Just finished season 1, while I'm not a history buff it seems that Caeser didn't really do anything wrong...

He was a white male

Def one of top tier fav shows of all time. It was no doubt Caesar was a tyrant but he basically played (cleverly at that) upon the already existing tension between the patrician and plebeian classes that was already present for many years. Both sides were corrupt and I can understand the arguments for both sides. One of my only gripes with the show is how they portray Cicero as some pussy manlet. The man was responsible for taking down the Cataline conspiracy for God's sake and one of Rome's finest men

>Men like Caesar got where they are because of their insatiable lust for power and control

Power was a good thing to the Roman's. The people who gained it, who reached the top of the Cursus Honorum, were celebrated and applauded. Caesar could just play the game better than any other man.

You burgers truly are retarded.

It's a pretty decent show for the public consumption. Gets the major facts all correct.

But had he penetrated anyone?

Attached: 1473280597182.jpg (400x610, 101K)

Attached: MAKE WAY.jpg (1920x1080, 341K)

It's arguably the best show HBO has ever made.
In terms of accuracy.. it's okay. It gets a lot of things right but also leaves out huge events and people. S2 condenses like 15 years into one because they cancelled the show prematurely.

Attached: tarantulas.png (340x190, 104K)

Cato's actor was based

no it's a GoT prototype for low IQ brainlet normies. avoid rome at all cost, such a disappointment.

Most of what I know about Caesar comes from Historia Civilis, but doesn't it seem like almost all of Caesar's greatest advisaries were just former friends that he pissed off?

Caesar literally made Rome great again. What a great guy.

Highly recommended. Like another user said, they leave out some detail but this video by History Buffs goes over what the show missed in comparing to actual historical events

youtu.be/fDTmgHCVWgg

Power is an illusion. He died helpless, alone and betrayed by those closest to him. At his prime, he had nothing that would prevent a worse fate than that of a commoner. Those who praise him are misguided and deluded that Caesar was anything else but a mere mortal whose lust overshadowed his intellect and brought on his downfall.

He helped the plebs and the plebs loved him

Fuck the senate for being too incompetent and corrupt,also fuck the gauls they are all barbarian filth that couln't manage to stay under roman rule for 1 sec without chimpout

Caesar did nothing wrong

We need a Sulla vs Marius kino

people may know he is now, but he wasn't well known before HBO's biopic.

Yeah, but he also reshaped the western world in ways that still affect our lives to this day in the process.

You need to stop applying today's thinking to Caesar. Everything he did was correct and moral from the Roman point of view. Today we see war as an evil, but to the Roman's it was the highest form of virtue.

How can one duo be so based

Attached: DE1C12DF-84CF-4A3C-85ED-BF937F2F8D3D.gif (365x206, 3.25M)

Would've loved to see Krasus' ass get his just dues by the Parthians too

The republican system was beyond repair at that point.
Before the wars on Carthage the patrician class used to be fairly homogeneous and the wealth was pretty balanced.
As soon as Rome expanded SOME patricians grew disproportionately in wealth (wealth resulting from governating a province after the counsulate or a successful war campaign) and started a massive farm buyout on the small landlords, bringing slaves to Italy and laying off thousands of farmers.
Farmers had no other chance than moving to Rome and joining the plebs urbana, they usually had no income and lived off gibs.
The last century and a half of the republic is spent in the effort of stopping the hemmorrage from the countryside to Rome and balancing out the wealth inside the Senate.
The republic fell because it became an oligarchy.

When I've finished Rome I plan on watching the Roman Empire on Netflix, but I hear they have historians on it which are totally wrong? Or do the historians fact check the show?

Keep in mind by that point in history there had been attempts at populist revolt already, notably the Gracchi brothers who wanted social reform. They and their supporters got butchered. By the time Ceasar showed up, the people had little trust in the old men of the senate and were ready for the "literally anyone else" option.

Attached: BANE.jpg (1270x525, 243K)

If it hadn't been Caesar it would have been someone else, he was simply a symptom of the condition plaguing the late era Roman Republic.
Caesar was actually the far more benevolent option, the power grabbers before and after him were far more violent, eliminating all their adversaries as soon as they achieved power. Caesar attempted to make peace with his former adversaries, and paid with his life for it, and would instead be succeeded by men who would leave no quarter and tore down the Republic.

>literally took up arms against his fatherland
Ceasar was depraved as fuck according to Roman mores.

Might as well watch both desu. I personally love History Buffs as a channel. I dont put too much credence into Netflix docs but that's just my personal preference. Theres tons of good YouTube channels covering this period. Historia Civilis is another good channel

Lol it's just a Triumph bro, why so worried?

>Roman Empire on Netflix

dont, its a fucking travesty, its a JOKE

from another user that posted this a while ago

>de bello gallico depicted
>roman legionnaires wearing lorica segmentata
>legionnaires without formation
>later Pompey threatens Crassus with A GLADIUS IN THE FUCKING POMERIUM IN THE CITY OF ROME
>surrounded by legionnaires in uniform, carrying swords
>after the battle of Pharsalus, Caesar threatens Brutus, treating him like some kind of prisoner
>Cato and Cicero no where to be found
>Pompey not getting murdered after leaving his ship
>but the best part is Pompey KNEELING before Ptolemy in his throne room. A CONSUL OF ROME KNEELING BEFORE A FUCKING FOREIGN KING OF A CLIENT STATE
>Caesar KNEELING before Ptolemy, and being frightend after Ptolemy presents Pompey's head

Romans had marched upon Rome several times at that point. When Antony was expelled from the senate by force it gave Caesar the justification he needed to label his enemies in Rome for tyrants.

Posted link in the last Rome thread for an user who wanted it, here's all the Hardcore History episodes on the fall of the Republic/rise of the Empire, called "Death-throes of the Republic."
Uploaded because the episodes are behind a paywall now, but everyone should listen to it if they're interested in more in-depth history on the subject. I've also got the Punic Wars episodes if anyone needs them, I forget whether they're behind the paywall or not now.
mega.nz/#F!J3xQkCzZ
Y1yeeo58IJQKEbt56pWbEQ
No dolphins, don't worry.

Attached: sacking of rome.png (500x375, 253K)

He only took arms against the senate because the senate wouldn't leave him alone for him abusing his power(getting more years as council than normal,forming 3 more personal legions,fucking the monopoly that was the roman economy system at that time and so on),He got only 2 choices,either surrender himself to the senate and die like a bitch or go in there and fix all that shitshow and the plebs knew it,everybody was on his side.

Oh lord, give me strength...

Attached: 1544462571818.png (375x302, 64K)

>The republic fell because it became an oligarchy.
user that's wrong on so many levels. The early history of Rome is all about the struggle of Plebeians for any power whatsoever. Look up the Lex Publilia. The Secessio Plebis was a major crisis, and it highlights how wrong your thinking is. Rome ALWAYS was an oligarchy, power was kept by a few families, and if you were not part of that special circle you couldn't change anything until the Lex Publilia was passed.

When the republic fell it was the most democratic it had ever been. Polybius tells us that Rome defeated Carthage because it was LESS democratic than Carthage (I can find the exact passage if you like). This allowed the state to suffer catastrophic defeats but not surrender, and not to be swayed by demagoguery.

youtube.com/watch?v=3B1IQYD4Uew

Open this thread in /his/

>Caesar KNEELING before Ptolemy, and being frightend after Ptolemy presents Pompey's head
Oh neat, so the series is alternate-history fiction then? Sounds like fucking Netflix.

Atia is the real waifu of the show

i started watching and it's getting boring so can someone please tell me when he invents his salad

When you finish Rome, it's time to watch I Claudius. In fact, it's best if you think of Rome as a prequel to I Claudius. Rome chronicles the rise of Augustus, and I Claudius covers the legacy that he left behind.

He invents tossed-salad when he takes Octavian into a broom closet. (allegedly).

He has to go to Vegas first.

>i prefer syrup

I don't get it, is this a Canada thing?

Attached: trying to understand that reference.jpg (1280x720, 56K)

google 'toss salad prison'. there's a documentary clip. you'll know it when you find it.

Attached: morbus.jpg (1920x1080, 159K)

classic

lmao

On second thought, I think I'm happier not watching a criminal describe his preferences regarding raping other men and will just take your word for it.

Have they invented kale yet? You're probably still at the part with cabbage. That's fine if you're a Cato, but whatevs.

Anyway, one of the guards says "Hail, Caesar! Kale, Caesar!" and a lightbulb goes off over Caesar's head.

but you forgot about muh democracy OP therefore caesar bad

lol look at those faggots

Yes, but so is Rome, though. Atia wasn't anything like that, nor was Octavian. The big events on the show happened, but not how they happened or when.

Cato was the one that fucked everything up

Yea, once Sulla marched on Rome the republic was doomed. Sulla's victory set the precedent for more strongmen types to exist, culminating in Augustus.

ayy

>nor was Octavian
What about his portrayal wasn't right, him fucking Octavia? Or him being kind of a brat in his youth? I thought S2 Octavian was supposed to have been pretty accurate.

>mfw patiently waiting for american caesar

best HBO show ever, top 5 tv shows ever.

Only issue is that got cancelled, so basically only has a season and half

To be fair historical Atia is no where near as interesting as show Atia. That last scene at Augustus' triumph was fucking poetry.

We need a Sulla to set the precedent for a Caesar to exist first.

Don't mention that trash in a Rome thread again you worthless shitposing faggot. You should be crucified and left to rot outside the walls.

i'd like to skip directly to the main course, though

>Julius Caesar
>generally unknown

Attached: confused dog.jpg (1280x720, 83K)

>>roman legionnaires wearing lorica segmentata

what's wrong with this part?

Attached: 1542945447449.jpg (957x621, 55K)

S2 was definitely a better actor, although perhaps a bit too much, I don't think there was a single scene of Octavian in S2 where he did anything other than conniving

He is probably an american user

Attached: 4858e6302b8122537577928e9a838cdc.png (420x420, 426K)

Link to this scene?

Anons, are you reverse-double-baiting or just kind of dim

He was way too soft in S1 and way too autistic in S2. He was not a warrior like Ceasar or Antony, but he wasn't one to back down battle, either. He won Ceasar's favor by crossing hostile territory on his own to join him in battle.

Octavian in Rome is more of a mishmash of himself, Caligula and a few others.

Atia was definitely more interesting. It's probably why they shook up Octavian's He accomplished a lot, but on a day to day basis was on the boring side.

I don't begrudge it from a storytelling standpoint, but Rome is hardly historically accurate. Pullo and Verenus were with Pompei, you know.

baited for this exact response

Attached: 1417836035209.jpg (308x302, 24K)

>rome has one good emperor
>literally the next emperor is paranoid pedophile who arbitrarily kills
>the emperor after him is an even more insane pedophile
dude autocracy is more efficient lmao

there's a book where humans invade hell and stumble across caesar. naturally caesar has made himself useful, and his henchmen/bodyguards are pullo and vorenus.
caesar is based even in the afterlife.

>former friends
roman friendship is not like sam and frodo style friendship

Congrats?

Attached: shrugbabby.jpg (400x357, 34K)

It worked tho

Even in Nero and Caligula rule Rome prospered

Attached: 1501921633090.png (279x348, 15K)

Calm down, Yang. Don't forget, there was also 1 (one) period of history where they had 5 (five) good emperors in a row.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerva–Antonine_dynasty#Five_Good_Emperors

Now, the emperor after that was a total asshole, but 85 years isn't a bad run, right?

It's a common saying that the only good Roman emperors were the adopted ones.

nice

NICE

tiberius and caligula were adopted

I'm an American too. Ancient Rome was like a 1-2 sometimes 3 month lesson nearly every year from 6th-12th grade.

lol based

>sacrifice democracy for temporary security

Ben Franklin would have cut your fucking head off for heresy like that faggot.

He already said it was b8.
Why people pretend to be dumb for replies I've never understood and never will.

Attached: retard troll attempt.png (817x1264, 22K)

No it didn't
Both Caligula and Nero drained the treasury with their debauched excess while Nero caused the Jewish revolts. Rome survived in spite of those two morons, not because of them.

Lorica Segmentata wasn't phased into til around the birth of Christ.

we learned zilch about rome but spent weeks on the underground railroad and the hall-of-cost.

>reverse double-baiting
I need to learn this god-tier technique.

Attached: bait.jpg (224x225, 9K)

>Legionnaires
Buddy, you have no place correcting Roman history.

Its debatable whether Julius Caesar destroyed the Republic or if the Republic destroyed itself through its own corruption. Caesar was brutal and ruthless but so was the Roman Republic.

Is an oligarchical senate really superior to a cunning dictator?

Attached: Julius-Caesar-easier to die than suffer.jpg (584x405, 107K)

Empire Games was excellent though.

Unbelievable

Just hide yourself behind multiple layers of ironic humor until nobody can tell what you actually think anymore and they stop wanting to talk to you.

I'm not saying they were the cause for rome being good,i'm saying that even with shit emperors rome prospered

btw the shit empererors didn't even lasted that long (4-5 years max just like a president)

2º btw Nero didn't cause the revolts the jew revolted because they're lying rats that didn't keep theirs promise after Jesus was killed.

So you fix the system. Don't throw away your nation's entire system of values on your own egotistical powerlust. Caesar was a tyrant who deserved what happened.

interdubmensional

>The man was responsible for the Cataline conspiracy for God's sake

Ftfy

link not working, user

disregard that, I suck cock
post punic wars if you want pls

Nero- 13 years
Domitian- 15 years
Commodus- 15 fucking years
Caracalla- 6 years
And those are just the objectively bad ones.
Nero literally caused the Jewish revolts by draining the treasury, and then ordering the Procurator to go take shit out of Herod's Temple.

this brings me back

Attached: 1487455089402.gif (200x200, 823K)

Caesar didn't do away with the Republic, it wasn't until he was murdered in the senate, perhaps the greatest crime in Roman history up to that point, that the Republic became doomed

I actually don't disagree with this. Caesar knocked the Republic over but the foolishness of the Liberatores ensured it would never get back up.

fuck thats what i've been doing now that you lay it out for me, thanks.

Uploading now, should have a link for you in ten minutes or so probably.

Attached: Romanae spatium.jpg (600x817, 112K)

Caesar is the natural result of decades of corruption, mismanagement and overrall negligence of the state. If you really wanna blame one guy, blame Sulla for taking the first shot at dictatorship and causing everyone with a shred of ambition to say "If he could, I can too"

You could not fix the system because the only people with the power within the system were those who benefited from keeping it like it is.

It's fitting that the conspirators actually tanked things even further because no subsequent ruler was going to tolerate powerful enemes after what they did to Ceasar.

Quicker than expected, here you go user.
Btw Carthago delenda est.
mega.nz/#F!E7JTXSKa
!jsw9A85Av1yRsVCwalOrgQ

Anyone ever listen to Mike Duncan's History of Rome podcast?

he assfucked the french. look up the battle of alesia

Attached: 1555850897358.png (1440x1485, 1.78M)

Is it wrong that I got a boner at the daughter-in-brothel scene?

Haven't watched the show, but turning a thriving Republic into a dictatorship is doing something wrong.

i'll vouch for the hardcore history rome episodes.
we don't deserve dan carlin.
every night as i drift to sleep. HoR is kino, especially as you notice mike improve his communication skills over the episodes.

Sulla's a piece of shit too, don't get me wrong. But its not like it takes accountability away from Caesar.
Google the career of Cicero and get back to me

>Rome 1st century bc
>thriving republic

that was hardly the case dawg

Revolutions is kino as well

Definitely, I recommend it and Hardcore History together, I think they're complimentary to one another. Duncan mostly just lays out the known facts in a simple way that's easy to follow, while Carlin gives you hours of context and sidenotes. I definitely recommend both rather than picking one between them.
It's been four months, Supernova in the East Pt.3 fucking when. I wanna see if it all worked out for Japan in the end or not.

Attached: hiroshima weather.jpg (485x435, 23K)

>the career of Cicero

>flourish and thrive in corrupt system
>end up with your head and hands cut off

Read Bronze Age Mindset friend

We lack the frame of reference to understand why he did it, as its outside the scope of our experience.

He became immortal by doing so

It was GoT before GoT unironically - it was too expensive so they made a fantasy show in the same irreverant style, which became GoT, it's why Caesar/Mance is in it, for example

That doesn't make him personally responsible.

yes also Revolutions

>Value the Roman virtues of liberty and prosperity
>See peace and stability as the best way to achieve that
>Advocate for reform while at the same time denouncing the fire breathing radicals that call for massive social upheavel
>Get killed by a debauched sociopath

was Claudius really as based as they depicted him in "I,Claudius" ?????

It's literally what every other politician was doing. Roman politics had been corrupt for decades. Rule number 1 of any history you get about Rome, is that it's either filtered through the perspective of the senators or of the military. The Senators were all a bunch of backstabbing aristocrats who were in it for themselves and then later wrote praises for their treachery. These are the same people who would send Roman citizens off for war and then seize their soldier's land for themselves and leave their soldier's families in poverty. At least Caeser rewarded his soldiers, made it a good guarantee that they wouldn't be fucked with after the war and stabilized the Roman government.

That pic is amazing

>Cicero as some pussy manlet
good because he was

He was right about literally everything

Nice hands though.

Caesar LITERALLY did nothing wrong. Every nation is a democracy. If the people truly despise a leader, they will find a way to get rid of him. Caesar worked within the confines of Roman law, the people loved him, and he improved Roman society via various reforms. The slimy senators then decided to kill Caesar because he didn't follow the ideals of the Republic enough. Oh fucking really? The guy who had a blank check granted by the Roman citizenry was an evil tyrant? The Senate were greedy aristocratic elites that were no different than the monarchs of old Rome that they pretended to hate so they could harp on the utopian ideal of the Roman Republic.

It's the same shit with the French Revolution. A bunch of power hungry maniacs no different from the monarchs they deposed. Where does your freedom get you when anyone deemed a counter-revolutionary is systematically executed?

History has proven time and time again that the public cannot be trusted to set up a system to serve their own interests. People need a savior with a vision for the people under his watch.

Attached: 12512.jpg (383x450, 74K)

Whites weren't a concept back then. He was just a Roman patrician

Caesar's problem was that he was trying to fix rome's political system from within by bending rules despite the fact that he knew it was plagued with exactly the kind of corruption and political violence that led to his death.

Things were so bad that took someone from outside the system like Octavian to sweep it away and set rome back on course.

Anyway it was a great show full of good actors and I really enjoyed brutus and cato's performances.

>changed nothing

>almost all of Caesar's greatest adversaries were just former friends that he pissed off?
jealousy is an ugly thing

But the rael question is what gonna happen when that savior die ? If you look at history most dictatorship had an A-ok first leader then after he died things just became another bloddier power struggle between diffrent sides in his party

>your mom will never ask if you've penetrated anyone

what book is this? sounds interesting

Rome was never a democracy

A dictator must choose a capable heir and nourish a society with the civic ideals of self improvement and service to the state. The Roman Empire existed for centuries despite several bad rulers due to these factors. And like I said before, every nation is a democracy. The truly bad leaders were killed.

he was complicated. based in some ways but also had no problem empowering the corrupt people around him, which led to the praetorian guard coming to power and his own wife poisoning him to death.

probably not. The guy was also a bit of a tyrant it seems.

>Domitian
>objectively bad
He is objectively one of the greatest emperors in Rome's history. Just because he pissed off the Senate doesn't mean he was bad

>If the people truly despise a leader, they will find a way to get rid of him
they did

Just because you're a contrarian who likes control freak autists doesn't mean he was good. You don't even want to here who I think the worst Roman Emperor is.

Well in caesars case what happened after his death was 300 years of peace and stabiliy directly due to the events he set in motion.

>implying a bunch of rich senators approach anything resembling the general public
What's happening in Venezuela is a true people's revolution. What happened to Caesar was a political power play by politicians who felt threatened.

>S*nate
>people
Those weren't the same things, and the following events proved it. You think Antony would have been able to whip the plebs into a frenzy if they'd all hated Ceasar?

In the short term Caesar did nothing wrong but in the long term he destroyed the Republic and by extension Rom itself. The entire point of the Roman government was to avoid putting a tyrant into power. The Senate along with the Playstation Consoles of Rome were designed to separate power. By becoming emperor Caesar doomed Rome to decline and destruction. History has shown that a benevolent dictatorship is a very effective form of government. However a series of bad tyrants ends your civilization.

That amount of centralization of power is not worth the long term risk.

>the senate
>the people

No.

>300 years of peace and stability

uh sure my dude

>300

lol no

The story of the Republic is the story of a rise
The story of the Empire is a story of decay and decline

The seeds for the Roman Republic's fall actually all began with the Senators murdering Tiberius Gracchus and his followers, who as the plebeian tribune was supposed to be sacrosant. It was as usual, the scheming senators who reintroduced violence and assassinations into the political playing field.

>doomed Rome

No. Rome survived a ridiculously long time, especially given the age it was in.

Caesar was never emperor though.

>doomed Rome to decline and destruction

I'm not sure if this is actually serious. The empire remained dominant for 500 years more. That's way more than most empires last.

if he wasn't assassinated would he be as known today?

all I remember was him crying like a bitch that he didn't achieve what alexander the great had

I want SPQRposting brainlets to leave
The seeds were sewn when they toppled the last power in the Mediterranean capable of opposing them.

This without Based Carthage to keep degenerate Rome's obsession with expansion in check thing can only go down from there

>The story of the Empire is a story of decay and decline

This is not even true either. By Augustus' death the empire hadn't even reached it's golden age yet.

blaming him for the downfall of rome would be like if america crumbled today and you blamed it on george washington.

the western empire didnt fall because it had emperors. it fell due to a combination of economic issues, decentralization, and pressure from mass migration.

>brainlets thinking that giving someone absolute power is a good idea

Attached: 1423000488655.jpg (306x306, 20K)

not to mention plague, mismanagement and internal strife

A golden age where the 90% of people living in Rome took bribes for a living and revolted if the train of free shit ever stopped. Nice.

>destroy all the principles your civilization is based on
>dude why did my civilization stop working

He was average. You need to realize that "I, Claudius" takes a lot of liberties with more sensational rumors from the ancient histories and ran with them. Most notably Livia been a puppet master.

Hadrian I bet.

You're shifting the goalpost, brainlet.

What you said is that Caesar doomed Rome. That is something we can reject entirely just by observing what actually happened.

Caesar was murderous and mad with power but at the same time it's not like Pompey and the Senate gave him much of a choice. He's not the bad guy, necessarily, but he's not some out-and-out villain either.
>Option 1: Surrender, be tried, exiled, and possibly executed for the "crime" of doing the exact same thing in Gaul that Pompey had done in Syria/Anatolia
>Option 2: RUBICON

Attached: man who got stabbed.jpg (500x375, 43K)

and an awful education system, proto-fifedoms holding onto the remnants of Rome's wealth, and Christianity

Really, it's amazing that Rome didn't crumble sooner due to all the extraneous circumstances and issues the civilization faced.

>Populist 1st generation out of slavery scum wants to participate in politics disregarding philosophy and theology
Positively plebeian

Attached: mpv-shot0002.jpg (960x540, 124K)

Probably Augustus you fucking loser.

are you implying that this was different after Caesar as opposed to prior?

What you fail to understand is that ~*I*~ am a special snowflake, and therefore I would be a member of the meritocratic overclass instead of the oppressed and downtrodden underclass in my ideal autocratic dictatorship.

Attached: Screenshot_20190314-022422.png (2560x1440, 1.21M)

Except Caesar took power in 49BC and Rome didn't fall until 475AD. If Caesar started some kind of collapse, then that collapse took an insanely long time.

>pull Rome out of pointless Germanic wars
>efficiently deal with threats to destabilize the Empire
>tell corrupt Senators to go fuck themselves
>decide to spend money on making the people of Rome happy instead of fighting barbarians
>only mistake was trusting his whore sister
he did NOTHING wrong

Attached: com.jpg (632x332, 35K)

Septimus Severus whose shit tier military-fiscal polices directly caused the Crisis of the Third Century.

>fuck the Senate and fuck the separation of powers
>waaaah why did my civilization decline

Rome was always like that tbf
In hindsight they got really lucky at certain points, if you take men like Vespasian, Trajan, and Aurelian out of the equation then the empire doesn't make it past the 3rd century (and possibly not even past the 2nd).

>Caesar worked within the confines of Roman law
No he didn't. He was declared dictator for life for no good reason. Augustus worked within the confines of the law (by changing the constitution), that's why he succeeded where Caesar failed.

See

yikes

>DUDE JUST GIVE THE ARMY ALL THE MONEY LMAO

Probably. He was considered a national hero in his own lifetime due to his military accomplishments.

Caesar was being murderous and mad when he got his legions in Gaul, long before the Senate flipped Pompey. The entire Gallic Wars was a scheme to get a large professional army, loads of money, and the love of the people at the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of Gauls.

There is a massive fucking difference between bribery being common and 90% of the people's livelihood based entirely on based on accepting bribes.

>waaah why didn't the static corrupt system just keep (not) working indefinitely
Ceasar's only mistake was not executing every senator the moment he had even a sliver of a chance.

He didn’t. Claudius and Cicero are absolute CUNTs. It all went to shit when they fucked him. Nobility arrogance and desire for power ruined it.

RIP Cimbri tribe
>tfw no white haired grey eyed wife to kill you when you run from battle

cringe

>arguing that Caesar was correct only because you want to self-insert yourself as a Roman dictator

Attached: 1523931040846.jpg (1024x681, 102K)

>marcus aurelius getting a good rep because of his self help book even though his nepotism caused the year of five emperors

Fair. But it's not all that different from Pompey going all Alexander on the East, well beyond what he'd been authorized to do.

I thought Marius was the one who killed them

Most overrated emperor ever

Again, let me ask you: Are you implying bribes and free shit were more common immediately after Caesar than before? I'd love to see some sources on that, though I doubt they exist.

Oh yeah, you're right. I get my gallic names mixed up too easy.

>waaaah why did my civilization decline
I think most civilizations would be happy to have a 500 year "decline" which involved them dominating half a continent

well he conquered France, Egypt, then Rome itself so probably

>Hey Senate how about you change the constitution of the Republic and give me all of the powers, its not like I just eliminated all of my serious political rivals and dissenters and have the loyalty of all the legions in the Roman Empire ;)

Augustus succeeded because there was literally no one left with enough power or courage to oppose him. Of course the Senate would change fucking everything because they saw what happened during the proscriptions.

>Pass over your son as heir
>He becomes a rallying point for dissidents and unrest, potentially a civil war

>Make your son heir
>Maybe he'll grow out of his phase

Aurelius was in a lose-lose situation

>Augustus worked within the confines of the law (by changing the constitution)
Yeah, changing the constitution with the entire Roman military backing him up.
>Hey guys how about you make me Kin-err, I mean "first citizen" and give me total legal authority in all these provinces that just so happen to be where all the legions are stationed oh and also the richest province in the empire is now my personal estate ok thanks

He should have just given the emperorship to the gladiator. Hey, remember The Gladiator? *crack* *sip* Yep, The Gladiator, now that was a good movie. *sip*

Its not that they weren't more common, its that they were completely ubiquitous.

During "Golden Age" the urban poor made up over 90% of the free people in Rome. the majority of them did not work for a living and instead relied on the grain dole and their patrons to provide them with food in exchange for political support. If you think that isn't degenerate, there is no hope for you.

True enough. But didn't the dude have like 14 kids or something? I'm amazed that there weren't better candidates in that bunch.

>But didn't the dude have like 14 kids or something?
He had 13 children but they almost all died in infancy or childhood. Commodus was the only boy to live longer than Marcus himself.

>Grain dole

Fuck dude. You realize it was actually JULIUS CAESAR HIMSELF that more than halved the grain dole. Prior to his reforms an estimated 320k people received the grain doled, which he cut down to 150k.

Commodus was the only male still alive.

>entire system of values

Rome was a steaming pile of shit. Caesar unironically did nothing wrong.

This. Aurelius was all in all a victim of circumstance which is why I think stoicism was so alluring to him. Another reason is that I think he had his head on straight enough to realize that he was ruling an empire in decline

I know that you get your history from youtube videos, but I'm making a case for why the empire was bad, not for why Caesar's personal policies are bad.

yeah thats what I mean. What kind of luck is that. He must really have pissed of the goddess Fortuna

Yeah its not like Mithridates had a bad history with Rome with the genocide and all.

All the other stuff was just taking advantage of a bunch of petty kingdoms that would have been steamrolled by the Parthians if the Romans hadn't stepped in.

The Roman Republic is the most successful civilization in history and it was propelled entirely by Roman virtue.

The Antonine Plague must have had a massive impact on him too, seeing so many of his soldiers, people, and possibly family members just dropping dead for no apparent reason. Gotta cope with that somehow.

>did not work for a living
source you lecherous illyrian

The massive population didn't hurt either. Not many other civilizations could have come back from Cannae the way the Romans did, they simply wouldn't have had the manpower.

You didn't answer him you fucking brainlet,grain doled was still present when roman was a republic (and even more so),you claiming that the empire was bribing the people because of it is just stupid

Attached: flat,550x550,075,f.u1.jpg (550x550, 38K)

no, the case you were making was that things were somehow better prior to Caesar and worse afterwards. And what you used to make this case was bribery and grain dole being more prevalent in the golden age of the empire. I have yet to see you actually prove that this was the case.

Looking for a source, itll take me a sec

hadnt they been practicing meritocracy through adoption for awhile? he could have picked someone else to be his son.

Caeser was based and laid the foundation for a lasting empire but honestly fuck Napoleon. He may have appeared great for France whilst he reigned, but the long-term consequences of what he did was awful for them. France already had great borders up to the Rhine by the Peace of Basel in 1795, before he even came on the political scene. He didn't need to invade Spain or Russia, nor did he need to annex the Netherlands as they were all his allies at the time, and the end result was needless antagonizing of his allies that ended up to be his downfall, and the reversion of France to lose all the gains it made from 1790 onwards. His invasion and reorganizing of the German states paved the way for the biggest threat to France in the form of a united Germany. And invading Egypt was retarded. All he did was cause the Ottomans to decline far more than they would've otherwise and left his troops to die. And it ended up being the British taking advantage of the much reduced control the Ottomans had on Egypt in the aftermath. The only benefit from that campaign was them stumbling across the Rosetta Stone, and I'm sure they didn't need a French expedition for someone to eventually find that rock. Plus him trying to reinstate slavery in Haiti after the slaves had already won ensured that the French would permanently lose control over the island. When he realized this too late he ended up deciding to sell off all of Louisiana for literally less than 3 pennies per acre.

The post-Sulla Republic was as good as dead.

You can't resuscitate a corpse.

Caesar was the better ruler for the Roman state. It's unfortunate that he wasn't allowed to complete the reforms he started, but his arrogance (and clemency) got the better of him.

yeah but only because the previous emperors had coincidentally didn't actually have any natural born sons who lived long enough to become emperors themselves.

The only reason that the past 5 emperors were chosen on merit was because their predecessors didn't have any male offspring.

>All he did was cause the Ottomans to decline far more than they would've otherwise
based

The murderers had to go into hiding after his death; the Roman mob wanted to eat them alive.

they were practicing adoption out of necessity

>The Post-Sullan Republic was as good as dead
Thats very substantiated.

I personally don't mind it since its so cool

I first heard it from THoR but I recognize thats not a top tier source so I'm trying to track down what his sources were.

It seems insane to me that the same board that made 95 continuous GoT threads and nearly as many Endgame ones last week, is the same pace currently having a nuanced and detailed discussion on the various contributing factors of the decline of the Roman Republic, as well as weighing the decisions of the participants against the outcome of history.
The same board that spams Simpsons threads and will run a cunnythread well passed 150 posts. Amazing what a good topic can bring out of this place.

Yes but not intentionally.

This discussion isnt particularly sophisticated desu

Yeah we're all basically just regurgitating shit we heard from podcasts or Historia Civilis

it's because there's nothing actually good on TV

if you want to talk about the handful of actually good shows ever made people will reply

Why did Cato wear a black robe

mods are asleep, post overrated emperors

Attached: diocletian.jpg (441x600, 73K)

It's more interesting than any other thread on this dogshit board, if only for the subject matter and the at least passing familiarity anons seem to have with it. Of course, there's not much competition for most interesting thread around these parts.

Honestly you don't have to, because I know what you are referring to. Yes bribery was rampant in periods of the empire. But the lack of nuance in your statement (if that was yours) "republic: rise, empire: decline" is astounding and that is what I originally was pointing out. By the death of Augustus, Rome still had the best (and worst) ahead of it.

It was a mourning thing, he was saying the republic was dead

I've done a bit of actual reading, but I don't really have the time or the energy to sift through my spotty memory of Plutarch, Livy, and Goldsworthy to foment precise arguments.

oh. interesting. thanks
makes me wonder what else I missed

Roman politics was somewhere between hundreds and a couple of thousand rich men all competing for the same government positions so they could brazenly steal vast amounts of money from the provinces and improve the prestige of their families.

The most powerful, prestigious few dozen families liked it when it was basically a game of passing the top titles between each other so most of them got a turn, but when people from lesser families(still retarded rich) won these positions it drove them fucking crazy. Now Caesar was kind of from a top family fallen on hard times, more famous than they were rich at the time is one way to think about it. So to start with he wasn't firmly in the category of the contemporary best families, called The Optimates (or sometimes supporting these families was called being an Optimate, rather than the families themselves, but you get what I mean).

But they could deal with an occasional Caesar style outsider getting top positions occasionally. Cicero was far more of an outsider but had been Consul not long before. The thing that really pissed people off was the combination of his slight outside status and the fact that he was Populares. This meant, basically, that he championed the causes of social orders besides the very top families, including both peniless commonors who nevertheless had votes, and very rich people who nevertheless didn't quite have the status to compete politically. The Optimates saw getting 'the mob' on your side like this as cheating, a way for people to manipulate the populace to piggishly wrest power from the hands of their betters. They saw Populares politicians as enemies of their power and privilege.

tru tru

Oooh, "foment". Look at mr SAT prep over here.

Its a more then solid show and they do not get anything wrong, just leave out some stuff.

So Caesar was from a slightly marginalized but nevertheless famous family fallen on hard times. That was one thing. And he was a Populares. That really pissed them off. But then once he won top positions he became one of the most successful military commanders in Roman history. It just seemed like he couldn't stop winning. A surprise election winner, who rabble roused the mob to cheat the system and rob the most elite Romans of their rightful privileges and offices(as they saw it), and now he's showing them up and becoming one the top 2 most revered and powerful men in Rome?(Pompey was the only competition)

They fucking hated that, and that's why they needed to stop him.

>The best
Lets agree to disagree. This is getting very subjective very fast

>and they do not get anything wrong
Well I think we can safely say that Augustus never fucked his sister and the entire fall of the Republic didn't hinge on one soldier getting into a barfight

thanks, friend

>an awful education system
Spartan agoge was the best. A shame they never built an lasting empire and spread that good shit.
>proto-fifedoms
Better fiefdoms where serfs have at least some rights than slave plantations that were previously the norm
>Christianity
had nothing to do with Rome falling
This, fuck the Senators. Worthless greedy piece of shits.
Honestly wish he actually did die in 175 and Avidius Cassius took over instead

there's an argument to be made for the church weakening the authority of the emperor

How dare you

Any time user, happy to share.

Attached: Rome VS the World.gif (145x83, 2.95M)

Sure. Although don't act like it was an objective, facts-based discussion the entire time, my dude.

The church was pretty far down the list of things that weakened the authority of the emperors, especially in the west.

No there isn't. Try and find a single historian who believes that shit today.

Actually, it's because the character of Cato was based on Johnny Cash.

tell that to Theodosius and Ambrose

If you've read any books about the period you'll actually be surprised at how accurate the storyline is. Stuff gets added to fill in the gaps in the historical record, but an amazing amount of the plot, including very minor details, is perfectly copy/pasted from the histories. I'm talking about legal technicalities and short term political strategizing that in any other adaptation would be simplified to the point of being completely unrecognizable.

>implying that the ghost of edward gibbon doesnt still haunt the english countryside

>Power is an illusion.
No it isn't. Stop with the fucking thought-terminating cliches.

His main motivation was debt

Seriously that's some "we live in a society"-tier bullshit

still better than nothing nigga

So is these series worth watching? I remember catching it back when it was airing, but I never really committed to watching it and eventually fell off.

Power is a social phenomenon. It's a description of a pattern of human behaviour or a consolidation of collective power influenced by the will of an individual. Saying power is an illusion is like saying language is an illusion. It's clearly not. Something doesn't have to be a discrete physical object to be real.

Beautiful. Reminds me of simpler times.

Thus like how Trump (wealthy family, but not really one of THOSE families) gets in power with the support of the unwashed masses and everyone freaks out.

(Ducks from thrown objects)

>when you owe some people a lot of money and your solution is to just conquer and enslave all of France

Attached: 300px-Modern_Problems_Require_Modern_Solutions.jpg (300x227, 12K)

Yep. Easily the coolest thing about him is his solution to his situation.

Season 1 was absolutely terrific. Season 2 was a bit rushed though, they had to compress everything between Caesar's death and the Battle of Actium down to just one season so the time skipping is a bit jarring. The most egregious bit is when they have to re-cast Augustus with an older actor halfway through because having a 15-year old kid ordering the Senate around would have been silly.

there are 5 or so HBO shows that are basically the only shows worth watching

Rome? Yeah, hour-long episodes and you can marathon them pretty easily if you got some time.
Definitely recommend it over game of trash.

>(Ducks from thrown objects)

Embarrassing.

it's one of the salvation war books. it was all over the internet years ago, I think it was a fanfic thing back then

I did like his entrance though.
>"Hello Timon. Still fucking my mother?"

Gotta pay for that autobahn somehow.

Attached: Hitler European Tour.jpg (488x543, 65K)

>comparing some new money real estate mogul to an ancient patrician family
>making Rome-US politics comparisons in general

Attached: rdj.gif (268x268, 1.57M)

That's the least egregious bit of that user's b8post.

>Season 2 was a bit rushed though, they had to compress everything between Caesar's death and the Battle of Actium down to just one season so the time skipping is a bit jarring.
*It's a real shame they had budget problems, we could have easily gotten 4 or 5 great seasons otherwise. Originally the plan was for the show to cover the entire reign of Augustus.

user, it was cheap bait and you took it.

>We could have gotten I,claudius prequel

Fuuuuuuuuuck, life is unfair

He reminds me more of Cicero. Made his money in real estate. From a new rich family. The Republican elites don't accept him as one of their own, but enough of the middle classes identify with him that he's reluctantly accepted

>I,claudius

Attached: I Claudius.webm (1000x750, 2.77M)

Man, what i wouldn't give just to see Young Livia fucking shit up in her prime

At least I'm not the only one falling for it

Great show but definitely favors the Caesarion pov

the books are better, good show though

A lot of the real history we've got access to is basically pro-Caesar propaganda anyway. The main source for how amazing Caesar was in Gaul is...Caesar.

The amazing thing is that while Caesar often got lucky, he also frequently didn't. A lot went wrong with the long conquest of Gaul. It was a massive Bennie Hill clusterfuck of running around putting out fires. I think there were 2 "great rebellions" within a decade, Caesar outright lost one battle, and by all rights should have lost the final climactic one. Caesar was just that good at rolling with the chaos and pulling gold out of his ass, even when the chaos was the result of catastrophically ill-judged decisions and outrageously dumb gambles he'd made earlier.

That said he was a savage who would have rightfully hung at Nuremberg. But as a story about a god-tier improviser Caesar''s life is such a ride.

When did Trump become "New Money"
He 3rd generation very wealthy. His sister was a top judge, he old NY money, just not Astor level old money.

Sulla normalized the use of the army when he marched on Rome, not once but twice.

This was possible because of the Marian reforms, which expanded eligibility for the army to include the masses, which gradually shifted loyalty from state to general.

Sulla was an optimate, and so nominally restored the Senate to power after he had his fill killing off his enemies, but the deed was done. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, once it's no longer taboo, it's permitted.

Not that violence was ever taboo in Roman politics; you can trace most of this back to the Gracchi brothers and their failed attempts at land reform. They successfully used the popular assemblies and the office of tribune to advocate and push through reform. The ruling nobility organized mobs and lynched them, first one, and then years later the other.

The political situation in Rome was untenable. Land reform was necessary, the nobility had monopolized the use of a majority of public land and wealth had become extremely concentrated. The poor had little to do, were increasingly reliant on the public dole, and unrest was rampant.

Caesar understood that. He took advantage of it, sure, but luckily for Rome he was a genius adequately equipped for the challenge.

Cicero could read.

Based user saying it like it is. I wish we had secessio plebis these days.

All that material he gave you and that's the best you come up with? How embarrassing.

Those nips.

If you liked Rome, watch I Claudius next. It's an older series, but there are a lot of really good British actors in it (Patrick Stewart, John Hurt, Derek Jacobi, John Rhys-Davies, etc.). It takes place after the events of Rome and you get to see the descendants of some of the characters in Rome and the reigns of several future Emperors.

He could read though.

I need sauce on the Nero- kike link. His wife Poppeia was one right?

>Sulla was an optimate, and so nominally restored the Senate to power after he had his fill killing off his enemies, but the deed was done. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, once it's no longer taboo, it's permitted.
I wonder how long things would have gone on as "normal" if Sulla hadn't done what he did. Sooner or later some general would have to realize that there was nothing stopping him from just marching into Rome as long as he had the legions.

>doubling-down
Doubly-embarrassing. If you're just trying to get replies at least try being creative about it user, you can do better.