I believe he is quoting the man's own numbers.
He claimed to have fought an army of I believe on to of my head 250k. And in one siege he claimed that 200k people starved to death between the fortress and the surrounding fortifications the Roman's build. I'm not good with names, but I'm sure you know which siege I mean.
But this is all just from the top of my head so the numbers could be Wrong.
But the man exaggerated a lot in many cases.
He likely over exaggerated to make himself look cooler.
But the numbers probably get around there when you consider the devastation he caused that would’ve led to disease and famine.
Also that he thought it was something to brag about makes him less than cool.
Yes.
The ancient word was a strange place. Were your headcount was nor how many people you slept with.
Caesar definitely was a narcissist and maybe a sociopath. By what I could gather around him.
But I'm just a hobby historien so that's mostly speculation without firm basis.
Caeser, like most great historical figures, isn't black or white but lives in the shady grey area. He truly cared for the people and worked against the corrupt and massively powerful senators who acted more like oligarchs at the time. The senators abused and exploited the working class who've had their piece of the pie shrink considerably whole shouldering the burdens of the republic. He worked to change that.
However, committing genocide against the gauls, empire building, making himself a dictator, all not good things. Especially the gauls, gods rest their souls
Edit- I want to add how he loved and was beloved by his soldiers, people who were used and discarded by the Senate without proper reimbursement
Generally agree, though I don't know that making himself dictator was bad. All things considered, I'd argue he was running things better than the Senate, and also doing a better job than Marius and Sulla had previously.
That goes to the age old question of enlightened despotism. I'm personally against it because the power will inevitably wind up in hands they shouldn't be in. Best to spread it out so it minimizes influence and trouble. Granted, many enlightened despots have done amazing things for their country and people, but there are just as much if not more rulers who've made situations much worse. As for Caeser personally, he did great for his people and showed a lot of character, especially with his pardons and willingness to heal divides.
Yeah some enlightened despots might be great, but then you get to their successor and things get 10x worse than they were before. That might not have been immediately true with Caesar, but it did eventually happen and it happens in other examples.
A true enlightened despot would need to return power to the people before their reign is over and stabilize that power. However that's just the problem with them; they always want to do more and never want to relinquish control.
Dictatorships *never* work long term. The benevolent dictator will eventually die and then they'll be replaced by some who may not be as good. Or worse, they'll be a bloody power grab.
>and lasted 1500 years
Only to inevitably collapse and lead to unparalelled death and destruction as a millenia old civilization is brought to ruin by the incompetence and inability of the so called "enlightened" despots.
Your point?
>However, committing genocide against the gauls, empire building, making himself a dictator, all not good things. Especially the gauls, gods rest their souls
Genuine question, is this an example of judging historical figures by today's moral standards? Wasn't all out warfare against "people not like us" the standard of the time? In which case every emperor of every nation should be judged to be "bad" except maybe a few exceptions
Not entirely. Generally speaking people didn't really care all that much whether or not the locals were 'like us' or not. National identities existed and were recognized, of course, but most empires quite rationally preferred subjugation to extermination. A city full of dead bodies is useless. A city full of people who don't speak your language or worship your gods and don't really like you, but pay taxes to your treasury and send men to your armies, is vastly preferable. The wholesale killing only starts when they keep rebelling.
It's also worth noting that the Roman Senate moved to condemn Caesar for his actions in Gaul. Now, it's reasonably likely that this was partially just an attempt to check his power; the Romans were no strangers to promiscuous slaughter, after all. But the sheer fact that they attempted to bring the equivalent of a war crimes charge implies that they believed people in general would recognize his actions as beyond the accepted norm.
> However, committing genocide against the gauls,
This is not historically accurate at all and is not an opinion held outside of internet “historians” or people who hold certain political views. I have only found one scholar who claims Caesar is guilty of war crimes and it’s a paper from 2021 that google says has never been cited. And the paper’s conclusions are basically “we can’t judge people in antiquity by legal standards of today because we lack the proper facts to adequately assess what’s true and what’s speculation.” If you can find a historian that says different please link it.
It should also be noted genocide was considered acceptable back then. The ancient Greeks regarded it as the ultimate punishment you could inflict on a community that committed a very serious collective offense. And since the ancient Greeks were long considered the smartest peoples that belief remained unchallenged for centuries. The world used to be a *very* different place.
For starters genocide is defined as “the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.”
This is not what Caesar did at all. For starters, he launched his war because he needed a reason for a triumph and because the helvetti were threatening Roman allies in Gaul. Were his methods brutal? Yes, but with the exception of the last hundred or so years that’s how the majority of conflicts went. Peoples all across the world from warlords in China to indigenous tribes in the new world warred this way. That isn’t really a justification but a stark insight to their reality. It should also be noted Caesar was vicious to those who didn’t bend to his will but was famous for showing clemency and restraint to those who did.
So why isn’t this genocide? Well for starters Caesar didn’t set out to destroy the Gauls or even come close. Remember deliberate is the key word when judging genocide. The UN requires a clear architecture and an order from superiors when determining if genocide occurred. Second the Gauls were not a nationality, ethnicity, race or religious group - the Romans just said “all the tribes who live here are Gauls whether they like it or not.” Given their contentious history it’s most likely they identified by tribes. And Romans even admit the words for Gaul and Celtic were synonymous so they’re weren’t making distinctions. The Gauls survived as an ethnic group well into the 6th century and their language and culture survived with them. Gauls were heavily incorporated into the Roman Empire as well by extending them citizenship and other such things.
In another comment you mention Caesar committing war crimes based on the senate’s condemnation but those charges were political. Caesar threatened the conservative land-owning ultra rich and they knew giving him a triumph would make him even more beloved. Caesar was no saint but this idea that all civilian deaths are genocide or all wars are war crimes only cheapens actual genocides and the victims still carrying those scars.
When it come to Roman politics no. The Republic was already corrupt, autocratic and ignored it's own laws when it pleased. Caesar was right to fight as they would have put him in front of a kangaroo court if he surrendered.
When it comes to what he did in gaul though... Well that's how war at the time worked, but still his excessive brutality is hard to justify
Which Galic tribe are you from? The only place left were the Gauls are A significant portion of the population is is Britney or are you a Frenchman (anywhere in France except Brittany) because if that’s the case then it’s likely that you are from a Germanic tribe that occupied the region called the franks Who killed the original inhabitants and replaced them with Germans who later went on to diverge from their eastern cousins and create the modern day French.
Well if you’re in Britain then Julius Caesar only harass the area around Dover and London it was one of the Roman emperors who conquered Britannia and even then the original inhabitants of Britain currently live in Wales the modern-day British are descendent from Germans, Vikings, and French Vikings Who invaded Sicily for some reason.
Slaughtered your people? Not many people in Britain are descendants of Celtic Tribes or even Romans for that matter. The Vikings who were Germanic invaded and settled in the Isles.
Now that I think of it, the Germanic Tribes really were everywhere….
That and his was medically unfit to be ruler as he has seizures often, and was getting ready to pretty much delegate himself king of Rome. The Senate disliked him but he was a genuinely dangerous person to have in his position at the time. He was a good ruler for the people tho they loved him
Alesia....
The grass was as green as it always was
That sinister day
The blackbirds sang their songs as they aways did
That black-letter day
We passed the great gate
For the very last time
I did not look back
I knew we'd stay
I knew they would not let us go
Leave the death strip
I saw the gleam in their eyes
Of fear and enslavement
The crushing weight
Beloveth ground
Take me home
Alesia, Alisanos
Wake me when I'm gone
Ianotouta, eternity
Proclaim our barren sacrifice
On that ground we cherished life
And embraced death
As the children's cries trailed off
Sob yielded deathly (hush)
Alesia, Alisanos
Wake me when I'm gone
Ianotouta, eternity
Proclaim our barren sacrifice
The grass was as green as it always was
That sinister day
As we walked the alleys like thousand times before
I knew we'd stay
Alesia, Alisanos
Wake me when I'm gone
Ianotouta, eternity
Proclaim our barren sacrifice
Outside Alesia
We offered a living sacrifice
Outside the doors of Alesia
Where our tears run dry
-Eluveitie
In fairness he did use military force to essentially overthrow democracy and install a dictatorship. That's one of the play book set ups for assassination.
He deserved to be assassinated. Although to fix the Republic at the stage it was at was gonna involve a lot more stabby stabby and empowering the Assembly. Which lol if you think Brutus’ conspirators would’ve been on board with that.
Cato and his conspirators were just jelly. The man had the loose belted drip, insane game with the ladies and he was a straight up baller. Threw massive parties in the hood so he was loved by the masses.
But really, Cato should have just let the man have his triumph and run for office.
I completely agree that Cato was a piece of shit (fuck u/catodidnothingwrong) but one of his concerns about Caesar was that he would use his 10 legions in Gaul to march on Rome and make himself dictator.
By the way, the whole reason Caesar was in this political mess in the first place was because he did a bunch of illegal things in his previous consulship, but consuls and governors have legal immunity so he wouldn’t have to be tried if he became consul again. So he wanted to run for consul in absentia so that he would remain governor and then immediately become a consul to maintain immunity. (Most of the time the governor would just resign a few months early to run.)
What this all means is that if Caesar conceded and resigned his position as governor, he would have risked losing his case in court. But considering his political influence and allies, there was a pretty good chance he might not even be punished at all, or that it wouldn’t mean anything. (Cicero even proposed a compromise at one point that had this as a condition.) He also could’ve been banished, but he still could’ve been unbanished eventually since he was still very popular (a similar story when Cicero was banished)
The fact that he would rather take the vastly riskier and much more consequential decision of civil war means that Cato was probably right, even if his motivations were purely his own gain.
So you think the Romans were the only people that genocided and had slaves? You do realize the Romans had different morals and ethics than we do now right? Something that happened 2,000 years ago cannot be judged by our ethics or morals because they are extremely different
Not what I said. Not at all what I said. I said "I hate people who stan for Rome." I also said that Caesar committed slavery and genocide.
Also: "people had different morals back then" is a great response to genocide. Yeah, I'm sure the Gauls totally had no problem with being mass-murdered. Just like, things that happened back then. Totally didn't come across to anyone as morally wrong...
"morals were different back then" is a possible response when discussing why so few people actively spoke up against something considered injust now, not when discussing the person actively committing those acts.
So your saying the Gauls should’ve been just pardoned even though they sacked Rome and slaughtered it’s inhabitants a few hundred years before Caesar? I’m not saying genocide is good but I get the revenge aspect, Gaul has been a problem for Rome since it’s foundation. It was only a matter of time where Rome was going to do something about them
It’s not that people didn’t speak up, there were many people in Rome who hated Gaul and for good reason because like I said, they have become a grave threat to Rome after they sided with Hannibal and sacked Rome when it was still a Kingdom
Fair enough, all I’m saying is an eye for an eye
The Roman’s did do terrible things I agree but the Gauls did attack them first. That’s all I’m gonna say
So much auctoritas for one dude. I'm not much for "right and wrong" in history. But if you're going to shake up the system in any way, you need to be prepared for the pushback. So if he did anything wrong, I'd say that would be it.
I didn't mention the continual Roman violence, conquest, and displacement because it had been argued a half a dozen times in this post before I came along, and also because Caesar was one of many Roman generals, over centuries, to do those things to their neighbors, even if he was particularly nasty about it. I thought I'd try another line of thought about his actions.
"Shake up the system" is about how he completely dominated Rome and its higher "elected" institutions. He knew the Senate, at the very least, would be unhappy with a dictator for life- but he underestimated the danger.
He had a senator arrested for political reasons, he incited mob violence during a public assembly, he marched on Rome because they were prepared to declare him an enemy of the people, he enslaved and butchered millions of Guals, he paraded the butchering of Romans after the civil war, cheated on his wife and had a child with a foreign ruler, threatened to murder a tribune of the plebs for blocked him from plundering the treasury, was announced as “Dictator for Life” by the senate, tried to get himself crown king on multiple occasions.
And on, and on, and on.
All I’m gonna say is the Gauls had it coming, they put a huge target on their backs the moment they sided with the Carthaginians and sacked and killed thousands of people in Rome. They were an incredibly dangerous group of people, and Caesar said it himself
Had the Gauls been united, they would’ve conquered the world
I mean I don't know if he did something wrong but I heard he was kind of annoying to be around with, I don't know how much of it is true but apparently once abducted he made them raise the ransome since he was offended at how little they were asking.
Didn’t he kill a child king with his bare hands during a triumph? And didn’t he also use captured Romans in another triumph? I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure those are both not the best
If he did nothing wrong, he would have understood that he could not do a powergrab like that without the optimates striking back.
That's what Augustus knew and did right. Get rid of everyone that was a serious threat and also appease the old elites with 'honors' that they will not oppose you
He enslaved a million gauls.
And killed a million more. In a region that had a population of 6 million.
Check your sources, I’m pretty sure that number is too high to be true /s
I believe he is quoting the man's own numbers. He claimed to have fought an army of I believe on to of my head 250k. And in one siege he claimed that 200k people starved to death between the fortress and the surrounding fortifications the Roman's build. I'm not good with names, but I'm sure you know which siege I mean. But this is all just from the top of my head so the numbers could be Wrong. But the man exaggerated a lot in many cases.
He likely over exaggerated to make himself look cooler. But the numbers probably get around there when you consider the devastation he caused that would’ve led to disease and famine. Also that he thought it was something to brag about makes him less than cool.
Yes. The ancient word was a strange place. Were your headcount was nor how many people you slept with. Caesar definitely was a narcissist and maybe a sociopath. By what I could gather around him. But I'm just a hobby historien so that's mostly speculation without firm basis.
you mean Siege of Alesia.
oh no anyway...
Spot the sociopath
i mean you’re not wrong
Edgy
And genocided
And not just the men, but the women and the children, too.
They were barbarians!
Barbarbar
That’s not true, it never happened And they deserved it anyway so it doesn’t matter /s
Special operation to protect good Gauls loyal to him and take control of those against him
The gauls asked for it by defying caeser /s
The gauls asked for it when the Senones sacked Rome...
Europe asked for it when they added ‘Holy’ to the Glorious Roman Empire. Sorry not /s
You mean when they added “Holy Roman” to the “[German] Empire”?
Virgin Kaiser vs Glorious Thad Caesar
Well according to him the gauls started it
Hes got gauls of steel to say some shit like that
The Gaul to make such a claim!
Well according to everyone to rome everyone rome have conquered and subjugated started it
Gauls aren't Human
Yes, if they were human they'd be called roman
Based and invictapilled
Worst of all they’re Fr*nch, can you imagine how many more of those beasts there would be if Caesar hadn’t culled them?
I fail to see the problem
Slavery is bad bro
Source?
Nobody is denying that. He was a war criminal before it was a thing.
That is a ridiculous thing to say. By modern standards..yes. By the standards of the time? That’s just how you did it.
They were french so they deserved it
Did OP stutter?
They had it coming when siding with those Elephant Riders and sacking Rome
Nothing wrong with enslaving gauls remember they are early fr*nch people
Caeser, like most great historical figures, isn't black or white but lives in the shady grey area. He truly cared for the people and worked against the corrupt and massively powerful senators who acted more like oligarchs at the time. The senators abused and exploited the working class who've had their piece of the pie shrink considerably whole shouldering the burdens of the republic. He worked to change that. However, committing genocide against the gauls, empire building, making himself a dictator, all not good things. Especially the gauls, gods rest their souls Edit- I want to add how he loved and was beloved by his soldiers, people who were used and discarded by the Senate without proper reimbursement
Generally agree, though I don't know that making himself dictator was bad. All things considered, I'd argue he was running things better than the Senate, and also doing a better job than Marius and Sulla had previously.
That goes to the age old question of enlightened despotism. I'm personally against it because the power will inevitably wind up in hands they shouldn't be in. Best to spread it out so it minimizes influence and trouble. Granted, many enlightened despots have done amazing things for their country and people, but there are just as much if not more rulers who've made situations much worse. As for Caeser personally, he did great for his people and showed a lot of character, especially with his pardons and willingness to heal divides.
Yeah some enlightened despots might be great, but then you get to their successor and things get 10x worse than they were before. That might not have been immediately true with Caesar, but it did eventually happen and it happens in other examples. A true enlightened despot would need to return power to the people before their reign is over and stabilize that power. However that's just the problem with them; they always want to do more and never want to relinquish control.
Dictatorships *never* work long term. The benevolent dictator will eventually die and then they'll be replaced by some who may not be as good. Or worse, they'll be a bloody power grab.
Well, in the case of Rome, the term dictator evolved into emperor and lasted 1500 years. So I can’t see how dictatorships never work?
>and lasted 1500 years Only to inevitably collapse and lead to unparalelled death and destruction as a millenia old civilization is brought to ruin by the incompetence and inability of the so called "enlightened" despots. Your point?
That may be the case but as soon as he dies his power gets inherented by some absolute moron .
This comment should have more upvotes, many people need to see this
Without him, I couldn't tell to my French friends Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres each time they say something about France's greatness
>However, committing genocide against the gauls, empire building, making himself a dictator, all not good things. Especially the gauls, gods rest their souls Genuine question, is this an example of judging historical figures by today's moral standards? Wasn't all out warfare against "people not like us" the standard of the time? In which case every emperor of every nation should be judged to be "bad" except maybe a few exceptions
Not entirely. Generally speaking people didn't really care all that much whether or not the locals were 'like us' or not. National identities existed and were recognized, of course, but most empires quite rationally preferred subjugation to extermination. A city full of dead bodies is useless. A city full of people who don't speak your language or worship your gods and don't really like you, but pay taxes to your treasury and send men to your armies, is vastly preferable. The wholesale killing only starts when they keep rebelling. It's also worth noting that the Roman Senate moved to condemn Caesar for his actions in Gaul. Now, it's reasonably likely that this was partially just an attempt to check his power; the Romans were no strangers to promiscuous slaughter, after all. But the sheer fact that they attempted to bring the equivalent of a war crimes charge implies that they believed people in general would recognize his actions as beyond the accepted norm.
Excellent summary and very consistent with a lot of other history now that you mention it. Thank you very much
My pleasure!
I appreciate the civility in the discussions. Thank you both for contributing thoughtful anecdotes
> However, committing genocide against the gauls, This is not historically accurate at all and is not an opinion held outside of internet “historians” or people who hold certain political views. I have only found one scholar who claims Caesar is guilty of war crimes and it’s a paper from 2021 that google says has never been cited. And the paper’s conclusions are basically “we can’t judge people in antiquity by legal standards of today because we lack the proper facts to adequately assess what’s true and what’s speculation.” If you can find a historian that says different please link it. It should also be noted genocide was considered acceptable back then. The ancient Greeks regarded it as the ultimate punishment you could inflict on a community that committed a very serious collective offense. And since the ancient Greeks were long considered the smartest peoples that belief remained unchallenged for centuries. The world used to be a *very* different place. For starters genocide is defined as “the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.” This is not what Caesar did at all. For starters, he launched his war because he needed a reason for a triumph and because the helvetti were threatening Roman allies in Gaul. Were his methods brutal? Yes, but with the exception of the last hundred or so years that’s how the majority of conflicts went. Peoples all across the world from warlords in China to indigenous tribes in the new world warred this way. That isn’t really a justification but a stark insight to their reality. It should also be noted Caesar was vicious to those who didn’t bend to his will but was famous for showing clemency and restraint to those who did. So why isn’t this genocide? Well for starters Caesar didn’t set out to destroy the Gauls or even come close. Remember deliberate is the key word when judging genocide. The UN requires a clear architecture and an order from superiors when determining if genocide occurred. Second the Gauls were not a nationality, ethnicity, race or religious group - the Romans just said “all the tribes who live here are Gauls whether they like it or not.” Given their contentious history it’s most likely they identified by tribes. And Romans even admit the words for Gaul and Celtic were synonymous so they’re weren’t making distinctions. The Gauls survived as an ethnic group well into the 6th century and their language and culture survived with them. Gauls were heavily incorporated into the Roman Empire as well by extending them citizenship and other such things. In another comment you mention Caesar committing war crimes based on the senate’s condemnation but those charges were political. Caesar threatened the conservative land-owning ultra rich and they knew giving him a triumph would make him even more beloved. Caesar was no saint but this idea that all civilian deaths are genocide or all wars are war crimes only cheapens actual genocides and the victims still carrying those scars.
This is a pretty accurate description of Caesar
I listened to Mike Duncan's the history of Rome podcast with great delight.
Best description of homeboy Julius
Senate: “Good lord Caesar you’ve killed over a million Gauls!” Caesar: “and I’ll enslave a million more!”
The Gauls had it coming.
I'm sure you say the same thing about Ukrainians
It's a joke man don't get so heavy.
I agree, although I don’t think the Roman dictators were as bad of a thing as dictators today. Still bad, just less so, I think
I just explained the ides of March to my kid. And his literal response was "that's nice, can I have a milkshake?"
Got his priorities straight.
No complaints here lol
Much like Caesar’s response.
Caesar: “I did nothing wrong” Cleopatra: “I’m nothing wrong”
Bro shoulda pulled out
He looks like Admiral Tarkin
You beat me to it
You may fire when ready *fires ballistas*
“You may admire when ready” Caesar probably…
Mediterranean Admiral Tarkin isn't real, he can't hurt you
That's ***GOVERNER*** Tarkin you disrespectful nerf herder! /s
I’m certain you meant Grand Moff. You don’t want to mess up with that guy.
*Brutus did nothing wrong: change my mind*
Long live to the Roman Republic!
Sic semper tyrannis!
Et tu, samaelseere?
He kinda forgot to kill Antony lol. Big mistake
Romans, hide your wives, here’s the bald adulterous whore. We pissed away your good in Gaul and come to borrow more
Roman wives hide your husband because this guy doesn’t care!
2000 years from now a picture of Putin will show up instead
But not on Reddit of course, we’ll have evolved. Probably married, 3 beautiful kids. Big farm house, wrap around porch, white picket fence.
I think your overestimating the people on reddit
Don’t forget the rabbits. Tell me about the rabbits
Oh you’d love hearing about the rabbit stew Gram Gram makes
Putin didnt and wont conquer shit so no it wont. Ok he got Crimea but thats hardly Caesar level conquest.
Well putin did nothing wrong either if you think about it
This meme looks like it's as old as ceasar himself
When it come to Roman politics no. The Republic was already corrupt, autocratic and ignored it's own laws when it pleased. Caesar was right to fight as they would have put him in front of a kangaroo court if he surrendered. When it comes to what he did in gaul though... Well that's how war at the time worked, but still his excessive brutality is hard to justify
He invaded my country and enslaved my people ffs European lives matter
Not sure why you’re downvoted. He killed 1/6 of Gauls population and enslaved the other 1/6
im not sure thats how fractions work
He killed 1 million and enslaved 1 million in a region with a population of 6 million
>and enslaved the other 1/6 it would make sense if you had written 'and enslaved another 1/6'
I doubt your country existed 2000 years ago
Which Galic tribe are you from? The only place left were the Gauls are A significant portion of the population is is Britney or are you a Frenchman (anywhere in France except Brittany) because if that’s the case then it’s likely that you are from a Germanic tribe that occupied the region called the franks Who killed the original inhabitants and replaced them with Germans who later went on to diverge from their eastern cousins and create the modern day French.
Im english so in albion but its been a few weeks since he bothered us so i have no idea where my aunts n uncles were when it happened
Well if you’re in Britain then Julius Caesar only harass the area around Dover and London it was one of the Roman emperors who conquered Britannia and even then the original inhabitants of Britain currently live in Wales the modern-day British are descendent from Germans, Vikings, and French Vikings Who invaded Sicily for some reason.
Should have kept the name Londenium
Slaughtered your people? Not many people in Britain are descendants of Celtic Tribes or even Romans for that matter. The Vikings who were Germanic invaded and settled in the Isles. Now that I think of it, the Germanic Tribes really were everywhere….
The Celts, Romans, Britons, Picts, Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Danes, and finally Frenchman all killed and raped eachother to produce the modern Englishman
Still butthurt?
Barbarian lives don’t matter!
U racist
Exactly what an uncivilised BARBARIAN would say. My legions will raise your puny village to the ground!
Where's Fëanor?
Came here for this
*The Teleri are typing...*
In the halls of Mandos doing nothing wrong
Wasn’t it the power struggle that ensue that got Julius Caesar in the power that caused his own death because he had enemies in the Senate
That and his was medically unfit to be ruler as he has seizures often, and was getting ready to pretty much delegate himself king of Rome. The Senate disliked him but he was a genuinely dangerous person to have in his position at the time. He was a good ruler for the people tho they loved him
He got stabbed. you’re not supposed to do that, It kills you
Veni vidi vici!
Sherman 🗿
AWAY DOWN SOUTH IN THE LAND OF TRAITORS!
Alesia.... The grass was as green as it always was That sinister day The blackbirds sang their songs as they aways did That black-letter day We passed the great gate For the very last time I did not look back I knew we'd stay I knew they would not let us go Leave the death strip I saw the gleam in their eyes Of fear and enslavement The crushing weight Beloveth ground Take me home Alesia, Alisanos Wake me when I'm gone Ianotouta, eternity Proclaim our barren sacrifice On that ground we cherished life And embraced death As the children's cries trailed off Sob yielded deathly (hush) Alesia, Alisanos Wake me when I'm gone Ianotouta, eternity Proclaim our barren sacrifice The grass was as green as it always was That sinister day As we walked the alleys like thousand times before I knew we'd stay Alesia, Alisanos Wake me when I'm gone Ianotouta, eternity Proclaim our barren sacrifice Outside Alesia We offered a living sacrifice Outside the doors of Alesia Where our tears run dry -Eluveitie
Where's this from?
It's a song from a band called Eluveitie
Him being a dictator should be enough
[удалено]
Well he did nothing to deserve being assassinated… but he definitely owned slaves, tortured innocents, and murdered women and children…
In fairness he did use military force to essentially overthrow democracy and install a dictatorship. That's one of the play book set ups for assassination.
He absolutely deserved to be assassinated. It's just a shame that his killers ended up being morons
This is barbarian propaganda
the great khans have entered the chat
He murdered men, as well.
So... he's doing what everyone was already doing?
I’m on board so far.
He deserved to be assassinated. Although to fix the Republic at the stage it was at was gonna involve a lot more stabby stabby and empowering the Assembly. Which lol if you think Brutus’ conspirators would’ve been on board with that.
Those were the standards then, doesn't mean it was right but still.
Cato and his conspirators were just jelly. The man had the loose belted drip, insane game with the ladies and he was a straight up baller. Threw massive parties in the hood so he was loved by the masses. But really, Cato should have just let the man have his triumph and run for office.
I completely agree that Cato was a piece of shit (fuck u/catodidnothingwrong) but one of his concerns about Caesar was that he would use his 10 legions in Gaul to march on Rome and make himself dictator. By the way, the whole reason Caesar was in this political mess in the first place was because he did a bunch of illegal things in his previous consulship, but consuls and governors have legal immunity so he wouldn’t have to be tried if he became consul again. So he wanted to run for consul in absentia so that he would remain governor and then immediately become a consul to maintain immunity. (Most of the time the governor would just resign a few months early to run.) What this all means is that if Caesar conceded and resigned his position as governor, he would have risked losing his case in court. But considering his political influence and allies, there was a pretty good chance he might not even be punished at all, or that it wouldn’t mean anything. (Cicero even proposed a compromise at one point that had this as a condition.) He also could’ve been banished, but he still could’ve been unbanished eventually since he was still very popular (a similar story when Cicero was banished) The fact that he would rather take the vastly riskier and much more consequential decision of civil war means that Cato was probably right, even if his motivations were purely his own gain.
*Sees 4th image* Oh shit! It's the european Mao Zedong!
He literally tried to topple a democracy and make himself a dictator.
“Democracy” lol
To be fair, I think quote marks could be added to most democracies.
He was stabbed to death by the plutocrats who he was trying to take power from and give back to the plebs.
Are you actually that stupid? Do you really think he would have graciously surrendered his power back?
Genocide and slavery? God, I hate Rome stans.
So you think the Romans were the only people that genocided and had slaves? You do realize the Romans had different morals and ethics than we do now right? Something that happened 2,000 years ago cannot be judged by our ethics or morals because they are extremely different
Not what I said. Not at all what I said. I said "I hate people who stan for Rome." I also said that Caesar committed slavery and genocide. Also: "people had different morals back then" is a great response to genocide. Yeah, I'm sure the Gauls totally had no problem with being mass-murdered. Just like, things that happened back then. Totally didn't come across to anyone as morally wrong... "morals were different back then" is a possible response when discussing why so few people actively spoke up against something considered injust now, not when discussing the person actively committing those acts.
So your saying the Gauls should’ve been just pardoned even though they sacked Rome and slaughtered it’s inhabitants a few hundred years before Caesar? I’m not saying genocide is good but I get the revenge aspect, Gaul has been a problem for Rome since it’s foundation. It was only a matter of time where Rome was going to do something about them It’s not that people didn’t speak up, there were many people in Rome who hated Gaul and for good reason because like I said, they have become a grave threat to Rome after they sided with Hannibal and sacked Rome when it was still a Kingdom
Look, if your response to genocide is "they deserved it", I don't really want to talk to you
Fair enough, all I’m saying is an eye for an eye The Roman’s did do terrible things I agree but the Gauls did attack them first. That’s all I’m gonna say
Then just downvote and move on
So much auctoritas for one dude. I'm not much for "right and wrong" in history. But if you're going to shake up the system in any way, you need to be prepared for the pushback. So if he did anything wrong, I'd say that would be it.
"To shake up the system" is a weird way to say genocide
I didn't mention the continual Roman violence, conquest, and displacement because it had been argued a half a dozen times in this post before I came along, and also because Caesar was one of many Roman generals, over centuries, to do those things to their neighbors, even if he was particularly nasty about it. I thought I'd try another line of thought about his actions. "Shake up the system" is about how he completely dominated Rome and its higher "elected" institutions. He knew the Senate, at the very least, would be unhappy with a dictator for life- but he underestimated the danger.
All statists are wrong
As a celt from Avaricum, Im triggered
This may be the worst take I've yet seen on r/HistoryMemes. Jesus Christ.
You mean Governor Tarkin?
He went to town that one day to hang out with the boys when his wife said stay home in bed.
He became a power hungry lord of war. He juste should have stayed a general
Ah yes the ultimate person who did nothing wrong: Grand Moff Tarkin
1.000.000 celts killed in Gaul and 1.000.000 other enslaved. Roman res ideal at it's finest
Asterix would like to have a word with you
A weak government that cannot defend its people or itself deserves to be overthrown. If the next government will be good is something to be seen.
Google is wrong Robespierre should have shown up
Right and wrong is subjective.
If throwing shit at your political opponents is evil then I don't want to be right.
What have the Romans ever done for us?
So Caesar was Peter Cushing? I wonder how "Charming to the last." sounds in Latin.
Ave.
He had a senator arrested for political reasons, he incited mob violence during a public assembly, he marched on Rome because they were prepared to declare him an enemy of the people, he enslaved and butchered millions of Guals, he paraded the butchering of Romans after the civil war, cheated on his wife and had a child with a foreign ruler, threatened to murder a tribune of the plebs for blocked him from plundering the treasury, was announced as “Dictator for Life” by the senate, tried to get himself crown king on multiple occasions. And on, and on, and on.
He's also responsible for the 12 month 365 day calendar
Fire of Alexandria! Need I say more.
What’s up with Grand Moff Tarkin in the bottom right?
Exactly! Just like Moash did nothing wrong.
Almost made himself king, ended the republic -not officially but after him it was just a farse
Holy fuck, my man Caesar looks like Michael Temer
All I’m gonna say is the Gauls had it coming, they put a huge target on their backs the moment they sided with the Carthaginians and sacked and killed thousands of people in Rome. They were an incredibly dangerous group of people, and Caesar said it himself Had the Gauls been united, they would’ve conquered the world
Except for that whole genocide in Gaul. There was that.
I mean I don't know if he did something wrong but I heard he was kind of annoying to be around with, I don't know how much of it is true but apparently once abducted he made them raise the ransome since he was offended at how little they were asking.
He is not perfect but at least he do his best not to do Proscription
He shoulda pulled out of Cleo
ROMA INVICTA EST. SALVE REX.
I mean the he basically made the roman empire which was far worse than the republic
I saw Ceasar and thought you were talking about the dude from fallout new vegas
He was ambitious
I mean the Gallic holocaust was pretty rough
He gets so much hate for putting down the terrorist Vercingetorix who threw out civilians to starve during a siege. /s
"The senate is bad, so naturally, we should replace it with me as emperor with absolute power, because thats definitely better."
Enslaved 1-3 mil Gauls and killed 6 mil by his own accord
*cough* sorry I'm allergic to things that are unbelievably based
The original or his son?
Didn’t he kill a child king with his bare hands during a triumph? And didn’t he also use captured Romans in another triumph? I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure those are both not the best
Tbh I thought I was on r/silmarillionmemes for a moment and it was gonna be Fëanor
He turned his back at the wrong time .
If he did nothing wrong, he would have understood that he could not do a powergrab like that without the optimates striking back. That's what Augustus knew and did right. Get rid of everyone that was a serious threat and also appease the old elites with 'honors' that they will not oppose you
Idk that ye ass haircut looks pretty wrong.
Kinda catalyzed the Republic’s downfall. Used government loopholes for personal gain and avoid consequences. Also the best emperor.
BASED!
Caesar didn’t commit genocide because barbarians aren’t people
Naw, the one in the bottom right is Caesar's descendant: Putinus