The conspiracy to kill Julius Caesar
nationalgeographic.com
nationalgeographic.com
Once you've exhausted all of his videos, though, I would recommend Mike Duncan's History of Rome, an equally compelling podcast that cover Rome's rise in 753 b.c.e. to it's "fall" in 476 c.e. [1]
[1] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-history-of-rome/id...
Strongly recommend. 'Caesar, Life of a Colossus' by Adrian Goldsworthy
[0] https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/plutarch/...
Depending on what aspects of history you learned, there could be good reason to put a flower on his grave.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/292075
here's a bit on Lex Agraria, though focused on the earlier one from Tiberius https://www.britannica.com/topic/land-reform/History-of-land...
That's not "part of [his] tyranny." That's a good thing that he did. He was also a tyrant in some ways, because people are complicated, and lots of people do a fairly even mix of good and bad.
The word tyranny is likely used because that word conveys the impression most people formed in school history classes of his actions - actions which motivated his peers to to assassinate him. But the comment finishes with : "there could be good reason to put a flower on his grave." Indicating that the actions described as 'tyranny' might in fact be actions we would agree with, and that the assassins may not be the heroes of the story.
Nonetheless, i'm sure the people who had their property redistributed were pretty unammused.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/s7p2dk/how_m...
Feels like you could do a better 'medium' just by locating angry rants left by enthusiasts and experts on reddit.
Or the thing where you scrape HN for all links to a book/site.
Not sure if we have enough evidence but it makes political sense.
"You are afraid of the one — I, of the few. We agree perfectly that the many should have a full fair and perfect Representation. — You are Apprehensive of Monarchy; I, of Aristocracy. I would therefore have given more Power to the President and less to the Senate."
-- John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 6 Dec. 1787
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2019/03/11/epis...
Huh? The cognomen is the individual part of a Roman name. Nothing "family" about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praenomen
"The praenomen was a personal name chosen by the parents of a Roman child."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomen_(Roman_name)
"The nomen gentilicium (or simply nomen) was a hereditary name borne by the peoples of ancient Italy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognomen
"Initially, it was a nickname, but lost that purpose when it became hereditary. Hereditary cognomina were used to augment the second name, the gens (the family name, or clan name), in order to identify a particular branch within a family"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Julius_Caesar_(governor_...
But this is not a general feature of cognomina; compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovidia_gens#Members
Looking over some other articles, it looks like hereditary cognomina were an aristocratic feature. This has the funny side effect of more or less ensuring that aristocrats from the same family are very likely to have exactly the same name.
To elaborate: the character "J" was inexistent in Capitalis, which is the then used font face. Hence, the original way to write his name is with an "I".
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar_(cricketer)
Apart from having set up the modern calendar (slightly adjusted in the XVII century) and having a whole month named after him, and a few other minor things such as the original conquest of Britain ...
"... what have the Romans done for us?"
“Brought peace.”
“Oh. Peace? Shut up"
Are there not vestiges of these things in modern UK today or at least England?
In the end, I guess he was right, we're still talking about his assassination 2000 years later.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_claim_to_Roman_success...
https://www.amazon.com/Roman-Revolution-Oxford-Paperbacks-No...
I think we can’t stress the story of Caesar enough in our era of demagoguery. A look into Rome at the time paints a picture of Caesar, like a lot of populists we’ve seen since 2015, wasn’t actually wrong about a lot of his complaints. The senate was a corrupt, spoiled, bunch who only cared so much for the Republican because it provided them a ton of power within a very powerful polity; and it was there’s the way a child thinks his parents back yard is theirs.
They believed themselves entitled to enrichment on the backs of plebs and to top that off it was still a very real political idea (and movement) that Rome allowing the peasants both political power bringing them into the legions was a grave mistake that desperately needed undone (similar, but to a much greater extent, than the ultraconservatives who think giving the vote to women and African Americans is a grave mistake.)
So it was easy for Caesar to point at these senators and say all of these things, because they were true. It’s analogous to the way someone like Trump or Bernie Sanders used sound byte rhetoric to play up peoples emotions. The promises they made (whether or not they believe in them is irrelevant) are second to emotions running high.
That Caesar may not have cared about the plebs is irrelevant, indeed it could have all been a personal vendetta dating back to the prescriptions imposed on him and his mother after Sulla took power.
Sorry for this rant, I’ve spent the last few years thinking about this and how to better tell the story in a way that fits nicely with current times and trends. I believe when the story of Caesar is told it usually plays up the tragedy of Brutus or Caesar, both of whom were what were consider tyrants today, when there’s a very real political message that is very important we understand today.
This is exactly like what we’ve seen in recent years (really it’s been seen time and time again.) I tried to leave out any names or obvious events other than to explain the rhetorical behavior they usually share.
I will say that it doesn’t take an ignorant person to fall victim to populism. I initially went head first into Bernie as “my guy” (not that I’m some genius, mind you.) Coming from a lower middle class white family he basically told me everything I wanted to hear in 2016.
It’s easy identifying a given problem but one thing I’ve come to try and understand is that if I ever have an idea that seems simple, it’s best to try and figure out why it is it hasn’t been solved yet. For any given issue (be it enterprise or political) there have probably been incredibly intelligent people, smarter than me for sure, who’ve tried to solve it and were unable to.
> he basically told me everything I wanted to hear in 2016
...
> it’s best to try and figure out why it is it hasn’t been solved yet
Stroking the plebs is not a new thing. Trump exists for this reason, AOC literally strokes the left with every tweet, so does Bernie.
The only reason I mentioned my own believes was because I used to consider myself fairly well educated, having been a huge history nerd my entire life alongside the CS stuff we all do here, and yet I didn’t even realize Bernie was a populist until after Trump was president and the election was over.
It’s easy to get sweeper up in emotions, that’s my point.
i think i agree, populist messaging can be a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands... on the other hand, i wonder how else politics of change can work without it?
it seems very hard to get a message through when theres such a huge low-pass filter... maybe there are other ways?
Caesar threatened the oligarchs of Rome by crossing the Rubicon with his legions which was heavily frowned upon by the others. Caesar threatened their power structure for sure and likely led to his death.
[0] https://podfollow.com/dan-snows-history-hit/episode/94f58a73... [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11598740-oligarchy
I really wouldn’t say Caesar’s death had anything to do with oligarchs. Sure he threaten their business interests but what he did was so much worse in their eyes. Remember Rome was built on overthrowing a tyrant, the Senators believed any man who refused to disband his army was an aspiring King and aspiring kings can’t be allowed to live.
Of course Caesar was an aspiring king after the Rubicon, whether he was before will be debates too the end of time, having triumphs where he tested how king like he could act to his subjects (Mike Duncan has an episode on this where he says, “the Roman’s could learn to love autoarchy, but they wouldn’t accept monarchy.)
No doubt he rode the waves of populism, but I wouldn't write off entirely that he actually did care, on some level, about the poorer class. He did grow up in that world himself (of course he came from a rich family, but his mother raised him in Subura, a poor part of Rome, where her business was), and when he first returned to Rome after Sulla was out of the picture he chose (well, probably had to, not having money) to live in the same place he grew up. I'm speculating, but it seems likely that rubbing shoulders with the lower class for most of his formative years suggests his later advocacy for their advancement in society may be somewhat genuine.
The Senators looked down on him too and thought he was an annoying upstart and the nephew of a “radical” who had the audacity to want to win wars more than he cared about who’s grandfather was supposedly one of Romulus’ initial men. I think he did care, for sure, like I think a lot of populists actually care.
But I don’t think he, nor a majority of populists, are honest to the masses they get to do their beck and call.
It's a story as old as time. 1,500 years later down the road it's the Medici, nobility, and Signoria of the "Republic" of Florence.
He himself boasted about having killed over a million Celts, probably exaggerated, but nevertheless had no problem in slaying tends of thousands, burning whole towns to the ground, and then selling whoever was unfortunate to still be alive to slavery.
He was a genocidal maniac that had no problem in doing the unthinkable to further his power in Rome. Whether he was a tyrant or a man of the people is largely irrelevant to who he was and should be a footnote in any text about him.
What would've happened hadn't he been murdered is that he would've continued his genocidal dreams, now in East Europe, just to feed his ego and increase his "glory".
You too, Nat Geo?