cato had an autistic boner for the republic
no matter how generous caesar's moves may have been, even if he was motivated by sheer benevolence, his actions were still beyond illegal and only got worse in that regard until he finally croaked
it may seem idiotic to stubbornly keep fighting in that situation, but the precedents being set by caesar directly put the republic on course to the very nightmare autocracy everyone keeps shrieking about throughout the first season; caligula's reign doesn't take place all that long after the events depicted in the show
cato had an autistic boner for the republic
no matter how generous caesar's moves may have been, even if he was motivated by sheer benevolence, his actions were still beyond illegal and only got worse in that regard until he finally croaked
it may seem idiotic to stubbornly keep fighting in that situation, but the precedents being set by caesar directly put the republic on course to the very nightmare autocracy everyone keeps shrieking about throughout the first season; caligula's reign doesn't take place all that long after the events depicted in the show
The entire civil war could have been prevented, there was a secret meeting of Antony, Cato, Pompey, Cicero and a few others (not Caesar) before Caesar crossed the Rubicon, while he was still in Gaul and they all managed to compromise a deal that Caesar would be allowed to keep 1 of his Legions, the Senate would take control of Gaul, Caesar wouldn't be tried for "crimes" against the Senate but neither would Caesar be allowed to hold future office.
It was all agreed, and everyone was happy that civil war was averted...everyone except Cato of course, Cato that one autistic frick hated Caesar with every fibre of his being, call it ego, call it autism but he threw a shit fit at the mere thought Caesar would be allowed to keep even 1 of his legions (he had around 10 give or take of the best most battle hardened Legions of the entirety of the Roman Empire, probably ever)
Cato veto'd the entire thing, Antony stormed out calling out Pompey and Cicero for inviting him to the meeting in bad faith which cemented Antony's hatred for Cicero. And the rest they say is history.
He already had all of Gaul, the best Legions of the Empire under his command, the love of the mob, he had everything except recognition from the Senate and that's all he wanted and in return he was willing to hand over control of Gaul, the province he just spent 8 years of his life fighting over, to give up all but 9 of his 10 legions in essence defanging his ability to wage war but not leaving him defenceless.
In return Cato offered... >GIVE UP EVERYTHING SO WE CAN SENTENCE YOU TO DEATH!
Cato was autistic.
2 years ago
Anonymous
YES
AND
2 years ago
Anonymous
Autistics don't belong in politics, they don't understand words and actions have consequences in reality.
2 years ago
Anonymous
the point is rather than just give in to the type of tyrrany the republic was founded to combat, cato wanted the republic to go down fighting, because the only way rome would have any hope of recovery is if caesar could be defeated.
he was completely correct.
short-sighted morons don't belong in politics, because they'll take the quick and easy road every time and lead their nations to collapse chasing short term gains.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>he was completely correct.
He was proven wrong by the fact he his very stance caused civil war and his side lost the war.
He drove Caesar into a corner he couldn't back out of except to go forward which is exactly what Caesar did, and he won which gave him the title Dictator for life and laid the ground work for the first Roman Emperor.
All Cato had to do was keep quiet, there were other options given to Caesar which he was prepared to take that would have prevented war, prevented famine, prevented the massive loss of life and years of turmoil.
Politics is the art of compromise, this is again the very reason autists make poor politicians.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the asseriton that rome couldn't endure another stint of autocracy was proven wrong because rome couldn't endure another stint of autocracy
care to rethink this? just because you lose, doesn't mean you were wrong.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You didn't read here.
[...]
The entire civil war could have been prevented, there was a secret meeting of Antony, Cato, Pompey, Cicero and a few others (not Caesar) before Caesar crossed the Rubicon, while he was still in Gaul and they all managed to compromise a deal that Caesar would be allowed to keep 1 of his Legions, the Senate would take control of Gaul, Caesar wouldn't be tried for "crimes" against the Senate but neither would Caesar be allowed to hold future office.
It was all agreed, and everyone was happy that civil war was averted...everyone except Cato of course, Cato that one autistic frick hated Caesar with every fibre of his being, call it ego, call it autism but he threw a shit fit at the mere thought Caesar would be allowed to keep even 1 of his legions (he had around 10 give or take of the best most battle hardened Legions of the entirety of the Roman Empire, probably ever)
Cato veto'd the entire thing, Antony stormed out calling out Pompey and Cicero for inviting him to the meeting in bad faith which cemented Antony's hatred for Cicero. And the rest they say is history.
2 years ago
Anonymous
again, preventing a civil war, where loss means the steady collapse of the roman empire, by allowing the steady collapse of the roman empire, is not the right course of action.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Caesar is a good boy! He dindu nuffin! We need mo' money fo' dem wars in Gaul!
Caesar was aiming to become king long before crossing the Rubicon.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>caesar is defending the republic from the republic
the man was a calculating, machiavellian genius with massive influence actively trying to subvert the state
sulla had specifically tried to prevent this kind of imperial buildup with his massive purge, which went a lot like caesar's civil war except sulla actually stepped right down as soon as he'd given the republic a chance for a fresh start
cato was around to see the horrors sulla and marius unleashed when he was younger; he had every reason to dig his heels in when some psycho was actively and very successfully co-opting the state
2 years ago
Anonymous
Caesar was literally exiled by Sulla so I think he saw the horrors, too.
2 years ago
Anonymous
caesar had invaded gaul on false pretenses and essentially kicked off a full-blown genocide
even if he for some reason suddenly decided to lay dormant after having his "1" legion and his "1" province (not gonna happen), the precedent would've been set that if you get enough momentary leverage over the senate, you could get off free with your own fief (eventually hereditary at that, let's not kid ourselves here)
the republic would've degenerated into shogun total war within a few generations caesar's natural death at most, and there was no way he'd just and chill in some balkan mansion until his life was over
2 years ago
Anonymous
>false pretenses
Their method of defence is to attack before they do. Had been fine several times before and Cato was fine with it. Caesar does it and it’s different
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Their method of defence is to attack before they do.
Ah yes, those perfidious Britons were planning to suddenly march across half of Europe and sack Rome, Caesar had no choice but to invade them.
(Then again, they were proto-Anglos, so you never know...)
2 years ago
Anonymous
when he's shown himself willing enough to commit senatorial perjury and then keep breaking the law just so he could pick apart an entire civilization, enslave their families and sell their trinkets in order to muster more power for himself, it's time to get really wary
Cato was a mega autist who would never compromise, Brutus was an honorgay who would have snapped eventually. The best solution would be to kill both and tell everyone they committed sudoku.
Pompey was the real boomer, always going on about Rome's greatest generation in world war Sulla.
Cicero would prostitute himself out to absolutely anything, any guilty criminals you need defending or innocent men you need to condemn, he's your go to guy.
Anthony is just a massive frickwit but also based.
>have knowledge of history >know the republic was formed as a necessity after so many autocratic empires rose and almost immediately fell once the founding autocrat died >some moron upstart starts trying to from another autocratic empire on top of your stable/functional republic.
you seem to be ignoring the question. You have stated at the time you think it was a stable/functional republic?
What did you read to give you that opinion?
2 years ago
Anonymous
does cato look like a young man in OP? or does he look like someone who's lived through multiple civil wars? does he come off, to you, as someone who will let a few temporary disagreements compromise the ideals of the republic?
2 years ago
Anonymous
What?
Do you believe 1st bc it was a stable republic?
2 years ago
Anonymous
i know cato had sufficient life experience and knowledge of history to know the republic could survive and reconcile whatever problems were occurring at the time.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It couldn’t. 60years of civil war, corruption, the same families getting in to the senate. Cicero bring a rare breed of a new man. Rome fricked up destroying Carthage.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It couldn’t.
because it didn't have a chance to. ceasar grabbed power and never gave it back. then rome rushed into even deeper decline and all hope of recovery was gone.
2 years ago
Anonymous
rome fricked up turning its citizen-and-allied levies into massive legions of mercenaries.
2 years ago
Anonymous
compared to the fricking tailspin, excluding the "five good emprerors", the post-octavian empire was, the republic was far from beyond saving
the marian armies and the massive slave economy obviously didn't do stability or basic justice any favors, but at least there was some basic plurality of powers remaining as opposed to the augustan system
political life in rome was cutthroat enough as it was, but with an autocrat who had every reason to be paranoid and legally speaking literally any means available to him, bad quickly went to much much worse the moment octavian finally died: his heir quickly isolated himself on some island and started purging people seemingly at random in an endless, desperate witch hunt to avoid getting ides-of-march'd; HIS heir was caligula himself, and after caligula the only survivor of the not-royal family was someone who'd survived only because everyone called him a tard for stuttering and he wisely leaned into the role, thus dodging all the purges and intrigue by sheer insignificance until the praetorians finally declared him emperor thinking he'd make a nice puppet
2 years ago
Anonymous
I agree the empire opened up the possibility of anyone with an army could be the ruler.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The "five good emperors" period could have been extended except for the fact that Marcus Aurelius, for all his wisdom, chose to put his blood son on the throne. Up until then the idea of the current emperor choosing his heir from the most competent men available seemed like a really good system, and I'm surprised it hasn't shown up more often throughout history.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Marcus Aurelius, for all his wisdom, chose to put his blood son on the throne.
The others only didn't because they didn't have blood sons
2 years ago
Anonymous
It was the Marian reforms more than the Principate that opened it up to “anyone with an army can be emperor”. Not that Gaius Marius intended it to be that way, but it was an unforeseen consequence. Sulla has gone beyond the pale in his retribution and vendetta against the Populares. Cato wanted to keep that, which was untenable. They should have just let the Gracchi has some reforms.
the kingdom of rome was tiny; the post you're responding to likely points to the post-alexandrian world and its endless storm of dynastic struggles where titanic levies of random eastern peasants were drilled into the macedonian phalanx and sent to impale eachother while getting mauled by elephants, all for seemingly ephemeral kingdoms typically named only by their dynasties or largest holdings; seleukeia in the east, the ptolemies in egypt and the antigonids in macedon itself being the last major powers standing once rome started its meteoric rise, and they were still constantly warring
The "five good emperors" period could have been extended except for the fact that Marcus Aurelius, for all his wisdom, chose to put his blood son on the throne. Up until then the idea of the current emperor choosing his heir from the most competent men available seemed like a really good system, and I'm surprised it hasn't shown up more often throughout history.
it certainly looks that way at first, until you take a closer look and see that practically every adopted emperor who'd come to power had done so only after his predecessor had desperately tried to get a proper blood heir (being the augustan not-prince was a very perilous position) while the rest were related by blood one way or another; the already murderous politicking of the late republic went nowhere, actually worsening dramatically, once power became so concentrated and open dissent was silenced by an autocrat who had command of the largest horde of mercenaries that part of the world had ever seen and near bottomless coffers from quite literally owning all of egypt on a personal level (the rest of the empire was essentially a work of legal fiction until much later, with the augustus being "merely" first citizen, people's tribune, high priest, dictator for life, etc)
living under any emperor who wasn't an outright saint compared to the norm would've been a lot like living under stalin; you never really knew who'd get un-personed next
the kingdom of rome was tiny; the post you're responding to likely points to the post-alexandrian world and its endless storm of dynastic struggles where titanic levies of random eastern peasants were drilled into the macedonian phalanx and sent to impale eachother while getting mauled by elephants, all for seemingly ephemeral kingdoms typically named only by their dynasties or largest holdings; seleukeia in the east, the ptolemies in egypt and the antigonids in macedon itself being the last major powers standing once rome started its meteoric rise, and they were still constantly warring
The "five good emperors" period could have been extended except for the fact that Marcus Aurelius, for all his wisdom, chose to put his blood son on the throne. Up until then the idea of the current emperor choosing his heir from the most competent men available seemed like a really good system, and I'm surprised it hasn't shown up more often throughout history.
it certainly looks that way at first, until you take a closer look and see that practically every adopted emperor who'd come to power had done so only after his predecessor had desperately tried to get a proper blood heir (being the augustan not-prince was a very perilous position) while the rest were related by blood one way or another; the already murderous politicking of the late republic went nowhere, actually worsening dramatically, once power became so concentrated and open dissent was silenced by an autocrat who had command of the largest horde of mercenaries that part of the world had ever seen and near bottomless coffers from quite literally owning all of egypt on a personal level (the rest of the empire was essentially a work of legal fiction until much later, with the augustus being "merely" first citizen, people's tribune, high priest, dictator for life, etc)
living under any emperor who wasn't an outright saint compared to the norm would've been a lot like living under stalin; you never really knew who'd get un-personed next
>some moron upstart starts trying to from another autocratic empire on top of your stable/functional republic.
The last some century of the Roman republic was far from stable. All the civil wars going on in that period more than proves it. Multiple Tribunes of the plebs being murdered was a pretty big clue, and Sulla saying frick it to all rules and convention by invading Rome was a turning point that showed men like Caesar that there no longer were any rules. Augustus might well have kept Rome living longer than it would have had it stayed a republic
The Middle Ages begin with the formation of the Holy Roman Empire, the Middle Ages end sometime between the end of the Hundred Year's War and the start of the Protestant schism, theres no clear cut date applicable. Then the Rennaisance is somewhat medieval in nature, and even in early modern or modern times there are feudal elements.
emperor in the west to constantinople's emperor in the east; both and neither hold "true" legitimacy to the old empire in their own way
the eastern emperors kept the direct political line going uninterrupted until the fourth crusade, and limped on a bit even after that while the western emperors were crowned directly by the pope (this is closely tied to the east-west/greek-latin schism)
in the west, the "roman" adjective was reserved for the feudal empire itself as well was the religion ("roman" catholic) while, in the east, roman/romanian remained the endonym of the general population at this time and even into the ottoman age
Threadly reminder that the Republic was doomed the moment these two basedboys died. moron aristocrats thought that they could keep oppressing and stealing from the proles, never considering for once the adage "honor among thieves". It was only a matter of time before one of them would subjugate all the others.
Army too big for any clever tactics except march forward into a kill box. Consuls were killed/routed at the start before the army knew wtf was going on.
He was his nephew. Julius didn't have any sons so he left his fortune and stuff to Octavian in his will. Octavian learned how to use propaganda and was fantastic politically. He relied heavily on being the son of deified Julius. The people liked him especially compared to Antony as he was shaking up with a foreign queen (Cleopatra). Octavian also had good friends in the military like Agrippa.
FELLOW CITIZENS OF THE AVEN/tv/INE
I'm FRICKING SICK of all the Optimate propaganda being passed around as "history" here and the blatant lies they tell about /our guy/ Julius Caesar, so let's set the record straight!
as the Roman Republic became the hegemon of the Mediterranean Italia was flooded with slaves and riches. most of this wealth flowed to the hands of the rich Patrician aristocrats, who over time started displacing the traditional farmer-citizens of rural Italy and massive estates based around slave-labor started dominating the landscape
by the mid 2nd century BC Rome was racked by mass unemployment. a new class of jobless urban poor filled the streets as all the jobs in the rural areas were being taken up by slaves and, until 107 BC, these poor souls couldn’t even escape poverty by joining the legions as property ownership was a requirement.
two men attempted to solve the situation, they were the Gracchi brothers. Grandsons of the legendary Scipio Africanus, the General who stopped Hannibal Barca and saved the Republic.
but guess what, when time came and the Optimates had to choose between their bottom line and the greater good of Roman society they chose their wealth.
Tiberius Gracchus? murdered on the orders of the corrupt senate! Gaius Gracchus? also murdered by optimate vermin!
the Roman republic entered a death spiral once the Gracchi brothers were gone. with their blind naked greed they butchered the innocent, Scipio’s own blood ran in the streets of Rome! peaceful reformers who would put the poor back to work as productive citizen-farmers instead of letting them be a dead weight on society were murdered for their efforts…
the optimate in their shortsightedness decided that turning Italia into their own personal mass slave plantation was the better course of action, these are the "people" claiming to be saviours of the Republic.
decades down the line, none of these problems were solved, in fact they were even worse, because none of the "wise" people in the senate ever thought that the good of society was more important than the weight of their purse.
this was the world the brilliant General and unparalleled politician Gaius Julius Caesar was born into
he was one of the only people who gave a shit about the poor in the Late Republic, and finally introduced some land reforms despite enormous resistance from Senate and the Optimates.
can you take a wild guess at what his Optimate rivals inevitably did? they murdered him while claiming to be saving the “Saving the Republic” and that he was a “tyrant”
I ask you this, if he truly was a tyrant, like the likes of Cato like to portray him as, then why did his murderers immediately flee Rome after their heinous act? wouldn't they be hailed as heroes for slaying the tyrant? if he truly was a tyrant, then why did the many thousands of Roman citizens grieve his death and seek vengeance for it?
optimates were nothing but vile traitors who claimed to uphold Roman tradition but murdered anyone who got in their way, completely violating Roman Law, ignoring the greater good of Roman Society and without care for the Political Stability of the Republic
they happily committed murder inside the senate house itself and are directly at fault for the fall of the Res Publica and the rise of the Empire
honestly Julius Caesar's only fault was excessive mercy, he shouldn’t have spared so many of those snakes after the defeat of Pompey in their brief civil war
Dude was a trader. There definitely were Indian traders in Egypt due to the active sea trade between the Mediterranean and Indian sub-continent. Maybe some Hindu trader went to Rome, not sure why though.
>Caesar slaughters 1/3rd of the population >Enslave/deports another 1/3rd >Brutally represses of the remaining 1/3rd (active killing of the druids/nobles/or anyone else that could possibly rally them again in rebellion) >Next, centuries of Romanization
What was wrong with these old boomers? What was their problem exactly?
cato had an autistic boner for the republic
no matter how generous caesar's moves may have been, even if he was motivated by sheer benevolence, his actions were still beyond illegal and only got worse in that regard until he finally croaked
it may seem idiotic to stubbornly keep fighting in that situation, but the precedents being set by caesar directly put the republic on course to the very nightmare autocracy everyone keeps shrieking about throughout the first season; caligula's reign doesn't take place all that long after the events depicted in the show
The entire civil war could have been prevented, there was a secret meeting of Antony, Cato, Pompey, Cicero and a few others (not Caesar) before Caesar crossed the Rubicon, while he was still in Gaul and they all managed to compromise a deal that Caesar would be allowed to keep 1 of his Legions, the Senate would take control of Gaul, Caesar wouldn't be tried for "crimes" against the Senate but neither would Caesar be allowed to hold future office.
It was all agreed, and everyone was happy that civil war was averted...everyone except Cato of course, Cato that one autistic frick hated Caesar with every fibre of his being, call it ego, call it autism but he threw a shit fit at the mere thought Caesar would be allowed to keep even 1 of his legions (he had around 10 give or take of the best most battle hardened Legions of the entirety of the Roman Empire, probably ever)
Cato veto'd the entire thing, Antony stormed out calling out Pompey and Cicero for inviting him to the meeting in bad faith which cemented Antony's hatred for Cicero. And the rest they say is history.
cato did nothing wrong. he vetoed giving an inch that would become a mile.
Caesar already had a mile, he had the entire fricking mountain.
yes, and? the republic was corrupt because of compromise.
He already had all of Gaul, the best Legions of the Empire under his command, the love of the mob, he had everything except recognition from the Senate and that's all he wanted and in return he was willing to hand over control of Gaul, the province he just spent 8 years of his life fighting over, to give up all but 9 of his 10 legions in essence defanging his ability to wage war but not leaving him defenceless.
In return Cato offered...
>GIVE UP EVERYTHING SO WE CAN SENTENCE YOU TO DEATH!
Cato was autistic.
YES
AND
Autistics don't belong in politics, they don't understand words and actions have consequences in reality.
the point is rather than just give in to the type of tyrrany the republic was founded to combat, cato wanted the republic to go down fighting, because the only way rome would have any hope of recovery is if caesar could be defeated.
he was completely correct.
short-sighted morons don't belong in politics, because they'll take the quick and easy road every time and lead their nations to collapse chasing short term gains.
>he was completely correct.
He was proven wrong by the fact he his very stance caused civil war and his side lost the war.
He drove Caesar into a corner he couldn't back out of except to go forward which is exactly what Caesar did, and he won which gave him the title Dictator for life and laid the ground work for the first Roman Emperor.
All Cato had to do was keep quiet, there were other options given to Caesar which he was prepared to take that would have prevented war, prevented famine, prevented the massive loss of life and years of turmoil.
Politics is the art of compromise, this is again the very reason autists make poor politicians.
>the asseriton that rome couldn't endure another stint of autocracy was proven wrong because rome couldn't endure another stint of autocracy
care to rethink this? just because you lose, doesn't mean you were wrong.
You didn't read here.
again, preventing a civil war, where loss means the steady collapse of the roman empire, by allowing the steady collapse of the roman empire, is not the right course of action.
>Caesar is a good boy! He dindu nuffin! We need mo' money fo' dem wars in Gaul!
Caesar was aiming to become king long before crossing the Rubicon.
>caesar is defending the republic from the republic
the man was a calculating, machiavellian genius with massive influence actively trying to subvert the state
sulla had specifically tried to prevent this kind of imperial buildup with his massive purge, which went a lot like caesar's civil war except sulla actually stepped right down as soon as he'd given the republic a chance for a fresh start
cato was around to see the horrors sulla and marius unleashed when he was younger; he had every reason to dig his heels in when some psycho was actively and very successfully co-opting the state
Caesar was literally exiled by Sulla so I think he saw the horrors, too.
caesar had invaded gaul on false pretenses and essentially kicked off a full-blown genocide
even if he for some reason suddenly decided to lay dormant after having his "1" legion and his "1" province (not gonna happen), the precedent would've been set that if you get enough momentary leverage over the senate, you could get off free with your own fief (eventually hereditary at that, let's not kid ourselves here)
the republic would've degenerated into shogun total war within a few generations caesar's natural death at most, and there was no way he'd just and chill in some balkan mansion until his life was over
>false pretenses
Their method of defence is to attack before they do. Had been fine several times before and Cato was fine with it. Caesar does it and it’s different
>Their method of defence is to attack before they do.
Ah yes, those perfidious Britons were planning to suddenly march across half of Europe and sack Rome, Caesar had no choice but to invade them.
(Then again, they were proto-Anglos, so you never know...)
when he's shown himself willing enough to commit senatorial perjury and then keep breaking the law just so he could pick apart an entire civilization, enslave their families and sell their trinkets in order to muster more power for himself, it's time to get really wary
Cato was a mega autist who would never compromise, Brutus was an honorgay who would have snapped eventually. The best solution would be to kill both and tell everyone they committed sudoku.
Pompey was the real boomer, always going on about Rome's greatest generation in world war Sulla.
Cicero would prostitute himself out to absolutely anything, any guilty criminals you need defending or innocent men you need to condemn, he's your go to guy.
Anthony is just a massive frickwit but also based.
>implying Caesar would ever agree to this or that any of them thought he would
This homie learned about ancient rome from youtube fr fr no cap
Sulla is the key
This. It goes back to Sulla and Marius, and the Gracchi. The plebs needed some more of the Roman pie.
It's like poetry, they rhyme. Every stanza rhymes with the last one.
old fricks who never walked amongst the common man
Caesar was beloved by the people
>the common man
lol
GAIUS
JULIUS
CAESAR
*HAND MOTIONS*
>Gaius Julius Caesar you must leave Gaul and report to Rome at once for punishment of war crimes
>No problem. Im bringing 2 legions with me
>N-No!!
Why are Catonians so moronic?
Too much spaniard barbarian in them.
foolishly idealist bookworms just like the academics of today
It's actually a rare species of victory!
kek, incredible line
Cato was a political illiterate, literally has no wins.
>i'm all about the law!!!
>hmm but kill these citizens with trial
>have knowledge of history
>know the republic was formed as a necessity after so many autocratic empires rose and almost immediately fell once the founding autocrat died
>some moron upstart starts trying to from another autocratic empire on top of your stable/functional republic.
>stable/functional republic
>1st Century BC
WHAT?!
feel free to read up on ancient rome.
you are suggesting the time of constant civil war is a time of stable & functional republic?
rome existed longer than you seem to think bruh
you seem to be ignoring the question. You have stated at the time you think it was a stable/functional republic?
What did you read to give you that opinion?
does cato look like a young man in OP? or does he look like someone who's lived through multiple civil wars? does he come off, to you, as someone who will let a few temporary disagreements compromise the ideals of the republic?
What?
Do you believe 1st bc it was a stable republic?
i know cato had sufficient life experience and knowledge of history to know the republic could survive and reconcile whatever problems were occurring at the time.
It couldn’t. 60years of civil war, corruption, the same families getting in to the senate. Cicero bring a rare breed of a new man. Rome fricked up destroying Carthage.
>It couldn’t.
because it didn't have a chance to. ceasar grabbed power and never gave it back. then rome rushed into even deeper decline and all hope of recovery was gone.
rome fricked up turning its citizen-and-allied levies into massive legions of mercenaries.
compared to the fricking tailspin, excluding the "five good emprerors", the post-octavian empire was, the republic was far from beyond saving
the marian armies and the massive slave economy obviously didn't do stability or basic justice any favors, but at least there was some basic plurality of powers remaining as opposed to the augustan system
political life in rome was cutthroat enough as it was, but with an autocrat who had every reason to be paranoid and legally speaking literally any means available to him, bad quickly went to much much worse the moment octavian finally died: his heir quickly isolated himself on some island and started purging people seemingly at random in an endless, desperate witch hunt to avoid getting ides-of-march'd; HIS heir was caligula himself, and after caligula the only survivor of the not-royal family was someone who'd survived only because everyone called him a tard for stuttering and he wisely leaned into the role, thus dodging all the purges and intrigue by sheer insignificance until the praetorians finally declared him emperor thinking he'd make a nice puppet
I agree the empire opened up the possibility of anyone with an army could be the ruler.
The "five good emperors" period could have been extended except for the fact that Marcus Aurelius, for all his wisdom, chose to put his blood son on the throne. Up until then the idea of the current emperor choosing his heir from the most competent men available seemed like a really good system, and I'm surprised it hasn't shown up more often throughout history.
>Marcus Aurelius, for all his wisdom, chose to put his blood son on the throne.
The others only didn't because they didn't have blood sons
It was the Marian reforms more than the Principate that opened it up to “anyone with an army can be emperor”. Not that Gaius Marius intended it to be that way, but it was an unforeseen consequence. Sulla has gone beyond the pale in his retribution and vendetta against the Populares. Cato wanted to keep that, which was untenable. They should have just let the Gracchi has some reforms.
Rome lasted for a couple hundred years as a kingdom and had seven kings (at least) before becoming a republic.
the kingdom of rome was tiny; the post you're responding to likely points to the post-alexandrian world and its endless storm of dynastic struggles where titanic levies of random eastern peasants were drilled into the macedonian phalanx and sent to impale eachother while getting mauled by elephants, all for seemingly ephemeral kingdoms typically named only by their dynasties or largest holdings; seleukeia in the east, the ptolemies in egypt and the antigonids in macedon itself being the last major powers standing once rome started its meteoric rise, and they were still constantly warring
it certainly looks that way at first, until you take a closer look and see that practically every adopted emperor who'd come to power had done so only after his predecessor had desperately tried to get a proper blood heir (being the augustan not-prince was a very perilous position) while the rest were related by blood one way or another; the already murderous politicking of the late republic went nowhere, actually worsening dramatically, once power became so concentrated and open dissent was silenced by an autocrat who had command of the largest horde of mercenaries that part of the world had ever seen and near bottomless coffers from quite literally owning all of egypt on a personal level (the rest of the empire was essentially a work of legal fiction until much later, with the augustus being "merely" first citizen, people's tribune, high priest, dictator for life, etc)
living under any emperor who wasn't an outright saint compared to the norm would've been a lot like living under stalin; you never really knew who'd get un-personed next
I agree with a lot of this, but the five good emperors were only interested in twinks. Not male boood heirs. They were happy to adopt.
the kingdom of rome was tiny; the post you're responding to likely points to the post-alexandrian world and its endless storm of dynastic struggles where titanic levies of random eastern peasants were drilled into the macedonian phalanx and sent to impale eachother while getting mauled by elephants, all for seemingly ephemeral kingdoms typically named only by their dynasties or largest holdings; seleukeia in the east, the ptolemies in egypt and the antigonids in macedon itself being the last major powers standing once rome started its meteoric rise, and they were still constantly warring
it certainly looks that way at first, until you take a closer look and see that practically every adopted emperor who'd come to power had done so only after his predecessor had desperately tried to get a proper blood heir (being the augustan not-prince was a very perilous position) while the rest were related by blood one way or another; the already murderous politicking of the late republic went nowhere, actually worsening dramatically, once power became so concentrated and open dissent was silenced by an autocrat who had command of the largest horde of mercenaries that part of the world had ever seen and near bottomless coffers from quite literally owning all of egypt on a personal level (the rest of the empire was essentially a work of legal fiction until much later, with the augustus being "merely" first citizen, people's tribune, high priest, dictator for life, etc)
living under any emperor who wasn't an outright saint compared to the norm would've been a lot like living under stalin; you never really knew who'd get un-personed next
>some moron upstart starts trying to from another autocratic empire on top of your stable/functional republic.
The last some century of the Roman republic was far from stable. All the civil wars going on in that period more than proves it. Multiple Tribunes of the plebs being murdered was a pretty big clue, and Sulla saying frick it to all rules and convention by invading Rome was a turning point that showed men like Caesar that there no longer were any rules. Augustus might well have kept Rome living longer than it would have had it stayed a republic
Why was Cato the Younger such an insufferable c**t?
...
🙂
By Jupiters wiener. Based and Soloniuspilled
Love Roman History bros, anybody got reccomendations of books for the imperial period? Want to expand out ofvthe Republic History
>yfw pompey will suck your wiener if asked nicely
This is the 49 year old guy I was telling you about.
I'M FIRST OF THE EMPIRE AND LAST OF THE REPUBLICANS
Realised I prefer Byzantium
>the period when Greek became Arab rapebabies
lol no
>yfw middle ages sart with the fall of the roman empire and end with the fall of the roman empire
I’d disagree.
Middle Ages start with birth of Mohammed
>implying the Greeks in the 1450s were in any way Roman.
Yes but we imply Constantine’s Empire was in similar Roman fashion Tarquin’s Kingdom. Neither true.
2000 years a state will change considerably
The Middle Ages begin with the formation of the Holy Roman Empire, the Middle Ages end sometime between the end of the Hundred Year's War and the start of the Protestant schism, theres no clear cut date applicable. Then the Rennaisance is somewhat medieval in nature, and even in early modern or modern times there are feudal elements.
>h
>r
>e
emperor in the west to constantinople's emperor in the east; both and neither hold "true" legitimacy to the old empire in their own way
the eastern emperors kept the direct political line going uninterrupted until the fourth crusade, and limped on a bit even after that while the western emperors were crowned directly by the pope (this is closely tied to the east-west/greek-latin schism)
in the west, the "roman" adjective was reserved for the feudal empire itself as well was the religion ("roman" catholic) while, in the east, roman/romanian remained the endonym of the general population at this time and even into the ottoman age
By which the pope never had any right to name Emperor
More Roman than the empire of the greeks
>the roman empire existed longer than its been gone
Threadly reminder that the Republic was doomed the moment these two basedboys died. moron aristocrats thought that they could keep oppressing and stealing from the proles, never considering for once the adage "honor among thieves". It was only a matter of time before one of them would subjugate all the others.
What went wrong?
scipii accidentally clicked autoresolve against a general with 10 command stars
Army too big for any clever tactics except march forward into a kill box. Consuls were killed/routed at the start before the army knew wtf was going on.
What the frick did Caesar saw in this boy?
Was it ever explained by the ancient sources?
>Was it ever explained by the ancient sources?
Explained what?
He was his nephew. Julius didn't have any sons so he left his fortune and stuff to Octavian in his will. Octavian learned how to use propaganda and was fantastic politically. He relied heavily on being the son of deified Julius. The people liked him especially compared to Antony as he was shaking up with a foreign queen (Cleopatra). Octavian also had good friends in the military like Agrippa.
Caesar was likely impressed by his mind and decided there would be a lot of potential in him
>mfw Octavian activates cheat codes and advances Rome tech by 1800 years
>tfw no elagabalus gf (male)
Why were they obsessed with the city of rome in this show?
i know it won't happen but we badly need some byzantine kino
We got that dogshit ottoman siege of Constantinople documentary/drama on Netflix. Fricking awful
wasn't it Turkish? No wonder.
What the FRICK was Cato's problem??
That scene and this gave me a giggle.
HE REFUSES TO MEET ME
FELLOW CITIZENS OF THE AVEN/tv/INE
I'm FRICKING SICK of all the Optimate propaganda being passed around as "history" here and the blatant lies they tell about /our guy/ Julius Caesar, so let's set the record straight!
as the Roman Republic became the hegemon of the Mediterranean Italia was flooded with slaves and riches. most of this wealth flowed to the hands of the rich Patrician aristocrats, who over time started displacing the traditional farmer-citizens of rural Italy and massive estates based around slave-labor started dominating the landscape
by the mid 2nd century BC Rome was racked by mass unemployment. a new class of jobless urban poor filled the streets as all the jobs in the rural areas were being taken up by slaves and, until 107 BC, these poor souls couldn’t even escape poverty by joining the legions as property ownership was a requirement.
two men attempted to solve the situation, they were the Gracchi brothers. Grandsons of the legendary Scipio Africanus, the General who stopped Hannibal Barca and saved the Republic.
but guess what, when time came and the Optimates had to choose between their bottom line and the greater good of Roman society they chose their wealth.
Tiberius Gracchus? murdered on the orders of the corrupt senate! Gaius Gracchus? also murdered by optimate vermin!
the Roman republic entered a death spiral once the Gracchi brothers were gone. with their blind naked greed they butchered the innocent, Scipio’s own blood ran in the streets of Rome! peaceful reformers who would put the poor back to work as productive citizen-farmers instead of letting them be a dead weight on society were murdered for their efforts…
go back to Cinemaphileaul, you ginger knob
I'M AS SOLID A ROMAN AS YOU
I SHED BLOOD FOR ROME
MY FATHER SHE BLOOD FOR ROME
AND HIS FATHER BEFORE HIM
MY WIFE WAS BORN HERE THE AVEN/tv/INE
the optimate in their shortsightedness decided that turning Italia into their own personal mass slave plantation was the better course of action, these are the "people" claiming to be saviours of the Republic.
decades down the line, none of these problems were solved, in fact they were even worse, because none of the "wise" people in the senate ever thought that the good of society was more important than the weight of their purse.
this was the world the brilliant General and unparalleled politician Gaius Julius Caesar was born into
he was one of the only people who gave a shit about the poor in the Late Republic, and finally introduced some land reforms despite enormous resistance from Senate and the Optimates.
can you take a wild guess at what his Optimate rivals inevitably did? they murdered him while claiming to be saving the “Saving the Republic” and that he was a “tyrant”
I ask you this, if he truly was a tyrant, like the likes of Cato like to portray him as, then why did his murderers immediately flee Rome after their heinous act? wouldn't they be hailed as heroes for slaying the tyrant? if he truly was a tyrant, then why did the many thousands of Roman citizens grieve his death and seek vengeance for it?
optimates were nothing but vile traitors who claimed to uphold Roman tradition but murdered anyone who got in their way, completely violating Roman Law, ignoring the greater good of Roman Society and without care for the Political Stability of the Republic
they happily committed murder inside the senate house itself and are directly at fault for the fall of the Res Publica and the rise of the Empire
honestly Julius Caesar's only fault was excessive mercy, he shouldn’t have spared so many of those snakes after the defeat of Pompey in their brief civil war
>watch Rome
>then watch I, Claudius immediately after
The true kino experience
Are there any other shows/movies set immediately before or after the events of those? E.g. pre-Caesar shows or a movie about Nero
JUNO'S c**t DO YOU RUN MAD?
how was a pajeet even in Rome in 50BC
Dude was a trader. There definitely were Indian traders in Egypt due to the active sea trade between the Mediterranean and Indian sub-continent. Maybe some Hindu trader went to Rome, not sure why though.
There were trade routes but most merchants would only travel a short distance, sell to another merchant who would take it a bit further etc.
civis romanum cum
>Gaulic language died out
Why did the French and Belgians cuck out?
>Caesar slaughters 1/3rd of the population
>Enslave/deports another 1/3rd
>Brutally represses of the remaining 1/3rd (active killing of the druids/nobles/or anyone else that could possibly rally them again in rebellion)
>Next, centuries of Romanization
>huh, why did the Gaul languages die out?
It truly is a mystery.