Augustus was Machiavelli. He was the perfect Politician: capable of any cruelty, but not drunk on his own power. An actor who never lost control of his game.
he is different from his two successors Tiberius and Caligula, Claudius was good but Nero screwed it up with his obvious act of arson and that was the Julio-Claudian dynasty Augustus and Claudius were the only two good rulers of that line while Tiberius was reluctant and cruel, Caligula was completely insane, and Nero was both with a hint of narcissism
@TheGreaterGood80 indeed , Augustus pretty much saved Rome. People try to defend "Republic of Rome" , but said republic is so overly fragile , that every 5-10 years , in a set of a 100 years , it had a civil war taking place.
@No No I'm always going to have massive problems with authoritarianism even if it's benevolent. My main issue is that the Senators of the late Republic did not have the idealism of the early ones, and thus, Augustus.
The late Republic was an incredibly corrupt and unstable government that was on its last legs, it needed to go. Octavian began a period of peace (with the exception of the year of the four emperors) and stability that lasted for more than two hundred years.
Zedd Zorander Other than the year of the 4 emperors and the year of the five emperors the empire was peaceful and prosperous for about 250 years. There were more civil wars in the last 60 years of the republic than in the entire pre crisis of the third century empire.
@@zeddzorander9935 The Pax Romana lasted for around 200 years, until Commodus.... The Pax Romana started with Augustus... The last 100 years of the republic had like 10 civil wars.
Even nowadays patricians still existed in many different forms that the plebs didn't even realize or they just don't care. As long as people believe that they are serving for the greater good and to defend their precious freedom and democracy, these kind of people would always exist and hold powers beyond anyone can ever imagine. The plebs always need someone like Augustus to wake them up from their long dream and make them understand the reality of which they've avoided so that they all can improve themselves towards the right direction.
ahh yess patricians = rich and plebs = poor, its not like that there is only rich and poor, if ur a rich plebian you can be a very influencial politician well that is if ur rich
Altair 21 that’s a very poor understanding of Roman politics and functions. While the mob had some level of power, power in Rome was entirely transferred through the military following Caesar’s death. Several other great leaders, Hadrian for instance, was not of a prevailing dynasty but a fantastic general. Maintaining power in Rome did not require corruption, but rather motivation. Your critique can be extended to all populations but Pax Romana, the extension of the empire and emphasizing the greatness of Rome were the methods that kept people orderly. Also Caesar was a man of the people due to the senate desiring more power for the optimates (or elites) and proposed the initial ideas of chattel slavery as opposed to Rome’s indentured servitude model
I'd love to see this just because Bismarck was a damn genius that isn't recalled enough in pop culture. If we remember Augustus, Churchill, and Lincoln as skilled leaders, it's a real shame that we don't remember Bismarck quite so much.
It's actually Mark Antony who betrayed Octavius Augustus, because Julius Ceasar adopted Augustus and designated him as his heir in his testament. And by the way: some restrictions on marriages in social classes were in effect before Augustus, Julius Ceasar actually avoided becoming a priest by commiting a misalliance.
@@vincegalila7211 Definitely not as he was being the most powerful person alive in those days, however there were many other emperors who were really big spenders
By giving one side the last word, instead of the neutral judge, this video takes a side. The fact of the matter is that equating the Roman senate with modern day Democratic Republics is flawed. The senators were oligarchs more concerned with keeping labor cheap and themselves rich over the good of the Republic to the detriment of the common citizen. They were not elected public servants. Was Augustus(and Caesar before him) power hungry, ambitious and sometimes even cruel? Yes. Did they both have an objectively positive effect on their society, also yes. Don't hate the past for not being the present.
They were elected, though only from patrician families. Rome had a mixed constitution, so different social classes had representation in different government institutions, it was much more democratic than most European monarchies 300 years ago. But even with Augustus those institutions were preserved, though in the following centuries they gradually lost power. Until the dominate in the 4th century transformed Rome into an absolute monarchy.
@@Sandderad that has always been the case. Even the founding fathers were rich and powerful individuals before the American revolution. Never has the world seen a poor political leader in a republic. The system doesn't allow it
Augustus was an absolute legend. Sure he didn't actually fight his battles (he let Agrippna do that for him), but he did bring stability back to Rome after years of Civil War and he destroyed the corrupted Roman Republic. He was most likely the most hydrated Roman out there.
@@multifandom203 Caesar's legacy cannot be given all the credit. If any other man was in his place, he would have wither been a puppet of his seniors, or he would have ended just like, if not worse, than Caesar.
I agree-no great leader works solitarily. The smart ones who succeed delegate tasks to people they trust are better suited for specific tasks. Having Agrippa conduct things like national monuments and military efforts was a smart way to not overwhelm himself while still keeping everything productive, I think.
Nobblk Praetorian of course, they are both part of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty. The great peace was because of the lack of wars, guess when u ain't got many wars to fight u just fight among yourselves.
i would disagree. Victoria had very little power compared to others featured in this series. her role was merely ceremonial unlike those we have discussed before.
@@jacopofolin6400 The Tribune can only veto discussion in the senate but cannot actually veto decisions made by the senate. Only with powerful tribunes who came from a patrician family like the Gracchi brothers where they hold significant power in the senate they are able to effectively influence the senate.
The errors in this video are too many to list, but I will evidence some: - 4:18 The Roman Empire after Augustus only expanded significantly in Britannia, Mesopotamia and Dacia. These were minor provinces and they were conquered by Claudius (the one who granted citizenship to Gauls) and Trajan (considered by many the best of all for mercy and law abiding). - He never became a "king" or "emperor" but only the Prince of the senate. The first truly "Emperor" by title was Vespasian who made a law declaring himself king. - Mark Anthony's economic policies were disastrous and would have caused a fragmentation of the empire. He also was treacherous and while Augustus exiled many, Mark Antony had Cicero killed and his former friend Lepidus imprisoned. He and Octavian were never allies, they only fought together once. - The Republic was falling apart because of corruption and plots inside the senate and dictators like Sulla who were far worse than Augustus. Only a strong figure could save the Roman Empire. - The age of Roman Slavery was coming to an end because war were becoming less and less frequent so not many prisoners of war. - Non-adultery and family were the most important traditional "Roman values" that you said were being destroyed by Octavian, also false. You should have researched better before talking, because while he was not a saint there would be far worse emperors like Diocletian or Constantine that everyone loves.
you still missed many points like: -Augustus have never really fought in Hispania alongside Ceasar -Augustus did not really took responsibility to avenge Ceasar as claimed in video, he was named by Ceasar as his heir and he just quickly used the situation -Mark Anthony never wanted to become a king -the last part of video when they sounds like suggesting that Augustus was first kind of emperor ever to gain power through military, who was Alexander the Great then? (and many others far before Augustus) also to your points, there was several more conqests than that and Dacia was actually Extremely significant and wealthy province thanks to its mines, nothing minor. Also, Diocletian was not that bad emperor in my opinion, he was actually doing something to stabilize the empire, but think about Commodus and later most of the Severan Dynasty. Those were some terrible emperors. But of course Constantine and most of emperors of western part of the empire after him were definitely much worse.
While I generally agree with your assement that the video portrays Augustus in a slightly exaggerated negative light, I have to point out that your description of Anthony's hand in the murder of Cicero and eventual banishment of Lepidus is also conveniently selective in its nature. The death of Cicero was ordered through the so-called proscriptions of 43 BCE, while Anthony most definitely had much reason to get rid of Cicero and was here so directly linked to his demise, it's also fair and necessary to point out that Augustus/octavian and Lepidus had an equal role in these proscriptions. These 'murder-lists' were made by Octavian, Anthony and Lepidus in order to acquire the wealth of thousands of their political rivals by viciously killing them. So if you were meaning to cleanse Augustus's name in regards to these vile crimes, I am afraid history has shown that even the 'great' Augustus has a lot of blood on his hands, an example of which would thus be the jointly organized mass executions of his political rivals. This joint-venture is also an example of how Anthony and augustus/octavian were indeed allies at a moment in time. So instead of suggesting that other people 'do better research', perhaps it's best to follow your own advice as well ;)
@@davidpoelemans4330 Honestly I have done much more research later this year and discovered that those lists were in fact promulgated by the three triumvirs. However, such as in a letter to Livia of 42 b.C. included in Augustus' own biography, there are many contemporary fonts that state the remorse of Augustus for the betrayal of Cicero, as in his case Anthony and Lepidus were the two main culprits. However many other prestigious and ancient Roman families, such as the Metelli, were completely exterminated during the proscrpitions because of personal disagreements between them and Octavian's relatives. I never liked Octavian for his means or traitorous behaviour, but demonizing all of his achievements feels a bit drastic and tendentious. Many ancient writers also criticized heavily his ways, but they rarely said that what he had created during the later part of his reign as princeps (not emperor) was a bad thing. Even Cicero himself, in his final years, recognized that the Republic was to be reformed or the Roman domain in the Mediterranean would be in sever danger.
@@tauratrihon1467 nicely summed up!! Indeed Cicero acknowledged that the Republic was waning and as a matter of fact started its decline the century before in which a series of events highlighted the corruption that had taken root in the city itself, I would refer to the agricultural reforms introduced by the Gracchi brother and the conservative senators' volatile reaction to these as a plausible catalyst for the eventual rise of populist leaders in the subsequent century, ultimately paving the way for Augustus's ascension. In the end, Augustus did prove to be a competent legislator and political player to warrant much praise in hindsight even though he wasn't perfect :)
Rome became more powerful, more peaceful, and more efficient in his time Not perfect, but enough to get Rome into the powerhouse we know in history books today
Augustus was just as badass as Julius Caesar, and this trial failed to point out that Augustus (when he was Octavian) personally fulfilled the terms of Caesar's will which included giving the plebs a share of Caesar's money that was owed to them, and plots of land to 20,000 deserving families. Mark Antony refused to fulfill the terms, so Octavian sold away Caesar's villa to meet these terms.
@@willfakaroni5808 Surprisingly no, but if you want me to mention some of Octavian's not-so-proud moments that history has preserved, fair enough. Before his inevitable civil war with Antony and Cleopatra, there had been a recession and a famine in Italy. Octavian seized Italian farms and gave them to his retiring soldiers. The soldiers expected a comfy retirement and these inexperienced farmers led to poor crop yields and thus a famine. This was further exacerbated when Sextus Pompey seized Sicily and cut off Rome's breadbasket. This famine was not an act of nature, it was because of Octavian being overzealous.
@@willfakaroni5808 how do you know its propaganda and not true. For the most part all we can rely on is speculation on what sources and parts of sources are true and hopefully find as many as possible. Obviously when sources are too flattering we have our doubts but for the most part the many generosities of Augustus were apparent, he was Caesars heir. Caesar had done the same many times throughout his life, he was the ultimate populist and was beloved by the people for it and Augustus done similiar. There is no reason to doubt he gave this money out, it was possible, made great sense and by the time 'propagandists' would be writing this it would be well within living memory and we would easily have found antonine sources or independent sources that disputed it.
Plenty of half-truths here, on both sides. Probably the worst TED Ed to date. For example: prohibition on marriage between the plebs and the patricians has existed for centuries in Roman republic and was sort of cancelled only about a century before Augustus took power. On the other hand Augustus never fought in Hispania. He did go there but he arrived when Ceasar had already won and didn't command any troops in battle. In fact his tendency to lay bed-ridden in the command tent while Agrippa or someone else took command of his troops was a very widespread joke in Rome. And so on and so forth... (edit: typo)
Yeah I was suspicious of the things mentioned in the vid. One thing to note is that Octavian did not bribe or forced the Senate to proclame him Princeps, or bestow upon him the title Augustus, it was the necessary thing to do. For Augustus not only had the obvious power-his army- but he was approved of widely in the whole empire at the time, he can be described as the glue that held the plebs and patricians in order, and hence the stability of Rome as an empire. Furthermore, his focus during his waning years was on consolidating his frontiers, as the Romans had been fighting for so long in both civil wars and conquests the people(if I remember correctly) had had enough of it. Hence his leaving Rome a city of marble and improving provincial administration and roads and infrastructure and etc. I suppose TedEd have to focus more on the facts as they do their animation.
@@harryallman-brown8214 he was also the most travelled of their emperors, having spent time in every province either before or after his acension as princeps, and the reason why many cities in Europe received his title as part of their name.
@@F22onblockland The Bengal famine was not directly caused by him, the Japanese invasion of Burma stopped the supply of rice to large portions of India.
@@Walterdecarvalh0100 Napolean is highly questionable, keep in mind that many non french welcomed his armies as liberators only to be opressed and massacred, espeically in spain
Well Augustus will be always remembered because under his empire Rome had the longest time of peace 70 years and during that time improved many aspect of the roman society
"The next time you say how Rome didn't contribute enough inventions to broader history and get rightly arrested for sacrilege, first check what alphabet you're speaking when pleading for innocence, the architecture of the courthouse you're taken to, what God you're praying to to get out of this alive, what legal system finds you guilty, and what concrete roads you're traversing as they throw your corpse into the sewer in two months: July, named after Julius Caesar. And don't forget your bacon breakfast." ~ Dovahhatty, 2020
Is it fair to give them credit for inventing those things though? We’d still have roads and some kind of alphabet and some kind of legal system and some form of architecture for our buildings of Rome never existed, it would just be a different one.
the concept of the rule of law is mesopotamian from the time of hammurabi and the roman alphabet is just another way of writing greek alphabet which was another way of writing the original 24 letter 7 consonnant alphabet: the Phoenician alphabet. And didnt the jews invent the god you pray to? But yea the romans did indeed eat bacon i guess
We wish we could have such a man as a emperor of Mankind today, like what Augustus was. The errors in this video are so many, it's pointless to name them all and others have already done this anyway.
It is not a good idea. Even if he was perfect, his heir or the next emperor could be flawed and this is a desaster with total power. Just look at Roman history. Caligula was not far from Augustus.
I say that, like Napoleon, Augustus broke rules to make sure he could stay and stabilize, knowing that he needed time to fix the problems of the previous government.
I think he did a great job! As a citizen of a corrupt country, I can tell that he did more than many of my governments since I have awareness.BTW he is my favorite historical figure.
that's strange i just watched "the death of stalin" on netflix and i dont remember much of a trial, they just took him out back and shot him. are you saying that film is not accurate?
History vs Mao Zedong History vs. Simon Bolivar History vs. Tomas Jefferson History vs. Otto Von Bismarck History vs. Hirohito History vs. Henry the Navigator History vs. Suliemen the Magnificent I’ve got a million of these
Augustus wasn’t the one who destroyed the political rights of the poorer or working class. He was the one that destroyed the oligarchy with only 10 positions for plebeians out of 900 and allowed multiple emperors come from nothing to only become the emperor such as Diocletian and Justinian
ahh yess justinian the dude who just walked up the room of the dying emperor for morning reports and became an emperor quite nc considering he is decent
Not only because of her adultery. He exiled her because she bring shame in her name Julia. Julia is the female pronoun of Julius. He named her after his great uncle Julius caesar.
Iet's not act like Augustus initialized a period of two centuries of peace and prosperity in Rome, a difficult accomplishment proven by any nation at any time in history
Augustus is one of those leaders who makes one question their moral opposition to autocracy. Others are Napoleon Bonaparte, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (yes, FDR), Peter the Great.
No, why should people being punished for being single ? It goes against basic individual rights. And even if you do, what happens next your force this person to marry, even if nobody wants to marry this person ?
To everyone claiming augustus was in the wrong punishing adultry cause you think it's a government overreach or a moral wrong or something silly like that lol here's a quote. "only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." -Benjamin Franklin. (I wouldn't be surprised if he learned that from Rome lol) but ye a society without morals or ideals would disintegrate into chaos but an overbearing government that controlles how you live you life would probably come before that and delay it so even the ones left who had some sense of right and wrong and actually held themselves to that standard would suffer too that's a view I thinks got some merit to it anyway you disagree Coolio you wanna debate lol
That’s what communist China says today, you must be happy waiting for your social credit score to rise. And guess what, Franklin was a massive satirist and adulterer.
I studied Augustus for my thesis, and I've grown to respect him, and yes, in spite of how he is favorably framed by Roman historians. The next best Caesar in the 1st century CE was Vespasian, and Titus probably would have been good too, if he had not died early.
What about Antonious Pious. he literally inherited the throne, looked around, saw an empire in prosperity and piece, and did NOTHING to change that for 23 years.
Kera Atkins I believe he was one of the rulers of the northern part of India back in the Medieval era, he's an interesting historical figure, considering Indian history isn't looked into that much
Chandragupta Maurya defeated the Macedonian satrapies in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent. He then waged a war against Seleucus, a Greek ruler who had in control most of the Indian territories which were earlier captured by Alexander the Great.
Great format. I wish it was longer, but I assume that would only drive up the cost of animation. No mention of Agrippa either. I assume that's because of the time constraints. The prosecution might have brought up the fact that so many of Augustus' accomplishments would never have been realized without the undying loyalty of his childhood friend and most gifted general Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa.
3:58 why would punishing adultery be seen as a bad thing? Maybe I am just too afraid of that scenario happening to me, but if you’re love for someone is so dead that you are in love with another, that you fall in love with another, just divorce them! I know it was harder in Rome, but still, it’s a scummy thing that should be punished IMO
Flawed arguments: 1 ) The idea that Augustus destroyed the ideals of the Republic: By the time Augustus came to power, that ship had long set sail. The Republic was an oligarchy ruled by a very small number of powerful families. 2 ) The idea that Augustus was an insane warmonger: Maybe, but the Republic before him was almost constantly at war throughout its lifespan, and this includes many civil wars. 3 ) The idea that Augustus instigated the downfall of Rome: I'm pretty sure that Augustus is credited for having started the Pax Romana period, a time of stability in Rome. 4 ) The idea that Augustus created the modern dictator: His predecessor, Julias Caesar, was LITERALLY the dictator for life of Rome. I think in general Augustus was a flawed leader, but it feels odd to credit him for establishing totalitarian rule in Rome, when that was effectively already the case before he came to power. Augustus gave himself the powers that Julias Caesar had given himself before him. His true failure was his inability to relinquish these titles once he had given these to himself, even though he allegedly promised multiple times to return power to the people. He had an opportunity to change how Rome was governed, but he did not rise to the occasion. His reign was filled with many of the unjust practices we've seen from the majority of totalitarian regimes throughout history, but it is also worth stressing that after many years of civil war, he did turn Rome into a strong and stable empire under his rule.
Uriah Siner its supposed to start a conversation about the person on trial. This format is unbiased and places facts on both sides lettingvus decide whether the person on trial is guilty or not
Hardly Rainy Gamer exactly. It is impossible to understand a complex person like him with only a few minutes of video. This videos is like a door for curiosity. If you enjoy the subject, go dig for more info.
How about History vs Napoleon III? To this day, he's actually more popular with a number of French than his uncle (even though he did a coup against the Second Republic to start his empire).
Without digging too much in detail yet, but he achieved some seriously needed stability in previously conflict-prone Mexico, along with which came development in technology and infrastructure, but he stayed in power for decades and was authoritarian. You probably have heard of the Mexican Revolution. It started as an uprising against him. Díaz left the country, but other factors including a fair amount of backstabbing caused the war to keep going without him.
He replaced a bad version of a normally good form of government, a republic, with a good version (for a while) of a normally bad form of government, an empire. The sad truth is, the Roman Republic was going to fall to one-man rule before long. His one-man rule was the best version of that one-man rule which could be obtained at the time.
A curios fact: technically, the Roman Republic didn't ended with the rise of the empire, but coexisted as the same government, with people calling Rome both a "res publica" and "imperium" (the division between forms of government in the ancient world wasn't clear as it is today). Including, the title "princips" ("first citizen") was more used than emperor in the beginning of the empire.
History vs Peter the Great History vs Louis XIV History vs Frederick the Great History vs Abraham Lincoln History vs Otto von Bismarck History vs Joseph Stalin
James Tang Ok this is off topic, but I must always laugh at how Fate/Zero portrayed him as some perfect model for Kingship as opposed to the benevolent King.
For more episodes of our "History vs." series, check out this playlist: bit.ly/2utVYGk
TED-Ed
Can you guys do one on Ferdinand Marcos? The dictator president of the Philipines. And put an end to the disputes. :) :) Please
Ted-ed I love you guys but you forgot to say the Augustus was called “princeps” or “first senator”
Is there any books or novels that explore this nor in depth?
Muy buenas tardes podrian poner subtitulos al español.
TED-Ed ur my favorite channel
Augustus was Machiavelli. He was the perfect Politician: capable of any cruelty, but not drunk on his own power. An actor who never lost control of his game.
"Have I played the part well? Then applaud as I exit" also machiavelli was augustus not vice versa.
Machiavelli actually hated the Julian's for overthrowing the Roman republic.
@@tavernburner3066 Doesn't mean you can't draw parallels between them
he is different from his two successors Tiberius and Caligula, Claudius was good but Nero screwed it up with his obvious act of arson and that was the Julio-Claudian dynasty Augustus and Claudius were the only two good rulers of that line while Tiberius was reluctant and cruel, Caligula was completely insane, and Nero was both with a hint of narcissism
@TheGreaterGood80 indeed , Augustus pretty much saved Rome.
People try to defend "Republic of Rome" , but said republic is so overly fragile , that every 5-10 years , in a set of a 100 years , it had a civil war taking place.
I like this format.
what is your opinion of augustus? who do you side with?
Hey you are here too...
it seems a bit too short to get at the heart of the topic, but maybe that's just my opinion
There are a bunch of older videos in this format that are great to watch. Positively surprised they made another one.
stop watching vids and do more of yours
jk.
"The Senate existed to serve the people, not a ruling elite"
Except membership to the Senate was restricted to that ruling elite.
The senate was corrupt anyways
@No No A republic becoming an utterly corrupt ogliarchy. That sounds scarily familiar.
Plebs trodding upon the holy marble of the Roman senate?
Off to the arena with you!
@No No I'm always going to have massive problems with authoritarianism even if it's benevolent. My main issue is that the Senators of the late Republic did not have the idealism of the early ones, and thus, Augustus.
It was there to serve Rome and it's citizens. Not the plebs or worse, Germans.
The late Republic was an incredibly corrupt and unstable government that was on its last legs, it needed to go. Octavian began a period of peace (with the exception of the year of the four emperors) and stability that lasted for more than two hundred years.
It didn't last for 200 years, the year of the four emperors happened just 55 years after his death.
Zedd Zorander Other than the year of the 4 emperors and the year of the five emperors the empire was peaceful and prosperous for about 250 years. There were more civil wars in the last 60 years of the republic than in the entire pre crisis of the third century empire.
@@zeddzorander9935 The Pax Romana lasted for around 200 years, until Commodus.... The Pax Romana started with Augustus... The last 100 years of the republic had like 10 civil wars.
SSIIPP Octavian fought about 2 civil wars
And the Republic survived for hundreds of years as well
"a government meant to serve the people, not the privileges of a ruling family"
Patricians: Yeah right..
Even nowadays patricians still existed in many different forms that the plebs didn't even realize or they just don't care. As long as people believe that they are serving for the greater good and to defend their precious freedom and democracy, these kind of people would always exist and hold powers beyond anyone can ever imagine. The plebs always need someone like Augustus to wake them up from their long dream and make them understand the reality of which they've avoided so that they all can improve themselves towards the right direction.
@@annatar1266 TRUMP 2020
@@annatar1266 I somewhat agree with your point but could you elaborate it more
@@amaljyothis2082 how?
ahh yess patricians = rich and plebs = poor,
its not like that
there is only rich and poor,
if ur a rich plebian you can be a very influencial politician well that is if ur rich
"I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble." - Augustus
Kshitija Iyer such a brag
Well am sure this wasn't the case of the people he coquered and the death he caused
@@mohanafy9264 it's so unfair to expect our present morals to people thousand of years ago.
Positive Mentality you are using present morals and judgements to give an opinion of something that happened thousands of years ago. that’s nonsense
Altair 21 that’s a very poor understanding of Roman politics and functions. While the mob had some level of power, power in Rome was entirely transferred through the military following Caesar’s death. Several other great leaders, Hadrian for instance, was not of a prevailing dynasty but a fantastic general. Maintaining power in Rome did not require corruption, but rather motivation. Your critique can be extended to all populations but Pax Romana, the extension of the empire and emphasizing the greatness of Rome were the methods that kept people orderly. Also Caesar was a man of the people due to the senate desiring more power for the optimates (or elites) and proposed the initial ideas of chattel slavery as opposed to Rome’s indentured servitude model
History vs Alexander the Great
History vs Bismark
Soo much potential ..
Seeyay Both are good.Case closed.
Finnish Guy No they aren’t. Definitely not Alexander.
Do remembee also history vs gaius julius caesar!
I'd love to see this just because Bismarck was a damn genius that isn't recalled enough in pop culture. If we remember Augustus, Churchill, and Lincoln as skilled leaders, it's a real shame that we don't remember Bismarck quite so much.
@@njstuckey exactly! It was Bismarck's policies that unified 36 German speaking territories into one nation state.
It's actually Mark Antony who betrayed Octavius Augustus, because Julius Ceasar adopted Augustus and designated him as his heir in his testament. And by the way: some restrictions on marriages in social classes were in effect before Augustus, Julius Ceasar actually avoided becoming a priest by commiting a misalliance.
it may be worth mentioning that he used his wealth to improve the realm instead if of using it for his personal means.
I knew we couldn't trust that singer
wait but julius ceasar was a priest of jupiter amd eventually became the pontifex maximus
@@Mech_Wizard I mean it's not like he lived humbly.
@@vincegalila7211 Definitely not as he was being the most powerful person alive in those days, however there were many other emperors who were really big spenders
By giving one side the last word, instead of the neutral judge, this video takes a side. The fact of the matter is that equating the Roman senate with modern day Democratic Republics is flawed. The senators were oligarchs more concerned with keeping labor cheap and themselves rich over the good of the Republic to the detriment of the common citizen. They were not elected public servants. Was Augustus(and Caesar before him) power hungry, ambitious and sometimes even cruel? Yes. Did they both have an objectively positive effect on their society, also yes. Don't hate the past for not being the present.
Sounds like the same as modern republics, lol.
They were elected, though only from patrician families. Rome had a mixed constitution, so different social classes had representation in different government institutions, it was much more democratic than most European monarchies 300 years ago. But even with Augustus those institutions were preserved, though in the following centuries they gradually lost power. Until the dominate in the 4th century transformed Rome into an absolute monarchy.
So..... it's the exact same as modern day democratic republics?
@@Sandderad that has always been the case. Even the founding fathers were rich and powerful individuals before the American revolution. Never has the world seen a poor political leader in a republic. The system doesn't allow it
@@TheSuperBoyProject Truman ring a bell?
Augustus was an absolute legend. Sure he didn't actually fight his battles (he let Agrippna do that for him), but he did bring stability back to Rome after years of Civil War and he destroyed the corrupted Roman Republic. He was most likely the most hydrated Roman out there.
Thanks to Caesar legacy again...
Mate Agrippa was the reason he was so hydrated. He transformed Roman infrastructure
@@multifandom203 Caesar's legacy cannot be given all the credit. If any other man was in his place, he would have wither been a puppet of his seniors, or he would have ended just like, if not worse, than Caesar.
I agree-no great leader works solitarily. The smart ones who succeed delegate tasks to people they trust are better suited for specific tasks. Having Agrippa conduct things like national monuments and military efforts was a smart way to not overwhelm himself while still keeping everything productive, I think.
Give this man back his legions!
VARUUUUUUUS!
VBI MEI LEGIONES SVNT, VARVS
DISTurbedwaffle918 as a German, I say no.
Varo, rendimi le mie legioni!
*proceeds to bang head repeatedly on marble column*
Two words: Pax Romana
Indeed. Augustus and his policies were able to maintain relative peace and stability far longer than the New Republic in Star Wars ever could.
"They make a desert, and call it peace"
Tacitus
Is it still Pax Romana during the reigns of Caligula and Nero?
Nobblk Praetorian of course, they are both part of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty. The great peace was because of the lack of wars, guess when u ain't got many wars to fight u just fight among yourselves.
@@chef4203 Well I wouldn't call civil wars "peace".
Do history vs Queen Victoria
History vs Winston Chuchill would be better
i would disagree. Victoria had very little power compared to others featured in this series. her role was merely ceremonial unlike those we have discussed before.
How about history vs George Bush?
Any leader in the last 50 years is really too soon to wholly judge
She didn't have any power
Im gonna go with unbiased history on this one.
based
Dovahatty
based
Based
based
"A government meant to rule the people, not a ruling family."
Boy howdy, you guys don't know anything about the Roman Republic do you?
Well,plebs had its representatives
@@krak4258 which they didnt have a real influence in the senate.
@@kingbjorn1832 they had veto, only in the last years of the repubblic the "tribuno" was often killed by the senate
By the plebisn sections of the patrician gens!
@@jacopofolin6400 The Tribune can only veto discussion in the senate but cannot actually veto decisions made by the senate. Only with powerful tribunes who came from a patrician family like the Gracchi brothers where they hold significant power in the senate they are able to effectively influence the senate.
*_Ｍｅｒｅ Ｏｐｔｉｃｓ_*
2:44
I believe he lost his prestige as a prosecutor after that
Does that count as a r/fellowkids ?
@@josephstalin7506
Not really.
That scared me
I will now become a lawyer with the sole purpose of saying MERE OPTICS in an actual trial.
Matteo Rivera lol
You also must do the hands over eyes for increased effect!!!
The other side would say "That's conjecture" that's why nobody's said that in a real trial before
Sam Turnbow someone did say it in this vid
@@acabusarmies7279 I would woosh you but I don't want to get in r/Ihave reddit... W A I T
I really like these ‘History vs’ episodes
More please!
Me too. I missed them. I was afraid the format was dead.
shreyansh jain I’m so happy they’re making more of them! It’s such a great format! I really hope they make a bunch more!
The errors in this video are too many to list, but I will evidence some:
- 4:18 The Roman Empire after Augustus only expanded significantly in Britannia, Mesopotamia and Dacia. These were minor provinces and they were conquered by Claudius (the one who granted citizenship to Gauls) and Trajan (considered by many the best of all for mercy and law abiding).
- He never became a "king" or "emperor" but only the Prince of the senate. The first truly "Emperor" by title was Vespasian who made a law declaring himself king.
- Mark Anthony's economic policies were disastrous and would have caused a fragmentation of the empire. He also was treacherous and while Augustus exiled many, Mark Antony had Cicero killed and his former friend Lepidus imprisoned.
He and Octavian were never allies, they only fought together once.
- The Republic was falling apart because of corruption and plots inside the senate and dictators like Sulla who were far worse than Augustus. Only a strong figure could save the Roman Empire.
- The age of Roman Slavery was coming to an end because war were becoming less and less frequent so not many prisoners of war.
- Non-adultery and family were the most important traditional "Roman values" that you said were being destroyed by Octavian, also false.
You should have researched better before talking, because while he was not a saint there would be far worse emperors like Diocletian or Constantine that everyone loves.
you still missed many points like:
-Augustus have never really fought in Hispania alongside Ceasar
-Augustus did not really took responsibility to avenge Ceasar as claimed in video, he was named by Ceasar as his heir and he just quickly used the situation
-Mark Anthony never wanted to become a king
-the last part of video when they sounds like suggesting that Augustus was first kind of emperor ever to gain power through military, who was Alexander the Great then? (and many others far before Augustus)
also to your points, there was several more conqests than that and Dacia was actually Extremely significant and wealthy province thanks to its mines, nothing minor. Also, Diocletian was not that bad emperor in my opinion, he was actually doing something to stabilize the empire, but think about Commodus and later most of the Severan Dynasty. Those were some terrible emperors. But of course Constantine and most of emperors of western part of the empire after him were definitely much worse.
Thank you. I can't believe we allow for such mediocre research to pass as educational, with such terrible arguments.
While I generally agree with your assement that the video portrays Augustus in a slightly exaggerated negative light, I have to point out that your description of Anthony's hand in the murder of Cicero and eventual banishment of Lepidus is also conveniently selective in its nature. The death of Cicero was ordered through the so-called proscriptions of 43 BCE, while Anthony most definitely had much reason to get rid of Cicero and was here so directly linked to his demise, it's also fair and necessary to point out that Augustus/octavian and Lepidus had an equal role in these proscriptions. These 'murder-lists' were made by Octavian, Anthony and Lepidus in order to acquire the wealth of thousands of their political rivals by viciously killing them. So if you were meaning to cleanse Augustus's name in regards to these vile crimes, I am afraid history has shown that even the 'great' Augustus has a lot of blood on his hands, an example of which would thus be the jointly organized mass executions of his political rivals. This joint-venture is also an example of how Anthony and augustus/octavian were indeed allies at a moment in time. So instead of suggesting that other people 'do better research', perhaps it's best to follow your own advice as well ;)
@@davidpoelemans4330 Honestly I have done much more research later this year and discovered that those lists were in fact promulgated by the three triumvirs. However, such as in a letter to Livia of 42 b.C. included in Augustus' own biography, there are many contemporary fonts that state the remorse of Augustus for the betrayal of Cicero, as in his case Anthony and Lepidus were the two main culprits. However many other prestigious and ancient Roman families, such as the Metelli, were completely exterminated during the proscrpitions because of personal disagreements between them and Octavian's relatives. I never liked Octavian for his means or traitorous behaviour, but demonizing all of his achievements feels a bit drastic and tendentious. Many ancient writers also criticized heavily his ways, but they rarely said that what he had created during the later part of his reign as princeps (not emperor) was a bad thing. Even Cicero himself, in his final years, recognized that the Republic was to be reformed or the Roman domain in the Mediterranean would be in sever danger.
@@tauratrihon1467 nicely summed up!! Indeed Cicero acknowledged that the Republic was waning and as a matter of fact started its decline the century before in which a series of events highlighted the corruption that had taken root in the city itself, I would refer to the agricultural reforms introduced by the Gracchi brother and the conservative senators' volatile reaction to these as a plausible catalyst for the eventual rise of populist leaders in the subsequent century, ultimately paving the way for Augustus's ascension. In the end, Augustus did prove to be a competent legislator and political player to warrant much praise in hindsight even though he wasn't perfect :)
"He made an empire that would collapse."
"Do you know why it collapsed?"
"No, why."
"Let me show you. Please stand infront of this tank please"
"ok, buy what exactly are you going to show me?"
@@gillettematch3188 huns, vandals, goths, franks, saxons
Gergely Karácsony *C I V I L W A R S*
Rome was the longest lived ___ ever
@@ishanpednekar6576 second longest lasting single civilization in human history and the longest lasting empire
History vs Malcolm X
History vs Erwin Rommel
History vs Winston Churchill
History vs Otto von Bismarck
History vs Ronald Reagan
Dodec84 What bad stuff did Malcolm X do?
History vs Michael Bay
@@influenza3736 lmao
malcolm x had some extreme views but never had power.
@@deprogramm Thank our lucky stars about that too.
Rome became more powerful, more peaceful, and more efficient in his time
Not perfect, but enough to get Rome into the powerhouse we know in history books today
Peaceful enough to continue the mass civil wars
Augustus was just as badass as Julius Caesar, and this trial failed to point out that Augustus (when he was Octavian) personally fulfilled the terms of Caesar's will which included giving the plebs a share of Caesar's money that was owed to them, and plots of land to 20,000 deserving families. Mark Antony refused to fulfill the terms, so Octavian sold away Caesar's villa to meet these terms.
That seems more like something he would have propagandists write
@@willfakaroni5808 Surprisingly no, but if you want me to mention some of Octavian's not-so-proud moments that history has preserved, fair enough. Before his inevitable civil war with Antony and Cleopatra, there had been a recession and a famine in Italy. Octavian seized Italian farms and gave them to his retiring soldiers. The soldiers expected a comfy retirement and these inexperienced farmers led to poor crop yields and thus a famine. This was further exacerbated when Sextus Pompey seized Sicily and cut off Rome's breadbasket. This famine was not an act of nature, it was because of Octavian being overzealous.
@@KTChamberlain wait but how do you know it’s true and not propaganda
@@willfakaroni5808 Ask the historians why don't you?
@@willfakaroni5808 how do you know its propaganda and not true. For the most part all we can rely on is speculation on what sources and parts of sources are true and hopefully find as many as possible. Obviously when sources are too flattering we have our doubts but for the most part the many generosities of Augustus were apparent, he was Caesars heir. Caesar had done the same many times throughout his life, he was the ultimate populist and was beloved by the people for it and Augustus done similiar. There is no reason to doubt he gave this money out, it was possible, made great sense and by the time 'propagandists' would be writing this it would be well within living memory and we would easily have found antonine sources or independent sources that disputed it.
Ensuring stability and legitimacy after a civil war isnt pretty. He was the man the for the job and he did it perfectly.
2:45 That's the weirdest thing anybody would do at a court.
----------> joke
You're head
@@ngolokante7805 is he a head?
@@samuellucena3835 okay that made me do a double take-
Plenty of half-truths here, on both sides. Probably the worst TED Ed to date.
For example: prohibition on marriage between the plebs and the patricians has existed for centuries in Roman republic and was sort of cancelled only about a century before Augustus took power. On the other hand Augustus never fought in Hispania. He did go there but he arrived when Ceasar had already won and didn't command any troops in battle. In fact his tendency to lay bed-ridden in the command tent while Agrippa or someone else took command of his troops was a very widespread joke in Rome.
And so on and so forth...
(edit: typo)
Yeah I was suspicious of the things mentioned in the vid. One thing to note is that Octavian did not bribe or forced the Senate to proclame him Princeps, or bestow upon him the title Augustus, it was the necessary thing to do. For Augustus not only had the obvious power-his army- but he was approved of widely in the whole empire at the time, he can be described as the glue that held the plebs and patricians in order, and hence the stability of Rome as an empire. Furthermore, his focus during his waning years was on consolidating his frontiers, as the Romans had been fighting for so long in both civil wars and conquests the people(if I remember correctly) had had enough of it. Hence his leaving Rome a city of marble and improving provincial administration and roads and infrastructure and etc. I suppose TedEd have to focus more on the facts as they do their animation.
That's why it puts on a trial style, its up to history to judge
Every History vs X is good
@@harryallman-brown8214 he was also the most travelled of their emperors, having spent time in every province either before or after his acension as princeps, and the reason why many cities in Europe received his title as part of their name.
@@harryallman-brown8214 nice!
This is what happens in court
I would love to see History vs Churchill next please.
YES
I'd love that. Finally bash him for Gallipoli
And the Bengali famine.
Someone and his racism
@@F22onblockland The Bengal famine was not directly caused by him, the Japanese invasion of Burma stopped the supply of rice to large portions of India.
You are not meant to save them you are meant to lead them
Rome 2 TW
i can relate to it too much that i pity myself during my leaders time. Its so.. ahh.. human.
Augustus started the pax romana, ended conquest and under him and after him for nearly one hundred years there was no civil war
This is the only episode of this where I fully agree with the "defendant"
What about napoleon? I'll be honest, this series is quite one sided and revisionist.
@@Walterdecarvalh0100 Napolean is highly questionable, keep in mind that many non french welcomed his armies as liberators only to be opressed and massacred, espeically in spain
@@sosig6445 he’s pretty despised in Spain and Portugal still
@@sosig6445 not true though, in Spain and Portugal the French were seen as enemies from the very beginning.
Well Augustus will be always remembered because under his empire Rome had the longest time of peace 70 years and during that time improved many aspect of the roman society
i love how the same person is narrating everyone's voices
An ne wait, he’s doing ALL the voices?!
yep, you can tell if u listen carefully. They all have that same undertone.
An ne I didn't even know.
Yepp, great voice acting!
"The next time you say how Rome didn't contribute enough inventions to broader history and get rightly arrested for sacrilege, first check what alphabet you're speaking when pleading for innocence, the architecture of the courthouse you're taken to, what God you're praying to to get out of this alive, what legal system finds you guilty, and what concrete roads you're traversing as they throw your corpse into the sewer in two months: July, named after Julius Caesar. And don't forget your bacon breakfast."
~ Dovahhatty, 2020
Ironically, the word Invention is a Roman invention (Inventio)
Is it fair to give them credit for inventing those things though? We’d still have roads and some kind of alphabet and some kind of legal system and some form of architecture for our buildings of Rome never existed, it would just be a different one.
@@ataraxia7439 consider how different that world would be to the one we are in
the concept of the rule of law is mesopotamian from the time of hammurabi and the roman alphabet is just another way of writing greek alphabet which was another way of writing the original 24 letter 7 consonnant alphabet: the Phoenician alphabet. And didnt the jews invent the god you pray to? But yea the romans did indeed eat bacon i guess
@@kl6544 you can even trace the alphabet all the way back to Egyptian Hieroglyphs
We wish we could have such a man as a emperor of Mankind today, like what Augustus was. The errors in this video are so many, it's pointless to name them all and others have already done this anyway.
It is not a good idea. Even if he was perfect, his heir or the next emperor could be flawed and this is a desaster with total power. Just look at Roman history. Caligula was not far from Augustus.
@@WTfire10 much better than the Senate.
I say that, like Napoleon, Augustus broke rules to make sure he could stay and stabilize, knowing that he needed time to fix the problems of the previous government.
A wise one, I see.
Yep
And neither of them succeeded
@@willfakaroni5808 Pax Romana disagrees with you
@@Walker-ow7vj Pax Romana is a myth, just look up Roman civil war
Am I the only one who thinks that the “mere optics” image needs to be made a meme?
Great Idea!
Do it! Do it! Do it!
Yes
I think he did a great job! As a citizen of a corrupt country, I can tell that he did more than many of my governments since I have awareness.BTW he is my favorite historical figure.
Hail the Imperator! Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus!
QUINTILIUS VARUS WHERE ARE MY LEGIONS
VARUS GIVE ME BACK MY 3 LEGIONS AHHHHH
GIVE ME BACK MY LEGIONS!
Have I played my part well? Then applaud as I exit
>punishing adultery
>somehow a bad thing
Well I suppose it would be if the punishment was extreme at the very least.
How is it anything but a bad thing?
It is since the state shouldn't have anything to do with private affairs of its citizens
@@Bolognabeef then marriage just shouldnt exist
great pfp, nice taste in waifus. Really good game as well :)
August is so close omg summer is almost over
escDisney Calling ikr
Tbh, I'm depressed
Over here in Chile it's already
winter.
Time for Christmas
escDisney Calling If you don't think about the time it feels less faster when it really comes.
It's been forever since you posted a "History vs........." video.
People need to learn that sometimes a person must do bad things in order to achieve the greater good
Executive 1 Very true, no sacrifice, no victory
@MrBanausos no not always
that's strange i just watched "the death of stalin" on netflix and i dont remember much of a trial, they just took him out back and shot him. are you saying that film is not accurate?
The end justifies the means
It's easy to justify sacrifices when are only the others suffering - I wonder, if you were the victim of those sacrifices, would you still say that?
This essay video should be instead tittle: "our sense and sensibilities vs Augustus Caesar"
2:45
Everybody at the court: Gosh,this guy is weird.
4:47 I have watched so many episodes of this series that this line now sends chills down my spine.
History vs Mao Zedong
History vs. Simon Bolivar
History vs. Tomas Jefferson
History vs. Otto Von Bismarck
History vs. Hirohito
History vs. Henry the Navigator
History vs. Suliemen the Magnificent
I’ve got a million of these
Good ideas
History vs. Toyotomi Hideyoshi
History vs. Maximilien Robespierre
History vs. Oliver Cromwell
History vs. Robert Walpole
History vs. Indira Gandhi
History Vs Mehmed II
History Vs Vlad The Impaler
History Vs Amir Timur
History Vs Benjamin Franklin
History Vs Robert Clive
History VS The Paul brothers
Some of these suggestions make me sad.
I wouldn't really call Rome a republic as much as an oligarchy with some representation for the poor
isnt every republic an oligarchy then?
Misael Ramirez
A republic doesn’t need a democracy. A republic can exist in a totalitarian state. Republic just meen « for the good of the people »
Republic doesn't necessarily mean democracy. For the time it was a pretty advanced one anyway
democracy was another type of rule back then.
Victor Chabirand Actually is res publica "Public Thing" meaning everybody partecipate
Augustus wasn’t the one who destroyed the political rights of the poorer or working class. He was the one that destroyed the oligarchy with only 10 positions for plebeians out of 900 and allowed multiple emperors come from nothing to only become the emperor such as Diocletian and Justinian
ahh yess justinian the dude who just walked up the room of the dying emperor for morning reports and became an emperor quite nc considering he is decent
An emperor from humble beginnings
A leader our armies can follow
Emperor AURELIAN!
3:52 He sent his own daughter, Julia, into exile for adultery.
Good
based
she was the town bicycle and she was doing it out of spite.
Not only because of her adultery. He exiled her because she bring shame in her name Julia. Julia is the female pronoun of Julius. He named her after his great uncle Julius caesar.
with ovid right?
that poet who is also busting out rhymes against Augustus
M E R E O P T I C S 👀
Caesar "screw your optics, I'm going in" Augustus
MAKE MORE OF THESE PLEASE
History vs. Margaret Thatcher
Random YTViewer OOOOH controversial!
Random YTViewer the tories would be livid
Christopher Stanley Nah, I still want my Iron Lady to face History
_Triggered in Argentinian_
@Random YTViewer ruclips.net/video/mxrXhmKDAYU/видео.html
:Punishing adultery:
I thought that was a good thing
I know right
P.S: It is
That's gods job
@@gustavfrye2736 obviously adultery is immoral, but a government shouldn't infringe on people's rights
@@ibnbattuta7031 wa wa wa, adulterers btfo
@@dabtican4953
>bant
wew
Iet's not act like Augustus initialized a period of two centuries of peace and prosperity in Rome, a difficult accomplishment proven by any nation at any time in history
History VS Gandhi
It's going to be hard to present a case against him.
Well, there was his words from when he lived in South Africa. His history there isn't clean.
History vs gandhi (civ series)
Nukeeeee
How about Churchill then, I'd like to see them discuss Galipoli.
Augustus is one of those leaders who makes one question their moral opposition to autocracy. Others are Napoleon Bonaparte, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (yes, FDR), Peter the Great.
3:52 And restraining Adultery is supposed to be bad because …….?
Because that‘s not the state’s job.
@@paulmahoney7619 and why isn't it the state's job ?
@@khalilbarkallah9998 this should be obvious
@@full-timepog6844 you didn't give an answer to be honest
@@khalilbarkallah9998 people need to understand between each other why they shouldn't practice adultery.
“Punishing adulatory”
“Punishments for remaining unmarried”
Sounds based to me.
No, why should people being punished for being single ? It goes against basic individual rights. And even if you do, what happens next your force this person to marry, even if nobody wants to marry this person ?
@GTA and Apple channel I do not criticize history, I just says it's not "based" today
P.S. : This was 2000 years ago...
@@1000eau individual rights are neaningless
@@1000eau you also completely ignored the "punishing adultery" part. What do you think of that?
It's based :)
Punishing adultery was definitely based. Why can't we have laws like these in modern world.
To everyone claiming augustus was in the wrong punishing adultry cause you think it's a government overreach or a moral wrong or something silly like that lol here's a quote. "only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." -Benjamin Franklin. (I wouldn't be surprised if he learned that from Rome lol) but ye a society without morals or ideals would disintegrate into chaos but an overbearing government that controlles how you live you life would probably come before that and delay it so even the ones left who had some sense of right and wrong and actually held themselves to that standard would suffer too that's a view I thinks got some merit to it anyway you disagree Coolio you wanna debate lol
That’s what communist China says today, you must be happy waiting for your social credit score to rise. And guess what, Franklin was a massive satirist and adulterer.
I studied Augustus for my thesis, and I've grown to respect him, and yes, in spite of how he is favorably framed by Roman historians. The next best Caesar in the 1st century CE was Vespasian, and Titus probably would have been good too, if he had not died early.
What about Antonious Pious.
he literally inherited the throne, looked around, saw an empire in prosperity and piece, and did NOTHING to change that for 23 years.
Do History vs. Chandragupta Maurya
Ęÿūį Æßñ who is that?
Kera Atkins I believe he was one of the rulers of the northern part of India back in the Medieval era, he's an interesting historical figure, considering Indian history isn't looked into that much
In short, he screwed the remains of Alexander the Great
What?
Chandragupta Maurya defeated the Macedonian satrapies in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent. He then waged a war against Seleucus, a Greek ruler who had in control most of the Indian territories which were earlier captured by Alexander the Great.
His name is history
Astro Teen his name is a month. What a man would love more?
“MERE OPTICS!”
That cracked me up.
The greatest man who’s ever lived
What about emperor Aurelian or Aurelius ?
Based
A rare man with some integrity actually.
What about Constantine the great?
I love this series so much. And I love how done the judge looks after all these trials. He deserves a raise.
Great format. I wish it was longer, but I assume that would only drive up the cost of animation. No mention of Agrippa either. I assume that's because of the time constraints. The prosecution might have brought up the fact that so many of Augustus' accomplishments would never have been realized without the undying loyalty of his childhood friend and most gifted general Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa.
3:58 why would punishing adultery be seen as a bad thing? Maybe I am just too afraid of that scenario happening to me, but if you’re love for someone is so dead that you are in love with another, that you fall in love with another, just divorce them! I know it was harder in Rome, but still, it’s a scummy thing that should be punished IMO
Flawed arguments:
1 ) The idea that Augustus destroyed the ideals of the Republic: By the time Augustus came to power, that ship had long set sail. The Republic was an oligarchy ruled by a very small number of powerful families.
2 ) The idea that Augustus was an insane warmonger: Maybe, but the Republic before him was almost constantly at war throughout its lifespan, and this includes many civil wars.
3 ) The idea that Augustus instigated the downfall of Rome: I'm pretty sure that Augustus is credited for having started the Pax Romana period, a time of stability in Rome.
4 ) The idea that Augustus created the modern dictator: His predecessor, Julias Caesar, was LITERALLY the dictator for life of Rome.
I think in general Augustus was a flawed leader, but it feels odd to credit him for establishing totalitarian rule in Rome, when that was effectively already the case before he came to power. Augustus gave himself the powers that Julias Caesar had given himself before him. His true failure was his inability to relinquish these titles once he had given these to himself, even though he allegedly promised multiple times to return power to the people. He had an opportunity to change how Rome was governed, but he did not rise to the occasion. His reign was filled with many of the unjust practices we've seen from the majority of totalitarian regimes throughout history, but it is also worth stressing that after many years of civil war, he did turn Rome into a strong and stable empire under his rule.
The spirit of the republic died decades before I was even born!
I love how the video emphasizes the different ways historians can look at the same individual.
Do "History vs. Kaiser Wilhelm II"
This format is fun, but I don’t feel I learn much from it.
Uriah Siner its supposed to start a conversation about the person on trial. This format is unbiased and places facts on both sides lettingvus decide whether the person on trial is guilty or not
Hardly Rainy Gamer exactly. It is impossible to understand a complex person like him with only a few minutes of video. This videos is like a door for curiosity. If you enjoy the subject, go dig for more info.
It’s what any balanced history essay should do, give both sides of the argument, but then give your own judgement
Same. Too confusing for me bc of the diff ppl talking
It's supposed to get you thinking about the deeper underlying issue it's addressing.
I'd let Augustus bully me. We need someone like that for Europe today. He was truly the maddest of all lads.
I will never get bored of the starting tune of every ted ed
History vs Alexander The great pls
Facundo Romero I think They already did that... but if not, that would be cool.
History would lose, you can’t beat Alexander.
2:42 "Mere optic" one of the reasons I love the History vs/ series
Thank god I know history and I don't rely in catch pieces like this to learn that Augustus was one of the best stateman in human history.
I see you take his propagandists words
My propositions:
History vs. Queen Victoria
History vs. Emperor Franz Joseph I
History vs. Emperor Wilhelm II
History vs. Alexander the Great
Queen Vicky was just a figurehead. It's like blaming Elizabeth II for Brexit.
History vs. Pol pot
How about History vs Napoleon III?
To this day, he's actually more popular with a number of French than his uncle (even though he did a coup against the Second Republic to start his empire).
*Few recommendations would like to see:*
-History Vs. Oliver Cromwell
-History Vs. Charles Darwin
-History Vs. Ruhollah Khomeini
History vs Charlemagne
By far my favorite series in this channel
I'm not sure if the History vs series is open to suggestions but I'll suppose it is. History vs Porfirio Díaz.
Sealand Relevant who's he?
Without digging too much in detail yet, but he achieved some seriously needed stability in previously conflict-prone Mexico, along with which came development in technology and infrastructure, but he stayed in power for decades and was authoritarian.
You probably have heard of the Mexican Revolution. It started as an uprising against him. Díaz left the country, but other factors including a fair amount of backstabbing caused the war to keep going without him.
Sealand Relevant thanks!
There's positive things to say about him?
"so you're saying he was a good emperor"
yep
"and *you're* saying there's no such thing"
uh huh
He replaced a bad version of a normally good form of government, a republic, with a good version (for a while) of a normally bad form of government, an empire. The sad truth is, the Roman Republic was going to fall to one-man rule before long. His one-man rule was the best version of that one-man rule which could be obtained at the time.
History vs. Charlemagne.
Herodotus 94 well he comitted genocide against the pagans, but brought a brief intellectual period of scientific progress.
Few thousands lives are worth it.
Some would say no.
Yuwan Give a ruler that didn't sacrifice anything for his/her empire to be remembered
He enjoyed larp
The vid is 5 minutes long
14 comments in just 4 minutes
So nobody watches the whole vid before commenting?
I didn't either lol
1.5 speed boi
2 comments in 13 seconds
Sai Sevithaa I watch in 2x speed
That is correct. It's one of the founding principles of the internet.
Gamer Rafid playback speed increase.
A curios fact: technically, the Roman Republic didn't ended with the rise of the empire, but coexisted as the same government, with people calling Rome both a "res publica" and "imperium" (the division between forms of government in the ancient world wasn't clear as it is today). Including, the title "princips" ("first citizen") was more used than emperor in the beginning of the empire.
History vs Peter the Great
History vs Louis XIV
History vs Frederick the Great
History vs Abraham Lincoln
History vs Otto von Bismarck
History vs Joseph Stalin
Stalin is just a horrible person in general, there is no need for a trial
why Abraham Lincoln?
Great video. Please do "History vs Alexander The Great"
Alejandro hernandez
he is the sole reason why manlets shouldn’t lead armies.
Indignant Wellington Because they win and effectively conquer the largest empire to date? i mean, maybe more manlets should lead armies.
He wasn't very good at managing the empire or having good administration or succession...
James Tang Ok this is off topic, but I must always laugh at how Fate/Zero portrayed him as some perfect model for Kingship as opposed to the benevolent King.
History vs Oliver Cromwell
As far as ancient autocrats go, he was definitely one of the good ones
To be fair if he hadn’t taken over Rome would have collapsed mere decades later
Someday I’ll be on trial on this show and I’ll be known as a kind and wise king, yet a scourge to my enemies.
Top 10 Anime Betrayals
Got Nay omg get this to the top
Only if people like this, daddy :)
Got Nay The Japanese genderbent the Roman Emperor Nero Claudius.
Do one on Alexander the great!
How about History Vs. Winston Churchill?
History vs Joseph Stalin
@@ComradeHellas some people are indefensible
@@windsorhacks1415 Stalin did nothing wrong
2:15 Augustus after going to da hood.
Yes.
200 years of a golden era after Augustus proves he was the best ruler of all time.