Was Julius Caesar a Military Tyrant or a Saviour of Rome?
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 05. 2024
- 🎮 Play Humankind Today: store.humankind.game?
Kings and Generals' historical animated documentary series on the Great Roman Civil War (Caesar's Civil War) continues with a video describing the reforms Caesar enacted before and after the civil war, as we are gearing towards the final episode of the series that will describe the plot against Caesar and the assassination of the Roman dictator. It is up to you to tell is if Julius Caesar was a tyrant or a saviour of Rome.
Beginning of the battle of Ilerda and the siege of Massilia: • Caesar's Civil War: Th...
Battles of Ilerda and Massilia: • Battles of Ilerda and ...
Battles of Utica and Bagradas: • Battles of Utica and B...
Battle of Dyrrhachium: • Battle of Dyrrhachium ...
Battle of Pharsalus: • Battle of Pharsalus 48...
Battle of Alexandria: • Siege of Alexandria 48...
Battle of Nile: • Battle of the Nile 47 ...
Battle of Zela: • Caesar's Pontic War: Z...
Battle of Ruspina: • Caesar in Africa - Bat...
Battle of Munda: • Munda 45 BC - Caesar's...
Why Caesar's Civil War happened: • Caesar's Great Roman C...
Caesar's conquest of Gaul: • Caesar in Gaul - Roman...
Roman Politics before Caesar - conflict between Marius and Sulla: • Rome: from Marius to C...
Evolution of the Roman Armies: • Armies and Tactics: Ea...
Roman history: czcams.com/users/playlist?list...
Support us on Patreon: / kingsandgenerals or Paypal: paypal.me/kingsandgenerals or by joining the youtube membership: / @kingsandgenerals We are grateful to our patrons and sponsors, who made this video possible: docs.google.com/document/d/1o...
The video was made by Yağız Bozan and Murat Can Yağbasan, while the script was developed by Peter Voller. This video was narrated by Officially Devin ( / @offydgg & / @gameworldnarratives )
✔ Merch store ► teespring.com/stores/kingsand...
✔ Patreon ► / kingsandgenerals
✔ Podcast ► kingsandgenerals.libsyn.com/ iTunes: apple.co/2QTuMNG
✔ PayPal ► paypal.me/kingsandgenerals
✔ Twitter ► / kingsgenerals
✔ Facebook ► / kingsgenerals
✔ Instagram ► / kings_generals
Production Music courtesy of Epidemic Sound: www.epidemicsound.com
#Documentary #Caesar #Reforms
Here is a poster: bit.ly/2XMPns0
Hi
Hi
Hi
Hi
Good luck with 3 million King and General
How will the world speak my name in years to come? Will I be known as the philosopher? the warrior? the tyrant? Actually any of those are good as long as they don't name me after a bloody salad
Don't fret, here in the History youtube community, Ceasar is more widely known as an architect with the special ability to build fortifications and bridges in the middle of open battlefield
@@ronb7189 lol look a very wide river, let's build a bridge and March across it
@@ronb7189 my man.
@@chrisredfield6274 oh look, its WALL TIME!
@@ronb7189 don’t forget competing with Pompei to see who could build a fortress first
You forgot his most enduring legacy: the calendar reform
@@BigOmahaSEO I respect July, not August.
@John Hathorne They called it Kaiser as well
that is the most trivia question in history the longest year in history
Iranian calendar is the most accurate in the world FYI
@John Hathorne they called themselves that after Augustus not julius
The obvious answer to the question is: "He was both". The only reason anyone debates this is because we humans have a hard time accepting that two seemingly opposite things can be simultaneously true.
Exactly.
This is a mindset more people need to have when looking at the world
Well said!
He was also just a person too, living his life and not making all his decisions based on one grand plan. People also have trouble accepting that people change change and even “great men” don’t always have visions or grand schemes at all times, and Caesar was a piece in larger part of historical tides of the era. Someone else might have done what he did and many did similar things.
wow such wisdom my mind is blown. Yes that is true but not all grey is the same, of course it fucking matters if it's 50% black/ 50% white or 99 and 1. Everything 'good' has something 'bad' in it and vice versa but it's hugely important which is more prevalent and to what extent
Caesar: "I should not have been allowed to do this. This needs to change."
Tokugawa: "Ain't it the truth."
Hideyoshi: "Samesies."
You know just the fact he had the self awareness to admit as much unlike his enemies in the Senate goes to show what kind of a man he really was and how the Senators hated him for it.
ENTJ
The aristocracy and their unwillingness to reform the Republic caused men like Caesar to be necessary. Without Caesar and his heir Augustus Rome would have declined far sooner than it did.
True and Hail Caesar
Cato and Metellus killed the Republic far more than Caesar did
Well that is democracy in a nutshell for you.
Caesar managed to change the world though, or at least the republic. One man, and he did all this. So interesting
@@jonbaxter2254 One man and a big ass army, dont forget that part lol
Ever since I watched your Caesar in Gaul series I fell in love with Roman History. Thanks for existing K&Gs
Caesar's life is more interesting than a hundred people from today
I, single handedly, would have mauled Ceaser, in Gaul.
@@SwissSareth Yeah I sometimes watch him too.
Have you ever heard of historia civilis, if not check him out he has great videos regarding that periode
Check out Michael Duncans "history of rome" Podcast. You'll Love it. - Good stuff, as always. Thanks K&G team.
"It's better to die once than to be always expecting death."
That's some profound shit right there. It gives you a look into what kind of man he was and how he viewed life.
Caesar was a man of great depth, and so was Augustus.
Death is not the end. Death is like an invisible door, that opens itself, on the moment the Soul needs to be free...
...because who lives in fear dies every day.
He prob chillin with Jupiter right now
My Father, Rest His Soul in Peace, told me that a Brave Man only dies once, but a Coward will "die" many times.
In short Caesar used the shortcomings of a corrupt system to climb up power ladder, after becoming the dictator, he reformed the system which decreased corruption and brought long sought peace and stability but it also increased his power
Very accurate analysis. To bad modern political leaders don't do this we could usher a new age for humanity.
According to the historian Appian, Sulla was the first dictator in Roman history to enter Rome with a conquering army and assume absolute power indefinitely without the six month limit. He reformed the constitutional system to prevent corruption and so that another person, like himself, would not come along and usurp the Roman body politic by force of legions under one's command. Sulla stepped down and gave up his absolute power. Wittingly or not, he established precedent for strong military men to follow if they wanted to grab power for themselves. He regretted not killing Caesar because he knew Caesar was going to be that man capable of destroying the republic and seizing power.
@@anthonylogiudice9215
Sulla still did not solve the core problem Rome had...even though he understood it perfectly.
Rome needed land reform...and laws to prevent the massive amounts of loss of land of soldiers on campaign.
Rome's army shrank to nothing mostly because land ownership was a requirement to be a soldier in the Romans army...while land ownership itself coalesced into the hands of a few (despite existing laws to limit the amount of land a single individual could hold.)
The lack of landowners, meant a lack of soldier...leading to the Marian reforms...during the Cimbrian War. Even the senate at the time commented that the Marian reforms will lead to armies loyal to commanders who pay them and not to the land that used to pay a soldier's expenses. This lead to men like Sulla, Ceasar, etc.
The biggest irony is that it was the first Gracchi brother (the one who championed land reform the most), who set a precedent that caused others to practice the same brand of populist politics...leading to Marius and then Ceasar.
@@tylerdurden3722 Your points are reinforced in the book called The Civil Wars written by Appian, which I am currently reading. I thought Gaius Gracchus was the most sensible of the populist politicians but you're correct that Marius's reforms which led to soldiers being loyal to their commanders (Sulla & Caesar) became one of the causes that contributed to the fall of the Roman Republic. Can you recommend any books for more in depth discussion regarding the Gracchus brothers and Caesar? BTW, are you the same Tyler Durden who writes for the Gateway Pundit? I actually read your articles posted to that site from time to time. Edit: I meant to write Zero Hedge online news.
@@jaimevenegas1537 Why do you want an increase in political absolutism? It is empirically proven to be ineffective and harmful.
Hey guys, I'm the historian and scriptwriter for this episode, if you've got any questions or feedback, feel free to leave them below and I'll do my best to get around to them!
Hi Peter! First of all, I like the episode. The alternate views on complex issues regarding Caesar are well put. For me personally, one big question remains. The Populares/Optimates dichotomy is my biggest question, since this shows up often in the video. This view is mainly introduced after Caesar's time, while Sallust (who lived during Caesar's dictatorship) does not mention it. Mouritsen wrote a very interesting book about it, where he details the different problems with this theory. In short, in Roman politics we have no clear political parties so we are left with senators choosing to support a bill mostly based on who is proposing it. Since the Senate had no real formal power, it relied on its members voting on the same side. This is exactly what broke down (amongst other things) during the Late Republic. Is it not more plausible that senators did not belog to a party per se, but voted on the bill which benefitted them the most? I do believe in the Nobiles/Homo novum dichotomy, with the nobiles trying to keep their power, but this does not mean that either side was a Populares or Optimates. Caesar chose to support some bill which were obviously populares related but he also Hi Peter! First of all, I like the episode. The alternate views on complex issues regarding Caesar are well put. For me personally, one big question remains. The Populares/Optimates dichotomy is my biggest question, since this shows up often in the video. This view is mainly introduced after Caesar's time, while Sallust (who lived during Caesar's dictatorship) does not mention it. Mouritsen wrote a very interesting book about it, where he details the different problems with this theory. In short, in Roman politics we have no clear political parties so we are left with senators choosing to support a bill mostly based on who is proposing it. Since the Senate had no real formal power, it relied on its members voting on the same side. This is exactly what broke down (amongst other things) during the Late Republic. Is it not more plausible that senators did not belog to a party per se, but voted on the bill which benefitted them the most? With that I mean, that senators supported a particular side (populares/optimate, although I am aware that this does not take the opinions of senators in between these sides into view) simply to climb futher on the political ladder? I do believe in the Nobiles/Homines novi dichotomy, with the nobiles trying to keep their power, but this does not mean that either side was a Populares or Optimates. Caesar chose to support some bills which were obviously populares related but he also supported bills which were optimates related (such as the limiting of the grain dole). Just as Sulla, who is always portrayed as the arch-optimate, supported a lot of 'populares' bills, since he confiscated and redistributred more land in Italy than any other politician. What are your thoughts on this?
@@TheOnno94 Hey man, glad you liked the episode! Ah I got taught by Mouritsen, he's a good lad! He is right that Optimate and Populares weren't political parties like we think of them today, they weren't analogous to Democrat and Republican for instance. However, I do think that that the words are useful for showing an ideological divide, rather than a political one, perhaps an analogy of Liberal and Conservative is more appropriate. Imo, there was a real divide between Roman politicians over the issue of where the power of the state should lie, with the aristocracy or with the people.
Now, that doesn't mean that every Senator was on one side of these lines, and that Senators couldn't support bills that supported one side, and then also sponsored bills that supported the other. Like you say, there weren't political parties per se, but there were "alliances" of Senators. You're also completely right to say that Senators often chose to support a bill based on who was suggesting it. However, this is precisely where I think the division between Optimates and Populares is important. Usually, these alliances would centre around one politician, or a small group of politicians, who were more ideological. Caesar is a perfect example. I think calling him a Populares is justifiable; his actions suggest that he really thought more power needed to be in the hands of the people, and he actively reduced the power of the aristocracy. When an alliance of Senators gathers around Caesar, they usually are supporting Caesar's legislation. Let's take an example of Caesar wanting to pass land reform to give land to the masses. This, imo, can fairly be described as a piece of Populares legislation, as it sought to benefit the populace, not the wealthy. Now let's say that Cesar's allied Senators would support the legislation. Some of them might not have been passing that legislation for ideological reasons, they might just have done it to further their own careers or curry favour, but nevertheless they have furthered the Populares cause. So, now we have a situation where an alliance of Senators is all voting for the same kind of legislation, under the leadership of Caesar. At the same time, there is an alliance of Senators looking to block that legislation, under the leadership of figures like Cato. Naming these alliances is useful, hence the use of Populares and Optimates. Like I say though, that doesn't mean that *every* Senator in those alliances had those ideological motives, but usually the alliances were headed by someone who was clearly more of a political idealist (Cicero, Caesar, Clodius, Cato for instance).
So tldr; you and Mourtisen are right, Populares and Optimates weren't political parties like we think of today. However, I still think the terms are useful to describe the political alliances that formed around ideological politicians. Sorry if that's kinda convoluted, but hopefully it makes sense! If it doesn't, feel free to ask again and I'll give it another shot
@@petervoller3404 Wow that is a long answer, for which I would very much like to thank you. And I get your line of thinking, I always tend to get the idea that people in the Populares/Optimates 'party' were ideologically aligned, but your answer makes sense.
Also, I'm very jealous that Mouritsen taught you, that must have been awesome (I also had great professors luckily).
Again, thank you for answering. This explanation makes it a lot clearer!
@@mythiclore5508 Ooof that's niche hahaha my expertise really in the Roman Republic and Classical Greece, so idk how much help I can be. But if you like the Aetolian league and want similar things, A Companion to the Etruscans by Bell and Carpino gives a really good overview of Etruscan culture, which a lot of people often overlook in favour of Rome, and Tyranny and Political Culture in Ancient Greece by McGlew and Popular Tyranny by Morgan are both really excellent for dealing with the transition from tyrannies in the Greek poleis to oligarchies/democracies
why was the calendar reform left out? It is his most enduring legacy.
We may not know if Caesar was a tyrant or a savior, but we all know that he's a red square
Hail the red square, damn the blue square.
history civilas?
Not gonna lie, I laughed.
The most beautiful red square to have ever lived.
I have never been more attached to a square.
I think when compared to the harsh brutality of most men who achieved absolute power in history, Caesar is downright benevolent. He really seemed to show no more ruthlessness than what was necessary to achieve his power. More shrewd than brutal.
Tell that to the Gauls.
@@zakkthewanderer8813 To the Romans slaughtering barbarians needlessly is a minor offense at worse. Worthy of a triumph at best.
@@zakkthewanderer8813 yeah lets talk about the gauls who were killing romans every second day of the week and constantly allied with carthage
Caesar is said to be responsible for the genocide of over a million Gauls.
To benevolent he was killed by the men that he pardoned.
The most telling evidence of if Caesar was a Tyrant was how he died. He was not brought down through a popular revolt but thorough the conspiracy of assassination by lesser men. The assassin's can claim they did it for the republic but given all that Caesar was sharing I think they were more concerned with preserving traditional power that people like themselves had benefited from the most. Caesar was amongst the greatest of men and these cowards should have felt fortunate to rest in his shadow.
I feel like to me, it depends on how much the Optimates were going to lose…..I wouldn’t want to give all my land away but I’d want reasonable reform ya know
What about hitler?
He was a tyrant though.
Godwin’s Law
@@bader3677 that guy cannot compared to Caesar
KAG:Was Caesar Military Tyr-
Me:Saviour of Rome
AVE CAESAR!
VIVAT IMPERATOR
Literally me.
Ancient Greece and ancient Rome are two greatest powers in Europe actually for sure where others lived as tribes actually in entire Europe.
Argead empire and Roman empire are two greatest empires and biggest empire in ancient world.
Argead empire was splitted into 4 parts and ruled by 4 generals after death of Alexander
1 General who became emperor of Selucid empire gave his daughter hand to Chandragupta Maurya for marriage actually
She was virtuous Woman and virtuous queen of Maurya empire one of the wife of Chandragupta Maurya.
Their is close relationship between Ancient Greeks and Maurya empire for sure in the past.
Argead empire was started in 808 BCE until it fall to Roman empire.
It ruled 700 years approx for sure
It seems like over time Caesar has been painted as more of a tyrant, but the more I learn about him he seems like a great man. Guess there are a lot of Pompeians writing history.
the one comment during the video about the politics of historians being revealed when referencing Caesar is a very enlightening line and that idea can be applied to any so called history we hear accounts of.
Yep, most of the writers were from the aristocracy and would've been severely affected by Caesar's reforms.
He was an evil pos only interested in power.
Honestly I think being on a death list because of Sulla opened his eyes in his younger years, he more or less had to start from scratch and eventually ended up being the most powerful man of that time and in my opinion he didnt forget what it was like to be down at the bottom and that teached him compassion about the poor. Needless to say that you can always somehow turn around the good things he has done and say he only did it for personal gain which makes it a bit of a dilemma
I mean, I'd rather have someone who did public good, even for his own gain, rather than have someone screw everyone over with """"""""good intentions"""""""".
Interesting point, thank you.
/
He probably was also, none to pleased, by the fact that the men he bled with .....
Came home to Rome, after years on campaign .....
Only to find that their houses and estates were stolen from them .....
/
Maybe he just had common decency and a spine?
/
Also, the rapacious senate gave him very little choice, but to cross The Rubicon.
"Dictator" by necessity?
The Senate and The Equestrians were absolutely out of control.
/
Preston Cauley said "he was both". I am sure what you say is true and at the same time it is to get the people behind you. It is a win/win really. You do something good while someone else pays for it AND you get a truckload of support from the masses. A very cunning man :)
@@Jayll1984 Very true, although he did pay for a lot of things out of his own pocket. Still it is very true that he was both. Like Napoleon, like Alexander, like many great men. Creation requires destruction, and destruction leads to creation.
From what I understand and have read. The people of Rome generally liked Julius Caesar. But the senators didn’t like the idea of having their influence and power declined.
That’s really oversimplified view to point of being incorrect. Caesar was popular among populace but it was due to some of his policies and military victories against enemies of Rome. But they didn’t want him to stay around in power forever either or become a monarch that was a concern at the time (regardless what Caesar actually was planning). And most importantly the people wanted there to be an end to civil war already so we’re tolerating the new status quo, similarly how later on Augustus got credit ending civil wars to even larger extent by far (because of his own extensive propaganda, despite being the person who started many civil wars).
And the Senators did have a cause to worry that Caesar was changing Republican system and not leaving power. But also many were upset over not getting appointments they had wished. In general majority of the conspirators were people who had originally supported Caesar and not unconnected Senators, even though many people who Caesar had pardoned were among them as well.
He was the Donald Trump of the time. Hated by the elite while being both loved and hated by the masses depending on what he did.
@@ernimuja6991 Comparing Donald Trump to Caesar is like comparing a house kitten to a lion. I don't think Trump deserves all the flak he receives from the media and the left, and for certain things he has the right idea, but he is no Caesar, not even close. Julius Caesar was one of those men that only come once in a millennium, someone who single-handedly swayed the course of history. I doubt Trump could do that.
@@ernimuja6991 compare donald trump to pompey could be more accurate. The same right wing ancient and now.
@@CH-zc8qx I mean his attitude. Caesar was a competent Trump. There are too many parallels to ignore. But of course opinions opinions opinions
I love how respect is given to alternative ancient viewpoints, besides what we get usually because of the lack of sources. Respect!
That's how history should be told
- Was Julius Caesar a Military Tyrant or a Saviour of Rome?
- Yes.
@John Hathorne no
@John Hathorne He was Gaius
a savior shrouded as a tyrant
@John Hathorne Probably Bi
You have to be both to lead men.
-Kings and Generals: "Was Caesar a savior, or a tyrant?"
-Myself and every other Caesar fanboy: "Here we go, ave Caesar!!!"
Pompey and the Senate have formally declared that Gaius Julius Caesar is an enemy of Rome!
give me Brutus every time
AVE CAESAR!
AVE CAESAR
Ave Caesar!!
3:30 Doesn't that mean that the owners who undervalued their land to pay less taxes would be selling their land cheaply? Thus making Caesar a genius since he would buy land at low prices and furthermore punishing tax evaders. This same tactic influenced land reforms in the 20th century such as the Guatemalan land reform in the 50's.
And Cuba, which still has Miami's descendents of the those landowners hella salty
Ah, that's brilliant.
@@poop696969poop The difference is these people would have money in hand and the connections necessary to reinvest it and continue profiting, Cuba is a socialist dump which collectivized the means of production and nationalized foreign businesses. Land reform is good, seizing the means of production is not.
Speaking as one hailing from the country which introduced the Sound Toll to the Øresund I can see what you mean.
In order to pass through the Sound as a skipper, you would have to declare how much your load was worth; paying a toll depending on its value. Simultaneously the local authorities reserved the right to buy the goods from you at the declared value.
That way if you were to undervalue your goods the authorities could buy them cheaply from you and sell them again. If you valued them high you would pay a higher toll, while possibly getting the authorities to buy them at the higher price.
A similar system could possibly be used today when it comes to housing prices.
As well as MacArthur's reforms for postwar Japan; land reform was one of the things the USAF had in mind for Japan.
Julius Caesar was one of the greatest beings in human history. He was quite possibly also the greatest ruler in human history. The man wasn’t just a savior, he was legendarily good.
Augustus might have been a better ruler.
@@SVTDI Both Julius and Augustus were incredible great!!
@@SVTDI interstingly because both augustus and caesar had the same name there is some debate as to which of augustus' reforms were his and which are Caesars.
augustus' other added advantage was in killing all his rivals.
that said, i would have loved to see what would have been had Caesar lived, but also wonder if his system would have granted the stability augustus' did
I'm glad there are people out there who've read enough to realize how great and admirable Caesar truly was.
I rate him above the other JC around his time honestly
Caesar is, in my view, one of the most important and un-corrupt figures in human history. The courage this man showed, and the brilliant way he conducted himself in politics and on the battlefield, makes him virtually unmatched. Ultimately, I believe Caesar did far more good then he did harm.
Beautiful said. I could not agree more!
That is what I admire the most: His courage.
@@walterweiss7124 Caesars fate sealed Augustus' Destiny. Augustus' 40 years as Emperor was exactly what would have happened if Caesar hadn't been killed.
@@pepperVenge Except, It would've lasted 60 years, and with the strong possibility of having Thrace, Dacia, Magna Germania, and Mesopotamia added as provinces 150 years early.
@@Pandadude-eg9li Speculation. We can't know what would have happened. And What would have lasted 60 years? Caesars rule? Not likely as he was 56 when he died. But if he had lived, Augustus may never have been emperor.
@@pepperVenge The most likely thing is, Dacia falls anyway. Burebista was assassinated in April 44 BC, before the news of his death could've even reached him. Plus, Augustus was effectively an inferior version of Caesar. (Although he was just as good a statesman).
Depending on how the events of 44 BC play out, you could either see: Caesar and Octavian die in Campaign, A failed assassination attempt on Caesar (Leading to the Empire being established 17 years earlier), Our Time Line, or Caesar being assassinated after returning from Dacia and Parthia.
It should be noted that in Caesar's testament he gives 300 sesterces to every Roman citizen, there was no political nor religious reason to do this, which I think confirms that he cared about the people. The extent to which he did is debatable, but this action does show that he wasn't just after power.
True, though you could also ask yourself if this might not have been an early move from Octavius to make Caesar even more popular or that Caesar knew this would make him (and his heir) more popular and entrenched in peoples memory/history. Though considering what Caesar did and his presumed stances, it indeed wouldn't be impossible either that he really just wanted the Roman people to be better off. I guess you can debate this for a long time, without coming to a conclusive conclusion.
@@MDP1702 When an rich person's incentives lie in helping the people, those are good incentives. Our modern problem is that the incentives for the rich today work against the poor.
@@MDP1702 For all his life Caesar was looked down by the Roman aristocracy (they even tried to assassinate him when he was young), he also had to live in popular appartments as a young adult and to top it off his uncle Marius probably influenced his political choices. Caesar had every reason to hate the high nobility and relate to the lower classes; this probably made him look at them as "comrades" (which is how he called his soldiers, who were themselves a part of the lower classes). It's impossible that octavian got his hands on the testament before Mark Anthony; there also isn't enough evidence that Caesar was trying to build a dinasty, especially since that wasn't supposed to be his final testament.
@@victorfawkes2440 There was a political reason for him to do this. He wanted to advance his nephew's career so he wanted his last legacy and his achievements to go to Gaius Julius Caesar (Octavius). By giving this money to the poor he uplifted his name to such a high status to ALL of the poor of Rome and by gifting Octavius this name, he gave Octavius full political authority to lead his faction. Of course this went to hell because of his assassination and the meddling of Marc Anthony.
"Those who make peaceful reforms impossible make violent revolution (or in this case, civil war) inevitable." -John F. Kennedy
@@Halcon_Sierreno
Give the people nothing to lose, why should they care about peace and stability and not want the opposite
@@Avinashm7 Many rights seem like snowflakes them selves tbh.
@@Avinashm7 From Australia - you have not gone left. Peopel are just retreating into their own ideas.
The system was fundamentally broken to begin with. The Gracchi Brothers, Marius, Sulla, etc had shown that already.
If it had not been Caesar and Augustus, someone else would have come along sooner or later to change things.
At least Caesar and co had some good policies and reforms they enacted.
I think we can spend years debating this but I do thing that the Caesar bought a lot of time for the empire with his reforms.
I think this brings up a great point as well. There are 3 possible ways this broken system could have been addressed, and if it wasn't addressed by one of these men, it would have been by somebody else. Firstly, organically by the Senate is a possible route to fix the broken system. Though that outlook was tried, but the way the Senate was set up, it was virtually impossible for any meaningful reform to be enacted long term, that would benefit common people. The other option we had were the Caesar route, which was one of forgiveness and clemency, sparing his political opponents and enemies and even forgiving them and allowing them to be a part of the senate. The last option was the Sulla route (and the Augustus route when Caesar was assassinated), where all his political enemies were just killed off, no clemency.
Now, given these three options, if it wasn't Caesar it'd be a Sulla, and if it was neither, then we'd just be left with an extremely corrupt and broken Republic system that likely never would have fixed on its own. I think it becomes much more preferable that a Caesar happens than a Sulla or even his adoptive son, Augustus.
Yes.
But everything has a cost.
Yea the State was untenable as it was, indebted out the arse and controlled by tax evading oligarchs. State cant function when the richest don't pay tax and the masses pay tax via credit, which is why western roem ultimately just ended with a whimper and fell to pieces.
Augustus brought stability but him and his successors ultimately didn't solve the problem. Caeser may have been able to for while who knows.
Caesar actually had something of a vision for Rome whereas the aristocracy had school captain syndrome...
The world needs a modern Caesar *stabby stabby*
@@mat7083 I really feel we are at that same point in history.
It's uncanny how many here [including myself], see the similarity in current events.
@@mrsmith2582 Times have changed. Human Nature hasn’t
@@mat7083 And neither has the flaws in republic vanished....
The last lesson to learn from Caesar is that to forgive one offense is to sanction another. Murdered by traitors whom he himself had pardoned.
In a republic, treason would be to betray the Republic.
In a Monarchy, treason is when you betray the monarch.
Was Ceasar a Monarch?
Or did the senator assassins betray the Republic?
@@JamieZero7 that is all true.
But perhaps, Ceasar was the real traitor. Ceasar abused his power. Then he abused it more to remain in power to retain the amnesty that came with holding such offices, to protect himself from prosecution of his previous abuses of power. And perhaps, it was those who stood with Ceasar, who betrayed the Republic.
Many, like Labienus started to see things that way...and later chose the Republic over a single man.
Ceasar broke a lot of laws, etc. And he was hiding behind political amnesty.
Other senators didn't march into Rome with an army.
When they killed Ceasar, they thought they were saving the Republic. They were loyal to the republic and its institutions. Are such men traitors?
Plus, Ceasar 'forgave" them for trying to do their job... I.E. to prosecute him for his abuses of power. It was their job, and they were doing their job. There was nothing to forgive, when it comes to an institution doing what it was designed to do (maintain law and order) . It was Ceasar who needed to ask forgiveness...and/or pay for his crimes against the republic.
Instead, he chose to break the law again, and marched an army into Rome.
This is exactly how modern dictators come into being. They abuse power, then they can't afford to let go of power less they be prosecuted for their crimes. So they hold on to power indefinitely.
Healthy governments tend to just pardon such individuals so as to avoid such a situation. E.g. In the US some presidents have been pardoned. E.g. Nixon. This is to prevent individuals from not letting go of power to protect themselves.
@@tylerdurden3722 do not turn caesar into a villain without recognizing that his political opponents, whom you claim were simply doing their job, also played the system the same way caesar was. Pompey, the leader of the other side of the civil war, had two terms as consul less than 10 years apart, a clearly illegal action, but one he would never be prosecuted for because he controlled the Senate. Caesar never deserved to be treated like he was by the Senate.
Caeser:
"It is better to die once. Than to be always expecting death"
Brutus and his guys:
*And I took that literally*
Caesar: I’m not a King!
Others: Let’s turn his name into a royal title.
40,000 years later…
Emperor: I’m not a God!
Adeptus Ministorum: Let’s make him a God.
Any way,
FOR THE GOD EMPEROR OF MANKIND
@@eee9034 For the MAN Emperor of Mankind
For the EMPRAHHH!
Hail the Omnissiah!
Emperor's light is my tourch!
"He who has the courage to laugh is almost as much a master of the world as he who is ready to die"
- Giacomo Leopardi
why it is courageous to laugh?
@@Scout887 try laughing at Xi Jinping or Kim Jong Un and you will figure it out
King and general's biography of great historical figures are the best
It's very necessary for a CZcams history channel to cover mankind achievements rather than just battles
I was a Classical Studies major before dropping out of university for financial and mental health reasons and I actually intended to write a book in the vein of de Ste. Croix about the Republic for my capstone project. Reading about the lives of Rome's poor for over a year was one of the most abjectly miserable uses of my time I've ever experienced. I was homeless as well at the time, and seeing how depressingly similar being poor in Rome and my own experiences being poor were was really disheartening. It became extremely difficult to avoid noticing that however opportunistic Caesar was, the real "villains" (however much I personally distaste of that term, it's for ease of understanding here) of the late Republic were the optimates, particularly Cicero and his friends, and that anyone who advocated for increased rights and welfare for the masses wound up either assassinated or on a kill list. In classical Hellas, the antagonistic contradictions, especially regarding class, emerged, and in Rome, they sharpened.
Thank you so incredibly much for this video. The field of classics and classical history has been changing steadily over the last 50 years or so, but the bulk of the most "respected" primary and secondary sources are thoroughly reactionary, which has made conventional/popular narratives regarding Rome still very colored by these sources. Presenting alternative viewpoints on this subject is imperative if we want to analyze the Republic holistically and completely, rather than from the historically dominant viewpoint colored by reactionary, anti-masses politics.
Cicero was a bastard, not worth even to spit on. No wonder all the aristocrats of western europe and oligarchs, love him.
Three titans stand above all others in human history: Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon. Interestingly, each of these men got more time than the previous titan to rule their territories. Ultimately, the first was likely poisoned, the second stabbed, and the third imprisoned by his enemies. Many people today think of them as tyrants, but before anyone comes to that conclusion, they should remember who would have constructed the narrative after each respective denouement, and read more about their lives. Fascinating and legendary, all three of them, and there exists no other words to describe them. Hail Alexander, Hail Caesar, and Vive le Empereur!!!!!
Napoleon sucked and should not be compared to the other two.
@@iroga9764 Napoleon was just as skilled as Caesar in diplomacy, logistics, speed, propoganda and unlike those two he never once had to deal with a mutiny. He balanced Europe and the first truly modern military in the largest pre-industrial wars for 15 years. Oh and Ghenghis Khan is better than all of them.
@@geordiejones5618 Nah the Mongol Empire quickly declined unlike France and Rome. He was a great conqueror though.
@@geordiejones5618
no
Napoleon Bonaparte and Julius Caesar are better than Genghis Khan
Man I would give anything to see how caesar’s invasion of Dacia and Parthia worked out and him literally being the Master of the whole of Europe. This guy certainly had big balls, my fav commander
@@xunqianbaidu6917 Caesar as I know would have concluded these campaigns in few months
@@xunqianbaidu6917 Caesar was a far superior commander to Antony, and arguably in the top 10 of military commanders of all time, saying he wouldn't have lasted much longer than Antony shows it's you who doesn't know shit.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 Why you so pressed man? relax, clearly Caesar showed his generalship in many campaigns and battles and has the ability, resources, bravely, experience and battle hardened soldiers to crash any one who dares him
based on his writings on gaul and his adaptation to new tactics, particularly the archery of the parthians
i imagine he would have subdued parthia and probably dacia as well, if he was really on a conquest bender i could see him expanding through scythia and around the black sea
@@xunqianbaidu6917 Judging from past campaigns and his capability it’s not hard to come to the conclusion that there’s a higher probability that this new campaign will also succeed, just saying
Thank you.
Caesar was way ahead of his time. He was the greatest of Romans and perhaps the most amazing human being to ever live.
As Pontifex Maximus, he was responsible for maintaining the Roman calendar but went way further by effectively giving us the calendar we enjoy today.
Hail Caesar! 👑
Caesar was too intelligent for his own good, too intelligent for the others, the ones who killed him...they simply didn't understand.
@@777peacelove Well said.
@@paultyson4389 Thank you.
I’ve always loved Caesar and Rome as an Italian. I’ve always seen Caesar as a saviour. I’m excited to hear more from this video.
I'm of the opinion that Caesar did indeed love Rome (it's myth and people), and worked selflessly (in his view) for it's glory. I don't think someone who was merely self-obsessed would work so tirelessly and risk his life so boldly so many times. However, that being said I think he did care a great deal about his image and legacy.
Have you watched Historia Civlis on youtube? They do Caesar and show clearly what Caesar was like. I would love for Caesar to be what you say he was, but he wasn't. He was incredibly petty and self-aggrandizing. He was effective but good will is not something I'd attribute to Caesar.
The reason he did all of those things for Rome is because of how Roman society worked. The Romans were extremely social and they derived pleasure from interacting with other Romans in a daily basis. It was common for senators to walk on the streets and be approached by even commoners on occasion when they sought financial or legal advise. These people relished that and Caesar above all loved being groveled to on a daily basis. It is probably how Caesar managed to be so effective. This approach to politics lent Caesar a wide array of council from elite nobles to soldiers to farmers and many other people.
However if Rome is poor and in ruins, that would sully that interactions and people would not praise Caesar like he wanted to. So he helped Rome and enacted whatever policy he thought was best. Think how Donald Trump, that vainglorious bastard, does something good for the US by listening to the opinions of others and seeking to please and increase his glory he enacts a good policy. That's Caesar.
@@ernimuja6991 I think it is possible for someone to be simultaneously petty and vain and work toward something bigger than their self.
The notion of enlightened self-interest may be at play. I respect your view of it, and of course, how could any of us really be certain? However, to me I don't think seeing Caesar as merely the conniving self-obsessed villain appreciates the complexity of human behavior.
It makes sense to me that he has been such a hotly debated person for millennia because both the hero and the villain were simultaneous realities, and it is therefore possible to project both onto him.
@@ernimuja6991
Military history buffs unfortunately have a tendency to become fans of the great captains of history, and for many it is not enough to just appreciate their strategic or tactical brilliance or find their lives interesting. They also need these figures to be be heroic, or at least be good men, so that they don't feel any discomfort for "liking" these historical figures. The post you replied to is another example of this.
The wrinkle is that conquest is an inherently immoral activity, and was viewed as such even in antiquity. It's why the Romans, including Caesar, spilled so much ink trying to portray all their wars as defensive in nature...even when that clearly was not the case.
One has to have blinders on not to see that most of Caesar's career involved him angling for personal gain, often at the great expense of many others, such as with his conquest of Gaul. The civil war was another example. While the Optimates may have left much to be desired and had foolishly painted him into a corner rather than compromise, Caesar also didn't have to make war on his own country. He could have went into exile, like many other Roman statesmen before him did. Why was Caesar's political career more important than the state, or the thousands of Roman lives that would be extinguished in that civil war?
The allegations that Caesar wanted to become a king were also not without merit. As the saying goes, power doesn't corrupt...it reveals. When Caesar emerged victorious in the civil war and had absolute control of the Roman state, how did he behave? By accumulating an increasing number of honors and political powers and having a cult of personality that would rival that of North Korea's dictators built around him. In effect he was a king in all but name. The episode with Mark Antony and the crown also seems as if Caesar was testing the waters to see if the Roman people would be willing to accept that charade being dropped and Caesar officially being made a king. After all, are we to believe that Mark Antony just happened to stumble upon a crown and that the event was spontaneous?
There is a reason why around half of the men involved in Caesar's assassination were not former Optimates, but rather men who supported him during the civil war. That includes Tillius Cimber, the man who first tugged down Caesar's tunic when the attack launched, the first person to stab Caesar, Publius Servilius Casca, and Gaius Trebonius, who kept Mark Antony distracted outside. Trebonius had even been one of Caesar's legates (generals) in Gaul.
Caesar was one of the most interesting figures of world history but he was far from being a selfless or moral man. IMO he was bit like an ancient version of Napoleon.
@@semsudinpatkovic2838 It is the most digestible source of Roman history. I've read Caesars accounts, Plutarch and some of Cassius and they all show the same character for Caesar.
However I would not recommend reading them since they're incredibly boring to most people.
@@ernimuja6991 They were all biased. Some more obvious than others, like Plutarch simping for Cleo and Historia Civillis fanboying Cicero (he even admits that). But as K & G pointed out, all the historians belonged to aristocracy who lost influence under Caesar, we don't get to hear what the poor people who he championed had to say.
I personally feel he was both a tyrant and heroic savior of Rome. It depends entirely on your perspective as good arguments have been made in favor of both throughout two millennia. What we do know is every political debate between populist and traditionalists projects themselves on Gauis Julius Ceaser.
Ceasar is often praised for his leniency and mercy, but partially that's what got him killed; seeing what became of Ceasar later emperor's would be much more iron fisted.
Caesar remember when Sulla was ruled. The butchery and anarchy going on everywhere. In caesar time, the planned not an revolution but coup de etat by olygarch.
That is why he was killed.
Caesar's reputation for leniency is somewhat overblown. He was certainly very lenient towards fellow Romans that had opposed him politically, or in the civil war, but he could be quite brutal and merciless towards foreign enemies. His own accounts of the Gallic campaigns boast of a number of atrocities inflicted on those enemies.
The takeaway is that Caesar wasn't someone who tended naturally toward clemency, but rather one was willing to show mercy only when there was some political benefit to be gained from it. The clemency toward fellow Romans allowed him to paint himself as Not-Another-Sulla. There was no such benefit for showing clemency to foreign enemies, so while Brutus gets pardoned Vercingetorix gets strangled and while Rome avoids proscriptions Avaricum has every man, woman, and child put to the sword.
@@lycaonpictus9662 There is a difference between killing Gauls in a war of conquest, and fighting a civil war against your own countrymen. You don't care about being nice to your enemy, but you have to be lenient (even if it is a political thing) to maintain stability for your own nation.
@@nathanielcrosby2426 That is not quite true. Much of what occurred during Caesar's foreign campaigns were excessive even by the standards of his own day, and captured foreign kings or military leaders were not always executed at the end of a Roman triumph.
That all suggests that Caesar's acts of clemency were motivated by political expediency, not any inherent tendency toward mercy.
Caesar worked for something bigger tham him, and it was Rome, a world with one capital =). We can only imagine what he could have achieved if he lived a bit more
Brutus says he was ambitious and Brutus is an honorable man.
Im really salty at the fact that they Didn't make Purefoy to give this speech in HBO'S Rome
@@EliasKagan They didn't need to do the old Shakespeare rendition, it would've been great to see a different speech tailored more to the actor's temperament. As far as I remember we don't actually have a proper source for the speech, only the gist and the stir it caused, so there wasn't anything to adhere to that would make it stick out
Brutus was Judas
He hath brought many captives home to Rome, whose ransoms did the general coffers fill. Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
@@RainbowStar94yes but more Decimus Brutus than Iunius. Decimus is the historical Judas
The greatest chad to ever live
@John Hathorne huh? We talking about Caesar and Augustus
@@imperiumgrim4717 I think hes talking about the fact that Caesar supposedely had s*x with the king of Bythinia. Therefore making him "queen". And yes, its very probable that he was on the receiving end.
He was such a chad he even has a dedicated wikipedia page about all the women he fucked.
the greatest chad to ever live was harald hardrada followed by alexander and then genghis khan. neither sheezur nor augustus even make it into the top 10, the guy was the boy toy of some proto turk.
@@darius9329 *Thraco Greek, was the King of Bithinya.
These animations are getting really damn sleek. Good lighting, good sequencing, good action, never a moment where I'm staring at a dude in a toga looking thoughtful for ten minutes. Keep 'em coming.
To me, Caesar is a hero. One of the most venerable people in history
@@temptemp4174 Yes, in fact in 1st of January, 42 B.C.E. he was officially deified by the people of Rome under their demand.
Yes Caesar is a hero to me as well. Love him.
One inscription in Athens cited “The people honours Gaius Julius Caesar, the high priest and dictator, its saviour and [benefactor].” another one in Ephesus “
Gaius Julius Caesar…Chief Priest…God made manifest and common Saviour of Mankind…”
regardless of perceptions of tyranny, Caesar's decisions greatly benefitted the people and enhanced the governance of the Roman Republic
HAIL CAESAR, the Roman Republic had reached its breaking point with a corrupt bureaucracy and was pretty much yearning for a Dictator who could cut the crap and get things done
Hail Caesar! 👑🗽
The US is in the same place today.
@@shorewall Except we don't need a dictator since we have a functioning constitutional republican system, along with methods that actually allow the people to get things done themselves. Examples: Free speech, capitalism, and religious liberty. Unfortunately, idiots are threatening those things.
@@GlenGaugh it's not functioning at all. There is no freedom of speech or capitalism. I guess there is freedom of religion but that has its days numbered.
@@GlenGaugh You just described how that "functioning" constitutional republican system is malfunctioning.
After watching ROME, the HBO series I’ve seen the wisdom of Caesar. A King, in all but name, he truly was a Titan among men. He changed up everything, transforming the republic into a military powerhouse with his expansion of Gaul and Cisalpine Gaul. Making everyone a citizen and expanding the senate with supporters.
Making homes and farms for those who needed it. What a kind genius. His future expeditions into Dacia and Parthia, Germany and Bosporus would have been truly epic - too bad people wanted to make a pin cushion out of him 😢
He killed elderly, childs and women for his bloodthirsty ambitions.
I hear his name so often when I watch a Video about Roman History on your Channel. A Video about Cassius Dio would be nice.
Wow! This was my favorite video you guys ever made! You all did such a good job of laying out the duality of Ceasar's personality and politics! Really, really excellent job guys
History of Rome is so captivating, I never get tired of it! Thanks for another awesome episode!
Both, he wanted Power and was a good politician also paved the way to the Roman Empire
_K&G walking down the street one day after implying Caesar could possibly be a tyrant_
"The Caesar has marked you for death, and the Legion obeys! Ready yourself for battle!"
Ave true to Ceasar
Honestly though. Caeser is FNV on his best day wishes he was anything like the real man
Finally, something on CZcams dealing with the complexities of Caesar and not just immediately branding him an evil tyrant.
brilliant, as always - thankyou for posting
I can't remember if it was Cato or Cicero who said something like, "It wasn't the bill that was the problem, it was the one who wrote it up." Either way, they both felt the same way.
probably cato, cicero more centrist and have better relation with caesar
Thank you for a look at Cesar from another point of view. If anything I needed that for personal retrospect on the man and his possible motives.
One of my favourite topics! Thank you Kings and Generals Team.
I put off watching this for a while because I didn't want to be disappointed... but you guys really outdid yourselves here, great stuff!
It's absolutely refreshing to hear historians' class considerations being taken into account on a popular channel.
He was both. Hail Caesar!
Caesar was the original “man of the people”, he’s the greatest man who ever lived in my book
I agree.
@gm red pop I don't know too well, but when the Gauls attacked Rome, I assume they also killed Roman civilians. When they invaded Rome and were killing people, they didn't look if those people were civilians or not, I guess. I know that Caesar did those things, but I have forgiven him. Because he did much more good, than that he did harm..."The weak can never forgive, Forgiveness is an attribute of the strong."~Mahatma Gandhi
@@777peacelove How exactly did he help the people he enslaved/killed? Hell, how did improve the lives of the poor people in Rome to his own standard? I understand not all that was possible, but saying he was the greatest man ever is a stretch given his massive faults
@gm red pop You should know that the majority of Caesar army in Gaul was formed by his Gauls allies and auxiliares; Vercingetorix (and the other leaders before him) massacred and ensalved the other Gaul tribes that didn't join them. When Caesar, won his allies got to rule Gaul.
He destroyed the republic and created a king system, something the Romans had always feared. How is that a good thing? Democracy is always better. Also most of his conquests in Gaul and his invasion of Britain were purely to enlarge his own gravitas, needlessly killing hundred of thousands. He gave 'no quarter' to the women and children who fled Alesia, who starved to death trapped between the opposing walls.
Great video, congrats! I am very pleased i have found this channel some time a go, just got better and better.
Just bingewatched the Civil War Series and the the 1 1/2 Gaul Documentary.
Great Content and a great man! Ceasar was surely ahead of his time.
You guys are always bringing out the best content.
BOTH, sometimes you need the hard rule of iron, to bring order to the world
I’m so grateful and at the same time so sad that Caesar’s story is coming to an end. Thank you K&G for this amazing series. You made me rediscover my passion for history.
Btw, it would be great if you did a biography of Cicero as well 🙏🏻
After learning about Caesar and Rome,I can't help but respect him. One of the great and selfless men who love his country with all of his heart.
Farewell Caesar, no one will ever compare to you
14:41 one minute of silence for all the administrators of any kind, who did all the accounting with Roman numerals
The history of Rome podcast got me interested in Roman history and these videos are what satiate my thirst for more knowledge
It's so awesome there's so much of this high quality content on science and history on youtube. Kudos to this channel for yet another great video.
The hell with Netflix, HBO, Disney and the like. CZcams's independent creators and channels are where it's at!
Thanks for answering a decades old question. Fantastic summary.
Ceasar was a man of his Age and was a Transformational Leader. Always wonder what could have been had he not been assassinated by far lesser men.
“You too my child”
-Julius Caesar
I've been watching your channel for a while now and i deeply appreciate the work you put in these videos. I'd like to suggest a punic wars series (i doubt you haven't consider it already i've seen videos on some parts of it) i think you'd do an amazing job on those.
Great video and debate, this channel is incredible!
to me he has long appeared to be someone deeply affected by what we would now call ptsd. what was truly unusual was that he ended up with the power to maybe change the society that had done that to him as a child during the proscriptions. good or bad, he was afraid for the children of the future that might be chased out of their homes as he was over politics. i think he chose not to keep a bodyguard or execute his opponents in most cases to try and make a clear distinction between the battlefield and politics. in my judgement being willing to spare children that pain is enough to call him basically good, or to at least say what he was trying to do was a good thing. or maybe that his underlying reasons were good. but most of us, lacking the powers of legions and empire, do good and bad. and so caesar likely did more of each than most. i also believe he killed the republic, and that it had earned that death. the empire had many flaws, some of them the same as the republic, but some things changed. sometimes that is enough to be a good man and a bold leader. sometimes it is all one can do in the face of oligarchic resistance. more was needed. but there was always to be another cato selfishly opposing anything not benefitting the already advantaged. more willing to rip out their own guts than do their job and represent the will and best interests of their own people.
Noted. Thank you...
No mention about his cheap Pizza reforms for the plebs?
He had pineapple on top of it, no points for that.
@@KingsandGenerals 😂😂😂
@@KingsandGenerals pineapple pizza, the destroyer of civilization.
Congratulation on your video!
Awesome work!
Great animations, great talking, great illustrations. Thank you K&G
Will you be creating more episodes on the Hundred Years War?
Yep! One more standalone episode and then a 3-4 hour documentary with additional battles.
@@KingsandGenerals will you post videos about Aristotle tutoring Alexander the Great and Tengrism,and Ottoman Empire astronomy (quran verses)???
You guys should also do a video on Augustus' reforms and Caracalla's reforms of giving citizenship.
Caracalla boned the entire system, what was the point of integration and service to the Empire if you're automatically a citizen? Sure you bring in a few more denarii in revenue but you destroy the core of what made Rome work for so long and across cultural/geographic boundaries.
A blunt and a documentary. Much love from California my guy I watch every vid
Nice historical video from excellent historic channel kings & General's thanks for sharing
Caesar passes land Reforms for Pompey.
To overcome optimates and pass the bill, Caesar commits illegal acts.
Optimates turn to Pompey to stop him.
Pompey accepts.
Caesar: surprised pikachu face
Rome's problems were land and the optimates were land greedy fat butt holes
Tbh both sides committed illegal acts, for example the legislation introduced saying that Caesar had to step down in 7 days or be declared an enemy of Rome was vetoed by Antony making it illegal, but the conservative faction went on as planned nevertheless.
a lot more happened between the land reforms and the civil war, if i'm not wrong, caesar helped pompey in passing some of the agrarian law in order to give land to the pompeian veterans after his campaign in the east, the optimates only turned to pompey at the later half of caesar's campaign in gaul...
@@Outlaw8908 hey man, i watch historia civilis too
@@badrel2770 as soon as Caesar’s year as consul was up, his optimates enemies were scheming to get him arrested. He only had immunity from arrests while he was a proconsul. Also many late republic generals illegally conquered lands, and it was usually fine. When the optimates turned to Pompey for help, he was illegally in Rome at the time, when he was supposed to be overseeing Spain I believe. Many of the bills that Caesar passed that received the most attention by the optimates were things Pompey wanted/needed.
Major tangent since you mentioned the Gracchi: one of the reasons the Senate opposed their bills was Tiberius Gracchus' reputation for seeking and abusing power.
To get his land reform bill passed, Tiberius illegally overruled an opponent's veto by basically having that opposing tribune, Marcus Octavius, impeached on the spot. Some accounts even say he had Octavius dragged out of the room.
Additionally, the commission to oversee the execution of the bill was made up entirely of Tiberius' family members. His opponents could now add nepotism to their list of grievances against him, and the Senate did everything it could to hamper the commission's work.
The final nail in the coffin came when rumors circulated of Tiberius' desire to become a "king of Rome." This sparked massive outrage, as monarchs were a much-hated part of the Republic's history.
Acting through an armed mob, the Senate had Tiberius and his supporters beaten, killed, and flung into the Tiber in 133 BC.
your videos has been put so much effort, it needs millions of views immediately
Top drawer entertainment again guys! thanks for a great piece of work!
With no evidence, I always factor in his age at ascension when judging his behavior. #1) even expecting a 'natural' lifespan, it his actions look like those of a man looking to leave the 'whole' better off in the time he had remaining. But #2) Yes, of course he planned to rule until death. The two are inextricably linked, since most (except the most corrupt) usually believe what they're doing is for the "best".
I love Caesar, a truly great man.
I love your videos... Just wanted to know if you ever plan to do the battle of navarino and other battles of Greek war of independence
great video bro, as always
Greatest Human Being to ever live!!!
Julius Caesar was Rome greatest general not in imagination but in reality.
I love this as a visual aid to dan carlins "death throes of the empire" podcast, episode 4-5. Great video
I'm a great fan of your videos, as a French speaker it's sometimes difficult to understand deeply some documatary in English, but with you it's not the case surely because of your many illustration. I really enjoy all of your videos, thank you so much
"You thought you'd write your own history, Caesar. But it was me, DIO!"
- I'll see myself out now...
A savior to the citizens and a tyrant to the power hungry senators.
You are the only channel I have the bell on for 💪
Well researched and balanced video thank you
“In the end, it is impossible not to become what others believe you are.” - Gaius Julius Caesar.
My understanding is that Caesar and the Gracci were trying rather than to do something new or innovating more to correct a long-standing injustice due to senatorial violations of existing laws and customs, in a similar fashion (and with similar opposition) to future Roman emperors like Basil II Bulgaroctonos. Aristocrats would violate the law and illegally accumulate lands, often buying them from people who weren't allowed to sell, or taking over lands that rightly belonged to the state rather than to individuals. The laws of each reformer were (at least in theory) intended to undo these illegal accumulations of property and restore a more just prior status (often couched in terms of rebuilding military capacity since a large proportion of the victims of these illegal purchases were military families).
Fantastic video - thanks!!