Dude…. I love Vespasian lol. An old school Roman that appeals to the old way of thinking in the original republic…. He fit both mind sets of peasants and the nobility…. Not the best emperor but my FAVORITE…. Oh btw he made his fortune being a mule breeder and seller lol 😂
Just stumbled upon these brilliant podcasts, and in June of 2020, the Aurelius handing power to the Joker's 🃏 Jaoquin Phoenix, still has us in stitches lol.
I'm sure you are aware but them mention of the film Joker causes me to want to remind you that Joaquin played Marcus Aurelius' son Commodus in the film Gladiator in 2000. This was made around 2010 so Gladiator was still much fresher in peoples memory.
@@-timaeus-9781 I think you must have misunderstood my British sense of humour. I'm aware of Gladiator and Phoenix's great role as Commodus, as it is one of my favourite films that I've probably sadly watched about 100 times. I had been actually lording you on your momentarily, and ability at light heartedness and wit, during long and welcomed narrations.
Rob Gibson I think it’s because they were just so stubborn in the face of defeat. Hannibal beat them so badly, and so many times, that any other state would have simply surrendered
Rob Gibson As many have pointed out, stubborness in the face of defeat, but also a pretty *good geographical position* to start with. Rome was protected by the hills, but also, on a larger scale, by the Apennine mountains, which separated it both from the Po Valley controlled by the Gauls and from the more advanced and powerful countries of the Eastern Mediterrean. Also, during the reign of its 4th (semi-historical) king, Rome gained access to the saltworks at the Tiber estuary, an important source of income. There was fertile soil around in Lazio and to the south in Campania If I may oversimplify things, let me quote "Jeremiah Johnson": "river in front, cliffs behind: this'll be a good place to live". As this podcast often repeated in the segments on the monarchic and republican periods, Rome didn't invent much, but it was quick to *borrow and adapt from other people* (a prime example would be how they built their first major fleet when they entered the First Punic War, allegedly by copying a shipwrecked quinquereme), and it helped that it lay between the Etruscan and Greek spheres of influence over Central Italy. Note that neither the cities of Magna Graecia nor those of Etruria were united politically, so Rome was in little danger of being annexed by the ambitious ruler of a strong regional state. With some caution, the same can be said about the Gauls, the Samnites and even the Latins: at times they made alliances or leagues, but never went past that. Therefore, *Rome was free to build its own confederacy* . A population of *citizens-farmers-soldiers* was an element of stability both in political life and war potential: Rome only had to start paying its soldiers in 408 AD, when the siege of Veii carried on for so long soldiers had to neglect their field work and started protesting. And until around the Macedonian Wars, with their immense booty, wealth inequality in Roman society was tolerable enough to preserve the system of census-based military service. Unlike Rome, Carthage had to pay mercenaries for most of its defense. Also, as I'm surprised no one pointed out yet, its *mixed constitution* , praised by Polybius and a source of inspiration during the modern age, deserves a lot of credit for Rome's political stability and adaptiveness to changing circumstances. That is, at least until the end of the Republic. Just a few ideas. Cheers.
The archeology is also important. Imperium Romanum built, burnt, buried, left, lost, etc a lot in Britannia. The Saxons are said to have avoided inhabiting the Roman ruins, (substantial as Rome fled) considering them accursed. They were superstitious. But the Romans did win and lose it, spectacularly.
Otho was a good guy. His one mistake was not being present at that battle. He thought there would be more battles if he lost but as soon as the battle was over it became clear he was wrong.
You mentioned that Vespacian's business practices were a blemish. While I'd agree in most situations of corruption, this might have been one of the few times where it's actually needed. Seems like the economy was in jeopardy and he was desperate to fix it. Considering that he seems to have been spending this money on the empire, I think this is actually a case of ethical corruption.
Btw not going to mention Vespasian’s public works campaign including many temples and monuments and most importantly the COLISEUM?!??!? His great gift to the ROMAN PEOPLE?
The audio quality is too poor, can't bear a two-hour listen when there are so many great competitors out there. A noise suppression would have helped a ton. You need a pop filter, and to pay a bit more attention to the mouth-noises. They can usually be edited out at the start of a line, or eliminated through the a well-tuned noise-gate.
Where did the Roman prophecy saying the future king of the world would come from Judea originate? I have looked but cannot find it. Was it included in the original Sibylline Books?
Like...all over the old testament, especially daniel 9. Josephus believed Vespasian was the Jewish Messiah, or at least he says so in his book, which was probably good press for the emperor.
I don't get why Michael Duncan is so willing to acknowledge the biased of the senate in the cases of Caligula, Nero and Domition, but he never mentions the extreme biased against Julius Caesar. Instead he simply follows the anti Ceasar model laid out by the likes of Cicero. It doesn't make any sense.
While J. Caesar was definitely a great man in certain aspects you can’t deny he selfishly worked to undermine a republic in order to gain power, all on the back of murder, bribery, and betrayal.
Maqsood Dinajihad There was no republic by the time Ceasar took power, just a bunch of soft, rich, old men, OLIGARCHY; (not republic) who did anything they could to stay in power. Ceasar was a revolutionary.
Logan Carlile Who did he murder? Who did he betray? That's the biased narrative I'm talking about in my post. I don't personally beleive he was the demonic tyrant they portray him as since Cicero and especially after Shakespeare, manipulating the truth to make his heroe tragedies look more dramatic. Ceasar was a revolutionary not a tyrant, and he was demonized by the elite class (who wrote the histories of Rome) for attempting to turn the old order on it's head.
The word "scheme" is not pronounced "sshkeem", rather, :sskeem". Also, the name, "Anthony", is pronounced, "An-tuh'-nee", not "Antnee". The latter was used before the 17th Century in England.
I'm sorry. As thorough as your readings of history have been you fall short by suggesting the ancient Britons were somehow backwards and would learn unthinkable things from the Romans. The only education they would have received was knowledge of what it means to be inhuman.
