What Happened In Rome After Caesar's Assassination - Roman DOCUMENTARY 

First

Hello, would it be possible to re-arrange the "Roman History" playlist based on the timeline? So we could go through the history from the BC era to the AC era.

...Where's Agrippa? Where's my boi Agrippa?

Epic as always, though I know much on the subject matter plus time period I gain much from your insights time and again .. kudos.

Actium 31 BC

I love that scene. And Cicero got scared finally realised that he was not dealing with a boy but an Emperor

@@FrostCaramto Step away from my chair!

Giraffes cannot pull chariots...

*centurions enter the chamber*

@@jonbaxter2254 Great fucking line. Consider it now a majestic addition to the glorious People's Memes Ministry. Your contribution is always appreciated, comrade. You should feel proud! /leaves stealing someone else's IP/

Anthony wasn't the smartest.

@@mrhumble2937 true, politically & strategically he was completely outmanouvered.

@@lowersaxon i think people fail to realise that Octavian inherited Caesar's political acumen, albeit only a modicum of his mercy.

@@l.a.covers8400 Caesar was not a merciful man.

that name was a powerful tool to be inherited along which was further legitimised by Caesars will

Truly Ironic!!

"I love Rome so much I'm gonna plunge it back into civil war because I didn't get the lands promised to me!" - Brutus

Like the democrats stole the election to prevent Trump from another 4 years.

And then made the country worse. Men will always conspire against a man that is greater than them

@@stingingmetal9648 Hahahahaha-hahah-HAA-hahaha! *Deep breath* HAAAAAAAAA! Hahahaha!

Beginning of an empire...

@@jonbaxter2254 They already were. The form of government just changed.

@@illerac84 The change of form of government is what made it an empire... you clearly have an issue understanding the meaning of words. A country IS its form of government.

@@Panteni87 So what would you call the holdings of the Dutch and French Republics, Venice, the Soviets, etc? Augustus made every effort to show the continuation of the Republican government, which was prior to him, controlling territory across much of the Mediterranean in Europe, Asia, and Africa. So those were provinces, "overseas provinces of the Republic?" I think we're splitting hairs. Rome was acting as a less than efficient empire, and Augustus reformed it to make it work long term.

@@illerac84 an empire is a nation with a sole emperor at it's helm, multiple cultures within its borders and low to no democratic decision-making. Most empires are also titles that are passed down by kinship instead of election. Those others I would call grand-republics, but not particularly empires. As republics usually have constitutions where empires usually don't

Octavius was indeed a man of wealth, and taste 😉

Fortune favors the bold.

Ave, true to Caesar

"Friends, Romans, countrymen.... oh, fuck this. Where's that wax statue?"

A pantomime act...nothing more

Conspiracy theories against Caesar is wrong

The "Liberators" were very out of Touch with the rest of the people and the issues they were dealing with. They were also LARPing (Expulsion of the last Roman king), which didnt help much.

@@pain5835 True, very true. Actually, at first they even tried to involve Anthony in the plot, telling him pretty much everything. Anthony, of course, didn't want to join, so they all got spooked and scattered, temporarily halting the plot. But, for some very unknown reason, Anthony did not told Caesar about this plot. We, unfortunately, don't know exactly why Anthony didn't tell him, but there are some very interesting hypothesis. Perhaps Anthony even secretly hoped that Caesar would be killed, so he could take the power, but didn't want to have anything with the act of assassination itself?

Literally followed Caesar to Hell and back? You have no right to call anyone stupid

@@justinian-the-great good point! i can't think of any other reason why Antony didn't tell Caesar about the plot on his life.

All Augustus direct heirs died tho. Nero, Tiberius and Caligula became emperor because there were no other options. Some even suspect that Augustus’s wife killed all his heirs since they all died at very convenient times.

Nero Claudius is mostly propaganda dude, he did many things for the people. Besides, they’re from the Claudian Family, not the Julian.

@@LuisBrito-ly1ko i am sorry but he was terrible and i am not talking about neither what he did to christians nor putting in flames part of Rome

@@BrayanAdler Which is mostly propaganda as I said. Most of what’s said about him comes from the aristocrats who hated him and then perpetuated by the Christians, who were blamed for Rome’s burning by Nero in an attempt to deflect accusations. The burning of Rome was not started by him. There was no proof of it. Aristocrats simply used it to discredit him and seize power, arguing that he did it in order to build the Domus Aurea. All the laws and things he did for the people was what made the aristocratic class hate him. In other words, Nero’s supposed wickedness/madness is a myth just like Napoleon being short and Marie Antoinette’s infamous brioche line are.

@@LuisBrito-ly1ko i am not saying he was crazy i say he did not do anything good to Rome therefore the people. Was the aristocrats fault that he lost an easy war against Parthia? Or that he used so much money constructing only personal buildings? Or that he managed everything wrong that neither the people nor the legions gave a thing for him? He ended one of the best dynasties by being incompetent and a incompetent emperor definitely makes nothing good for the people.

*Octavians Centurions walk in*

Who is the best Roman Emperor?

Do you think Caesar had a Ridge wallet?

@@trollman1296 Augustus, hands down. Man had everything that an Emperor needed. If we weren't gonna count him, I'd probably lean towards Marcus Aurelius, but there are pleenty of other solid options. But yea, if Augustus is allowed, he's my pick all day

Did Agrippa studied military in Illyria with Octavianus? Did they both came together back to Rome after Caesars assassination? How come so many provinces and legions turned against the caesarians? Is it just because of Antonys incompetance? Because he didnt pay many veterans and allies?

@jabatheguy By the time that Octavian and Antony fully went head to head at Actium, they were both on a far more level playing field. Antony did start out with a lot more advantages, but early on he was facing off against Decimus, and Octavian and the Senate, which evened things up a bit. Shortly after Philippi, Octavian was basically at the same level of power as Antony, fielding just as many Legions and having a comparable amount of resources. So yea, by the time the two fought at Actium, Antony didn't have nearly as clear an advantage, if any: it was pretty even. How Octavian managed to get into that position will be covered more in this series! As for why Octavian eventually won at Actium, there are a number of main reasons. First, is that Agrippa was an absolute military genius, he deserves a lot of credit for that victory. Secondly, Octavian's men were way more experienced that Antony's in naval war, having fought a big naval campaign against the son of Pompey. Lastly, Antony's battle plan was handed over to Octavian, giving him a massive advantage.

I couldn't help thinking what Caesar said when he crossed rubicon : let the dice fly! must be the same feeling when he composed his will naming Octavian as his hier and adopt son! Caesar is Caesar! no human can reach his level!

@@beitang1241 except Octavian did.. and surpassed it.. there’s only one Augustus

Dude Octavian was his nephew, he wasn't some randos

@@samuelademeso9041 he was great-nephew on the maternal side, who hadn’t even entered public life. Octavian’s own father was a “new man” who died before achieving the rank of consul. Octavian had no military career or personal accomplishments to speak of. Octavian was, at that time, non-consequential in the grand scheme of Roman politics in comparison to others like Brutus, Antony, Cassius, Cicero etc… If you actually look at it from the perspective of the time, you’d have to understand that the Octavius family name carried little political importance which was why Octavian took on the name of Gaius Julius Caesar… P.S. I didn’t say he was some “randos”, I said he was an unknown and obscure. If you’re going to argue, at least do it properly

That’s what every great autocrat needs to pull. That’s the reason I have always though that for example, Alexander was a legendary general and a magnificent conqueror, but a shitty statesman.

Julius Caesar make to big screen in 1953 & remake 1970

Sadly HBO reduced a key moment in history (Caesar's funeral) to a pleb commentating it humourously to his friends...

@@luciano9755 yeah.. it’s a real shame that HBO didn’t have big time money back then. I’d gladly trade all of Game of Thrones for multiple high budget seasons of Rome

@@luciano9755 i think they low key wanted to have that scene executed differently from expectations since that part is an iconic scene from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar... but they messed that up.

@@luciano9755 budget cuts.😅 It was cheaper to do it that way.

And they all loved Caesar. The people and the army.

Oh well , at least many more wars in Persia would happen another hundred years with other emperors although I don’t think it would have happened in their life times.

Oh well , at least many more wars in Persia would happen another hundred years with other emperors although I don’t think it would have happened in their life times.

Let me recommend Dovahatty to u bruh. His take on history is glorious

Idk why youre excited hes been dead for few thousand years now. Not happening right now man

@@voidwalker9223 why would anybody be fascinated or be excited about the current day? The state of the world is shit and nothing good is on the horizon. Let him have his escapism.

@@ancientfinn3738 Very well written and very untrue. Studying history doesn't cure a sick mind. Especially, if you don't use the knowledge gained from studying history to avoid making the same mistakes. Sick Minds don't like to learn to improve or avoid past mistakes. That's why they're called sick.

*the fault in our stars is a garbage movie* -a koopa, probably

I watch Julius Caesar remake not original

True

Considering his later actions, it was all just a ploy. He basically sucked the life out of everyday romans like some sort of royal vampire. Especially farmers.

@@xavierlucky397 Still though, people have a way of deluding themselves into believing they serve a just cause and their actions are "for the greater good". Wouldn't surprise me if somewhere down the line Octavian had convinced himself of his own farce, truly believing he did everything for the good of Rome. But I guess we'll never know

Octavian is one of the coldest, most calculating men in history (which unfortunately also explains why he was such an incredible leader), there's no way he didn't see an advantage for himself in there

Does it matter?

@@josephkelly6681 Not particularly, but it is an interesting question.

Not Mark Anthony, Mark Antony

@@azimisyauqieabdulwahab9401 actually, not Mark Antony, but Marcus Antonius. lol

Anthony was horrible at governing. .and octavian was a great choice

I think Octavian was the eldest male in the Julii clan after Ceasar. The focus was usually to raise the standing of one's own clan (before Ceasar, the clan's standing had fallen and Ceasar was the first to raise it again). So it only makes sense that Ceasar's heir was the eldest male in his own clan. The fact that Octavian was even on that trip to Hispania, indicates that Ceasar intended to groom Octavian as his clan heir.

Octavian was the only choice as a blood relative.thats it.antony was a right hand man that's it.

Octavianus: Bonjour

I only wish Octavian didn't kill Caesar and Cleopatra 's son!

@@beitang1241 I'm pretty sure Octavius didn't want to kill him, but I think it was necessary.

Is Ceasar greater than Pompey? Pompey beat the tougher opponents, Ceasar fought disorganized tribes and planes, not serious and tech armies.

i think when you realize who won in the end you will have answered your question

⁠@@innosantoCaesar literally beat Pompey, that makes him objectively better. He did it with a smaller force and less resources as well.

Did he have to be?

@@nikjones7687 Nope. Rome would've been better off if they didn't.

If only he had listened to his wife (or the soothsayer) and stayed home that day.

see unlike alexander the overrated, caesar had actual political acumen, fought against actual generals with almost equal manpower and strength, and he fought against much much much varied enemies than the overrated man ever did. plus overrated had his dad to thank to give him such an amazing military infrastructure to start with as well as not havin to put up with the greek politics, since his dad, philip the true great, already handled all of that for him.

He was also beloved by the people the reason the senators assassinated him is because he introduced reforms that increased the standard of living for the plebs and brought the upper class down to a level so they weren't an all powerful aristocracy

Yep, but he had a tendency to land on his feet even if things don't go well so even though I think that would have still been the right move, if Caesar actually managed it they would then be an even worse position. I don't think he would have been too successful due to the way the Parthians fought, but Caesar was a smart guy and lucky too, I don't think he would have entered flat terrain to fight nomads in an open desert like Crassus and instead would have taken the longer path through Armenia instead because that would help nullify the Parthians mobility advantage. Even then though, it would still be difficult going as Mark Anthony proved when he tried. but hey who knows, guess that's why alternate history is so fun to speculate about, the guy who could have actually pulled it off seems like it would be Caesar haha

Caesar was no stranger to tough adversaries. Yes the Parthians were pretty annoying to fight with their hit and run tactics. However Caesar was used to that after fighting the Numidian Cavalry in Africa during the civil wars. Numidians were far more capable than the Parthians

It was Caesar. He would have won and come back richer and even more powerful than before.

Caesar won't lose to some Nomad lol

They considered doing just that. But it was a gamble. If Caesar returned victorious, he would he praised as a God. He would be Rome’s Alexander. It would be way harder to kill him and way harder to convince people that he was Tyrant.

another defeat from parthian is too much for rome ego, maybe they want to prevent that

Because Caesar went against Gauls, and won, he went against Pompei Magnus, and won. He went to Pontus and he veni,vidi vicid back to rome. It isn't unreasonable to assume Caesar wouldn't have lost to Parthians, maybe he would make parthia a client state or pay handsomely. That would have made him more popular, more riches and glory for the people and all that.

In the defense of the conspirators, they likely figured Ceasar would come out on top as he had done multiple times since his rise to prominence. He had strong armed the Senate into lengthy terms as governor of three provinces, essentially conquered all of Gaul, took down Pompey's armies in Spain and later then himself in the East, tamed Egypt and North Africa and even stomped out Pompey's sons and Labienus to end the war. He could very well have likely succeeded in the East and Parthia. And if he returned a few years later having bested and claimed more lands, at that point the people of Rome might actually be inclined to give him a crown.

@@jaypandya7441 Unlikely, as Persia is hell to invade from the Western side. Possible he could have acquired the Euphrates territories though.

@@jaypandya7441 This is the real reason why. The Senate really had no plan at all after they killed Caesar, they seriously thought things would magically return to normal, and completely failed to stop Mark Antony from asserting himself in literally any capacity.

To be honest the republic was already doomed to begin with

Criminally overlooked series. I think _Rome_ would have had a massive cult following if it only was made in this age of the streaming wars.

17 years later Pax Romana will be coming

Eh the plague may have been worse objectively

I feel bad for the poor man named Cinna. Imagine being torn apart because a bunch of lunatics thought you were someone else who had the same name.

@@knowledgedesk1653 then after that its decline and sacking

not true, if people don’t like who’s on charge in a democracy they just outvote him, you can’t do that in a dictatorship

@@SamuelChac0n lets pretend there are 300 politicians divided in 10 parties. 290 of them are corrupt. Now the elections have been held the winning party is full of corrupt officials. People don't notice it at first but later see trough it. Now 4 years later they elect a new party People don't notice it at first but later see that they are corrupt. 4 years go by, new elections they chose a new party turns out to be corrupt 4 years etc. 100 years later and not 1 good government has existed. This isn't even calculating the fact that most people vote for the same party always regardless because they aren't bothered with politics and are encourged to vote because people died for it or some other bullshit. + elections can be rigged especialy paper ones very easly. Then you have election period where politicians stop doing their work to focus on persuading you to vote on them. So to get a good standing party you have to go through 100 holes in the system to let this happen. In the US its even worse 2 corrupt parties and those are the only ones people vote on

@@Yum_Yum_Delicious_Cum “Corrupt” is a very easy tag to put on a party, of course there’s corruption on every single party on earth, the question is how corrupt, inefficient or downright bad they are. Besides, corruption still happens in dictatorships. Added to that, let’s imagine the same scenario but in a dictatorship: the leader is bad, then the successor is bad and the next guy is also bad. That’s easily 100 years of suffering in a much more realistic scenario (as it already has happened in north korea) But what you are saying is that you’d prefer a dictatorship with a competent ruler right? Here’s the thing, 1 good ruler doesn’t guarantee that the next won’t be a disaster, and you have 0 choice in the matter. The truth is that dictatorships are (sadly) much more difficult to get rid pf than democracies. I’m sorry if i couldn’t make my points very clear, english is not my first language

@@SamuelChac0n yea its less about how good dictatorships are and more about how shitty democracies are or better said the western style of democracy(which isn't a democracy). And indeed dictatorships are very flawed you have the roman empire and post-colonial africa as an example. Best way I can think of is 1 or more dictators in power whose actions are heavily regulated and checked by other people while also having like allot of advisors and ministers. And how does he get chosen? Probably the person which is most capable in a mix of charisma, diplomacy and administration. +adding to that The people should have a vote in domestic affaires. The rules you wan't in the country everybody can vote for that. And other shit people have totally no saying in like defensive wars, global affairs, trade relations, alliances etc. Thats how my system would work but very basicallly.

@@SamuelChac0n Really, do they? Some people argue Putin is a dictator (not my personal opinion), yet he get's reelected. How many so called "dictators" have been removed in the past few decades by the west only to plunge their respective countries into absolute chaos by adopting western democracy? I don't argue the possible benefits of a democracy, but after a while every system gets corrupted and people look for alternatives, that's where "strong man figures" are elevated into seats of power to reign in the corruption. "La Terreur" in France was supposed to be a Republic, yet the French cheered when Napoleon became their leader and emperor. He was considered a villian by all the other monarchs in Europe. Yet so much of his legacy remains: The ideas of enlightenment and the concept of one people bound together by a common culture, language and history which was novel back then but formed the basis for all the present states in Europe. And the French still hold him in high regard. On the other hand you have people like Oliver Cromwell who single handedly-destroyed any desire in England for a Republic for generations. That's what I mean with "who is in charge". The Roman Republic had become (at least in the eyes of the pleps) corrupt. Ceasar (and before him Sulla) presented an opportunity to change their situation, and the people were willing to take it, political participation be damned. From their point of view, the little influence they had, did not matter. So they sought a champion, who would fight for their cause. And as far as I can see most people don't give a damn if they have the right to vote or not. Either they don't vote at all or just keep on voting for the same old mantras and political propaganda they choose to believe. There are so few people out there who actually try to see through all that fog and who actually try to make the right choice at the ballot. Democracy requires real participation of it's people, the system on its own is worthless. Or even worse, it gives a government a sense of legitimacy which it possibly does not even deserve. By all means have a democracy, but if you have one, take part in it and don't let the politicians just "do their thing". The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. - Thomas Jefferson. That goes double in a democracy.

Chad Octavian vs Simp Antony

@@mrdavman13 All hail the chad.

Two more didn't take his place. Many just went berserk in response.

Cirian Hinds was definately a model for some of the artwork so that helps with the association.

Not Many want to talk about that. Who wants to admit their ancestors fucked up their own empires and messed up so badly it took centuries to rebuild and not even close to its former power?

Yeah, I do not understand why they didn't mention the role of senator Lucius Vorenus ;)

Truth be told I really don't think Vorenus would have made much of a difference. He was unarmed, toga'd, just as unaware as Caesar, and most of all extremely conservative/religious at that point in the show. What they did was sacrilege and undoubtedly would have stunned him just as much as it did Caesar and Antony. The reason he was so hyped up by the liberators was simply due to the fact those patricians were out of shape or old and they knew how to stall Antony but not him. It doesn't matter how badass you are if 3 or more people get the drop on you, armed and up close, all at once. Antony said it himself later in the show "you know nothing of violence, a few mangey dogs can kill a lion."

@@pokeman5000 but everyone was super scared of his skills after he jumped in and killed those gladiators. No way Brutus goes against the great Vorenus.

Oops! I thought they were skipping that part. Anyway, Historia Civilis is an amazing chanel!

Simon from Biographics does his "research" on Wikipedia.

@@luciano9755 better than Twitter

Biographics is notoriously terrible

@grand nagus we must have different criteria for genius then because I didn't just watch HBO, I've read his biographies & history books. And his political maneuvers were brilliant. I'm a silly man? Rich coming from a person with the self complimentary title "grand" in their online name.

@@EagleLeader1 Are you deaf? He was a puppet. The people behind the throne advised him on the best course of action to defeat Anthony the tyrant. Ain't no twenty something going to defeat the top men in Rome Mr. Movie History Guy.

@@boblezaer4851 deaf? The ability to hear is not required to understand this video (captions duh) or, like I said above read his biography from accredited historians. If you're going to insult people who never insulted you, at least do it accurately. All the "top men of Rome" who meant to puppeteer him ended up being dead by his order & Octavian alive & ruling. Obviously he was at least smarter than them. You clearly only watched this video & never actually know the rest of the story, Octavian outsmarts all who meant to puppeteer him & becomes Rome's first Emperor, Augustus. Don't rely on a single video in a RU-vid series that didn't finish his story, I didn't just rely on HBO's series, I read what happens after this RU-vid video.

@@EagleLeader1 Go get more "history" from Access Hollywood you silly man.

Even Mark Antony admits this

"I love Rome so much I'm gonna plunge it back into a civil war because I didn't get the lands promised to me!" - Brutus