Your videos have reignited the flames of a long civil war in my family, between those who deify Cicero (mostly lawyers) and those of us who aren't Cicero groupies (historians and anthropologists). A most welcome break from fights over depressing current Argentine politics.
Indeed I also GREATLY prefer discussing history(various periods of Western History) with my family rather than politics. Because even though we all agree on modern politics....that shit is awfully depressing to discuss with the current state of affairs of an unelected cheating baboon currently in office on behalf of a corrupt cabal of conspirators called the demonrat party, a bunch of communist scum who are loyal to China not their own nation and people. Their personal GDP is all these people care about; that, and hatred and jealousy of their own people and country. But anyway. my family has always been big Caesar fans; and likewise, big Augustus fans as well. And so am I. As a result I dont like Cicero at all; he talked the talk but never walked the walk, and he met his end after trying to use and then ultimately betray and have killed(or exiled in poverty AT BEST) Octavian the future Augustus Caesar. Cicero seemed to think he could remain a neutral party - heavily in service and favor of the optimates, but also wanting the actual peoples support the populares, but not running for any significant office himself or taking any real risks(he made his name in the courts after all) himself; like when he vocally supported the Assassins of Julius Caesar(who he SHOULD have been condemning since even Cicero himself was on pretty good terms with Caesar NOT TO MENTION the fact that Caesar is the only reason he was still alive and had spared his life) and even saying "I wish I was part of this". His own flippant attitude and desire to use the Caesars while also wanting to be part of the optimates, ended in his own death at Mark Anthony's hands. I can't even say it was undeserved either; he had slandered Mark Anthony in ways that you simply cant imagine NOT getting a violent reaction from a guy like him over. Like when he went on and on about how Anthony was basically controlled by his overbearing wife(though it was true to some extent, the things Cicero says shouldnt have been said); and Octavian, though always wanting to keep Cicero alive, seemed both unable and unwilling to stand up to Mark Anthony and Lepidus on this issue, and allowed them to kill him via the proscription lists. After all Cicero had already betrayed Octavian quite badly, and he KNEW, from letters and informants, what CIcero and the senate ultimately had planned for himself; a fate not unlike what they did to his uncle Julius Caesar. Cicero was a great author and an effective lawyer. How he reacted to Clodius' bullying and threats was downright cowardly though. And he never wouldve had to deal with that in the first place if he had stuck to his word and NOT started viciously slandering Caesar and Pompey and Crassus. Cicero was on fairly good terms with Caesar but Pompey didnt really like him, and neither did Crassus. He occasionally talked shit about Caesar too, but nothing like Cato for example. Cato is the man most responsible for the downfall of the Roman Republic with how bloodthirsty he was for Caesars death, and the deaths of all his supporters and all populares leaders; Pompey followed suit after he formally joined the Optimate side(Pompey was originally a populare of course; while Crassus was alive anyway, while there was still a First Triumvirate) because he was fearful above all that he was seen as lesser than Julius Caesar as a General, and he would rather fight him to the death than be seen as a lesser General. Which was REALLY dumb of him as a reason to betray an old friend and ally, and the man whose daughter he had married and loved a great deal, Julia. Pompey was basically manipulated by smarter people than him into taking the side of the optimates...little did he know that Cato would DEFINITELY have come after himself the SECOND Caesar had been killed if he had won the civil war; Cato, after all, was a jealous little man, that wanted to bring Romes greatest generals down, ruin them in the court system, and have them exiled to some distant province without money AT BEST, and imprisoned for life(which would mean they would die in jail in a couple years at best considering how awful Roman Jails were and how neglected the prisoners were - many starved to death straight up), or even outright killed by optimate assassins. The Senate has a LOOOOOOONG history of murdering Populare leaders. Caesar was FAR from the first, the Gracchi brothers come to mind as well as many others; they would murder and throw them in the Tiber. Octavian learned from these mistakes so I cant blame him for being extremely cautious towards the senate, and not relaxing his guard against them EVER, and not visibly relaxing his guard against the Senators until after he destroyed Mark Anthony and after most of the Republican senators were already dead and replaced by Men who werent connected to the old Republican order; like all the Gallic chiefs, and Spanish chiefs and so on, that were on Augustus' side and who he put in the Senate; that Caesar had originally started putting in the Senate.
I'm a lawyer and yes, in our profession, people like Cicero are for some reason held up. Cicero was a good lawyer, but he really didn't understand the profound trouble the Republic was in due to wealth inequality and desperation of the free workers. Just like most lawyers today. They are generally terrible at connecting social phenomena with actual causes.
It's because sometimes doing nothing let's some problems fizzle out and doing something can seriously screw things up. It's just hard to tell when doing nothing is the right option lol
@@stickemuppunkitsthefunlovi4733 that's very forgiving. The fabric of the society was based on patronage and had the mos maiorum to maintain the fabric, and this generation of aristocracy threw it out the window. Saying "it's hard to know what to do" doesn't absolve them of critically undermining the system of patronage that created and sustained them.
@@theLetterDoubleYou The fabric of society was build around the notion, that you as a citizen had your privileges in exchange for self-funded military service. Citizens were owners of public corporation. By this time, that ship had sailed long time ago.
@@OkurkaBinLadin that is an ideal. The reality was enacted by patronage. An example of the difference is that Pompey's veterans could expect resettlement for all the reasons you listed, but they had to look to Pompey to actually advance their interests as their patron. This patronage was throughout Roman society, there wasn't a place that this system didn't touch.
I'm more inclined to think he was making panegyrics of the Claudius Claudianus's kind 4 centuries before he was making his gruesome panegyrics about the heroic first consulships of Honorius (child emperor).
@@waynemarvin5661 He was a slave-owning slumlord who had a completely delusional view of how politics in his era actually operated hence why he lost. You might as well romanticize Robert E Lee while you're at it.
It's ironic that Cato who tried in every way to sound and appear as frugal and morally upright as his famed grandfather, Cato The Censor, yet he supported the summary execution of a citizen. Not just a citizen but a patrician. This is clearly against not just the law of Rome but its an attack on the very spirit of the law. That Caesar is speaking to uphold Roman law but Cato and Cicero are speaking to abandon it for expedience sake is very backwards. It's as if they've all forgotten who they are.
Despite his unorthodox methods, Caesar had an inherently conservative spirit. His tight adherence to the mos maiorum's age requirements for advancing along the cursus honorum shows this. Even in his dictatorship he wished to co-opt and convince members of the great aristocratic families to join him. Augustus was the true progressive, through intelligence and decades of work transforming Roman society and politics into something completely new, creating brand new patricians with no concern for the ancient mos maiorum's rules.
The detail of a lonely Catiline that we see in this video is from a famous painting, "Cicerone Denuncia Catilina (Cicero Denounces Catiline)" by Cesare Maccari, who finished it in 1888.
Him and Caesar would have been interesting allies. Honestly I feel like Sertorius being defeated single handedly prevented Rome breaking apart into a bunch of warring states. If he had been able to break away, we would have seen Caesar, Pompey and others do the same.
Can you blame him? Caesar was awesome in all ways, Cato was a bitter little man that instigated others into starting a war that truly ended the Roman republic, and he shouldve damn well known better too. He just hated Caesar too much for things like logic to matter....it was a VERY personal affair for Cato. He had always hated Caesar, esp since Caesar had a sexual relationship with Cato's sister that esp pissed him off.
This is the single most helpful video I have watched to helping me understand the situation that cultivated the need for the First Triumvirate. Thank you so much for making this. You earned a sub! ⚔️🏆📜
thanks for the video! I hope the secodn Byzantine Emperor tier list comes soon! And I do hope you can have some collaboration with Eastern Roman Empir eyoutube channel or Robin Pierson from History of Byzantium podcast
I respectfully find your derision of Crasus a bit heavy handed. He was involved in prior conflicts and was certainly no military hack. Much of his ruined reputation, I believe, was due to the Roman’s fixation on throwing anyone under the bus in order to preserve their aura of invincibility. “It was Crassus! Not our almighty legions!” He’s certainly not in any “greatest generals” conversations but certainly couldn’t have lucked his way to the extent I feel you’re implying here in the servile war. Perhaps their is a source I’ve not consulted and am open to why you’ve adopted this stance. Thanks and I enjoyed the video thoroughly.
“Isn’t it a bit late in the year to be building a tower like this old man?” Crassus to a Syrian noble “I’m not the one invading Parthia!” Syrian noble to Crassus. - the foolish invasion of the east and subsequent disaster at Carrare tells us all we need to know about the generalship of Crassus.
@@dgetzin Carrhae saw the Romans sabotaged so badly it was essentially an ambush. Guides were corrupt and deliberately kited them around the desert, depleting their resources and strength. They were informed the Persians were weak and unaware when in fact they’d set up reload stations on the outskirts of the battlefield and disguised their cataphracts for max impact. Crassus held his army together waiting for them to run out of arrows, a sound strategy and based on his intel it was correct as the Romans held firm, but they were skirmished till nightfall (again, because this was essentially an ambush). Caesar would have lived but even he would have had has ass absolutely kicked here. The Romans were regularly winning battles when fewer in number and Crassus’ mistake was the Armenian political situation and not accounting for the potential betrayals that eventuated. You don’t think it’s interesting how the Romans bury the reputation of people who lose after a defeat, even those they worshiped prior? We’re lucky our sources survive or people like you would have thought Antony was a terrible soldier based on Augustus’ damnation of him, because that’s what they did. Please give actual evidence that isn’t posthumous damning?
I judge Crassus' eastern campaign to symptomatic of poor generalship because he chose an open route rather than skirting the mountains to the north, which gave the Parthians more chances to take advantage of their mobility. Further, Crassus had not commanded troops in nearly 20 years and was stepping into a major command that required someone who possessed more skill, a deeper bond with his men, and more physical vigor than what Crassus could muster at that point in his life.
@@ThersitestheHistorian appreciate you arguing your position. In summarising Crassus’ final campaign, I think your assessment is fair, while there’s reason to believe his son pushed for some of the misfortune, Crassus was in charge. The fact the average person in the street believes Scrooge McDuck decides to be a general and die one day is the average person’s idea of him, ignoring his prior achievements does mean he’s been simplified and slandered to an unrealistic degree.
Just found your channel recently. As a general fan of history I'm glad to see that there is at least one statue-head on the internet who isn't a wingnut lunatic. Unfortunately this means that your comment section still ends up riddled with the same people who mistake you for such. Good videos either way, nice to see an analysis from the bottom that stuck in a book.
Rome was not capitalist like the USA today. Yes Crassus was rich, but he was universally hated. Here in the USA, the richer you are the more you are perceived as wise, intelligent, decisive, sexy, ect. In Rome, you had to go win battles to be associated with social success. So Crassus is uber rich but he really wants to be loved by the people and leave his mark on history but he utterly fails. In fact, the Romans even had laws that restricted how lavishly one could dress. Romans hated extravagant displays of wealth.
Luckily, rich guys trying to make themselves a political career they don't need in order to feed their own ego is not something that happens in current America. Oh wait
@@annascott3542 Well, considering that we remember how he basically killed himself and his entire legions by being a terrible general against the Parts, idk if it's the way he would like to be part of history.
@@jmiquelmb Crassus’ “bad” generalship really lacks substance the more you look into it. Played a key role in the civil war, defeated Spartacus after several failed but losing meant to protect the legions you had to bury the reputation of the general. Look harder into it, the idea a rich guy bought an army and marched to Pathia is ridiculous. Carrhae saw the Romans sabotaged so badly it was essentially an ambush. Guides were corrupt and deliberately kited them around the desert, depleting their resources and strength. They were informed the Persians were weak and unaware when in fact they’d set up reload stations on the outskirts of the battlefield and disguised their cataphracts for max impact. Crassus held his army together waiting for them to run out of arrows, a sound strategy and based on his intel it was correct as the Romans held firm, but they were skirmished till nightfall (again, because this was essentially an ambush). Caesar would have lived but even he would have had has ass absolutely kicked here. The Romans were regularly winning battles when fewer in number and Crassus’ mistake was the Armenian political situation and not accounting for the potential betrayals that eventuated. You don’t think it’s interesting how the Romans bury the reputation of people who lose after a defeat, even those they worshiped prior? We’re lucky our sources survive or people like you would have thought Antony was a terrible soldier based on Augustus’ damnation of him, because that’s what they did. Please give actual evidence that isn’t posthumous damning?
Thersites: described as being lame, vulgar and dull-witted. Ha! That's funny stuff as I just found and love this channel and you seem pretty sharp to me. (Though it's possible I'M lame, vulgar and dull-witted hmmm)
He did attempt to recruit Cicero. Cicero was not quite a big enough deal in terms of his wealth and military chops to make it a Tetrarchy, but he would have added a good deal of debating and legal prowess to the group.
The Boni really had no idea that the version of Rome that existed in their heads was a fever dream. Provincial governors had more power than any king of the time. The legions were more and more devoted to rich men instead of the state. In the end they retained their status at the price of their pride. They had to bow down, in all but action, to the First Citizen. The Republic died as soon as Sulla marched in 87 bce because he changed the rules, and even before that the Republic showed its utter weakness by going to war with its allies just to give them everything they wanted. Not a good look for an institution controlling most of the Mediterranean. To me, Caesar saved a dying state and gave it 500 years of new life.
The best part about that title is that it was given to him ironically by the Senate as an insult. He just spun it as an actual Title. Haha. Now 2000+ years later, he still holds that title.
Do you happen to have a video on the actual Marius vs Sulla war? Been searching through your videos but can't seem to find one. Kinda difficult to find stuff about that particular conflict and if this video is anything to go by, your content on it would be absolutely brilliant.
There are quite a few omissions in the perspective offer re d here. Surprisingly due to the normal diligence spent offering a more objective view. One that stood out was the fact that Crassus was a great hero ofnthe Sullan Civil War by his deed in the battle to seize Rome. That is quite an extraordinary military accomplishment. Crassus raised tur army to defeat Spartscus was primarily due to the fact he was one of the largest slave holders in Italy. These types of omissions are the same with several other profiles. A thorough edit might be in order.
I would love to see an opinion on Julius Caesar. I know he can be taken a lot of different ways. Was he actually a man of the people? I just notice some of the people who hated him were not the greatest people themselves, and the Senate genuinely did represent only the wealthy essentially in all reality. Caesar did seemingly pass populist reform which very much was for the people (although it certainly benefited him as well). He was also seemingly very popular with the people themselves. He seemed to show moments of great judgement, and he was a talented military commander no doubt. Though, there are also the things he did in Gaul, some of which were pretty cruel and even genocidal. War ain't pretty, but it seemed that after Gaul, Caesar cooled down a lot and became all about forgiveness. To be fair, in Gaul, he was also very forgiving and tolerant as well at many moments if you go by his account (does not make up for some of the acts he did commit even if taken at face value as true). But in the Civil war with Pompey, it is said when he learned of his assassination that he wept greatly and only wanted him to surrender, not killed, and Caesar often presents himself that he wants to make Friends. In the HBO Rome series, it gives Caesar a similar appearance throughout that everybody he meets he just wants to make friends with, I noticed it through almost every episode of the first season. He never really went out and murdered those against him (if I'm correct), but those against him did murder him. In fact, Augustus murdered more political enemies than Caesar ever did, and Sulla before him as well. Was Caesar planning to if he succeeded in his bid? Perhaps, we can't say for sure, but a lot of signs do also point that maybe he was a man of some compassion for his fellow Roman, but simply viewed the gauls as barbarians (back then, this wouldn't be so farfetched perhaps). Caesar did seem to have higher ambitions and very likely aimed for what Augustus would have. But were his intentions in, his mind, the best interests of Rome and Romans out of disdain for the broken system, or was he doing this simply to strengthen his own foothold and power and nothing more and he was just a dictator, like Sulla, who would've been ruthless had he lived? It's hard to say but he did seem a very diplomatic type too, and he is often displayed as a man of clemency especially after the Gallic wars through to his assassination. Sorry for the rant. But maybe that gets some creative juices flowing. Feel free to correct anything or add to it, but it'd be interesting to see a video with your take on Caesar and whether he was good, bad, or neutral, or if you could even judge him at all in that sense. In my opinion, Caesar most certainly would not have become another Sulla. But he certainly was not a saint either, but I think it's important to remember that nobody really was in this time period. So I like to give my opinion based on the standards of their time, rather than the standards of today. I think you would be the perfect person to delve into such a topic.
See oben Dictionary Popeye =POMPEIUS Gadälayne CATILINA Scisse CAESAR Sissirow CICERO Keydow. CATO Merican Academics are able to pronounce the name of the Director of the WHO Gebrejehsus but NOT the name of CAESAR ! That's why they will kill Culture ! ' Cause Culture is too difficult to know all those names like Gädeläinae
I was under the impression that the character of Crassus' real estate investment consisted up showing up at a fire with his own private fire brigade, which would do absolutely nothing until the property owner sold to Crassus for obols on the denari. Also, one may imagine that Crassus' men may have set the fire in the first place. Is this wrong?
@@augustopinochet1670 Should Crassus burn down parts of Rome, impoverishing citizens and decimating neighborhoods, for free comrade? No, that "service" costs money.
I don't think that is likely, although it is possible since it would make him relevant again and end his unproductive rivalry with Pompey. Crassus is more likely to to be the architect than Pompey, however, since Crassus in general seems to have had a better grasp on politics and political strategy.
Don’t most people credit Caesar with the triumvirate? He basically convinced heavier hitters than he that he was a bridge and the secret ingredient to get everyone what they wanted while at the time having the least sway.
Don't mean to sound like a right-winger (see Carefree Wandering's video on wokism for a left critique on identify politics) but there's probably a parrallel between the Optimates ultimate failure & modern identify politics (see: Kamala Harris) Fantastic video btw, one of your best
08:48 English is a stress-timed language. Where we put the stress in words or sentences denotes meaning. Been lectured on Rome many times. Never heard Optimates pronounced like that; because the stress is obviously on the A and not the I. The penultimate vowel, just like in Latin, but that's generally the rule in English too from that. Generally the rule. We have a lot of overlap in interests, but your nonstandard pronunciation always marrs it for me. 12:00 "AE" sound is not the same as the "EA" sound. They're opposites, so praetor is obviously said like "praytor" and not like preator. These are English pronunciation rules, as well as Roman in this case. It's the same with medical terms that use the EA in pronunciation, or place-names, like with Cannae. We don't have a mish-mash of exceptions, but go for consistency in language, like the Romans did. 20:30 There's no such thing as "most" centrepiece, it's either the centrepiece legislation or it isn't. I'm starting to lose the will to live, here. All I did was read books like, Suetonius or Cicero. I'm actually a modern historian, I just do the classics for shits and giggles. 41:55 Cato the Younger was old school patrician and a staunch stoic. He was not interested in fame or the pomp and drama needed to make it in the old Republic or the new Imperium later on. This was why even contemporaries respected him. About his rank, he wasn't that rich, was he, and not that good a general. He only ever wore a black toga and not flashy belts, like Gaius Caesar did in the senate and employed Cicero once to sue over a marriage contract that he was happy was broken, but it was the principle, as he told Cicero. This is Cato the Younger all the way, but I think also explains why he did not go far, I don't think he much wanted to. It's also a shame how he has been misappropriated in US politics. America is not the new Rome and it never was, the stunted Pax Americana that lasted barely decades is an insult to Rome, even in comparison.
The optimates were the republicans of the time Remember American politics were founded upon the Roman Republic Since the founding fathers were huge fan of Rome and the used its system as a mold
Your videos have reignited the flames of a long civil war in my family, between those who deify Cicero (mostly lawyers) and those of us who aren't Cicero groupies (historians and anthropologists). A most welcome break from fights over depressing current Argentine politics.
As a liar, I think Cicero is a bitch for always chafing at Caesar and the Catalan conspiracy
Indeed I also GREATLY prefer discussing history(various periods of Western History) with my family rather than politics. Because even though we all agree on modern politics....that shit is awfully depressing to discuss with the current state of affairs of an unelected cheating baboon currently in office on behalf of a corrupt cabal of conspirators called the demonrat party, a bunch of communist scum who are loyal to China not their own nation and people. Their personal GDP is all these people care about; that, and hatred and jealousy of their own people and country.
But anyway. my family has always been big Caesar fans; and likewise, big Augustus fans as well. And so am I. As a result I dont like Cicero at all; he talked the talk but never walked the walk, and he met his end after trying to use and then ultimately betray and have killed(or exiled in poverty AT BEST) Octavian the future Augustus Caesar.
Cicero seemed to think he could remain a neutral party - heavily in service and favor of the optimates, but also wanting the actual peoples support the populares, but not running for any significant office himself or taking any real risks(he made his name in the courts after all) himself; like when he vocally supported the Assassins of Julius Caesar(who he SHOULD have been condemning since even Cicero himself was on pretty good terms with Caesar NOT TO MENTION the fact that Caesar is the only reason he was still alive and had spared his life) and even saying "I wish I was part of this". His own flippant attitude and desire to use the Caesars while also wanting to be part of the optimates, ended in his own death at Mark Anthony's hands. I can't even say it was undeserved either; he had slandered Mark Anthony in ways that you simply cant imagine NOT getting a violent reaction from a guy like him over. Like when he went on and on about how Anthony was basically controlled by his overbearing wife(though it was true to some extent, the things Cicero says shouldnt have been said); and Octavian, though always wanting to keep Cicero alive, seemed both unable and unwilling to stand up to Mark Anthony and Lepidus on this issue, and allowed them to kill him via the proscription lists. After all Cicero had already betrayed Octavian quite badly, and he KNEW, from letters and informants, what CIcero and the senate ultimately had planned for himself; a fate not unlike what they did to his uncle Julius Caesar.
Cicero was a great author and an effective lawyer. How he reacted to Clodius' bullying and threats was downright cowardly though. And he never wouldve had to deal with that in the first place if he had stuck to his word and NOT started viciously slandering Caesar and Pompey and Crassus. Cicero was on fairly good terms with Caesar but Pompey didnt really like him, and neither did Crassus. He occasionally talked shit about Caesar too, but nothing like Cato for example. Cato is the man most responsible for the downfall of the Roman Republic with how bloodthirsty he was for Caesars death, and the deaths of all his supporters and all populares leaders; Pompey followed suit after he formally joined the Optimate side(Pompey was originally a populare of course; while Crassus was alive anyway, while there was still a First Triumvirate) because he was fearful above all that he was seen as lesser than Julius Caesar as a General, and he would rather fight him to the death than be seen as a lesser General. Which was REALLY dumb of him as a reason to betray an old friend and ally, and the man whose daughter he had married and loved a great deal, Julia. Pompey was basically manipulated by smarter people than him into taking the side of the optimates...little did he know that Cato would DEFINITELY have come after himself the SECOND Caesar had been killed if he had won the civil war; Cato, after all, was a jealous little man, that wanted to bring Romes greatest generals down, ruin them in the court system, and have them exiled to some distant province without money AT BEST, and imprisoned for life(which would mean they would die in jail in a couple years at best considering how awful Roman Jails were and how neglected the prisoners were - many starved to death straight up), or even outright killed by optimate assassins. The Senate has a LOOOOOOONG history of murdering Populare leaders. Caesar was FAR from the first, the Gracchi brothers come to mind as well as many others; they would murder and throw them in the Tiber. Octavian learned from these mistakes so I cant blame him for being extremely cautious towards the senate, and not relaxing his guard against them EVER, and not visibly relaxing his guard against the Senators until after he destroyed Mark Anthony and after most of the Republican senators were already dead and replaced by Men who werent connected to the old Republican order; like all the Gallic chiefs, and Spanish chiefs and so on, that were on Augustus' side and who he put in the Senate; that Caesar had originally started putting in the Senate.
I'm a lawyer and yes, in our profession, people like Cicero are for some reason held up. Cicero was a good lawyer, but he really didn't understand the profound trouble the Republic was in due to wealth inequality and desperation of the free workers. Just like most lawyers today. They are generally terrible at connecting social phenomena with actual causes.
@@chucknorris202 TL:Dr both parties in the states are fked and they both work for elites only. Wake up
@@LTrotsky21stCentury ok trotsky
“Neglecting major problems until they completely blew up and got out of control had become a well-established tradition”
It's because sometimes doing nothing let's some problems fizzle out and doing something can seriously screw things up. It's just hard to tell when doing nothing is the right option lol
@@stickemuppunkitsthefunlovi4733 that's very forgiving. The fabric of the society was based on patronage and had the mos maiorum to maintain the fabric, and this generation of aristocracy threw it out the window. Saying "it's hard to know what to do" doesn't absolve them of critically undermining the system of patronage that created and sustained them.
@@theLetterDoubleYou The fabric of society was build around the notion, that you as a citizen had your privileges in exchange for self-funded military service.
Citizens were owners of public corporation.
By this time, that ship had sailed long time ago.
@@OkurkaBinLadin that is an ideal. The reality was enacted by patronage. An example of the difference is that Pompey's veterans could expect resettlement for all the reasons you listed, but they had to look to Pompey to actually advance their interests as their patron. This patronage was throughout Roman society, there wasn't a place that this system didn't touch.
Just voted in local government elections, knowing full-well that nothing will change.
I’d like to think Cicero’s lost poem was simply a love poem to himself that got too graphic and Rome laughed it out of existence
I'm more inclined to think he was making panegyrics of the Claudius Claudianus's kind 4 centuries before he was making his gruesome panegyrics about the heroic first consulships of Honorius (child emperor).
🤣 this is good.
You kids..... Do you even know who Marcus Tullius even was?
@@waynemarvin5661 Yeah, he's that dude that got his hands and head nailed to a soapbox in the forum because his shitposts were too real. Metal.
@@waynemarvin5661 He was a slave-owning slumlord who had a completely delusional view of how politics in his era actually operated hence why he lost. You might as well romanticize Robert E Lee while you're at it.
It's ironic that Cato who tried in every way to sound and appear as frugal and morally upright as his famed grandfather, Cato The Censor, yet he supported the summary execution of a citizen. Not just a citizen but a patrician. This is clearly against not just the law of Rome but its an attack on the very spirit of the law. That Caesar is speaking to uphold Roman law but Cato and Cicero are speaking to abandon it for expedience sake is very backwards. It's as if they've all forgotten who they are.
Despite his unorthodox methods, Caesar had an inherently conservative spirit. His tight adherence to the mos maiorum's age requirements for advancing along the cursus honorum shows this. Even in his dictatorship he wished to co-opt and convince members of the great aristocratic families to join him. Augustus was the true progressive, through intelligence and decades of work transforming Roman society and politics into something completely new, creating brand new patricians with no concern for the ancient mos maiorum's rules.
The detail of a lonely Catiline that we see in this video is from a famous painting, "Cicerone Denuncia Catilina (Cicero Denounces Catiline)" by Cesare Maccari, who finished it in 1888.
Imagine if Sertorius had succeeded.
A great place to control the ocean be the Iberian Peninsula.
Him and Caesar would have been interesting allies. Honestly I feel like Sertorius being defeated single handedly prevented Rome breaking apart into a bunch of warring states. If he had been able to break away, we would have seen Caesar, Pompey and others do the same.
@geordiejones5618 it ended up happening a few years later anyways under third triumvirate. And multiple times during The Empire.
Outstanding - by far the best exposition on this confusing time.
“In Caesar, I see many a Marius”- Sulla.
did he say that?
@@jessefisher1809 yes
You still can't hide your love for Caesar and your despise for Cato. Anyway, great Job!
Can you blame him? Caesar was awesome in all ways, Cato was a bitter little man that instigated others into starting a war that truly ended the Roman republic, and he shouldve damn well known better too. He just hated Caesar too much for things like logic to matter....it was a VERY personal affair for Cato. He had always hated Caesar, esp since Caesar had a sexual relationship with Cato's sister that esp pissed him off.
(((cato)))
29:18 And at that point, Pompey’s cat exclaimed, “I can Hasmonean?”
😂 caught that
This is the single most helpful video I have watched to helping me understand the situation that cultivated the need for the First Triumvirate. Thank you so much for making this.
You earned a sub! ⚔️🏆📜
Gettin into the death throes of the republic. Good stuff.
It's depressing how much this constantly makes me think of the US circa 2021
I hope you make a video about Sertorius sometimes in future, looks really interesting person!
Sertorius is a very interesting figure. Would love to see a vid focused on him and the Sertorian Wars.
thanks for the video! I hope the secodn Byzantine Emperor tier list comes soon! And I do hope you can have some collaboration with Eastern Roman Empir eyoutube channel or Robin Pierson from History of Byzantium podcast
He won't do it until he makes more in depth videos on emperors
What I learned today: Cicero was a Vogon and Pompey was a dead ringer for Barney Rubble.
Oh please do a video on the 1st Triumvirate!
I could listen to you literally non stop
Thank you for your work! Excellent summary!
Love your videos mate, but your not making enough of them. (PS i understand these take alot of time But i cant get enough of them)
I respectfully find your derision of Crasus a bit heavy handed. He was involved in prior conflicts and was certainly no military hack. Much of his ruined reputation, I believe, was due to the Roman’s fixation on throwing anyone under the bus in order to preserve their aura of invincibility. “It was Crassus! Not our almighty legions!” He’s certainly not in any “greatest generals” conversations but certainly couldn’t have lucked his way to the extent I feel you’re implying here in the servile war. Perhaps their is a source I’ve not consulted and am open to why you’ve adopted this stance. Thanks and I enjoyed the video thoroughly.
“Isn’t it a bit late in the year to be building a tower like this old man?” Crassus to a Syrian noble “I’m not the one invading Parthia!” Syrian noble to Crassus. - the foolish invasion of the east and subsequent disaster at Carrare tells us all we need to know about the generalship of Crassus.
@@dgetzin Carrhae saw the Romans sabotaged so badly it was essentially an ambush. Guides were corrupt and deliberately kited them around the desert, depleting their resources and strength. They were informed the Persians were weak and unaware when in fact they’d set up reload stations on the outskirts of the battlefield and disguised their cataphracts for max impact. Crassus held his army together waiting for them to run out of arrows, a sound strategy and based on his intel it was correct as the Romans held firm, but they were skirmished till nightfall (again, because this was essentially an ambush). Caesar would have lived but even he would have had has ass absolutely kicked here. The Romans were regularly winning battles when fewer in number and Crassus’ mistake was the Armenian political situation and not accounting for the potential betrayals that eventuated. You don’t think it’s interesting how the Romans bury the reputation of people who lose after a defeat, even those they worshiped prior? We’re lucky our sources survive or people like you would have thought Antony was a terrible soldier based on Augustus’ damnation of him, because that’s what they did. Please give actual evidence that isn’t posthumous damning?
I judge Crassus' eastern campaign to symptomatic of poor generalship because he chose an open route rather than skirting the mountains to the north, which gave the Parthians more chances to take advantage of their mobility. Further, Crassus had not commanded troops in nearly 20 years and was stepping into a major command that required someone who possessed more skill, a deeper bond with his men, and more physical vigor than what Crassus could muster at that point in his life.
@@ThersitestheHistorian appreciate you arguing your position. In summarising Crassus’ final campaign, I think your assessment is fair, while there’s reason to believe his son pushed for some of the misfortune, Crassus was in charge. The fact the average person in the street believes Scrooge McDuck decides to be a general and die one day is the average person’s idea of him, ignoring his prior achievements does mean he’s been simplified and slandered to an unrealistic degree.
@@rockstar450 Lacking foresight and being bad at reconissance isn't exactly what makes a great general.
Just found your channel recently. As a general fan of history I'm glad to see that there is at least one statue-head on the internet who isn't a wingnut lunatic. Unfortunately this means that your comment section still ends up riddled with the same people who mistake you for such.
Good videos either way, nice to see an analysis from the bottom that stuck in a book.
Rome was not capitalist like the USA today. Yes Crassus was rich, but he was universally hated. Here in the USA, the richer you are the more you are perceived as wise, intelligent, decisive, sexy, ect. In Rome, you had to go win battles to be associated with social success. So Crassus is uber rich but he really wants to be loved by the people and leave his mark on history but he utterly fails.
In fact, the Romans even had laws that restricted how lavishly one could dress. Romans hated extravagant displays of wealth.
Luckily, rich guys trying to make themselves a political career they don't need in order to feed their own ego is not something that happens in current America. Oh wait
He didn’t fail, as you say. If he had failed to make his mark on history we wouldn’t be discussing him right now.
@@annascott3542 Well, considering that we remember how he basically killed himself and his entire legions by being a terrible general against the Parts, idk if it's the way he would like to be part of history.
@@jmiquelmb Crassus’ “bad” generalship really lacks substance the more you look into it. Played a key role in the civil war, defeated Spartacus after several failed but losing meant to protect the legions you had to bury the reputation of the general. Look harder into it, the idea a rich guy bought an army and marched to Pathia is ridiculous. Carrhae saw the Romans sabotaged so badly it was essentially an ambush. Guides were corrupt and deliberately kited them around the desert, depleting their resources and strength. They were informed the Persians were weak and unaware when in fact they’d set up reload stations on the outskirts of the battlefield and disguised their cataphracts for max impact. Crassus held his army together waiting for them to run out of arrows, a sound strategy and based on his intel it was correct as the Romans held firm, but they were skirmished till nightfall (again, because this was essentially an ambush). Caesar would have lived but even he would have had has ass absolutely kicked here. The Romans were regularly winning battles when fewer in number and Crassus’ mistake was the Armenian political situation and not accounting for the potential betrayals that eventuated. You don’t think it’s interesting how the Romans bury the reputation of people who lose after a defeat, even those they worshiped prior? We’re lucky our sources survive or people like you would have thought Antony was a terrible soldier based on Augustus’ damnation of him, because that’s what they did. Please give actual evidence that isn’t posthumous damning?
@@jmiquelmb the fact you only know about his defeat shows how casual your knowledge is. Rome began before the first triumvirate mate...
Great work! I'm very curious about the history of the sculptures of Roman Emperors.
The pirates rocking up in Ostia and making off with 2 entire senators is just astounding to me.
Excellent.
Pompey was no angel, but less worse than some other individuals.
Thanks for this video
Thersites: described as being lame, vulgar and dull-witted. Ha!
That's funny stuff as I just found and love this channel and you seem pretty sharp to me. (Though it's possible I'M lame, vulgar and dull-witted hmmm)
Amazing narration
Caesar forgo triumph for the consulate. He was never one to mistake the appearance of power for it's real exercise...
Great research and synthesis work!
Didn’t Caesar try to get Cicero to join the triumvirate. Although it wouldn’t have been called the triumvirate then.
He did attempt to recruit Cicero. Cicero was not quite a big enough deal in terms of his wealth and military chops to make it a Tetrarchy, but he would have added a good deal of debating and legal prowess to the group.
Can you put these late roman Republic videos in a playlist?
The Boni really had no idea that the version of Rome that existed in their heads was a fever dream. Provincial governors had more power than any king of the time. The legions were more and more devoted to rich men instead of the state. In the end they retained their status at the price of their pride. They had to bow down, in all but action, to the First Citizen. The Republic died as soon as Sulla marched in 87 bce because he changed the rules, and even before that the Republic showed its utter weakness by going to war with its allies just to give them everything they wanted. Not a good look for an institution controlling most of the Mediterranean. To me, Caesar saved a dying state and gave it 500 years of new life.
Jup, agreed. The Senate of the late Republic was *absolute Dogshit* at anything other then enriching themselves at the expense of the State.
Yeah, but if you and I were born into the optimate elite, we would fight to the death to preserve it I bet.
Pompey The Great 😎
The best part about that title is that it was given to him ironically by the Senate as an insult. He just spun it as an actual Title. Haha. Now 2000+ years later, he still holds that title.
I was sort of hoping the Sertorian War involved fashion.
Do you happen to have a video on the actual Marius vs Sulla war? Been searching through your videos but can't seem to find one. Kinda difficult to find stuff about that particular conflict and if this video is anything to go by, your content on it would be absolutely brilliant.
There are quite a few omissions in the perspective offer re d here. Surprisingly due to the normal diligence spent offering a more objective view.
One that stood out was the fact that Crassus was a great hero ofnthe Sullan Civil War by his deed in the battle to seize Rome. That is quite an extraordinary military accomplishment. Crassus raised tur army to defeat Spartscus was primarily due to the fact he was one of the largest slave holders in Italy.
These types of omissions are the same with several other profiles. A thorough edit might be in order.
didnt the conference of luca happen when the triumvirat was already established and caesar was already governor of the gaulic provinces?
One of the greatest eras of Roman History, often neglected for badass battles and dictators…
I would love to see an opinion on Julius Caesar. I know he can be taken a lot of different ways. Was he actually a man of the people? I just notice some of the people who hated him were not the greatest people themselves, and the Senate genuinely did represent only the wealthy essentially in all reality. Caesar did seemingly pass populist reform which very much was for the people (although it certainly benefited him as well). He was also seemingly very popular with the people themselves. He seemed to show moments of great judgement, and he was a talented military commander no doubt. Though, there are also the things he did in Gaul, some of which were pretty cruel and even genocidal. War ain't pretty, but it seemed that after Gaul, Caesar cooled down a lot and became all about forgiveness. To be fair, in Gaul, he was also very forgiving and tolerant as well at many moments if you go by his account (does not make up for some of the acts he did commit even if taken at face value as true). But in the Civil war with Pompey, it is said when he learned of his assassination that he wept greatly and only wanted him to surrender, not killed, and Caesar often presents himself that he wants to make Friends. In the HBO Rome series, it gives Caesar a similar appearance throughout that everybody he meets he just wants to make friends with, I noticed it through almost every episode of the first season. He never really went out and murdered those against him (if I'm correct), but those against him did murder him. In fact, Augustus murdered more political enemies than Caesar ever did, and Sulla before him as well. Was Caesar planning to if he succeeded in his bid? Perhaps, we can't say for sure, but a lot of signs do also point that maybe he was a man of some compassion for his fellow Roman, but simply viewed the gauls as barbarians (back then, this wouldn't be so farfetched perhaps). Caesar did seem to have higher ambitions and very likely aimed for what Augustus would have. But were his intentions in, his mind, the best interests of Rome and Romans out of disdain for the broken system, or was he doing this simply to strengthen his own foothold and power and nothing more and he was just a dictator, like Sulla, who would've been ruthless had he lived? It's hard to say but he did seem a very diplomatic type too, and he is often displayed as a man of clemency especially after the Gallic wars through to his assassination.
Sorry for the rant. But maybe that gets some creative juices flowing. Feel free to correct anything or add to it, but it'd be interesting to see a video with your take on Caesar and whether he was good, bad, or neutral, or if you could even judge him at all in that sense. In my opinion, Caesar most certainly would not have become another Sulla. But he certainly was not a saint either, but I think it's important to remember that nobody really was in this time period. So I like to give my opinion based on the standards of their time, rather than the standards of today. I think you would be the perfect person to delve into such a topic.
I can't keep up with these I am 3 episodes behind LOL. Still good content to tackle one day!
For the Algorithm!
I just love these videos of ancient times. I try to draw at least some parallels to modern day, but they don't fit super well.
gridlocked senate reminds me a lot of todays politics
Pretty much the entire world is the late Roman Republic right now.
Why am I not surprised to hear this from a christian libertarian?
Uh oh, the kids have found you.
I believe Optimates is prononced ....( Opti-ma-taze )
Dictionary
Popeye Pompeius
Cadälayne Catilina
Sisse Cicero
Sissiroe Cicero
Keydo Cato
??????????????????
See oben Dictionary
Popeye =POMPEIUS
Gadälayne CATILINA
Scisse CAESAR
Sissirow CICERO
Keydow. CATO
Merican Academics are able to pronounce the name of the Director of the WHO Gebrejehsus but NOT the name of CAESAR !
That's why they will kill Culture ! ' Cause Culture is too difficult to know all those names like Gädeläinae
I was under the impression that the character of Crassus' real estate investment consisted up showing up at a fire with his own private fire brigade, which would do absolutely nothing until the property owner sold to Crassus for obols on the denari. Also, one may imagine that Crassus' men may have set the fire in the first place. Is this wrong?
I think he had both businesses, among other stuff. But I definitely heart about his private firefighters force
So what ? Should the privately owned fire brigade work for free, comrade?
@@augustopinochet1670 Should Crassus burn down parts of Rome, impoverishing citizens and decimating neighborhoods, for free comrade? No, that "service" costs money.
So it's been told. ... probably some truth to it.
(((crassus)))
Saving History puts forward the theory that Crassus may have been the instigator behind the first triumvirate. What say you Doctor D?
I don't think that is likely, although it is possible since it would make him relevant again and end his unproductive rivalry with Pompey. Crassus is more likely to to be the architect than Pompey, however, since Crassus in general seems to have had a better grasp on politics and political strategy.
Don’t most people credit Caesar with the triumvirate? He basically convinced heavier hitters than he that he was a bridge and the secret ingredient to get everyone what they wanted while at the time having the least sway.
@@christopherbataluk643 I'd suggest checking out his videos on Crassus and the triumvirate, he makes a better argument than I could
Had Caesar been elected to the post of Pontifex Maximus yet?
He was elected Pontifex Maximus in 63 BCE.
listening to this I keep thinking SSDD
holy shit, you need to hire a narrator.
He just needs work on his Latin pronounce.
I liked Sulla but I just realized hes a Republican? Ave Caesar, Ave Marius, Ave Pompey. Est Sulla
History rhymes
Indeed
very good history, although the Latin pronunciation makes me cringe
Don't mean to sound like a right-winger (see Carefree Wandering's video on wokism for a left critique on identify politics) but there's probably a parrallel between the Optimates ultimate failure & modern identify politics (see: Kamala Harris)
Fantastic video btw, one of your best
other direction - optimates usually are right wingers. Conservatives see no need to change as they are benefiting.
Ayeee
The way he portraits both parties totally discloses his bias.
❤️
Ave Me!
If the narrator only pronounced optimates better…
More like GAYUS Marius, hahahaha amirite?
08:48 English is a stress-timed language. Where we put the stress in words or sentences denotes meaning. Been lectured on Rome many times. Never heard Optimates pronounced like that; because the stress is obviously on the A and not the I. The penultimate vowel, just like in Latin, but that's generally the rule in English too from that. Generally the rule. We have a lot of overlap in interests, but your nonstandard pronunciation always marrs it for me.
12:00 "AE" sound is not the same as the "EA" sound. They're opposites, so praetor is obviously said like "praytor" and not like preator. These are English pronunciation rules, as well as Roman in this case. It's the same with medical terms that use the EA in pronunciation, or place-names, like with Cannae. We don't have a mish-mash of exceptions, but go for consistency in language, like the Romans did.
20:30 There's no such thing as "most" centrepiece, it's either the centrepiece legislation or it isn't. I'm starting to lose the will to live, here. All I did was read books like, Suetonius or Cicero. I'm actually a modern historian, I just do the classics for shits and giggles.
41:55 Cato the Younger was old school patrician and a staunch stoic. He was not interested in fame or the pomp and drama needed to make it in the old Republic or the new Imperium later on. This was why even contemporaries respected him. About his rank, he wasn't that rich, was he, and not that good a general. He only ever wore a black toga and not flashy belts, like Gaius Caesar did in the senate and employed Cicero once to sue over a marriage contract that he was happy was broken, but it was the principle, as he told Cicero. This is Cato the Younger all the way, but I think also explains why he did not go far, I don't think he much wanted to. It's also a shame how he has been misappropriated in US politics. America is not the new Rome and it never was, the stunted Pax Americana that lasted barely decades is an insult to Rome, even in comparison.
a lot of innacuracies
The Optimates remind me so much of the Republicans it’s scary
How so?
The optimates were the republicans of the time
Remember American politics were founded upon the Roman Republic
Since the founding fathers were huge fan of Rome and the used its system as a mold
Cicero and Caro were the greatest ever lived. If he had politicians like him nowadays we wouldnt be on this shit