Sulla was a reactionary. Both his first and second March on Rome were in reply to actions by Marius and his supporters. First Sulla was removed from his command against Mithradates to satisfy the vanity of Marius, whose declining health made him unfit for the task. After Marius seized the consulship he went on a murderous rampage against his Optimate opponents. I'm not defending Sulla's actions but both sides had blood on their hands.
Most Americans don't understand for from Greek, Roman, Magna Carta, all the way to 1776 American founding fathers, the so called Republic is really just a partnership agreement between elite slaves owners.
We must remember that Julian as a youth was taken in by his uncle Eusebius, one of the great early fathers of the Christian movement. An Julian was a professing Christian for awhile....
Rome's republic surely had imperial factions before it wore the title of empire Lamenting its decline and fall seems counter to any honest desire for human flourishing
Constantine was full of it. He was such a pathological committer of Fratricide that he only confessed his sins to a priest on his deathbed, as it was only then that he could guarantee that he wouldn't murder any more of his own family.
Your comment, echoing Tacitus, about the immediate impact of war - the blood and death - followed by the long-term consequences - the heartbroken grief and bloodthirsty longing for vengeance - is very apropos today in both the civil conflicts and cross-border wars we see around the world. Their immediate impact is deadly and heartbreaking, but you remind us not to underestimate the longterm aftermath, the bitter hatreds that are now being unleashed to prey upon the living for uncountable decades, even centuries.
The idea that there was no actual ideological disagreements ruling anything about this civil war is one I would have hoped a channel like this would be more skeptical of. You actually make Tacitus sound more neutral then he actually was by downplaying how he was a Propagandist for the Flavian Dynasty, as was Suetonius. It served their interests to paint Nero as a Tyrant and the Year of the Four Emperor as Horrific Chaos to discourse further rebellion against Flavian rule. And it often serves the interest of Victors to deny those they defeated actually believed in anything.
IMHO, this is another excellent video using the founding of Rome to illuminate a great theory of the interconnected roles and significance of history, myth creation, and culture on society
Using BC and AD doesn't make you a Christian any more than donning a yarmulke at a Jewish funeral makes you a Jew. I know, ive done it several times and I'm still not Jewish. BC and AD is simply Western Civilization.
@tribunateSPQR I seldom agree with Neil Tyson DeGrasse, but I agree when he says he uses BC and AD simply to give respect to the people who devised the dating system we use. To me, you can jettison the system if you feel it is inextricably connected to Christianity but then use an entirely different system. Furthermore, BCE and CE begs, "what exactly is that event that delineates the "Eras?" Of course, there is no event that makes the Common Era common to Asians and Patagonians and Innuits and Europeans etc etc etc. It's nothing more than an avoiding substitute. And it's English, correct? Does "Before the Common Era" produce the same "BCE" acronym in other languages? If not, isn't that language chauvanism? At least AD is Latin.
Finally, I never thought I'd run into someone else who thought like I, Cato was most responsible for the destruction of the Roman Republic. Cato the Younger was one of the most evil people in human history.
I think this video is not providing a plausible story. It isn't properly knowledgeable regarding the late development of neo-Platonism. Paganism at this time was monotheistic, with the One at the top, then the Demiurge (which was a good, although deficient Platonic reflection of the One). The Hellenic/Roman gods in this monotheistic system were simply manifestations of natural forces and indirectly of the will of the One via the Demiurge, and can be compared to an unruly flock of angels or later on: saints. Denigrating Julian because of a failure to understand what Paganism was at the time, does not make a good impression. I think you should remake this video, and this next time make it properly.
Jesus came to India in his missing years from the age of 12 to 30.. appeared in Judea at 30..Aftrr escaping crucifixion he again came to India and died at ripe age in India.. His tomb is in Kashmir, India.. St Thomas the deciple of Jesus came to India in 52 AD.. established churches in south India, died in India..
This "god of battle fields" is not a god of mine. I don't care about historical plans, but priests that defend their sociopathic kings and call them "elected by God", have a cynical influence on their religions, that in the long run makes poor people in the lowest classes feel abandoned by God, and truly learned people look down their noses upon the priests.
I know that the Carthaginians in the 3rd Punic War weren't even of Hannibal's generation, but man was that effective. Rome never had to deal with them again. I think we can learn a lot about how to use a victory from them.
I really wish you'd make longer videos, like Generic History Videos (or even Thersites, though his accuracy is somewhat lacking). There are so many brief overview-channels dealing with Roman history, but very few ones which go into depth. It's a niche that needs more people in it. I'd rather take fewer, but longer, videos. Sadly, I guess the algorithm doesn't reward that. Anyway, great content! I really like your comparisons to modern society and thought, as well.
kill all the men and sell the women and children into slavery? start wars for glory? pretty bog standard fare for the times. as much as it's fashionable to make moral judgements on the past from a modern perspective, rather try the opposite. judge this by that standard and see what you get
"Men cursed...a crime being done & in the same breath did it themselves" That's it thats the horror of things & about as harshly as it can be criticized in times of Emperors.
