i love that you often make distinctions between the modern world and our natural interpretations and comment on the viewpoints and intentions of your sources
If Bibulus truly believed in his beliefs, he'd have allowed the mob to kill him. A consul's death would have mattered in 59 BCE even after Sulla's dictatorship.
Caesar might have known about monotheism from Platonism and Judaism. But it didn't fit into the Roman Imperial model, where gods of all peoples existed, but the Roman pantheon ruled over all others on merit of them being protectors of the Roman Empire.
Arguably both these men were on the same aside of the economic and even social class struggle for dominance of the failed Roman Republic. To call what Octavian and Antony were doing a “civil war” is thus a stretch. They were simply fighting for control of the new state which was clear to all I think by that time was to be entirely controlled by the Optimates. Julius Caesar still promised to make some significant changes to the distribution of wealth and land to the “populares” and strip power and wealth from the Optimates. That’s why the Senators assassinated him. All pretense of wealth land or power redistribution was gone by Actium. It was a battle for control of the vital grain of Egypt and the top spot of the ruling class. Whoever could deliver stability to the ruling class authoritarian regime to come would be the victor. The people no longer mattered; it was clear to everyone that rhetoric alone along with the grain dole would suffice to pacify them. Unfortunately.
@@TheKarotechiayou are right, you can call both Antonius and octavius as emperors of the western and eastern Roman territories, they had powers to even choose consuls for a tenure of 5 years
The last time I was this early, Ceaser was still a hostage. Great video as always. Just curious, isn't Pointifex Maximus one of the titles held by the Bishop of Rome?
that man whose wax image was carried on a cross through Rome for years thereafter. showing the people the wounds inflicted on him as he was accused of wanting to be a king, deified after a star was seen for 7 days over Rome shortly after his death. yes, he also held that title.
Summus Pontifex, actually. You see, a Pontifex is a buider of bridges, and became a by-word for priest (or, more specifically, a Bishop). The Pope's title is Vicarius Iesus Christi, Summus Pontifex Ecclesia Universalis (Vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church), or Roman Pontiff (as in the Bishop of Rome). So, it basically is the title of the pope as head of the whole Christian Church.
Extremely well done. To answer your question - I would like to see you explore the relationship between the Roman office of Pontiff and the resultant office of Pontiff in the inception of the Roman Catholic religion. I would find this fascinating. Thank you.
You do good work dude, I just felt guilty enjoying your work for 3 days straight and not contributing lol. Thanks for getting me interested in Roman politics and seeing how it can relate to today.
I like how you go to great lengths to discourage us from making parallels between Rome and modern religious/social/political thought. That's a really easy trap to fall into. Their minds were products of their environment, just as much as ours are. "The past is a foreign country," after all.
Fighting anachronism and seriously considering what the romans thought and wrote about their own thinking and experiences are very important. But saying that someone ("us, moderns") has to take their own words about those experiences and thinking is a step too far, in my opinion. Every society have their own interdictions, mental taboos and opinions and experiences that cannot be freely shared. And there are mental dispositions that may not be actually entirely understood by the person itself or cannot be formulated clearly in the intellectual framework of a specific culture and time.
Also Caesar emphasize being the luckiest General. Luck IS often See AS favor of the gods and He probably believed himself to BE blessed and favored by the gods
That doesn't mean the Caesar wasn't a true believer in his gods. There are many examples of people who manage to make religion march alongside their own interests while believing themselves to be acting on a largely religious basis. Projecting personal desires onto religious idols is not a recent phenomenon by any means.
You say "we moderns read Bibulus employment of religious objections as little more than a cynical ploy" I was going to say "but the ancient authors seem to think that too!" However, looking at what they said (in translation, which may be biased by modern views) it is rather ambiguous and my interpretation may be due to modern thinking. Appian, Dio, Plutarch and Cicero's letters all describe it in ways that are compatible with him really believing sacred days or auguries. However, the reaction of caeser and his mob suggest they didn't believe those omens were seen, or I doubt they'd go against them! That said some ancient authors said religious traditions could be used cynically for politics (even believers mention Claudius throwing chickens into the water). It seemed to me that Polybius book 6 "in my opinion they use it to control the masses" quote about roman religion, and Plutarch's Numa inventing superstitions for that purpose, imply that this was a bigger thing, but they could just reflect what Greek historians thought. Still, the texts are at least as compatible with "it was a cynical ploy" as they are with "it was for real" and the former seems more likely to me.
I recommend you check out his earlier video as he actually addresses many of these points that you bring up here. It only seems more likely because of modern western bias. You Assume that in a world where materialism didn’t exist. Somehow Cesar had a materialistic view of religion. You took a moment to think about it you realize it’s far more likely that he had the same view of religion. As did mostly everyone else in his time. Also not believing that a particular politician has given you true omins doesn’t mean that you don’t believe in omins from the gods I mean to put it in Abraham concept. The profits of ancient Israel, or constantly calling out there as being false prophets perverting, the truth exchange for money. But that doesn’t mean that the prophets cynical of all prophecy I mean, they were prophetic themselves. in addition, a close analysis of the text reveals that in many cases they didn’t even necessarily believe that they were rivals were liars. Only that they had been deceived by spiritual forces.
@@bryanmcclure2220 - I watched those videos at the time they came out and hated them which biased me against this one. You don't need to be a "materialist" to make up fake portents for politics; you can accept gods exist, but make up a fake god for politics. That was before this time when "materialism wasn't invented." Like I said, even Livy and Suetonius(obvious believers) attack some people (Claudius and the chickens) for making up fake portents, and Plutarch 100% says Numa made up fake portents for politics. So if people were doing that centuries before, without being "materialists," why wouldn't people in Rome? The macedonians knew Alexander was faking being a god (given their reaction to his claims) long before this, they could do that without "materialism." So you don't need "materialism" for any of this. That said, a lot of ancient philosophies like atomism seem to be materialistic or deistic and they were definitely accused of being that by their enemies so the idea 100% existed, so "materialism didn't exist" just seems false. Every other video I've seen on this period by historians say religion was being cynically used by politicians. The footnotes and introductions of every copy of these texts I've read says the same. So this "they actually believed politically useful portents" view seems like an unusual one among scholars (not that I've looked at a survey, it's definitely not unique to this guy) so it being presented as THE true view is annoying.
@@WorthlessWinner deistic is not materialistic. There is a world of difference between two beliefs. It’s possible that they were making up false portents as I said in my comment that is a possibility. I wasn’t refuting that was just clarifying some things. I’m not muting that making up false prophecies or potents is unique to materialists. I am saying 1. You can’t suppose that because someone made up false prophecies or believe that others could make up false prophecies that they were cynical or materialistic about religion. 2. You can’t suppose these prophecies are made up at least from the viewpoint of the speaker. As he said, in the end of the video quite clearly. It’s not hard to imagine confirmation bias could ensure that the senator interpreted the world around him as being ominous. Imagine if you will a scientist made some sort of scientific conjecture or prediction that turned out to be completely false . It’s possible that scientist was just making it up or it could simply be that he interpreted the evidence from a bias be that political or cultural or whatever.
@@bryanmcclure2220 - It's possible (just as the romulus and remus story being true is possible) and we can never really know what people's secret inner beliefs were so it's kinda pointless to speculate, but it seems improbable that they really believed all these things to me (and more important that the crowds didn't seem to believe they believed, given their reactions).
@@WorthlessWinner 1. But that’s exactly the point we can’t see what they believe so unless if their actions fit with the belief system of typical Roman. We have to assume that they had the belief system of a typical Roman. 2. You’re doing historical mind reading again nowhere in the account do the crowd accuse him of making up false omens. (I would like to point out you it is considerably harder to make up false omens there it is prophecy for example Since they have to be things in the physical world and usually things that other people can testify to ) You Are making assumptions. you are trying Treat an angry Roman crowd as a were an angry American crowd. Angry Americans don’t Assault and humiliate one of their own senators, even if they disagree with them so you assume that he must’ve made some sort of heinous crime. How Roman crowds were more….. volatile (I would like to point out the man never lost this position a hard thing to believe if people actually thought he had made up omens) It is highly conceivable that the Roman crowd could reacted that way, cause they thought he was a hack, an idiot and other than incompetent. Or because they were simply frustrated are you assure you Romans crowds had far worse reactions for far less.
Hi I have just subscribed and will join - I want to support in wider capacities including funding/sponsorship/whatever. I would love to hear more insight on Caesar's actual policies, and the need for change etc
Please, cover the funeral of Julius Caesar and the Julian Games held later in the year. Did you know that at Caesar's funeral a wax image of his body showing all 23 stab wounds was mounted on a cruciform tropaeum?
But didn't essentially the vast majority of the religious traditions of Caeser's time believe in the afterlife? And as such implying to not believe in it implies he doesn't believe in any religious tradition?.
there were traditions that had a god but no afterlife. I suspect he was an agnostic or a deist, I'm pretty sure he didn't buy a word of the traditional religion he pretended to lead, anymore than he thought he was a god himself.
@@WorthlessWinnermodernist take. There was no distinction between religion and the culture he lived in. The supernatural would be as natural to him as metaphysical concepts like justice to us. Agnosticism and deism both can only spring up after a fundamental shift in human society’s that we’ve seen in the west.
@@fabianmiron2782 -What the hell do you call the Epicurian view of god if not deistic or agnostic? This is like saying "they didn't have a word for blue so couldn't see blue"
@@fabianmiron2782 "Epicureanism does not deny the existence of the gods; rather it denies their involvement in the world. According to Epicureanism, the gods do not interfere with human lives or the rest of the universe in any way - thus, it shuns the idea that frightening weather events are divine retribution." - the wikipedia summary of epicurianism if that isn't deistic, what is it?
@@fabianmiron2782 - half the time the sources show the portents accurately and in detail predicting the future. Do you think they actually had magical powers? If not, they must have been lying after the fact. I'm sure you can make some story up about how "they really genuinely believed a vague prophecy" but that's BS and you know it Hell, why did Tiberius threaten to kill his astrologer if he kept making fake predictions, because he thought they were fake? Why did tacitus say a lot of portent readers are scammers making up fake portents? I mean "they didn't even have that concept" according to you people, right?!
Was Plutarch even there? And yet he couldn’t keep hair. Also please mind your portraits. You show Caesar Augustus like it’s not a nephew. Check yer art and images. I’ll just have your head. I won’t crucify you. Get it correct.
@@mazimazu8122he was planning two things: 1. A military campaign in Parthia 2. A bunch of legislation he would have pushed through the senate before his campaign in Parthia. I don't know what legislation he was working on, but it was most likely populist reforms aimed at limiting the powers of the senate and stabilizing Roman politics while he was gone. The guy was getting old and he most likely would have died in Parthia, if not from battle then from natural causes. I honestly believe killing him was a stupid mistake.
Another wonderful video. And I do think we can call Caesar a demigod, whose name echoed in the titles of people who never spoke the language of the Romans for two millennia.
One simply needs to believe, that in any matters that are open to interpretation, as long as you are succesful, one is acting in a Godly way. The ancients were not stupid. It is possible that Caesar could realize that Cato would make sure a conservative was the other Consul, and what that means, AND, take steps to nullify that by becoming Pontifex Maximus, while being a true believer. The man could only become Pontifex Maximus of the Gods favoured him, right? Evert risk he took, and came out on top, proved the Gods loved him. We look at Caesars life and see a confident, skilled, but also very lucky man. Caesar believed in the Gods. And the Gods believed in Caesar. But, more importantly, every one else saw it too. How could they not notice how many times Caesar had risked everything and come out on top? Everyone else believed too. All you had to do to be special, was believe in the Gods, and try. If you succeed, then the Gods favoured you. If you failed, they didnt. Caesar did all the rituals, he prayed, and sacrificed, and was proof to everyone, especially himself, that it worked.
It's difficult to be a fanboy channel, but they analyze his actions in his Roman context, along with the decisions he made, what he took and the consequences of his actions and policies. And also analyze the social context and Roman customs, and not only take the words of primary sources as absolute truth, and see the urban population of Rome as a mass without a brain and will of its own, but as one with its own desires and political will. And avoiding and recognizing bias and current meanings of certain institutions can affect your interpretation of events, as other RUclips channels do.
As you say, Roman religion was inherently political from the get-go. Not much difference between "The Gods want me to have all the cake" and "Lol, I can actually use religion to convince the peasants I deserve all the cake😂!"
@@nebojsag.5871 I wouldn't say it's, "The Gods want me to have this". More like, "The Gods gave all of this to me because it's my responsibility to guide my people". The Romans literally believed that everything about their way of life was divinely ordained. Rome itself was worshipped as a Goddess. People might look cynically on this but that is literally how Pagan Romans viewed the world. They were animists essentially. If everything has a spirit then the way things are is always inherently spiritual to some degree
You guys are better than this. Don’t show Octavian as August and call him Caesar. My Latin is ham fist but even I know not to show the wrong sculpture. You’re better.
From your first video you defined yourself as leaning left in modern politics. How about being neutral and try to see the past as per the lens of the people of the time. I hate both the right and the left twisting history with modern perspective for their respective agendas.
Unlike your deeply ahistorical (& consequently morally useless) video about the Pax Romana, this was a very nice video about Bibulus and Caesar & religion in the late Republic.
I don't buy this fanfiction that Bibulous believed what he said. It's possible, like Romulus being a real guy suckled by wolves is possible, but about that likely. People CAN believe what is useful for them, but that usually leads them to make some "true believer" mistakes that these politicians didn't make. I don't remember their texts perfectly so I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure most of the ancient sources say the Romans - even if they did generally believe these superstitious things - were faking it to manipulate the masses or achieve their political ends in most of the situations described (Polybius definitely does, he basically states the gibbon quote you dismissed in your last religion video!). Even sources who were clearly believers like Livy accuse some politicians of cynically manipulating religion for their own ends. Going by the reaction of the plebs, they seem to have thought the patricians were making stuff up for their political ends! If they thought the patricians really saw signs in the sky, why would they attack the patricians for political obstruction and ignore those signs? It's not like politicians today who use religion to achieve their ends really believe, so why would ancient politicians really believe? It seems like you're just trying to have a novelty take here :I
Did you even watch the video you seem to be ignoring several things? 1. The whole point of the Roman gods was prosper and protect Rome. To do that to the status quo must be upheld. in these circumstances, there is nothing cynical then about religion being used to uphold the status quo. You might as well be saying that Christians are cynically using Christianity to uphold, traditional, sexual norms . You see how stupid that sounds. 2. as already pointed out, there’s plenty of evidence to support that the Roman upper class was actually more religious than the poor class. 3. Even if that’s what they thought that’s not necessarily what happened. 4. The only reason the common people would’ve thought that was because he was contradicted by the console. Who by nature of his position is also high priest. Imagine if you will Bible college (a particularly rowdy and rough Bible college after all since this is an ancient Rome) One theologian says that he’s been studying revelations and he is now convinced that x politician that he doesn’t support is actually the antichrist. A More reliable theologian says that he’s also been studying my relations and he thinks the other guys theory is absurd. That is essentially what happened.
@@bryanmcclure2220 - do you really think "The only reason the common people would’ve thought that" is because the 'console' told them that and because of his religious duties? Really? This argument relies on the plebs being brain dead. They could see through political BS as well as we can, they didn't need to wait for the 19th century or w/e for someone to invent the term materialist to do that.
@@ouss You're exactly right. People should be pious. Though I wouldn't use Caesar as an example of Christian piety considering that He never heard of Christ and He Himself went on to be worshipped as a God in His own right. Ave Divus Julius!
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
What aspect of Roman religion should we cover next?
Definitely mithraism
Deez
Who's this Mithras? and why should I care?
Mystery Cults, Dionysus/Bacchus in particular.
Love the channel!
Lupercalia
i love that you often make distinctions between the modern world and our natural interpretations and comment on the viewpoints and intentions of your sources
thats it im buying a channel membership
Thanks - glad that you appreciate the extra effort.
“Alright I didn’t wanna play this card… but the gods are really upset about this. They told me.”
If Bibulus truly believed in his beliefs, he'd have allowed the mob to kill him. A consul's death would have mattered in 59 BCE even after Sulla's dictatorship.
I would go into hiding too if a mob poured poo on my head lmao
In the words of my generation, lil bro was traumatized
@@robert9016 The best generation.
yeah it was a rough day at the office for sure
Caesar might have known about monotheism from Platonism and Judaism. But it didn't fit into the Roman Imperial model, where gods of all peoples existed, but the Roman pantheon ruled over all others on merit of them being protectors of the Roman Empire.
0:16 Caesar Vs Pompey war was not the last of Roman Republic's civil war. Octavian Vs Antony's Actium was.
Arguably both these men were on the same aside of the economic and even social class struggle for dominance of the failed Roman Republic. To call what Octavian and Antony were doing a “civil war” is thus a stretch. They were simply fighting for control of the new state which was clear to all I think by that time was to be entirely controlled by the Optimates.
Julius Caesar still promised to make some significant changes to the distribution of wealth and land to the “populares” and strip power and wealth from the Optimates. That’s why the Senators assassinated him.
All pretense of wealth land or power redistribution was gone by Actium. It was a battle for control of the vital grain of Egypt and the top spot of the ruling class. Whoever could deliver stability to the ruling class authoritarian regime to come would be the victor. The people no longer mattered; it was clear to everyone that rhetoric alone along with the grain dole would suffice to pacify them.
Unfortunately.
That was a war between two Imperial warlords. The Republic was already dead.
@@TheKarotechiayou are right, you can call both Antonius and octavius as emperors of the western and eastern Roman territories, they had powers to even choose consuls for a tenure of 5 years
The last time I was this early, Ceaser was still a hostage.
Great video as always.
Just curious, isn't Pointifex Maximus one of the titles held by the Bishop of Rome?
Yes - the title of pontifex maximus lives on in the Roman Catholic Church though the job description has been altered a bit
that man whose wax image was carried on a cross through Rome for years thereafter.
showing the people the wounds inflicted on him as he was accused of wanting to be a king,
deified after a star was seen for 7 days over Rome shortly after his death.
yes, he also held that title.
Summus Pontifex, actually.
You see, a Pontifex is a buider of bridges, and became a by-word for priest (or, more specifically, a Bishop).
The Pope's title is Vicarius Iesus Christi, Summus Pontifex Ecclesia Universalis (Vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church), or Roman Pontiff (as in the Bishop of Rome). So, it basically is the title of the pope as head of the whole Christian Church.
@@Lucasp110 thanks for the correction
Extremely well done. To answer your question - I would like to see you explore the relationship between the Roman office of Pontiff and the resultant office of Pontiff in the inception of the Roman Catholic religion. I would find this fascinating. Thank you.
Thanks for the recommendation!
Really interesting - I love these in depth looks at Roman religion
Valde bona! Another great video. Thank you for your hard work!
RUclips be recommending videos real early
thanks for tuning in early! This one had a really strong debut that is helping it reach a wider audience so thank you for helping out!
Thank you for this high quality informational content! Please don't ever stop producing!
Thanks!
Wow, thank you so much for this support! Really appreciate it!
You do good work dude, I just felt guilty enjoying your work for 3 days straight and not contributing lol.
Thanks for getting me interested in Roman politics and seeing how it can relate to today.
@@Yaman328 Thanks so much! Very encouraging to know that the work resonates enough to be worth that gesture. Greatly appreciated!
I like how you go to great lengths to discourage us from making parallels between Rome and modern religious/social/political thought. That's a really easy trap to fall into. Their minds were products of their environment, just as much as ours are. "The past is a foreign country," after all.
Excellent history and story telling!
Thank you!!
Fighting anachronism and seriously considering what the romans thought and wrote about their own thinking and experiences are very important. But saying that someone ("us, moderns") has to take their own words about those experiences and thinking is a step too far, in my opinion. Every society have their own interdictions, mental taboos and opinions and experiences that cannot be freely shared. And there are mental dispositions that may not be actually entirely understood by the person itself or cannot be formulated clearly in the intellectual framework of a specific culture and time.
Really compelling storytelling and narrative
great work!!
Thanks a lot!
We also can't say the Caesar was above using religion to further his own goals
@@Buzterer again you’re thinking too much like a modern person. To Cesar, his goals were religious in nature.
Also Caesar emphasize being the luckiest General. Luck IS often See AS favor of the gods and He probably believed himself to BE blessed and favored by the gods
That doesn't mean the Caesar wasn't a true believer in his gods. There are many examples of people who manage to make religion march alongside their own interests while believing themselves to be acting on a largely religious basis. Projecting personal desires onto religious idols is not a recent phenomenon by any means.
Bibulous got clowned bro 😂 that is objectively hilarious
So many times too, really just couldn't help getting owned
I am enjoying this video and I would like the almighty algo to notice you. I chuckled when GWB suddenly showed up :)
Really good - more deep dives on Religion please
Really compelling narrative
You say "we moderns read Bibulus employment of religious objections as little more than a cynical ploy"
I was going to say "but the ancient authors seem to think that too!"
However, looking at what they said (in translation, which may be biased by modern views) it is rather ambiguous and my interpretation may be due to modern thinking.
Appian, Dio, Plutarch and Cicero's letters all describe it in ways that are compatible with him really believing sacred days or auguries. However, the reaction of caeser and his mob suggest they didn't believe those omens were seen, or I doubt they'd go against them!
That said some ancient authors said religious traditions could be used cynically for politics (even believers mention Claudius throwing chickens into the water). It seemed to me that Polybius book 6 "in my opinion they use it to control the masses" quote about roman religion, and Plutarch's Numa inventing superstitions for that purpose, imply that this was a bigger thing, but they could just reflect what Greek historians thought.
Still, the texts are at least as compatible with "it was a cynical ploy" as they are with "it was for real" and the former seems more likely to me.
I recommend you check out his earlier video as he actually addresses many of these points that you bring up here.
It only seems more likely because of modern western bias. You Assume that in a world where materialism didn’t exist. Somehow Cesar had a materialistic view of religion. You took a moment to think about it you realize it’s far more likely that he had the same view of religion. As did mostly everyone else in his time.
Also not believing that a particular politician has given you true omins doesn’t mean that you don’t believe in omins from the gods
I mean to put it in Abraham concept. The profits of ancient Israel, or constantly calling out there as being false prophets perverting, the truth exchange for money. But that doesn’t mean that the prophets cynical of all prophecy I mean, they were prophetic themselves. in addition, a close analysis of the text reveals that in many cases they didn’t even necessarily believe that they were rivals were liars. Only that they had been deceived by spiritual forces.
@@bryanmcclure2220 - I watched those videos at the time they came out and hated them which biased me against this one.
You don't need to be a "materialist" to make up fake portents for politics; you can accept gods exist, but make up a fake god for politics. That was before this time when "materialism wasn't invented." Like I said, even Livy and Suetonius(obvious believers) attack some people (Claudius and the chickens) for making up fake portents, and Plutarch 100% says Numa made up fake portents for politics. So if people were doing that centuries before, without being "materialists," why wouldn't people in Rome? The macedonians knew Alexander was faking being a god (given their reaction to his claims) long before this, they could do that without "materialism."
So you don't need "materialism" for any of this. That said, a lot of ancient philosophies like atomism seem to be materialistic or deistic and they were definitely accused of being that by their enemies so the idea 100% existed, so "materialism didn't exist" just seems false.
Every other video I've seen on this period by historians say religion was being cynically used by politicians. The footnotes and introductions of every copy of these texts I've read says the same. So this "they actually believed politically useful portents" view seems like an unusual one among scholars (not that I've looked at a survey, it's definitely not unique to this guy) so it being presented as THE true view is annoying.
@@WorthlessWinner deistic is not materialistic. There is a world of difference between two beliefs.
It’s possible that they were making up false portents as I said in my comment that is a possibility. I wasn’t refuting that was just clarifying some things. I’m not muting that making up false prophecies or potents is unique to materialists.
I am saying
1. You can’t suppose that because someone made up false prophecies or believe that others could make up false prophecies that they were cynical or materialistic about religion.
2. You can’t suppose these prophecies are made up at least from the viewpoint of the speaker. As he said, in the end of the video quite clearly. It’s not hard to imagine confirmation bias could ensure that the senator interpreted the world around him as being ominous.
Imagine if you will a scientist made some sort of scientific conjecture or prediction that turned out to be completely false . It’s possible that scientist was just making it up or it could simply be that he interpreted the evidence from a bias be that political or cultural or whatever.
@@bryanmcclure2220 - It's possible (just as the romulus and remus story being true is possible) and we can never really know what people's secret inner beliefs were so it's kinda pointless to speculate, but it seems improbable that they really believed all these things to me (and more important that the crowds didn't seem to believe they believed, given their reactions).
@@WorthlessWinner
1. But that’s exactly the point we can’t see what they believe so unless if their actions fit with the belief system of typical Roman. We have to assume that they had the belief system of a typical Roman.
2. You’re doing historical mind reading again nowhere in the account do the crowd accuse him of making up false omens.
(I would like to point out you it is considerably harder to make up false omens there it is prophecy for example Since they have to be things in the physical world and usually things that other people can testify to )
You Are making assumptions. you are trying Treat an angry Roman crowd as a were an angry American crowd. Angry Americans don’t Assault and humiliate one of their own senators, even if they disagree with them so you assume that he must’ve made some sort of heinous crime. How Roman crowds were more….. volatile
(I would like to point out the man never lost this position a hard thing to believe if people actually thought he had made up omens)
It is highly conceivable that the Roman crowd could reacted that way, cause they thought he was a hack, an idiot and other than incompetent. Or because they were simply frustrated are you assure you Romans crowds had far worse reactions for far less.
Great video
thanks!!
Pontifex- is that the same as pontiff?
Yes. Where do you think the Papacy took the word from?
yes
Bibulus’ dispatches had a significant effect on public opinion.
Hi I have just subscribed and will join - I want to support in wider capacities including funding/sponsorship/whatever. I would love to hear more insight on Caesar's actual policies, and the need for change etc
Thanks! I'm planning a video on Caesar's actions as dictator once he had won the civil war for early 2025
Please, cover the funeral of Julius Caesar and the Julian Games held later in the year. Did you know that at Caesar's funeral a wax image of his body showing all 23 stab wounds was mounted on a cruciform tropaeum?
amazing
Babe WAKE UP! Tribunate just dropped another banger!
The presentation is incredible, it feels as though you are reading from the perspective of a Roman “leftist”
Brilliant tactical moves by Caesar! 😁
Long live weed
Sure, why not
Forza Inter
as if this channel wasnt awesome enough its also run by a fellow nerazzurro, im in love ⚫️🔵
Guys, please do not use Papyrus.
But didn't essentially the vast majority of the religious traditions of Caeser's time believe in the afterlife? And as such implying to not believe in it implies he doesn't believe in any religious tradition?.
there were traditions that had a god but no afterlife. I suspect he was an agnostic or a deist, I'm pretty sure he didn't buy a word of the traditional religion he pretended to lead, anymore than he thought he was a god himself.
@@WorthlessWinnermodernist take. There was no distinction between religion and the culture he lived in. The supernatural would be as natural to him as metaphysical concepts like justice to us.
Agnosticism and deism both can only spring up after a fundamental shift in human society’s that we’ve seen in the west.
@@fabianmiron2782 -What the hell do you call the Epicurian view of god if not deistic or agnostic? This is like saying "they didn't have a word for blue so couldn't see blue"
@@fabianmiron2782
"Epicureanism does not deny the existence of the gods; rather it denies their involvement in the world. According to Epicureanism, the gods do not interfere with human lives or the rest of the universe in any way - thus, it shuns the idea that frightening weather events are divine retribution." - the wikipedia summary of epicurianism
if that isn't deistic, what is it?
@@fabianmiron2782 - half the time the sources show the portents accurately and in detail predicting the future. Do you think they actually had magical powers?
If not, they must have been lying after the fact. I'm sure you can make some story up about how "they really genuinely believed a vague prophecy" but that's BS and you know it
Hell, why did Tiberius threaten to kill his astrologer if he kept making fake predictions, because he thought they were fake? Why did tacitus say a lot of portent readers are scammers making up fake portents? I mean "they didn't even have that concept" according to you people, right?!
Was Plutarch even there? And yet he couldn’t keep hair. Also please mind your portraits. You show Caesar Augustus like it’s not a nephew. Check yer art and images. I’ll just have your head. I won’t crucify you. Get it correct.
Was cesars death justified
@@mazimazu8122he was planning two things:
1. A military campaign in Parthia
2. A bunch of legislation he would have pushed through the senate before his campaign in Parthia.
I don't know what legislation he was working on, but it was most likely populist reforms aimed at limiting the powers of the senate and stabilizing Roman politics while he was gone. The guy was getting old and he most likely would have died in Parthia, if not from battle then from natural causes. I honestly believe killing him was a stupid mistake.
Justified, I don’t think so.
I look at it like Jesus’ crucifixion, as unjust as it was, it gave them immortality.
@@mazimazu8122 justified yes the man was blatantly, breaking the law by making himself dictator for life.
stupid also yes
Another wonderful video. And I do think we can call Caesar a demigod, whose name echoed in the titles of people who never spoke the language of the Romans for two millennia.
One simply needs to believe, that in any matters that are open to interpretation, as long as you are succesful, one is acting in a Godly way.
The ancients were not stupid. It is possible that Caesar could realize that Cato would make sure a conservative was the other Consul, and what that means, AND, take steps to nullify that by becoming Pontifex Maximus, while being a true believer.
The man could only become Pontifex Maximus of the Gods favoured him, right? Evert risk he took, and came out on top, proved the Gods loved him.
We look at Caesars life and see a confident, skilled, but also very lucky man.
Caesar believed in the Gods. And the Gods believed in Caesar. But, more importantly, every one else saw it too. How could they not notice how many times Caesar had risked everything and come out on top? Everyone else believed too.
All you had to do to be special, was believe in the Gods, and try. If you succeed, then the Gods favoured you. If you failed, they didnt.
Caesar did all the rituals, he prayed, and sacrificed, and was proof to everyone, especially himself, that it worked.
“Undistinguished family”. But there’s still czars and kaisers. Hmm? Really? Oh. Umm. Hmm. Caesar starts with a “k”.
Ave Divus Julius!
#1 caesar fanboy channel back at it again
I wouldn't call this a Caesar "fanboy" channel. They're constantly criticizing him.
hardly fanboying when they condemned him for genocide in Gaul
It's difficult to be a fanboy channel, but they analyze his actions in his Roman context, along with the decisions he made, what he took and the consequences of his actions and policies.
And also analyze the social context and Roman customs, and not only take the words of primary sources as absolute truth, and see the urban population of Rome as a mass without a brain and will of its own, but as one with its own desires and political will.
And avoiding and recognizing bias and current meanings of certain institutions can affect your interpretation of events, as other RUclips channels do.
>any channel not presenting B&W narratives is fanboying
Caesar was a true God walking on earth, his mercy for the villains was the error that led to his downfall!
@@ZIC_lone_bee Ave Divus Julius!
@@WildMen4444 Ave!
As you say, Roman religion was inherently political from the get-go.
Not much difference between "The Gods want me to have all the cake" and "Lol, I can actually use religion to convince the peasants I deserve all the cake😂!"
@@nebojsag.5871 I wouldn't say it's, "The Gods want me to have this". More like, "The Gods gave all of this to me because it's my responsibility to guide my people". The Romans literally believed that everything about their way of life was divinely ordained. Rome itself was worshipped as a Goddess. People might look cynically on this but that is literally how Pagan Romans viewed the world. They were animists essentially. If everything has a spirit then the way things are is always inherently spiritual to some degree
The Thing is Romans didnt seperate Military,politics and Religion. IT was all one Thing to seperate this IS also silly.
You guys are better than this. Don’t show Octavian as August and call him Caesar. My Latin is ham fist but even I know not to show the wrong sculpture. You’re better.
From your first video you defined yourself as leaning left in modern politics. How about being neutral and try to see the past as per the lens of the people of the time.
I hate both the right and the left twisting history with modern perspective for their respective agendas.
Did you actually watch this video? It was all about how important it is to consider the people and events in their times, not from our perspective.
Where in this video do you see a left-wing twisting of history?
Unlike your deeply ahistorical (& consequently morally useless) video about the Pax Romana, this was a very nice video about Bibulus and Caesar & religion in the late Republic.
I don't buy this fanfiction that Bibulous believed what he said. It's possible, like Romulus being a real guy suckled by wolves is possible, but about that likely. People CAN believe what is useful for them, but that usually leads them to make some "true believer" mistakes that these politicians didn't make.
I don't remember their texts perfectly so I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure most of the ancient sources say the Romans - even if they did generally believe these superstitious things - were faking it to manipulate the masses or achieve their political ends in most of the situations described (Polybius definitely does, he basically states the gibbon quote you dismissed in your last religion video!). Even sources who were clearly believers like Livy accuse some politicians of cynically manipulating religion for their own ends.
Going by the reaction of the plebs, they seem to have thought the patricians were making stuff up for their political ends! If they thought the patricians really saw signs in the sky, why would they attack the patricians for political obstruction and ignore those signs?
It's not like politicians today who use religion to achieve their ends really believe, so why would ancient politicians really believe?
It seems like you're just trying to have a novelty take here :I
Did you even watch the video you seem to be ignoring several things?
1. The whole point of the Roman gods was prosper and protect Rome. To do that to the status quo must be upheld. in these circumstances, there is nothing cynical then about religion being used to uphold the status quo.
You might as well be saying that Christians are cynically using Christianity to uphold, traditional, sexual norms . You see how stupid that sounds.
2. as already pointed out, there’s plenty of evidence to support that the Roman upper class was actually more religious than the poor class.
3. Even if that’s what they thought that’s not necessarily what happened.
4. The only reason the common people would’ve thought that was because he was contradicted by the console. Who by nature of his position is also high priest.
Imagine if you will Bible college (a particularly rowdy and rough Bible college after all since this is an ancient Rome) One theologian says that he’s been studying revelations and he is now convinced that x politician that he doesn’t support is actually the antichrist. A More reliable theologian says that he’s also been studying my relations and he thinks the other guys theory is absurd. That is essentially what happened.
@@bryanmcclure2220 - do you really think "The only reason the common people would’ve thought that" is because the 'console' told them that and because of his religious duties? Really? This argument relies on the plebs being brain dead. They could see through political BS as well as we can, they didn't need to wait for the 19th century or w/e for someone to invent the term materialist to do that.
Everybody should take Caesar example and believe and follow the word of God
Abolish God
Yes, I agree. Especially Jupiter Optimus Maximus for he is the King of all the Gods!
@@ouss You're exactly right. People should be pious. Though I wouldn't use Caesar as an example of Christian piety considering that He never heard of Christ and He Himself went on to be worshipped as a God in His own right.
Ave Divus Julius!
God bless the US empire. And Jupiter bless the Roman Empire
Bruuuuuuuh
Well.. at least you are honest
@@jonathanguzman3044 I pray that both Iao Sabaoth and Jupiter bless America