No. Our moral norms, values, and worldviews are so different that we can't apply those to people and their actions and deeds, people who lived more than 2,000 years ago.
By the dissenting voices within their own society is a big start. Tacitus was my introduction to Rome and is the primary reason I have a very negative view of the Empire ("They make a desolation and call it peace." - Tacitus). This works for many cultures. The victims of the Assyrian Empire. The rather impressive self-awareness of the Greeks on their culture's history of naked will to power ("The weak suffer what they must" - Thucydides). The relative tolerance and benevolence of the Persian Empire ("And in any locality where survivors may now be living, the people are to provide them with silver and gold, with goods and livestock" - Ezra quoting Cyrus the Great). The invention of human dignity is not a modern invention. It is reflected in many writers in antiquity, back even to the bronze age ("To bring about the law of righteousness in the land so that the strong may not harm the weak." - The Code of Hammurabi). It may have waxed and waned or been ignored, but believing in the inherent value of human life is not something we made up in the 18th century. It's an old idea, and I firmly believe we can judge people by that standard.
It's an unfortunate truth that many peoples, tribes, and nations have been condemned to the abyss of history for the simple fact of lack of writing. The Gauls and Germans had no means with which to record their struggle against the Romans. The victors aren't the ones who write the history books, the scribes do the writing for them. Another awesome video, Tribunate. Keep em coming!
Gallic religion and culture was organized around druidic learning that was all based on oral tradition - Caesar coopted or killed these druids and much of its history was lost in the process.
Moreover it’s suspicious that the Romans claim they allowed Gauls, Germans, Britons, etc into the city and yet there is a suspicious lack of writing in any of the aforementioned regions that wasn’t indigenous like the Norse Runes- implying that, unlike Iberia, (which quickly picked up writing from the Phoenicians) the Romans were not so keen on sharing the gifts of knowledge like other actually great empires such as the Mycenaeans, Visigoths, etc. did with their neighbours. We are to believe that the Rhine which was integral to virtually every religion, government, and society in Germania was devoid of temples and the like, when it seems more likely that these structures were cleared to keep the empire’s garrison safe from attack. Which in and of itself is a self-fulfilling prophecy “we’re going to take taxes and land from you and give them to bolster to soldiers so that we are safe from all the raiders” I don’t think the European frontier was filled with an inordinate amount of warrior cultures, I think that’s pretty much the only society which could even exist in such stifling conditions
You can admire Caesar’s military genius, but still believe Caesar did many things we would consider cruel and detestable. That is not contradictory, but necessary.
Fully agree. The willingness of too many to place actions from the past beyond the scope of our judgement is ultimately harmful to the historian’s efforts
He treated his soldiers like men, which was huge for the time. To consider anybody at all but one's self. Compare that to Crassus's selfishness at scale.
@@thomasdaywalt7735causing and letting children starve to death en masse for personal gain is fairly universally accepted as being in poor taste, and it seems difficult to try and justify it or interpret it as anything but poor taste.
You brush up against the point but it seems worth mentioning, if only because it can be so difficult for modern observers to think in these terms. But Caesar is an unreliable narrator on these matters, not because we can expect him to downplay or justify his brutality, but because he is likely to have exaggerated it. No doubt the questions regarding how we engage in the moral aspects of the ancient past still stand, but it adds a level of complexity to our assessment as well. Caesar may or may not been as effective at committing genocide as he claimed, but that he would seek to portray himself as such is itself noteworthy.
You're right, we should have included a few lines about the disputed nature of Caesar's numbers in the commentaries. The figures from his commentaries are almost certainly exaggerated, but we sought to take him at his word here and since there aren't any agreed upon numbers for these specific incidents thought it best to use the sources. Ultimately the exact numbers mattered less to us than conveying the horror of mass death and using the war as a pretext for talking about how best to judge actions from the past.
@@tribunateSPQR It's probably a subject worth examining itself: on what points would Caesar be motivated to exaggerate & which to downplay, based on Roman norms.
@@maxsonthonax1020AFAIK it didn't change much. He'd exaggerate combatants and omit non-combatants. Didn't he face a riot in Rome for marching kids as prisoners of war?
@@DrVictorVasconcelosI think what you are referring too is one of Ceaser’s Triumph’s, specifically the North African-Triumph, he had the King of Numedia (now a kid since his dad committed suicide after the North African battle led by Scipio and Cato) march in his Triumph, and the Romans seeing how Caesar was celebrating the death of Romans and the death of Cato already weren’t fans of this specific Triumph since it was a civil war and many Roman’s’ families would’ve been on the opposing side aka dead, especially since Caesar’s own soldiers went against his orders and massacred the defeated unarmed Roman soldiers once they’ve already surrendered. Shit was a mess. But yeah it was the kid-King of Numidia. Also I think he was going to kill/sacrifice the kid like he did the Vercingetorix.
There's a song by Jacek Kaczmarski, which in translation goes something like this: The heavy step of the legions thunders over Europe The end of the republic is inevitable The Gallic hills rot in mixed blood And Julius Caesar writes his diaries ... Let us, Caesar, when we conquer the whole world Rape, rob, satisfy all desires Soldiers' simple requests have been the same for years And Julius Caesar does not forbid fun in silence ... The new order civilizes the conquered nations Crosses grow along the roads from the Rhine to the Nile The whole world resounds with complaints, screams and tears And Julius Caesar practices conciseness of style
This is what it means to truly love, Roman civilization and history in general. To actively inquire on the human condition of these eras and events. In his greatest triumphs, and deepest moments.
Thank you for your kind words. We're passionate about Rome and all history - celebrating the achievements but also not shying away from aspects that no one should emulate. Only a comprehensive analysis of history allows us to actually learn from the past.
Well if you lack the belief that all people are in possession of one equal human nature or believe that the commons are culpable for the sins of their authorities, its not too difficult to imagine yourself doing such a thing.
Thanks for this video. Often times people can be so entranced by stories of the past and places like Rome and people like Julius Caesar that they can forget to contextualize them with the fact that the millions of unnamed, unmentioned people were still people, all who had their own lives, all of whom are just as valuable as the figures we lionize. It's unfortunate but a LOT of people try to use Rome and Caesar as exemplars without acknowledging the fucked up stuff that happened in the name of providing for the elite. Although it does end up kinda funny to see conservatives try to justify modern policy off of their ignorant ideas of Rome and especially of Caesar who was about as anti-conservative as one could get at the time.
Well said - our previous content has been very pro-Caesar as by and large we feel that his domestic reform agenda was far superior to the one offered by Cato and his reactionary clique but when Caesar was operating outside of Rome he still adopted traditional Roman imperialist attitudes. He was sophisticated enough to advocate for greater rights within his community but was a product of his time in thinking that anyone outside of Rome wasn't quite fully human in the same way a citizen was
@@tribunateSPQR I guess my biggest unanswered question about Caesar would be what his personal motivations were regarding his domestic agenda. Did he ACTUALLY care about the plebians and want to make life better for them? Or was it, from the start, a naked political move that his brilliant strategic mind knew would be the best way to attain power. We know he was absolutely laser-focused on attaining power from very early on in life, and by sorta going all in on representing the Populares causes (Except when he needed to make compromises with his opponents) it absolutely worked in vaulting him to heights only last seen with the Gracchi...But we also see how that ended for the Gracchi brothers, so I don't know if it would appeal to him as the "perfect" strategy, much more a risky strategy that could easily get him killed, especially with so many powerful Optimates like Cicero, Cato the Younger, Pompey later on, etc (Is there some good place to get a list of roman senators from any given time, like the late republic? I'm not well versed enough to just remember all the major figures, and theoretically there are lists of most of them, right?). Obviously I don't think there can be any answer since he was a master at propoganda and I doubt we could ever take anything he said or wrote at face value just due to the fact it was all for his pursuit of power. But he almost definitely had SOME personal views, whatever they may be, even if he didn't share them and was willing to compromise them. I'd love to think that deep down he actually did care for some of the lower classes (He obviously saw slaves like most Romans did, as more or less subhuman, but you can't win them all I guess) and part of his desire for power is just the basic knowledge that you can't affect change without power. IIRC the Julii got hard hit by the Sulla proscriptions so it would make some sense if he felt a life long drive to limit the power of the more conservative senatorial class...but it's just impossible to say, huh? Sorry for throwing all this at you in a comment haha
@@Tinil0Happy to lend my 2 cents to this: I believe Caesar was actually a fairly conventional politician at the start of his career, though inclined toward popular causes he was no radical and his moves that ran counter to constitutional precedent were carried out in reaction to his opponents also flouting constitutional norms. Read Robert Morstein-Marx’s excellent “Julius Caesar and the Roman people” for a thorough defense of this view. As for the ideas that shaped him - here we must rely more on conjecture. Arthur Kahn’s “the education of Julius Caesar” is my favorite biography of the man and it goes into great detail looking at the religious and philosophical influences that would have shaped Caesar’s worldview
The only reason the Gauls didn't like what Caesar did is that he did it to them. If they were doing it to some other tribe, they'd see it as good. They presumably saw it as good when they invaded Rome in the time of Marius and before that, just as the Romans (for all their praise of their own conquests) saw it as evil when the Celts invaded them back then. "The standards of the day" do seem to have been a general thing, but they were relative; "what helps my tribe is good, what hurts my tribe is bad."
Yes, we didn't want to argue that the Gauls were more moral than Caesar, they likely would have committed many of these same atrocities either against other tribe or Rome itself had they been able. However, I don't feel like this excuses Caesar's actions
@@tribunateSPQR true. But what determined which groups did evil to which other groups seems to have mostly been based on who had the power to do it, not on a moral difference. Some exceptions exist of course - not ancient, but I recently read about the Moriori refusing to fight the Maori, which was a genuine difference in values leading one side to be the victim - but usually it's just power that determines who is victim and who is oppressor =/
@tribunateSPQR I feel like it excuses them somewhat. The Romans were still paranoid about invasions from the Gauls. And Caesar may very well have been thinking "If I do this to these people, they can't do it to my people".
Securing the empire's future and Caesar's personal ambition aligned perfectly. The threat of another barbarian invasion of the empire was real. After 75 years of relative peace and total military dominance we've forgotten how unpredictable and dangerous life was back then. It was to conquer or eventually to be conquered. Ariovistus was the immediate threat. Letting him dominate Gaul carried the risk of a powerful new empire just across the Alps. In the aftermath of that war it would be unwise to leave a power vacuum for another pretender to take advantage of. Caesar welcomed a chance to make history and prestige, just like the Gaul leaders did. Be it the British, Gaul or German tribes, they all longed for a chance at fame and fortune. To pacify a culture like that you needed to be brutal so they won't dare continue. Hirishima and Nagasaki come to mind. Caesar was ambitious, oppertunistic and ruthless but not sadistic, vengeful or filled with bloodlust. After all he turned out to be one of the few leaders of the classical world who showed mercy on a large scale when the threat seemed over. It cost him his life.
Researching this stuff is what made the atheist historian Tom Holland become convinced that the rise of Christian morality in the empire was far more of a ethical paradigm shift than he initially realized.
I think this tracks to a certain extent, Caesar was in many ways the “best” that a man could be according to the values and norms of his time. But it’s clear that he still falls woefully short of what we would consider a model for emulation
I know this one was particularly joyful, but we felt it was important to show this darker side of Rome, especially as the "why men think about Rome" people insist on presenting a sanitized version of Roman history. Glad that you found it informative
@@tribunateSPQR This kind of content is a breath of fresh air. Harsh truth presented in a way that makes you analyze the character of Caesar. An incredibly interesting historical figure but also a man capable of some of the most hideous atrocities imaginable. Lots of people interested in Roman history downplay the brutality of the Romans. Hell, many are straight up ignorant about just how far they could take things. On the polar opposite, I have seen certain people describe Rome as an "empire of psychopaths" which to me is just plain silly, not to mention a massive misunderstanding of what antisocial personality disorder actually is.
It's simple: our modern Western morality is based on Christianity. Even if you aren't a Christian yourself, if you live in the Western World, then there's a 99% chance that your morals are heavily inspired by it. A pagan man would be unlikely to have a moral problem with killing large numbers of foreigners - after all, they're not his people, and it might even be a good way to earn glory and wealth. We've become so used to Christian morality that we forget that ideas like "care for others, even if they're not part of your tribe" are in fact very radical, and are not shared by the majority of the world. Certainly they were not shared by pre-Christian Europeans, who saw no particular problem with, say, owning slaves or killing foreigners.
We’re firmly in Caesar’s camp when it comes to domestic Roman politics, but it is disappointing how he (and every other Roman) viewed foreigners as unworthy of an basic human dignity
You'll find out that many so-called "populists" (even ones that lean towards the left) are like this throughout history. It's an unfortunate fact but for most of history, helping out the "people" meant only helping out other people who were same nationality as you. Anyone considered an "outsider" was to be treated with utter suspicion at best and with genocidial intent (and action) at worse. An aspect of human history that most people just refuse to believe because of how cruel it is.
@@tribunateSPQR The same could be said about US president Andrew Jackson. His campaign and promises as president was that he wanted to breakup the big banking institutions at the time because now much they were preying on the average citizen and forcing them into deep debt. He was also a strong defender of democratic values by supporting more checks and balances in the government. But everyone should know how he treated Native American tribes (Trail of Tears, anyone?). It's an unfortunate fact that many self-proclaimed "populists" were also some of the worst towards anyone they considered an "outsider."
@@tribunateSPQR I agree with this sentiment, but the Gauls, Germans and others were every bit as savage; doesn't make genocide right, but it kind of puts things in perspective.
He was a Democrat so to speak, continuing the social reformist impetus introduced by the Gracchi, while his contenders were Republicans so to speak for whom fortunes and divine favours were synonymous. But his genius, albeit a perverted and cruel one, was to see that he could not win the game by himself in Rome but that in the Rhone valley, which was already the theatre of a perpetual inter-tribal war he could be the victor and become emperor imposing his model of governance. As he put it, better be the first among the villagers of Gaul than only the second in Rome. He didn't feel guilty for all that blood shed because the blood was about to flow on any way as it had always done in rivers. He managed to emerge from that bloodshed as a winner of bodies and souls alike. It can be said that the first beta version of the Roman Empire was founded in Gaul by surfing the camp in best position to win once for all to end the game, provided they had a good leader and training. He made half the Rhone valley Gauls into legionaries to kill the other half. The other half were also compromised with the Romans as well, but of the other side.
In Italy we obviosly take great pride of our roman ancestors (for example even metro stops are named after roman empereors). If you don't study history by yourself, Italian school never mention massacres (for the exception of Carthage and Jerusalem), Caesar is seen as another national hero. An important what if should be, if Gauls were pacified without a genocide, which in the biggest numbers reach as far as 1 million, how it would impact Roman defense with so more recruits avalaible
@@tribunateSPQR yeah but in the US the link is also very political. Every normal american would start to ask questions on why the US dropped more tons of bomb on Laos, neutral country, than nazi germany, or why they still have a blockade on Cuba. Roman action even though can be still be "heard" (we got France now, thanks Caesar), can be de sanitized and shown as what they were. I think the main problem is also sources, nothing remains of a gallic prespective of the gallic wars
@@tribunateSPQR Bullshit. No, we are not. For decades now American education has emphasized rather than downplayed the failings of the great men who made us into a great country. Do you really think anyone doesn't know that Washington and Jefferson were slave owners? You know whose heroes are sanitized? The Left's - whether they are American or not. For example, how many people know that the FDR administration refuse asylum to an entire boat load of Jews trying to escape Nazi Germany who eventually were all murdered. And that wasn't 200 years ago.
While I do grief what happened, I think it's important to recognize that Gauls would applaud this too simply if it was their leader eho destroyed the Latin enemy.
@@therealestg9 That may be true for the past, but what matters now is how we view history through a “moral lens”. It’s not just about who committed acts like genocide or enslavement, but about recognizing that these actions, in themselves, are reprehensible and shouldn’t be dismissed or praised. As mentioned in the video, it’s crucial to try and understand the human element in these events. Yes, Caesar committed horrific acts that caused immense suffering, but we also need to consider the historical context to better grasp what happened. Many focus solely on the latter, ignoring the former, and in doing so, I believe they miss the full picture.
As always, your material is masterfully articulated, your points are clear, and the whole piece is very thought provoking in the best possible way. ••• The main point I'm taking away: "What he did was acceptable in his time" Acceptable to WHOM? Thank you for your work. Cheers, friend. ✌️
This is a very good video. There is a lot of interesting aspects of Rome. But I find that people who love Rome as if it is a fandom tend to write off Roman cruelty as being characteristic of their time and place without much investigation of other cultures and their practices. Empire is, by nature, violence. And Roman, even in the context of it's era, was extraordinary in it's naked brutality, to the disgust of many of it's own citizens. Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium .... ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. "To rape, to slaughter, to plunder, these things they call "imperium".... They make a desolation, and call it peace." - Tacitus, placing a speech against the Empire in the mouth of a British Chieftain There are no heroes and villains in history. There are traits we can admire, but we cannot forget that Rome was not aspirational (though they have things that can be aspired to).
People who do this will make blanket statements like "everyone thought this way" but intentionally exclude everyone who disagreed from their definition of "everyone"
@@tribunateSPQR I’ve never understood the notion that millions of people around the world somehow collectively agreed that slavery, rape, and plunder were acceptable. Yes, these practices were part of the time, and no doubt many people supported them or were indifferent, but there were also those who opposed them-and we have evidence of that. So, when people throw out blanket statements like ‘it was part of the times’ to demonstrate their supposed understanding of history, I think it actually reveals the opposite. It shows an unwillingness to challenge their beliefs, a reliance on oversimplified assumptions about things they don’t fully understand, and a refusal to put in the effort to deeply examine what happened and why. Honestly, it just seems lazy and misguided to me.
Out of all the videos we have done so far this was the toughest one to write and record. Thank you for sticking with it despite the grim subject matter
Up to the postwar, genocides were considered a good thing, because it brought peace to the genocider's people. That's why Julius Caesar's alleged genocide of the Gauls (most historians think he exaggerated the numbers) boosted his popularity so much in Rome (the very fact that he may have fabricated the numbers upwards already demonstrates genocides were seen as a positive thing among the Roman populus). The very concept of genocide; and of genocide as a bad thing is essentially a post-WWII invention/cultural change/innovation.
I think you're oversimplifying things. Thucydides seems to depict the depopulation of whole towns as an evil thing, centuries before Julius was born. People like Darwin criticized what they saw as genocides in the 19th century. Our current views are massively shaped by WW2 but weren't created out of nothing by it.
That was definitely something we considered in making the video -- that in various historical sources from all across the world, numbers like "one million" often get used as a substitute for saying "a lot." Definitely something we might revisit in its own video. Thanks for watching! - Titus
I always feel sorrow that due to a lack of literacy and also the means of recording and preserving writing being either rare or inaccessible, we have lost the voices of most "ordinary people" throughout history. The "Great Man" only goes so far in telling us of the time they lived in, especially as these people were largely from an elite group that had a vastly different life to the general populace. Caesar is fascinating, but I want to know more about life as most of us would have experienced it had we lived back then. It is frustrating we have so little of that, to me.
It really is a shame how few surviving sources there are for the non-elite. Our most recent video takes this on directly and looks at Roman graves which do offer the best primary source on the lives of the ancient romans ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-29W8b6rAFN4.htmlsi=sxZrP2HoygrzjcjY
I think modern opinions of the past are so skewed by the modern concept of “peace” which is an idea that’s barely 100 years old. Before then I think everyone across every culture understood it was conquer or be conquered.
Cruelty, as policy, was inflicted on part by Rome, to reduce rebellion, taking modern judgement aside. Rome calculated such harsh actions would reduce widespread rebellion in the future. It did seem to work with Spartacus and the Gauls. Not morally justified but correct in Rome's view to maintain Empire.
On the other hand, none of these genocidal strategies were particular to Caesar. The same had happened to the Etruscans, Samnites, Carthaginians, and the same would happen to the Corinthians, etc. etc.
It really annoys me that Julius Caesar did such evil stuff in Gaul, because he seems like one of the less evil people in the ancient world! I want at least one guy from the past I can root for! He was probably less evil than most of the Gauls he killed but that doesn't say much =/
I really feel that he was about as "good" of a person as it was possible to be at that time - however committing genocide is a pretty big dealbreaker for us
Spartacus was a breath of fresh air from the ancient world, Escaped from a Gladiator school, freed lots of slaves , only killed solider's roman solider's who were sent to kill them or imprison them again
thanks so much! We feel that though the Romans are fascinating - its necessary to adopt a critical stance since so much pop history (esp. on RU-vid) will leave people thinking they were unequivocally the good guys
As someone with a huge interest in human history due it's richness and nuances, I'm really happy I found your channel. You manage to cover these topics from all points of view and convey them in a way that's easy to follow along. That's rare to find and after watching a few of your videos, I can confidently say you are my favorite historian. I hope the best for your channel so that your thoughts reach more people One thing I was curious about while watching this video, how could Caesar have stated that the Gallic Wars started in 58 BCE if it was still before the time of Christ?
Not only was Julius Ceasar's conquest of Gaul remarkable in his own estimation for the military genius he claimed to have as he horsed around and was on a camping trip for ten years, while defeating forces a sixteenth the size of his own.... It is also can not go without stating that Julius Ceasar was in reality Chuck Norris, and was clearly a chad every time he esteemed himself in a mirror. The man conflated and embelished his exploits. Rome ate it up and believed his bullshit. We haven't seen this kind of braggart before, oh wait...
The caliphs proved so successful at eliminating minority populations that to question the ethnic demographic history in a near eastern region is now seen as offensive.
Well said - we tend to view things that happened before our time as not just inevitable but necessary. The farther back the event, the stronger this impulse is.
I'm pretty sure when the Vandals/Barbarians invaded Rome, they were motivated by the memory of their ancestors that suffered. Note: They put an end to the 'gladiator games' that was basically wholesale human sacrifice of non-Romans, dressed up as an entertainment/sport for the public.
I've actually been considering a video on how Rome's self-professed hatred of human sacrifice was all really just PR branding since they had such an affinity for judicial murder
13 дней назад
Ceasar was a great man for Romans. He was a cruel man for those that were not Romans. Such was his way.
What matters is that you separate the dispassionate analysis of events with your value judgements, rather than mixing them as though your judgements should be considered equally with the historic record.
Very good video, just one thing at the end it's not killing/enslaving me for economic prosperity to my region. It's killing/enslaving me for economic prosperity to my regions elites and colonizers while I and my descendants are forced to serve them as basically slaves. Subscribed.
You would say that I have slain helpless lambs? You would say that I butchered and murdered innocents? Oh but how helpless is the cornered lion? How innocent is the wolf with your flocks blood upon its muzzle?: Caesar when hearing anyone criticize his campaign
And the thing is Rome had NO EXCUSE to conquer Gaul, Britannia, etc. They had Egypt and Sicily. Take your average Joe from off the streets and give them that wealth at that time and it would be laughably easy to produce a society of scholars and artists with a fraction of the military spending. The thing is war was always an opportunity for a payday, the system rewarded expansionists with lucrative governorships OR loyal governors who will help them get more wealth from across the empire.
The grieving Gallic mother would have applauded Gauls slaughtering Romans. Don't forget that. And if the Indians (Native Americans) had landed in Europe they would have treated the Europeans the same way the Europeans treated them.
No need to moralize for the viewers, bring us the facts and let us come to our own judgements. I came to hear facts about Caesar not moral interpretation. That’s said I’ve appreciated the videos you’ve produced thus far.
Stop bringing out the Southern US slavery as something justifiable because at that time people were so disgusted by the injustices that people like John Brown who first hand experienced the brutal treatment of slaves
One thing to remind yourself is that the other option to slavery in ancient wars was genocide that's why civilizations tended to enslave and barbarians tended to slaughter the captives since they had no use for mass amounts of slaves
The long moralizing at the beginning is not history. The Gauls were as brutal as the Romans and maybe at times more so. Modern people destroying the planet has no call to moralize whether the Romans were "moral" in conquering their world. Each state does what it needs or wants for its existence. The USA is just like Rome in wanting economic dominance in the world. However, the parameters in which we can operate are just more reduced than during the 2 and 1st century BC.
IF the Gauls, the Illyrians, the Marcomanni, etc., had not themselves taken slaves from the peoples they conquered, then your moral position on this would be more valid. To take pity on people who were enslaved but also were people who enslaved others, is bit over emotional. Had they won, they would have enslaved the Romans.
I understand what he did, he wanted to leave his mark in history He once stood in front of a statue of alexander the great and cryed , because he was with the same age as Alexander and didn't conquered nothing. You knew his time was running out because of his age and his epilepsy ( without any medication can be lethal) War is about the brutality of man, it doesn't not matter what you trying to do to make look " civilized" it will be something really ugly in the past, present and future. Your loss is my gain, after the 1,000,00 gauls are dead it means there was alot land free which ceasar gifted all his retaried veterans along a very lange some of money, now they can live the rest of there lifes with there familys and be self sustaining. With 1,000,00 gauls dead, 1,000,00 sold into slavery and the other 1,000,00 left alone meant only one thing gaul could be safely anex , because now it was too weak to revolt.
Great video so far, but I hate to disappoint.. the “dedication” at the end of Rambo III is false, apparently. Was listening to a podcast and they said they were surprised but it was photoshopped later on lol I was devastated, it’s one of the best end credits.
Ramo III has the dedication, it says "This film is dedicated to the gallant people of Afghanistan" (just checked it). So to be honest doesn't look very different from the photoshopped one in the context of the movie, when they, well, show a fight of people, who call themselves as "mujahideen".
Well done. Helpful information and advice about a “valueless approach” to history. Pronunciation point: CAValry is horse-mounted troops. CALvary is where Jesus was crucified. 🙂
Well, technically it's not genocide if your goal is to conquer a people and not to eliminate the entire ethnos from the face of the earth. But yeah, he was a mass murderer. Nothing the celts wouldn't have done themselves given the opportunity
Yes, go ahead and condemn Caesar's actions, but recognize that the Gauls would have done the same thing to the Romans if they had defeated the Romans. Cortes has been criticised for what he did to the Aztecs. And it was truly awful. But the Aztecs were doing even worse things to their neighbors. Condemn both sides or condemn no one.
Ironic that the Romans attribute to their Gallic conqueror, Brennus, the famous line, "vae victis". Caesar sure knew how to bring woe to the vanquished.
Do you plan on making a video on the Battle of Teutoburg Forest and the later campaigns in Germania? I used to hate Arminius and see him as a traitor but when you read more thoroughly, I can't truly blame the guy tbh
That's a great idea! We have tried to steer clear of military history as there are so many bigger channels that handle those topics (and often quite well). But we could certainly do one on the social and economic backdrop of Roman expansion into Germany and why Arminius would have been driven to betray the Romans. I agree with you that he made the correct decision in light of the brutality of Roman imperialism
@@tribunateSPQR Agreed, Roman military history is well documented by many youtubers. While it's certainly fascinating and easily what Rome is most known for, I personally find the social, political and economic side of Roman history a lot more interesting.
It irritates me to no end the constant and unceasing moral handwringing these kinds of analyses subject the viewer to. It matters nothing what we think of these events, this is the story of one warlike society doing unto another what the latter would’ve done to the former had the latter been more powerful.
I think the last question is completely wrong though. *If* Rome genuinely brought centuries of objective prosperity and wellbeing, after an initial bout of brutality, then you can argue its conquests were fundamentally justified in principle, but that people like Caesar were more brutal than they needed to be. With regard to your "would you accept the bargain in the place of the slaughtered Gauls?"argument, that can easily be turned on its head: "Would you go back to the past to prevent a traumatic conquest of your ancestors, knowing that it would result you actually being born into absolute poverty?" It's far more important to ask whether Roman rule brought any benefits whatsoever and whether those benefits could not have arisen without Roman rule.
In the end the barbarians came and destroyed rome and made it a puppet state. They didnt genocide the italians like italians did them but ultimately it made no difference.
Roman rule was, in the most generous terms, controversial. A truly beneficial arrangement between subjugated populaces and Rome would not have produced the near constant need for suppressing uprisings -one of the core reasons for stationing veterans on the frontier.
@@samblackstone3400 I am not a particularly zealous apologist of Roman imperialism, but this is a bad argument. Stationing soldiers on the frontier could easily have been caused by the need to, ya know, defend frontiers. Also, not all revolts were necessarily proof of crushing and unbearable burdens. It is perfectly possible that, while everyon benefited in the long run, certain local conflicts of interest rose between local elites, which Rome had to put down to prevent greater damage. Rebels are not necessarily good guys just because they are rebelling. A parallel from anothet empire could help illustrate the point: Pazvanoglu was a feudal renegade against the Ottoman Porte, and he was treating the common people under his rule like shit, so the Sultan enlisted the aid of local Serbian militias to crush him. So it was "empire crushing rebels" but not necessarily a bad thing.
Northern tribes were the first ones to attack, killand enslaved romans. Who sacked Rome in 390 BC.. Come on , wars have always been brutal and cruel for the civilians.To portray Caius Julius Caesar as a vulgar mass murderer is complete nonsense.Celts and other tribes have equally slaughtered romans merchants, soldiers,.... Easy to blame Caesar just because he was suchal a badass, a brillant tactician, a visionary, very literate.He lay the foundation of wat will become the greatest empire humanity has known. If he was so ruthless and with zero moral like you unfairly described him, he wouldn't have pardoned so many of the greedy and hypocrits senators who later plot his assassination. Remember how Julius Caesar didnt welcome the severed head of Pompee his fierce enemy. That shows once again how great and merciful he could be and has been many times.Im not saying he was perfect, he was a great general and a savvy politician.He made several reforms notjust the calendar but reforms to help the poor roman citizens.
That’s a pretty long time to hold a grudge, especially when Rome during the monarchy was more or less equal to the lone tribe which actually did the sacking. This would be like if during WW1 the US came up to the English Channel and started firing torpedoes at the harbours to avenge the Boston Massacre.
Did the Gauls object to conquest and enslavement in general? Or just it being done to them? Would they be okay with conquering and enslaving Romans? Does it matter which view they held?
Temporal ethnocentrism. Moral Relativism is the only valid way to interpret the actions of those from other cultures. Applying modern standards is not a valid way of understanding the actions of the past. Neat video. But your central thesis is flawed. you have the values that you have because you were raised when and where you were and the same for Cesar if you switch yourself him your values would likewise be switched. There is absolutely nothing about Caesar that is unparalleled in terms of brutality. Whatever he did Genghis Khan and Tamerlane and a hundred others surpassed him. yes he enslaved hundreds and when his enemies were victorious they were the enslavers, they didn't live up to modern standards either. in the ancient world, I don’t think there was anyone who won wars and didn’t enslave and take women and plunder and murder. Caesar wasn't morally worse than his enemies he was just practically better, so he won and became the enslaver instead of losing and becoming the enslaved. It's hilarious how you try to pin the spineless dishonor of Vercingetorix abandoning HIS women and children on Caesar. "This is a skewed vantage point" isbhow your video should start
Generic moralizing about the atrocities of an ancient war feels like the most useless way to fill a video. When I call a man of History "Great", I am making no moral judgement, I use the term as a way to express scale, not virtue. The Ancient world was a cruel competition, but I choose to celebrate the winners for their admirable qualities, not signal my virtue by condemning their atrocities.
Many empires are embarrassingly inefficient. They siphon wealth and surpress local culture that it’s not impressive that their culture and cities are the most popular.
First of all the conflict of Celts and Romans dates back to first sack of Rome in 390 BCE. This conflict was just natural power struggle of the region. If Celts could do this themselves they would have subjected Roman empire themselves and would have done same "war crimes". Julius Caesar was the one great leader who was capable of ending this long lasting conflict and there hides is his brilliance. Punishing rebellious tribes with the most severe punishment was Roman trademark in the East which helped to forge this enormous Empire. Judging these events by our christian moral values as good or bad is really not helping to analyze this conflict rationally. Sudden realization that fractured tribes couldn't stand versus organized united Empire was quick and devastating. Although we have no written evidence, from archeological evidence we can conclude that inner relations between tribes weren't the most peaceful either, which was one of the reasons of their downfall too. Anyway, this "brutalism" was part of the game and a necessary tool for conquest and unification of tribes. And if I could speculate then without Roman Empire European tribes would have been just a victim to other unified Empires.
16:07 Well hello, darling. Fancy seeing you here. I'll just... ignore that Belisarius might not come across as much better than Caesar if I set aside my affection for a moment.
One does not moralize history. One studies it. If you wish to moralize, you are free to do so. Structure a course on morality, and use historical examples as you wish. But that would then be studying morality and philosophy. That is not history.
lovely video but it unfortunately goes nowhere for too long. i'm 4 minutes in and you haven't even delved into the topic. a bit irritating, feels like i wasted time. i would recommend a generally faster cadence + subtitles as well as getting into the literal meat of what you're presenting instead of meaningless commentary EDIT: 7 minutes in and still literally NOWHERE. please take into consideration my observations (for your bettering) as at this point i am going to click away from the video in irritation and it's a shame as i saw a lot of value in the initial concept :)
You're calling the Gauls barbarians when they were the most civilised people in Europe. The Romans were the ones who were trying to steal other peoples land and make them slaves.
Caesar didn't commit any genocide, the first genocide was the Armenian Holocaust, what happened with Caesar was just another footnote on the history of the ancient world, he sure treated them better than Carthage
It was not a genocidal war. It was a war of conquest which caused massive civilian casualties,like many others in the antiquity. Your theory is disproved by the very fact that Gaul, immediatly after the roman occupation, became one of the most prosperous and populated provinces of the roman Res Publica. That would not have been possible if Caesar had perpetrated a genocide,
Our contention is not that Caesar sought to eradicate ALL Gauls, he wanted to leave as many alive as he could to ensure there would be tax-payers in the new Roman province. Rather that genocidal actions were undertaken against specific tribes in Gaul - this is something that he freely admits and the utter disappearance of the Eburones indicates that on at least one occasion he was successful.
Lets put it this way the rough estimate of the population of Gaul pre conquest was 6 million. 1 million died and 1 million enslaved are rough estimates. 2 million out of 6 million. 1/3 is a substantial portion of the population even if you exclude the enslaved population it is still 1/6 of the population dead. How is that not a genocide?
@@sergiodasilva6505 these figures are hypotetical, since Plutarch is not a reliable source. He is a biographer, not an historian. The definition of genocide is the following " the deliberate killing of a large number of people of a particular nation or etnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group". Caesar ' s aim was never the destruction of the Gauls. Many gaulish tribes were their main allies.His cavalry and auxiliaries were gaulish. After the conquest Gaul became more prosperous and was densely populated. Many gaulish aristocrats were given the roman citizenship. It was by no means a campaign of genocide like the campaigns of Chingis Khan, which left depopulated for decades vast areas
The flaw in your thinking is viewing the Gauls as a monolithic people. Did Caesar intend to exterminate all Gallic peoples? No. But he made an effort to exterminate particular tribes or subgroups of the Gauls, and that absolutely qualifies as genocidal.
@@DarthNicky . I base myself on the facts as reported by the sources ( mainly Caesar himself but not only ) . Caesar's aim was never to exterminate a particular gallic tribe. He was looking for allies instead. For example, when he was ambushed by the Nervii at Sabis, he annihilated their army but offered protection to the survivors and their familes when they surrendered. He did not enslave anybody, even if ,according to the ius belli, he was entitled to do so. With the Aduatuci things went differently, but for a reason : when they realised that the Romans were constructing huge siege works, they pretended to surrender and opened the gate to the legions. The town was not sacked and nobody was hurt. In order to prevent that drunk roman soldiers could in any way damage the Gauls, he even ordered all his troops out of Aduatuca before the night fall. At dawn the Aduatuci treacherously attacked the Romans and were defeated.Eventually, Caesar sold into slavery all the inhabitants, 54000 souls. He applied the ius belli of the time and defining as genocide this action is incorrect. The principles of bona fides and pacta sunt servanda were overarching for the Romans and their violation had automatically dire consequences for the perpetrators. The same occurred with the Usipetes and Tencteri, which were not gallic, but germanic tribes: they attacked the Romans during a parley and they violated therefore the ius gentium. They send envoys to Caesar but he detained them because of the previous violation. He attacked the Germans , which were destroyed. The roman cavalry killed many civilians as well , but Caesar never gave such an order. Killing civilans present at a battlefield was a common practice in the ancient world. The same happened to Boudicca's rag tag army, which , in turn, had previously killed 80000 roman and british civilians. The surviving Germans decided to stay with Caesar not as slaves or servants but as" clientes". Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the two tribes were not wiped out since they are both mentioned by the sources until the early 4th century. For these reasons and many others Caesar's actions do not qualify as genocide.
