protagonists etc. I CAN'T WAIT to see what your next topic will be after the Ides of March..
@@srujamdave2139 I believe that he should work with a timeline. The Regal Era, the Early Republic and Early Empire (all of Pax Romana) is something he hasn't touched yet. So they must come first, and the Crisis follows then :) He has covered PERFECTLY the Late Republic, and I would love to see him covering the rest 😍😍
"Transformed [Caesar] into a monarch in all but name." Which is funny, since Caesar since became synonymous with monarch, and gave us both the words Keiser/Kaiser and Tsar.
@@MrBigCookieCrumble All scandinavian languages have derived our word for "Emperor" from Caesar's name. In danish it's Kejser, pronounced exactly like the german Kaiser.
I wouldn't necessarily call Roman politics stable, considering all the servile wars and civil wars that occured before Caesar had even become a big name in politics
There’s a sort of decorum around accepting a lofty mantel. You must feign modesty. They offer once, and you respond “What me? I’m so unworthy, I would never.” They offer it twice and you say “You have given me a great honor, but I dare not.” Then they offer it a third a time and finally you ‘reluctantly’ accept.
The Roman Republic was dead before Caesar it was merely a question of who would issue a final blow. It effectively died with the dictatorship of Sulla but Pompey could just have easily have seized power on his return from the East.
Sam C. S. The Roman government seemed like it was too focused on politics and ego and not on governing the territory of Rome. Caesar merely exploited the ineptitude of the senate and the instability of the times to put himself in a position to govern the republic directly and satisfy his own egomaniacal desires. The same pattern played out in China during the 3 kingdoms period as well We can see the same trend more or less in the present with the way most politicians and “leaders” tend to focus on the popularity aspect of the office and not the governing aspect of their job.
@@SuperNintendawg NOPE, they couldn't. Remember Octavius and Antony. They pulled the same trick yet again, and in no time! Had the Republic been strong and healthy - this would not have happened.
Cicero, Domitius, and Brutus thought with Pompey's "inevitable" victory (remember after Cesar's legions were lost in Africa Pompey was clearly winning the recruitment game), Rome would also be a military dictatorship in all but name. They hoped they could restore normality after him since it should be easier to pick up the pieces after a dictatorship nominally supported by the Senate. A big problem the Roman Republic had was that the citizen-militia of the pre-Punic Wars era was inadequate, but the Senate never wanted to pay for enough legions (the previous governor of Illyricum before Caesar had to pay for 3/4 of his men), so Roman generals ended up personally paying for the bulk of the salaries.
@@SuperNintendawg I must say, multiple forceful dictatorships in the space of about 5 decades, tyranny, massacres etc etc. The Republic was sickly and flawed, Sulla had shown that. A nation that is capable of the blood civil wars at the frequency it was seen in the Republic is inevitably going to fall.
Even if rejecting the diadem was a performative act, you can't reasonably expect me to believe Caesar wouldn't have accepted it if the crowd had approved instead.
Would be interested to hear Historian Civilis’ opinion on a very recent book that came out called “Julius Caesar and the Roman People” by Morstein-Marx. Basically seeks to dispute or debunk all of the claims that Caesar was a vicious autocrat seeking kingship, that the Civil War can be framed as “Caesar vs the Republic”, and that he was any different from the usual Late Republican Roman aristocrat seeking fame and glory. It’s incredibly well sourced, pretty damn academic, but ultimately. covers just about every scene in Caesar’s career in good detail. Long book, but definitely thought provoking and I recommend it.
Kinda late reply, but I'm rewatching this video years later after I turned it off ,because of obvious bias. I really do not understand this whole hatefull narration on Ceasar. Especially when we are comparing him to corrupt, inept and selfcentred ruling class of senate. Neither of those man had "Republic values" in mind (w.e they were at this glorious time in Roman history...), they only cared about keeping their power and influence. They literally forced him into going to war. What do you think would happen, if he let them strip himself off his immunity? 100% they would at best banish him and not even acknowledge his insane conquest of Gaul, at worst execute on place, because he was way too powerfull for their likings... Ironically it's literally what emperors did later down the line with any competent general, that was resourcefull and competent enough to win wars. Thats being said - all of his videos ,despite bias that I do not agree with are very good watch and I enjoy them nontheless. Just my opinion on the whole Ceasar - most evil person in Roman history "that caused countless deaths by his actions".
This feels like the penultimate episode to the season finale! Stopped everything I was doing to watch this video. Cannot wait for the next one! HC you’re better than Netflix
15:30 - But Caesar was higher rank than consuls: only one office was higher than consuls: dictator, and that was Caesar. It may still have been unpolite but it wasn't just his opinion, but a legal fact.
@@williambellmer6754 - Fair enough. I know it was rude and intentionally so, arrogant stand on Caesar's part, but he still actually outranked the consuls.
@@LuisAldamiz "Fair enough. I know it was rude and intentionally so, arrogant stand on Caesar's part, but he still actually outranked the consuls." He did, but he also realized he had been rude and dangerously so. He went after the senators and apologized profusely, blaming his rudeness on being extremely tired.
@@AndrewAshling - Well, that's a bit that was not mentioned in the video, which was maybe somewhat slanted against Caesar and in favor of the oligarchic republic.
GLad someone else agrees for someone who was considered a political genius/prodigy in his time, he kinda earned his death. he was really sloppy once the civil wars were over he should know better about flexing his power. His fuck you to The senatorial/consular delegation was outrageous. I honestly wonder if his cognition was being impacted as epilepsy can have many comorbid neurological condition: Or maybe he thinks he’s still fighting fractious Gauls because the thing with the diadem statue. and hes being presented a crown with all the caesarian plants and the prophecy are honestly really obvious it doesn’t feel like the same guy that set up the conference of Luca who out manourver the senate both politically and militarily
@@Eamonshort1 To Caesar, a restoration of the monarchy (especially with him at the top) was probably the best solution he could think of to a system that was pretty broken immediately before, and during, his lifetime. He was, shall we say, intimately familiar with how broken the system was. As a result, he underestimated how attached to the idea of the Republic the Roman people, and his opponents especially, were.
19:43 *_"You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refused. Was this ambition? Yet Brutus says he was ambitious, and sure he is an honourable man."_*
I was thinking of an earlier scene in the play where the event has just taken place and is being recounted. I don’t remember them mentioning Antony being naked and whipping women. Damned Elizabethan censorship!
@@WaterShowsProd To be fair, the play compressed the offering of the crown into the Triumphant (do you know strew flowers in the way of the man who comes in conquest over Pompei's blood?)
8:22 How can you argue that the Roman Republic by the time of Caesar dictatorship was stable? Genuinely curious. I would have thought Sulla's civil wars, his failed reforms, and Caesar exploits and intrigue in the Senate before, during and after the Civil War (which this channel showed in awesome detail) showed that the political system was anything but stable.
Sakthi's Channel most of the wealth was conglomerated in pleb run plantations owned by corporations essentially. The citizens in Rome were fat lazy and entitled. How dare you say it was stable and peaceful. It was at the end of its life.
I'd argue that Cesar becoming King would have been an improvement to stability compared to the three decades before Caesar. That said, Caesar could have used his dictatorial powers to try to stabilize the Republic and make some reforms needed for continuity. After packing the Senate (which was also needed since having double digit Senators kept the system from working) with his supporters, he doesn't have to worry about prosecution or his wealth being confiscated. Before the Conservatives put him in the position of needing to break tradition or lose everything. Now he has the luxury of not needing power for self preservation but he is vain.
@Sakthi's Channel If it was so stable, then why did it not recover as a Republic after Caesar's assassination? It did not, because it wasn't stable. The Republic's political system had become utterly corrupt and decadent by the time of Caesar. Because as you will see, men like Cicero were vastly in the minority and not at all that popular.
@@respublica4373 And so was the Empire that followed. Which lasted for many centuries. And both periods of Rome saw bloody expansionist war, repression of people, and murder of whole people groups. I don't think it's easy to say one period was better than the other.
Honestly, I feel like Antony simply didn't tell Caesar because he stood nothing to lose. Either the conspiracy fizzled out or was otherwise averted and Antony gets a cushy job in the new administration or the conspiracy succeeded and Antony was poised to be the new top guy in Rome. It was pretty much a no-lose situation for Antony.
My thought was Antony didn’t tell Caesar about the conspiracy because Caesar would then know that Antony knew of the plot and didn’t tell him immediately - if he told him after they rekindled their friendship, the first thing Caesar would’ve thought was “why didn’t you tell me the second you knew”
Exactly as Myra said. If Antony had told Caesar, C. would have (justifiably) been worried about Antony's potential future involvement in a conspiracy against him. And in such a situation, Caesar would probably take steps to ensure that it doesn't come to that. In other words, Antony could get exiled or even killed. So not mentioning this to Caesar really is a no brainer.
no, what if the attempt failed? wouldnt he know that Antony knew then? I think he was just dumb and talked about the weather, Gods, and women... and in those days men... then went about his way. No cell phones then you see.
I really wish Caeser had done something different in his 5th Triumph. Imagine if instead of "Roman v Roman" defeat paintings, they showed: - Spanish trickery/sorcery influencing Laebedius - Caeser's legions rushing up Laebedius' last-stand hill to face fellow Roman soldiers, just in time to see Spanish soldiers stabbing Laebedius' Romans in the back (and the shocked face of those betrayed Romans) - And Caeser cradling Laebedius' body and burying it with full honours as previously-fighting Romans reunited and did the Roman equivalent of taking your hat off in respect. And during the entity of the Triumph parade route, Spanish silver was tossed out into the crowd, as if to say "See what was kept from you? I stopped the Spanish treachery which 'bewitched' your family members and took them away -- here are the riches that they hid from Rome. Now the pain is over, we are made whole again." And at the point when they normally executed the king of the conquered region, they killed the Spanish "sorcerers" who "caused" the civil war. In short Caeser just really needed a good PR person.
True but as has been exemplified I think, Caesar was very vain. Older men from my experience in general also become very vain as they age. I think his predilection for vanity got worse as he started getting up there. And in the case of the 5th Triumph he WANTED everyone to see what HE had done. He was good at selling stories but when it came to showing and telling fellow Romans who was in charge I think he couldn't help himself. As HC indicates it does appear like Caesar, for whatever reason, genuinely hated the Republican government and perhaps even it's society. To an extent.
Perhaps if Caeser had added a theme of mourning to his triumph it would have been better received. Like for instance he and his troops could have worn mourning colors such as black. or He could have had scenes depicting brave actions on both sides that were taken during the Battle of Munda but with with a feeling of sadness clearly shown. Caeser could have made the triumph about celebrating his victory and the end of the Civil War but also regret that countrymen had shed each other's blood.
@@sigmus1475 Ooh, I like this, especially if our two concepts are combined. Imagine if Laebedius had been given an honourable funeral pyre where he died (and this was one of the depicted scenes in the Triumph, right after the scene of "no longer bewitched" Romans reuniting), then his ashes were brought back to Rome and included in the Triumph. Then the urn of his ashes rode next to Caeser in the chariot of greatest honour, maybe even cloaked in purple and - unlike his other Triumphs - Caeser wore a cape striped purple AND black, showing both his military prowess but also his sorrow for Roman citizen death. The Triumph could have been a blend of Triumph rituals and funeral rituals: Noble Roman's funerals had slaves fight because their blood appeased the gods, so maybe this "Triumph-funeral" would have the Spanish slaves battle to the death in various places, such as in front of appropriate temples, maybe Laebedius' home (?), and so on, all in honour of the "bewitched" Romans who had lost their lives thanks to "Spanish sorcery". Combine that with the Spanish silver tossed to crowds, maybe some kneeling to Jupiter and gifting silver to prominent widows, etc., and it could've been Caesar's most incredible Triumph, instead of his dumbest.
I don't think Rome's politics was stable. The reaction after Ceasar's death proves this. Rome was an oligarchy controlled by the Roman aristocracy through a corrupt, ineffective Senate. The public may have irked at the thought of Ceasar in a crown but his death forced them to realize that their choice was oligarchy or monarchy. Since the people saw Ceasar as an effective leader, he was recognized as the better option. Yes, Ceasar wanted to change how things were in Rome but what he changed was a fay cry from a true republic.
When Ceasar took power, the public saw him as a dictator in itself, a source of the problem; only after his death was the arbitrary nature of "Ceasar the person, as dictator" dissolved, and only through this initial misrecognition, could "Ceasar-Title" become historically necesary in the eyes of the public.
Complexity doesn't equate to stability. Having to pass every decision through a mountainous pile of corrupt bureaucracy doesn't make the system stable, it just makes the house of cards taller. The senate wouldn't have descended into a partisan frenzy at the drop of a toga if the Roman system was actually stable.
Meh, I disagree Caesar would have seen instability in his move, quite the opposite really. I agree more with Overly Sarcastic Productions instead that the Republic was too overstretched as it was to maintain the same system that it had, mainly due to the gridlock and political stagnation. Had they actually moved to solve problems and issues there would have been no void for Caesar to fill.
I would agree too, if anything ceaser brought about the road to a more stable Roman state. Aiding the way from a republic to an empire. And he grew the state, you can't forgot to mention the conquests and political alliances he formed. The only way to criticize ceaser is that he lead to Octavian fearing people grabbing his power and leading to him incentivizing everything leading to stagnation. You could even blame Ceasar for grabbing for power earlier and letting Octavian become the first emperor instead. If anything the fall of Rome was from hands of the very people how thought that they were going to save it. Killing Ceasar and letting Octavian take the reigns instead, Ceasar was far more popular and had alot more people on his side, he would have been a far better emperor as he would have kept the military incentives at the very least. Besides stabbing a guy 23 times is pretty freaking disgusting and Senator Aquila would definitely not approve!
Caesar causing untold human suffering and loss of life is a bit harsh I think... After the defeat of Marc Antony by Octavian there wasnt another civil war for over a hundred years under Nero. Not to mention the fact that under the Caesars several foreign wars were averted, the grain dole was expanded and land reform was enacted. It wasnt all good, but until Caligula and Nero and after it seems as if it wasnt provably worse than before. Just my opinion, still a great video
Yeah the Caesar hatred was so strong. I assume because this channel has allowed the creators to join the elites in a republic who don’t see how awful things are.
He seems to have been corrupted by a devotion to republican ideals, it's a common problem with Americans. Obviously monarchy is vastly superior to republic and Rome needed a monarchy to be efficiently governed on account of its size. Rome was no longer a city-state and could no longer be governed as one, what Caesar and Augustus did were absolutely necessary and a great service to the Roman people and state.
"You can go on pretending to be a god" "Who said anything about pretending?" This was the time period where Caesar alienated almost everyone he could. While in the past he was gracious in victory letting his enemies live, now he insisted on endlessly flaunting his victory on the defeated. The problem is he left them alive, which ensures his enemies were never truly completely defeated.
Caesar tried to rule as a conquering ruler but without Sulla or Marius's brutality. He grew up during the proscriptions and was genuinely fond of many of those who took up arms against him. And I think Caesar understood that, and to some degree knew his position was always going to be tenuous, hence the Parthiam campaign. If he had his way he woud have gone on campaigning in Germany, Spain and the Eurasian steppe for a decade until he either lost or beat everyone worth fighting, which might have been ruinous in terms of future adminsitration but it also might have allowed the Senate to exercise some soft power and find an exit like a deal for Caesar to retire in return for immunity or something.
You’re exactly right. Caesar defeated several foreign enemies of Rome, reformed the nation, satisfied the military, and made himself popular with the people. But he humiliated and pissed off Rome’s political class without simply killing them as many other dictators would have. Thus sowing the seeds of his downfall. But had the assassination attempt failed, it might have led to a shift in attitude.
I think it's interesting to point out how in your Pontifex Maximus video, you mentioned how the Pontifex Maximus can fine anyone in the senate if they displayed bad public morals or for whatever they deem appropriate In my opinion, the whole "Prefect of Morality" title is just an extension of that power that he already had
The Roman Republic was not stable until Caesar destroyed it. Caesar was a symptom of the dysfunctional Roman political system that broke after Sulla. I'd argue that it was broken all the way during the time of Scipio Africanus since his own men offered him the Roman Crown. The moment when the Senate lost control of the Roman Army and generals started marching on Rome, that's when the Republic was dead. No one had realized it yet. Augustus was the logical end of the broken Roman system. The system was so bad that by the time that Augustus died no one wanted to go back to the old system. Even after the death of Caligula this was true. After the Senate put their puppet Nerva on the throne, the army, Praetorians, and people rioted and mutineed forcing Nerva to name Trajan as his successor to pacify them.
@@justinpachi3707 there were three sledgehammers to the Roman Republic's institutions the first was sullas dictatorship then Caesar and his cohorts Pompey and Crassus took another sledgehammer to The republics institutions and after Pompey and Crassus died Caesar kept hammering away the final sledgehammer was Octavian / Augustus who finally destroyed the dying institutions of the Republic once and for all.
I mean I don't think it was totally off the table to go back to a true republic. If Cassius and Brutus weren't such morons they could have taken steps to do that instead of sitting back thinking the republic would restore itself...
I think a whole series on the social upheavals leading from the gracchi bros to Caesar would be awesome. So many things I'm learning just about Caesar that I never knew before, imagine all the things I don't know about the gracchi brothers, Marius or Sulla.
@Anon ymous it's almost a shame he couldn't win the battles that counted. Pompey by all accounts never really cared for power, he was always more interested in fame and glory. if he had been able to defeat ceasar it's possible the republic might have continued, although reforms were still desperately needed. Rome needed a Generation or two so they could forget Marius and Sulla.
Etherwing Actually, go back even further and start with the Pyrrhic War, which helped trigger the Punic Wars, which indirectly triggered the societal issues that led to the Gracchi and later Sulla.
Am I the only one who (after having watched it all the way through once) listens to these videos to fall asleep to because that voice is just soothing? ^-^
Wow! This guys a real character! I can’t wait to see what kind of whacky hijinks he gets into in the next episode! Surely he’ll go on to conquer the world all the way over to the Hidaspes River just like Alexander the Great!
You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition? Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; And, sure, he is an honourable man.
9:00 it's not like rome hadn't been going through civil wars on and off for about a century before this point. Ceaser can't be blamed for the bloodshed. If anything, the monarchy he founded temporarily restored some stability.
The monarchy eventually ruined rome, a series of incompetent and unstable emperors such as Nero weakened the empire greatly and caused disasters, betting the stability of an entire empire on the mental stability and competence of ONE human being is a terrible idea. Democracy is always better then monarchy, even fake democracy is better.
@@whenyournameisduoduos1282 There was no democracy in the Republic. And Rome definitely didn't fall due to a single emperor. Monarchy in some form still survives today after all
The "five good emperors" followed in the wake of those inept rulers, The pax romana lasted 2 centuries following Augustus Bad as it was, the lare republics replacement with the Empire did bring stability and prosperity for a time
@@benlalammohamedrachid3112 rome was not nor was it ever a democracy. it was a republic in the ancient meaning. in otherwords it was a system where the rich and powerful used elections rather than wars to decide who ran it. they even had plato's beloved institutionalised class system.
Also I kind of disagree with the idea that Caesar was the "cause" of the posterior instability and misery that the fall of the established Roman Republic caused. Caesar might have been THE guy who caused it, but if the last century before him proved something beyond any doubt, is that had it not been him, it'd been someone as ambitious as he was. And Rome didn't lack that kind of ambitious egomaniacs at the time. On the opposite, they were legion (pun intended). The Roman Republic was condemned to die because it was already failing and decaying decades before Caesar was even born. Caesar pushed it to the precipice, but had it not been him, it'd been someone else, so it's quite unfair to narrow it down on to him as the guy responsible for what came afterwards - the problem wasn't Caesar, the problem was a Republic that had been failing to properly defend itself for a lot of years before Caesar. And by extension, the problem wasn't Caesar, the problem was a Rome that was ripe for the taking of a massive populist manipulator. In the end let's not forget where Caesar's REAL power came from. He had the full backing of the Roman People, which he earned through political manipulation and the worst kind of populism. In the end the ones who killed the Republic were the own Romans who instead of defending their own laws and institutions against someone who was CLEARLY bent on destroying them, chose to side with the tyrant who was in such a mission. Caesar was just the guy who represented them. The same way later on Octavius did (trhough somewhat different means, but basing his power, actions, and decisions on the same principles), which again goes on to prove that the Republic was already dead - even while Octavius wasn't as blatantly "in your face" about seizing power as Caesar was, it was all a matter of PR - his objective was the same, even if the means were different, and anyone with eyes and ears in Rome knew as much - yet Rome did nothing, because Rome itself didn't want the Republic anymore. So I insist, had Caesar not been the "agressor" that gave the killing blow to the Republic...some other guy like him of the many that existed at the time would have, for the Republic would've failed to defend itself against that hypotetical guy, as much as it failed to defend itself against Caesar himself. Because the Republic was no longer backed by the people...so in the end the ones who REALLY killed the Republic weren't Octavian, nor Caesar. They were the romans themselves.
Yes I agree that if his opponents would have been successful in stopping him or selling his murder as a justified tyrant-killing some other person would have properly taken up his place, that's why the idea of just simply removing bad people from the picture properly won't change history that much (I make a similar point every time people wonder what would have happened if Hitler were killed as a toddler). But I don't agree that Caesar is therefore blameless in his role of destroying the republic.
@@whenyournameisduoduos1282 well the comparison isnt' quite correct imo. The succession of events that led to Hitler taking power in Germany have little or nothing to do with how Caesar seized power in Rome. But besides that, when I stated "it not him it'd been someone else", I'm not saying it for the sake of excusing him. I'm saying it because it is stating the obvious. Rome as a republic had been faltering and failing and gasping for decades. It was the literal instance of a dying institution just waiting for someone to deliver the côup de grace. And in fact it wasn't Caesar the one who delivered that final blow (he couldn't, he was dead). It was his "son". And had it not been his "son" it'd been Antony. And had it not been Antony it'd been Lepidus. And had it not been Lepidus it'd been the young Pompey (before the 2nd triunvirate got rid of him). And had it not been the young Pompey it'd been someone else, because, once again, the dying republic was open for grabs and there wasn't a lack of powerful, driven and politically savvy personalities lusting for power to deliver that final blow. So again, I'm not using it as an excuse for Caesar, but as a statement.
@@whenyournameisduoduos1282 Well if you're seen all his videos up to this point, you can see that the events that happened in the decades before Caesar even reached adulthood already pointed the Republic was a pretty much dying institution and open to grabs. That it was Caesar is incidental, he just was the winner of a "game of thrones" period where those who wanted supreme personal control fought each other both politically and in the battlefield. Had he not succeeded other would have. And again, I'm not stating it to say that Caesar was blameless, or innocent. I'm saying that it's unfair to say he killed the republic when the republic was pretty much dead already by the time he arrived. He can't be blamed for that. It was Rome (and the romans) themselves who killed the Republic because they were all (with a few exceptions) more concerned about their personal wellbeing than about keeping the Republic intact and safe from powergrabs. Caesar (or in fact, Octavian) was the one who dealt the finishing blow to something that was alive only in appearance, but not in substance anymore. He can't be blamed for killing something that was already dead.
@@whenyournameisduoduos1282 Maybe I haven't written it the best way lol. Caesar can't be blamed for killing something that was on the verge of dying anyway and that had he not been the one dealing the finishing blow, other would've been. Caesar can be blamed for many things. Not using his power to use the ruins of the dying republic to found a new, stronger, and more egalitarian one (the Old Republic was the republic of the patricians, let's not forget it), something he could have done, is on him. Not using his political genius and skills in order to try to rejuvenate the republic instead of killing it (something I don't think anyone could do by that stage, but if anyone could, it was him), is on him. Seeking personal glory and power using Rome as an excuse instead of seeking the actual good of Rome, is on him. But killing what was almost a corpse is not. Because, I'll have to insist once more, had he not done it, some other talented politician with a serious lust for power, of which there were a lot in that Rome, would have done it instead.
I'm pretty sure Historia Civilis just means "History of the People" or "Popular History" as opposed to academic history. So you're pretty much cursing yourself, one is the 'people'.
@@zachdelozier2133 what on earth do you think 'history' is? His story, my story, the other fellow's story. History is basically just the official set of opinions. That's what it's always been. The 'history' of most ancient civilisations: Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian etc is just pure propaganda. Herodotus came along and made it a sociological/anthropological exercise. Then Thucydides came along and made it a polemical exercise. Which is basically what it has since remained in the Western academic world. So I don't know what you expect. With any grand narratives, the author is forced to fill in the gaps somehow. Otherwise, all you get is: "Julius Caesar wrote: Veni, vidi, vici" to the senate. It was carbon dated 100bc to 100 ad. Evidence shows there was a battle around the Pontus area around a similar period. There may have been a correlation between the two. But correlation does not equal causation. I mean, if that's what you prefer, the university department of archaeology would gladly welcome you, I'm sure. You're kind of wasting your time on UA-cam, especially in the comments section.
One of the strengths of Historia Civilis is that he's willing more or less to produce the facts of History, at least so I gather, in a dramatic and interesting way. (Though I wish he would cite his sources.) The other good strength of this channel is that it's a primer on historical bias. HC often and prominently points out Caesar's own self-importance, and how that might be embellishing his autobiography. He does it so often that, if you listen carefully to him, you will notice HC very clearly has his own biases, and he is not ashamed of them. But he tells the story first, most of the time, and only then draws his own conclusions (or invite you to draw your own if he has none). My point being, he is prominent both in his bias and in the facts, and he doesn't let one get in the way of the other. I wish more authors presented their biases and were aware that they have them.
Considering the simple fact that the Roman Republic was unequal (heavily favoring the rich and the nobility) and corrupt to the core, I really don't see why its dismantlation is supposed to be a bad thing. Sure, it led to a civil war (not the first, not the last, not the bloodiest), but also to Augustus the reign of whom is considered by many to be Rome's Golden Age.
It also lead to rulers like Caligula and Nero (who came from the same dynasty as Augustus, no less,) and a political system where many Emperors died of natural causes ... if assassination counts as "natural causes."
froobas The Republic also saw its fair share of bloodspilling outside of civil wars. The brothers Gracchi and their followers are the most well known examples but they are far from the only ones.
@@froobas Wasn't Nero actually well liked among the populace? Sure the Christians and nobility hated him, but they were the minority, though it didn't stop the latter group from killing him without much thought on the aftermath.
Yeah, but that was near its fall. You don't judge a system's stability near it's end, you judge it in totality of its entire existence and remember the Republic had been around for about almost 500 years before it collapsed.
@@Hoolcolbery Just because a system worked really well in the past, doesn't change the fact that it no longer works in more present times. The republic of the fourth century bc, was different from the republic of the first century bc. Its system had come into being when Rome was a single city state in the middle of the Italian peninsula, where it worked incredibly well. But by the time of Caesar that system was breaking down under the weight of imperialism, personal ambition, corruption, slave revolts, and civil wars. When a political system has spent nearly a century falling to pieces, it becomes irrelevant to use its past success as a judgement of its 'current' merit which is what HC is doing in this video.
@@theodora4218 that's not how stability works. people will always try to dominate politics. a stable system either incorporates or resists those people.
Amazing content as usual, but - not to condone Caesar's genocidal tendencies or egomania, isn't saying that Caesar "destroyed" Roman politics a bit much? Marius and Sulla had already made a mockery of the Republic (all on the watch of the conservatives, those ever-so stalwart defenders of the republic, I may add), and the perpetual dictatorship had already had a precedent in Sulla. I think just a little bit you may over-exaggerate. If there was a true "destroyer of the republic" or "destroyer of roman politics" it would probably be Cato :^)
I'd say what he means here is that Caesar appears to have been INTENTIONALLY destroying Roman politics, whereas men like Sulla and Marius were exploiting loopholes for their own ends, but didn't intend to absolutely destroy the Republic. At least that's how I saw it.
The most crazy thing about all this stuff that ive realized watching this series? Human political behavour hasnt even changed all that much. There is FAR less outright murder these days but everything else about modern politicking would be very recognizable to a Roman
I was just going to mention the gracchi brothers but I see others did already. And Sulla marched on Rome long before Ceasar. So yeah I agree with you my man, a little theatric flair for the UA-cam audience :)
This channel's liberal bias even when looking at ancient history is ridiculous. Imagine calling Caesar and "authoritarian", while thinking that the oligarchy of the Republic was democratic.
Fun fact: Caesar is the reason why in germany, the monarch that is even above a king was called "Kaiser", which is pronounced almost exactly as "caesar" in latin. His shinanigans literally shaped the understanding of monarchy until over 2000 yesrs after his death
Not only with Germany, the title Tzar also literally comes from Caesar as well in some Slavic medieval countries like the rulers of Bulgaria from 900s (Simeon I), later in Serbia from mid 1300s (Stefan Dusan) and then on Russia officially with Ivan the Terrible in thr 1500s. So Caesar had a huge influence over how his name will be used as a title for 2000 years in Europe and being associated to emperor. What's ironic is that the 1st Tzar was named Simeon I and the last Tzar who bears the title tzar is Simeon II (and will probably die with him) who went into exile when the Soviets took power in Bulgaria. Then Simeon II became a prime minister of Bulgaria in early 2000s and his political party was literally named "National Movement Tzar Simeon II So even today there is an actual person who technically bears the title of "Caesar" even if it's only ceremonial currently but was still a political power. This is how much influence Caesar had.
One of the few channels where I can hit the like button before I've even watched the video, because I know it's going to be good! Thanks for your awesome content!
It's honestly difficult for modern people to imagine the fear, adoration, rage, power, influence, and fame that Julius Caesar had. He was so influential that his name became a stand in for emperor. He, in many ways, established how the powerful were to act and wield it. He might be the third most influential human in history behind Christ and Mohammed.
He is by far one of the most important people in history. His influence changed Europe forever. I would argue that Christ and Mohammed were more influential but not in the same way as Caesar.
@@DarthFhenix55The midget? Nah, he was basically irrelevant. Conquered a few countries and then got everything he did stripped from him. The things in his rule weren't even his.
@@eutropius2699I've always liked to imagine what the interaction would be like between massively consequential historical figures. Jesus and Gandhi, Alexander the Great and Napoleon. Mohammed and Genghis Kahn, Shakespeare and Dickens, Michelangelo and Picasso, Isaac Newton and Darwin, Lincoln and Churchill, Einstein and Geothe, Julius Cesar and Cesar Augustus. It's fun to imagine these larger than life figureheads sharing and learning from each other, but it's a pipe dream. Except the last one. It's not theoretical. They didn't just speak, but had a father son type relationship. It's absolutely insane to think about
Hey could someone ask Tribune Aquila if it's ok to like this video? Thanks.
No
Tribune Aquilla haha did you make a UA-cam account just for this
Yikes
@@tribuneaquilla5648 you lazy, you made this account just to wrote that and even you hadn´t pick a profile photo....
Tribune Aquilla come on, Aquilla! Take back the Republic, if you can!
That Caninius guy knew exactly what he was doing. He knew that 4 hours of consulship were enough to have his name mentioned in a youtube video 2000 years later
Lol!
was probably still more useful than bibulus in those 4 hours
@@mahatmaniggandhi2898 less useless, at the very least
Caesar: There are lots of holes in your prophecy.
Spurinna: 23 holes, actually.
Savage
Wow
Beautiful
@@johnconnor7501 some could say "Brutal"
uh? uh? uh?
@@METALFREAK03 This pun is so fucking bad. Take the like.
Ironically the change to "Dictator for Life" ended up being a shorter term
Damn, dude 😂😂😂
Ha, nice
Truly, maybe if the opposition had the living hope of getting rid of Caesar when 10 years had passed, maybe just maybe they wouldnt assasinate him.
Yep.
Caesar was a tyrant and he delibrately destroyed the Roman Politics. That's why he had to fall prey to more than 5 specific dagger, knife and sword wounds. He had to pay for the price of the "last three straws" incident along with his life.
Wait a second!!!!
Was antony still naked when he tried to crown Caesar?????
That image will never leave my mind
Little known fact: He tried to hand Caesar not only crown, but a big ol' scepter as well!
@@Annatar_the_admirable not just any scepter ;-)
@@assortedmunchies9281 ...but a meat scepter.
Actually nudity was somewhat common in festivals in ancient Greece and Rome.
Men participated in any gymnastics activity nude. Also some famous women when publicly drunk drop off their cloths.
The reason the ,,coronation'' failed was because he didn't check with tribune Aquila first.
That Octavian kid sounds like he'll be living under Caesar's shadow for the rest of his life. There's no way he can possibly do anything that will eclipse his uncle!
Definitely agree! And that Lepidus guy? I bet he does not even believe in the gods! There is NO WAY he will become Pope!
@@ahm3dyusuf737 yeah.. thats why he said he wouldnt be Pope....
Senate: you can't possibly eclipse Caesar.
Octavian: o b s e r v e
@@ahm3dyusuf737 he clearly says he wont be pope youre just delusional. He was stating a fact and you were correctimg an already true fact.
Augustus didn't eclipse Caesar...
Caesar is still the most famous and influential roman to ever live.
“At one o'clock, Caesar announced the election of a consul to serve until 1 January--which was the next morning. So I can inform you that in Caninus' consulship, no one had lunch. Still, nothing untoward occurred while he was consul: such was his vigilance that throughout his consulship, he never ever closed his eyes.” /Cicero.
Man, I gotta give to him. Cicero had a sense of humor.
@@JonatasAdoM oh, Cicero was spicy with the sarcasm. You expect historical figures to be all stoic, but I like to imagine Cicero and Cato were sassy b×tches on the floor of the Senate...
"such was his vigilance that throughout his consulship, he never ever closed his eyes" that had me dying
@@JonatasAdoM I think this is evident from 20:40 - such a snarky comment, with its intent so clear, is just the sort of back-biting you’d expect from 3 blokes in a pub 😭
@jordaneggerman4734 Tywin Lannister was stoic and did not have a sense of humor.
Historia civilis has released up until now 22 videos about ceasars life. The 23rd video will be the final video about ceasar. Ceasar was also stabbed 23 times
The numbers Mason what do they mean...
It's a conspiracy!
That's numberwang!
Clearly Historia Civilis is in cahoots with the illuminati and we must stop this collusion by any means necessary!
stefanos grimp that is poetic
dang, you spoiler! ;-)
“Caeser I’m sad now.” - Random Roman Citizen
But did he check with Tribuen Aquila?
Kektus I commented first
One Ceasaer salad please with a side of feta cheese.
wrr
In 4K no less!
"Not king, but Caesar" aged so well, since his name it self became the base for the word "Emperor" in multiple languages, including Russian (Tsar) and German (Keiser). Thus, to an extent this sounds as "Not king, but emperor!" from a linguistic point of view.
I always wondered if the word ''keizer'' (dutch for emperor) was connected to Caeser, so it turns out it really is?
@@MelkisgoedvoorJanyeah, there's a yt channel that's mostly focused on the Latin language that covers a bit of history and etymology as well as pronunciation. I think the channel is polymathy
Between reading that line in Shakespeare's version of events and knowing that emperors used his name as a royal title, in middle school I honestly started wondering if "Caesar" was an actual title in the Roman Republic, and "Gaius Julius" holding that title is why we remember him as "Caesar."
wtf no... Imperator is the basis of the word Emperor 🤦
It's Kaiser, not Keiser in German
I hope in the next video we get to see Caesar invade Parthia and avenge Crassus. Surely nothing will happen to him.
let's not be too hasty about that
let's ask Tribune Aquila's permission first
Indeed agreed. May no hair on his head be harmed and may he out live all of us for one thousand years.
*Maniacally* *tapping* *fingers* *together.*
@@halmahs4626 I mean, let's not go nuts....I'd be willing to pledge my allegiance for 40 years.... But surely that would never happen, ha ha.....
I bet that Caesar is going to live a long prosperous life with no one, not even his friends would even try to kill him, no one at all... Surely March 15, 44 BC would be an extremely uneventful day with nothing interesting at all.
I like to think that Antony got so engrossed in his conversation with Caesar that he forgot about the conspiracy, and felt it would be super awkward to bring it up a few hours later and just didnt.
One of the many problems with history is the near impossibility of attempting to take thigs such as "social anxiety" into account.
“One more thing”
Hopefully he has a long life ahead of him :) can’t wait to see rome finally conquer Parthia
Ethan G26 ffffffff
Parthian Calvary is OP.
@@unnamed7481 Caesar op'er
So umm... anyone gonna tell him?
Don’t spoil the movie jeeze
If you made full length documentaries I’d pay to watch boxes chase each other for volumes
Right? Why think outside th box if you can think in boxes?
Eloi Febrero lol
If you think about it, they are already mini-documentaries. Why not just cleverly edit them together?
Hopkinson HoppyXD you’re a genius
Harrison Mosburg i might do that and post it on a fake historia civilis channel. Call it something like “historia civilis fanpage” or something like that.
I love that in the case of Antony, we can't rule out that he simply forgot about the conspiracy because he didn't have a clue that a bunch of senators asking him to help remove Caesar was a big deal.
He does seem like he may have been a bit dim, maybe all that shagging and drinking just got to his brain.
I'd go with both.. a personal political move that he quickly forgot.
Also, he fucked up badly.. so my guess is he wanted to see what Caesar would do with him but the conversation went on for too long.. mentioning the conspiracy after he was forgiven would have shown his dishonesty and slight lack of loyalty.
@@everybodyisanidiot4553 thats a good point, "oh hye buddy. Pal, a few years ago a couple of senators asked me to help depose you, totally slipped my mind until just now hahaha."
@@everybodyisanidiot4553 that actually makes a lot of sense, held the card too long. Now if you play it Caesar knows you were holding.
He was probably just blacked out
That dude Aquila probably couldnt stand up because of his IRON BALLS.
So his iron balls couldn't take the republic back
*Historia civilis new Caesar video drops *
Instantly stops what I'm doing and presses play
Michael McGhee yep, all the time
Same :)
I'll cut 23 minutes and 43 seconds off of my lunch hour to make up for it.
*instantly press like then play
Precisely.
"I have my suspicions."
unlabelled red square appears
Me: "Oh my god it was Caesar"
@@spcxplrr I took ancient cilivilzations in highschool which focused heavily on Rome. I genuinely can’t remember shit from it because Antony wasn’t pink.
Red sus or something
Are you sure that guy wasn't Rex?
Can we do Augustus after Caesar, he is just as fascinating
We'll have to check with tribune Aquila first.
@@mirceadonciu4983 I think that tribune Aquila should have been emperor
I strongly suspect/hope that the series will continue with Octavian/Augustus' rise to power. There's so much intrigue and political maneuvering through that time period that it would be right in HC's wheelhouse. Plus, it will be interesting to eventually see him compare Augustus' methods for consolidating power with what Caesar did here.
Call him by his name, mate. Octavian.
I'd actually like to see us pick up another point in the timeline, even if only for a bit.
Maybe the early Republic, or the conquest of Greece, which is never covered, only mentioned in hindsight.
If we go on to Bricks McMarble, then we're basically set to follow the whole Dynasty, all the way to Burnie McFiddler. Now I want to see that rennacted with blocks, but it's not all I want to see rennacted with blocks. He can pick up where he left off later.
For those of you who are interested, the other three are Disappointing McPedophile, Artist McLost's Shit, and Stutters McLonglife.
The "run around naked to whip girls" thing sound very much like Mark Anthony to me.
Especially with how Marc Antony is depicted in HBO Rome
@@vaughnyboy8 Hell yes
Did you mean Antony? You said Anthony.
@@Chirchy *Marcus Antonius
Octavian was actually more of a pervert than Antony, despite how both are typically portrayed.
"When he himself in one of his triumphal processions rode past the benches of the tribunes, he was so incensed because a member of the college, Pontius Aquila by name, did not rise, that he cried: 'Come then, Aquila, take back the republic from me, you tribune'; and for several days he would not make a promise to any one without adding, 'That is, if Pontius Aquila will allow me.'"
- Suetonius, _The Life of Julius Caesar_ , Chapter 78
Amused by drama queen Caesar
+
Thanks Arcaeca for citing from Suetonius's book, De Vita Caesarum. Otherwise even in Google, where I wished to read that same book, most pages of the book are missing.
Tribune Aquila being like: L + Ratio + Didn't ask
Big mad
This video's public bread is provided by the Capitoline Brotherhood of Millers. The Brotherhood uses only the finest flour: true Roman bread for true Romans.
Is it true that Herod is visiting soon?
@@TheOriginalFishPond No slaves, freedmen or unclean tradesmen
Thanks, Newsreader!!
TRVEROMANBREADFORTRVEROMANS
@@b3ygghsas You forgot to randomly abbreviate words
in short: Caesar came back from spain and started to wear a toga with "please stab me" written on it.
"Power doesn't corrupt, it reveals."
No I disagree
People around the man (Cesar in this case) corrupt him
So everyone can be corrupted
The moment you start to believe someone can't be corrupted is the moment you gave him the listens to be corrupt
@@NadDew You've failed to prove your point, while the OP is quoting from an historian who - following a career spent writing biographies of powerful people - famously said "I used to believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but now I've come to believe that power doesn't necessarily corrupt - it reveals. When the man is able to do anything he wants to do, you'll see what it is he always wanted to do."
I'll go with the seasoned professional biographer of powerful people on this one, no offense intended.
I prefer "absolute power corrupts absolutely"
I don't think that corruption is the only way for a human to be wielded out, as we are born ambitious and prepared to throw one another under the bus from birth to grave, the only distinct difference is that after we are children we learn to control that behaviour. The only limiter on that behaviour is personal power, people will conceal their true nature if they are incapable of otherwise acting on it.
I mean the average workplace is a perfect example of this. We all know that two faced colleague that belittles everyone because at their core they are a spiteful human being, yet the moment they get into a management position they will exercise blatant favouritism and shut down people that they dislike. I've known family who have been screwed over for much less favourable candidates due to the person in the superior position being able to choose whom they surround themselves with.
Ceasers qualities as a General also made him a Tyrant. He was a master of managing the battlefield and his choices, he kept his friend close to him to prevent him becoming a significant power rival and then proceeded to tackle becoming an Emperor by targeting politics in the same way he started war. He slowly fortified his position until he had everything he needed then attacked the political institution relentlessly. His main mistake was being unaware that these same subject would do something unlawful to end his regime.
Yeah, people dont change either. Some traits stay hidden and some surface when its suitable time. 🤔🤔🇦🇫
This is a good video and all but you should check with Tribune Aquila first
Stole the top comment
Did Tribune Aquila become a meme?
@@mirceadonciu4983 i will check with aquila for that
“Caesar kept his clothes on.”
Surprisingly.
20:42
I have honestly never seen a more befitting way to address Marc Antony
nah, "hey dumbass" is better, gets the point across much better
"A woman's role has always suited you best."
I can't agree with the point made in 8:36 honestly. While sure, such is true in most *modern* democracies, that *definitely* wasn't the case in the Roman Republic, as Caesar had literally just defeated 1.5 civil wars when he started accumulating powers. The Roman Republic had had precedence for dictators taking absolute power - *Caesar had literally lived through one* - and the incidents involving the Gracchi brothers proved that the Roman Republic just wasn't as stable as any modern democracy. The Roman Republic was decaying rapidly, and looking at that decay and saying it was somehow more stable than the alternative is just a lie. Healthy political systems do not cause stability, but are rather a sign of such stability and other factors. By the time Caesar arrived on the political scene, those factors were long gone from Roman politics.
it's true in modern democracies *at the moment* , the fate of democracy is still sealed though, there's ~100 years before the West gets Caesarism
Totally agree!
id upboat this comment if not for the fact that you believe modern democracy is healthy by any sense of the word and not heading in the same direction as the roman republic
lets just hope that we get a good emperor and not a total system collapse
@@Retard634 You say this when most modern, 'first world' democracies have not had a civil war or any sort of internal conflicts in at least a century, especially since after the end of the Cold War and the overthrow of Stalinism in the former Eastern Bloc. Modern democracy, while definitely not without flaw, is far less prone to collapsing into brutal violence and civil war than the Roman republic was by a long stretch, and absolute dictators akin to Sulla are far less likely to take power - for example, the United States, which despite its flaws has not had a civil war in over two centuries.
Danwar yes but it has to, we are on the same trend of the Roman Republic, a system dominated by money, by the interests of the corporate aristocrats, just because there is no civil war, does not mean there will not be one in the future. political violence is on the rise, the policies of many West European states has seen to a radical rise in crime and a widening of political divides, in America and Europe people are thrown by the wayside as the soldiers of democracy (really, the soldiers of the media and the corporations), march forward to their own ends. the Gracchi attempted to curb this, just as he does now and it led to even more violence and instability.
the Roman Republic also by the time of the Gracchi had had no civil wars at all, if anything, the American Republic may be doing worse.
Hopefully the next video gets to the whole salad naming business. That's all I've been waiting for since 2017.
ApocalexNow wasn’t even named for any of the Caesars though.
@@kwehvox6263 Good sense of humor, bro.
Whoooosh
Finally someone who asks the REALLY important questions!!
7:15 - "Kinda looks like a throne though..." Love it. Those little text balloon jokes are always the best.
Special Golden Chair. Totally different from a throne. Totally.
@@goonerbear8659 Don't forget the civic -crown- I mean leaf thingy.
Spurinna: Remember, Caesar, all glory is fleeting.
Caesar: No
Spurinna: *BEWARE THE IDES OF MARCH!!!*
Caesar: No
cartmann94 Your profile picture fits this very well
*"Remove the girl!"*
I’m reminded of a line from History of the World Part 1:
“Remember, thou art mortal! Remember, thou art mortal! Remember, thou art mortal!”
“Oh, blow it out your ass!”
"I know you think you're happy now but it won't last forever!"
"Everything lasts forever."
"Caesar pls go."
"No."
[Many stabbings later]
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Fun fact about Tribune Aquila: Given that Pontius Aquila was attributed as a member of the Pontia gens, it’s possible that Aquila was an ancestor to another person of the same name: Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judaea and the one who supposedly overlooked the trial of and ordered the crucifixion of ya boi, Jesus.
Did he get Tribune Aquila permission to do that?
@@projectms205 Unfortunately not 😤
Damn, this feels like when I learned that Nabokov got traumatized because his father saved a Russian politician from Sergei 'Gaming' Taboritski's assassination attempt.
Turns out he was in the crowd as a kid so yea.
Nice fun fact, wonder if he asked his ancestor tribune Pontius Aquila for his permission lol
@@l-nolazck-rn24Taboritski being indirectly responsible for Lolita was a crazy earth plot twist
Jews killed jesus
Please say you're considering doing Octavian/Augustus after Caesar?
If it ends at some point it will likely be when Octavian becomes Augustus, he then might do other parts of Roman history or maybe go back to Alexander the Great
@@phnexOice No, better cover all of Augustus' reign. And more!
why wouldnt he, easy content for a looong time
@@chaosdwarf406 XD love ur passion
@@ATJ253 I'd like to see Mason cover the entire Julio-Claudian Dynasty tbh :P
I would argue that stability in the republic had not been a thing since Sulla.
Civilis is biased in favor of the system my dude
Sulla actions created a chain reaction
@Maintenance Renegade i don't think the welfare programs played a significant role here, the corruption of the elites and the lack of counterbalance to the amount of power a rich person could gather were the reasons
Even since Tiberius Gracchus...
Yeah, though the rot started long before then. Take the Second Punic War, encouraging the Senate to consolidate power to better direct the war, undermining the checks and balances of other institutions. Then with chastisement of Greece and Spain you have vast sources of wealth pouring into the Senate's pocket, causing destabilising wealth inequality. And then the final defeat of Carthage removed any major external threat to Rome's interests up until they started butting heads with Parthia, meaning there was little external reason for the nobility to set aside personal grudges. The Graachi and other reformers were a reaction to this gradual process of wealth and power consolidation, and on both sides the mos maiorum, the unspoken code of conduct in Roman society, were eroded as people sought power. This culminated in Marius and Sulla seizing power outright and from each other, and though Sulla tried to set things right, the rot of mos maiorum was left unaddressed. The institutions looked stable on the surface, but the first time others sought personal power after his death (Pompey and Crassus), there was little pushback. The rules could no longer be enforced, since they were all unspoken gentlemanly agreements. And from disregarding them, it didn't take much for actual laws to be disregarded, like that obscure technicality about crossing the Rubicon with an army.
7:15 - “Kinda look like a throne though”
Caesar: What are you, Aquilla?
I love how you colour code each 'prominent' member of the story, it means that if you're diligent enough, you might notice a *familiar* colour at the table. Great video as always!
I came back to watch this years later and I saw that part and I was like
*GASP*
BRUTUS?!
Okay own up who watched this video without Aquillas permission?
I my defense I thought he would be fine with it.
He's been dead for more than ten years so I couldn't ask. It's what he would have wanted.
I live to live dangerously
I didn’t, I went to get his permission. Turned out he was quite nice.
Argh you got me!
"Caesar pushed up against Rome's political system and found nothing pushing back"
Well...if you don't count constant political opposition, and a worldwide civil war... Yeah, I guess so.
Well, he managed that from his expertise of the republic’s grand corruption and bureaucratic decay, he conquered and enslaved, and became super rich and influential, while the senators bickered about petty shenanigans, so he went, killed and stole and enslaved and got all sort of powers and no one was there to stop him in time
@@lorenzooliveira1157 Achieving political power, even in Republican Rome, ultimately derives from military power, and Caesar won all those civil wars. He had no major opposition only after he defeated his rivals on the battlefield. He defeated Afranius in Spain, Pompey in Greece, Ptolemy in Egypt, Cato in Africa, and Pompey's sons in Spain.
He could not have amassed all his power without winning hard fought battlefield victories in a civil war that crossed the whole ancient world. It's not like he was just a politician and was able to manipulate the system easily to his advantage, he had a huge army, and had to fight for those powers.
Augustus was much more snakelike, and able to slowly accumulate the same powers, but even he was only able to do so by being in control of almost all the legions, and was not against threatening the senate with armed soldiers.
Yes, but as he said, it was not necessary for Caesar to try to take more power for himself and destroy the Roman institutions after he had won, he did so because no one or nothing could have stopped him, including his own conscience. Sulla had marched on Rome before him but didn't try to destroy Roman politics forever, and Caesar didn't need to, he did because he was an egomaniac.
Before even 3 minutes in:
>Triumph celebrating end of civil war
>Caesars allies in control of senate giving him false triumphs
Tell me again about the constant opposition, and that civil war?
@@booradley6832 Did you skip both the "His Year" and the "Caesar's Civil War" Series?
I do not approve
Wait how was this comment posted six days ago
Its probably CH himself posting it when it was private. Or just magic.
@@sarahheikel patreons have acces to the video some days early
Take back the republic then boi
Did you create that account just for the joke?
*Battle of Munda video comes out*
Me: Ooh boy I can't wait for the next video which will *def* be about Caesar's assassination!
2 months later:
It's gonna happen
The end of the main arc on this channel for the last 2 and a half years
STOP *SPOILING IT FOR THE REST OF US!!*
Next Historia Civilis video: What were the Ides of March?
@@cartmann94 it's when our boy invades the parthians
Lil pizza boy eats up parthia
3:28 You would've thought that Caesar had learnt from his 4th Triumph.
No. He didn't. He publicly humiliated Aquilla and little did he realize that the same man, whom he humiliated was going to conspire against him. There is a video on Caesar's assassination posted by a channel "Kings And Generals". Watch that video. You'll hear the name "Aquilla" in the list of conspirators against Caesar. Caesar was arrogant and was seduced by glorification of his images. He abused the power of "Prefect of Morality" by punishing the two tribunes-Flavus and Marullus, whose names are mentioned at the beginning of William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.
Your videos are the very best on youtube, Tribune Aquila said so.
oh man that outro music is getting pretty intense
Ominous foreshadowing. Who am I kidding, we all know how this will end up, but let us all wait in anticipation for the grand finale of Caesar's career.
It freaking scared the politics out of me
Yeah, I think its pitch was actually lowered.
Mewtwo but garfield, garfield but mewtwo.
8:38 And I remember long ago Historia said, "My boy Caeser wouldn't have done this," things have changed.
In video titled: The Battle of Cannae, but it was quoted wrong.
@@axxization yeah i agree with you
Character development!
The qoute was about Caesar as a general
I will miss Labienus. Good night sweet prince!
@Alexander the Great ;')
He was my favorite character throughout the series
He was ceasars final boss fight
Le Benis :DD
The next video is going to be an absolute unit of an episode, no doubt.
It's gonna happen
The end of the main arc on this channel for the last 2 and a half years
Nah dude, I think this Ceasar guy have a long and succesful story ahead of him.
Yeah, I'm looking forward to "Can Plants Commit Crimes?"
You could say that the next video will be a cohort. A praetorian cohort...
@Flavius Stilicho senate killed the salad
This video brought to you by Marcus Junius Brutus
hail Brutus and Cassius!
These Pompeian shills are out of control
But did he remember to ask Tribune Aquila first?
@@marcokite Brutus was useless
>Historia Civilis outro music changes key
We're in the endgame now.
>I noticed that too.
@@oswaldgevaldenheimer3124 that's not how you greentext buddy
I remember first time I watched this video I thought I was just way too high and was imagining the key change
I'm not sure where HC is getting the idea that the late Republic was politically healthy. Sulla and Marius, Catiline and Clodius had shown that it absolutely was not.
yea honestly i think his hatred for Caesar is blinding him from seeing how corrupt and decayed the Roman Republic truly was. it was just an Oligarchy filled with corrupt elites Masquerading as a republic.
@@theswedishdude1
I mean what do you expect from a Cato fanboy tbh
Too be fair, the Republic lasted hundreds of years before it decayed to the point of collapse. It had a pretty good run, as far as large, vaguely democratic bureaucracies go.
@@theswedishdude1 he is not blind. Watch his video about pompey. It shows how rules are being ignored and corruption has taken over
@@franciscomm7675 yeah, this video was somewhat odd, he usually shows a pretty unbiased picture. I can undestand his criticism of Caesar, but in this episode it was uncharacteristically vicious. He could have criticised him without distorting the opposition and the republic to such an extent.
16:16
This is a 4d next level top-Caesar joke that I'm sad you kind of missed.
The 'Rex' part you got down pat in the video, but what 'non Rex sum, sed Caesar' needs to work is the Latin pronunciation of Caesar (i.e. Kaesar). It's a little bit of a walk, but basically:
Caesar was saying he was the _opposite_ of a king, here. The _furthest you could get_ from "Rex."
Consider the pronunciation of Rex. How would 'rex' be pronounced, if you flipped it on its head and started with the 'x?' Well, we know that X makes the 'ks' sound in 'rex,' as in 'reks.' If you flip it around, then that becomes 'kser.' Since you have to stress the first consonant to pronounce the word properly, you can even write it 'keserr.'
Keserr.
Keser.
Kaeser.
Caesar.
Bruh
Dude......
That's probably why the terms Kaiser and Tsar/Czar originated from
@@reschadakbari1593 Tsar is slavic, Czar is magyar and sometimes south slavic. (the line between those two is far thinner than they will ever want to admit). they are not interchangeable but people often confuse them and use them as such.
@@cageybee7221 yes, but I'm just saying that the term Tsar/Czar derivated from that since the russians became the central hub for orthodox christianity after the byzantine empire fell
PLEASE, please make videos about:
1) The Kings' Era
2) The Early Republic
3) The Early Empire (Augustus etc)
4) The Five Good Emperors
Exactly the way you have been doing it for the last years of the Republic. Discussing the politics, battles, thoughts of the protagonists etc. I CAN'T WAIT to see what your next topic will be after the Ides of March..
also crisis of the third century
@phoenixkhost The Early Republic in general :)
@@srujamdave2139 I believe that he should work with a timeline. The Regal Era, the Early Republic and Early Empire (all of Pax Romana) is something he hasn't touched yet. So they must come first, and the Crisis follows then :)
He has covered PERFECTLY the Late Republic, and I would love to see him covering the rest 😍😍
@Esme Moore Yes, and perhaps even earlier than that.. But from Marius on, it was inevitable
"Transformed [Caesar] into a monarch in all but name."
Which is funny, since Caesar since became synonymous with monarch, and gave us both the words Keiser/Kaiser and Tsar.
Funny thing is, at least in German, that Kaiser is generally seen as above mere Könige/Kings.
@@MrRobbi373 Indeed.Same as Emperor it implies Empire, which means conquering different cultures.
@@MrRobbi373 Auch im Russischen ist das genau so. Царь ist Tsar und Кароль ist König und Tsar ist viel mehr als nur ein König.
In Swedish (wich is heavily influenced by german) we say Kejsare (emperor), pronounced as "Shei-sa-re" (pronounced rather quickly).
@@MrBigCookieCrumble All scandinavian languages have derived our word for "Emperor" from Caesar's name. In danish it's Kejser, pronounced exactly like the german Kaiser.
Caesar: >gets fucking murdered<
Also Caesar: ‘i HoPe TriBuNe AqUiLa DoEsN’t MiNd iF I blEeD oUt!’
I wouldn't necessarily call Roman politics stable, considering all the servile wars and civil wars that occured before Caesar had even become a big name in politics
Jonathan Simms best show on ice for a couple thousand years lol
plus the social war
@Lord Voldemort that was a feature of the highly aristocratic and militaristic republic though, not a bug
Not to mention how impossible it was becoming to change anything with the mountains of bureaucracy.
Ya, kind of a switch from "Rome's politics were broken." to "Warts and all, the Roman Republic was a mostly healthy political system."
Us: "Finally the end of Caesar!"
HC: "BUT WAIT THERES MORE!"
19:53 Caesar to Antony: “A dun wah nit...”
Was Caesar in reality Jon Snow?
nuh
Nah, i don't think Jon is power hungry like caesar
No, Caesar is Daenerys. Anthony, is Jon Snow.
Anthony will be like: "You are my Queen!"
I don’t need it, I don’t need it....
I NEED IT
There’s a sort of decorum around accepting a lofty mantel.
You must feign modesty.
They offer once, and you respond “What me? I’m so unworthy, I would never.”
They offer it twice and you say “You have given me a great honor, but I dare not.”
Then they offer it a third a time and finally you ‘reluctantly’ accept.
The Roman Republic was dead before Caesar it was merely a question of who would issue a final blow. It effectively died with the dictatorship of Sulla but Pompey could just have easily have seized power on his return from the East.
This is kind of deterministic, don't you think? Even if you're right, the way things shook out could/ would have been extremely different.
Sam C. S. The Roman government seemed like it was too focused on politics and ego and not on governing the territory of Rome. Caesar merely exploited the ineptitude of the senate and the instability of the times to put himself in a position to govern the republic directly and satisfy his own egomaniacal desires.
The same pattern played out in China during the 3 kingdoms period as well
We can see the same trend more or less in the present with the way most politicians and “leaders” tend to focus on the popularity aspect of the office and not the governing aspect of their job.
@@SuperNintendawg NOPE, they couldn't. Remember Octavius and Antony. They pulled the same trick yet again, and in no time! Had the Republic been strong and healthy - this would not have happened.
Cicero, Domitius, and Brutus thought with Pompey's "inevitable" victory (remember after Cesar's legions were lost in Africa Pompey was clearly winning the recruitment game), Rome would also be a military dictatorship in all but name. They hoped they could restore normality after him since it should be easier to pick up the pieces after a dictatorship nominally supported by the Senate. A big problem the Roman Republic had was that the citizen-militia of the pre-Punic Wars era was inadequate, but the Senate never wanted to pay for enough legions (the previous governor of Illyricum before Caesar had to pay for 3/4 of his men), so Roman generals ended up personally paying for the bulk of the salaries.
@@SuperNintendawg I must say, multiple forceful dictatorships in the space of about 5 decades, tyranny, massacres etc etc. The Republic was sickly and flawed, Sulla had shown that. A nation that is capable of the blood civil wars at the frequency it was seen in the Republic is inevitably going to fall.
Even if rejecting the diadem was a performative act, you can't reasonably expect me to believe Caesar wouldn't have accepted it if the crowd had approved instead.
Would be interested to hear Historian Civilis’ opinion on a very recent book that came out called “Julius Caesar and the Roman People” by Morstein-Marx. Basically seeks to dispute or debunk all of the claims that Caesar was a vicious autocrat seeking kingship, that the Civil War can be framed as “Caesar vs the Republic”, and that he was any different from the usual Late Republican Roman aristocrat seeking fame and glory. It’s incredibly well sourced, pretty damn academic, but ultimately. covers just about every scene in Caesar’s career in good detail.
Long book, but definitely thought provoking and I recommend it.
Kinda late reply, but I'm rewatching this video years later after I turned it off ,because of obvious bias. I really do not understand this whole hatefull narration on Ceasar. Especially when we are comparing him to corrupt, inept and selfcentred ruling class of senate. Neither of those man had "Republic values" in mind (w.e they were at this glorious time in Roman history...), they only cared about keeping their power and influence. They literally forced him into going to war. What do you think would happen, if he let them strip himself off his immunity? 100% they would at best banish him and not even acknowledge his insane conquest of Gaul, at worst execute on place, because he was way too powerfull for their likings... Ironically it's literally what emperors did later down the line with any competent general, that was resourcefull and competent enough to win wars. Thats being said - all of his videos ,despite bias that I do not agree with are very good watch and I enjoy them nontheless. Just my opinion on the whole Ceasar - most evil person in Roman history "that caused countless deaths by his actions".
This feels like the penultimate episode to the season finale! Stopped everything I was doing to watch this video.
Cannot wait for the next one! HC you’re better than Netflix
15:30 - But Caesar was higher rank than consuls: only one office was higher than consuls: dictator, and that was Caesar. It may still have been unpolite but it wasn't just his opinion, but a legal fact.
It was multiple members of the Senate, which had a nonlinear effect to the rudeness of the gresture
@@williambellmer6754 - Fair enough. I know it was rude and intentionally so, arrogant stand on Caesar's part, but he still actually outranked the consuls.
@@LuisAldamiz "Fair enough. I know it was rude and intentionally so, arrogant stand on Caesar's part, but he still actually outranked the consuls."
He did, but he also realized he had been rude and dangerously so. He went after the senators and apologized profusely, blaming his rudeness on being extremely tired.
@@AndrewAshling - Well, that's a bit that was not mentioned in the video, which was maybe somewhat slanted against Caesar and in favor of the oligarchic republic.
@@LuisAldamiz
The guy has a chip for Caesar
Proof that the Pomerium has magical powers: Caesar is a military genius outside, but turns into a sociopolitical moron when he crosses it.
GLad someone else agrees for someone who was considered a political genius/prodigy in his time, he kinda earned his death. he was really sloppy once the civil wars were over he should know better about flexing his power. His fuck you to The senatorial/consular delegation was outrageous. I honestly wonder if his cognition was being impacted as epilepsy can have many comorbid neurological condition: Or maybe he thinks he’s still fighting fractious Gauls because the thing with the diadem statue. and hes being presented a crown with all the caesarian plants and the prophecy are honestly really obvious it doesn’t feel like the same guy that set up the conference of Luca who out manourver the senate both politically and militarily
Not really, Caesar was a skilful administrator
@@Eamonshort1 To Caesar, a restoration of the monarchy (especially with him at the top) was probably the best solution he could think of to a system that was pretty broken immediately before, and during, his lifetime. He was, shall we say, intimately familiar with how broken the system was. As a result, he underestimated how attached to the idea of the Republic the Roman people, and his opponents especially, were.
@@froobas so basically, he signed his own death sentence was to egocentric to see it
@@pedrocavalcantesantana7378 He knew the risks. But had he not done what he had Rome would’ve ceased then and there. A sacrifice.
19:43
*_"You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refused. Was this ambition? Yet Brutus says he was ambitious, and sure he is an honourable man."_*
It is pretty neat how accurate that play is, if that's what you're trying to say.
Old Bill's subtle and eloquent prose is wasted on an all-the-likely dullard like Antony.
You all did see that totally-not-staged-thing I did on the Lupercal lmao
I was thinking of an earlier scene in the play where the event has just taken place and is being recounted. I don’t remember them mentioning Antony being naked and whipping women. Damned Elizabethan censorship!
@@WaterShowsProd To be fair, the play compressed the offering of the crown into the Triumphant (do you know strew flowers in the way of the man who comes in conquest over Pompei's blood?)
8:22 How can you argue that the Roman Republic by the time of Caesar dictatorship was stable? Genuinely curious. I would have thought Sulla's civil wars, his failed reforms, and Caesar exploits and intrigue in the Senate before, during and after the Civil War (which this channel showed in awesome detail) showed that the political system was anything but stable.
Sakthi's Channel most of the wealth was conglomerated in pleb run plantations owned by corporations essentially. The citizens in Rome were fat lazy and entitled.
How dare you say it was stable and peaceful. It was at the end of its life.
I'd argue that Cesar becoming King would have been an improvement to stability compared to the three decades before Caesar. That said, Caesar could have used his dictatorial powers to try to stabilize the Republic and make some reforms needed for continuity. After packing the Senate (which was also needed since having double digit Senators kept the system from working) with his supporters, he doesn't have to worry about prosecution or his wealth being confiscated. Before the Conservatives put him in the position of needing to break tradition or lose everything. Now he has the luxury of not needing power for self preservation but he is vain.
@Sakthi's Channel If it was so stable, then why did it not recover as a Republic after Caesar's assassination? It did not, because it wasn't stable. The Republic's political system had become utterly corrupt and decadent by the time of Caesar. Because as you will see, men like Cicero were vastly in the minority and not at all that popular.
No one has argued it was stable at the time of Ceasar, however all things considered Roman Republic was quite stable.
@@respublica4373 And so was the Empire that followed. Which lasted for many centuries.
And both periods of Rome saw bloody expansionist war, repression of people, and murder of whole people groups.
I don't think it's easy to say one period was better than the other.
Honestly, I feel like Antony simply didn't tell Caesar because he stood nothing to lose. Either the conspiracy fizzled out or was otherwise averted and Antony gets a cushy job in the new administration or the conspiracy succeeded and Antony was poised to be the new top guy in Rome. It was pretty much a no-lose situation for Antony.
Top guy in Rome ? When everyone hated him ?
Hell no, Caesar was the only thing keeping him in a somewhat important position.
I find your lack of faith in the Imperator disturbing.
😄
i find his lack of faith in divination really disturbing
"The Roman Republic was plunging off a cliff and the vast majority of the political class didn't care."
Times never change do they?
Ouch. Too much truth.
Ouch. Too much depth.
Yep.
Are you British, by any chance? XD
@@SwissSareth American :'(
20:41 I can imagine Cicero being so fed up he would call Marc Antony an idiot.
My thought was Antony didn’t tell Caesar about the conspiracy because Caesar would then know that Antony knew of the plot and didn’t tell him immediately - if he told him after they rekindled their friendship, the first thing Caesar would’ve thought was “why didn’t you tell me the second you knew”
Or Antony wanted to get as much from Caesar as possible before Caesar's eventual assassination where he could be prime to take over.
Caesar could also wonder why they thought Antony would accept their plot.
Exactly as Myra said. If Antony had told Caesar, C. would have (justifiably) been worried about Antony's potential future involvement in a conspiracy against him. And in such a situation, Caesar would probably take steps to ensure that it doesn't come to that. In other words, Antony could get exiled or even killed. So not mentioning this to Caesar really is a no brainer.
no, what if the attempt failed? wouldnt he know that Antony knew then? I think he was just dumb and talked about the weather, Gods, and women... and in those days men... then went about his way. No cell phones then you see.
The season finale is near, I’m hyped for what Caesar does next season, Parthia is surely next
Rome rings its bells and Caesar decides to burn it to the ground.
@@watershipdowneyjr Damnit who let David and Dan write the history books
It would be the best fake out if Civilis had Caesar escape the assassins and go on campaign
Caesar 2: Electric Boogaloo
I really wish Caeser had done something different in his 5th Triumph. Imagine if instead of "Roman v Roman" defeat paintings, they showed:
- Spanish trickery/sorcery influencing Laebedius
- Caeser's legions rushing up Laebedius' last-stand hill to face fellow Roman soldiers, just in time to see Spanish soldiers stabbing Laebedius' Romans in the back (and the shocked face of those betrayed Romans)
- And Caeser cradling Laebedius' body and burying it with full honours as previously-fighting Romans reunited and did the Roman equivalent of taking your hat off in respect.
And during the entity of the Triumph parade route, Spanish silver was tossed out into the crowd, as if to say "See what was kept from you? I stopped the Spanish treachery which 'bewitched' your family members and took them away -- here are the riches that they hid from Rome. Now the pain is over, we are made whole again."
And at the point when they normally executed the king of the conquered region, they killed the Spanish "sorcerers" who "caused" the civil war.
In short Caeser just really needed a good PR person.
nah
more child strangling says Caeser
Thank you, this was a really cool post.
True but as has been exemplified I think, Caesar was very vain. Older men from my experience in general also become very vain as they age. I think his predilection for vanity got worse as he started getting up there. And in the case of the 5th Triumph he WANTED everyone to see what HE had done.
He was good at selling stories but when it came to showing and telling fellow Romans who was in charge I think he couldn't help himself.
As HC indicates it does appear like Caesar, for whatever reason, genuinely hated the Republican government and perhaps even it's society. To an extent.
Perhaps if Caeser had added a theme of mourning to his triumph it would have been better received.
Like for instance he and his troops could have worn mourning colors such as black.
or
He could have had scenes depicting brave actions on both sides that were taken during the Battle of Munda but with with a feeling of sadness clearly shown.
Caeser could have made the triumph about celebrating his victory and the end of the Civil War but also regret that countrymen had shed each other's blood.
@@sigmus1475 Ooh, I like this, especially if our two concepts are combined. Imagine if Laebedius had been given an honourable funeral pyre where he died (and this was one of the depicted scenes in the Triumph, right after the scene of "no longer bewitched" Romans reuniting), then his ashes were brought back to Rome and included in the Triumph. Then the urn of his ashes rode next to Caeser in the chariot of greatest honour, maybe even cloaked in purple and - unlike his other Triumphs - Caeser wore a cape striped purple AND black, showing both his military prowess but also his sorrow for Roman citizen death. The Triumph could have been a blend of Triumph rituals and funeral rituals: Noble Roman's funerals had slaves fight because their blood appeased the gods, so maybe this "Triumph-funeral" would have the Spanish slaves battle to the death in various places, such as in front of appropriate temples, maybe Laebedius' home (?), and so on, all in honour of the "bewitched" Romans who had lost their lives thanks to "Spanish sorcery". Combine that with the Spanish silver tossed to crowds, maybe some kneeling to Jupiter and gifting silver to prominent widows, etc., and it could've been Caesar's most incredible Triumph, instead of his dumbest.
I don't think Rome's politics was stable.
The reaction after Ceasar's death proves this.
Rome was an oligarchy controlled by the Roman aristocracy through a corrupt, ineffective Senate.
The public may have irked at the thought of Ceasar in a crown but his death forced them to realize that their choice was oligarchy or monarchy. Since the people saw Ceasar as an effective leader, he was recognized as the better option.
Yes, Ceasar wanted to change how things were in Rome but what he changed was a fay cry from a true republic.
When Ceasar took power, the public saw him as a dictator in itself, a source of the problem; only after his death was the arbitrary nature of "Ceasar the person, as dictator" dissolved, and only through this initial misrecognition, could "Ceasar-Title" become historically necesary in the eyes of the public.
Roman politics hadn't been stable for a hundred years at this point
Fuck the republic, they lived better lives under Caesar's rule than under the corrupt Senate.
@@michaeltrumph121 true
Complexity doesn't equate to stability. Having to pass every decision through a mountainous pile of corrupt bureaucracy doesn't make the system stable, it just makes the house of cards taller. The senate wouldn't have descended into a partisan frenzy at the drop of a toga if the Roman system was actually stable.
Meh, I disagree Caesar would have seen instability in his move, quite the opposite really. I agree more with Overly Sarcastic Productions instead that the Republic was too overstretched as it was to maintain the same system that it had, mainly due to the gridlock and political stagnation. Had they actually moved to solve problems and issues there would have been no void for Caesar to fill.
I would agree too, if anything ceaser brought about the road to a more stable Roman state. Aiding the way from a republic to an empire. And he grew the state, you can't forgot to mention the conquests and political alliances he formed.
The only way to criticize ceaser is that he lead to Octavian fearing people grabbing his power and leading to him incentivizing everything leading to stagnation. You could even blame Ceasar for grabbing for power earlier and letting Octavian become the first emperor instead.
If anything the fall of Rome was from hands of the very people how thought that they were going to save it. Killing Ceasar and letting Octavian take the reigns instead, Ceasar was far more popular and had alot more people on his side, he would have been a far better emperor as he would have kept the military incentives at the very least.
Besides stabbing a guy 23 times is pretty freaking disgusting and Senator Aquila would definitely not approve!
@@jeremycole2164 Octavian was an excellent Emperor.
@@qboxer Just a shame who followed.
i'd really refrain from using Overly Sarcastic Productions for any in-depth historical basis lol
@@putbye1 He just gave an opinion regarding Caesar and the Republic that I agreed with is all
0:08 - 0:12 sounds like it's about to lead into a fascinating rap album
Caesar causing untold human suffering and loss of life is a bit harsh I think... After the defeat of Marc Antony by Octavian there wasnt another civil war for over a hundred years under Nero. Not to mention the fact that under the Caesars several foreign wars were averted, the grain dole was expanded and land reform was enacted.
It wasnt all good, but until Caligula and Nero and after it seems as if it wasnt provably worse than before.
Just my opinion, still a great video
He seems to have a bias against Caesar.
@@TonyFontaine1988 It seems to be more a bias against Rome under the Principes imo
Saying uncritically that Rome was worse because of what Caesar did.
Yeah the Caesar hatred was so strong.
I assume because this channel has allowed the creators to join the elites in a republic who don’t see how awful things are.
This channel has "made" us Caesar's fans. It had to show us also what Caesar really was. Like, let's say, Tony Soprano.
He seems to have been corrupted by a devotion to republican ideals, it's a common problem with Americans. Obviously monarchy is vastly superior to republic and Rome needed a monarchy to be efficiently governed on account of its size. Rome was no longer a city-state and could no longer be governed as one, what Caesar and Augustus did were absolutely necessary and a great service to the Roman people and state.
"You can go on pretending to be a god"
"Who said anything about pretending?"
This was the time period where Caesar alienated almost everyone he could. While in the past he was gracious in victory letting his enemies live, now he insisted on endlessly flaunting his victory on the defeated. The problem is he left them alive, which ensures his enemies were never truly completely defeated.
Caesar tried to rule as a conquering ruler but without Sulla or Marius's brutality. He grew up during the proscriptions and was genuinely fond of many of those who took up arms against him. And I think Caesar understood that, and to some degree knew his position was always going to be tenuous, hence the Parthiam campaign. If he had his way he woud have gone on campaigning in Germany, Spain and the Eurasian steppe for a decade until he either lost or beat everyone worth fighting, which might have been ruinous in terms of future adminsitration but it also might have allowed the Senate to exercise some soft power and find an exit like a deal for Caesar to retire in return for immunity or something.
You’re exactly right.
Caesar defeated several foreign enemies of Rome, reformed the nation, satisfied the military, and made himself popular with the people.
But he humiliated and pissed off Rome’s political class without simply killing them as many other dictators would have.
Thus sowing the seeds of his downfall.
But had the assassination attempt failed, it might have led to a shift in attitude.
I think it's interesting to point out how in your Pontifex Maximus video, you mentioned how the Pontifex Maximus can fine anyone in the senate if they displayed bad public morals or for whatever they deem appropriate
In my opinion, the whole "Prefect of Morality" title is just an extension of that power that he already had
The Roman Republic was not stable until Caesar destroyed it. Caesar was a symptom of the dysfunctional Roman political system that broke after Sulla. I'd argue that it was broken all the way during the time of Scipio Africanus since his own men offered him the Roman Crown. The moment when the Senate lost control of the Roman Army and generals started marching on Rome, that's when the Republic was dead. No one had realized it yet. Augustus was the logical end of the broken Roman system. The system was so bad that by the time that Augustus died no one wanted to go back to the old system. Even after the death of Caligula this was true. After the Senate put their puppet Nerva on the throne, the army, Praetorians, and people rioted and mutineed forcing Nerva to name Trajan as his successor to pacify them.
The Marian reforms is where this started Roman soldiers became more loyal to their generals then the Republic
High Council
Still the fact that Scipio was presented the Crown showed that the demise of true Republic was approaching.
@@justinpachi3707 there were three sledgehammers to the Roman Republic's institutions the first was sullas dictatorship then Caesar and his cohorts Pompey and Crassus took another sledgehammer to The republics institutions and after Pompey and Crassus died Caesar kept hammering away the final sledgehammer was Octavian / Augustus who finally destroyed the dying institutions of the Republic once and for all.
Only the last hundred years of Roman Republic count bois...
I mean I don't think it was totally off the table to go back to a true republic. If Cassius and Brutus weren't such morons they could have taken steps to do that instead of sitting back thinking the republic would restore itself...
You mention Sulla a lot, can you do a video on him?
Please
god a sulla series would be so rad
@Anon ymous nah pompey not
I think a whole series on the social upheavals leading from the gracchi bros to Caesar would be awesome. So many things I'm learning just about Caesar that I never knew before, imagine all the things I don't know about the gracchi brothers, Marius or Sulla.
@Anon ymous it's almost a shame he couldn't win the battles that counted. Pompey by all accounts never really cared for power, he was always more interested in fame and glory. if he had been able to defeat ceasar it's possible the republic might have continued, although reforms were still desperately needed. Rome needed a Generation or two so they could forget Marius and Sulla.
Etherwing
Actually, go back even further and start with the Pyrrhic War, which helped trigger the Punic Wars, which indirectly triggered the societal issues that led to the Gracchi and later Sulla.
Am I the only one who (after having watched it all the way through once) listens to these videos to fall asleep to because that voice is just soothing? ^-^
Wow! This guys a real character! I can’t wait to see what kind of whacky hijinks he gets into in the next episode! Surely he’ll go on to conquer the world all the way over to the Hidaspes River just like Alexander the Great!
Idiot senate will assassinate him at the meeting, haven't you heard it in school?
@@ari3903
The joke -------->
You
@@2kuyu685 There exists a thing called Sarcasm.
@@ari3903 Yeah, and yours was as subtle as a mouse fart.
@@ianbirge8269 1. Mouse Fart smells good,
2. My reply is as sarcastic as the comment.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
Nice quote
I had to memorize this speech in my high school English class
Dayvit78 me too brother
9:00 it's not like rome hadn't been going through civil wars on and off for about a century before this point. Ceaser can't be blamed for the bloodshed. If anything, the monarchy he founded temporarily restored some stability.
The monarchy eventually ruined rome, a series of incompetent and unstable emperors such as Nero weakened the empire greatly and caused disasters, betting the stability of an entire empire on the mental stability and competence of ONE human being is a terrible idea.
Democracy is always better then monarchy, even fake democracy is better.
@@whenyournameisduoduos1282 There was no democracy in the Republic. And Rome definitely didn't fall due to a single emperor. Monarchy in some form still survives today after all
The "five good emperors" followed in the wake of those inept rulers, The pax romana lasted 2 centuries following Augustus
Bad as it was, the lare republics replacement with the Empire did bring stability and prosperity for a time
@@benlalammohamedrachid3112 rome was not nor was it ever a democracy. it was a republic in the ancient meaning. in otherwords it was a system where the rich and powerful used elections rather than wars to decide who ran it. they even had plato's beloved institutionalised class system.
@@benlalammohamedrachid3112 🤮 major cringe
This channel is definitely among the highest quality educational channels out there.
Great job, keep it up!
But just in case, we should ask tribune Aquila if he agrees...
I couldn’t agree more, the dude does an excellent job
Also I kind of disagree with the idea that Caesar was the "cause" of the posterior instability and misery that the fall of the established Roman Republic caused. Caesar might have been THE guy who caused it, but if the last century before him proved something beyond any doubt, is that had it not been him, it'd been someone as ambitious as he was. And Rome didn't lack that kind of ambitious egomaniacs at the time. On the opposite, they were legion (pun intended).
The Roman Republic was condemned to die because it was already failing and decaying decades before Caesar was even born. Caesar pushed it to the precipice, but had it not been him, it'd been someone else, so it's quite unfair to narrow it down on to him as the guy responsible for what came afterwards -
the problem wasn't Caesar, the problem was a Republic that had been failing to properly defend itself for a lot of years before Caesar. And by extension, the problem wasn't Caesar, the problem was a Rome that was ripe for the taking of a massive populist manipulator. In the end let's not forget where Caesar's REAL power came from. He had the full backing of the Roman People, which he earned through political manipulation and the worst kind of populism. In the end the ones who killed the Republic were the own Romans who instead of defending their own laws and institutions against someone who was CLEARLY bent on destroying them, chose to side with the tyrant who was in such a mission. Caesar was just the guy who represented them. The same way later on Octavius did (trhough somewhat different means, but basing his power, actions, and decisions on the same principles), which again goes on to prove that the Republic was already dead - even while Octavius wasn't as blatantly "in your face" about seizing power as Caesar was, it was all a matter of PR - his objective was the same, even if the means were different, and anyone with eyes and ears in Rome knew as much - yet Rome did nothing, because Rome itself didn't want the Republic anymore.
So I insist, had Caesar not been the "agressor" that gave the killing blow to the Republic...some other guy like him of the many that existed at the time would have, for the Republic would've failed to defend itself against that hypotetical guy, as much as it failed to defend itself against Caesar himself. Because the Republic was no longer backed by the people...so in the end the ones who REALLY killed the Republic weren't Octavian, nor Caesar. They were the romans themselves.
Republic stopped to exist at least 40 years before Gaius Julius birth .
Yes I agree that if his opponents would have been successful in stopping him or selling his murder as a justified tyrant-killing some other person would have properly taken up his place, that's why the idea of just simply removing bad people from the picture properly won't change history that much (I make a similar point every time people wonder what would have happened if Hitler were killed as a toddler). But I don't agree that Caesar is therefore blameless in his role of destroying the republic.
@@whenyournameisduoduos1282 well the comparison isnt' quite correct imo. The succession of events that led to Hitler taking power in Germany have little or nothing to do with how Caesar seized power in Rome.
But besides that, when I stated "it not him it'd been someone else", I'm not saying it for the sake of excusing him. I'm saying it because it is stating the obvious. Rome as a republic had been faltering and failing and gasping for decades. It was the literal instance of a dying institution just waiting for someone to deliver the côup de grace.
And in fact it wasn't Caesar the one who delivered that final blow (he couldn't, he was dead). It was his "son". And had it not been his "son" it'd been Antony. And had it not been Antony it'd been Lepidus. And had it not been Lepidus it'd been the young Pompey (before the 2nd triunvirate got rid of him). And had it not been the young Pompey it'd been someone else, because, once again, the dying republic was open for grabs and there wasn't a lack of powerful, driven and politically savvy personalities lusting for power to deliver that final blow.
So again, I'm not using it as an excuse for Caesar, but as a statement.
@@whenyournameisduoduos1282 Well if you're seen all his videos up to this point, you can see that the events that happened in the decades before Caesar even reached adulthood already pointed the Republic was a pretty much dying institution and open to grabs.
That it was Caesar is incidental, he just was the winner of a "game of thrones" period where those who wanted supreme personal control fought each other both politically and in the battlefield. Had he not succeeded other would have.
And again, I'm not stating it to say that Caesar was blameless, or innocent. I'm saying that it's unfair to say he killed the republic when the republic was pretty much dead already by the time he arrived. He can't be blamed for that. It was Rome (and the romans) themselves who killed the Republic because they were all (with a few exceptions) more concerned about their personal wellbeing than about keeping the Republic intact and safe from powergrabs.
Caesar (or in fact, Octavian) was the one who dealt the finishing blow to something that was alive only in appearance, but not in substance anymore. He can't be blamed for killing something that was already dead.
@@whenyournameisduoduos1282 Maybe I haven't written it the best way lol.
Caesar can't be blamed for killing something that was on the verge of dying anyway and that had he not been the one dealing the finishing blow, other would've been.
Caesar can be blamed for many things. Not using his power to use the ruins of the dying republic to found a new, stronger, and more egalitarian one (the Old Republic was the republic of the patricians, let's not forget it), something he could have done, is on him.
Not using his political genius and skills in order to try to rejuvenate the republic instead of killing it (something I don't think anyone could do by that stage, but if anyone could, it was him), is on him.
Seeking personal glory and power using Rome as an excuse instead of seeking the actual good of Rome, is on him.
But killing what was almost a corpse is not. Because, I'll have to insist once more, had he not done it, some other talented politician with a serious lust for power, of which there were a lot in that Rome, would have done it instead.
18:20 '... the whole thing was stupid fun.'
-Historia Civilis 2019
I already know what happens next but I still cannot wait to know what happens next
The production quality has greatly increased from the first few videos. I really love seeing how much love is always put into these videos
Historia, I can't believe you would spew such propaganda against our rightful Emporer, shame! shame on the house of Civilis, shame!
I'm pretty sure Historia Civilis just means "History of the People" or "Popular History" as opposed to academic history. So you're pretty much cursing yourself, one is the 'people'.
@@zhouwu Haha, nice. I just played myself.
@@megantrainorvevo9242 It's ok, happens to the best of us. :)
@@zhouwu Considering this was all basically just opinionated drivel it certainly wasn't anything historical.
@@zachdelozier2133 what on earth do you think 'history' is? His story, my story, the other fellow's story. History is basically just the official set of opinions. That's what it's always been. The 'history' of most ancient civilisations: Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian etc is just pure propaganda. Herodotus came along and made it a sociological/anthropological exercise. Then Thucydides came along and made it a polemical exercise. Which is basically what it has since remained in the Western academic world. So I don't know what you expect. With any grand narratives, the author is forced to fill in the gaps somehow.
Otherwise, all you get is: "Julius Caesar wrote: Veni, vidi, vici" to the senate. It was carbon dated 100bc to 100 ad. Evidence shows there was a battle around the Pontus area around a similar period. There may have been a correlation between the two. But correlation does not equal causation.
I mean, if that's what you prefer, the university department of archaeology would gladly welcome you, I'm sure. You're kind of wasting your time on UA-cam, especially in the comments section.
One of the strengths of Historia Civilis is that he's willing more or less to produce the facts of History, at least so I gather, in a dramatic and interesting way. (Though I wish he would cite his sources.)
The other good strength of this channel is that it's a primer on historical bias. HC often and prominently points out Caesar's own self-importance, and how that might be embellishing his autobiography. He does it so often that, if you listen carefully to him, you will notice HC very clearly has his own biases, and he is not ashamed of them. But he tells the story first, most of the time, and only then draws his own conclusions (or invite you to draw your own if he has none).
My point being, he is prominent both in his bias and in the facts, and he doesn't let one get in the way of the other. I wish more authors presented their biases and were aware that they have them.
The sources haven’t changed for 1000s of years 😂😂😂
Meh, his blatant biases can be very annoying and not needed.
sources are in the description
Considering the simple fact that the Roman Republic was unequal (heavily favoring the rich and the nobility) and corrupt to the core, I really don't see why its dismantlation is supposed to be a bad thing. Sure, it led to a civil war (not the first, not the last, not the bloodiest), but also to Augustus the reign of whom is considered by many to be Rome's Golden Age.
It also lead to rulers like Caligula and Nero (who came from the same dynasty as Augustus, no less,) and a political system where many Emperors died of natural causes ... if assassination counts as "natural causes."
froobas
The Republic also saw its fair share of bloodspilling outside of civil wars. The brothers Gracchi and their followers are the most well known examples but they are far from the only ones.
@@froobas Wasn't Nero actually well liked among the populace? Sure the Christians and nobility hated him, but they were the minority, though it didn't stop the latter group from killing him without much thought on the aftermath.
Caesar: I want all the political power!
Brutus: Yeah we'll see about that.
Octavian: Allow me to introduce myself, *traitor*
@@sobitasadullah4517 Traitor? Brutus was the reason Octavian won the conflict.
How can you call Rome's political system stable when you've spent years documenting how unstable it was?
Yeah, but that was near its fall. You don't judge a system's stability near it's end, you judge it in totality of its entire existence and remember the Republic had been around for about almost 500 years before it collapsed.
@@Hoolcolbery Just because a system worked really well in the past, doesn't change the fact that it no longer works in more present times. The republic of the fourth century bc, was different from the republic of the first century bc. Its system had come into being when Rome was a single city state in the middle of the Italian peninsula, where it worked incredibly well. But by the time of Caesar that system was breaking down under the weight of imperialism, personal ambition, corruption, slave revolts, and civil wars. When a political system has spent nearly a century falling to pieces, it becomes irrelevant to use its past success as a judgement of its 'current' merit which is what HC is doing in this video.
it stable if it is run accordingly, when no one try to seize control over the politics
@@theodora4218 that's not how stability works. people will always try to dominate politics. a stable system either incorporates or resists those people.
CageyBee that’s the paradox, with people always try dominate, there will be no system that can prevent that, we’re human after all
Amazing content as usual, but - not to condone Caesar's genocidal tendencies or egomania, isn't saying that Caesar "destroyed" Roman politics a bit much? Marius and Sulla had already made a mockery of the Republic (all on the watch of the conservatives, those ever-so stalwart defenders of the republic, I may add), and the perpetual dictatorship had already had a precedent in Sulla. I think just a little bit you may over-exaggerate.
If there was a true "destroyer of the republic" or "destroyer of roman politics" it would probably be Cato :^)
The roots of that goes back even further to the graci brothers, where mob politics were introduced as a matter of course
I'd say what he means here is that Caesar appears to have been INTENTIONALLY destroying Roman politics, whereas men like Sulla and Marius were exploiting loopholes for their own ends, but didn't intend to absolutely destroy the Republic. At least that's how I saw it.
The most crazy thing about all this stuff that ive realized watching this series? Human political behavour hasnt even changed all that much. There is FAR less outright murder these days but everything else about modern politicking would be very recognizable to a Roman
I was just going to mention the gracchi brothers but I see others did already. And Sulla marched on Rome long before Ceasar. So yeah I agree with you my man, a little theatric flair for the UA-cam audience :)
This channel's liberal bias even when looking at ancient history is ridiculous. Imagine calling Caesar and "authoritarian", while thinking that the oligarchy of the Republic was democratic.
Fun fact: Caesar is the reason why in germany, the monarch that is even above a king was called "Kaiser", which is pronounced almost exactly as "caesar" in latin. His shinanigans literally shaped the understanding of monarchy until over 2000 yesrs after his death
Not only with Germany, the title Tzar also literally comes from Caesar as well in some Slavic medieval countries like the rulers of Bulgaria from 900s (Simeon I), later in Serbia from mid 1300s (Stefan Dusan) and then on Russia officially with Ivan the Terrible in thr 1500s.
So Caesar had a huge influence over how his name will be used as a title for 2000 years in Europe and being associated to emperor. What's ironic is that the 1st Tzar was named Simeon I and the last Tzar who bears the title tzar is Simeon II (and will probably die with him) who went into exile when the Soviets took power in Bulgaria. Then Simeon II became a prime minister of Bulgaria in early 2000s and his political party was literally named "National Movement Tzar Simeon II
So even today there is an actual person who technically bears the title of "Caesar" even if it's only ceremonial currently but was still a political power. This is how much influence Caesar had.
Historia Civilis: “See ya again in like, a year and a half!”
One of the few channels where I can hit the like button before I've even watched the video, because I know it's going to be good! Thanks for your awesome content!
It's honestly difficult for modern people to imagine the fear, adoration, rage, power, influence, and fame that Julius Caesar had. He was so influential that his name became a stand in for emperor. He, in many ways, established how the powerful were to act and wield it. He might be the third most influential human in history behind Christ and Mohammed.
He is by far one of the most important people in history. His influence changed Europe forever. I would argue that Christ and Mohammed were more influential but not in the same way as Caesar.
I think you're downplaying a not so little guy that was born in a Mediterranean french/italian isle in the XVIII century.
@@DarthFhenix55The midget? Nah, he was basically irrelevant. Conquered a few countries and then got everything he did stripped from him. The things in his rule weren't even his.
@@eutropius2699I've always liked to imagine what the interaction would be like between massively consequential historical figures. Jesus and Gandhi, Alexander the Great and Napoleon. Mohammed and Genghis Kahn, Shakespeare and Dickens, Michelangelo and Picasso, Isaac Newton and Darwin, Lincoln and Churchill, Einstein and Geothe, Julius Cesar and Cesar Augustus. It's fun to imagine these larger than life figureheads sharing and learning from each other, but it's a pipe dream. Except the last one. It's not theoretical. They didn't just speak, but had a father son type relationship. It's absolutely insane to think about
That was thanks Augustus, Julius Caesar did not succeed
''You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain''
How many years did you wait to make that reference?
First you live long enough to see yourself become the villain, then comes the ides of March
@@caiawlodarski5339 I know right ,I knew he turned out to be a dictator but I didn't know things were THAT bad
You either die a hero or live long enough to become one of the most successful,popular and powerful rulers in history
@@cv4809 so popular they killed him to death
we‘re in the endgame now